• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When Beliefs and Facts Collide

G

GailT

Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2014
Messages
67
Reaction score
31
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In the nytimes (link).

One implication of Mr. Kahan’s study and other research in this field is that we need to try to break the association between identity and factual beliefs on high-profile issues – for instance, by making clear that you can believe in human-induced climate change and still be a conservative Republican like former Representative Bob Inglis or an evangelical Christian like the climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe. But we also need to reduce the incentives for elites to spread misinformation to their followers in the first place. Once people’s cultural and political views get tied up in their factual beliefs, it’s very difficult to undo regardless of the messaging that is used.
Click to expand...

The article at the link above also includes links to other interesting studies, including this study on WMD which found that providing factually accurate information "actually increase misperceptions among the group in question"
Kuklinski and his colleagues found that respondents had highly inaccurate beliefs about welfare generally; that the least informed people expressed the highest confidence in their answers; and that providing the relevant facts to respondents had no effect on their issue opinions.
Click to expand...
 
Perhaps the misinformation of "if you like your current insurance/doctor then you can keep them - PERIOD", used to get the PPACA laws passed, should have been included in your OP examples. The idea that "science" can be used to resolve public policy differences is a faulty premise to begin with. Dropping all medical care insurance actuarial risk factors except for age and tobacco use was not based on any facts or "science" - that was purely a political decision.

The science generally agrees that man caused climate change (AGW) is occurring yet there is no clear scientific consensus on what impact that many of the US only proposed "remedies" will produce. On the issue of "welfare" there is little (if any) agreement on its affect in breaking the cycle of poverty/dependence that was its original intent.

Public policy should have a clearly stated goal, a sound constitutional basis and include well defined metrics to evaluate its effectiveness. Pretending that "science" is on your side is also spewing misinformation when that "science" simply describes the problem yet does not include backing the impact of your proposed solution. Science would indicate that spending $1 trillion to keep 12% to 15% of the US population dependent upon "welfare", for decades on end, is not a way to win the "war on poverty".
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Perhaps the misinformation of "if you like your current insurance/doctor then you can keep them - PERIOD...
Click to expand...

Fact is, the PPACA included a grandfather clause, it was the insurance policies which were changed.
 
29A said:
Fact is, the PPACA included a grandfather clause, it was the insurance policies which were changed.
Click to expand...

Would you care to point out the conditions (the facts - the subject of the OP) of that PPACA grandfather clause? Not many insurance policies contained no "substantial changes" since 2010 in order to qualify for that exemption - Obama even tried to change that, after the fact, by executive fiat.

Essentially PPACA makes grandfathering impossible since added benefits will require added costs.

Onswipe
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Would you care to point out the conditions (the facts - the subject of the OP) of that PPACA grandfather clause?
Click to expand...

SEC. 1251. PRESERVATION OF RIGHT TO MAINTAIN EXISTING COVERAGE.
(a) NO CHANGES TO EXISTING COVERAGE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this Act (or an amendment
made by this Act) shall be construed to require that an individual
terminate coverage under a group health plan or health
insurance coverage in which such individual was enrolled on
the date of enactment of this Act.
...
(e) DEFINITION.—In this title, the term ‘‘grandfathered health
plan’’ means any group health plan or health insurance coverage
to which this section applies.
...
‘‘(3) DEFINITIONS AND OTHER RULES.—
‘‘(A) QUALIFIED HEALTH PLAN.—The term ‘qualified
health plan’ has the meaning given such term by section
1301(a) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,
except that such term shall not include a qualified health
plan which is a catastrophic plan described in section
1302(e) of such Act.
‘‘(B) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH PLAN.—The term ‘grandfathered
health plan’ has the meaning given such term
by section 1251 of the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf

Not many insurance policies contained no "substantial changes" since 2010 in order to qualify for that exemption
Click to expand...

True.

- Obama even tried to change that, after the fact, by executive fiat.
Click to expand...

You have a link?

Essentially PPACA makes grandfathering impossible since added benefits will require added costs.
Click to expand...

