Vindication for Global Warming Skeptics

A global-warming skeptic is not a global-warming denier. The difference is somewhat like the difference between atheists and agnostics. I, and many others like me, don't claim that the earth is in a long-term cooling trend or that it's stable. In addition, even if long-term global-warming was certain, I have serious doubts about the quality of the computer models upon which claims are made that global-warming is caused by humans.

I consider myself an amateur scientist, with an appreciation for fact and the scientific method. Where science has been applied to medical research, it has had a major and direct impact on my life, and my appreciation is especially strong when I recall that it's only been a couple of hundred years since 'doctors' regularly drained blood from patients as a standard treatment for a variety of ailments, with absolutely no scientific basis for it.

However, despite my appreciation of science, I don't trust scientists much more than I trust politicians. Someone does some important research and analysis? Great! But don't just tell me the summary and expect me to accept it without question. What were the assumptions? What were the measurements? What was the analysis? Which statistical methods were applied, and why? If a reasonable theory has been developed, great! But are there other reasonable theories? Are there other plausible theories?

So, despite the 'consensus' of scientists often alleged by crisis-profiteers, crisis-careerists, and an easily duped media, I've remained skeptical that we have enough measurements or a thorough enough understanding of circumstances that impact global temperatures to reach a conclusion about the current long-term global temperature trend, or the impact of human activity on global temperatures. This has often felt like being a round-earther ridiculed by the official flat-earth dogmatists. But no one will get me to change my mind just based on alleged consensus while there are intelligent scientists who hold contrary views and provide reasonable explanations for their contrary views. The esteemed leading doctors of Western medicine had a strong consensus on the value of frequent blood-letting, so don't give me 'consensus.' Give me facts. Give me reason.

So today comes an article in London's Mail Online: Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995. Dr. Phil Jones, a leader in the man-caused-long-term-global-warmist theories, has admitted that the evidence isn't nearly as strong as many have been led to believe. Dr. Jones gives lucid statements that don't debunk the possibility that the earth is getting warmer in the long-run, and don't debunk the possibility that human activity is a dominant factor in whatever the earth's temperatures are doing. But read the article, and it will become apparent that this interview is a bellwether event because it virtually destroys the alleged certainty that has been so popular with the crisis-mongers.

The earth has not been getting significantly warmer in the last 15 years, as Dr. Jones admits, and as many skeptics have been pointing out. It may still be that the last 15 years has been an exception to the rule and perhaps the earth is getting warmer over a period of hundreds of years. But maybe not. The door is now almost fully open, where it was almost fully closed, to consider all possibilities, and not jump to conclusions based on inadequate data or inadequate, unproven computer models.

If Dr. Jones isn't enough for you, then consider the interview by Dr. Robert Watson, none other than the former chair of the IPCC itself. In an article at the Times Online, Dr. Watson responds to the rash of errors recently pointed out in some of the IPCC reports. While none of the errors I've seen reported are damning individually, Dr. Watson points out that together they indicate a significant bias, because every single error favors catastrophic predictions. If they were unbiased, as the tarnished current chair of the IPCC claims, then the errors would be roughly evenly distributed between those favoring catastrophic predictions and those opposing it.

So let's continue to study global temperatures. Let's continue to measure and improve how we measure. Let's continue to model global processes and improve how we model global processes. Let's continue to reason and improve how we reason.

And while we're improving science (and scientists), let's not damage or destroy national economies based on overreactions to false assumptions and irrational predictions. Let's also bear in mind that regardless of the long-term temperature fluctuations, whether up or down, we'll always need clean air to breathe and clean water to drink, so let's not throw out the baby of responsible environmentalism with the dirty bathwater of unproven climate-change fears.

Come, let us reason together.

Irrational Global-Warming Leader

The leading organization preaching that global warming is man-caused and a disaster-in-the-making is the U.N.'s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the head of that organization is Dr. Rajendra Pachauri. Pachauri is also the head of the The Energy Research Institute (TERI) (formerly the Tata Energy Research Institute).

