Vaktathi wrote: Man who once illegally covertly sold weapons to Iran to fund Nicaraguan terrorists, who is now somehow head of the NRA, also now thinks Trump should sanction anyone who does business with Iran.
Oliver North, who was once at the center of a controversy in which he sold weapons to Tehran to fund a rebel group in Nicaragua, said on Tuesday that President Trump should sanction anyone who does business with Iran, Fox News reported.
"If we sanction [Iran] again, we ought to sanction anybody else who does business with them," North, who was recently elected as the new leader of the NRA, told Fox News. "That'll stop the Euros from helping to bail them out while they cheat on this program."
I have...no words.
Bloody hell! Talk about a blast from the past, because that is a name I have not heard in a long time... Talk about the dead walking the earth...
I think there is a certain strand in Washington that will never forgive Iran for humiliating the USA back in the 1970s.
The 1970s was a terrible decade for American prestige: Vietnam, Watergate etc etc but the hostage crisis was the cherry on the gak.
And If I were the North Koreans I'd be getting some nukes ASAP before 50,000 US Marines hit Inchon...
How can anybody trust the USA after this? Especially a POTUS who conducts foreign affairs by Twitter?
It was said that King Charles I of England would always act on the advice of the last person to talk to him, even if it meant reversing a previous decision.
It was said that King Charles I of England would always act on the advice of the last person to talk to him, even if it meant reversing a previous decision.
I see a certain similarity here with Trump.
Trump get all his ideas from hypnotoad... I mean Fox News.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I think there is a certain strand in Washington that will never forgive Iran for humiliating the USA back in the 1970s.
Stop ignoring the Iranian actors in Syria/Yemen/Africa now.
This regime is not something that warrants the sweetheart deal agreed by previous administration.
The 1970s was a terrible decade for American prestige: Vietnam, Watergate etc etc but the hostage crisis was the cherry on the gak.
True dat.
And If I were the North Koreans I'd be getting some nukes ASAP before 50,000 US Marines hit Inchon...
They already *have* nukes.
How can anybody trust the USA after this?
How 'bout this. Recognize that *this* was Obama's agreement. Not the "USA".
You do that, it'll make sense.
If the international community wanted something more permanent, that can survive the whims of a POTUS every 4 years, then work to get it ratified as a TREATY as well.
The arguments that Congress wouldn't pass it DOESN'T GIVE OBAMA carte blanche to enter into a binding international agreement.
It couldn't even PASS the 40% approval rating in congress. It was/is deeply unpopular by the public.
Especially a POTUS who conducts foreign affairs by Twitter?
Can't argue against that... 99% of Trump's self-inflicted wounds are conducted there.
It was said that King Charles I of England would always act on the advice of the last person to talk to him, even if it meant reversing a previous decision.
Well, now there is no point for anyone talking to Trump unless he has 60 senators in tow to agree with whatever he proposes. If you are talking to POTUS or SoS, you’re not actually talking to the US.
How 'bout this. Recognize that *this* was Obama's agreement. Not the "USA".
You do that, it'll make sense.
Must have forgotten that time that Obama as a private citizen went over to Iran to craft an international deal.
whembly wrote: If the international community wanted something more permanent, that can survive the whims of a POTUS every 4 years, then work to get it ratified as a TREATY as well.
The arguments that Congress wouldn't pass it DOESN'T GIVE OBAMA carte blanche to enter into a binding international agreement.
It couldn't even PASS the 40% approval rating in congress. It was/is deeply unpopular by the public.
Again with the treaty. If Obama wanted to ratify peace on earth it would have been voted down cause Obama!
Deeply unpopular amongst people being fed lies and voting for Trump? Well then Joe Schmo on the street is always the guy you should ask for complicated international issues.
d-usa wrote: Well, now there is no point for anyone talking to Trump unless he has 60 senators in tow to agree with whatever he proposes. If you are talking to POTUS or SoS, you’re not actually talking to the US.
You can have an executive agreement... just don't expect the next administration to honor it to the 't'.
C'mon D... the US Constitution isn't a state secret. Every international government knows this.
I mean, are you telling me that President Warren wouldn't rescind a Trump agreement at her discretion?
Whembly, as I said earlier, GW Bush was the original architect of this Iran deal.
A fact that was mentioned time and time again by John Kerry during the Senate/Congress hearings.
I've banged on about that many a time on these forums, and it was all brought about by me having to wait all day for a workman to turn up, but I'm glad it happened, because what I learned from those hearings
is a perfect antidote to the bullgak I've heard coming out of the right-wing US media these past days.
I'm reasonably informed that GW Bush is not Obama. I'm also led to believe that GW Bush was a Republican and that Obama was a Democrat, and that they are two separate people.
Crazy, I know, but in this fake news age, I might be wrong...
How 'bout this. Recognize that *this* was Obama's agreement. Not the "USA".
You do that, it'll make sense.
Must have forgotten that time that Obama as a private citizen went over to Iran to craft an international deal.
President does not have authority to unilaterally enter the US into a binding agreement.
Are you disputing any of this?
whembly wrote: If the international community wanted something more permanent, that can survive the whims of a POTUS every 4 years, then work to get it ratified as a TREATY as well.
The arguments that Congress wouldn't pass it DOESN'T GIVE OBAMA carte blanche to enter into a binding international agreement.
It couldn't even PASS the 40% approval rating in congress. It was/is deeply unpopular by the public.
Again with the treaty. If Obama wanted to ratify peace on earth it would have been voted down cause Obama!
Deeply unpopular amongst people being fed lies and voting for Trump? Well then Joe Schmo on the street is always the guy you should ask for complicated international issues.
You keep strawmanning here... Are you sure this isn't simply a reflection reaction by you to defend Obama's policy? Or, are you honest-to-god believe this Iran deal was a good deal for the US?
I get why the other P+5 nations are pissed, because they want access to Iranian markets... but, if the US goal is to eliminate the Iran's ability from developing nukes, this agreement was flawed from the get-go.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Whembly, as I said earlier, GW Bush was the original architect of this Iran deal.
A fact that was mentioned time and time again by John Kerry during the Senate/Congress hearings.
I've banged on about that many a time on these forums, and it was all brought about by me having to wait all day for a workman to turn up, but I'm glad it happened, because what I learned from those hearings
is a perfect antidote to the bullgak I've heard coming out of the right-wing US media these past days.
I'm reasonably informed that GW Bush is not Obama. I'm also led to believe that GW Bush was a Republican and that Obama was a Democrat, and that they are two separate people.
Crazy, I know, but in this fake news age, I might be wrong...
The final Iran deal looks nothing like Dubya's overture...
That's like saying ObamaCare was a Heritage plan. The idea may have started there... but the end result of the plan are virtually unrecognizable from the original form. So, it's disingenuous to claim, "hey, it was *his* idea! why you no like me when I do it??? HATER!".
You need to stop banging on those publicized Senate/Congress hearings. They're a side-show... the real governance happens outside of the cameras.
Sure, it was "Obama's" agreement...in his capacity as President of the United States, negotiated through the state department in good faith with the P5+1 group.
This continal attempt to blame Obama for this is silly. It's the very definition of the futurama "technically correct" joke. Ultimately, the US made an agreement, involving lots of careful negotiation over many years with partners, allies and rivals that Trump chose to blow up, without any buy in from anyone else (and ensuring that Iran will have ready and wlling workarounds for ang US sanctions)...because reasons, while setting a precedent for US agreements to not be worth squat after a new election.
d-usa wrote: So we agree that any Trump deal is worthless and that there is no point dealing with him.
His word means something as long as his POTUS... afterwards, it's up to the next POTUS to either continue it or rescind it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: At this point, if I was NK, I would sit down with Trump and then ask “why are you here? I need to take someone with permanent power, where is Mitch?”
whembly wrote: If the international community wanted something more permanent, that can survive the whims of a POTUS every 4 years, then work to get it ratified as a TREATY as well.
The arguments that Congress wouldn't pass it DOESN'T GIVE OBAMA carte blanche to enter into a binding international agreement.
It couldn't even PASS the 40% approval rating in congress. It was/is deeply unpopular by the public.
Again with the treaty. If Obama wanted to ratify peace on earth it would have been voted down cause Obama!
Deeply unpopular amongst people being fed lies and voting for Trump? Well then Joe Schmo on the street is always the guy you should ask for complicated international issues.
You keep strawmanning here... Are you sure this isn't simply a reflection reaction by you to defend Obama's policy? Or, are you honest-to-god believe this Iran deal was a good deal for the US?
I get why the other P+5 nations are pissed, because they want access to Iranian markets... but, if the US goal is to eliminate the Iran's ability from developing nukes, this agreement was flawed from the get-go.
Obama's policy, you do realize the EU which I am part of also backed it independently? It was a good deal for all of us, because at least we had some insight in what was happening instead of going back on the Rumsfeld tour.
If the US goal is to eliminate Iran's ability then the Iran deal was a great start. Normalizing relations and pulling Iran into the US sphere would have been a great way to make Iran back off nukes, as US beligerence has been the primary motivator for them.
But it worked so well on preventing North Korea getting nukes so what do I know right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: At this point, if I was NK, I would sit down with Trump and then ask “why are you here? I need to take someone with permanent power, where is Mitch?”
Feth, I just laughed out loud in a train full of people
Vaktathi wrote: Sure, it was "Obama's" agreement...in his capacity as President of the United States, negotiated through the state department in good faith with the P5+1 group.
This continal attempt to blame Obama for this is silly. It's the very definition of the futurama "technically correct" joke. Ultimately, the US made an agreement, involving lots of careful negotiation over many years with partners, allies and rivals that Trump chose to blow up, without any buy in from anyone else (and ensuring that Iran will have ready and wlling workarounds for ang US sanctions)...because reasons, while setting a precedent for US agreements to not be worth squat after a new election.
Yeah, trust takes years to gain, seconds to squander. I'm not arguing for a minute that the Iran deal was perfect, it wasn't.
But if you were really concerned with what Iran was really up to, does it not make sense to have the ready made excuse of inspectors to sneak other things in at the same time, just to get a feel for the situation?
Vaktathi wrote: Sure, it was "Obama's" agreement...in his capacity as President of the United States, negotiated through the state department in good faith with the P5+1 group.
This continal attempt to blame Obama for this is silly. It's the very definition of the futurama "technically correct" joke. Ultimately, the US made an agreement, involving lots of careful negotiation over many years with partners, allies and rivals that Trump chose to blow up, without any buy in from anyone else (and ensuring that Iran will have ready and wlling workarounds for ang US sanctions)...because reasons, while setting a precedent for US agreements to not be worth squat after a new election.
Yeah, trust takes years to gain, seconds to squander. I'm not arguing for a minute that the Iran deal was perfect, it wasn't.
But if you were really concerned with what Iran was really up to, does it not make sense to have the ready made excuse of inspectors to sneak other things in at the same time, just to get a feel for the situation?
There is no place for sound logic in the Trump administration, just Grima Wormtongues and people who nod yes convincingly.
Vaktathi wrote: Sure, it was "Obama's" agreement...in his capacity as President of the United States, negotiated through the state department in good faith with the P5+1 group.
This continal attempt to blame Obama for this is silly. It's the very definition of the futurama "technically correct" joke. Ultimately, the US made an agreement, involving lots of careful negotiation over many years with partners, allies and rivals that Trump chose to blow up, without any buy in from anyone else (and ensuring that Iran will have ready and wlling workarounds for ang US sanctions)...because reasons, while setting a precedent for US agreements to not be worth squat after a new election.
Yeah, trust takes years to gain, seconds to squander. I'm not arguing for a minute that the Iran deal was perfect, it wasn't.
But if you were really concerned with what Iran was really up to, does it not make sense to have the ready made excuse of inspectors to sneak other things in at the same time, just to get a feel for the situation?
There is no place for sound logic in the Trump administration, just Grima Wormtongues and people who nod yes convincingly.
Sadly, it's not unique to the USA, as British politics has shown us.
As for Trump, it's like he's on permanent campaign mode. Maybe that's all he knows?
Vaktathi wrote: Sure, it was "Obama's" agreement...in his capacity as President of the United States, negotiated through the state department in good faith with the P5+1 group.
This continal attempt to blame Obama for this is silly. It's the very definition of the futurama "technically correct" joke. Ultimately, the US made an agreement, involving lots of careful negotiation over many years with partners, allies and rivals that Trump chose to blow up, without any buy in from anyone else (and ensuring that Iran will have ready and wlling workarounds for ang US sanctions)...because reasons, while setting a precedent for US agreements to not be worth squat after a new election.
Yeah, trust takes years to gain, seconds to squander. I'm not arguing for a minute that the Iran deal was perfect, it wasn't.
But if you were really concerned with what Iran was really up to, does it not make sense to have the ready made excuse of inspectors to sneak other things in at the same time, just to get a feel for the situation?
There is no place for sound logic in the Trump administration, just Grima Wormtongues and people who nod yes convincingly.
Sadly, it's not unique to the USA, as British politics has shown us.
As for Trump, it's like he's on permanent campaign mode. Maybe that's all he knows?
True, but British politics isn't likely to invade Iran soon either. One is worse than the other.
As for Trump, he doesn't have the interest in actually doing a complicated job. He just wants the attention it gets him. Campaigning is the only part he actually like until he gets his military parades.
The South Korean PM would disagree with you there.
This is a few pages too late, but this is very wrong. The quote was mistranslated and lost it's subtlety what he was saying was "we don't care about any awards, we just want peace".
Edit:
aftli_work: Sounds like, in other words, "He can have the thing - we don't care and we're not interested in that. We're just here to make peace.", and that nuance got lost in translation.
Matt5327: Sounds to me more like "if anyone should get the prize it's Trump, but that's not what we're going after. " Still, lost nuance. It'd be nice to have a Korean user to read the original quote.
accidentalpolitics: “노벨상은 트럼프 대통령이 받고 우리는 평화만 가져오면 된다”
Seems to me aftli_work’s interpretation is more correct. I’d have to hear the intonation to be more sure, but he doesn’t really say “should” just “Trump can take the Nobel prize, we just need to bring peace”.
Maybe if he said something like, “노벨상은 트럼프 대통령이 받아야한다. 우리는 평화를 가져오고.” It would fit your interpretation.
Anyone else excited to see the absolute proof of the tail wagging the dog? Trump tweets the "91% negative news" factoid that was completely made up by Fox the night before? The absolute proof of Trump's malignant narcissism? That he lives alternative reality where, regardless of facts, all negative news = fake news?
I'm sure that this time will be the last straw that finally pulls the wool from the Trumpet's eyes, right? All this unbelievable insanity, straight from the golden calf's mouth? Sigh. Of course it won't.
Not whembly specifically here, but I do wonder if “Obama does not speak for America” and “Obama does not make deals for America” is an extension of “Obama is not an American” for some.
NinthMusketeer wrote: If the same Iran deal was made under Bush and Obama had ended it Whembly would be outraged at the undermining of US credibility.
No... because I can look at this deal in isolation from who advocated for it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Not whembly specifically here, but I do wonder if “Obama does not speak for America” and “Obama does not make deals for America” is an extension of “Obama is not an American” for some.
...just wanted to jump in and say that Obama is unequivocally and American.
Those how claims he's not, or he's a Muslim Kenyan or something makes me wanna roll my eyes such that I can see the back of my head.
Looks like Cohen just got in even deeper trouble, by accepting a bunch of money that looks like structured payments (obviously illegal), and a lot of it is connected to Russians or Russian owned businesses by the looks of it.
d-usa wrote: Not whembly specifically here, but I do wonder if “Obama does not speak for America” and “Obama does not make deals for America” is an extension of “Obama is not an American” for some.
From that vile nest of ill-informed Canadian sponsored socialist propaganda, Boingboing.
To return to international news, The UK has now backed the Iran deal too. This leaves Trump isolated from everyone except Saudi Arabia and Netanyahu.
It will be interesting to see how much damage Trump inflicts on his close allies to try and compel them to support his initiative they all told him was a bad idea.
Well, I hope somebody in Washington knows what language the Persians speak, because it sure as hell ain't Arabic....
Locally, I have had people ask me if the language being spoken was Arabic when the language spoken was -
French (which sounds nothing like Arabic). (More accurately Quebecois - Canadian French.)
Swahili (which sounds nothing like Arabic).
Greek (which sounds nothing like any other language I can name....)
And Dutch (which kinda sounds like German, a bit?).
Americans are amazingly insular about what we know about other cultures and languages.
sebster wrote: It's worth noting that TPP, the Paris Accord and now the Iran deal have all continued after the US has withdrawn. I think in each case there's been a judgement that Trump will go, and things will return to a kind of normal. I actually don't share that judgement, because I think Trump is far less of anomaly in Republican politics than people have yet realised. The fact you're here trying to defend his string of mistakes shows there is a decent base of Republican support that is perfectly okay with Trump's 'I do what I want for reasons I don't understand' brand of foreign policy.
To be fair people on both sides (though obviously weighted towards one) often use the sentiments of 'anomaly' and 'unprecedented' interchangeably. The reality is that Trump is unprecedented but not an anomaly; he is unusual in how bad he is but it isn't some random occurrence but rather the inevitable destination that a decent chunk of people have seen coming for some time. Almost anyone who is educated, follows politics, and isn't Republican has known this was coming. Whether they acknowledged that or tried to convince themselves otherwise is a different matter; I know a number of individuals who more or less knew this was coming deep down but really didn't want to believe that it would happen (can't really blame them).
This is why I think 2020 will be a pivotal year. Leaders who run an absolute clown car of a government aren't unknown, in American history or anywhere else. Democracy allows for that to happen, and it wouldn't be a true democracy if it didn't. The important thing will be, will the system correct itself? Or, will anyone care?
For democracy to work, there needs to be a point where the voters will realise a leader is bad for them and vote them out. If they fail to do that because of media bubbles, blind partisanship or apathy, then maybe democracy needs revision.
sebster wrote: It's worth noting that TPP, the Paris Accord and now the Iran deal have all continued after the US has withdrawn. I think in each case there's been a judgement that Trump will go, and things will return to a kind of normal. I actually don't share that judgement, because I think Trump is far less of anomaly in Republican politics than people have yet realised. The fact you're here trying to defend his string of mistakes shows there is a decent base of Republican support that is perfectly okay with Trump's 'I do what I want for reasons I don't understand' brand of foreign policy.
To be fair people on both sides (though obviously weighted towards one) often use the sentiments of 'anomaly' and 'unprecedented' interchangeably. The reality is that Trump is unprecedented but not an anomaly; he is unusual in how bad he is but it isn't some random occurrence but rather the inevitable destination that a decent chunk of people have seen coming for some time. Almost anyone who is educated, follows politics, and isn't Republican has known this was coming. Whether they acknowledged that or tried to convince themselves otherwise is a different matter; I know a number of individuals who more or less knew this was coming deep down but really didn't want to believe that it would happen (can't really blame them).
This is why I think 2020 will be a pivotal year. Leaders who run an absolute clown car of a government aren't unknown, in American history or anywhere else. Democracy allows for that to happen, and it wouldn't be a true democracy if it didn't. The important thing will be, will the system correct itself? Or, will anyone care?
For democracy to work, there needs to be a point where the voters will realise a leader is bad for them and vote them out. If they fail to do that because of media bubbles, blind partisanship or apathy, then maybe democracy needs revision.
whembly wrote: You can have an executive agreement... just don't expect the next administration to honor it to the 't'.
C'mon D... the US Constitution isn't a state secret. Every international government knows this.
That's not the point. As we tried explaining to you during the supreme court nomination debacle there's far more to government than RAW. The US constitution sets RAW, but the actual functioning of government depends on a whole mess of unwritten rules, well-established traditions, etc. And yes, you can break those precedents and cite RAW, but unless you're a narcissistic spray tanned child and/or Ayn Rand fan obsessed with destroying the government you only do it as a last resort in the most important of situations. You may get what you want in the moment, but at a high price in the future functioning of the government once the precedent you broke has been removed. That doesn't mean you can't ever do it, but you'd better be getting one hell of a return on your actions for it to be justified.
As a non-US example the UK still has a monarch with considerable power RAW. However, it also has an implicit understanding that the monarch is now a figurehead with no power, and they will not ever use the power they still have by RAW. Any use of said power would be legal RAW, but the consequences of it would likely be the UK abolishing the monarchy and completely revising its system of government. So, assuming a responsible adult remains the monarch and no Trump equivalent ever sits on the throne, that power will likely never be used. The monarch understands that any use of their power is an extreme last resort, to be used only in the most dire of circumstances where something needs to be done regardless of the cost. The implicit understanding, while not RAW, is not a frivolous thing that is to be tossed aside to win this week's political argument.
So where does that leave Trump? Is scrapping the Iran deal such an urgent priority that doing so is worth the cost of damaging all of the implicit understandings that the US government requires to operate, including the implicit understandings that when other countries negotiate with the US president that negotiation has value beyond the four-year term of the current president? Is it so important to end the Iran deal that we should be willing to pay a high price in all of the other deals that the US will be unable to negotiate because the credibility of our primary negotiator has been severely undermined? It's possible that the answer is yes, and that this is the time to break precedent and use the emergency RAW power. Or it's much more likely that this is Trump being an incompetent narcissist again, there is no carefully calculated decision that the Iran deal is an incredibly urgent problem that must be dealt with, and there is no long-term plan for handling the situation beyond giving Trump a "win" to brag about on Fox News this week and draw attention away from his various scandals. And I think it should be obvious why the second option is a terrifying one.
whembly wrote: You can have an executive agreement... just don't expect the next administration to honor it to the 't'.
C'mon D... the US Constitution isn't a state secret. Every international government knows this.
That's not the point. As we tried explaining to you during the supreme court nomination debacle there's far more to government than RAW. The US constitution sets RAW, but the actual functioning of government depends on a whole mess of unwritten rules, well-established traditions, etc. And yes, you can break those precedents and cite RAW, but unless you're a narcissistic spray tanned child and/or Ayn Rand fan obsessed with destroying the government you only do it as a last resort in the most important of situations. You may get what you want in the moment, but at a high price in the future functioning of the government once the precedent you broke has been removed. That doesn't mean you can't ever do it, but you'd better be getting one hell of a return on your actions for it to be justified.
