General Discussion

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)

19. Oh, yes. And we know for sure that ISIS, for just one,

Fri Nov 6, 2015, 01:43 PM

Nov 2015

has been trying to take down parts of our grid -- unsuccessfully so far. It's apparently technically very, very difficult to actually manage because of the complexity of our slapped-together, piecemeal "systems" -- the reason one of the hundreds of attempts each year has not already succeeded, but no expert believes it will not happen. The questions are when, where, how bad. A whole region or regions down for weeks to months is a real possibility.

I'm reading Ted Koppel's new book, Lights Out, now. (Why I'm distracted into talking about this.) He obviously wrote it to be fairly quick and easy reading in hopes of making more people aware, but it's entertaining enough and discusses some things I hadn't already read about. Because of the disastrous effects of deregulation in the energy sector, we're actually even less secure now than our previous failed levels.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

22 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Corporate Case for Single Payer [View all] eridani Nov 2015 OP

I have always tried to argue this point Sherman A1 Nov 2015 #1

I think I know why corporations don't want single payer. Efilroft Sul Nov 2015 #5

Exactly!! Great post. (eom) CanSocDem Nov 2015 #6

They would have to pay workers more to get them to stay. alarimer Nov 2015 #7

Absolutely. Efilroft Sul Nov 2015 #10

For sure that's part of it. Many are also run by conservatives, though, Hortensis Nov 2015 #14

That's bloody stupid on the power companies' part. Efilroft Sul Nov 2015 #18

Oh, yes. And we know for sure that ISIS, for just one, Hortensis Nov 2015 #19

Thanks for the tip on Koppel's book. Efilroft Sul Nov 2015 #20

Single payer is far cheaper and saves lives. There is no (worthy) debate. Live and Learn Nov 2015 #2

Why is he paying 33% overhead? Recursion Nov 2015 #3

No, it's 33%. By cutting things out of the definition, you can get a lower number n/t eridani Nov 2015 #4

What about the ACA's 80/20 rule that requires 80% of all Hortensis Nov 2015 #15

Insurance companies are quite adept at renaming overhead as care n/t eridani Nov 2015 #16

Yes, I'm not seeing news about widespread collusion by Hortensis Nov 2015 #17

I remember Toyota picking Canada over Alabama (2006) because they had health care. B Calm Nov 2015 #8

Health care IS a human right. polly7 Nov 2015 #9

Our health system is collapsing ...its reality lovuian Nov 2015 #11

The GOP will bring it to us zipplewrath Nov 2015 #12

That is what happened in Taiwan in the 90s. The left opposition proposed it, and eridani Nov 2015 #13

Some good references on this eridani Nov 2015 #21

You would think corporations would be all over the GOP to fight for single-payer. Vinca Nov 2015 #22