Global Warming Update 2025

Climate scientists have found that global temperatures have likely risen by 1.5 °C since the Industrial Revolution. So what? You’ll find that hurricanes, droughts, etc., have not been increasing.

Furthermore, who says that global temperatures were optimal 150 years ago? The Earth is greener now than it has been for many decades. And the CO2 we emit is one reason for it. And the growing seasons in the US Midwest, as well as other countries where most of the food is grown, also have longer growing seasons.

Now look at this graph of global warming:

The greatest increase starts at around 1970, so let’s begin there. For the 50 years from 1970 to 2020, global temperatures increased about 1.0 °C. Doing a bit of math shows that the Earth is warming at the rate of 2 °C per century. Has anyone told you this? No. The climate change alarmists don’t make it easy to find this information. Thus, by the end of this century, the global temperature is expected to increase by 1.5 °C. Big deal. In the decades to come, you might have to use your AC a bit more.

Even more to the point is that wasting time, energy, and money to dramatically decrease CO2 emissions in the United States will have virtually no effect on atmospheric CO2. For instance, China, India, and the other developing nations are emitting more and more CO2, while the United States and most other developed countries are slightly decreasing their CO2 emissions.

If you’re still concerned, consider that worldwide wealth will vastly increase in the decades to come. By the end of the century, we’ll likely need very little of the fossil fuels, mostly because of nuclear power and solar energy.

Being prosperous will allow us to deal with any negative consequences of global warming (if any). Throwing money away on carbon credits, or subsidized solar or wind farms, will decrease prosperity.

Don’t worry. Be happy. 

A way to have pretty good health care for all Americans

What is the current state of health care in the U.S. 

Currently our government is subsidizing health care in many ways, such as with the programs of Medicare (for those of retirement age) and Medicaid (for the poor), and other health-care laws passed by Congress, such as Obamcare. In addition most people still get heath insurance from their employer.  And anyone who walks into a county hospital can get medical care. 

Medicaid is not a very well-run program.  The amount it reimburses doctors is so low that many doctors do not take Medicaid patients.  My doctor takes Medicaid patients but only if they pay up front for the services provided.  The patient can then send the paperwork to the government to get reimbursed.

There are a number of unworkable and undesirable other things about the way the health care is handled.  One is that these programs are underfunded by over $40 trillion.  This means that the government has made health care promises but eventually not enough income to meet them, so some changes will have to be made.  Even so, not everyone is covered.  And we spend about 16% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on health care, higher than almost all other countries in the world.

Most people receive health-insurance subsidies from their employer, which creates its own sets of problems.  For instance, if a person quits their job or is fired, they must find another company to work for, or they must soon find their own health insurance. And if they have any pre-existing health conditions, this insurance could be prohibitively expensive.  

The only reason employers got involved with providing health insurance for its employees was that during World War II, the government made it a tax write off, as an encouragement to employers.  It no longer makes any sense to have employers involved with health insurance.  It creates many inefficiencies and problems.

On the other hand, most Americans are happy with the quality of health care that they receive. Therefore, we want to maintain at least the same quality, while providing good health care to all, and at an affordable price to the taxpayers. 

Therefore, for the foreseeable future, I think that health care, like education, should be subsidized for all Americans (and permanent residents).  And Americans should be able to choose their own doctors, chiropractors, osteopaths, ophthalmologists, dentists, etc., that they believe best meets their needs. 

What is the best way we can provide pretty good health care for all? 

My proposal will 1) Provide health care for all Americans, 2) Do so affordably using taxes, 3) Remove the pre-existing condition problem, and 4) Be fully funded, so that we don't pass on more debt to our children.  

The essence of the proposal is to provide and fund a Health-Care Account (HCA) for each American adult, paid for through taxes.  Some of this amount would be used to purchase a high-deductible health insurance policy, and the rest would be used to pay for medical services until the deductible is met. For most people, in most years, the deductible won't be met.  Keep in mind that money for the deductible is part of the HCA and would be paid for using a patient's HCA card. 

How much money should our government spend on healthcare?

Most of the advanced countries spend 9 to 12% of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on healthcare. I suggest the government take 12% of GDP, which grows virtually every year, and provide an equal amount of this to every adult (age 18 or older).  With a GDP in 2017 of about $20 trillion, and 240 million adults, this comes out to over $10,000 per year per adult that the government would provide as a subsidy. 

