Still, there lies the heart of the problem. Poor families that have trouble to let the ends meet will often postphone a doctersvisit.
And who can blame them? Visit a docter can often wait more easily than paying the rent.
Result is that their health is undermined and serious problems arise. They wait, in other words, to see the doctor until it can't wait anymore. An this means that the problems have gotten beyond a simple docter's visit. International studies have shown time and time again that (just like with a car) having people look afther their health properly is many times more cost effective than only treating the life treathning cases.

So giving poor people access to good, preventive medical care is actually good for everyone. The health of the poor and the wallet of everyone.
This means that what you see now is only the beginning. As the program goes further the total cost of health care will continue to go down because people are helped before they get seriously ill.

For such a modern tank the measurement units seem like they came from the stone age.

Don't say "my wife ignores me as if I were a block of Lego"
but say "her oxytocin levels are getting low again"

That's what I tried to explain to my neighbour when my AirDrone 'inexplicably' went through his greenhouse, destroying his precious, award winning rose.

Well I, for one, am used to a comma. But if we were to switch to decimal point I don't see the big problem. We are used to see them from time to time anyway.

I know this because I was there!
All the high brass of the Windows platform were in the room. Thinking about the name for the next Windows.

After minutes and minutes of hard work ('if you go by the book minuts may seem like hours') they still couldn't figure it out.

In desperation they decided to abandone the Windows name (forgetting that most of them had Windows in their function title 'Windows brand manager'' etc.)
I believe there was alcohol involved (at least there was for me, which explains why my memory is not entirely reliable on this).
After several hours (!) of mulling this over they came with the following propositions to replace the 'Windows' brand.
* Air - sounds good but they feared a lawsuite from Apple.
* Floor - ok but a tad too obvious
* Fenestra - Sounds good but do they really think the rest of the world doesn't know latin???
* Ground - Doesn't sound quite right. ...
* Coffee stain (don't even ask)

When the meeting was adjourned (they ran out of drinks) only one conclusion was clear: Bill the intern was going to make the report.

In desperation Bill mentioned in his report that they were 'kind of looking for a Windows X'. And unwittingly resolved the whole issue.

Look out for LED's because in the past some guys made the incandescent light bulbs burn shorter!
Bad LED!
We should all continue to use the incandescent light bulbs!!

No No NO! Nothing compares to you. NOTHING!

Well, contrary to what you would have thought we are quite picky...
We only clean up YOUR shit. Never our own!

..the time of my life. No I never felt like this before..
Welcome to the world of consulting!

The dark side of the source they are...
Once you go down that development path, forever will it dominate your release destiny.

So you worked on that project too then?
Seriously, are some of the fears you mentioned not present in almost every project? My experience is that the more a project goes wrong the more the 'forces' mentioned above tend to make things worse. In that case only strong leadership that holds on to a clear vision and keeps the team away from 'the blame game' is the only way out.
If not: run. Don't walk away. Run.

Great post!
What I often do is refer to the IPCC's documents website. They have 3 major workgroups. WGI is about the physical science. In their 5th Summary for Policymakers (SPM) they explain in 28 pages what the evidences for global warming are how the climate models stack up against the prediction.
In WG II they discus the impact of the global warming on our planet and our way of life (economie, argriculture, sea level rising, storms...)
In the WGIII they try to see what we could do to limit the damage.
Each of the WG has a fifth SPM document (available from the main page of the website) of about 30 pages that give scientifically founded answers in laymen terms to the most common denier question: are we sure there is global warming? Are we sure it is man-made? Are we sure there will be a big impact?

From the IPPC WG1 (which deals with the physical science behind the global warming) SPM report (Summary for Policymakers): "The ocean has absorbed
about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification (see Figure SPM.4)"
So the oceans compensate, to a large extend, for the emissions in CO2. But the acidification is not without risk and the ocean is likely not to do that for ever. Hence the importance of this new measurement. It could be an indication that the compensation effect of the oceans is coming at an end. That would mean that the CO2 levels are about the rise much more quickly the coming years.

A.k.a. very bad news (but you won't care about it I guess).

I respond to your post because it seems to me you are still suseptible for reason-based arguments.

If you look for evidence or as the GP states a 'textbook' you could simply start with the latest IPPC reports. Start with the SPM (Summary for Policymakers) (find the 5th report of WG1 the physical science basis, WG2 Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability and WG3 Mitigation of Climate Change here, here and here respectively. All these links can be found on the main page of the IPPC http://www.ipcc.ch

In it you will find the answers to the most common questions asked by deniers: how big is the evidence for global warming? How sure are we that the warming is the result of human activity? What are the consequences? And last but not least: what can we do to reduce the impact?

If you are unconvinced by the figures, maps, graphs and plain language of these documents: they copiously refer to the full report (also available from the main page) where you can readup on the background for each and every conclusion they make. Still not conviced? The full report refers on it's turn to underlying publications etc. And if you're this deep down into the matter that you feel you can question the validity of individual publications: contact the authors and put forward you questions to them.