Now, although others weigh-in on the subject, particularly celebrities, we’ll not at this time consider their remarks or activism. After all, celebrities that have too much time on their hands and too few brains in their heads can’t by themselves raise your taxes or take away your livelihood. They are usually just pretty people that can carry a tune or memorize lines and will generally pooh-pooh anything not 90210 anyway. So, these are not the ones to turn-to on subjects that impact our lives (their lives are better you know – hence, they’re better – and not subject to what’s good for the masses).

Back to the point. Power is an addiction. Nothing wrong with that I suppose, as long as it is balanced out with something; whether it be economic, political or cultural. Meaning, it is ok if Wal-Mart has a large market share because we have the economic control to balance out, or even take away, their power. The same goes for political positions and cultural/social hierarchy. Politicians in power (or those yearning for it) are very susceptible to wanting to stay (or get) there. But we the people control who comes, who stays and who goes. Politicians of course know this. Usually it makes for a fair, albeit not perfect, system.

As for the choices…

Stupid is as stupid does.

If one continuously says or does foolish things, one is probably foolish. The whole ‘looks like a duck, walks like a duck…’ thing. I know, not I believe, I know the jury is still out. Not the social jury mind you, the real jury. The scientific jury. There are highly credible, well-learned scientists that support the climate ‘situation.’ There are also enough highly credible, well-learned scientists that are skeptical. To me, that means there is no consensus. That also means there is no such thing as, “the debate is over” spouted by lots and lots of politicos. That’s stupid, just like: the debate is over -- the world is flat; the debate is over -- there will never be a need for more than five computers in the world; the debate is over -- the sun revolves around the Earth.

Facts are not beliefs. Facts are solid, incontrovertible things. Gravity; fire is hot; calico cats are female; these are facts. The world is warming at an alarming rate; catastrophic weather patterns are signs of it; man is responsible; these are beliefs. Beliefs based on, in many cases, skewed data from unreliable models with fuzzy inputs. Being unable to see facts because of limited mental capacity is horribly dangerous for an elected official’s represented populace. It is also downright irresponsible for us to put these thought-challenged people in positions of public trust.

Crazy? Yeah, crazy like a fox.

So, what could possibly be the reason for advocating such drastic measures that so many politicians have championed if they weren’t just plain, well, stupid? Well, knowing that many politicians have advanced degrees in law, business or management, it either narrows the choices or tells us our education system is terribly flawed. Since I think of our universities as leading institutions of fine education (even if they are decidedly left-leaning), I’ll propose premeditation and calculation. Telling you and me how bad things are and what they are going to do to fix it is Political Science 101 (several of our elected representatives also have degrees in this discipline, I might add). “The sky is falling and if you just listen to me, it’ll be ok” has a familiar ring to it. It has been used in just about every election free people have voted in since free people have been voting. We are sometimes suckers for the pitch.

Those with a plan to capture or maintain power ‘they were born to have,’ (several really think they’re royalty) far outnumber either those in the first choice presented here or in the choices not yet written about. Calculated, intentional acts to consolidate a power base by the use of junk science and political strongarmsmanship is despicable and aught not be rewarded with things such as Oscars.

Honesty. Such a lonely word.

What is to be said about the honest guys and gals? Well, they’re boring. Really. We seem to want and need excitement. We seem to want to hear about the doom and gloom. If a politician tells us things aren’t as bad as they seem, we immediately put them in the also ran category. There are a few that take a more active role in, if not disputing, at least in trying to bring to a discussion, the aspects of climate change. You can look them up. They are few though, I must warn you.

Fear is a futhermucker.

If you haven’t heard your politician talking about climate change, he or she is probably just afraid. Sorry to be the one to have to tell you. You see, a Republican that disputes the supposedly horrible ramifications of global warming is in the pocket of evil big business and a Democrat that doesn’t embrace the talking points, isn’t in-line with the party and therefore blacklisted. Simple as that. For many, ignoring the discussion, or what should be a discussion, is simply a matter of political survival.

It doesn’t have to be this way though.

You can demand honesty. You can demand a scientific discussion. You can demand that officials defend their positions publicly. You can ask your official just where they stand on the issue.

If you say you don’t want to drive to work in a fog of smog, I’m with you. If you say you don’t want your rivers and streams to be cluttered with plastic bags, I’m with you. But, if you tell me I can’t drive what I want, if you tell me I can’t eat my beloved steak, if you tell me we have to shut down our economy, if you tell me you’re sentencing the poorest countries on the planet to bronze age conditions forever because of models that predict the weather 50 to 100 years from now, to the degree no less, yet can’t tell me if it’s going to rain on Wednesday, you’re on your own.

From Michael Moore’s documenta-scary “Sicko” to Barrack Obama’s “…right to affordable healthcare” to Hillary Clinton’s “…ensure[ing] Americans have the healthcare they need,” one would tend to believe we are all standing with one foot in the grave while the other is firmly planted on a banana peel at the same time an SUV driven by an insurance agent bears-down on us—laughing fiendishly of course—at a high rate of speed.

How have we ever survived without their stewardship? How could the Founding Fathers have missed this right? We neeeeed it after all and if we need it, government should provide it! Three cheers for mommy and daddy government (and don’t forget fat Uncle Mike)!

So, what happens to a medical system run by a government bureaucracy? Ask the men and women who did time at Walter Reed. Better yet, ask someone from one of the “success stories” that are so often referenced as examples for us stupid Americans (by decidedly smarter Americans—don't believe 'em, just ask ‘em).

From a country where “free” social programs are paid for by such things as $7.21 per gallon gas prices, comes this short example:

In Germany, if one earns less than 47, 250 euros ($65, 230) per year (not exactly in the poor haus), one is automatically enrolled in the government healthcare system. Compulsory care for your own good…”Take your liverwurst oil Hans, it is gut for you” “Ja mummy, I vill! I vill!”

Not only is the German government saying you must be insured but, it is saying you must be covered by their plan! Wait, wait, it gets better…you get to pay for it too! Ge-sund-heit! This “free” service costs around 13% of income. Even Tony Soprano never muscled-out a sweet deal like this. But of course, he’s Italian. I mean, Italian-American.

Once one adds income tax—21%, social security—8.5%, unemployment—2% and unification tax—1.16%, it comes to a grand total of 45.66%! This does not even count church tax which thankfully, you can opt out of (around 2%).

As if this was not enough (is it ever?), add 19% value-added-tax on nearly everything you purchase. (Some things, such as unprepared food, are at around half this percentage.) Tax rates do differ a bit depending on income but in this example, someone just below the magic $65,000 per year gets to keep about $35,400 of his hard earned schnitzel. So, after starting-off at a respectable 65k, one is left with 35k to spend. Of that, subtract anywhere from 9 to 19% for consumption. And the best part of these types of “free,” “caring” and “right thing to do” social entitlement systems are that they cover less and less each year while costs go up and up. What a great plan to emulate!

To properly comprehend Universal Healthcare, pull out the word universe and think of the late astrobiologist Carl Sagan (come on, it’s not that big of a leap) and remember the catch phrase “buh-illions and buh-illions.”