Global Warming and U.S. Health Care

Andy, since the Canadian political scene is currently so dull, I'd like to rattle your chain on the above topics. First, U.S. Health Care: if you believe the current Democratic position, the new bill will save taxpayers more than a billion dollars over the next ten years. In which case, how could anybody be against a bill that provides health care to over 30 million of the 50 million uninsured citizens and saves money in the process? My take on it is very simple: since the majority of the uninsured are either black or hispanic (or homeless whites)the Republicans are simply reverting to their racist roots - end of story. A second thought is that when Sarah Palin's family brought her to Canada for health care when she was a child, our so-called "death panels" sure missed a chance! Third, I am totally surprised that life expectancy wasn't an issue in the health care debate. A child in the U.S. has a life expectancy of 78 years, while a U.K. child can expect 79 years and a Canadian child 81 years. Surely, it doesn't get much simpler than that! Thank God they finally got something passed. On to global warming. The director of climate research at the University of East Anglia (he who fudged the science) has now admitted that in the "Medieval Warm Period" it may have been hotter than it is today, and that there has been no statistically significant warming in the last fifteen years. The 15 hottest years since 1880 are spread over 7 decades. Four of the hottest years were in the 1930's and just three in the last decade. Eight occurred before atmospheric carbon dioxide began its recent rise, seven after. And, while the recent volcanic eruption in Iceland will potentially do more to melt glaciers than humans can accomplish, I'm not ruling out Liberal and NDP hot air as a global threat.