His degrees are in engineering, so he should be familiar with rational thought. However, he's been quoted by the Financial Times as making the following statement:

"[Climate change skeptics] are people who deny the link between smoking and cancer; they are people who say that asbestos is as good as talcum powder. I hope that they apply it [asbestos] to their faces every day."

For the record, I am currently a climate change skeptic, and I do not deny the link between smoking and cancer, nor do I say that asbestos is as good as talcum powder. And despite his stated desire, I do not apply asbestos to myself or anyone else.

As head of the IPCC and TERI, Dr. Pachauri has been subject to much criticism, some for possible conflicts of interest from running both organizations. In his recent interview with the Financial Times, he also was quoted as saying, "[There are] nefarious designs behind people trying to attack me with lies, falsehoods." I don't why anyone would lie about him... the direct quotes above are enough to ruin his credibility as a rational scientist.

UPDATE:The week of March 21, 2010, Dr. Pachauri was quoted in the London Times as saying, "It is not correct to say there are people who don’t trust me." If that is an accurate quote, it is conclusive evidence that he does not exhibit a scientific mind. He has also been apologizing for the factual errors in the IPCC reports, but I have not heard him address the issue of bias. Bias is not only a significant factor in facilitating factual errors that favor a pre-determined view, it is also a critical factor in errors of omission -- the fact that the IPCC reports intentionally exclude metrics that are inconsistent with their favored Earth-is-getting-too-warm-and-people-are-to-blame beliefs.

Fairness or Freedom?

We all like fairness, right? "Mom, he/she got more than I did!" is a complaint heard from every child with a sibling. It's often said because of perceived injustice, as when a sibling really did get a larger amount of something. Most children with loving parents quickly learn how effective the "fairness" complaint is and try to extend it's use by altering its meaning: "Mom, I want more candy." "You can't have more candy, it will spoil your appetite for supper." Altogether now... "That's not fair!" Fairness is good, but not everything is a matter of fairness.

Suppose we try to use civil government to force fairness into society to the greatest extent possible. Is that a worthwhile goal for a nation? Well, what if maximum fairness means imposing the lowest common denominator on wages and wealth? Would you want comprehensive, forced economic equality if it meant you get exactly the same daily ration of food regardless of how hard you work or how much you learn?

Suppose our civil governments allow people maximum freedom instead, even if it means some people who learn more or work harder will earn greater wealth than others? Freedom and individuality have long been dominant in the United States and it's produced a level of wealth that was unimaginable when this country began. Yet free enterprise guarantees inequality of wealth.

So, if you were limited to these two choices, which would you chose? Forced economic equality that provided everyone a perfectly even distribution of goods, including exactly 1000 calories of exactly the same food per day, or complete freedom that resulted in economic disparity such that some people have as many calories of whatever food they want per day and the poorest have at least 1500 calories of food per day with a substantial variety of food choices?

Which is better, comprehensive forced fairness or universally superior wealth?

I suggest that fairness shouldn't be the ultimate goal of society because people are different. Men are different from women. That doesn't mean men are better than women, and it doesn't justify a lower salary for a women doing the same work as a man, but it's acknowledging the reality that there are substantive differences between men and women, and the cause is genetic. Industrious people are different from lazy people. An argument can be made that hard-working people are better than lazy people by some measures, and the cause for the difference is primarily behavioral choice. Healthy people are different from those with infirmities, and that could be due to genes or environment. The fact is that everyone is unique. The inference is that absolute fairness, or equality, is not possible. In every socialist country where great effort has been made to enforce fairness, it has been clearly seen in practice that the leaders "are more equal than others," as Orwell put it.

If you give everyone exactly the same health care, that means you must either give everyone a pacemaker or no one a pacemaker. Silly argument, right? That would be true, complete fairness, but that's not the only option to try to arrive at equality. Okay, so we use a different policy: everyone who needs a pacemaker can have a one if they want it. That sounds pretty good, right? Unless your society doesn't have enough pacemaker surgeons. Which leads to the question, how do you give a pacemaker to everyone who needs and wants one if there aren't enough pacemaker surgeons? Give the person a do-it-yourself kit? Or just let a civil government agency decide on everyone's careers, so they can ensure enough pacemaker surgeons? Do you want your career choice to be made for you? There are socialists who think that's the best course for public policy.