It would seem that added benefits would qualify as a policy change and negate a policy's grandfather status.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The science generally agrees that man caused climate change (AGW) is occurring yet there is no clear scientific consensus on what impact that many of the US only proposed "remedies" will produce.
Click to expand...

You agree that the science shows that manmade emissions are causing climate change. This is more than the vast majority of conservatives will concede. But you are wrong on the value of science for guiding policy. There is a consensus that reducing emissions will be beneficial. You can debate how much they need to be reduced, and how quickly, but we are not having that scientific and policy debate. Instead, we are debating with people who claim that climate change is a vast liberal conspiracy.
 
Verax said:
Once AGW became a partisan issue it was doomed. The fossil fuel industry now has a legion of millions that will die on a sword to protect their profits.
Click to expand...

It is not the corporate profits that worries me. It is the increase at the pump, the cost of electricity going up, having to pay 5 thousand dollars more for a car just so it meets EPA standards than it would have cost if there had been none. I really do not care who makes money, just let me keep mine.
 
GailT said:
You agree that the science shows that manmade emissions are causing climate change. This is more than the vast majority of conservatives will concede. But you are wrong on the value of science for guiding policy. There is a consensus that reducing emissions will be beneficial. You can debate how much they need to be reduced, and how quickly, but we are not having that scientific and policy debate. Instead, we are debating with people who claim that climate change is a vast liberal conspiracy.
Click to expand...

If the US is responsible for 20% of world emissions and we can agree to reduce them by 10% (a fairly large amount) then that would reduce world emissions by only 2%, a small world benefit, but at a cost born only by the US. You are debating with folks that see a US only effort as having huge costs to the US and that would result in only a minor (if any) global reduction of emissions.
 
Perotista said:
It is not the corporate profits that worries me. It is the increase at the pump, the cost of electricity going up, having to pay 5 thousand dollars more for a car just so it meets EPA standards than it would have cost if there had been none. I really do not care who makes money, just let me keep mine.
Click to expand...

Okay, got it. You don't care how many people get sick or die as a result of air pollution or climate change, as long as it doesn't cost you anything. Then this might motivate you - the cost to the US of adapting to climate change will be far greater than the cost of emissions reductions.
 
Perotista said:
It is not the corporate profits that worries me. It is the increase at the pump, the cost of electricity going up, having to pay 5 thousand dollars more for a car just so it meets EPA standards than it would have cost if there had been none. I really do not care who makes money, just let me keep mine.
Click to expand...

You really think the EPA is going to roll out a plan that economically devastates America to fix AGW? Nobody would ever support such a stupid thing. We can overcome AGW with smart policy that costs us a fraction of 1% of GDP. The fossil fuel industry would be in terrible shape though, we simply cannot consume the rest of the extractable carbon from the Earth and expect to have a good outcome. The end game here is a transition to alternative energy and an end to the fossil fuel industry.

Unsurprisingly the fossil fuel industry is fighting this. So we have to ask ourselves what is more important, the ff industry or an optimally inhabitable Earth?
 
GailT said:
Okay, got it. You don't care how many people get sick or die as a result of air pollution or climate change, as long as it doesn't cost you anything. Then this might motivate you - the cost to the US of adapting to climate change will be far greater than the cost of emissions reductions.
Click to expand...

It all means nothing if the rest of the world does not go along with the good old USA. All you are doing is making Americans pay more and more for their goods, their basic necessities of life. While those in India, China and the rest of the world continue what they are doing with no additional expense making their goods far cheaper than any produced here and putting more and more Americans out of work.
 
Perotista said:
It all means nothing if the rest of the world does not go along with the good old USA. All you are doing is making Americans pay more and more for their goods, their basic necessities of life. While those in India, China and the rest of the world continue what they are doing with no additional expense making their goods far cheaper than any produced here and putting more and more Americans out of work.
Click to expand...

The rest of the world is more likely to go along if we demonstrate leadership. Nothing will happen if we sit back and wait for others to act.
 