As a non-US example the UK still has a monarch with considerable power RAW. However, it also has an implicit understanding that the monarch is now a figurehead with no power, and they will not ever use the power they still have by RAW. Any use of said power would be legal RAW, but the consequences of it would likely be the UK abolishing the monarchy and completely revising its system of government. So, assuming a responsible adult remains the monarch and no Trump equivalent ever sits on the throne, that power will likely never be used. The monarch understands that any use of their power is an extreme last resort, to be used only in the most dire of circumstances where something needs to be done regardless of the cost. The implicit understanding, while not RAW, is not a frivolous thing that is to be tossed aside to win this week's political argument.
So where does that leave Trump? Is scrapping the Iran deal such an urgent priority that doing so is worth the cost of damaging all of the implicit understandings that the US government requires to operate, including the implicit understandings that when other countries negotiate with the US president that negotiation has value beyond the four-year term of the current president? Is it so important to end the Iran deal that we should be willing to pay a high price in all of the other deals that the US will be unable to negotiate because the credibility of our primary negotiator has been severely undermined? It's possible that the answer is yes, and that this is the time to break precedent and use the emergency RAW power. Or it's much more likely that this is Trump being an incompetent narcissist again, there is no carefully calculated decision that the Iran deal is an incredibly urgent problem that must be dealt with, and there is no long-term plan for handling the situation beyond giving Trump a "win" to brag about on Fox News this week and draw attention away from his various scandals. And I think it should be obvious why the second option is a terrifying one.
I get your point... I really do.
But this can't be a surprise to you.
Private citizen Trump lamblasted this deal on day 1.
He *campaigned* on it.
Hell... most of the GOP candidates ran on getting us out of the deal. Even democratic bigwigs objected to the deal (Menendez, Schumer, etc...). The publicnever liked the deal.
He publicly HATED extending the agreement as statutorily required every 6 months. He made YUUUGE deal about it.
All of this was telegraphed, especially when Trump tapped Bolton and Pompeo for his administration...probably two of the biggest anti-JCPOA foreign policy wonks.
Now that we're out of JCPOA...nations will be put to a choice: You can have access to the US economy or you can have commerce with Iran. Just not both (though, I'd imagine waivers would be granted for existing contracts or something... otherwise, this'll be quite jarring). THIS is whats pissing off our European allies... as they know this is not a real choice and that their companies will lose out from accessing Iranian moolah. Has nothing to do with the agreement is "working" to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear weaponry.
Its quite... Trumpy. I'll admit...and if you despise Trump, this will upset you to no end.
I just wished he submitted the agreement for formal up/down treaty review, so that the world would know Congress would refuse to ratify it.
So, the other P+5 nations are in a big hissy fit... just like the Paris Accord.
Let this be a reminder to all of our allies and our adversaries that a president has no power unilaterally bind the USA to an international agreement. We give our word when we enter a treaty or enact legislations. Otherwise, you'll be at the mercy of the "pen" from each successive administration.
This isn't me playing RAW games... this is how all of this works.
Prestor Jon wrote: It undermines Trumps credibility but not the US. I don’t expect Iran to want to negotiate with Trump but if we have a new President in 2020 I don’t expect other nations to not trust that new POTUS because of stuff Trump did.
And by your grand theory, Iran would enter that negotiation accepting that it could very well be renegged on in 2024. Note that the current deal began in a process started by GW Bush, then expanded and finally realised by Obama. Getting these stuff in place can take years, so the idea that it is normal and accepted for these positions to be reversed every four years couldn't be more ridiculous.
Blair committed to sending troops and supporting the US invasion of Iraq so should I presume that the current PM will send troops to help invade Iran if Trump decides to do that?
You haven't even realised what the US has lost. Australia went with the US into Iraq, not because our PM individually made a choice, but because he went with the advice of the military and foreign policy staff that Australia should always remain on the side of the US. This was the Australian position because we had over generations found the US to be a steadfast ally that it was worth always supporting. And this wasn't just an Australian position, while not as strong as Australia, every other Western democracy held a position along those lines.
We all followed you in to Afghanistan, without question. Then it turned out Iraq was such a stupid endeavor that most allies wouldn't follow you in to that one, but it still didn't end the idea of following the US lead on further operations.
But that's now ending, very quickly. Now we have foreign leaders talking openly about what to do in a world where the US can't be relied upon as a stable world leader. This is a major shift in world politics, and you don't even realised it's happened, because all you think that matters is legally what a president is able to upend from his predecessor.
Prestor Jon wrote: I agree that Trump shouldn’t have backed out of the agreement because the agreement was good foreign policy. The US should have a better relationship with Iran that is important for the ME region and US interests. Backing out of the agreement undermines Trumps trustworthiness and makes him look weak and easily influenced by foreign interests (backing out makes the US look like a tool of KSA because this move really doesn’t help the US). The idea that this decision by Trump will undermine the ability of future presidents who aren’t Trump to make deals and agreements is hyperbolic.
If Trump was out of the blue I'd agree with that. But GW Bush was the disaster we all gave you a mulligan on. Now Trump is seen not as out of the blue, but as a continuation of a trend. Note there is nothing of any meaning coming out of the Republican party in opposition to Trump's foreign policy reversals, and the Republican base supports it (though backing out of the Iran deal is majority unpopular, and only about 60-40 among Republicans).
There is a large industry of US watchers outside of America, trying to figure out what American politics means for the rest of the world, and right now all the talk is about what we do without American leadership, because its looking like this kind of silliness may well become the norm in about half of US administrations.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: At least in my coworker's eyes, you have to look at KJU as having a singular goal - Stay in power at all costs. There is no retirement from his line of work. You either get a massive state funeral under the regime of your offspring or you get hung by piano wire in the public square. So there is nothing he won't do to make sure that happens. If that means playing nice until a bigger madman is out of power, he will.
It's a nice theory, but it ignores the reality that NK have alternated between heated rhetoric and coming to the table with every US president. There have been extensive talks before, and some of those talks even produced deals. The last deal was struck by Clinton, and fell apart during Bush's term when NK shifted back in to a hostile phase. Then NK shifted back in to a talking phase and had some talks with the Bush admin.
People are treating this latest round of talks as some historic, ground shifting event, but it's a wildly ignorant position. The only thing that is different so far is Trump agreeing to take part without NK first making concessions, something other presidents had insisted on under advice from the state department.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Makes me glad to have Mattis, Pompeo and Bolton on deck in this regard.
Mattis is a fine operator, Pompeo thinks Kim's name is 'Chairman Un' and Bolton is there to make Pompeo look smart.
Claiming you're glad the latter two are in this is playing imaginary politics.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I think there is a certain strand in Washington that will never forgive Iran for humiliating the USA back in the 1970s.
It's not just a Washington thing, the petty vendetta exists in Iran as well. In Tehran you can visit the former US embassy, it has been renamed 'The Den of Espionage', and inside Iran has preserved everything, so you can walk past some old vacuum tube computer with a label like 'Spy Satellite Computer'.
A few years ago when Iran got their hands on a US drone that either malfunctioned, was hacked or shot down, I can't remember, the Iranian government produced all these special replicas for kids to celebrate that great win over America. The ones made for girls were pink, which was a nice touch.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Stop ignoring the Iranian actors in Syria/Yemen/Africa now.
It is central component of bonkers conservative foreign policy that it is unacceptable that Iran would support proxies in regional conflicts, but Saudi Arabia supporting their own proxies in the same conflicts is just middle east politics. Bleh.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Also... Mitch's staff are getting checky these days:
The day before McConnell wouldn't even call Blankenship racist for directly calling McConnell's own wife a 'china person'. But after Blankenship lost McConnell got so very brave all of a sudden. What a pathetically weak man.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: You can have an executive agreement... just don't expect the next administration to honor it to the 't'.
C'mon D... the US Constitution isn't a state secret. Every international government knows this.
I mean, are you telling me that President Warren wouldn't rescind a Trump agreement at her discretion?
Are you trying to claim that before now the US was noted for suddenly reversing foreign policy positions and commitments? Do you think there is a debate in South Korea before each US election that SK needs a plan that doesn't involve US support, because maybe this next guy will be the president who will just walk away from US commitment to the peninsula?
You guys are arguing for the existence of fictional history. The US you are arguing for, of unstable, sudden shifts in foreign policy, that country never existed. So just stop with the silliness, please.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Ok, don't look surprised once Iran actually develops that bomb, cause they basically promised they would now that Trump reneged on the deal.
Which as much as I hate nuclear weapons is still the smart thing to do. US broke their part of bargain. Why reward that by still holding up on their part? Especially as they now have to face real possibility of US invasion in the future. Better to try to get nuclear arsenal as strong that is about only thing that can really protect them from invasion. Only way to be sure of that is have ability to hurt US directly enough they don't feel like invasion is worth it.
Some US academics of the Neorealist international relations approach actually advocate Iran getting nuclear weapons because it will tone down Iran and stabilize a region with only a single nuclear power as of now. ... ... ... .
The region contains four nuclear powers; Russia, Israel, Pakistan and India. I'm not sure if adding Iran would make this more stable or less.
India and Pakistan are properly southern Asia, not the Mideast. And strategically they are more worried about each other and China than Iran, because the terrain does not favor Iran moving in their direction. And the same terrain limits inhibit their interest in moving east.
Russia, of course, backs Syria in the region, but is definitely aware that it's nuclear options are heavily restrained by the probability of American retaliation. It's unlikely they'd risk us nuking their homeland if they nuke one of our allies in the region.
Israel, of course, does not care who it angers if they feel their back is to the wall, and they've occasionally been quite creative about defining what that means. Which effectively makes them the solo nuclear power in the region.
whembly wrote: You keep strawmanning here... Are you sure this isn't simply a reflection reaction by you to defend Obama's policy? Or, are you honest-to-god believe this Iran deal was a good deal for the US?
I get why the other P+5 nations are pissed, because they want access to Iranian markets... but, if the US goal is to eliminate the Iran's ability from developing nukes, this agreement was flawed from the get-go.
P+5? What is the 5 you're adding to the 'P'? This is ridiculous. It is P5+1. P5 is the five permanent security council members, and the +1 is Germany, because while they're not a permanent security member for obvious historical reasons, they're a major economic and foreign policy player, and essential to deals like this. Honestly, it is stuff like that which shows you don't actually read about this stuff. If you did that's not an error you'd make, because you wouldn't just be copying phrasing you don't understand and mangling it. Instead you just read political opinions from sources you know will give you reliable conservative babble, and that's no way to actually learn how any of this stuff works.
As to the actual argument you just made, it is pure junk. Yes, the Iran deal was good for the US, it was good for everyone. It involved Iran having to give up its nuclear program and commit to a constant regime of inspectors, and in exchange for nothing, Iran was just allowed to be a regular country.
As to why the other countries want to continue the Iran deal - its because Iran is acting in accordance with the deal. That isn't just the conclusion of the IAEA, it isn't just the opinion in France, Britain, Germany, Russia and China, it's also what Trump own national security team stated under oath before congress.
The only people who claim Iran is in breach is Trump and his mob of ditto head liars, and the evidence they have attempted to use to justify this does the remarkable job of being full of lies and still not making the case even if the lies were true. It's beyond pathetic.
I'm not sure where the Russian stuff will go, but just on the face of it we're looking at $4.4m in a very obvious pay to play set up. And to believe this was just Cohen making money out of his connection to Trump, we'd have to believe some incredible nonsense.
For instance, Novartis paid Cohen $1.2 million. Novartis claims after a single meeting it was clear it was a waste of time, but they kept paying Cohen because they didn't want to upset Trump. Trump claims he has no idea the payments happened, so we're asked to believe Novartis was concerned about upsetting Trump over payments he didn't know about. But it gets sillier. Because the Novartis CEO and Trump met several times, including at the CEO dinner at Davos. We're being asked to belief that Cohen was grifting millions for access, then Trump was doing the work of actually meeting with these people, without asking for anything for himself. That doesn't sound much like Trump. And then, of course, we've got Trump allowing sudden increases in drug costs, and no action at all on opioids, which benefit Novartis enormously. We're asked to believe that's a totally coincidental to these payments.
I don't know how much of what actually happened will be uncovered and proven, but I know that what's really been going on is some pretty obvious, straight up bribery.
Vaktathi wrote: Man who once illegally covertly sold weapons to Iran to fund Nicaraguan terrorists, who is now somehow head of the NRA, also now thinks Trump should sanction anyone who does business with Iran.
Oliver North, who was once at the center of a controversy in which he sold weapons to Tehran to fund a rebel group in Nicaragua, said on Tuesday that President Trump should sanction anyone who does business with Iran, Fox News reported.
"If we sanction [Iran] again, we ought to sanction anybody else who does business with them," North, who was recently elected as the new leader of the NRA, told Fox News. "That'll stop the Euros from helping to bail them out while they cheat on this program."
I have...no words.
Well since eu has said they will keep deal on i- trump decides on this full trade war between eu and us. Yey.
Oh and now israel claiming iran attacked them. Does us-israel invasion start sooner than i expected? I thought we would have few months at least
Novartis drops money in Cohen's shell company and despite his constant rhetoric on the opioid crisis, Trump does nothing. He declares a crisis, but its just words, there's no money, no proposed laws, and no directions given to government departments to do anything.
AT&T drops money in Cohen's shell company, and Ajit Pai ends net neutrality. AT&T went low ball though, and of course Trump has a hate on for CNN which might even exceed his love of money, so the merger with Time Warner still ended up in the courts. $200k doesn't buy much.
Now, maybe these things are coincidental. Afterall, Trump has been extremely generous to the corporate sector at large, so really any company that gave money to Trump's personal lawyer could probably be linked to some favour doled out by Trump. But the point is we don't know. Because Trump's personal lawyer set up a shell company and used it to take money from a web of corporate and foreign interests, while also making secret hush payments on Trump's behalf. It is also because despite his campaign rhetoric, Trump has been extremely generous to the corporate sector, dismantling environmental, telecoms & financial regs. It is now impossible to know if any of those moves came out of a commitment to standard Republican deregulation, or if it was due to bribes from special interests, because the impact is the same.
Private citizen Trump lamblasted this deal on day 1.
He *campaigned* on it.
Hell... most of the GOP candidates ran on getting us out of the deal. Even democratic bigwigs objected to the deal (Menendez, Schumer, etc...). The publicnever liked the deal.
He publicly HATED extending the agreement as statutorily required every 6 months. He made YUUUGE deal about it.
All of this was telegraphed, especially when Trump tapped Bolton and Pompeo for his administration...probably two of the biggest anti-JCPOA foreign policy wonks.
Now that we're out of JCPOA...nations will be put to a choice: You can have access to the US economy or you can have commerce with Iran. Just not both (though, I'd imagine waivers would be granted for existing contracts or something... otherwise, this'll be quite jarring). THIS is whats pissing off our European allies... as they know this is not a real choice and that their companies will lose out from accessing Iranian moolah. Has nothing to do with the agreement is "working" to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear weaponry.
Its quite... Trumpy. I'll admit...and if you despise Trump, this will upset you to no end.
I just wished he submitted the agreement for formal up/down treaty review, so that the world would know Congress would refuse to ratify it.
So, the other P+5 nations are in a big hissy fit... just like the Paris Accord.
Let this be a reminder to all of our allies and our adversaries that a president has no power unilaterally bind the USA to an international agreement. We give our word when we enter a treaty or enact legislations. Otherwise, you'll be at the mercy of the "pen" from each successive administration.
This isn't me playing RAW games... this is how all of this works.
This is insane. You're going to advocate an economic war with Europe and China just to piss off Iran? Is this some sort of elaborate murder-suicide ritual to end US Empire?
Also again, the general public is useless in complicated policy debates when they can't even identify Iran on a map.
Last week we learned that Devin Nunes didn't even bother to read the documents he had threatened motions of contempt against the DoJ to read. The same thing had happened back in February, when Nunes fought to access the FISA applications but never bothered to read them.
This week we get a new Nunes drama. He's back and he's subpoenaed more from the DoJ, and is once again threatening escalation after an initial rebuff. Due to the sensitive nature of the intel, we don't know exactly what was requested, but the refusal said the info would endanger the life of a key source. Nunes team said that the House Intel committee needs to be trusted with confidential intel, which was a bit incredible after the unredacted Comey memo leaked within 10 minutes of being presented, and that wasn't even a scandal everyone just accepted it as an obvious result of providing it to the House committee.
It's unclear what Nunes actually wants or why, but given the pattern of demanding intel so far, then not bothering to read it when it is given, it sure looks like all Nunes is trying to achieve is forcing Wray or Rosenstein out of power, to get a wedge in to the Mueller investigation.
Why he's doing this is the big guess. The chattering left has already concluded Nunes is corrupted by Russia, but that's not likely at all because when someone with direct Russia connections gets in a position of national importance, the IC makes sure they're gone. The IC don't leak much, but they'll do what's necessary to clear compromised people out. Look at what happened to Flynn, nothing like that has happened with Nunes. But at the same time if someone in Nunes' position was acting to harm the investigation as much as possible, their conduct would be indistinguishable from what Nunes has done.
So what is it? I don't know. Maybe the most important thing to note is that the whole time Nunes has been running his campaign of lies and dysfunction, Paul Ryan has had the power to replace him but has refused to even consider it. And it isn't just a Paul Ryan thing, Ryan's two most likely replacements, Kevin McCarthy and Steven Scalise both also love Nunes in the role. Whatever the hell Nunes is up to, he's doing it with the full support of the present and future leadership House Republicans.
Whatever Nunes' con is, it is the con game of the whole GOP.
sebster wrote:Novartis drops money in Cohen's shell company and despite his constant rhetoric on the opioid crisis, Trump does nothing. He declares a crisis, but its just words, there's no money, no proposed laws, and no directions given to government departments to do anything.
AT&T drops money in Cohen's shell company, and Ajit Pai ends net neutrality. AT&T went low ball though, and of course Trump has a hate on for CNN which might even exceed his love of money, so the merger with Time Warner still ended up in the courts. $200k doesn't buy much.
Now, maybe these things are coincidental.
What I think you're doing here is distracting from talking about the real issues, like the Clinton Foundation.
sebster wrote:Last week we learned that Devin Nunes didn't even bother to read the documents he had threatened motions of contempt against the DoJ to read. The same thing had happened back in February, when Nunes fought to access the FISA applications but never bothered to read them.
This week we get a new Nunes drama. He's back and he's subpoenaed more from the DoJ, and is once again threatening escalation after an initial rebuff. Due to the sensitive nature of the intel, we don't know exactly what was requested, but the refusal said the info would endanger the life of a key source. Nunes team said that the House Intel committee needs to be trusted with confidential intel, which was a bit incredible after the unredacted Comey memo leaked within 10 minutes of being presented, and that wasn't even a scandal everyone just accepted it as an obvious result of providing it to the House committee.
It's unclear what Nunes actually wants or why, but given the pattern of demanding intel so far, then not bothering to read it when it is given, it sure looks like all Nunes is trying to achieve is forcing Wray or Rosenstein out of power, to get a wedge in to the Mueller investigation.
This is exactly what the game plan is. Nunes is going to keep asking for more until Rod Rosenstein is forced to refuse to give them (something), and then he can use it as a pretext to impeach Rosenstein and then end the Mueller investigation.
Our government was not really built to handle this kind of cross-branch corruption, I don't think. So I have no idea how to fix something like this. I guess voting Nunes out when he comes up?
whembly wrote: Let this be a reminder to all of our allies and our adversaries that a president has no power unilaterally bind the USA to an international agreement. We give our word when we enter a treaty or enact legislations. Otherwise, you'll be at the mercy of the "pen" from each successive administration.
You are reading the words, but you are not understanding the point. Everyone here understands that, RAW, this is how it works. The president can not create a legally binding agreement, and the Iran deal was unpopular with the republican party. But that's completely missing the point. The question is not "can we do it", the question is "should we do it". Whether or not it is RAW it is a fact that the US president is a primary negotiator for the US, and the ability to make agreements with the US president without a formal treaty vote is a powerful tool for the US president and for the effective functioning of the US government.
What Trump is doing here is saying "ending the Iran deal is so immensely important to me that I am willing to sacrifice any power I have for future negotiations and simultaneously get my allies to hate me if that's what it takes to end the deal". Going forward why should anyone negotiate with Trump, or any future US president? GTFO and bring in the senate leaders, because the president is now a worthless figurehead. And why should our allies have a favorable opinion of us and be willing to make informal deals (such as Australia giving us military assistance despite the lack of a treaty agreement to do so, as sebster pointed out) if we aren't going to honor them? Is this genuinely a national crisis, so important that it is worth sacrificing so much to save our country from an unacceptable fate? Or is this, once again, the republican party accepting (or pretending they can ignore) catastrophic long-term consequences in exchange for winning the week's political argument? You don't do this over routine policy disagreements, if you're a responsible government run by functioning adults, but that's exactly what the republican party is doing.
By RAW, Trump can declassify the nuclear codes and give them to Putin in return for some Novichok, use that to nerve gas the Supreme Court, send troops into Mexico on a "police action" to get the money for his wall, then resign and have Mike Pence give him a presidential pardon.
Would it be a jolly good thing if he did all this because he had the idea that it would be a jolly good thing?
Clearly I am making an argumentum ad absurdum, but let's remember that Trump boasted he could shoot someone dead on 5th Avenue and get away with it because he is so popular.
Really, people need to come up with a proper argument that actually supports what Trump does, not a specious argument that he is allowed to do it and that makes it fine.
The Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2). The Constitution's framers gave the Senate a share of the treaty power in order to give the president the benefit of the Senate's advice and counsel, check presidential power, and safeguard the sovereignty of the states by giving each state an equal vote in the treatymaking process. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist no. 75, “the operation of treaties as laws, plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the office of making them.” The constitutional requirement that the Senate approve a treaty with a two-thirds vote means that successful treaties must gain support that overcomes partisan division. The two-thirds requirement adds to the burdens of the Senate leadership, and may also encourage opponents of a treaty to engage in a variety of dilatory tactics in hopes of obtaining sufficient votes to ensure its defeat.
Nevermind the merits or demerits of the Iran deal... this was Obama's agreement as POTUS. Since it wasn't a treaty, any such agreement is vulnerable to the next administration.
You can yell at that sky that "it's a poor way to run a government" all you want.
In the end, it doesn't matter what the rules in the USA are. It matters what the allies, enemies and neutral parties think in terms of geopolitics. I think it's pretty clear that Trump has damaged relationships with allies and showed neutrals and enemies that he is unreliable and treacherous.
The USA is weaker because of Trump's actions.
As an EU citizen, I'm pretty gloomy about it all. If there's another war, the USA will likely shirk it's humanitarian responsibilities and Europe will bear the brunt of any refugee crisis. And when the EU stands up to Trump he's going to hurt us economically. We will hurt the USA back, but they're economically bigger than us. But it's so pointless. None of this needs to be happening.