For myself, and for my family, my friends, and my neighbors, I prefer freedom to forced fairness. I'll learn as much as I can and work as hard as I can, and I want the opportunity to improve my financial circumstances. And I want that opportunity for everyone else.

It was President Kennedy who famously said, "A rising tide lifts all boats." He was talking about economic prosperity, not Cuba, but whenever I think of that speech in 1963, I tie the two together, thinking of the many boats people have used to try to escape from the prison camp known as Cuba, where fairness is guaranteed by Castro. Cubans risked their lives in desperate attempts to flee Cuba's fairness for American freedom. A freedom that has proven Kennedy's point, a freedom that has created so much wealth that American charitable giving makes the United States the most generous nation on Earth. In fact, America is more than twice as generous as the next most generous nation.

Fairness has its place, but if it comes down to a choice between fairness and freedom, give me freedom.

Command Performance

Some time ago, I wanted a photo-viewing program and couldn't find one with the features I wanted, so I wrote one myself. It's called Command Performance, and I've just tweaked it and posted it as freeware. If you want to try it out, you can download it here: http://www.exabyte.net/ElfInkSoftware.

I'd love to hear what you think of it.

Ciao!

HOPE

There is hope.

There is hope for those wounded by the loss of loved ones.
There is hope for those who have been hurt by loved ones.
There is hope for those frightened for their loved ones.
There is hope for those worried about their livelihoods.
There is hope for those struggling with their health.
There is hope for those facing their own death.
There is hope for those sent into harm's way.

There is hope that is greater than other hopes.

The greatest hope is not in weapons of war, nor in the valiant soldiers who wield them.
The greatest hope is not in persuasion, nor in politicians who attempt to persuade.
The greatest hope is not in science, nor in scientists who examine and reason.

Military might has defended the innocent, but it has also tortured and executed them.
Political fight has produced the heights of freedom, but has also sunk to the depths of genocide.
Scientific sight may master the subatomic and interstellar How, but by definition ignores the Why.

Thousands of years of war, and peace is still fragile or missing.
Thousands of years of laws, and inalienable rights are still questioned.
Hundreds of years of science, and the world still groans.

But we can still hope.

Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed, and so became the father of many nations.

Abraham hoped in a God who created us, who loves us, and who is faithful to us, even when we are unfaithful.

Like Abraham, we can hope, even when everything seems hopeless.

And our greatest hope is that God is a God who condescended to humanity, covered our sins, and invites us to fellowship with Him.

Long lay the world in sin and error pining, 'til he appeared and the soul felt His worth...

A thrill of hope...

A weary world rejoices...

Oh holy night...

It is the eve of the dear Savior’s birth.

Who Pays For Our Freedom?

It is the soldier, not the reporter,
Who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the soldier, not the poet,
Who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the organizer,
Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.

It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protestor to burn the flag.

-- Father Dennis Edward O'Brian, USMC

We, the Religious People...

President Obama said in a speech in Turkey, "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."

Well, I don't know of any recent studies, but for most of our nation's history, the majority have definitely considered our nation a Christian nation. And, I wonder, what "ideals" and "set of values" does the President think bind us together? I haven't found any statements by him to clarify that, but then, as long as he's vague enough, he can offend the fewest possible people who might disagree. In hope that he is ignorant on our country's religious character, rather than deceitful, perhaps some history lessons are in order. Here's one:

Neither our Constitution, nor the Declaration of Independance, nor any of our national laws say that we must have the famously alleged separation of Church and State. What the Constitution says in the First Amendment is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That doesn't even prohibit the individual States from establishing religions, although none have. In fact, no American is forced by Federal, State, or local government to worship God.

However, there's nothing in the Constitution that prevents religious people in general or Christians in particular from being involved in the creation or management of our laws, or prohibits their religious beliefs from affecting their political views or the laws we create, with the sole exception of the prohibition against establishing a national religion.

One of the prime examples of the influence of Christianity in this country is in our Declaration of Independence, which openly acknowledges God in these quotes:

...to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...

...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.

...We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world...

