$120 billion a year in health costs

According to the National Coalition on Health Care, as of last year

The average employer-sponsored premium for a family of four costs close to $13,400 a year, and the employee foots about 27 percent of this cost.

So let's do some arithmetic. At $120 billion, which is a low estimate - the report says at least - that figure would cover just under 9 million families of four with health insurance through corporate policies. Or, to put it another way, about 36,000,000 could be covered even through corporate plans, which deliver less medical treatment as a percentage of overall costs than do either the VA or Medicare

the premature deaths of nearly 20,000 people - I won't do all the math on this one, but the average family income in 2008 was someplace around 50,000. IF we assume that half of those premature deaths came from earners of wages of 30,000/year - a figure that may well be low - that represents a loss of income of 300 billion dollars. Whatever the loss of income, it also represents a severe shortfall of revenue to the various levels of government.

And the human toll is far greater than merely the financial.

The report’s authors called these "hidden’’ costs that government officials and other decision makers, including electric companies, may not recognize. They said there was little doubt that the $120 billion "substantially underestimates’’ the damages from US energy production and use because it did not include the harm to ecosystems and the effects of climate change and other pollutants, such as mercury. "Our analysis does indicate that regulatory actions can significantly affect energy related damages,’’ the report said.

harm to ecosystems> like their entire destruction in the production of coal, as Appalachia is getting destroyed by Mountain Top Removal; or the devastation of food chains as critical parts can no longer survive in areas which have warmed - it is not just polar bears we are losing; the threat of the loss of productivity of food as the climate changes, water patterns change . . .

We have seen major corporations that will no longer support the Chamber in its position as a denier of global warming. That is good, but it is insufficient, especially as, according the column, the Chamber still spends $35 million annually lobbying, with much of that intended to block regulation of emission.

Our approach to economics has for too long assumed that we did not have to consider downstream costs - the business sector has argued that regulation will make things too costly, ignoring the fact that their activity - and ours - imposes heavy downstream costs. It should not be surprising to find that the net effect of regulation may be less expensive when all factors are considered.

All of that is economics. I think we must include the moral argument.

If we know that our activities result in deaths, does that not make us complicit in those deaths? The study speaks only of the deaths caused by medical conditions, not necessarily the deaths caused by military conflict in the attempt to obtain and dominant fossil fuels. It does not necessarily include the deaths that will occur because of the loss of food productivity as the climate changes.

In military terms those deaths - and the destruction of the habitat - would be considered "collateral damage" - perhaps unfortunate but necessary in the pursuit of a more important goal.

But how is air conditioning our houses and driving behemoths like Hummers a more important goal than human life and the environment in which we all live, in which many around the world have almost no electricity, much less air conditioning?

It is not funny. Perhaps that part of the title did not grab you. Perhaps the title itself was too opaque, although I attempted to provide the appropriate information with that first quote.

The issues that confront us are all inexorably intertwined. We are concerned about energy and the environment. We argue mightily over health care. People are rightly concerned about livelihood. Too often the focus of our political disputes is narrowed so much that the interconnections are not visible, not included in the discourse.

I am a teacher. My biggest issue now is not education, but health. I have seen the tragic consequences of lack of access to health care. This week my local NBC station finally ran its piece on the Grundy medical mission in which I participated, and you can see it here A number of my colleagues and students at school commented on seeing it, so I showed it to my AP classes yesterday. I immediately had students asking how they could help (since none are yet 18 they are limited in their ability to volunteer). While I commend their spirit, I wonder if the only way to address health is like that, after the fact, with volunteering. Should not we be preventing health problems, including those that do not become visible for years?

And should we not be honest about the costs imposed by the actions we choose, as businesses, as individuals, and in our political choices?

If we are not honest, the results will be in conformity with the title of this diary. Because, let's be at least this honest: if we consider the costs, financial, environmental and human, of NOT regulating when we know the damage being done, it is not funny - it is tragic, and immoral.

Peace.

Update in form of a PS: Adam Siegel reminds me by email that this is International Day of Climate Action, and thus it would be appropriate as a follow on to reading Jackson and/or this diary to visit 350.org

and again, Peace.