Each adult would use their HCA card buy a $6,000 per year (in 2017 dollars) high-deductible health-insurance policy, and would have $4,000 per year to spend, using their HCA card, for their deductible. This very high deductible greatly helps to keep the insurance premium down.  Also, the health-insurance companies that wish to be involved in this would also be required to provide insurance for any children the adult may have. 

Here's an example as to how this would work. We'll assume that all Americans and permanent residents already have been given their HCA card.  You have the flu and go to the doctor of your choice.  Say the doctor charges $150 for a visit.  You would provide your HCA card and $150 would be deducted from your $4,000 deductible.  And that's it. It costs you nothing, and your doctor gets paid immediately.

Now suppose that something catastrophic occurs, such as a fall resulting in two broken legs and a concussion.  Say the medical costs would be $12,000. The hospital would first use whatever deductible was left on you HCA card, and then your insurance company would pay the remainder of the costs at 100%.  

This would provide very good coverage for all, and would save money at the same time, since we would be spending 12% of GDP on health care instead of 16% which we currently spend. And it would still keep the advantages of a free-market in health care, because patients could choose their own doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, etc.  This is what would make it better than the "single-payer" plans that most developed countries have, because they dictate the cost of doctor's visits, as well as the costs of various procedures, and lead to many delays in obtaining health care. 

What would health-insurance companies need to do to qualify to be part of this program?  

The United States Congress would certify participating insurance companies who would have to agree to accept the amounts given above and would have to agree to accept any person, regardless of any pre-existing conditions.  They would also have to agree to insure any children of the covered adult. As is true now, they would also have to be fiscally sound. 

Also, once a person has met the deductible, their insurance company would have to agree cover 100% of covered medical costs.  There would be no more co-payments for the year.

Would health insurance companies want to participate in this program? 

Yes.  Keep in mind that these payments start at age 18.  Usually, people up to the age of 40 or 50 would not meet their deductible, but the health-insurance companies would be getting premiums during this time.  People who are older or are frequently ill would be using the insurance most years, and so essentially insurance companies would be making money on most young or healthy people, and losing money on older or less healthy people.  The difference should provide a reasonable profit for an insurance company, so that many would want to be a participant in this program.  This cushion of starting to get premiums at age 18 should also provide enough money to be able to handle the costs of pre-existing conditions.  The specifics as to what is covered and what isn't would need to be worked out so as to insure that insurance companies would want to participate. 

Q and A's

Since this would be a new government program, would it require a tax increase?

All things being equal, it would require a tax increase. But the overall cost to individuals would decrease. This is because they would no longer be paying their part of the health insurance provided by their employer.  Also, companies would be saving money because they would no longer be providing health insurance, and they would no longer have to have large human resource departments to deal with this.  Thus, they could afford to give raises to their employees.

Would eye care and dental care be covered?

Yes, this would be required of all participating insurance companies. 

Would all medical conditions and procedures be covered, and would coverage be unlimited? 

No. Just as now, certain conditions are not covered by Medicare, certain conditions would not be covered by this plan.  For example, a heart transplant would likely not be covered.  Similarly, cosmetic surgery would not be covered, although one could use the cash portion to pay for it. Also, a person could accumulated cash in their account which they would be able to use this for such procedures. 

Probably a lifetime maximum of around $1 million would be in place.  It's important to get good coverage for all, so some limitations must apply for this to occur.  

Would this program replace all other government health-care programs?  

Yes, and that is one way the government will save money on health-care programs.  No programs such as Medicare and Medicaid would be needed.  Taxpayers would also save money because they would no longer have to pay for county hospitals because everyone would be covered. (A possible exception is that veterans who are injured in the line of duty would not have the limitations mentioned above.  They would have the same essential plan but any injuries they sustained would be covered, and the lifetime maximum would be increased.  There would be no more need for Veteran's Hospitals, since veterans could get their health care at any hospital). 

Studies have shown that people who take care of themselves physically spend less on health care.  Would there be incentives in place to encourage this?  

The government would not directly apply such incentives, but insurance companies would be allowed to.  For instance, an insurance company could say, "If you keep your weight in the ideal range for your age and sex, and if you keep yourself reasonably fit, and if you get regular physical, eye-care and dental checkups, we'll refund a portion of your monthly payment, and you can use that money anyway you wish."

