';

AnswersKit.com

What good is new health care when Global warming is going to wipe out most people anyway?

answer7

According the liberal facts on Global warming. Shouldn’t Obama be pitching trillions for stopping Global warming 1st? What’s the point of getting someone life saving surgery when the planet is going to be a disaster?

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (2 votes cast)
What good is new health care when Global warming is going to wipe out most people anyway?, 9.5 out of 10 based on 2 ratings

14 answers to “What good is new health care when Global warming is going to wipe out most people anyway?”
  1. Captain Parker says:

    We will still need health care while living in boats.

  2. KatrinaLimited says:

    LOL…exactly we should be digging down deep to buy carbon credits from Gore. For the love.

    God Bless America

  3. Libs should car pool with Ted K says:

    The ” health care ” legislation is to prevent costly life saving surgery. “maybe instead you can just take a pain killer” B.O.

  4. guru says:

    Fatalists, geez.

    The sun is going to go nova too, so let’s all just slit our wrists.

  5. carmenlafond says:

    If that is the argument we should just stop doing everything.

  6. Robert H says:

    By making people well and able to work, then there is more money freed up to deal with climate change because of less money being diverted to welfare for people who can’t work because they are sick. And they are sick because HMO ask for tonnes of money for inadequate care.

  7. prekinpdx says:

    Sure, Joe. Let’s throw trillions at climate change and new energy technologies that get us off oil and carbon. Sounds awesome. Cool?

  8. Philip McCrevice says:

    Cap and tax will slow global warming.

    Of course, it will also cause millions to lose their jobs, but hey, they’ll breath easier riding their bikes to the unemployment line.

  9. DUDE!!! says:

    you may have a point , but i think i would have afordable health care until that happens which might take another 100 years.

  10. CaptainFreon says:

    Holy Cow!

    I am a planet killer! I drive a gas guzzling, ozone depleting, ice cap melting, fume belching big frigging truck. Blame me.

  11. leo lion says:

    he figures it will take 1 million or so years to get that hot so why not control our lives now

  12. pissedoffbastard13 says:

    Give it up man. Back in the ’60′s the eco-freakos were saying we’d all be dead of pollution by now. Didn’t exactly work out the way they expected, you know? So I, for one, don’t expect them to be any more accurate now! Where I live (Southern Illinois) we’re coming off the coolest summer in my memory (and I’m 57). I ran my a/c two weeks in June, and not at all in July or August. Global warming my @ss! We’re probably headed for another ice age!

  13. L says:

    That’s like asking, “What good are Neo-Natzis when we have Republicans?”

  14. rustyram78 says:

    Spend trillions on stopping global warming? Wow. You have no real concern for humanity do you?
    First, let’s debunk MANMADE global warming or climate change, whatever it’s being called this hour.
    Gore’s computer models predicted that after 1997 the temperature would forever rise on an even keel. Since 1998 the planet has been cooling, while we have seen an increase in that ordorless, colorless, non-toxic, naturally occuring, trace gas Carbon Dioxide.
    CO2 levels have risen, the temperature has fallen. Theory of CO2 driving climate is WRONG. END OF STORY.
    Now for the 11 billion that has been spent of research and green technology to combat a fictional modern day orson welles martian attack, shouldn’t it be spent on people instead?
    My God, we still have people in third world countries that have no potable water, food shortages, inadequate medical treatments, no educational system and lack of proper shelter.
    And you wan to spend “trillions” of dollars in hopes of keeping the temperature from rising a few degrees.
    The planet has been warmer than it is today in the recent past. A scientific consensus does not equate scientific fact. Consensus is a political word, not scientific.
    Those who make the statement “the science is settled” are sure to have a short life. Science is never settled and nature is ALWAYS changing and evolving.
    I say we spend the “trillions” of dollars on HUMAN BEINGS LIVING WORSE THAN OUR HOUSEPETS, than on an attempt at another martian attack.
    Jonathan Swift once said “It is a useless thing to reason a man out of a thing he never reasoned into”.

If you are not satisfied with the above answers, tell us below and we will give you right answer

 

AnswersKit does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any user content on this website. The contents on this website is powered by Yahoo Answers.

Read previous post:
What are the potential feedback implications of global warming with respect to these methane sources?

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas (GHG) thought to be abundant in the deep ocean and in permafrost. Compare the...

Close