Da Boss wrote: We will hurt the USA back, but they're economically bigger than us.
They're actually not. The EU is bigger economically than the US.
I know we're a bigger market and so on, but I'm not sure you could say we're the bigger bloc economically because there's so many ways to look at it. But perhaps you're right. In any case, we'll hurt each other to no gain.
whembly wrote: Let this be a reminder to all of our allies and our adversaries that a president has no power unilaterally bind the USA to an international agreement. We give our word when we enter a treaty or enact legislations. Otherwise, you'll be at the mercy of the "pen" from each successive administration.
You are reading the words, but you are not understanding the point. Everyone here understands that, RAW, this is how it works. The president can not create a legally binding agreement, and the Iran deal was unpopular with the republican party.
It was deeply unpopular with many Democrats and the public at large.
But that's completely missing the point.
Absolutely not.
The question is not "can we do it", the question is "should we do it". Whether or not it is RAW it is a fact that the US president is a primary negotiator for the US, and the ability to make agreements with the US president without a formal treaty vote is a powerful tool for the US president and for the effective functioning of the US government.
...and the answer is "Yes, we shoulddo it".
What Trump is doing here is saying "ending the Iran deal is so immensely important to me that I am willing to sacrifice any power I have for future negotiations and simultaneously get my allies to hate me if that's what it takes to end the deal".
That's your opinion as how you think this occurred.
He's doing what he pledged to do... it's amazing that it took so long.
Going forward why should anyone negotiate with Trump,
He's the President... I'm sure foreign negotiators would factor that in whatever agreement they may make with Trump. Whether its some assurances down the road, or something tangible up front.
or any future US president?
Depends on who's the potus . But, really they won't have a choice...
GTFO and bring in the senate leaders, because the president is now a worthless figurehead.
Potus *is* a figurehead... that's his (her) job. And yes, nations need to be cognizant of the fact that if they want lasting agreements that'll withstand the mini-revolutions that US experiences every 4 years, then they'll need to tailor such agreement that would meet the current Senate's approval. That fact that this Iran deal would've never been passed by the GOP control Senate speaks volume regarding the merits of this deal.
And why should our allies have a favorable opinion of us and be willing to make informal deals (such as Australia giving us military assistance despite the lack of a treaty agreement to do so, as sebster pointed out) if we aren't going to honor them?
Because our allies *knows* that this was an agreement by Obama. As such they *know* that a contentious agreement like this would be vulnerable to the whims of the next administration. THIS. IS. BAKED. IN. Unless, they didn't give it much thought since they believe Hillary Clinton would easily win and thus continue such agreement. Just like me, they were wrong. Hopefully, in the future that negotiating such agreements will keep these lessons to heart.
Is this genuinely a national crisis, so important that it is worth sacrificing so much to save our country from an unacceptable fate? Or is this, once again, the republican party accepting (or pretending they can ignore) catastrophic long-term consequences in exchange for winning the week's political argument?
Both can be true.
You don't do this over routine policy disagreements, if you're a responsible government run by functioning adults, but that's exactly what the republican party is doing.
There's nothing routine about all of this.
If you, unambiguously think this is a good deal, then you will have problems with Trump doing this and think this'll harm future interactions.
Fine. Nothing I'm going to say will dissuade you of that fact.
The Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2). The Constitution's framers gave the Senate a share of the treaty power in order to give the president the benefit of the Senate's advice and counsel, check presidential power, and safeguard the sovereignty of the states by giving each state an equal vote in the treatymaking process. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist no. 75, “the operation of treaties as laws, plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the office of making them.” The constitutional requirement that the Senate approve a treaty with a two-thirds vote means that successful treaties must gain support that overcomes partisan division. The two-thirds requirement adds to the burdens of the Senate leadership, and may also encourage opponents of a treaty to engage in a variety of dilatory tactics in hopes of obtaining sufficient votes to ensure its defeat.
Nevermind the merits or demerits of the Iran deal... this was Obama's agreement as POTUS. Since it wasn't a treaty, any such agreement is vulnerable to the next administration.
You can yell at that sky that "it's a poor way to run a government" all you want.
I'm trying to explain how this works.
So your response to the statement "There is no good reason to not ratify the agreement in treaty form" is to say that to do so requires support in congress.
Completely ignoring the point actually being made that the opposition to doing so is not based on the actual merits of the agreement but rather hatred of the person who brokered it. You have still not provided any reason, based on the actual content of the agreement, IAEA inspection reports etc. that would support a position of not ratifying the deal.
Please, list any reasons to not ratify the agreement in treaty form, which are based purely on the content of the agreement, which haven't already been debunked in this thread.
As an EU citizen, I'm pretty gloomy about it all. If there's another war, the USA will likely shirk it's humanitarian responsibilities and Europe will bear the brunt of any refugee crisis. And when the EU stands up to Trump he's going to hurt us economically. We will hurt the USA back, but they're economically bigger than us. But it's so pointless. None of this needs to be happening.
Very true. Our American culture is caught in a moment of National Nihilism..... and I have no idea why.
You can see it in Politics, Pop Culture, Business, and Religion. I really don't understand why the most powerful country in the world is gripped by this National Nihilism.
The Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2). The Constitution's framers gave the Senate a share of the treaty power in order to give the president the benefit of the Senate's advice and counsel, check presidential power, and safeguard the sovereignty of the states by giving each state an equal vote in the treatymaking process. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist no. 75, “the operation of treaties as laws, plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the office of making them.” The constitutional requirement that the Senate approve a treaty with a two-thirds vote means that successful treaties must gain support that overcomes partisan division. The two-thirds requirement adds to the burdens of the Senate leadership, and may also encourage opponents of a treaty to engage in a variety of dilatory tactics in hopes of obtaining sufficient votes to ensure its defeat.
Nevermind the merits or demerits of the Iran deal... this was Obama's agreement as POTUS. Since it wasn't a treaty, any such agreement is vulnerable to the next administration.
You can yell at that sky that "it's a poor way to run a government" all you want.
I'm trying to explain how this works.
So your response to the statement "There is no good reason to not ratify the agreement in treaty form" is that to do so requires support in congress.
Completely ignoring the point actually being made that the opposition to doing so is not based on the actual merits of the agreement but rather hatred of the person who brokered it.
Please, list any reasons to not ratify the agreement in treaty form, which are based purely on the content of the agreement, which haven't already been debunked in this thread.
Iran dictated the terms of IAEA access; sauce which included asking permission for inspections;
violated the heavy water provisions; saucesaucesauce allowed Iran to deny access to military sites; sauce key point:
“[We] regard the maintaining of the Fordo facilities as a point of strength in the JCPOA, whereas they [the U.S. and EU3] did not even want the Fordo [facility to] exist and said we had to shut it down. [Newspaper and television] reporters are supposed to visit the various areas of this [Fordo] facility. If you have archive photos [of it], you can see how much the facility has changed and what activities are taking place, especially in the field of stable isotopes and in the various labs. We maintained Fordo in the JCPOA so that if we want, we can start enriching [uranium] to 20% within five days.”
the ability to take nearly a month’s time to clean up at sites;
didn't come clean regarding past/future plans for nukes per the agreement; sauce unwilling to renegotiate the sunset provisions;
numerous watchdogs reported violations; key bits'n'bob:
Iran has repeatedly tested the boundaries of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and in many cases crossed the line into a violation. Many of these violations and efforts to push the boundaries have not been reported by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in its quarterly reports to member states, reflecting a failing on its part. But the information is not classified, and we have reported on these violations and controversies in previous reports.
I mean, we're not dealing with good actors here...
whembly wrote: That fact that this Iran deal would've never been passed by the GOP control Senate speaks volume regarding the merits of this deal.
Are you sure the GOP opposition was based on the merits of the deal? Was their opposition to Obama's supreme court pick based on the merits of Merrick Garland? It wouldn't pass the GOP congress because almost nothing the Obama administration was for could pass through congress. Actually, even with Mango Jesus, almost nothing gets through the GOP congress....except for YUUUGE tax cuts for those already doing pretty well for themselves....
I hope this discussion goes on for another 10 pages with ever more elaborate italics, fonts, and colors.
10 pages, minimum.
He's said it would need to be ratified by the Senate while also conceding that Obama could get literally nothing ratified by the Senate due to their political strategy.
whembly wrote: That fact that this Iran deal would've never been passed by the GOP control Senate speaks volume regarding the merits of this deal.
Are you sure the GOP opposition was based on the merits of the deal? Was their opposition to Obama's supreme court pick based on the merits of Merrick Garland? It wouldn't pass the GOP congress because almost nothing the Obama administration was for could pass through congress. Actually, even with Mango Jesus, almost nothing gets through the GOP congress....except for YUUUGE tax cuts for those already doing pretty well for themselves....
This is my surprised face:
Even prominent democrats didn't approve of the deal... (see my previous posts)
But, yes the partisan climate at the time does heavily factor in whether or not the Senate would ratify something that Obama my put forth. I'm not disputing that.
Also...kudos on Mango Jesus™. Imma steal that!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I hope this discussion goes on for another 10 pages with ever more elaborate italics, fonts, and colors.
10 pages, minimum.
He's said it would need to be ratified by the Senate while also conceding that Obama could get literally nothing ratified by the Senate due to their political strategy.
What more is there to debate on that?
Actually... you're right. Ya'll mad at Trump for undoing Obama's legacy.
I'm not even bagging on you, so much as saying this is a clearly unbroachable impasse. Which it totally is! There is no middle ground between these two factions.
So far as being mad at The Fanta Menace for undoing Obama's legacy, well, elections have consequences. You have to accept November 2016 that as a Republican he's going to push GOP platform policies. Will there be an unfunded tax break highly favoring the very rich? Removing regulations meant to protect workers? Gutting social safety net programs and spending? Increased military spending and adventurism? Of course. Do I think those things are good ideas? No. However, that's all in the game, you know? That's normal. I think it's poor governance, but if the GOP pushes those things and the public wants them and they win an election on that platform then that is what the people wanted.
I'm less concerned with some of the stuff he has done politically which is well within his rights even if I disagree with it, and the lasting institutional attacks he has made on us having a functional government with the sole aim of protecting himself and his business's profits. All the off-brand Trumpian crazy gak, you know? The way that every department now has an incompetent grifter destroying it by design, the normalization of constant dishonesty, the wall of scandals that prevents any one scandal from being processed, the failure to protect our electoral system from outside influence, the damage done to an independent Justice Department, the way he is leveraging Nunes et al to defeat an investigation into his own corruption.... these are all things you're going to see again in the future; that box is not going to be closed again.
As others have said, I just can't see the benefits of pulling out rather than staying in and trying to build consensus among the nations involved to close loopholes and strengthen the parts deemed deficient.
Whats that you say? The other countries would never agree to that. Well what are the chances of that happening now?
Sorry but just like healthcare, this isn't about fixing whats wrong with the deal. What exactly is the plan now? Did i miss where they communicated a coherent strategy for what comes next? I for one don't feel very positive about the whole mess now that Bolton is no doubt pushing for boots on the ground.
JFC, do you read your own sources you post. The first article has nothing on violations;
Without confirming the reported agreement, U.S. officials argued that such shipments would neither endanger nor violate the Iran nuclear deal.
State Department spokesman John Kirby told reporters there was no prohibition on such imports by Iran and noted natural uranium “cannot be used ... for a weapon” in its original form.
The second two note that Iran did not violate its heavy water provisions. It goes over its limit and immediately transfers it out of Iran.
Iran has continued to inform the Agency about the inventory of heavy water in Iran and the
production of heavy water at the Heavy Water Production Plant (HWPP) and allowed the Agency to
monitor the quantities of Iran’s heavy water stocks and the amount of heavy water produced at the
HWPP (para. 15). On 13 and 14 February 2016, 20 metric tonnes of heavy water was verified and
sealed by the Agency in preparation for its shipment out of Iran. On 17 February, the Agency verified that Iran’s stock of heavy water had reached 130.9 metric tonnes.
The Agency confirms that, on 24 February 2016, the aforementioned 20 metric tonnes of heavy water had been shipped out of Iran,
bringing the stock of heavy water in Iran to below 130 metric tonnes (para. 14).
We're talking about an occasion where they went .1 over their 130 limit and prepared to ship out 5 metric tons the day after.
Iran has continued to inform the Agency about the inventory of heavy water in Iran and the production of heavy water at the Heavy Water Production Plant (HWPP)7
and allowed the Agency to monitor the quantities of Iran’s heavy water stocks and the amount of heavy water produced at the
HWPP (para. 15). On 25 October 2016, the Agency verified that Iran’s stock of heavy water had reached 130.0 metric tonnes (para. 14).
On 2 November 2016, the Director General expressed concerns related to Iran’s stock of heavy water to the Vice-President of Iran and President of the
Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, HE Ali Akbar Salehi. On 8 November 2016, the Agency verified that Iran’s stock of heavy water had reached 130.1 metric tonnes. In a letter received by the Agency on
9 November 2016, Iran informed the Agency of “Iran’s plan to make preparation for transfer of 5 metric tons of its nuclear grade heavy water” out of Iran.
The terms you want to set on Iran are completely ridiculous, no country is going to give you unlimited access to R&D labs and military facilities.
allowed Iran to deny access to military sites; sauce key point:
This isn't even from an independent watchdog man, its literally a translation of an interview with the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization on Iranian State TV. Who has an amazing interest to state that once the US pulls out of the Iran deal it can start right up. You didn't even read this did you?
Iran has repeatedly tested the boundaries of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and in many cases crossed the line into a violation. Many of these violations and efforts to push the boundaries have not been reported by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in its quarterly reports to member states, reflecting a failing on its part. But the information is not classified, and we have reported on these violations and controversies in previous reports.
I mean, we're not dealing with good actors here...
You forgot to selectively include the best part:
To the credit of the Trump administration, its policy to better enforce the deal appears to be improving Iranian compliance with the nuclear
limits. However, it is too soon to conclude that Iran is complying or will comply fully with the deal’s nuclear limits Iran can be expected to continue to push the deal’s limits, commit
violations, and seek interpretations that are unfounded. One should expect many struggles to keep Iran within the nuclear limits for the duration of the deal. With this in mind, and the fact that Iran is unlikely to ever develop an economically viable centrifuge plant, the P5+1 should seek a long term method to permanently curtail or severely
limit Iran’s enrichment program and prevent it from again posing the threat of a bomb program in the Middle East.
Oh yes, to the credit of the Trump admin. Even the sources you think back you up disagree with your "we should quit the deal" argument
Actually... you're right. Ya'll mad at Trump for undoing Obama's legacy.
But Trump hasn't actually done that. Obama's legacy is still there, in the fact that every other country involved is backing the deal. Obama still managed to curtail Iran's nuclear programme in a manner which satisfied all of the other big world players and Iran itself.
If Trump really wanted to undo Obama's legacy he'd set up a better deal and get everyone on board with that. Or at least get the other players to pull out and reimpose sanctions alongside the US.
But he can't do that. He doesn't have the skills himself and he doesn't have anyone around him with them either.
I mean, has Trump learned what the nuclear triad is yet?
Disciple of Fate wrote: Doesn't want Iran to build nuclear weapons, cancels the only deal preventing that.
"You only care about Trump dismantling Obama's legacy!"
Funny thing if obama had switched to reb with same ideas he would now be praising obama. Or if trump would switch to dem with no policy change whemb would be avid trump hater
so much as saying this is a clearly unbroachable impasse. Which it totally is! There is no middle ground between these two factions.
Well said. I'm going to drop this as this seems to be dominating the oxygen when there are other crazy gak to talk about.
So far as being mad at The Fanta Menace for undoing Obama's legacy, well, elections have consequences. You have to accept November 2016 that as a Republican he's going to push GOP platform policies. Will there be an unfunded tax break highly favoring the very rich? Removing regulations meant to protect workers? Gutting social safety net programs and spending? Increased military spending and adventurism? Of course. Do I think those things are good ideas? No. However, that's all in the game, you know? That's normal. I think it's poor governance, but if the GOP pushes those things and the public wants them and they win an election on that platform then that is what the people wanted.
And likely whenever the Democrats takes contol. The ebb & flows of politics.
As for "The Fanta Menace™"... I laughed out loud in my office I had to explain this to a couple of my collegues. Imma see if I can photoshop Trump's face on a can of fanta.
I'm less concerned with some of the stuff he has done politically which is well within his rights even if I disagree with it, and the lasting institutional attacks he has made on us having a functional government with the sole aim of protecting himself and his business's profits. All the off-brand Trumpian crazy gak, you know? The way that every department now has an incompetent grifter destroying it by design, the normalization of constant dishonesty, the wall of scandals that prevents any one scandal from being processed, the failure to protect our electoral system from outside influence, the damage done to an independent Justice Department, the way he is leveraging Nunes et al to defeat an investigation into his own corruption.... these are all things you're going to see again in the future; that box is not going to be closed again.
Can't really dispute all of this. I still think it'll get worse, with no end in sight in our lifetime. I don't even know where to start to change all of this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: Can...can he please just stop existing already?
Cheney calls for US to restart interrogation programs
Well Trump like those programs and his new CIA pick is just the woman with the experience to carry them out!
She did explicitly pledged to not allow a restart of “enhanced interrogation techniques”...
Which is kinda meaningless as its now explicitly barred by law and obama's executive order.
Forgive me if she lacks credibility after already having willingly carried out such programs. At least we have a pinkie promise of her to not do what she already was more than willing to do before. It was already against the law when they did it under Bush. Also the executive order was made by no longer President Obama, so that makes easily invalidated, as you like to say.
Well Trump like those programs and his new CIA pick is just the woman with the experience to carry them out!
She did explicitly pledged to not allow a restart of “enhanced interrogation techniques”...
Which is kinda meaningless as its now explicitly barred by law and obama's executive order.
Forgive me if she lacks credibility after already having willingly carried out such programs. At least we have a pinkie promise of her to not do what she already was more than willing to do before. It was already against the law when they did it under Bush. Also the executive order was made by no longer President Obama, so that makes easily invalidated, as you like to say.
You do know that John Brennen was her superior who sailed through his confirmation...eh?
It's meaningless for Trump rescind Obama's executive order on this as we have specific laws on the books to prohibit that.
Well Trump like those programs and his new CIA pick is just the woman with the experience to carry them out!
She did explicitly pledged to not allow a restart of “enhanced interrogation techniques”...
Which is kinda meaningless as its now explicitly barred by law and obama's executive order.
Forgive me if she lacks credibility after already having willingly carried out such programs. At least we have a pinkie promise of her to not do what she already was more than willing to do before. It was already against the law when they did it under Bush. Also the executive order was made by no longer President Obama, so that makes easily invalidated, as you like to say.
You do know that John Brennen was her superior who sailed through his confirmation...eh?
It's meaningless for Trump rescind Obama's executive order on this as we have specific laws on the books to prohibit that.
Under Obama who did not publicly advocate for enhanced interrogation unlike Trump.
Again you already had torture laws before Bush on this back in1994 when the US ratified the UN Convention against Torture. Bush violated international law ratified by the US. The law didn't do anything to stop this last time. We could put Bush on trial for this tomorrow and by US and international law he would be convicted. But sure, this is going to be the time the law prevents it.
.
Well Trump like those programs and his new CIA pick is just the woman with the experience to carry them out!
She did explicitly pledged to not allow a restart of “enhanced interrogation techniques”...
Which is kinda meaningless as its now explicitly barred by law and obama's executive order.
Forgive me if she lacks credibility after already having willingly carried out such programs. At least we have a pinkie promise of her to not do what she already was more than willing to do before. It was already against the law when they did it under Bush. Also the executive order was made by no longer President Obama, so that makes easily invalidated, as you like to say.
You do know that John Brennen was her superior who sailed through his confirmation...eh?
It's meaningless for Trump rescind Obama's executive order on this as we have specific laws on the books to prohibit that.
Under Obama who did not publicly advocate for enhanced interrogation unlike Trump.
Again you already had torture laws before Bush on this back in1994 when the US ratified the UN Convention against Torture. Bush violated international law ratified by the US. The law didn't do anything to stop this last time. We could put Bush on trial for this tomorrow and by US and international law he would be convicted. But sure, this is going to be the time the law prevents it. .
The office of legal counsel argued, during Bush's tenure, that enhance interrogation did NOT meet the definition of torture, hence that UN treaty didn't apply.
I'm not arguing that they're right or wrong...I'm explaining what happend.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Under Obama who did not publicly advocate for enhanced interrogation unlike Trump.
Again you already had torture laws before Bush on this back in1994 when the US ratified the UN Convention against Torture. Bush violated international law ratified by the US. The law didn't do anything to stop this last time. We could put Bush on trial for this tomorrow and by US and international law he would be convicted. But sure, this is going to be the time the law prevents it.
.
The office of legal counsel argued, during Bush's tenure, that enhance interrogation did NOT meet the definition of torture, hence that UN treaty didn't apply.
I'm not arguing that they're right or wrong...I'm explaining what happend.
Hence whythis law was passed to explicitly prohibit that.
Funny, the UN seems to hold an entirely different opinion on if it constituted torture. But I mean if the office of legal council, the legal adviser of the President, who has no vested interest in not wanting it to be torture says it isn't what are you supposed to do right? But at least they passed yet another bill on torture.
whembly wrote: So...do we want to talk about the 3 hostages NK released...or nah?
Is this a head-fake by NK, or is this looking promising?
Looks like the summit is June12th in Singapore.
I think you already said all there was to be said about it yesterday. Releasing hostages you got from the most trumped up charges imaginable is a meaningless gesture, as that's what they are captured for in the first place.
whembly wrote: So...do we want to talk about the 3 hostages NK released...or nah?
Is this a head-fake by NK, or is this looking promising?
Looks like the summit is June12th in Singapore.
SOP as far as NK is concerned.
They arrest/kidnap Americans dumb enough to try and go rooting around there without sticking to their given script, usually missionary or activism work, and are then used as negotiating tokens.
Leaving an agreement from previous administration is not breaking the countries' word.
If that were true, why did we hang all those Nazis? They didn't sign the Geneva Conventions, a previous government did.
And speaking of Nazis, seems Iran and Israel are taking advantage of the moment to get a good ol shooting war going. This may be a problem that solves itself, with Iran and Israel getting into a Nuclear Exchange.
Leaving an agreement from previous administration is not breaking the countries' word.
