CO Dems want Single Payer Health Insurance. Again. A most astounding thing: NPR reports that EV's have trouble in the cold. NPR! Percent increase in risk needs to be put relative to current risk.
Like the idea of single-payer state health insurance?
It's a bit early in the year, but let's dig out a metaphor: like the crocuses rising every Spring, the Democrats running this state are yet again chasing their perennial dream of single-payer (government run) health insurance in Colorado.
They keep playing around like this and we'll soon have it (likely with all kinds of progressive goodies in there like including those here illegally and abortion paid for).
I have written before about how the legislative cycle seems to work.
--Year 1 is a study
--Year 2 is a bill
--Year 3 is an expansion of same
Guess where the bill linked below puts us in the cycle? Year 1. If you look at the screenshot attached you'll see exactly what I mean.
The wrinkle on this effort (at least as far as this neophyte can tell) is that the study will be done, and model legislation drafted, by the good folks over at CDPHE and just be about how to pay.
That way, you know, we can say it was designed by (capital s) Science. Polis can again do his routine of "reluctantly" signing it because it's based on (note the capitals again) The Data.
And when it bankrupts the state all the politicians can just point to CDPHE and say "it was him!"
Oh, and it won’t just stay with this either. This is the thin end of the wedge. Once the payments move over to the government …
This bill is on my list to testify/email about. As of this writing it's assigned to a committee but there's no hearing set. If that changes, I'll update. If this is a concern or passion of yours, bookmark the bill and check back in every couple days.
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1075
Wait a tick, EV’s struggle in the cold? Golly I think they worked just fine. Everywhere. All the time.
I was today years old when lefty news outlet NPR recognized that EV's have limitations in the cold.
Has the world gone topsy turvy? I mean, my God! What's next? Animals wearing pants?!
First chink in the armor Ted.
https://www.npr.org/2024/01/16/1224913698/teslas-chicago-charging-extreme-cold?fbclid=IwAR0dSlb3dnW1JkfL7SM_B1Zri95lg5-5OF9LF9j4M3ihNXSamW-t86oZ3I8
Percent increase in risk needs to be put relative to current risk.
Yes, your risk does increase by [fill in the blank percent], but you must also ask where it started and put the whole number in context.
I was listening to something the other day about colon cancer and it went into detail on a common cancer claim: namely that eating red (and/or processed, I've seen both) meat raises your colon cancer risk.
To give you an example with some numbers in it, take a look at screenshot 1 from the first link below.
According to studies, eating 50 g or so of processed meats (about a hot dog, maybe a slice of thick-cut bacon) a day, or 100g of red meat per (about a quarter pound patty), will increase your risk of colon cancer by 17%.
That number feels high, meaning alarming. If you're like most people, those numbers may pop into your head next time you order a hot dog or quarter pounder. It will (again, if you're like most) likely evaporate after that, returning at random times but not really changing your consumption habits.
The question is: should it? The thing about statistics like these is that all you have here is a percent increase and not a percent risk.
To get a full picture, you need to understand the percent risk in the first place. In other words, where do I start when I increase. Going from 65% up to 76% is quite a bit different than going from 4.3% up to 5.1%.
In one you go from 2/3 to 3/4 chance. In the other 1/25 up to 1/20.
And the latter is exactly what happens with that hot dog. Yes, your risk does go up by 17%, but it goes up from 4.3% to 5.1%. See screenshot 2 from the second link below for the number I got re. the overall colon cancer risk.
I didn't write this to belittle colon cancer (I won't give details, but let's leave it at saying there's some family history there), and I'm not going to comment about anyone's choices re. meat, hot dogs, bacon or etc.
I wrote this to make the point that simply knowing a percent increase is not enough. When you see numbers about increased risk, you should follow up by asking where it starts. You won't have a complete picture if you don't.
https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/cancer-carcinogenicity-of-the-consumption-of-red-meat-and-processed-meat#:~:text=An%20analysis%20of%20data%20from,colorectal%20cancer%20by%20about%2018%25
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/colon-rectal-cancer/about/key-statistics.html#:~:text=Overall%2C%20the%20lifetime%20risk%20of,risk%20factors%20for%20colorectal%20cancer