Science

Posts On DAPL and Relative Topics From Blog On Video- To Read/Share

Posts On DAPL and Relative Topics From Blog On Video- To Read/Share

  Pause the video to read posts. Use archives of November and December to search other related posts. Help stop the pollution from Canada and foreign nations. Stop DAPL.

    Thank you. Read about the epic struggle at Standing Rock North Dakota. Get involved. Help.

     Our water is at risk. Be aware of the dangers.

 


 


Obama Supports Global Oil Conglomerates- The Real DAPL= Alberta Toxic Oil Sands - Not Needed

Obama Supports Globalization - Global Oil Conglomerates- The Real DAPL

   The reason Obama wont uphold the laws and peoples rights involved in the protests against DAPL is because of his support for globalization.

  Globalization interests have rights over Americans because the rights of Americans get in the way of global financial dominance of American people by corporations. Obama is stuck in the middle. He doesn't want to look like he is on the side of globalized oil interests against the American people. Interests that jeopardize the lands and water of America by putting toxic oil into our environment through the pipelines that come from Dakota and Canada. The Alberta Canada oil sands are the most toxic on earth. The chemicals that are put into the pipes to keep the oil sand sludge flowing are toxic to humans and the environment.

  Trump is supposed to be for American interests over the global oil giants. The Dakota Access Pipeline, DAPL, is under the control of those interests. It's obvious that the pipeline is being built to carry more toxic oil into America from Canada. After the pipeline is built it can be linked up to pipelines that carry oil sands oil out of Canada. Alberta is close to Dakota. It would be easy to sell the pipeline to the Canadian oil giants and use it to pump more dirty oil into America. Trump hasn't made any comments about the toxic oil sands oil compared to American crude that is plentiful and much cleaner than Canadian oil.

   Prohibiting the polluting Canadian oil from the pipeline would increase the market for good West Texas crude. There is a trillion dollars worth of it. As it is the oil from Texas could completely replace the Canadian oil in the market in America,

   The oil from West Texas doesn't need to be shipped across the U.S. to refineries, endangering farm lands, towns, wildlife, and water. There is very little danger from the oil in Texas polluting the environment or endangering the health of Americans or Canadians.

   The choice between America oil and Canadian oil is clear. We don't need oil from Canada. Replacing the dirty oil from Canada with better Texas oil also creates jobs for Americans.

  In that case the Dakota Access Pipe Line project is unnecessary. Canadian oil is also unnecessary.

   If clean Canadian oil is available that's fine but the pollution from the oil sands oil in Alberta should be outlawed. The chemicals that are added to the sludge in the pipelines should be stopped. There is no actual necessity for the oil sands oil in America or the pipelines that are being built to carry more of it.

   The blessing of God in America to end dependence on the deadly, toxic, polluting, oil sands oil from Alberta Canada, is West Texas Intermediate crude.

   Praise God. Thank you  Jesus!

Westtr
Larger than Canada's dirty oil sands deposit. We don't need dirty oil from Alberta!

 

 

 

  

  

  

   


80 Degrees Today In Oklahoma- Picture Of Grasshopper -(strange weather)

  November 17th 2016. To day in Oklahoma, (crazy weather capitol of the world) it was 80 degrees f.

   I don't remember a day this warm in the middle of November  before, in my lifetime, in Oklahoma. I also saw a grasshopper. Took a picture of it.  Grasshio
Grasshi

    I checked the weather reports over the last few weeks. Warm days, colder nights. There should be a freeze this week. About 31 degrees. The days this week are in the 60's and 70's.

    My belief is that the oceans are the reason that weather patterns have been affected. Not carbon emissions.

   

   


A Two Payer System That Can Work- Partial Insurance Coverage( With Medicaid)

A Two Payer System That Can Work (Not Obamacare)

If lower income people are placed on Medicaid and they have a private policy that covers most of what Medicaid doesn't, that is necessary, that's good.
If the costs of the policy is less because of the Medicaid coverage, the policy is affordable to the working people who have lower paying jobs. No one is cut back or laid off.
Medicaid is alleviated financially by the policies paying some on the care. This is good.
Pre- existing conditions can be met.
Policies can be kept.
As the income or financial circumstance of the family or individual improves, more can be transferred to the private policy.

 

Partial Insurance Coverage( With Medicaid) - Verses Obamacare

Contributions into the insurance pool funds is better than no contributions into the insurance funds.

With Obamacare, the people who are placed into Medicaid coverage are not contributing to the pool. This puts pressure onto the other policies , regardless of how you politically spin it. (The facts.)

It is better to have most of the people who are working at lower wages, to contribute by having extra coverage on private policies. The policies in this case, compliment their Medicaid coverage.
It is also more economically feasible to have those with partial coverage, phase into full coverage, over a period of time.

I was saying that partial coverage (with private sector policies) would be far less expensive to the working poor and others, because of Medicaid coverage. And vice versa.
Partial Medicaid with partial insurance coverage would be the best way to cover the uninsured.