And lest anyone think the open acknowledgement of God by our body politic has been limited to the Federal government, here are quotes from the Constitutions of the 50 United States: (Passing this along with thanks to Lianne.)

Alabama 1901, Preamble: We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution...

Alaska 1956, Preamble: We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land...

Arizona 1911, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...

Arkansas 1874, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government...

California 1879, Preamble: We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom...

Colorado 1876, Preamble: We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe...

Connecticut 1818, Preamble: The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy...

Delaware 1897, Preamble: Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences...

Florida 1885, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish this Constitution...

Georgia 1777, Preamble: We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution...

Hawaii 1959, Preamble: We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance .... Establish this Constitution...

Idaho 1889, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings...

Illinois 1870, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors...

Indiana 1851, Preamble: We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our form of government...

Iowa 1857, Preamble: We, the People of the St ate of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings, establish this Constitution...

Kansas 1859, Preamble: We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges establish this Constitution...

Kentucky 1891, Preamble: We, the people of the Commonwealth are grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties...

Louisiana 1921, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy...

Maine 1820, Preamble: We the People of Maine acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity... And imploring His aid and direction...

Maryland 1776, Preamble: We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty...

Massachusetts 1780, Preamble: We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe, In the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring His direction...

Michigan 1908, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom, establish this Constitution...

Minnesota, 1857, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings...

Mississippi 1890, Preamble: We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work...

Missouri 1845, Preamble: We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness, Establish this Constitution...

Montana 1889, Preamble: We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty establish this Constitution...

Nebraska 1875, Preamble: We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, Establish this Constitution...

Nevada 1864, Preamble: We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, establish this Constitution...

New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V: Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience...

New Jersey 1844, Preamble: We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors...

New Mexico 1911, Preamble: We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty...

New York 1846, Preamble: We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings...

North Carolina 1868, Preamble: We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those...

North Dakota 1889, Preamble: We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain...

Ohio 1852, Preamble: We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common...

Oklahoma 1907, Preamble: Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty, establish this...

Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I Section 2: All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences...

Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble: We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance......

Rhode Island 1842, Preamble: We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing...

South Carolina, 1778, Preamble: We, the people of he State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution...

South Dakota 1889, Preamble: We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties...

Tennessee 1796, Art. XI..III: That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience...

Texas 1845, Preamble: We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God...

Utah 1896, Preamble: Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution...

Vermont 1777, Preamble: Whereas all government ought to enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man...

Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI: Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator can be directed only by Reason and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other...

Washington 1889, Preamble: We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...

West Virginia 1872, Preamble: Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God...

Wisconsin 1848, Preamble: We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility...

Wyoming 1890, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties, establish this Constitution...

Placebo Effect in the Bible?

"A cheerful heart is good medicine..." [Proverbs 17:22]

Thousands of years before modern medical science began, the placebo effect was recognized in the Bible. When it compounds the benefits of effective medications, good things happen. So to Susan, Terry, Brian, and anyone else with serious physical problems, keep on lifting your spirit in praise, and take courage!

A Plea for Rational, Responsible Economic Environmentalism

There is, in fact, no scientific consensus on the existence of global warming, let alone the alleged extent or most likely causes. And the recent exposure of emails by the CRU cabal may have mortally wounded the efforts of the crisis-mongers pushing the human-caused-global-warming scenario.

(Kim Strassel: Their correspondence show a claque of scientists massaging data to make it fit their theories, squelching scientists who disagreed, punishing academic journals that didn't toe the apocalyptic line, and hiding their work from public view. "It's no use pretending that this isn't a major blow," glumly wrote George Monbiot, a U.K. writer who has been among the fiercest warming alarmists. The documents "could scarcely be more damaging." And that's from a believer.)

But the diminishing stature of this faked crisis is actually a cause for some concern. Just because these latest crisis profiteers have tainted their crisis-of-the-decade, that doesn't mean we need the pendulum of public concern for the environment to swing too far back in the other direction. Why? Because we'll always need clean air and clean water.

Clean air, clean water, and the broadest possible bio-diversity are good things, and economic activities (and government policies that impact economic activities) should take them into account.