Perotista said:
It all means nothing if the rest of the world does not go along with the good old USA. All you are doing is making Americans pay more and more for their goods, their basic necessities of life. While those in India, China and the rest of the world continue what they are doing with no additional expense making their goods far cheaper than any produced here and putting more and more Americans out of work.
Click to expand...

We can become the leader in clean energy and impose our will upon the world, same as we do with everything else. We can't expect other countries to do much until we ourselves clean up our act and take a positive initiative. We are currently lagging behind on this issue and it is embarrassing.
 
Verax said:
You really think the EPA is going to roll out a plan that economically devastates America to fix AGW? Nobody would ever support such a stupid thing. We can overcome AGW with smart policy that costs us a fraction of 1% of GDP. The fossil fuel industry would be in terrible shape though, we simply cannot consume the rest of the extractable carbon from the Earth and expect to have a good outcome. The end game here is a transition to alternative energy and an end to the fossil fuel industry.

Unsurprisingly the fossil fuel industry is fighting this. So we have to ask ourselves what is more important, the ff industry or an optimally inhabitable Earth?
Click to expand...

I believe exactly that. They are already doing that. What needs to be done is to take the alternative to fossil fuels, perfect them, make them cost effective and once that is down, perhaps they might even be cheaper than fossil fuels and the rest will take care of itself. As long as the alternatives are far more expensive, fossil fuels are here to stay. If my choice is to have an electric bill of 200 dollars a month produced by a coal powered plant vs one that uses alternative energy which will cost me 300 dollars a month, that is a no brainier. It is also a no brainier for the pocket books of millions of Americans. Not everyone can afford to pay the extra cost.

You make it economically feasible, you will have my support, but I will be dang if I am going to pay more just because of the EPA and living in America than I would in some other country that doesn't have an EPA extorting their people.
 
GailT said:
The rest of the world is more likely to go along if we demonstrate leadership. Nothing will happen if we sit back and wait for others to act.
Click to expand...

So you make the average American, the ones on a budget, some fixed to pay more and more while we hope that sometime along the line, other countries will get on board. Mean while instead of living comfortable, I have to learn to live on how to just get by if at that. I have to suffer, but the rest of the world gets a free pass.
 
Verax said:
We can become the leader in clean energy and impose our will upon the world, same as we do with everything else. We can't expect other countries to do much until we ourselves clean up our act and take a positive initiative. We are currently lagging behind on this issue and it is embarrassing.
Click to expand...

What is embarrassing is making people who can barely get by as is pay more and more for their basic necessities. If you want to go to alternate sources of energy, that's fine, but make them affordable before forcing them on to the people. There is no rhyme or reason to make ones electric bill go from 200 to 300 dollars. Some people live on fixed incomes. Just make sure any alternative fuel or means of producing energy cost the same as is now in use or a bit cheaper, do that and I will climb aboard. But not when my bills go up because of it, I am old fashioned, I vote my pocket book.
 
Perotista said:
I believe exactly that. They are already doing that. What needs to be done is to take the alternative to fossil fuels, perfect them, make them cost effective and once that is down, perhaps they might even be cheaper than fossil fuels and the rest will take care of itself. As long as the alternatives are far more expensive, fossil fuels are here to stay. If my choice is to have an electric bill of 200 dollars a month produced by a coal powered plant vs one that uses alternative energy which will cost me 300 dollars a month, that is a no brainier. It is also a no brainier for the pocket books of millions of Americans. Not everyone can afford to pay the extra cost.

You make it economically feasible, you will have my support, but I will be dang if I am going to pay more just because of the EPA and living in America than I would in some other country that doesn't have an EPA extorting their people.
Click to expand...

That's reasonable. However we need policy to cooperate in this direction. The fossil fuel industry has had over a century and about 1/2 a trillion in worldwide subsidies to mature. At a bare minimum we should remove all subsidies for fossil fuels. We should do everything we can to foster the alternative energy market, instead we do the opposite.
 