There would be far less pressure on other policies, with respect to cost transference.

The main costs with Medicaid is subsidies paid out. The actual payout would be less, to a possibly greater degree, with partial coverage on policies from insurance companies that cover enough to alleviate a good deal of the burden on Medicaid.

A less expensive policy is possible with a partial coverage policy. This could also cover areas that Medicaid does not cover. Taking into consideration the necessary modifications on Minimum Coverage that is mandated by Obamacare.
The coverage that was actually necessary was once again left out and more money was to be spent on what was called Mental Healthcare, which was actually just testing and medical tests after assessments on substance abuse.
Keep it in mind, that, the testing that can be mandated after assessments, that are not done by professionals, can be expensive. In that case, also possibly unnecessary.

 

    

Two Payer System- (First Problem Solved) -Groundwork.

Technically, Obamacare is a one payer system. One payer on Medicaid. And one payer on exchange policy.
Looking at the huge problem associated with the voluntary part of the one payer on exchanges, where the healthy dollars are not showing up, in order to compensate for the needy in the insurance money pool; it is predictable, that, a lack of interest will cause a short fall of usable capitol. This will lead to sharp increases in the cost of related policies. This cause and effect is called cost transference. Spreading the cost out evenly, so to speak.
It is better to use Medicaid as a support on coverage, for young people and working healthy people (at lower income levels), who will purchase policies for half the cost in the private sector. The split on Medicaid and insurance policies makes lower costs possible. This keeps more money flowing into the pool for insurance coverage, without driving up costs for other policy holders. (First problem solved.)


- Insurance Obamacare Regulated Prescriptions To Generic

 

    Insurance Changes coverages without warnings. - Obamacare Regulated Prescriptions To Generic without informing patients/consumers..

   Medications have been changed, repeatedly, from name brands to generics on Aetna. And from generic to generic without consulting the patients over the changes or offering alternatives.

   My pharmacy has informed me that they only carry one brand of medication for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.  The new generic brand has an offensive odor to it. The pharmacist tells me that all the Metformin pills have that odor, but I never had any before with the odor. The odor pill has a number on it R-102. The last pills before that I used had a number IP -218. What is that? IP?

    Medication humor?

    The name brand that I took before being regulated to generic, with a choice, before, didn't have an odor to it.

    I contacted my doctor to get a change in the meds because I actually took the new pills for two days before noticing my blood sugar levels had gone up to 180 and 147 respectively. I then called the pharmacist to tell him that they sent me the wrong meds. He told me it was just a different brand but that if there was a problem with the manufacturer they would eventually investigate. (Legislate)

    The government will legislate the  need for the legislation to possibly order an inquiry into a needs to possibly look into the problem and decide if more committees need to be set up to analyze the problem to warrant more legislation.

    The lobbyists tell them what to do.

    So another Obamacare trick to start people off with name brand meds and then to be forced into generics and then forced into lesser quality generics. The lesser quality generics will probably work but you have to take three times the amount to get the same effect. Older people might make a mistake and get back on their normal brands after being put on the three for one dose and then overdose.

    Companies make more money that way, though. With Obamacare that's the important part.

  I'll be calling my doctor...

   I believe that in the case of life threatening  conditions the pills patients need should be the name brands for the cost of generics.


Constitutionalizing dehumanization. Abortion and Planned Parenthood

The Constitutionality of dehumanization.

The main argument against abortion and Planned Parenthood should have always been the matter of Constitutionalizing dehumanization.
Dehumanization was openly and blatantly a part of the abortion argument.
The dehumanization of the unborn baby was the cornerstone of the principal of the abortion industry.
So, it was a matter of Constitution under the laws against dehumanization. If dehumanization could have been proven to be a commonplace reason for promoting and legalizing abortion then the matter could have been classified as unconstitutional. With respect to the relativity of the promotion and advocacy of dehumanization.

     Considering the cover up of the highest fatality rates in the abortion statistics, world wide. (In America) Very sad, but true.

     It came down to the matter of whether or not dehumanization could be accepted constitutionally. And the scientist determination, that the  unborn baby was a fetus and not human,  a thing, not human. That the baby magically transformed into a human lifeform (with rights) after it was born. That ultimately is what made abortion legal. Simply because the baby was classified as non human in the womb of the mother.

    In reality choice had nothing to do with the matter. Dehumanization made a matter of choosing to eliminate a thing, like a growth or tumor. And that choice was made by the patient to have the procedure to eliminate the *growth by a doctor preforming the abortion.

    Dehumanization also allowed for the distribution of body parts through laboratories. Even though the baby was outside of the mother, it was dead. And therefor not human. But was a baby that died during childbirth a human?

    Could the parents or doctors do whatever they wanted to the body of that baby since it was dead? The answer of course is no.

    Constitutionally.