If that were true, why did we hang all those Nazis? They didn't sign the Geneva Conventions, a previous government did.
And speaking of Nazis, seems Iran and Israel are taking advantage of the moment to get a good ol shooting war going. This may be a problem that solves itself, with Iran and Israel getting into a Nuclear Exchange.
whembly wrote:I mean, we're not dealing with good actors here...
We are talking about the US leadership here, aren't we?
To make a wargaming comparison about this whole clusterfeth: It looks like Trump's actions will lead to everybody at the club shunning him and not wanting to play with him anymore.
Leaving an agreement from previous administration is not breaking the countries' word.
If that were true, why did we hang all those Nazis? They didn't sign the Geneva Conventions, a previous government did.
And speaking of Nazis, seems Iran and Israel are taking advantage of the moment to get a good ol shooting war going. This may be a problem that solves itself, with Iran and Israel getting into a Nuclear Exchange.
Do you think Iran already has a nuke?
The question is more if either country wants to risk lobbing missiles over two or three other countries to do it. its about 600 miles from Tehran to Tel Aviv, so ICBMs are a bit much for the task at hand. So they would have to shoot over Jordan and Iraq. Or it it was to/from southern Iran, it would be over Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Israel has the reliable tech to do it, but Iran's missile program is still unproven, with I think about 600 miles being as far as one went before it exploded. Thats dicey for Iran, they would risk most of the other Arab countries joining SA in an attack.
AT&T reportedly hired President Trump's longtime personal attorney Michael Cohen to advise the company on several matters including its pending merger with Time Warner.
As part of the reported $600,000 that the telecommunications giant paid Cohen’s consulting firm, Essential Consultants LLC, The Washington Post reports that a portion was directed toward advising the company on its $85 billion merger, which required the approval of the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Whatever else he is, Cohen is a marvelous conman. If I could get paid six or seven figures by companies to do stuff I have neither the ability, knowledge, access or standing to do, then fail and still get paid, I'd think I could get away with anything too probably.
I love this bit from the original Wapo story
It is unclear what insight Cohen — a longtime real estate attorney and former taxi cab operator — could have provided AT&T on complex telecom matters.
The question is more if either country wants to risk lobbing missiles over two or three other countries to do it. its about 600 miles from Tehran to Tel Aviv, so ICBMs are a bit much for the task at hand. So they would have to shoot over Jordan and Iraq. Or it it was to/from southern Iran, it would be over Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Israel has the reliable tech to do it, but Iran's missile program is still unproven, with I think about 600 miles being as far as one went before it exploded. Thats dicey for Iran, they would risk most of the other Arab countries joining SA in an attack.
Mobile launcher from Syria. Shaves it down to 300 miles and a fairly straight shot on Tel Aviv. In theory you could do it with a Scud B, which are available on the open market these days, but your yield would be maybe 80kt. So about 4 times Hiroshima or Nagasaki Air burst would make Iron Dome less effective.
Well, I hope somebody in Washington knows what language the Persians speak, because it sure as hell ain't Arabic....
Locally, I have had people ask me if the language being spoken was Arabic when the language spoken was -
French (which sounds nothing like Arabic). (More accurately Quebecois - Canadian French.)
Swahili (which sounds nothing like Arabic).
Greek (which sounds nothing like any other language I can name....)
And Dutch (which kinda sounds like German, a bit?).
Americans are amazingly insular about what we know about other cultures and languages.
Ouze wrote: What I think you're doing here is distracting from talking about the real issues, like the Clinton Foundation.
The Clinton Foundation was invented as a Trojan Horse by the MSM to deflect from Benghazi, which was invented by the Obama administration to deflect from Obama wearing a tan suit.
This is exactly what the game plan is. Nunes is going to keep asking for more until Rod Rosenstein is forced to refuse to give them (something), and then he can use it as a pretext to impeach Rosenstein and then end the Mueller investigation.
Exactly, and it isn't even subtle, because Nunes knows that none of his obvious manipulation of the system will reach the Republican base. FOX News won't be reporting on Nunes false ops.
Our government was not really built to handle this kind of cross-branch corruption, I don't think. So I have no idea how to fix something like this. I guess voting Nunes out when he comes up?
The US system was built with effective powers for congress to reign in a president, and even stop a bad president. But there was no consideration for a bad president with an enabling, sycophantic congress.
As for Nunes, CA22 is a +30 Republican district. The last decent poll was January and that showed Nunes ahead by 5, so there's a good sign that rampant cronyism and the general suck of the Republican party has an impact, even in deep red country. I don't know if it will be enough, because if 2016 to now has shown us anything, it's that an incredibly large share of the population just does not care about maintaining the democracy or even about basic honesty.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Even prominent democrats didn't approve of the deal...
I'm gonna try and ignore the rest of the whembly links to nonsense show, and just make one point about his great story.
See this guy?
The hair and poor fitting suit might say highschool football coach staring at a 0-4 start to the season, but it's Senator Rand Paul. Every single piece of law or appointment that's been put to the senate since Trump won the presidency has involved this stupid two step dance - Paul claims he will vote against it because the law/nominee isn't conservative enough, but then if Paul is needed to make it to 50+1 then he will fall in to line every single time.
Paul is far from alone in this, I just thought I'd pick him because we don't spend nearly enough time talking about cynical and completely ridiculous that man is. There's another six or seven Republican senators trying to maintain the same kind of outsider cred, all playing up for the crowd and claiming they are no to a bill or nomination, but if they're needed to actually get an affirmative vote, they fall in to line. The only thing that's gone down 49-51 was skinny repeal, and that was because McCain came out of left field.
And of course the Democrats are no different. Making a show of being opposed to a proposal with weak public approval is just good politics for people trying to portray a semi-independent brand.
And whembly has followed politics as long as I have. So he knows this. You only have to follow one or two close bills to see this happen, and once you've seen a dozen bills then you will have seen this happen every single time, you'd have to be an idiot to not see the pattern. But suddenly on the Iran deal whembly forgets that showmanship is part of politics, and he starts claiming that Schumer and friends claiming they were opposed to the Iran deal is a real, meaningful thing that meant the deal had actual senate opposition from Democrats.
It is ridiculous, pretend political argument. Just forgetting the basics of the game as soon as it suits your imaginary story to forget those basics.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TM1212Y17/type/smallest/filters/PD1:1/dates/20180101-20180509/collapsed/true Very cool polling aggregate.
The difference between Democrats and Republicans as of the last one (May 7th) is 1.4%.
Historically, Democrats need >5% to take the House.
I still think it's too early for this to carry any weight all the way to midterms...
Dude, you know picking out single polls is useless, I've seen you make that comment. And here you're not only using a single poll, you're using a single day result from that poll, and ignoring the 5 day rolling average from that poll gives Dems +10.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
She did explicitly pledged to not allow a restart of “enhanced interrogation techniques”...
That's lovely. And I'm sure the NRA made sure Ollie North promised to stop selling weapons to hostile foreign nations on the downlow before he was appointed at the NRA. Why, I reckon Trump probably even got a promise from Joe Arpaio that would never ignore a court orders again before that pardon was given.
Quite a forgiving party, you guys have there. Happy to forgive all kinds of things, as long as people promise not to do them again. Why you'll even forgive Haspel after she oversaw the torture of a pregnant woman, and I know how deeply committed you guys are to talking about protecting life in the womb.
What a bunch of kindly, forgiving people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: So...do we want to talk about the 3 hostages NK released...or nah?
It's great for those three pople and their families, but how much did we talk about this list of people? Euna Lee, Laura Ling, Robert Park, Aijalon Gomes, Eddie Yong Su Jun, Merrill Newman, Jeffrey Fowle, Kenneth Bae, Matthew Miller, Sandra Suh, Arturo Pierre Martinez.
That's the list of people Obama got released from North Korea. But Trump pretends he is amazing for getting three people out, and there's barely any pushback, no note that getting people out of NK has been a fairly routine part of the job for US presidents for some time now. Never mind that Trump dropped another lie on top, claiming all three were taken while Obama was president (only one was), and people just roll with it. It's actually just completely fething amazing that the Trump scam has carried for so long now with no political pushback that people are just kind of letting it happen.
But it is good for those three people and their families. Well done to Trump for doing one thing to basic standard of past presidential administrations.
Is this a head-fake by NK, or is this looking promising?
It isn't a head fake, but it also doesn't look much like the start of an actual, amazing new era of peace on the peninsula. Instead it looks like it will just be business as usual. This is a cycle - NK pushes boundaries and acts crazy, then comes to the table for peace talks they use to extort everyone else for essential supplies, then some point down the line they need some more resources and so they start acting crazy again.
So far not one thing has looked any different to the last dozen times we've been through this cycle. The only difference is Trump seems genuinely unaware of the history, so he's staking everything on producing a huge, lasting deal. Which is playing right in to Kim's hands, as it puts pressure on Trump to leave with some kind of deal.
It is unclear what insight Cohen — a longtime real estate attorney and former taxi cab operator — could have provided AT&T on complex telecom matters.
This makes me think of an old anecdote about Trump. In the lobby of Trump NY there was a Tower Records store. This store used to play a bunch of select artists on rotation. Local bands could get added to the rotation, but Tower Records charged them $100. It was just to make sure they were only approached by bands that were pretty serious about what they were doing. Anyhow, one day Trump learned about the $100 payments, and he actually tried to claim his share of the $100. The music went out in to the lobby, something like that. It went nowhere, because that was too piddly even for Trump to keep fighting for. But it shows Trump's mindset. This is a guy obsesessed with getting his bit of the action, he's not going to watch someone else carve out some cash while Trump gets nothing.
But now we're asked to believe Trump is learning just now for the first time that Michael Cohen was grifting a bunch of corporate and foreign interests while Trump himself got nothing, and Trump isn't angered about that? If that was what really happened, you know Trump would be irate with Cohen, his underling used Trump's position to make some cash, but Trump didn't give Trump any of the cash? That would be an enormous betrayal.
But Trump is silent. Because Trump knew all about this, and he was getting his cut.
The hair and poor fitting suit might say highschool football coach staring at a 0-4 start to the season, but it's Senator Rand Paul. Every single piece of law or appointment that's been put to the senate since Trump won the presidency has involved this stupid two step dance - Paul claims he will vote against it because the law/nominee isn't conservative enough, but then if Paul is needed to make it to 50+1 then he will fall in to line every single time.
Paul is far from alone in this, I just thought I'd pick him because we don't spend nearly enough time talking about cynical and completely ridiculous that man is. There's another six or seven Republican senators trying to maintain the same kind of outsider cred, all playing up for the crowd and claiming they are no to a bill or nomination, but if they're needed to actually get an affirmative vote, they fall in to line. The only thing that's gone down 49-51 was skinny repeal, and that was because McCain came out of left field.
And of course the Democrats are no different. Making a show of being opposed to a proposal with weak public approval is just good politics for people trying to portray a semi-independent brand.
And whembly has followed politics as long as I have. So he knows this. You only have to follow one or two close bills to see this happen, and once you've seen a dozen bills then you will have seen this happen every single time, you'd have to be an idiot to not see the pattern. But suddenly on the Iran deal whembly forgets that showmanship is part of politics, and he starts claiming that Schumer and friends claiming they were opposed to the Iran deal is a real, meaningful thing that meant the deal had actual senate opposition from Democrats.
It is ridiculous, pretend political argument. Just forgetting the basics of the game as soon as it suits your imaginary story to forget those basics.
...and here you opine that it's a good thing for politicians to lie to their constituents... as long as it's for the greater good.
And people wonder why Congress' approval numbers are in the dumpster.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TM1212Y17/type/smallest/filters/PD1:1/dates/20180101-20180509/collapsed/true
Very cool polling aggregate.
The difference between Democrats and Republicans as of the last one (May 7th) is 1.4%.
Historically, Democrats need >5% to take the House.
I still think it's too early for this to carry any weight all the way to midterms...
Dude, you know picking out single polls is useless, I've seen you make that comment. And here you're not only using a single poll, you're using a single day result from that poll, and ignoring the 5 day rolling average from that poll gives Dems +10.
A) It's an neat poll/tool
B) I already said it's too early
C) The trendline was interesting, where (D) and (R) is converging
D) Still... call me when the RCP aggregate pollings reaches (D) < 5%.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
She did explicitly pledged to not allow a restart of “enhanced interrogation techniques”...
That's lovely. And I'm sure the NRA made sure Ollie North promised to stop selling weapons to hostile foreign nations on the downlow before he was appointed at the NRA. Why, I reckon Trump probably even got a promise from Joe Arpaio that would never ignore a court orders again before that pardon was given.
Quite a forgiving party, you guys have there. Happy to forgive all kinds of things, as long as people promise not to do them again. Why you'll even forgive Haspel after she oversaw the torture of a pregnant woman, and I know how deeply committed you guys are to talking about protecting life in the womb.
What a bunch of kindly, forgiving people.
[REDACTED][REDACTED][REDACTED][REDACTED][REDACTED][REDACTED][REDACTED][REDACTED][REDACTED][REDACTED][REDACTED][REDACTED][REDACTED][REDACTED][REDACTED][REDACTED][REDACTED][REDACTED][REDACTED][REDACTED][REDACTED][REDACTED]
...do you want a thread lock? Because this is how you get a thread lock.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: So...do we want to talk about the 3 hostages NK released...or nah?
It's great for those three pople and their families, but how much did we talk about this list of people? Euna Lee, Laura Ling, Robert Park, Aijalon Gomes, Eddie Yong Su Jun, Merrill Newman, Jeffrey Fowle, Kenneth Bae, Matthew Miller, Sandra Suh, Arturo Pierre Martinez.
Good for Obama.
That's the list of people Obama got released from North Korea. But Trump pretends he is amazing for getting three people out, and there's barely any pushback, no note that getting people out of NK has been a fairly routine part of the job for US presidents for some time now. Never mind that Trump dropped another lie on top, claiming all three were taken while Obama was president (only one was), and people just roll with it. It's actually just completely fething amazing that the Trump scam has carried for so long now with no political pushback that people are just kind of letting it happen.
But it is good for those three people and their families. Well done to Trump for doing one thing to basic standard of past presidential administrations.
Of course he's going to spike that football and goose it.
Is this a head-fake by NK, or is this looking promising?
It isn't a head fake, but it also doesn't look much like the start of an actual, amazing new era of peace on the peninsula. Instead it looks like it will just be business as usual. This is a cycle - NK pushes boundaries and acts crazy, then comes to the table for peace talks they use to extort everyone else for essential supplies, then some point down the line they need some more resources and so they start acting crazy again.
So far not one thing has looked any different to the last dozen times we've been through this cycle. The only difference is Trump seems genuinely unaware of the history, so he's staking everything on producing a huge, lasting deal. Which is playing right in to Kim's hands, as it puts pressure on Trump to leave with some kind of deal.
That's why I'm hoping Pompeo/Mattis/Bolton keeps the Fanta Menace in check.
I don't think denuclearlization is possible and NK would be fools to give it up. But, would an end to the armistice for end of sanctions be a "net win".
It is unclear what insight Cohen — a longtime real estate attorney and former taxi cab operator — could have provided AT&T on complex telecom matters.
This makes me think of an old anecdote about Trump. In the lobby of Trump NY there was a Tower Records store. This store used to play a bunch of select artists on rotation. Local bands could get added to the rotation, but Tower Records charged them $100. It was just to make sure they were only approached by bands that were pretty serious about what they were doing. Anyhow, one day Trump learned about the $100 payments, and he actually tried to claim his share of the $100. The music went out in to the lobby, something like that. It went nowhere, because that was too piddly even for Trump to keep fighting for. But it shows Trump's mindset. This is a guy obsesessed with getting his bit of the action, he's not going to watch someone else carve out some cash while Trump gets nothing.
But now we're asked to believe Trump is learning just now for the first time that Michael Cohen was grifting a bunch of corporate and foreign interests while Trump himself got nothing, and Trump isn't angered about that? If that was what really happened, you know Trump would be irate with Cohen, his underling used Trump's position to make some cash, but Trump didn't give Trump any of the cash? That would be an enormous betrayal.
But Trump is silent. Because Trump knew all about this, and he was getting his cut.
Man... ATT&T isn't getting their money's worth here.
Trump opposes this merger and ridiculously wants the Turner/CNN assets spun off separately.
I'd bet I can offer the same ROI as Cohen if they would pay me.
whembly wrote: ...and here you opine that it's a good thing for politicians to lie to their constituents... as long as it's for the greater good.
I didn't say it was a good thing. Don't make stuff up. I said it was good politics, which just means that it works.
All of which is irrelevant, what matters is you know that's how the game is played, but you pretend to be fooled by it in order to invent a stupid narrative that Dems wouldn't have backed their own president's deal if it was brought to the senate as a treaty. Stop playing these make believe games.
And people wonder why Congress' approval numbers are in the dumpster.
The senators who play those stupid games keep winning re-election. Think about the dynamics of that.
A) It's an neat poll/tool
B) I already said it's too early
C) The trendline was interesting, where (D) and (R) is converging
D) Still... call me when the RCP aggregate pollings reaches (D) < 5%.
The early stage is meaningless, generic polling early in the year is shown to have very strong predictive power. The problem is its a single poll, which is miles outside the results shown elsewhere. And even worse, they aren't even giving data on likely voters, just registered voters. It doesn't make the data junk, but it means you cannot look at the numbers in isolate, because this won't be won by voters swinging Dem or Rep, it'll be won by turnout.
...do you want a thread lock? Because this is how you get a thread lock.
This is a really interesting conundrum. I mean, I'll grant that talking about you supporting a woman who oversaw the torture of a pregnant woman is quite incendiary. So what do we do? State that as a plain and simple truth, or do we pretend that isn't what you're doing because talking about your position here is so horrible the threat won't survive it?
I mean, I guess ideally you would not support the women who oversaw the torture of a pregnant lady, but that's not going to change, is it?
Of course he's going to spike that football and goose it.
He is the reality show president.
That's why I'm hoping Pompeo/Mattis/Bolton keeps the Fanta Menace in check.
Pompeo to take the lead in taking on 'Chairman Un'. Hoo boy. I wonder if he knows the president isn't called President Donald?
With Bolton tagging along? Bolton who's big treatise on North Korea began and ended with 'I think its legal'. Seriously, did you read that thing? The argument given is entirely legal, about what legal contraints the US does or doesn't have. Bolton doesn't even start to address the issue of whether action against NK would meet strategic goals, or what its risks the action might have. He doesn't even raise those as things that might need to be considered. The guy is so bonkers he thinks establishing a legal argument that something can be done is the same as establishing that it should be done.
And these are the guys you hope keep Trump in line. Mattis is a quality operator, I'll give you that.
I don't think denuclearlization is possible and NK would be fools to give it up. But, would an end to the armistice for end of sanctions be a "net win".
So the Iran deal was terrible because it allowed 30kg of non-weapon grade uranium. But a NK deal that didn't even end the nuke program is good? Okay then.
I mean personally, I think an end to sanctions in exchange for an end to the NK nuclear program, and a regime of IAEA inspectors would be an ideal blueprint. Recognising NK is much further along their nuke program, and much more in need of aid than Iran was, then there would probably also need to be some large subsidy programs thrown in to the deal, probably Chinese coal and US grain both with large US subsidies.
Man... ATT&T isn't getting their money's worth here.
To be fair, $200k is bugger all when we're talking about a multi-billion dollar merger. Which means maybe the $200k was just a foot in the door payment. But then that leaves a big question about what happened after that? Did AT&T flinch at the real price (unlikely, it was always going to be cheaper than fighting the DoJ in court)? Did AT&T flinch when it become clear how obviously illegal the latter payments were going to be? Did AT&T flinch when stories about the investigations in to Trump starting to grow?
Or, was Cohen running his own private grift? Offering access to the president that Cohen couldn't actually deliver, and just taking the money? If that's the case, why isn't Trump really pissed that someone was using their connection to Trump to make themselves money without cutting Trump in on it?
And where's the money gone? Cohen is bankrupt because of his collapsing taxi plate investments, but in 2017 he brought in $4.4m, and is as broke now as he was at the start of 2017.
And lastly, a guy with 16 phones and a pretend law firm doesn't start and stop at one LLC for all his money laundering. How many others were there, and how much money was paid in to those?
sebster wrote: It's great for those three pople and their families, but how much did we talk about this list of people? Euna Lee, Laura Ling, Robert Park, Aijalon Gomes, Eddie Yong Su Jun, Merrill Newman, Jeffrey Fowle, Kenneth Bae, Matthew Miller, Sandra Suh, Arturo Pierre Martinez.
That's the list of people Obama got released from North Korea. But Trump pretends he is amazing for getting three people out, and there's barely any pushback, no note that getting people out of NK has been a fairly routine part of the job for US presidents for some time now. Never mind that Trump dropped another lie on top, claiming all three were taken while Obama was president (only one was), and people just roll with it. It's actually just completely fething amazing that the Trump scam has carried for so long now with no political pushback that people are just kind of letting it happen.
But it is good for those three people and their families. Well done to Trump for doing one thing to basic standard of past presidential administrations.
Are we up to date on the Kely Sadler nonsense? She's a communications staffer for Donald Trump. Trump's administration is quite bothered that Gina Haspel might not get confirmed by the senate as CIA director. Senator McCain is one reason why the nomination is likely to go down, he said while he respected Haspel as a patriot, he believed her refusal to state torture was immoral is disqualifying. Makes sense, as McCain himself was tortured.
This led to a meeting among the communications staffers, including Sadler. Sadler's take? “It doesn’t matter, he’s dying anyway.”
That leaked to the media pretty quickly. Now, of course, the wagons are forming around Sadler. Because this is the big lesson learned by the right wing from Trump's victory. It doesn't matter what you did, how obejctively awful it was, if you just refuse to take a backstep it will probably go away, and if it doesn't you can just resign later on.
I'm still trying to get my head around the conservative freak out when some people said Chairman Kim's sister was quite polite and nice at the Olympics. I mean I thought that was a bit naive, but the right wing media was treating it like proof that these people were socialists who were working with NK against US interests.
Now just a few months later and Trump is describing 3 years in a NK labour camp as 'excellent' treatment. And no-one in the right wing media has a problem with that at all.
Crazyterran wrote: People on facebook are still calling McCain a traitor that killed Americans, so the average Trump supporter isnt too bright.
That songbird crap appeared in the 2000 and 2008 Republican primaries. Now it appears again, the next time McCain is going up against fellow Republicans. Funny that.