Perotista said:
What is embarrassing is making people who can barely get by as is pay more and more for their basic necessities. If you want to go to alternate sources of energy, that's fine, but make them affordable before forcing them on to the people. There is no rhyme or reason to make ones electric bill go from 200 to 300 dollars. Some people live on fixed incomes. Just make sure any alternative fuel or means of producing energy cost the same as is now in use or a bit cheaper, do that and I will climb aboard. But not when my bills go up because of it, I am old fashioned, I vote my pocket book.
Click to expand...

Subsidize any extra cost so that it is transparent to the consumer.
 
Verax said:
That's reasonable. However we need policy to cooperate in this direction. The fossil fuel industry has had over a century and about 1/2 a trillion in worldwide subsidies to mature. At a bare minimum we should remove all subsidies for fossil fuels. We should do everything we can to foster the alternative energy market, instead we do the opposite.
Click to expand...

Good luck on getting rid of the subsidies, when firms like Exxon, Shell and the like donate well over ten million to political campaigns I really do not see them going away. Politicians will say anything and everything, even give speeches denouncing the oil and gas industry, but they give them with a wink and a nod making sure those who fill up their campaign coffers understand nothing will be done that is against them.

Talk is cheap, action never comes.
 
Perotista said:
Good luck on getting rid of the subsidies, when firms like Exxon, Shell and the like donate well over ten million to political campaigns I really do not see them going away. Politicians will say anything and everything, even give speeches denouncing the oil and gas industry, but they give them with a wink and a nod making sure those who fill up their campaign coffers understand nothing will be done that is against them.

Talk is cheap, action never comes.
Click to expand...

Guess we have to clean up the greasy politician slick first. :lol:
 
Verax said:
Subsidize any extra cost so that it is transparent to the consumer.
Click to expand...

And here you were just talking about doing away with subsidies. No, first make sure the alternative is doable, workable, the cost is reasonable if not a bit cheaper then the people will flock to alternatives. I do not think there is anyone who likes the big oil companies, that is except those who work for them and family. But if what they have to offer is cheaper, guess what. That is the way the consumer will go.

Also the infrastructure has to be in place and what replaces say gas has to be convenient. Battery powered cars are not, one just can pull into a station and plug in and five minutes later pull out onto the road to continue your journey. There are cars that are hybrid of both battery and gas, but they are very expensive. On the rich can afford them. Perhaps down the road they will become cheaper, but there also has to be a demand for them. No matter how good a car is or anything else for that matter, if there isn't a demand for it, it is basically useless.
 
Verax said:
Subsidize any extra cost so that it is transparent to the consumer.
Click to expand...

What? Are you assuming that taxpayers are not consumers? Using that logic we could have gasoline for $1/gallon again ;).
 
Verax said:
Guess we have to clean up the greasy politician slick first. :lol:
Click to expand...

That I will work with you on. So much what goes on in Washington is based on who gives what and how much. I personally believe that most subsidies are not needed, that on a lot of subsidies they drive up the cost instead of driving down the cost. That a lot of subsidies have outlived their original purpose. But getting rid of them is another matter. I was born and raised on a farm, a family farm. So many farm subsidies was intended to help out the family farmer, but today the family farmer is a thing of the past. It is all corporate farming, guess who gets all those subsidies that was originally intended for the family farmer, the corporations.
 
We can measure the cost but we can't measure the benefits besides touchy feely unicorns and rainbows.

Cost/Benefit analysis to inform policy decisions has been replaced by cost/feelings analysis when it comes to GW.


Perotista said:
It is not the corporate profits that worries me. It is the increase at the pump, the cost of electricity going up, having to pay 5 thousand dollars more for a car just so it meets EPA standards than it would have cost if there had been none. I really do not care who makes money, just let me keep mine.
Click to expand...

ttwtt78640 said:
If the US is responsible for 20% of world emissions and we can agree to reduce them by 10% (a fairly large amount) then that would reduce world emissions by only 2%, a small world benefit, but at a cost born only by the US. You are debating with folks that see a US only effort as having huge costs to the US and that would result in only a minor (if any) global reduction of emissions.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom