Why Taiwan Matters to the US and the World

Europe hoped for a nice China that would trade with the world and be satisfied. But China did not become that country. They steal territory and are preparing for war while helping Russia in their invasion of Ukraine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Xj423eEY60

One chart shows how Hurricane Helene turned into a monstrous storm

“This record ocean heat is a clear reason why Hurricane Helene — which has been traveling through the Gulf on its way to Florida — has intensified so quickly. Put simply, hotter water evaporates more readily, and rising columns of warm, moist air from that evaporation are ultimately what drive hurricanes and their rapid intensification.”

https://www.vox.com/climate/373874/hurricane-helene-florida-forecast-warm-ocean-water

America keeps choosing poverty — but it doesn’t have to

“The short-lived pandemic-era child tax credit expansion cut child poverty by more than a third. And the bolstered social safety net from Covid relief bills nearly halved child poverty in a single year — the sharpest drop on record. Once those programs expired, however, the child poverty rate bounced right back.”

“Homeowners are told that their homes are the key to building wealth, so they reasonably want their property values to keep rising. For renters, on the other hand, any increase in housing costs is a loss. So while renters might want lawmakers to make room for more housing, homeowners often resist any change that could make their home prices stagnate.”

https://www.vox.com/policy/374488/ending-poverty-america-policy-choice

Why is US health care like this?

” In most rich countries, people don’t have to worry about sifting through a dozen different health plans — and they don’t live in fear of losing their health care after losing a job, and they receive more affordable, higher-quality care than Americans do. The paradox of the world’s wealthiest nation having one of the weakest health systems among developed nations has long been a vexing policy problem — without an easy solution.”

“American health insurance, as we think of it today, started to take shape in the 1920s, as the medical profession was being standardized and modern hospitals were being built. Some employers started offering payments for hospital-based services as a perk for their workers. Companies had large groups of employees, some in good health and some in bad, to spread the risk and make the finances work much like modern-day insurance does.
This system soon became entrenched enough that President Franklin D. Roosevelt bypassed plans to include national health insurance as part of the New Deal. Then came World War II, along with government-mandated wage controls for employees in the private sector to keep the war machine moving. Barred from offering raises to motivate their workers, companies started pumping up their health benefits — and the government agreed to exempt those benefits both from wage controls and taxes.

By the 1950s, employer-sponsored insurance had become popular among those who received it and progressive labor unions urged the government to make the tax exemption permanent. Congress agreed, enshrining in 1954 the subsidy for company health plans in federal law. Doctors and hospitals, whose industry was growing into the leviathan that it is today, became accustomed to working with private insurers rather than with the government directly.

Today, these work-based health plans still cover roughly half of all Americans.”

“The problem with the employer-based system was it left out too many people because they didn’t work or didn’t have a job that offered health insurance. To start filling in the gaps, in 1965, Congress created Medicare and Medicaid to cover two of the biggest groups of people who lacked coverage: seniors and people in poverty.

After that expansion, we had a system that covered most Americans — which made it hard to change, because people feared losing what they had.

Those fears, supported by the medical industry’s campaign against “socialized medicine,” doomed the health care overhauls proposed by presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton that would have consolidated most Americans into a national insurance scheme. Certain tendencies in American culture — consumerism and trust in private markets — made it easier to persuade the public that they’d lose under a government-run health plan.

Meanwhile, the US health care system still had obvious holes. Rather than threaten the status quo, policymakers added new patches.

CHIP was approved in the 1990s, covering children of working-class families whose incomes were not low enough to get Medicaid. (Their parents, however, were often left without any coverage at all.) The 2010 Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, was designed to fill that gap by covering people who didn’t receive health insurance through their jobs but didn’t qualify for Medicaid.

Yet even after a half-dozen rounds of incremental health reform over five decades, about one in 12 people in the US lack health coverage and Americans are much more likely than people in other developed nations to say they skip medical care because of the cost.”

“Other countries built their health care systems more deliberately.

After World War II, the United Kingdom sought to extend medical security to all its citizens, creating the National Health Service; many other European governments followed suit.

A half-century later, another wealthy island nation made the same choice. Taiwan, building a modern democracy after decades of authoritarian rule, scrapped a fractured, inequitable health system to set up a national insurance program that would cover everyone. It was a proclamation of solidarity after a tumultuous military dictatorship had come to an end.

Not all countries have opted for a single government program, but their systems are still simpler than America’s and cover the entire population. In 2006, the Netherlands opted to trade a dysfunctional two-tiered insurance system for a universal program that relied on private coverage but was nevertheless designed to insure everybody. The uninsured rate there today is less than 1 percent (some people opt out).

But the US? We’ve never paused to build a fairer, simpler, uniform health system.”

https://www.vox.com/explain-it-to-me/375082/us-health-insurance-plans-medicare-medicaid

Get used to more absurdly hot Octobers

“This October heat is largely the result of a phenomenon currently happening in the West known as a “heat dome” — which involves a high-pressure system trapping heat closer to the Earth’s surface.
Long-term climate change, however, is likely exacerbating the heat dome’s effects. Greenhouse gasses that fuel climate change also trap heat, leading to higher temperatures that can make an already hot heat dome even hotter.

According to a study from the climate nonprofit Climate Central, 91 million people in the US experienced 30 or more “risky heat days” this summer, and those were made twice as likely because of climate change. The organization describes “risky heat” days as ones warmer than “90 percent of temperatures observed in a local area over the 1991-2020 period.”

Climate change has also led to higher temperatures around the world throughout this past year, including a particularly hot summer in states across the US. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), this was the country’s fourth-hottest summer on record, when looking at temperatures from June through August 2024. During those months, the average temperature in the contiguous United States was 73.8 degrees Fahrenheit — 2.5 degrees above the average from 1991-2020.

That was noticeable in multiple places, including Phoenix, which experienced more than 100 consecutive days of 100-degree heat or higher this year. Globally, the world could also be on track to hit its hottest year on record.

In addition to getting warmer, summers are getting longer, with Drexel University researchers noting that seasonal temperatures are lasting 30 days longer than they have in the past, meaning well into October for some in the northern hemisphere.

That means fall doesn’t bring the same relief from heat it once did. As a September Climate Central report, which looked at 242 US cities, found, fall temperatures went up 2.5 degrees, on average, between 1970 and 2023.

The warmer fall days could have major implications for natural disasters, especially for wildfires in places like Southern California, where heat amplifies the risk of potential blazes on drier landscapes that have also seen decades of fire suppression. While wildfire season has typically run from early summer into the fall, it has the potential to go longer as higher temperatures persist.

More days with higher temperatures can also translate to increased cases of heat stroke, cardiovascular problems caused by stress on the heart, and respiratory challenges. They can extend, too, the window when people experience seasonal allergies.

Additionally, warmer falls could affect plant and animal preparations for hibernation, severely shortening the time they usually take to prepare for winter, and delaying processes like changes in foliage and leaf dropping. Farmers may increasingly need to shift planting and harvesting schedules for different crops as temperatures continue to fluctuate as well.

Short of major changes needed to curb human contributions to global warming, this year’s October heat waves aren’t likely to be a fluke. As Mann told Vox, “The warming will continue until we bring carbon emissions to zero.””

https://www.vox.com/climate/375996/extreme-heat-october-climate-change

We should call the Republican justices “Republicans” and not “conservatives”

“It’s astonishing how little thought many past presidents put into their Supreme Court appointments. In the past, justices were often chosen for idiosyncratic personal reasons, or to please a particular interest group or voting bloc, and without much, if any, inquiry into how the nominee was likely to decide cases.
President Woodrow Wilson, for example, appointed Justice James Clark McReynolds — an awful judge and an even worse human being who Time magazine once described as a “savagely sarcastic, incredibly reactionary Puritan anti-Semite” — in large part because Wilson found McReynolds, who was US attorney general before he joined the Court, to be so obnoxious that the president promoted him to get him out of the Cabinet.

Similarly, President Dwight Eisenhower complained late in his presidency that appointing Justice William Brennan, one of the most consequential left-liberal jurists in American history, to the Supreme Court was among the biggest mistakes he made in office. But Ike’s White House never vetted Brennan for his ideological views, and Brennan was selected largely because Eisenhower was running for reelection when he made the nomination, and he thought that appointing a Catholic like Brennan would appeal to Catholic voters.

Even in 1990, after top Republican officials had published lengthy documents laying out their party’s vision for the Constitution, they still hadn’t developed a reliable system for vetting Supreme Court nominees to ensure that they were on board with the party’s agenda. Bush chose the center-left Justice Souter over other, more right-wing candidates largely due to misguided advice from his top legal advisers.

As journalist Jan Crawford Greenburg reported in a 2007 book, Souter beat out early frontrunner Ken Starr — the same Ken Starr who would go on to hound President Bill Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky investigation — in large part because Bush’s right-wing advisers feared that Starr was too liberal. According to Crawford Greenburg, then-Deputy Attorney General Bill Barr opposed Starr because of a low-stakes dispute over “a federal law that permitted private citizens to sue for fraud against the federal government.”

Much has changed since 1990. On the Republican side, the Federalist Society — a kind of bar association for right-wing lawyers with chapters on most law school campuses and in most major cities — now starts vetting law students for elite legal jobs almost as soon as they begin their studies. And Republican presidents can rely on the Federalist Society to identify ideologically reliable candidates for the bench. As Trump said in 2016 while campaigning for president, “We’re going to have great judges, conservative, all picked by the Federalist Society.”

Nor is the Federalist Society the only way Republicans vet potential Supreme Court nominees. Every single one of the Court’s current Republican members except for Barrett previously served as a political appointee in a GOP administration, roles that allowed high-level Republicans to observe their work and probe their views.

Democrats’ vetting process, meanwhile, is more informal. But it’s been no less successful in identifying Supreme Court nominees who reliably embrace their party’s stance on the most contentious issues. The last Democrat appointed to the Supreme Court who broke with the party’s pro-abortion rights stance, for example, was Justice Byron White — a dissenter in Roe v. Wade appointed by President John F. Kennedy in 1962.

The result is a modern-day Supreme Court where every single member was carefully selected by their party to ensure that they will not stray on any of the issues where the two parties have settled views. Every Republican justice voted to abolish affirmative action on nearly all university campuses, with every Democratic justice in dissent. Every Republican voted to give the leader of the Republican Party broad immunity from criminal prosecution, with every Democrat in dissent. Every Republican except for Roberts voted to overrule Roe (and Roberts merely argued that the Court should have waited a little longer), while every Democrat dissented.”

https://www.vox.com/scotus/371361/supreme-court-call-republican-justices-republicans