Thing is, I don't think the problem is the intelligence of the average Trump voter. I'm not defending their intelligence, but truth is every large political bloc has lots of dumb people. The problem, I think, is that Trump/Republican dummies get led by the nose by some really shameless liars.
And those shameless liars survive and flourish because in conservative media and Republican politics there is no penalty at all for telling horrible lies and getting caught. Right now you have purebred turds on FOX News claiming that 'songbird' crap proves torture works, and even though its deeply offensive and a plain lie, there's no penalty. If a Democrat said something like that it would end their career in a second and define them for the rest of their life. For a Republican pundit its just what they said on a Thursday in May 2018, on Friday they'll say something even worse, and by Saturday they'll be attacking the Democrats for not caring for the veterans.
None of this will get any better until conservatives start demanding some decency from their Republicans.
"Conversation on Fox about torture: "It worked on John [McCain]. That's why they call him 'Songbird John'""
uh huh.
classy.
That's absolutely disgusting. He was a POW for 6 years. He was in captivity for longer than US involvement in WW2.
Utterly shameful remark.
In other news (as Baron pointed out in the mankind not learning from science fiction thread), Trump is cutting NASA's greenhouse gas monitoring programme. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44067797 Total idiocy.
sebster: I'm not holding my breath. These are the people who champion family values and want the 10 commandments outside of courtrooms but who seem absolutely fine supporting a serial adulterer and liar.
sebster wrote: It's great for those three pople and their families, but how much did we talk about this list of people? Euna Lee, Laura Ling, Robert Park, Aijalon Gomes, Eddie Yong Su Jun, Merrill Newman, Jeffrey Fowle, Kenneth Bae, Matthew Miller, Sandra Suh, Arturo Pierre Martinez.
That's the list of people Obama got released from North Korea. But Trump pretends he is amazing for getting three people out, and there's barely any pushback, no note that getting people out of NK has been a fairly routine part of the job for US presidents for some time now. Never mind that Trump dropped another lie on top, claiming all three were taken while Obama was president (only one was), and people just roll with it. It's actually just completely fething amazing that the Trump scam has carried for so long now with no political pushback that people are just kind of letting it happen.
But it is good for those three people and their families. Well done to Trump for doing one thing to basic standard of past presidential administrations.
Da Boss wrote: sebster: I'm not holding my breath. These are the people who champion family values and want the 10 commandments outside of courtrooms but who seem absolutely fine supporting a serial adulterer and liar.
Yep. I mean just in the last few days we went through the abortion debate all over again, and now Trump nominates a CIA director who oversaw the torture of a pregnant lady, and not one of them has a problem with that.
It isn't about Trump supporters being dumb. The real issue here is one of basic decency. Not just holding their politicians and other leaders to basic decencies like honesty and integrity, but having such decencies themselves, so they are actually upset when their political leaders tell them obvious lies, and they stop following those leaders.
Meanwhile, there's reports that the FOX News pundit who said torture worked on McCain will not be invited back on the network. Hopefully we hear that as an official announcement soon. It's still not fething good enough though. That's a lie that's lingered in Republican circles for nearly 20 years, such plainly false things don't fester that long in healthy cultures. And it is far from the only absurd lie to linger in there.
So France has come out and stated that it is unacceptable for the US to impose sanctions on French companies that have contracts with Iran since the deal started just because the US decided to pull out on its own. So is this what certain people wanted, a rift with Europe to justify their known unknowns at all cost?
"Conversation on Fox about torture: "It worked on John [McCain]. That's why they call him 'Songbird John'""
uh huh.
classy.
I saw an excellent take on this by @stonekettle on Twitter. Was along the lines that is doesn't matter whether it worked, it's not an acceptable thing to do. Made the comparison that slavery *worked* - the cotton got picked, didn't it???
My opposition to the European Union is well known on the British politics thread, but as I say, it's one of those rare occasions where I'm glad Britain is sticking with the EU on the Iran deal and not following the USA on this one.
Trump's language on this is what you would expect: gak, but I remember that this is a POTUS that accused British intelligience of spying on him at Obama's request, so I don't know why I'm surprised at his language.
The crap bag who said "torture worked" on "songbird" John McCain was Lt McInerney. He was one of the more prominent birthers.
This is how it works. Crappy people who tell nasty lies, are not held to account, then move on to the next crappy lie, over and again. And all the conservatives who believe they're such good, decent people do nothing. They accept this.
Doesn't shield him from his political career... but the man is on his deathbed and comments like these are downright deplorable.
Whem you never answered the question about whether you would support a woman who helped to tortured a pregnant women, you just kinda pivoted away complaining about thread locks. What is your answer to the support of a person who helped tortured a pregnant women.
None of this will get any better until conservatives start demanding some decency from their Republicans.
You know, I asked about something like that a couple years back in one of these threads, about why the party of God and family values behaves so poorly, you know what the answer was? "Because when the Republicans do the right thing, they lose". Very telling, and I'll let you guess who said it.
In a memo to employees, AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson said that while everything the company did in hiring Cohen was in accordance with the law, they should not have done so.
“There is no other way to say it — AT&T hiring Michael Cohen as a political consultant was a big mistake,” Stephenson wrote. “To be clear, everything we did was done according to the law and entirely legitimate. But the fact is, our past association with Cohen was a serious misjudgment.”
In the letter, Stephenson also announced that Bob Quinn, AT&T’s senior executive vice president of external & legislative affairs, will step down. AT&T’s legislative affairs group will now report to the company’s general counsel, David McAtee.
TL;DR "oopsie, we got caught paying lots of money to a conman for nothing"
Theyre kicking out a VP over it too, which is interesting. A booboo definitely occurred.
Doesn't shield him from his political career... but the man is on his deathbed and comments like these are downright deplorable.
Whem you never answered the question about whether you would support a woman who helped to tortured a pregnant women, you just kinda pivoted away complaining about thread locks. What is your answer to the support of a person who helped tortured a pregnant women.
On the one hand, she's definitely qualified...
On the other... I wouldn't simply because of this PR fiasco.
Why didn't you bag on Obama & the Senate when John Brennan was confirmed?
Doesn't shield him from his political career... but the man is on his deathbed and comments like these are downright deplorable.
Whem you never answered the question about whether you would support a woman who helped to tortured a pregnant women, you just kinda pivoted away complaining about thread locks. What is your answer to the support of a person who helped tortured a pregnant women.
On the one hand, she's definitely qualified...
On the other... I wouldn't simply because of this PR fiasco.
Why didn't you bag on Obama & the Senate when John Brennan was confirmed?
Because I only started posting seriously on these forums in the past 3 years so I wasn't here
Doesn't shield him from his political career... but the man is on his deathbed and comments like these are downright deplorable.
Whem you never answered the question about whether you would support a woman who helped to tortured a pregnant women, you just kinda pivoted away complaining about thread locks. What is your answer to the support of a person who helped tortured a pregnant women.
On the one hand, she's definitely qualified...
On the other... I wouldn't simply because of this PR fiasco.
Why didn't you bag on Obama & the Senate when John Brennan was confirmed?
Also I expected a lot more pushback with your stances on fetuses besides calling it a "PR fiasco"
None of this will get any better until conservatives start demanding some decency from their Republicans.
You know, I asked about something like that a couple years back in one of these threads, about why the party of God and family values behaves so poorly, you know what the answer was? "Because when the Republicans do the right thing, they lose". Very telling, and I'll let you guess who said it.
My read is that they don’t care... because they object to the idea of their morality being weaponized in such fashion.
I mean, yeah, the Republicans need to do a better job in nominating decent candidates (ie, no more Roy Moore). And we also need to be observant and hold them accountable (which we're flunking badly about that Congressional slush fund used to settle sexual harassment at the hill).
But, for non-Republicans to sit there and wag their fingers, no matter how legit/appropriate it is, will only exacerbate the political divide.
Doesn't shield him from his political career... but the man is on his deathbed and comments like these are downright deplorable.
Whem you never answered the question about whether you would support a woman who helped to tortured a pregnant women, you just kinda pivoted away complaining about thread locks. What is your answer to the support of a person who helped tortured a pregnant women.
On the one hand, she's definitely qualified...
On the other... I wouldn't simply because of this PR fiasco.
Why didn't you bag on Obama & the Senate when John Brennan was confirmed?
Also I expected a lot more pushback with your stances on fetuses besides calling it a "PR fiasco"
Oh?
Then you shouldn't have too much problem with it, as your past support of planned parenthood elided.
Or... maybe understand that these senators are using this confirmation hearing to "fight back against Trump", regardless if her qualifications... because... Trump!
None of this will get any better until conservatives start demanding some decency from their Republicans.
You know, I asked about something like that a couple years back in one of these threads, about why the party of God and family values behaves so poorly, you know what the answer was? "Because when the Republicans do the right thing, they lose". Very telling, and I'll let you guess who said it.
My read is that they don’t care... because they object to the idea of their morality being weaponized in such fashion.
I mean, yeah, the Republicans need to do a better job in nominating decent candidates (ie, no more Roy Moore). And we also need to be observant and hold them accountable (which we're flunking badly about that Congressional slush fund used to settle sexual harassment at the hill).
But, for non-Republicans to sit there and wag their fingers, no matter how legit/appropriate it is, will only exacerbate the political divide.
Doesn't shield him from his political career... but the man is on his deathbed and comments like these are downright deplorable.
Whem you never answered the question about whether you would support a woman who helped to tortured a pregnant women, you just kinda pivoted away complaining about thread locks. What is your answer to the support of a person who helped tortured a pregnant women.
On the one hand, she's definitely qualified...
On the other... I wouldn't simply because of this PR fiasco.
Why didn't you bag on Obama & the Senate when John Brennan was confirmed?
Also I expected a lot more pushback with your stances on fetuses besides calling it a "PR fiasco"
Oh?
Then you shouldn't have too much problem with it, as your past support of planned parenthood elided.
Or... maybe understand that these senators are using this confirmation hearing to "fight back against Trump", regardless if her qualifications... because... Trump!
Well I am assuming that she wanted to keep the baby since it is really the womens choice, but keep making those false equivalences whem you just keep proving my point over and over
whembly wrote: Or... maybe understand that these senators are using this confirmation hearing to "fight back against Trump", regardless if her qualifications... because... Trump!
Gina Haspel should not have been nominated because she should be in jail. She was directly responsible for a site that engaged in torture of detainees and was instrumental in destroying evidence of war crimes.
Frazzled wrote: No one noticed there was a bonbing of an Episcopal Church in Beaumont. The second in the town in a month.
I just saw that come up, looks like nobody was hurt thankfully. There seemed to be an attempt to link it to Conditt's bombing, but he's been dead for two almost two months now.
Thankfully it also looks like the CA event has no casualties reported, at least so far.
whembly wrote: Why didn't you bag on Obama & the Senate when John Brennan was confirmed?
You keep ignoring that Brennan under Obama was entirely different then Haspel under Trump,
For example she said this during her hearing: "My moral compass is strong. I would not allow CIA to undertake activity I thought immoral even if it was technically legal. I would absolutely not permit it."
Yet people were already tortured under her watch, so apparently she does not see what she did as immoral.
Or being wilfully obtuse when asked what she would do if Trump asked her to use enhanced interrogation: "I do not believe the president would ask me to do that"
Even though we have video of Trump openly supporting and advocating for techniques like waterboarding. That is the key difference between the Obama and Trump admin.
TL;DR: They had to source within the campaign team, feeding the FBI intel.... and the FBI isn't clear how early in the campaign this started... that's a hell of a whistleblower...
If you're upset about that, you should be downright furious that Giuliani was getting information on a case he had literally zero involvement or reason to be getting information on and was using it to try to force the FBI to paint a candidate in a bad light.
whembly wrote: TL;DR: They had to source within the campaign team, feeding the FBI intel.... and the FBI isn't clear how early in the campaign this started... that's a hell of a whistleblower...
This is an op-ed, and that is speculation, not a news item. They take about 3 rhetorical jumps to gain speed to making that jump. I'm not saying it's not true, because who knows; but it's not something that this piece has established. There are an awful lot of weasel words in there, and "just asking questions" bs. It's pretty weak sauce TBH.
Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in an interview on Iowa Public Television's "Iowa Press" that he personally would abide by the so-called "Biden Rule" — named after former senator and Vice President Joe Biden — if a Supreme Court vacancy opened in 2020.
But asked if Trump would want to follow the precedent, Grassley said he would not.
"I'd follow that. That would be just the 12 months, or let's say the 10 months, before the election 2020. No, he wouldn't agree with that," Grassley said of Trump.
Asked if McConnell would want to follow the rule, Grassley replied: "No, he would not agree with it."
Republicans invoked the "Biden Rule" in 2016, after then-President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Garland never received a hearing in the Senate, because Republicans argued at the time that the next president should get to fill the vacant seat.
Kanluwen wrote: If you're upset about that, you should be downright furious that Giuliani was getting information on a case he had literally zero involvement or reason to be getting information on and was using it to try to force the FBI to paint a candidate in a bad light.
whembly wrote: TL;DR: They had to source within the campaign team, feeding the FBI intel.... and the FBI isn't clear how early in the campaign this started... that's a hell of a whistleblower...
This is an op-ed, and that is speculation, not a news item. They take about 3 rhetorical jumps to gain speed to making that jump. I'm not saying it's not true, because who knows; but it's not something that this piece has established. There are an awful lot of weasel words in there, and "just asking questions" bs. It's pretty weak sauce TBH.
Well... one thing, the author stops short of naming that IC asset because she couldn't corroborate. That tells me that this is more of a "good faith" op-ed, rather that the rest of the gak that the media flings w/o corroboration or (unnamed source).
Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in an interview on Iowa Public Television's "Iowa Press" that he personally would abide by the so-called "Biden Rule" — named after former senator and Vice President Joe Biden — if a Supreme Court vacancy opened in 2020.
But asked if Trump would want to follow the precedent, Grassley said he would not.
"I'd follow that. That would be just the 12 months, or let's say the 10 months, before the election 2020. No, he wouldn't agree with that," Grassley said of Trump.
Asked if McConnell would want to follow the rule, Grassley replied: "No, he would not agree with it."
Republicans invoked the "Biden Rule" in 2016, after then-President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Garland never received a hearing in the Senate, because Republicans argued at the time that the next president should get to fill the vacant seat.
There's also the pesky little detail that the "Biden Rule" was to wait until after the election or to appoint someone everyone could agree on, and not to wait until the next President.
Kanluwen wrote: If you're upset about that, you should be downright furious that Giuliani was getting information on a case he had literally zero involvement or reason to be getting information on and was using it to try to force the FBI to paint a candidate in a bad light.
whembly wrote: TL;DR: They had to source within the campaign team, feeding the FBI intel.... and the FBI isn't clear how early in the campaign this started... that's a hell of a whistleblower...
This is an op-ed, and that is speculation, not a news item. They take about 3 rhetorical jumps to gain speed to making that jump. I'm not saying it's not true, because who knows; but it's not something that this piece has established. There are an awful lot of weasel words in there, and "just asking questions" bs. It's pretty weak sauce TBH.
Well... one thing, the author stops short of naming that IC asset because she couldn't corroborate. That tells me that this is more of a "good faith" op-ed, rather that the rest of the gak that the media flings w/o corroboration or (unnamed source).
What the feth is a "good faith" op-ed? She used a writing tactic to string you along man. This isn't a "good faith" anything. This is just an op-ed with no meat to it.
That feeling when someone who has committed treason calls someone else a terrorist
The newly elected president of the National Rifle Association has claimed that gun control activists, like those who have emerged following a deadly shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida, in February, are “civil terrorists.”
Oliver North, who is best known for his role in the Iran-Contra scandal in which profits from weapons sales to Iran were secretly funneled to right-wing guerrillas in Nicaragua, was named the lobbying group’s new president earlier this week. And he has wasted no time attacking activists who have criticized the NRA’s role in continued gun violence.
“They’re not activists—this is civil terrorism. This is the kind of thing that’s never been seen against a civil rights organization in America,” Oliver North told the Washington Times. “You go back to the terrible days of Jim Crow and those kinds of things—even there you didn’t have this kind of thing.”
Frazzled wrote: No one noticed there was a bonbing of an Episcopal Church in Beaumont. The second in the town in a month.
Or the fact that we're dangerously close to yet another shooting war in the middle east thanks to bailing on the Iran deal?
Why do you think we’re close to a war in the ME with Iran? Unless Iran does something drastic like try to interdict the Strait of Hormuz what compelling reason exists to make us attack them? If Israel is nervous about Iran they can bomb them themslves they’ve got an Air Force of their own.
Frazzled wrote: No one noticed there was a bonbing of an Episcopal Church in Beaumont. The second in the town in a month.
Or the fact that we're dangerously close to yet another shooting war in the middle east thanks to bailing on the Iran deal?
Why do you think we’re close to a war in the ME with Iran? Unless Iran does something drastic like try to interdict the Strait of Hormuz what compelling reason exists to make us attack them? If Israel is nervous about Iran they can bomb them themslves they’ve got an Air Force of their own.
Many asked the same questions right about March 2003...
Ustrello wrote: That feeling when someone who has committed treason calls someone else a terrorist
The newly elected president of the National Rifle Association has claimed that gun control activists, like those who have emerged following a deadly shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida, in February, are “civil terrorists.”
Oliver North, who is best known for his role in the Iran-Contra scandal in which profits from weapons sales to Iran were secretly funneled to right-wing guerrillas in Nicaragua, was named the lobbying group’s new president earlier this week. And he has wasted no time attacking activists who have criticized the NRA’s role in continued gun violence.
“They’re not activists—this is civil terrorism. This is the kind of thing that’s never been seen against a civil rights organization in America,” Oliver North told the Washington Times. “You go back to the terrible days of Jim Crow and those kinds of things—even there you didn’t have this kind of thing.”
Prestor Jon wrote:Why do you think we’re close to a war in the ME with Iran? Unless Iran does something drastic like try to interdict the Strait of Hormuz what compelling reason exists to make us attack them? If Israel is nervous about Iran they can bomb them themslves they’ve got an Air Force of their own.
If you haven't noticed but recent history has shown that the USA doesn't really need actual reasons to bomb ME countries. Just look at Iraq. And with the US leadership seeming rather unpredictable from an outside perspective things are looking interesting. It's not about what we think could be used to justify attacks but what we assume could randomly happen because all kinds of decisions from the US look erratic these day.
The US bombs ME countries it can get away with bombing, which is gakky, but Yemen and Pakistan aren't Iran and we honestly probably have some backhanded permission from such countries to bomb in their country that just won't be acknowledged for political reasons.
Frazzled wrote: No one noticed there was a bonbing of an Episcopal Church in Beaumont. The second in the town in a month.
Or the fact that we're dangerously close to yet another shooting war in the middle east thanks to bailing on the Iran deal?
Why do you think we’re close to a war in the ME with Iran? Unless Iran does something drastic like try to interdict the Strait of Hormuz what compelling reason exists to make us attack them? If Israel is nervous about Iran they can bomb them themslves they’ve got an Air Force of their own.
Many asked the same questions right about March 2003...
There’s a huge difference in competency between Mattie and Rumsfeld.
Frazzled wrote: No one noticed there was a bonbing of an Episcopal Church in Beaumont. The second in the town in a month.
Or the fact that we're dangerously close to yet another shooting war in the middle east thanks to bailing on the Iran deal?
Why do you think we’re close to a war in the ME with Iran? Unless Iran does something drastic like try to interdict the Strait of Hormuz what compelling reason exists to make us attack them? If Israel is nervous about Iran they can bomb them themslves they’ve got an Air Force of their own.
Many asked the same questions right about March 2003...
There’s a huge difference in competency between Mattie and Rumsfeld.
And a huge difference in competency between Trump and Dubya. In Dubya's favour.
LordofHats wrote: The US bombs ME countries it can get away with bombing, which is gakky, but Yemen and Pakistan aren't Iran and we honestly probably have some backhanded permission from such countries to bomb in their country that just won't be acknowledged for political reasons.
Syria is in a civil war.
Iran is a completely different story.
We’ve also sent military assets into Libya, Nigeria and the Philippines without starting a war. We might attack some Iranian assets in Syria but were not going to start a conventional war with Iran. They don’t have anything we want and they aren’t going to do anything severe enough to provoke us. Mattis isn’t going to spend lives to improve Trumps approval rating.
Frazzled wrote: No one noticed there was a bonbing of an Episcopal Church in Beaumont. The second in the town in a month.
Or the fact that we're dangerously close to yet another shooting war in the middle east thanks to bailing on the Iran deal?
Why do you think we’re close to a war in the ME with Iran? Unless Iran does something drastic like try to interdict the Strait of Hormuz what compelling reason exists to make us attack them? If Israel is nervous about Iran they can bomb them themslves they’ve got an Air Force of their own.
Many asked the same questions right about March 2003...
There’s a huge difference in competency between Mattie and Rumsfeld.
Frazzled wrote: No one noticed there was a bonbing of an Episcopal Church in Beaumont. The second in the town in a month.
Or the fact that we're dangerously close to yet another shooting war in the middle east thanks to bailing on the Iran deal?
Why do you think we’re close to a war in the ME with Iran? Unless Iran does something drastic like try to interdict the Strait of Hormuz what compelling reason exists to make us attack them? If Israel is nervous about Iran they can bomb them themslves they’ve got an Air Force of their own.
Many asked the same questions right about March 2003...
There’s a huge difference in competency between Mattis and Rumsfeld.
Unfortunately Mattis is not "The Decider".
True but he’s going to push back real hard against dumb ideas that will get our troops killed needlessly. If Trump overrides his Marine combat veteran SecDef and launches a poorly thought out military campaign for political reasons he won’t be able to hide that from the media and it will become a counter productive disaster for him. Senate and House Republicans are t going to pick Trump over Mattis in a military dispute.
Ustrello wrote: That feeling when someone who has committed treason calls someone else a terrorist
The newly elected president of the National Rifle Association has claimed that gun control activists, like those who have emerged following a deadly shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida, in February, are “civil terrorists.”
Oliver North, who is best known for his role in the Iran-Contra scandal in which profits from weapons sales to Iran were secretly funneled to right-wing guerrillas in Nicaragua, was named the lobbying group’s new president earlier this week. And he has wasted no time attacking activists who have criticized the NRA’s role in continued gun violence.
“They’re not activists—this is civil terrorism. This is the kind of thing that’s never been seen against a civil rights organization in America,” Oliver North told the Washington Times. “You go back to the terrible days of Jim Crow and those kinds of things—even there you didn’t have this kind of thing.”