For those who tend to think that unrestrained free-enterprise is perfect, let me remind you that people making decisions for profit only, without regard to the environmental impact of their decisions, have caused some horrendous pollution and damaged the health of many millions of people world-wide.

On the other extreme, for those who act like the environment is their god, let me remind you that moderated free-enterprise has led to many scientific achievements that allow us to measure and quantify our environment while providing livelihoods for billions of people.

So, let's be rational. Let's encourage economic growth that takes the environment into account and work to improve both our economic engines and our environment.

United Nations Inquiry

Okay, it's not quite Thanksgiving yet, but if someone's wondering what to get me as a Christmas present, here's something I'd like:

Please list all the good things the United Nations has accomplished, excluding all the good things where the United States alone was responsible for 90% or more of the good thing (by dollars or people), and total up all the United Nations has cost, adjusting for inflation and breaking out the costs borne by the United States as a separate number.

I'm not someone who thinks the U.N. has never accomplished anything good, but I also don't think we should keep it if it's not producing more value than it consumes.

Here's my analogy #2,357: If you have a car that gets you to work sometimes, that's a good thing. But if it fails to get you to work most of the time and if repairs and maintenance cost more than a new car, how long would you keep the old car?

I just want to be honest about the U.N. and determine it's real worth.

Any takers?

Global Warming FAIL

For all my non-Twittering friends, "FAIL" is shorthand for disapproving or disavowing something. No, I don't Twitter either, but I'm familiar with some of it.

So, Global Warming. It's common knowledge that real scientists have formed a solid, near-universal consensus that global warming is fast approaching irreversible, catastrophic damage to Earth's climate due primarily to human activity and we should do everything and anything we can to reverse our activities, even if it ruins national economies, for the sake of human survival. Wow. And it's common knowledge because most reporters and commentators in the mass media believe that, and keep repeating it in articles and on TV. Movie writers and producers reinforce it by weaving it in as an underlying assumption or outright plot-points. And they usually have lots of quotes from "scientists" who earn their livings from the grants they get, and the more dire their predictions, the more funding they're given.

Too bad the consensus isn't true. It's not even close to true. Follow this link to an article citing a petition signed by over 32,000 scientists, including over 9,000 Ph.D.'s and scores of Nobel laureates, all of whom are not part of the alleged consensus.

So if your elected representatives support the idiotic Cap & Trade legislation, you might want to point this out to them. If they have functioning intellects.

"Whatever You Need, We'll Give It To You"

I've been listening to the pontificating on C-SPAN as the House prepares to vote on Pelosi's health insurance (not health care) reform bill, and must conclude that some of our national politicians are ignoramuses themselves or they're intentionally pandering to an ignorant constituency.

Do the ignorant ones think that an insurance company is a stingy rich uncle with unlimited money and everyone can have anything they want if they can just convince the uncle to be more generous or if they can take the uncle's money by force of law?

Modern insurance works on one fundamental principal: Each insurance program must take in more money in premiums than it pays out in benefits. This is true regardless of whether the organization behind it is for-profit or non-profit, and certainly includes civil governments. Insurance is a means of allowing a group of people to share financial risk, not a magically infinite source of money.

Some have said, "We're making health care a right." Oh, really? You're going to make something with a price tag a civil right? You're going to put it on the same level as the right to life and the right to liberty? And what will you do when the well runs dry? And when the group of patients need two dollars worth of health care for every dollar paid in insurance premiums, what will you tell those who complain that their rights are being denied?

The truth is they're not talking about improving health care. They're talking about changing health insurance in a manner by which the civil government will control how health care is rationed, rather than allowing freedom of choice.

And some of these folks are claiming, with a straight face, that the Federal bureaucracy is going to cover hundreds of billions of dollars worth of the increased costs by making things more efficient and reducing fraud? Oh? Like they have with Veteran's health care, Medicaid, and Medicare?

Here's my two cents' worth of opinion: make the VA, Medicaid, and Medicare effective, efficient, and fraud-free, and then I'll have a basis to believe the Federal government can do a better job with public health insurance than the free market and non-profits are doing now.