Lots here that one could comment on, but I'll limit myself to the nuclear power issue. Everything I've seen about this talks about how clean and safe it is; but doesn't talk about what happens to the spent fuel - radioactive material with a half-life of tens of thousands of years. I'm not aware that there is any technology that can address this, and all the experience to date indicates that it is enormously expensive to deal with. If (some) people are opposed to solar because the solar panels have to be replaced every decade or two, that is nothing compared to radioactive material in the environment.
It's good to see that Leger poll, but, I think that people want change, any of kind of change, more than they don't want privitization. Kind of an "anything is better than this" scenario. When I talk to my right-leaning friends and family, they say that what we're doing now isn't working so we have to try something new. Health care is so dire right now. And about to get worse!
Smith communicating healthcare privatization to a members only event, rather than to the broader electorate, is troubling. As is the awarding of this contract to a conservative religion-based healthcare provider, Covenant. As if thats not enough.... It doesn't sound like this contract was awarded through a competitive bidding process. A bigger deal should be made of how this contract was awarded to this particular company.
I don't think any formal arrangement or contract has been finalized. My understanding is that she was using that as an example of something that might be done. Of course, that doesn't mean it won't happen, and you may well end up being right - that they will simply go ahead and do whatever it takes to turn some(?) hospitals to Covenant Health without any examination of alternatives. On the other hand, the existing alternatives are the gigantic U.S. Health Care Corporations, and to my mind that would be even worse than Covenant, at least insofar as accessibility is concerned.
Lots here that one could comment on, but I'll limit myself to the nuclear power issue. Everything I've seen about this talks about how clean and safe it is; but doesn't talk about what happens to the spent fuel - radioactive material with a half-life of tens of thousands of years. I'm not aware that there is any technology that can address this, and all the experience to date indicates that it is enormously expensive to deal with. If (some) people are opposed to solar because the solar panels have to be replaced every decade or two, that is nothing compared to radioactive material in the environment.
It's good to see that Leger poll, but, I think that people want change, any of kind of change, more than they don't want privitization. Kind of an "anything is better than this" scenario. When I talk to my right-leaning friends and family, they say that what we're doing now isn't working so we have to try something new. Health care is so dire right now. And about to get worse!
Health care. Now the UCP
Smith communicating healthcare privatization to a members only event, rather than to the broader electorate, is troubling. As is the awarding of this contract to a conservative religion-based healthcare provider, Covenant. As if thats not enough.... It doesn't sound like this contract was awarded through a competitive bidding process. A bigger deal should be made of how this contract was awarded to this particular company.
I don't think any formal arrangement or contract has been finalized. My understanding is that she was using that as an example of something that might be done. Of course, that doesn't mean it won't happen, and you may well end up being right - that they will simply go ahead and do whatever it takes to turn some(?) hospitals to Covenant Health without any examination of alternatives. On the other hand, the existing alternatives are the gigantic U.S. Health Care Corporations, and to my mind that would be even worse than Covenant, at least insofar as accessibility is concerned.