This would be a valuable incentive to keep ourselves physically healthy.  And of course there would be the additional benefit that healthier individuals are happier and more productive. 

Are you sure it would be a good idea to sever the relationship between employment and health care? 

Very much so.  Economist Albert Brenner has said this about health care: “ Industry and commerce are not well-served by a labor force unwilling to change jobs for fear of losing health-insurance benefits.  I have seen little discussion of this issue in connection with health care reform, but health-insurance benefits are a major reason for individuals to accept employment and to continue their employment even if they are not satisfied, challenged, or motivated by their job.  The current system thereby promotes an inefficient utilization of labor by restricting labor mobility.  This inefficiency reduces productivity, profits, and economic growth and output.  Since labor costs are by far the single largest resource cost in the production of goods and services, a reform that promises to make labor utilization more efficient promises to improve productivity and to increase economic output.” 

Would health-insurance co-operatives be allowed to participate? 

Yes, as long as they meet the same regulatory standards that for-profit health-insurance companies must meet.

(Health insurance co-operatives are owned by those who purchase health-insurance policies through them.  Any profits made can be returned to the policy owners, or can be used to reduce premiums.  Thus, they may wish to provide additional incentives for its members to be physically fit). 

What could a person do with money that accumulates in their HCA? 

They could do a number of things.  A person could choose to get a refund each year for any deductible money they did not use. This would provide an incentive to find good, yet cost-effective doctors and hospitals. 

Also, they would be allowed to transfer their money to another's account.  This could be useful if, for example, a family member needed a heart transplant, or something that wasn't covered by the insurance policy.

And they could stipulate in their will that any excess money be given to another person(s).  This would add more incentive to take care of oneself physically. 

Could a person use their own money to get additional benefits by increasing their health-insurance premiums?

Certainly.  This must be the case in a free country. 

Can the well-off do something to lessen the cost of this program? 

Yes. There should be an easy way for someone to opt out of this program, and those that are well-to-do would be encouraged to do so.  For instance, the government might ask those families who earn over $150,000 to opt out of the program and pay for their own medical care.  As our country becomes more prosperous, more people would be able to opt out, saving the government money.  The government could send a nice thank-you letter each year to individuals who opted out, to show their appreciation. 

Would this program be constitutional? 

Although the Supreme Court would likely rule it to be, I don't think it would be constitutional. There is nothing in the Constitution about the government providing health-care subsidies. Therefore, I would want a Constitutional Amendment passed to allow for this program. The amendment would specify that up to 12% of GDP could be used for the subsidy, and that sufficient taxes should be levied so that no debt would arise as a result of it. 

It would also state that this subsidy is not a right. This is because I don't believe one can have a right that requires someone else to pay for that right. 

As an aside, are there other subsidies that you’d like the government to provide? 

Yes.  Until our civilization advances enough, I believe that government should subsidize both education and health care for all.

Additionally, I’ve previously described a Natural-Resource Dividend.  This is an amount of money that would be given each month to every American adult, to compensate for others’ use of our common natural resources. Lately, this idea has been called a Universal Basic Income (UBI).

If each adult got a $1000 per month UBI, a family of four would be getting about $2000 per month from the Natural-Resource Dividend, plus government-subsidized health care and education.  These should provide a reasonable economic base for families, and would also allow most mothers of young children to not have to work for money.

Between these subsidies and the Natural-Resource Dividend, we can eliminate all other subsidies that the government provides, both to businesses and individuals.  This would save a large sum of money by eliminating all of the bureaucracy involved in these programs. 

Note also a very important point: every American would be given the same amount of money for each of these subsidies.  This will save money by reducing the bureaucracy involved, and will satisfy the “general welfare” clause of the Constitution as well as the 14th Amendment, which are both meant to have laws that apply equally to all citizens. 

Conclusion 

Having a health-care subsidy that a) provides good health care to all Americans without going into debt; b) that saves money as well; c) that encourages us to take care of our physical health; and d) that still allows individuals free choices as to how to obtain their health care, is a plan that we should adopt as soon as possible.

_____________________________________

 
Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

______________________________________

How can we save the Earth?

The Earth doesn’t need saving. What can hurt the Earth? The Sun can. In a few billion years, the Sun will destroy the Earth. We can start worrying about that in a million years or so. A huge asteroid, say 1000 miles in diameter, could destroy the Earth. Not much we can do about that, so there’s no reason to worry about it.

What about saving life on Earth? Life has existed on Earth for well over 3 billion years. It has survived ice ages, large asteroids, diseases, and everything else that’s been thrown at it – for 3 thousand million years. At present, life exists on land, under the land, in the oceans, and in the air. Life on Earth is not likely to die off until the Sun does it in.

Certainly, some species will go extinct, and some new ones will crop up. This is as it always has been. Over 99% of the species that ever existed are now extinct. This is how nature works. Don’t feel bad: no species cares if they go extinct, except for humans.

So “saving the Earth” mostly means “saving humans”. Well, there’s good news about humans. There are human communities on every continent except for Antarctica. And we’re smart. We find solutions to problems that occur. We can adapt to many environments. Thus, it is difficult to see how a large portion of humanity can be killed off.

Disease? No. Many countries have modern sanitation and clean water and good medical care. Diseases that may have killed a large portion of humanity in the past can no longer do so.

Nuclear war? Only the United States and Russia have thousands of nuclear weapons. What president of the US or Russia would start a large-scale nuclear war? A small-scale nuclear war, say between India and Pakistan, would kill millions, but would not be a threat to humanity.

Global warming? The Earth is warming at the rate of about 2C per century. And by 2100, we’ll mostly have energy generated from sources that do not emit greenhouse gasses, so that will be the end of humanity’s contribution to global warming. Global warming may be disruptive in some areas, but it won’t pose a significant threat to humanity.

Overpopulation? The current population is just over 7 billion. But the rate of growth is slowing, and human population is expected to top out just after mid-century at 9 to 10 billion people. Right now, we could provide enough food for that many people. Technological advances will make food, water, and other resources inexpensively available to all.

So that’s it. Humanity is not under threat. We do not need to save the Earth.

------------------------------------------------

Yet many people are suffering and dying who don’t have to be. And this breaks the heart of all people of good will. What can be done about this? What is the major cause of this?

At its essence, it is the lack of freedom that results in needless suffering and dying.

In the developed world, there is relatively little needless suffering and dying.

But in the developing world, millions are dying and suffering each year from:

- Pollution (mostly from coal-burning power plants)

- Lack of sanitation and potable water

- Terrorism (in Syria alone, millions are affected by terrorism)

- Lack of modern health care

- Lack of crime control

Why are these things happening? The governments in the developing world do not protect their citizens’ freedom to live and believe as they wish. In fact, they mostly violate it.

In many predominantly Muslim countries, you can be arrested or killed for having the wrong belief system. And if you are a person who was a Muslim and converted to another religion, that person can, by Sharia Law, be killed.

In most African countries, the governments are so corrupt that the ruling class keeps most of the wealth to themselves. And they don’t protect property rights, making it difficult for the majority to accumulate wealth.

When governments don’t protect their citizens’ freedoms, especially their economic freedom, their people will not become prosperous. Without prosperity, getting a good education is difficult. And having a good sanitation system is difficult. And being able to afford pollution controls. And conservation measures are difficult.

Without freedom, there is no prosperity. And without prosperity, many of the things we need to lead happy and productive lives are not affordable.

Prosperity is the key to a better world for all. And the single, best thing we can do to assist humanity in becoming prosperous is to promote individual freedom, especially free markets and free trade.

------------------------------------------

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. The views expressed herein are those of the author. He writes about mathematics, computer science, physics, the reconciliation between science and spirituality, and the application of Natural Law to our various systems such as education, government and economics. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

Was America Founded upon Judeo-Christian Principles?

Yes, although it would be more accurate to say that America was founded by those who believed in Judeo-Christian principals.

All, or nearly all, of those who signed the Declaration of Independence were Christians, and all were very familiar with the Bible.

There were quite a few ministers among the Signers. George Washington and John Adams, the first two presidents, were devote Christians.

The main writer of the Declaration of Independence was Thomas Jefferson. He admired Christ very much, but did not believe in any of the miracles. But the most well-known part of the Declaration of Independence states:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

This has been called one of the best-known sentences in the English language, containing the most potent and consequential words in American history.

So our country was founded on this belief that our liberty was endowed to us by God, and therefore there could be no laws infringing upon our liberties. This is explicitly stated in the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Benjamin Franklin believed in a Judeo-Christian God. He didn’t seem to belong to a particular religion, and he donated money to various churches, and at least one Jewish group. He asked that a prayer be said before the Continental Congress met to discuss declaring independence from England. Franklin wrote a letter to the President of Yale University a few weeks before his death:

"I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshiped. That the most acceptable Service we render to him, is doing Good to his other Children. That the Soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this one.”

Abraham Lincoln, our most beloved president, considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy, and argued that the Declaration is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted. He also instituted Thanksgiving as a national holiday.

The Ten Commandments were known by all, and was assumed to be the basis of morality. It is etched in many government buildings, including a number of places in the building that houses the Supreme Court.

The Founders did not want laws requiring particular religious beliefs. Nor did they want laws abridging religious liberty or any other liberty. Therefore, our Constitution prevents Congress from passing laws that infringe upon our liberties.

But the Founding Fathers also believed that America could not be a great country unless it was a moral country.

John Adams said, 

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Thus, the Constitution, which defines the powers of government, does not deal with morality or religion, because these do not come under the purview of government. This, I believe, is what causes some people to mistakenly believe that our country was not founded upon Judeo-Christian principals.

But reading the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which contains the Bill of Rights, along with all the other writings of our Founding Fathers, show that the creation of our country was guided by Judeo-Christian principles.

---

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. The views expressed herein are those of the author. One of his main interests is the reconciliation between science and spirituality. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com. Twitter account: Tim Farage (@TimFarage) | Twitter

Are companies such as Amazon, Apple, and Google morally bankrupt because of their attempts to minimize their income tax?

Absolutely not. 
 

There is a deep underlying problem here. And that problem is called ‘The Income Tax’. Taxing income is the worst sort of tax that there is. First, it is impossible to define ‘income’ consistently because it is typically considered to be 'gross income minus expenses'. But what is an expense? In the United States a Realtor can subtract the cost of car travel from his income. But someone who drives to work and back home cannot. What’s fair

It’s so difficult to determine what’s fair that the income tax code in the US is more than 2,000,000 words long. There’s not a single person in the world who understands it. 

The worst thing about it is that it gives almost everyone the idea that just because a person or company earns lots of money, they owe you, me, the country, or the world, money. And why is that? There is no moral reason that they should be taxed just because they earned money. 

One could more easily argue the opposite: those individuals and companies that earn money do so because they are providing a product or service that people want. 

Rather than tax them on their profits, we should be thankful for such companies, because of the jobs and services that they provide. But an income tax punishes them.

Rather than be envious (a sin) that an honest person or company is prosperous, we should be happy that they were rewarded for their efforts to provide us with their service. And then we might be motivated to work harder, earn more money, and enjoy the fruits of our labor. 

I'm glad Apple has a presence in Ireland to try to minimize their income tax. When the income tax rate is 0% for all, I’ll be happy.

---------------------------------------

You might ask, “But we need taxes, so what’s a good alternative?” We do need taxes, but they need to be moral taxes. 

And what taxes are moral? Taxes are moral if they are essentially ‘user fees’ for the use of some government provided service. 

For example, a road tax, that charges per mile traveled per weight of a vehicle, is a fair tax. It is a tax that pays for the amount of road used up by a vehicle.

A land tax charged for the private use of land is also a fair tax. Because the owner of land did not create the land, it is appropriate to charge a monthly or yearly land tax, so that the land owner compensates the rest of us for the fact that the owner is given control over that land. 

One last example is a natural resource tax on those companies that extract scarce natural resources from the ground. For example, a company might gain the right to extract bauxite, an ore of aluminum, so that they can refine it and sell the aluminum. This is good because aluminum is a metal we need. And it is appropriate to charge a tax per ton of aluminum extracted, because the company did not create the aluminum. So again, the tax compensates the rest of us for the right to extract a natural resource.

--------------------------------------

Let's get rid of the immoral and unworkable income tax, and replace it with taxes that are moral, and that do not discourage the creation of a product or service.

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas, and a former Professor of Mathematics. The views expressed herein are those of the author. Some of his main interests are in online education, and the reconciliation between science and spirituality. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.