Any real difference in political mudslinging today and yesteryear?
“Ma, ma, where’s my Pa, gone to the White House, ha, ha, ha.” (alleged illegitimate child of Grover Cleveland, 1884)
Perhaps only the extended coverage by the media and Internet?
H.L. Hall, Denton
Shame on you
People who are familiar with the term “make work” will recognize that this is what’s at play with Congressman Burgess’ recent attempt to give his constituents the illusion of him seriously offering a substitute for the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
He and the GOP caucus have tried to repeal the ACA in some form 33 other times since it was enacted in 2010.
The Guaranteed Access to Health Insurance Act of 2012 — H.R. 6283, introduced to the Committee on Energy and Commerce on Aug. 2, is simply election-year politicking by Republicans attempting to get rid of “Obamacare” without offering any realistic plans to replace many of the benefits that are popular with most Americans.
This particular straw man of Burgess’ gives voters the illusion that he’s trying to keep that part of the ACA that makes health insurance available to people with pre-existing conditions.
But according to the independent govtrack.us, this bill has only a 1 percent chance of being enacted much like its earlier version introduced in 2009 — H.R. 4020. The tea party-controlled GOP majority is not likely to pass anything that requires federal subsidies, which H.R. 6283 includes.
The federal subsidies are necessary, according to Burgess’ own comments, to supply depleted state risk pools or reinsurance programs necessary to offer health care coverage for this targeted population.
Does anyone really believe that Rick Perry or the GOP-dominated Legislature will accommodate the needs of its citizens with federal money? Not in this lifetime.
Shame on you, Dr. Burgess.
Larry Beck, Denton
How can we know?
Want to know why “climate change” is inaccurate at best? Can anyone tell me the highest temperature recorded in 1712, 300 years ago, in the area known as Denton? How about the lowest temperature?
Naturally, it was a trick question. The scaled thermometer wasn’t invented by Daniel Fahrenheit until mid-1700. At that time, the human body was said to have a temperature of 100. Of course, as thermometers improved, we now know the body’s temperature is 98.6. That’s just 1.4 degrees — not much difference?
A “margin of error” possibly?
The warmest year in the last century was 2006. That is based on the fact that the mean temperature was 2.2 degrees warmer than the rest of the century.
Margin of error possibly?
Consider the “fact” that the polar ice cap is said to be shrinking and will melt completely by 2050. Routine monitoring only began in 1972.
Ever hear of Roald Amundsen? He’s a Norwegian who navigated the Northwest Passage in a wooden boat — in 1905. In addition, the “ozone hole” has only been observed since 1989.
So where are all these scientific facts? Since no one in the early 1700s had a calibrated thermometer checking the temperature every day, scientists use “models.”
These models are a series of assumptions based on observable events or anecdotal evidence for the last 100 years or so.
Change an assumption and you change the outcome.
Therefore, how can we know for certain what happened when no one witnessed or recorded precisely the events?
Steve Sullivan, Denton