This is the kind of ignorant dumbfeth rhetoric that makes the modern conservative movement such a clown college. What a gakshow.
Modern Republicans, not conservatives. Republicans may claim to be but they do not support conservative values. Actual conservatives are still out there, and they don't have any political representation anymore (and are well aware of it).
Frazzled wrote: No one noticed there was a bonbing of an Episcopal Church in Beaumont. The second in the town in a month.
Or the fact that we're dangerously close to yet another shooting war in the middle east thanks to bailing on the Iran deal?
Why do you think we’re close to a war in the ME with Iran? Unless Iran does something drastic like try to interdict the Strait of Hormuz what compelling reason exists to make us attack them? If Israel is nervous about Iran they can bomb them themslves they’ve got an Air Force of their own.
Many asked the same questions right about March 2003...
There’s a huge difference in competency between Mattis and Rumsfeld.
Unfortunately Mattis is not "The Decider".
True but he’s going to push back real hard against dumb ideas that will get our troops killed needlessly. If Trump overrides his Marine combat veteran SecDef and launches a poorly thought out military campaign for political reasons he won’t be able to hide that from the media and it will become a counter productive disaster for him. Senate and House Republicans are t going to pick Trump over Mattis in a military dispute.
We can hope, however thus far we have seen a lot of people under Trump fall into line when he really wants his way, even to their own direct (and often obvious) detriment, for often really stupid reasons.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And then people get their knickers in a twist when Clinton calls them out on it, because how dare she?!
A week ago Republicans were outraged that a comedian would refer to the Press Secretary's eye shadow in a joke about her constant lies. This week a Republican staffer jokes about an ailing senator dying soon, and hey it's just a joke you guys.
Why do you think we’re close to a war in the ME with Iran? Unless Iran does something drastic like try to interdict the Strait of Hormuz what compelling reason exists to make us attack them? If Israel is nervous about Iran they can bomb them themslves they’ve got an Air Force of their own.
So, frothing radicals in Trumpland, Israel, and Iran are ready to go to war right now. In all honesty, I'm not sure who's crazier, the genocidal Israelis, the genocidal Iranians, or Trump.
I can say I trust none of the above with nuclear weapons.
Why do you think we’re close to a war in the ME with Iran? Unless Iran does something drastic like try to interdict the Strait of Hormuz what compelling reason exists to make us attack them? If Israel is nervous about Iran they can bomb them themslves they’ve got an Air Force of their own.
So, frothing radicals in Trumpland, Israel, and Iran are ready to go to war right now. In all honesty, I'm not sure who's crazier, the genocidal Israelis, the genocidal Iranians, or Trump.
I can say I trust none of the above with nuclear weapons.
Exactly. The simple scenario is: Iran works to build "the bomb" (thanks to Trump cancelling the Iran Deal), Israel attempts to stop Iran from building "the bomb" (by using force), shooting between the two starts, and the US hops in on Israel's side faster than you can say "Archduke Franz Ferdinand".
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And then people get their knickers in a twist when Clinton calls them out on it, because how dare she?!
A week ago Republicans were outraged that a comedian would refer to the Press Secretary's eye shadow in a joke about her constant lies. This week a Republican staffer jokes about an ailing senator dying soon, and hey it's just a joke you guys.
Don't forget the other comment about McCain. Republicans are all outraged every time a democrat does anything that could be possibly interpreted as less than 100% SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, including anything less than 100% support for having lots of wars, but now they're talking about how torture works and "songbird McCain". Apparently open disrespect and contempt for our veterans only matters when democrats do it? Oh well, this will all be forgotten by next week when some new scandal happens.
Why do you think we’re close to a war in the ME with Iran? Unless Iran does something drastic like try to interdict the Strait of Hormuz what compelling reason exists to make us attack them? If Israel is nervous about Iran they can bomb them themslves they’ve got an Air Force of their own.
So, frothing radicals in Trumpland, Israel, and Iran are ready to go to war right now. In all honesty, I'm not sure who's crazier, the genocidal Israelis, the genocidal Iranians, or Trump.
I can say I trust none of the above with nuclear weapons.
Exactly. The simple scenario is: Iran works to build "the bomb" (thanks to Trump cancelling the Iran Deal), Israel attempts to stop Iran from building "the bomb" (by using force), shooting between the two starts, and the US hops in on Israel's side faster than you can say "Archduke Franz Ferdinand".
Actually, I'm not sure it isn't a stated goal to let Iran build the bomb just to give cover and rationale for our support of Saudi Arabia to build their own. The cat was out of the bag and I'm a bit surprised it stayed quiet for so long. I mean, I thought that was what the entire Iran deal was about from our side, give the Saudis time to build their own and come out like a debutante in her own good time.
US President Donald Trump has accused foreign governments of extorting "unreasonably low prices" from pharmaceutical firms.
Speaking in Washington on Friday, he said he had directed his top trade negotiator to make the issue a priority in trade talks.
"It is time to end the global freeloading once and for all," he said.
The president is under pressure to deliver on campaign promises to reduce the high costs of prescription drugs.
In his speech, the president pinned the problem in part on price controls in other countries that he said "extort unreasonably low prices" from drug-makers, forcing Americans to pay more to "subsidise the enormous costs of research and development".
"That is unacceptable," he said.
However, experts say foreign pricing is not a major influence on US costs and changing it will not help Americans.
Paul Ginsburg, a professor of health policy at USC and the director of the USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy, said firms set prices to maximise profits and already have ample incentives to innovate.
"The notion that if other countries pay more for drugs that US consumers will pay less, that's just not true," said
"If they are able to get other countries to pay more, I don't believe it will have any effect on prices in the United States," he added. "It will only raise drug company profits."
Shares of health care companies jumped after the president's speech.
Higher costs
Polls repeatedly find that reducing the high cost of prescription drugs is a priority for American voters.
The US spent $1,443 per capita on pharmaceutical costs in 2016, compared to a range of $466 to $939 in 10 other high income countries, including the UK, Australia, Canada and Japan, according to a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
The report said those costs were one of the primary drivers of overall US health spending, which was nearly twice as high as in the other countries.
Image copyright Getty Images
Image caption The rising cost of healthcare is concern for many in the US
President Donald Trump seized on the issue during his 2016 election campaign.
At the time, he said the government should negotiate drug prices for government health programmes, such as Medicare. He also voiced support for allowing people to buy medicines from countries where they cost less, such as Canada.
Neither of those proposals was mentioned in Friday's speech.
Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat from New York, said the president's blueprint offered "little more than window dressing".
"The idea that asking Germany to charge their citizens more for drugs will help Americans is a cop-out and the height of absurdity that nobody believes," he said.
Details of the plan
US drug prices are set by companies and subsequently renegotiated with insurers, suppliers and hospitals through rebates, discounts and other measures.
President Trump said he wants to eliminate "the middlemen" in that system.
The White House blueprint calls for requiring disclosure of out-of-pocket costs and for ending rules that limit what pharmacists can share about costs, among other measures.
President Trump also said he is considering requiring firms to identify drug costs in advertisements.
The plans also emphasises increasing competition among drug manufacturers, by speeding up approvals for generic drugs and cracking down on the "gaming" of intellectual property patents.
Some of those measures are already under way. US Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar on Friday warned "it will take time" for the system to change.
Gerard Anderson, a professor of health policy at Johns Hopkins University, said he is sceptical the proposals will reduce health care costs overall and it is too early to gauge the political effect.
"I don't know how the American public is going to respond," Mr Anderson said. "It clearly does not meet what President Trump said he was going to do when he was elected."
He also said it is unlikely that countries will be cowed by administration demands about pharmaceuticals.
"I don't expect that any country is going to say, 'Oh, we're going to increase our prices because President Trump wants it'," he said.
Gotta get all of his donors paid off before he gets ousted!
Academics in the Netherlands did a study into cancer medication. The study found that pharma companies charge 3 to 8 times more than they need to to make a profit compared to companies in comparable sectors. So they could reduce prices by 80% and still make more than enough profit to make R&D worth it. But sure, the 'furreners' are the problem yet again. They are just ripping everybody off.
Hey, it's not our fault that due to our single payer healthcare the pharmaceutical companies have to negotiate prices with large bodies capable of resisting their price gouging.
Or that our healthcare systems aren't built around some middleman making a profit, pushing the end user costs even higher.
Remember, negotiation and the free market are good, unless someone uses that ability to negotiate to make a deal at a price that doens't provide sufficient profit for important campaign donors. It's amazing how quickly the supposed free market capitalism party can embrace state intervention in the market when it's convenient.
Wait, I thought we'd just agreed that it doesn't matter what Trump says or what deals he makes as he's only the president and doesn't represent the US.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Hey, it's not our fault that due to our single payer healthcare the pharmaceutical companies have to negotiate prices with large bodies capable of resisting their price gouging.
Or that our healthcare systems aren't built around some middleman making a profit, pushing the end user costs even higher.
Yeah
Also in the Netherlands hospitals are now exploring loopholes in making medication on a patient by patient basis. That isn't illegal and can be done to undercut heavily overcharging pharma companies.
Frazzled wrote: No one noticed there was a bonbing of an Episcopal Church in Beaumont. The second in the town in a month.
Or the fact that we're dangerously close to yet another shooting war in the middle east thanks to bailing on the Iran deal?
Why do you think we’re close to a war in the ME with Iran? Unless Iran does something drastic like try to interdict the Strait of Hormuz what compelling reason exists to make us attack them? If Israel is nervous about Iran they can bomb them themslves they’ve got an Air Force of their own.
US likes to invade for one. Might even be most active illegal invader this millenia. With warhawk as president another wouldn't be surprise
And let us not forget that Hillary Clinton was unfit to be President, because she absolutely was a warhawk, that with 100% certainty would have started WW3 with Russia over Syria (or at least start one more of those expensive, basically unwinnable, Middle Eastern wars) that Donald Trump was such a vocal opponent of
Steelmage99 wrote: And let us not forget that Hillary Clinton was unfit to be President, because she absolutely was a warhawk, that with 100% certainty would have started WW3 with Russia over Syria (or at least start one more of those expensive, basically unwinnable, Middle Eastern wars) that Donald Trump was such a vocal opponent of
........Or something like that.
Yeah. It would be hilarious to go back to previous threads and find quotes from people about how Clinton is unacceptable because she's going to start a war in the middle east, and how we need to vote for Trump to avoid this scenario. Hilarious, but ineffective. Trump's supporters will undoubtedly have excuses for why this war is different, or simply insist that the quotes are fake news and they were in favor of war from the beginning.
Why do you think we’re close to a war in the ME with Iran? Unless Iran does something drastic like try to interdict the Strait of Hormuz what compelling reason exists to make us attack them? If Israel is nervous about Iran they can bomb them themslves they’ve got an Air Force of their own.
So, frothing radicals in Trumpland, Israel, and Iran are ready to go to war right now. In all honesty, I'm not sure who's crazier, the genocidal Israelis, the genocidal Iranians, or Trump.
I can say I trust none of the above with nuclear weapons.
Exactly. The simple scenario is: Iran works to build "the bomb" (thanks to Trump cancelling the Iran Deal), Israel attempts to stop Iran from building "the bomb" (by using force), shooting between the two starts, and the US hops in on Israel's side faster than you can say "Archduke Franz Ferdinand".
Actually, I'm not sure it isn't a stated goal to let Iran build the bomb just to give cover and rationale for our support of Saudi Arabia to build their own. The cat was out of the bag and I'm a bit surprised it stayed quiet for so long. I mean, I thought that was what the entire Iran deal was about from our side, give the Saudis time to build their own and come out like a debutante in her own good time.
If the P5 countries that are still in the Iran Deal can’t keep Iran from building nuclear weapons without the US participating in the deal then it really was a terrible deal. The mullahs and politicians in Iran build their careers on promoting anti US sentiment but they’ll only honor a no nukes deal if the US engages in commerce with them?
Don’t buy into the media fear mongering, political leaders have been suggesting attacking Iran for 10 years, McCain joked about bombing Iran back when he was running for president a decade ago, Israel has been pressuring us to do it for even longer and Iranian leaders have hated America for longer than I’ve been alive and hostilities still haven’t broken out.
KSA may need a little more time to have their own nuclear weapons production program running full speed but I’d be surprised if they didn’t already have nuclear weapons from us. We’ve been paying them trillions of dollars for oil for decades, they became a key ally in the region back in the 1980s, we sell them billions of dollars in conventional weapons for decades and Israel having nuclear weapons has been an open secret for decades and I can’t see the House of Saud allowing themselves to outdone by Israel all these years.
Pompeo has said getting North Korea to give up its nukes would require the US to commit to economic support. I mean, yeah, I agree that's a pretty realistic assessment, it's kind of amazing that the US is beginning the discussion from an opening bargaining position that is weaker than the final version of the Iran deal that Trump just walked away from.
Pointing out these guys are a bunch of idiot hypocrites probably doesn't even need to be said at this point. Really the thing to notice now is the incredible whiplash suffered by anyone trying to defend these clowns. WIthin one week the collecton of professional nonsense talkers have had to shift from claiming a deal where the US gave no resources while getting Iran gave up its nuke program and accept on-going inspections was bad, to claiming a deal that will at best gives North Korea billions in (likely) grain, oil and coal to get them to give up their nukes is genius deal making.
It'd be funny except this crap has serious real world consequences. Maybe it'll funny when Trump is out of office and we can look back and laugh. But right now all we can say is the most powerful office in the world is being run by liars who don't give a crap, who are enabled by lairs who don't give a crap.
But there's a key difference here: Trump made the North Korea deal, therefore it is an example of a cunning negotiator gaining every possible advantage for the US. Obama made the Iran deal, therefore it was treason and had to be destroyed. Suggesting that the two could possibly be equivalent is fake news.
sebster wrote: Pompeo has said getting North Korea to give up its nukes would require the US to commit to economic support. I mean, yeah, I agree that's a pretty realistic assessment, it's kind of amazing that the US is beginning the discussion from an opening bargaining position that is weaker than the final version of the Iran deal that Trump just walked away from.
Pointing out these guys are a bunch of idiot hypocrites probably doesn't even need to be said at this point. Really the thing to notice now is the incredible whiplash suffered by anyone trying to defend these clowns. WIthin one week the collecton of professional nonsense talkers have had to shift from claiming a deal where the US gave no resources while getting Iran gave up its nuke program and accept on-going inspections was bad, to claiming a deal that will at best gives North Korea billions in (likely) grain, oil and coal to get them to give up their nukes is genius deal making.
It'd be funny except this crap has serious real world consequences. Maybe it'll funny when Trump is out of office and we can look back and laugh. But right now all we can say is the most powerful office in the world is being run by liars who don't give a crap, who are enabled by lairs who don't give a crap.
So Trump is going to bring back coal jobs by shipping tons of coal to NK as a form of Danegeld to get KJU to play nice and abandon his nuclear weapons program. Trump is clearly the best 5 dimensional chess player ever.
If the P5 countries that are still in the Iran Deal can’t keep Iran from building nuclear weapons without the US participating in the deal then it really was a terrible deal. The mullahs and politicians in Iran build their careers on promoting anti US sentiment but they’ll only honor a no nukes deal if the US engages in commerce with them?
This makes zero sense. The P4+1 are going to be actively punished by adhering to the Iran deal and so is Iran, by P number 5. Iran never had anything to fear from the P4+1, just nr 5 as the US. This is like saying North Korea shouldn't have nukes because they had a deal with Japan and China. Those two countries aren't the reason for North Korea to want nukes. The commerce part might also go down the toilet as business prefers to trade with the US instead of getting sanctioned while trading with Iran. The US leaving undermined the entire deal, if it collapses that isn't because it was terrible, its because the US is trying to actively blow it up by sanctioning allies.
It isn't just about commerce, it is also about the unspoken sentiment that the US wasn't going to go Iraq on them. That just went out the window and the best defence for all those mullahs and politicians not to get hanged like Saddam is nuclear weapons.
If the P5 countries that are still in the Iran Deal can’t keep Iran from building nuclear weapons without the US participating in the deal then it really was a terrible deal. The mullahs and politicians in Iran build their careers on promoting anti US sentiment but they’ll only honor a no nukes deal if the US engages in commerce with them?
This makes zero sense. The P4+1 are going to be actively punished by adhering to the Iran deal and so is Iran, by P number 5. Iran never had anything to fear from the P4+1, just nr 5 as the US. This is like saying North Korea shouldn't have nukes because they had a deal with Japan and China. Those two countries aren't the reason for North Korea to want nukes. The commerce part might also go down the toilet as business prefers to trade with the US instead of getting sanctioned while trading with Iran. The US leaving undermined the entire deal, if it collapses that isn't because it was terrible, its because the US is trying to actively blow it up by sanctioning allies.
It isn't just about commerce, it is also about the unspoken sentiment that the US wasn't going to go Iraq on them. That just went out the window and the best defence for all those mullahs and politicians not to get hanged like Saddam is nuclear weapons.
Iran wants to be a nuclear power because they want to oppose the efforts of KSA to control the ME and set themselves(Iran) up to be a regional leader. The Iran Deal was a smart move by Obama because Iran is going to be a nuclear power if they want to be, we can act to slow that process down but we really can’t stop it. Iran is also set up to be a good ally to the US in the ME to counterbalance KSA and hard line salafists KSA exports. By creating a trading partner relationship with Iran the US creates an avenue to influence Iran by opening the country to US goods and services that will help us in the long game of moderating Muslim theocracies in the ME. It’s similar to Obama’s strategy with Cuba.
The deal was smart and abandoning it was dumb but it leaves us with the same Iran that we’ve been dealing with since the Shah was overthrown. Iran with the US not in the deal isn’t suddenly more radical or aggressive or dangerous. Iran will keep moving down the same path to being a nuclear power except now instead of the US building a friendlier more workable relationship with them we’re maintaining the same adversarial relationship we’ve had for decades. Being enemies is not as good as being friends or even frenemies but it’s the current status quo not a worsening of the relationship. Wrecking the opportunity to improve our relationship with Iran is a stupid move and will undoubtedly have consequences in the future but it doesn’t make war more likely or inevitable in the remaining years of Trumps term.
If the P5 countries that are still in the Iran Deal can’t keep Iran from building nuclear weapons without the US participating in the deal then it really was a terrible deal. The mullahs and politicians in Iran build their careers on promoting anti US sentiment but they’ll only honor a no nukes deal if the US engages in commerce with them?
This makes zero sense. The P4+1 are going to be actively punished by adhering to the Iran deal and so is Iran, by P number 5. Iran never had anything to fear from the P4+1, just nr 5 as the US. This is like saying North Korea shouldn't have nukes because they had a deal with Japan and China. Those two countries aren't the reason for North Korea to want nukes. The commerce part might also go down the toilet as business prefers to trade with the US instead of getting sanctioned while trading with Iran. The US leaving undermined the entire deal, if it collapses that isn't because it was terrible, its because the US is trying to actively blow it up by sanctioning allies.
It isn't just about commerce, it is also about the unspoken sentiment that the US wasn't going to go Iraq on them. That just went out the window and the best defence for all those mullahs and politicians not to get hanged like Saddam is nuclear weapons.
Iran wants to be a nuclear power because they want to oppose the efforts of KSA to control the ME and set themselves(Iran) up to be a regional leader. The Iran Deal was a smart move by Obama because Iran is going to be a nuclear power if they want to be, we can act to slow that process down but we really can’t stop it. Iran is also set up to be a good ally to the US in the ME to counterbalance KSA and hard line salafists KSA exports. By creating a trading partner relationship with Iran the US creates an avenue to influence Iran by opening the country to US goods and services that will help us in the long game of moderating Muslim theocracies in the ME. It’s similar to Obama’s strategy with Cuba.
The deal was smart and abandoning it was dumb but it leaves us with the same Iran that we’ve been dealing with since the Shah was overthrown. Iran with the US not in the deal isn’t suddenly more radical or aggressive or dangerous. Iran will keep moving down the same path to being a nuclear power except now instead of the US building a friendlier more workable relationship with them we’re maintaining the same adversarial relationship we’ve had for decades. Being enemies is not as good as being friends or even frenemies but it’s the current status quo not a worsening of the relationship. Wrecking the opportunity to improve our relationship with Iran is a stupid move and will undoubtedly have consequences in the future but it doesn’t make war more likely or inevitable in the remaining years of Trumps term.
Iran is already a regional leader. Iran has also had to protect itself from multiple outside threats. The Iran-Iraq war was an invasion with Iraq receiving US support. Israel is a nuclear power and quite belligerent against Iran. Saudi Arabia is in an alliance with the US against Iran. Iran exists in a very hostile (Sunni) enviroment. It is no wonder there is an appeal to developing nuclear weapons. But the Bush invasion of Iraq scared them out of the idea to an extent. But Trump is unhinged compared to Bush and the people whispering in his ear seem convinced that Iran is developing weapons contrary to any evidence. Nuclear weapons to defend against Trump just became the most important motivator to have them.
Again, they weren't moving down the path since 2003 in any significant manner. Except now the US has given them a big reason to do so in the form of treating them like pre invasion Iraq. And for it making war more likely, that is very questionable with two incredible Iran hawks who have openly backed regime change now having the President's ear. You can't just dismiss the breakdown of US-Iran relations and the "they are lying to us" rethoric. This is exactly what happened in 2003. It also isn't going back to business as usual. The moderates were gaining ground in Iran for years, this might just be the push hardliners need. The US might have reset Iranian political progress by years all for nothing.
You also said nothing to clarify what would make the deal terrible if it is abandoned in the face of the US sabotaging it.
If the P5 countries that are still in the Iran Deal can’t keep Iran from building nuclear weapons without the US participating in the deal then it really was a terrible deal. The mullahs and politicians in Iran build their careers on promoting anti US sentiment but they’ll only honor a no nukes deal if the US engages in commerce with them?
This makes zero sense. The P4+1 are going to be actively punished by adhering to the Iran deal and so is Iran, by P number 5. Iran never had anything to fear from the P4+1, just nr 5 as the US. This is like saying North Korea shouldn't have nukes because they had a deal with Japan and China. Those two countries aren't the reason for North Korea to want nukes. The commerce part might also go down the toilet as business prefers to trade with the US instead of getting sanctioned while trading with Iran. The US leaving undermined the entire deal, if it collapses that isn't because it was terrible, its because the US is trying to actively blow it up by sanctioning allies.
It isn't just about commerce, it is also about the unspoken sentiment that the US wasn't going to go Iraq on them. That just went out the window and the best defence for all those mullahs and politicians not to get hanged like Saddam is nuclear weapons.
Iran wants to be a nuclear power because they want to oppose the efforts of KSA to control the ME and set themselves(Iran) up to be a regional leader. The Iran Deal was a smart move by Obama because Iran is going to be a nuclear power if they want to be, we can act to slow that process down but we really can’t stop it. Iran is also set up to be a good ally to the US in the ME to counterbalance KSA and hard line salafists KSA exports. By creating a trading partner relationship with Iran the US creates an avenue to influence Iran by opening the country to US goods and services that will help us in the long game of moderating Muslim theocracies in the ME. It’s similar to Obama’s strategy with Cuba.
The deal was smart and abandoning it was dumb but it leaves us with the same Iran that we’ve been dealing with since the Shah was overthrown. Iran with the US not in the deal isn’t suddenly more radical or aggressive or dangerous. Iran will keep moving down the same path to being a nuclear power except now instead of the US building a friendlier more workable relationship with them we’re maintaining the same adversarial relationship we’ve had for decades. Being enemies is not as good as being friends or even frenemies but it’s the current status quo not a worsening of the relationship. Wrecking the opportunity to improve our relationship with Iran is a stupid move and will undoubtedly have consequences in the future but it doesn’t make war more likely or inevitable in the remaining years of Trumps term.
Iran is already a regional leader. Iran has also had to protect itself from multiple outside threats. The Iran-Iraq war was an invasion with Iraq receiving US support. Israel is a nuclear power and quite belligerent against Iran. Saudi Arabia is in an alliance with the US against Iran. Iran exists in a very hostile (Sunni) enviroment. It is no wonder there is an appeal to developing nuclear weapons. But the Bush invasion of Iraq scared them out of the idea to an extent. But Trump is unhinged compared to Bush and the people whispering in his ear seem convinced that Iran is developing weapons contrary to any evidence. Nuclear weapons to defend against Trump just became the most important motivator to have them.
Again, they weren't moving down the path since 2003 in any significant manner. Except now the US has given them a big reason to do so in the form of treating them like pre invasion Iraq. And for it making war more likely, that is very questionable with two incredible Iran hawks who have openly backed regime change now having the President's ear. You can't just dismiss the breakdown of US-Iran relations and the "they are lying to us" rethoric. This is exactly what happened in 2003. It also isn't going back to business as usual. The moderates were gaining ground in Iran for years, this might just be the push hardliners need. The US might have reset Iranian political progress by years all for nothing.
You also said nothing to clarify what would make the deal terrible if it is abandoned in the face of the US sabotaging it.
The deal shouldn’t hinge on US participation. The US has consistently opposed Iran since the 1970s the rest of the Security Council nations should be able to deal with Iran without needing the US to hold everything together. Cuba for example had normal relations and trade agreements with other nations while being sanctioned by the US. If the Iran deal couldn’t work without US involvement and couldn’t get through Congress then it was either poorly explained to the US public or poorly constructed by the other nations. The EU shouldn’t need the US marching alongside in lockstep to have a productive relationship with Iran.
The deal shouldn’t hinge on US participation. The US has consistently opposed Iran since the 1970s the rest of the Security Council nations should be able to deal with Iran without needing the US to hold everything together. Cuba for example had normal relations and trade agreements with other nations while being sanctioned by the US. If the Iran deal couldn’t work without US involvement and couldn’t get through Congress then it was either poorly explained to the US public or poorly constructed by the other nations. The EU shouldn’t need the US marching alongside in lockstep to have a productive relationship with Iran.
Its not about US participation alone, its also about downright US sabotage. Haven't you seen the sanction plans? The Trump admin is going to wage economic war on its allies participating in the deal. That is one of the key factors. And it isn't that the US didn't participate, it killed its own participation. You can't just declare something to be terrible if your own actions make it fall apart. The EU wants a productive relationship and the US is going to punish us for it..
Its like saying you can never run a marathon and then breaking your own kneecaps for good measure.
Its debatable to what extent you could call it a Persian Empire. The geographical has provided a regional power base before the Persians came to power and has served as a power base for different groups of people on and off for longer than 3000 years even. Modern day its still the power base of Shia Islam and a natural leader for the few non Sunni countries in the region like Lebanon and Syria. Meanwhile Saudi Arabia and countries like Egypt are competing to be the regional leader for the non Iranian aligned states. The Saudis usually take the lead in opposing Iran as US allies and the only big 'Sunni' power of note closeby. Turkey was less interested in taking a stance.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Hey, it's not our fault that due to our single payer healthcare the pharmaceutical companies have to negotiate prices with large bodies capable of resisting their price gouging.
Or that our healthcare systems aren't built around some middleman making a profit, pushing the end user costs even higher.
Yeah, and you get what you pay for. The care I got at the NHS in Huntingdon was worse than anything I received in Cambodia, Bangladesh, or even Niger and not even remotely comparable to the US or Japan. Wouldn't be over proud of it.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Hey, it's not our fault that due to our single payer healthcare the pharmaceutical companies have to negotiate prices with large bodies capable of resisting their price gouging.
Or that our healthcare systems aren't built around some middleman making a profit, pushing the end user costs even higher.
Yeah, and you get what you pay for. The care I got at the NHS in Huntingdon was worse than anything I received in Cambodia, Bangladesh, or even Niger and not even remotely comparable to the US or Japan. Wouldn't be over proud of it.
What were you in for and by what metric was the care bad?
thekingofkings wrote: The care I got at the NHS in Huntingdon was worse than anything I received in Cambodia, Bangladesh, or even Niger and not even remotely comparable to the US or Japan.
I'm having a hard time picturing anything worse than Cambodia when it comes to hospital stays, unless you were a personal guest of someone important.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Hey, it's not our fault that due to our single payer healthcare the pharmaceutical companies have to negotiate prices with large bodies capable of resisting their price gouging.
Or that our healthcare systems aren't built around some middleman making a profit, pushing the end user costs even higher.
Yeah, and you get what you pay for. The care I got at the NHS in Huntingdon was worse than anything I received in Cambodia, Bangladesh, or even Niger and not even remotely comparable to the US or Japan. Wouldn't be over proud of it.
What were you in for and by what metric was the care bad?
6 hours for a diagnosis on tendinitis on my knee, after a 5 hour wait, took 3 different doctors to figure it out. first guy kept trying to look at the wrong leg. thought i was on "benny hill"
thekingofkings wrote: The care I got at the NHS in Huntingdon was worse than anything I received in Cambodia, Bangladesh, or even Niger and not even remotely comparable to the US or Japan.
I'm having a hard time picturing anything worse than Cambodia when it comes to hospital stays, unless you were a personal guest of someone important.
Surprisingly the intl in Sihanoukville is actually pretty damn good. I am about as much of a nobody as you can get and still be alive. They were very good.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Hey, it's not our fault that due to our single payer healthcare the pharmaceutical companies have to negotiate prices with large bodies capable of resisting their price gouging.
Or that our healthcare systems aren't built around some middleman making a profit, pushing the end user costs even higher.
Yeah, and you get what you pay for. The care I got at the NHS in Huntingdon was worse than anything I received in Cambodia, Bangladesh, or even Niger and not even remotely comparable to the US or Japan. Wouldn't be over proud of it.
Well that seems fair. Rubbish our most treasured national achievement over a treatment for a minor ailment 17 years ago that cost you a pittance compared to what it may have cost elsewhere.
Personal anecdote is useless when looking at health care systems. The UK system is one of the cheapest to run in the developed world (arguably, it is drastically underfunded when compared to other European systems, though even the French and Germans spend less public money on their systems than the USA). Given it's low level of funding, and zero patient contribution, it is remarkably effective, though it is undeniably behind the French system or the German system. But then French and German citizens are paying more for their care. The USA is very good if you are very well off, but it is very inefficient and expensive.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Hey, it's not our fault that due to our single payer healthcare the pharmaceutical companies have to negotiate prices with large bodies capable of resisting their price gouging.
Or that our healthcare systems aren't built around some middleman making a profit, pushing the end user costs even higher.
Yeah, and you get what you pay for. The care I got at the NHS in Huntingdon was worse than anything I received in Cambodia, Bangladesh, or even Niger and not even remotely comparable to the US or Japan. Wouldn't be over proud of it.
Well that seems fair. Rubbish our most treasured national achievement over a treatment for a minor ailment 17 years ago that cost you a pittance compared to what it may have cost elsewhere.
the point is it cost more than it would have elsewhere. RediMed in Indiana would have cost less than $20. so your snark aside, NHS is not this miracle great system its praised for. Sure I hear Brits talk it up to us all the time, but living there I heard and experienced far different. Maybe some cities are better than others, but it certainly is not all roses.
I am not proud of it, I'm not British. I'm just stating facts which are easy to find. There are all sorts of things that can be objectively compared and measured between healthcare systems, and it is clear that while the NHS is not the best, for it's level of funding it is very good. If the people of the UK want the quality to improve, they have to fund it at a more appropriate level.
I'm Irish, and we have an awful healthcare system because he had a neoliberal US-loving party get in a few years ago and try to privatise our system somewhat. So now it's incredibly inefficient, expensive, and generally terrible. It's actually a barrier to the reunification of Ireland, because people in the North do not want to give up their healthcare and I don't blame them at all. The NHS is definitely better than our bastardised half and half system. I currently live in Germany and have the best healthcare I've ever experienced, though I do pay for it in my public health insurance. I don't mind though - it's still cheaper than the Irish system and far better.
Your anecdotal experience is unfortunate, but it's not something you can judge a system on. You've got to use overall averages and so on for that.
Da Boss wrote: I am not proud of it, I'm not British. I'm just stating facts which are easy to find. There are all sorts of things that can be objectively compared and measured between healthcare systems, and it is clear that while the NHS is not the best, for it's level of funding it is very good. If the people of the UK want the quality to improve, they have to fund it at a more appropriate level.
I'm Irish, and we have an awful healthcare system because he had a neoliberal US-loving party get in a few years ago and try to privatise our system somewhat. So now it's incredibly inefficient, expensive, and generally terrible. It's actually a barrier to the reunification of Ireland, because people in the North do not want to give up their healthcare and I don't blame them at all. The NHS is definitely better than our bastardised half and half system. I currently live in Germany and have the best healthcare I've ever experienced, though I do pay for it in my public health insurance. I don't mind though - it's still cheaper than the Irish system and far better.
Your anecdotal experience is unfortunate, but it's not something you can judge a system on. You've got to use overall averages and so on for that.
it depends on what you take as evidence, but Forbes (again depending on what you accept as evidence) has put out reports showing the US system being considerably more innovations in medicine and biology. That might be because a lot of our hospitals are linked to universities, but there are private hospitals like National Jewish in Colorado that are very highly regarded.
What does tech evolution have to do with the average quality of patient care, though?
I don't doubt that America is leading the charge or close to it in regards to innovating in the medical field, as America is leading the charge or close to it in innovating most scientific fields. We have some of the absolute best scientists and best doctors with the most money behind them in the world. The problem is that scientific achievements are the top end. Scientist creating an all new miracle drug for super-bug X does not really help the guy at the bottom who can't even afford it or just needs some insulin for his diabetes.
The English system is in the Special Education category of socialized health care. It's bad for the same reason the American health care system is bad. There's a political party dedicated to making socialized anything fail in both countries. In America it completely blocks any progress; in England it underfunds NHS so in underperforms, then uses that underperformance as justification to keep underfunding it.
When properly funded, socialized health care works quite well, and costs less per capita than the capitalist/middle man system used in America.
Case in point. The MAXIMUM tax rate paid in Denmark is 45%. The AVERAGE American pays 48% in combined tax and medical expenses. And the Danes get better care, on the average.
BlaxicanX wrote: What does tech evolution have to do with the average quality of patient care, though?
I don't doubt that America is leading the charge or close to it in regards to innovating in the medical field, as America is leading the charge or close to it in innovating most scientific fields. We have some of the absolute best scientists and best doctors with the most money behind them in the world. The problem is that scientific achievements are the top end. Scientist creating an all new miracle drug for super-bug X does not really help the guy at the bottom who can't even afford it or just needs some insulin for his diabetes.
for Joe average it can mean a lot. especially as these advances cause costs to drop, my own cancer medications have dropped costs considerably over the years. That I am even still here with it is a big change in care.
Surprisingly the intl in Sihanoukville is actually pretty damn good. I am about as much of a nobody as you can get and still be alive. They were very good.
So you went to Cambodia's number one resort and found the Hospital care better than NHS. Considering that oil execs frequent the area I imagine the hospital is pretty top notch.
I don't doubt that America is leading the charge or close to it in regards to innovating in the medical field
Actually last time that there was good information on this, the US led the world in medical, medication, and lab errors compared to nations with similar levels of development and wealth. It was also number one in hospital admissions for preventable diseases.
Interestingly, the US also leads the world in post op suture ruptures, which is why a pal of mine is BACK in the hospital. However, post op infection is less likely in the US.
Surprisingly the intl in Sihanoukville is actually pretty damn good. I am about as much of a nobody as you can get and still be alive. They were very good.
So you went to Cambodia's number one resort and found the Hospital care better than NHS. Considering that oil execs frequent the area I imagine the hospital is pretty top notch.
not a lot of "big cities" in Cambodia, but Angkor is the big tourist draw. Sihanoukville is nice, but... I didn't think it much better than say Myrtle Beach, and much less than Hawaii or Guam.
Prestor Jon wrote: Mattis isn’t going to spend lives to improve Trumps approval rating.
He's not the one who ultimately makes that choice, and as good as he is a leader, I'm not sure he would be willing to quit to stop it. Maybe though I dunno if he's really been in a situation like that before.
Co'tor Shas wrote: He's not the one who ultimately makes that choice, and as good as he is a leader, I'm not sure he would be willing to quit to stop it. Maybe though I dunno if he's really been in a situation like that before.
I don't think him quitting would even slow it down.
And the crazy is starting to wash up here on Dakka. Take a look at what some internet bot just spewed forth in another thread.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Hey, it's not our fault that due to our single payer healthcare the pharmaceutical companies have to negotiate prices with large bodies capable of resisting their price gouging.
Or that our healthcare systems aren't built around some middleman making a profit, pushing the end user costs even higher.
Yeah, and you get what you pay for. The care I got at the NHS in Huntingdon was worse than anything I received in Cambodia, Bangladesh, or even Niger and not even remotely comparable to the US or Japan. Wouldn't be over proud of it.
Well that seems fair. Rubbish our most treasured national achievement over a treatment for a minor ailment 17 years ago that cost you a pittance compared to what it may have cost elsewhere.
the point is it cost more than it would have elsewhere. RediMed in Indiana would have cost less than $20. so your snark aside, NHS is not this miracle great system its praised for. Sure I hear Brits talk it up to us all the time, but living there I heard and experienced far different. Maybe some cities are better than others, but it certainly is not all roses.
You make sweeping statements attacking a treasured national achievement based on a personal anecdote of minor inconvenience from nearly 20 years ago, and you better get used to snarky, tongue in cheek comments. You're lucky you don't get an eye roll too.
I'm glad your cancer meds are cheaper now, luckily the stent procedure for my father, the breast cancer treatment for my friends wife, and the extensive treatment for prostate cancer for my neighbour are all completely free of charge, forever. Aside from prescription charges of £8.80 per item or £29.10 for 3 monthly pre-paid, of course.
I'm enormously proud that any UK citizen can receive free health care for their entire life regardless of ability to pay, personal circumstances or medical history. That is a worthy, and noble achievement I think despite whatever else the British are guilty of.
And before you start posting up some republican gubbins rubbishing socialised health care and death boards or whatever it is your lot seem to think is the downside of universal health care, I simply don't give a gak, and never will. You can keep your insurance based system, and we'll keep ours, and we'd very much appreciate it if your medical companies would take their interest in our NHS elsewhere. Because apart from in the heads of some of the most deluded Tories, they are most definitely not welcome on this side of the pond thank you very much indeedy.
the point is it cost more than it would have elsewhere. RediMed in Indiana would have cost less than $20. so your snark aside, NHS is not this miracle great system its praised for. Sure I hear Brits talk it up to us all the time, but living there I heard and experienced far different. Maybe some cities are better than others, but it certainly is not all roses.
You make sweeping statements attacking a treasured national achievement based on a personal anecdote of minor inconvenience from nearly 20 years ago, and you better get used to snarky, tongue in cheek comments. You're lucky you don't get an eye roll too.
I'm glad your cancer meds are cheaper now, luckily the stent procedure for my father, the breast cancer treatment for my friends wife, and the extensive treatment for prostate cancer for my neighbour are all completely free of charge, forever. Aside from prescription charges of £8.80 per item or £29.10 for 3 monthly pre-paid, of course.
I'm enormously proud that any UK citizen can receive free health care for their entire life regardless of ability to pay, personal circumstances or medical history. That is a worthy, and noble achievement I think despite whatever else the British are guilty of.
And before you start posting up some republican gubbins rubbishing socialised health care and death boards or whatever it is your lot seem to think is the downside of universal health care, I simply don't give a gak, and never will. You can keep your insurance based system, and we'll keep ours, and we'd very much appreciate it if your medical companies would take their interest in our NHS elsewhere. Because apart from in the heads of some of the most deluded Tories, they are most definitely not welcome on this side of the pond thank you very much indeedy.
BUT. DEM. EMAILS.
while seeming a simple humor post this is actually a subtle commentary on the Republican tendency to deflect the moment the discussion isn't going their way
for Joe average it can mean a lot. especially as these advances cause costs to drop, my own cancer medications have dropped costs considerably over the years. That I am even still here with it is a big change in care.
I would wonder if the costs of your meds dropped more due to the patents expiring allowing you to get cheaper generics, rather than due to any medical advances.
When the main complaint boils down to “I had to wait longer than I would have liked” and not any actual health outcomes, it should give one some thought.
These two articles tell the British everything they need to know about the US health system.
In the UK, if you fell over at the mall and got hurt, you would be taken to A&E and treated and the cost would be £0. Admittedly you might have to wait to be treated, depending on the extent of your injuries.
Even as a non-EU citizen you would be treated for free, and in theory you would be charged afterwards but usually it isn't done. As an American you of course would have got travel insurance to cover possible medical expenses, so it would be fine.
These two articles tell the British everything they need to know about the US health system.
In the UK, if you fell over at the mall and got hurt, you would be taken to A&E and treated and the cost would be £0. Admittedly you might have to wait to be treated, depending on the extent of your injuries.
Even as a non-EU citizen you would be treated for free, and in theory you would be charged afterwards but usually it isn't done. As an American you of course would have got travel insurance to cover possible medical expenses, so it would be fine.
However I feel this is all rather off-topic.
Oh man. Referring to that upper article: We had a ton of people with fainting/syncope as initial problem coming into the ER I worked at last month here in Germany. It is absolute standard here to take blood samples, do an ECG, a blood gas analysis, a physical examination, thorough anamnesis and then after all of this still recommend either being admitted to the cardiology or neurology ward for further diagnosis of a first-time syncope to rule out malign arrythmias, cardiomyopathies and newly present neurological issues OR at least do all of this in ambulant practices.
And here... a young person leaving the hospital in fear of medical bills she can't pay, even when she might have a serious life-threatening reason for the sycnope or also epidural or subdural bleeding after hitting her head, and then STILL being billed a feth ton of money...Sorry, I just can't wrap my head around it.
More Treason from Trump, he's promising to save Chinese jobs in an effort to create a rival for US tech firms.
So the people who want to punish their European allies for legally trading with Iran under the Iran deal want to save a Chinese company convicted of illegally trading with Iran and North Korea? Just when you think it couldn't possibly get weirder.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Hey, it's not our fault that due to our single payer healthcare the pharmaceutical companies have to negotiate prices with large bodies capable of resisting their price gouging.
Or that our healthcare systems aren't built around some middleman making a profit, pushing the end user costs even higher.
Yeah, and you get what you pay for. The care I got at the NHS in Huntingdon was worse than anything I received in Cambodia, Bangladesh, or even Niger and not even remotely comparable to the US or Japan. Wouldn't be over proud of it.
Well that seems fair. Rubbish our most treasured national achievement over a treatment for a minor ailment 17 years ago that cost you a pittance compared to what it may have cost elsewhere.
the point is it cost more than it would have elsewhere. RediMed in Indiana would have cost less than $20. so your snark aside, NHS is not this miracle great system its praised for. Sure I hear Brits talk it up to us all the time, but living there I heard and experienced far different. Maybe some cities are better than others, but it certainly is not all roses.
You make sweeping statements attacking a treasured national achievement based on a personal anecdote of minor inconvenience from nearly 20 years ago, and you better get used to snarky, tongue in cheek comments. You're lucky you don't get an eye roll too.
I'm glad your cancer meds are cheaper now, luckily the stent procedure for my father, the breast cancer treatment for my friends wife, and the extensive treatment for prostate cancer for my neighbour are all completely free of charge, forever. Aside from prescription charges of £8.80 per item or £29.10 for 3 monthly pre-paid, of course.
I'm enormously proud that any UK citizen can receive free health care for their entire life regardless of ability to pay, personal circumstances or medical history. That is a worthy, and noble achievement I think despite whatever else the British are guilty of.
And before you start posting up some republican gubbins rubbishing socialised health care and death boards or whatever it is your lot seem to think is the downside of universal health care, I simply don't give a gak, and never will. You can keep your insurance based system, and we'll keep ours, and we'd very much appreciate it if your medical companies would take their interest in our NHS elsewhere. Because apart from in the heads of some of the most deluded Tories, they are most definitely not welcome on this side of the pond thank you very much indeedy.
that magical "free" you guys keep lying about, its not "free" you pay for it each year ,your taxes are obscene.(you likely pay more in taxes than I pay for taxes and my premiums combined) thats what pays for it, by all means enjoy your welfare state, and super high taxes, even a tax on each TV in the house. How about we also keep all those medical advances our system provides, which while the UK is 2nd in, is orders of magnitude far behind us. see snotty attitude can go both ways, glad you dont give a damn, there is a reason people mostly go to the US for healthcare and not the UK. 11 hours for a simple diagnosis is "inconvenient" for a knee injury sure, sitting in pain for that long is no big deal, I am just glad it wasnt something like say a blood clot. thats not even detailing your much higher death rate in hospitals, and no thats not from some right wing 'Murican report but your own news agencies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: When the main complaint boils down to “I had to wait longer than I would have liked” and not any actual health outcomes, it should give one some thought.
again 3 doctors over 11 hours had it been a blood clot in my leg, could have been fatal.
that magical "free" you guys keep lying about, its not "free" you pay for it each year ,your taxes are obscene.(you likely pay more in taxes than I pay for taxes and my premiums combined) thats what pays for it,
Well I actually did the math when I was offered a permanent position in the US instead of just spending 8-10 weeks a year there, and the results were the opposite.
My private plan here + taxes cost less than just the regular plan most colleagues in the US got (which was pretty comprehensive but nothing top tier)
I'm speaking about 10 years back but if anything the numbers will be worse now... plus now I have a son with a very expensive condition (ASD) that would cost upwards of 30K a year to properly treat un the US (schools, speech specialists, neuropaedatricians, etc) cost here is less than 100 euro a month for the extra private sessions, and I don't even have to worry about that affecting my own insurance policy.
Difference is, as someone that’s been repeatedly spazzed up throughout my life (including being an induced labour, and shortly after a very serious life threatening condition), the NHS doesn’t cost me anymore than someone that’s enjoyed absolutely perfect health throughout their life.
And if it wasn’t for my job, I wouldn’t have to negotiated labyrinthine terms and conditions and exclusions of private medical plans.
Now, some might chime in with ‘why should I pay for someone else’s medical care’ is showing a frankly staggering level of ignorance as to how insurance actually works. Because it’s absolutley no different in structure to my taxes and national insurance paying for the NHS.
See, when an insurer sets their premiums, they work on a Reserve basis. The Reserve will depend on the average cost of all claims in the past year (often longer). That’s then worked into the premiums, to ensure they’re bringing in enough premiums to cover their expected outgoing. Plus of course, their desired profit margin.
The trick there is to balance it just right, so you make a decent slice of profit, without pricing yourself out of the market. It’s essentially a gamble - a gamble that the majority of users won’t use their insurance in a given year. And the minority that do don’t break the bank.
So entirely contrary to what the desperately uninformed would like to believe social or private, you’re already paying for someone else. The only difference is that with the NHS, ropey and underfunded as it is, is that nobody can point to paragraph 53, clause 174, and say ‘tough luck buster, we’re not paying for it’. Or indeed jack up the prices Because Greed.
Now, consider relatively trivial, but disabling ailments. For every person that needs a new hip, but can’t afford the insurance or surgery, that’s someone not working. They may also require a family member as a career, taking them out of the work pool as well. Increased welfar costs, reduced tax income. Rinse and repeat across an entire populace, and hopefully you’ll see the idiocy for what it is.
Now, the NHS isn’t perfect. Around 21 years ago, a rush job by my local GP caused blood poisoning. See, turns out I had Glandular Fever. Bellend did an exceptionally cursory ‘tongue out, say ahh, penicillin and bugger off’ examaniation. Of course, the medicine and the disease reacted, resulting in Blood Poisoning. I was so weak, I could barely get to the lavvy when I needed.
But all the times they’ve patched me up and sent me on my way? Totally outweigh that. Let’s see....there was my difficult birth, the stomach operation at two weeks old, removing that Playmobil spear from my ear, the wee stone from my nose, stitching my arm when I went through the window, the surgery to fix the tendon after that, popping out my ruptured appendix, stitching my lip (that should’ve come earlier in the list), at least two assessments for Epilepsy (runs in the family, occasional head wibbles) including EEG and MRI scans. And I think that’s it, and I’m not even 40 yet.
Yet when I hit retirement age (currently 30 years away), I’ll still have access to it, even though I’ll no longer be a tax payer. Provided the Tories don’t gut and privatise it much further, that could very well include long term care due to dementia, which runs in both sides of the family (don’t worry, I’m hoping to avoid that by partying hard. Don’t want it to happen to me).
You say our taxes are high? Yes, they are. I guess. Only ever lived in the U.K. so I’m afraid I lack a point of reference. But do tell us how much your annual premiums are for your healthcare, and post a link to your terms, conditions and exclusions, yeah? See who actually gets a better deal.
that magical "free" you guys keep lying about, its not "free" you pay for it each year ,your taxes are obscene.(you likely pay more in taxes than I pay for taxes and my premiums combined) thats what pays for it,
Well I actually did the math when I was offered a permanent position in the US instead of just spending 8-10 weeks a year there, and the results were the opposite.
My private plan here + taxes cost less than just the regular plan most colleagues in the US got (which was pretty comprehensive but nothing top tier)
I'm speaking about 10 years back but if anything the numbers will be worse now... plus now I have a son with a very expensive condition (ASD) that would cost upwards of 30K a year to properly treat un the US (schools, speech specialists, neuropaedatricians, etc) cost here is less than 100 euro a month for the extra private sessions, and I don't even have to worry about that affecting my own insurance policy.
depends, ACA has some really good plans. the thing is you would have options based on your needs. You might be better off not coming. Dont know how Poland's system is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Difference is, as someone that’s been repeatedly spazzed up throughout my life (including being an induced labour, and shortly after a very serious life threatening condition), the NHS doesn’t cost me anymore than someone that’s enjoyed absolutely perfect health throughout their life.
And if it wasn’t for my job, I wouldn’t have to negotiated labyrinthine terms and conditions and exclusions of private medical plans.
Now, some might chime in with ‘why should I pay for someone else’s medical care’ is showing a frankly staggering level of ignorance as to how insurance actually works. Because it’s absolutley no different in structure to my taxes and national insurance paying for the NHS.
See, when an insurer sets their premiums, they work on a Reserve basis. The Reserve will depend on the average cost of all claims in the past year (often longer). That’s then worked into the premiums, to ensure they’re bringing in enough premiums to cover their expected outgoing. Plus of course, their desired profit margin.
The trick there is to balance it just right, so you make a decent slice of profit, without pricing yourself out of the market. It’s essentially a gamble - a gamble that the majority of users won’t use their insurance in a given year. And the minority that do don’t break the bank.
So entirely contrary to what the desperately uninformed would like to believe social or private, you’re already paying for someone else. The only difference is that with the NHS, ropey and underfunded as it is, is that nobody can point to paragraph 53, clause 174, and say ‘tough luck buster, we’re not paying for it’. Or indeed jack up the prices Because Greed.
Now, consider relatively trivial, but disabling ailments. For every person that needs a new hip, but can’t afford the insurance or surgery, that’s someone not working. They may also require a family member as a career, taking them out of the work pool as well. Increased welfar costs, reduced tax income. Rinse and repeat across an entire populace, and hopefully you’ll see the idiocy for what it is.
Now, the NHS isn’t perfect. Around 21 years ago, a rush job by my local GP caused blood poisoning. See, turns out I had Glandular Fever. Bellend did an exceptionally cursory ‘tongue out, say ahh, penicillin and bugger off’ examaniation. Of course, the medicine and the disease reacted, resulting in Blood Poisoning. I was so weak, I could barely get to the lavvy when I needed.
But all the times they’ve patched me up and sent me on my way? Totally outweigh that. Let’s see....there was my difficult birth, the stomach operation at two weeks old, removing that Playmobil spear from my ear, the wee stone from my nose, stitching my arm when I went through the window, the surgery to fix the tendon after that, popping out my ruptured appendix, stitching my lip (that should’ve come earlier in the list), at least two assessments for Epilepsy (runs in the family, occasional head wibbles) including EEG and MRI scans. And I think that’s it, and I’m not even 40 yet.
Yet when I hit retirement age (currently 30 years away), I’ll still have access to it, even though I’ll no longer be a tax payer. Provided the Tories don’t gut and privatise it much further, that could very well include long term care due to dementia, which runs in both sides of the family (don’t worry, I’m hoping to avoid that by partying hard. Don’t want it to happen to me).
You say our taxes are high? Yes, they are. I guess. Only ever lived in the U.K. so I’m afraid I lack a point of reference. But do tell us how much your annual premiums are for your healthcare, and post a link to your terms, conditions and exclusions, yeah? See who actually gets a better deal.
You know full well noone is going to post that much private and personal details on a forum like this. Hell even if I liked you and you were a close friend I wouldnt give you that information. That said, having lived in both countries, I would never return to England to live, and I still love my family there.
It’s hardly sensitive information. If I could log in to my payslip from home, I could pull up my P60 tax form from last year, and tell you exactly how much tax and NI I paid.
I could even tell you how much work’s private healthcare plan cost me as an individual (and it’s a top tier policy, they do look after us)
And here’s a cracker. Let’s say my coach to work stacks it tomorrow, and I end up quadraspazzed as a result. I can rest assured that they’ll check my pulse, not the contents of my wallet before they scrape me up into the ambulance.
The information required to compare the two systems exists, and the UK system provides good value for the money spent on it. The US system is expensive and inefficient, but if you can pay, you get very good treatment.
I think it's crazy that medical bills are the leading reason for bankruptcy in the US, but if you're really happy with your system, more power to ya. I suppose each state can make their own healthcare system in the end, I've heard some states have quite socialist systems.
Perhaps we should start another thread, where various members from various nations post what percentage of their income they paid in taxes plus all health care expenses - insurance, deductibles, copays, and the works - for 2017.
It’s hardly sensitive information. If I could log in to my payslip from home, I could pull up my P60 tax form from last year, and tell you exactly how much tax and NI I paid.
I could even tell you how much work’s private healthcare plan cost me as an individual (and it’s a top tier policy, they do look after us)
And here’s a cracker. Let’s say my coach to work stacks it tomorrow, and I end up quadraspazzed as a result. I can rest assured that they’ll check my pulse, not the contents of my wallet before they scrape me up into the ambulance.
I know more about you already than I want to, your payslip is your business and none of mine I dont even want to know where you live. We are not friends or even acquaintances.
Da Boss wrote: The information required to compare the two systems exists, and the UK system provides good value for the money spent on it. The US system is expensive and inefficient, but if you can pay, you get very good treatment.
I think it's crazy that medical bills are the leading reason for bankruptcy in the US, but if you're really happy with your system, more power to ya. I suppose each state can make their own healthcare system in the end, I've heard some states have quite socialist systems.
you can argue expensive and ineffecient for about any system,. I dont agree with you at all on the comparison, when one system has a much higher death rate percentage than the other is that really a good thing?
Da Boss wrote: The information required to compare the two systems exists, and the UK system provides good value for the money spent on it. The US system is expensive and inefficient, but if you can pay, you get very good treatment.
I think it's crazy that medical bills are the leading reason for bankruptcy in the US, but if you're really happy with your system, more power to ya. I suppose each state can make their own healthcare system in the end, I've heard some states have quite socialist systems.
I wouldn't go that far, California is the only one I know moving in the direction of single payer and that;'s only been recently.
But honestly, I think it's a great move. I've seen the results of hyper-individualist "I'm an island unto myself" rhetoric and it's a few ultra-rich permanent nobles ruling over a mass of people in hand to mouth poverty. You know, like the red states here or the aftermath of the other modern post-empire, Russia.
It’s hardly sensitive information. If I could log in to my payslip from home, I could pull up my P60 tax form from last year, and tell you exactly how much tax and NI I paid.
I could even tell you how much work’s private healthcare plan cost me as an individual (and it’s a top tier policy, they do look after us)
And here’s a cracker. Let’s say my coach to work stacks it tomorrow, and I end up quadraspazzed as a result. I can rest assured that they’ll check my pulse, not the contents of my wallet before they scrape me up into the ambulance.
I know more about you already than I want to, your payslip is your business and none of mine I dont even want to know where you live. We are not friends or even acquaintances.
I mean...it's not like he's describing an odd-smelling rash somewhere you wouldn't expect. It's pertinent to the discussion, isn't it?
Da Boss wrote: The information required to compare the two systems exists, and the UK system provides good value for the money spent on it. The US system is expensive and inefficient, but if you can pay, you get very good treatment.
I think it's crazy that medical bills are the leading reason for bankruptcy in the US, but if you're really happy with your system, more power to ya. I suppose each state can make their own healthcare system in the end, I've heard some states have quite socialist systems.
you can argue expensive and ineffecient for about any system,. I dont agree with you at all on the comparison, when one system has a much higher death rate percentage than the other is that really a good thing?
Da Boss wrote: The information required to compare the two systems exists, and the UK system provides good value for the money spent on it. The US system is expensive and inefficient, but if you can pay, you get very good treatment.
I think it's crazy that medical bills are the leading reason for bankruptcy in the US, but if you're really happy with your system, more power to ya. I suppose each state can make their own healthcare system in the end, I've heard some states have quite socialist systems.
you can argue expensive and ineffecient for about any system,. I dont agree with you at all on the comparison, when one system has a much higher death rate percentage than the other is that really a good thing?
The NHS is currently pretty badly underfunded and so are many other forms of care for individuals at the lower end of the income scale. This always happens when a Tory government gets in. The UK pays about the same per capita as Greece does on it's healthcare but gets a lot more out of what it spends. The mortality you reference is not only to do with the hospital system (which is degrading due to underfunding and intentional sabotage by the Tories) but also problems outside the scope of the NHS to deal with.
But you keep talking about the NHS, which is a system that makes a trade off between money spent and outcomes. It's one of the cheapest systems in any developed nation. I think it would be interesting for you to compare the French system, which is very expensive but has excellent outcomes, or the German system, which is somewhere in between.
So if you’re not up for specifics, can you at least tell us rough figures?
Is your health insurance three, four or five figures? Because in total, tax wise, I paid around £6,400ish last year - give or take. That means my take home was roughly £22,600ish. At the current exchange rate, that’s around $8,664 tax, $30,700ish.
Only rough figures, but for illustrative purposes. And not including stuff like VAT, tobacco tax, fuel duty and beer duty etc of course. I’m purely talking point of pay tax (which is all done for me, which is nice. Not sure I’d cope well with self declared tax.)
A Town Called Malus wrote: Hey, it's not our fault that due to our single payer healthcare the pharmaceutical companies have to negotiate prices with large bodies capable of resisting their price gouging.
Or that our healthcare systems aren't built around some middleman making a profit, pushing the end user costs even higher.
Yeah, and you get what you pay for. The care I got at the NHS in Huntingdon was worse than anything I received in Cambodia, Bangladesh, or even Niger and not even remotely comparable to the US or Japan. Wouldn't be over proud of it.
Well that seems fair. Rubbish our most treasured national achievement over a treatment for a minor ailment 17 years ago that cost you a pittance compared to what it may have cost elsewhere.
the point is it cost more than it would have elsewhere. RediMed in Indiana would have cost less than $20. so your snark aside, NHS is not this miracle great system its praised for. Sure I hear Brits talk it up to us all the time, but living there I heard and experienced far different. Maybe some cities are better than others, but it certainly is not all roses.
You make sweeping statements attacking a treasured national achievement based on a personal anecdote of minor inconvenience from nearly 20 years ago, and you better get used to snarky, tongue in cheek comments. You're lucky you don't get an eye roll too.
I'm glad your cancer meds are cheaper now, luckily the stent procedure for my father, the breast cancer treatment for my friends wife, and the extensive treatment for prostate cancer for my neighbour are all completely free of charge, forever. Aside from prescription charges of £8.80 per item or £29.10 for 3 monthly pre-paid, of course.
I'm enormously proud that any UK citizen can receive free health care for their entire life regardless of ability to pay, personal circumstances or medical history. That is a worthy, and noble achievement I think despite whatever else the British are guilty of.
And before you start posting up some republican gubbins rubbishing socialised health care and death boards or whatever it is your lot seem to think is the downside of universal health care, I simply don't give a gak, and never will. You can keep your insurance based system, and we'll keep ours, and we'd very much appreciate it if your medical companies would take their interest in our NHS elsewhere. Because apart from in the heads of some of the most deluded Tories, they are most definitely not welcome on this side of the pond thank you very much indeedy.
that magical "free" you guys keep lying about, its not "free" you pay for it each year ,your taxes are obscene.(you likely pay more in taxes than I pay for taxes and my premiums combined) thats what pays for it, by all means enjoy your welfare state, and super high taxes, even a tax on each TV in the house. How about we also keep all those medical advances our system provides, which while the UK is 2nd in, is orders of magnitude far behind us. see snotty attitude can go both ways, glad you dont give a damn, there is a reason people mostly go to the US for healthcare and not the UK. 11 hours for a simple diagnosis is "inconvenient" for a knee injury sure, sitting in pain for that long is no big deal, I am just glad it wasnt something like say a blood clot. thats not even detailing your much higher death rate in hospitals, and no thats not from some right wing 'Murican report but your own news agencies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: When the main complaint boils down to “I had to wait longer than I would have liked” and not any actual health outcomes, it should give one some thought.
again 3 doctors over 11 hours had it been a blood clot in my leg, could have been fatal.
You got the wait time and treatment indicated for your non-fatal condition.
The US might have the best “customer service” in healthcare, as long as we are not talking about the collection department of the hospital system, but by all measures we have the worst outcomes out of any modern system.
I got all kind of anecdotes about how gakky our system is and how good the german system is. I’ve worked in private/public/for-profit/non-profit/Government hospitals during the past few decades. Our system sucks.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Hey, it's not our fault that due to our single payer healthcare the pharmaceutical companies have to negotiate prices with large bodies capable of resisting their price gouging.
Or that our healthcare systems aren't built around some middleman making a profit, pushing the end user costs even higher.
Yeah, and you get what you pay for. The care I got at the NHS in Huntingdon was worse than anything I received in Cambodia, Bangladesh, or even Niger and not even remotely comparable to the US or Japan. Wouldn't be over proud of it.
Well that seems fair. Rubbish our most treasured national achievement over a treatment for a minor ailment 17 years ago that cost you a pittance compared to what it may have cost elsewhere.
the point is it cost more than it would have elsewhere. RediMed in Indiana would have cost less than $20. so your snark aside, NHS is not this miracle great system its praised for. Sure I hear Brits talk it up to us all the time, but living there I heard and experienced far different. Maybe some cities are better than others, but it certainly is not all roses.
You make sweeping statements attacking a treasured national achievement based on a personal anecdote of minor inconvenience from nearly 20 years ago, and you better get used to snarky, tongue in cheek comments. You're lucky you don't get an eye roll too.
I'm glad your cancer meds are cheaper now, luckily the stent procedure for my father, the breast cancer treatment for my friends wife, and the extensive treatment for prostate cancer for my neighbour are all completely free of charge, forever. Aside from prescription charges of £8.80 per item or £29.10 for 3 monthly pre-paid, of course.
I'm enormously proud that any UK citizen can receive free health care for their entire life regardless of ability to pay, personal circumstances or medical history. That is a worthy, and noble achievement I think despite whatever else the British are guilty of.
And before you start posting up some republican gubbins rubbishing socialised health care and death boards or whatever it is your lot seem to think is the downside of universal health care, I simply don't give a gak, and never will. You can keep your insurance based system, and we'll keep ours, and we'd very much appreciate it if your medical companies would take their interest in our NHS elsewhere. Because apart from in the heads of some of the most deluded Tories, they are most definitely not welcome on this side of the pond thank you very much indeedy.
that magical "free" you guys keep lying about, its not "free" you pay for it each year ,your taxes are obscene.(you likely pay more in taxes than I pay for taxes and my premiums combined) thats what pays for it, by all means enjoy your welfare state, and super high taxes, even a tax on each TV in the house. How about we also keep all those medical advances our system provides, which while the UK is 2nd in, is orders of magnitude far behind us. see snotty attitude can go both ways, glad you dont give a damn, there is a reason people mostly go to the US for healthcare and not the UK. 11 hours for a simple diagnosis is "inconvenient" for a knee injury sure, sitting in pain for that long is no big deal, I am just glad it wasnt something like say a blood clot. thats not even detailing your much higher death rate in hospitals, and no thats not from some right wing 'Murican report but your own news agencies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: When the main complaint boils down to “I had to wait longer than I would have liked” and not any actual health outcomes, it should give one some thought.
again 3 doctors over 11 hours had it been a blood clot in my leg, could have been fatal.
You got the wait time and treatment indicated for your non-fatal condition.
The US might have the best “customer service” in healthcare, as long as we are not talking about the collection department of the hospital system, but by all measures we have the worst outcomes out of any modern system.
I got all kind of anecdotes about how gakky our system is and how good the german system is. I’ve worked in private/public/for-profit/non-profit/Government hospitals during the past few decades. Our system sucks.
it took that time to determine a diagnosis, retroactively sure it was good triage, but since they had no idea and it took 3 doctors to figure it out, thats not a good outcome.
For added perspective, I may not be a rich man, but I’m by no means poorly paid.
For someone working 40 hours a week on the minimum wage, their outcome would look be something akin to....
£16,286 income. Of that, £11,850 is tax free (not allowing for deductible etc. Just level ‘nothing special’. That means, including tax and NI, and the bog standard 1185L tax code, they’re paying in a pretty meagre £1830 or so. For complete, universal healthcare - and all the other things wot tax is spent on.
Other than “it took a long time”, what was the bad outcome?
We’re you misdiagnosed? Did you suffer injury? Did you end up with loss of function? Any long term consequences? Hospital acquired infection?
“I didn’t like that I had to wait so long” is a customer satisfaction metric that doesn’t tell you anything about actual health outcomes. But our system cares more about Press Ganey Scores than health outcomes.
d-usa wrote: Other than “it took a long time”, what was the bad outcome?
We’re you misdiagnosed? Did you suffer injury? Did you end up with loss of function? Any long term consequences? Hospital acquired infection?
“I didn’t like that I had to wait so long” is a customer satisfaction metric that doesn’t tell you anything about actual health outcomes. But our system cares more about Press Ganey Scores than health outcomes.
You didn’t like the service, but there really was no bad health outcomes and you ended up with the right diagnosis and treatment.
I got a diagnosis, no treatment, I cant blame them for that entirely, I would have had to come back in 2 weeks, but went to Karachi 4 days later (got treatment there) fortunately there was nothing that would have caused any permanent injury, but it should have been wrapped (I am not a doctor, that was what i was told)
I feel like doctors are a lot like utility companies. At the end of the day, their role is so integral to just living modern life that it amplifies everything they do in the eyes of us plebs. The stakes reach ludicrous levels to us and we hold anything and everything against them. It's not really fair, but it's how it is.
LordofHats wrote: I feel like doctors are a lot like utility companies. At the end of the day, their role is so integral to just living modern life that it amplifies everything they do in the eyes of us plebs. The stakes reach ludicrous levels to us and we hold anything and everything against them. It's not really fair, but it's how it is.
Probably the most honest comment I have seen in one of these threads.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Hey, it's not our fault that due to our single payer healthcare the pharmaceutical companies have to negotiate prices with large bodies capable of resisting their price gouging.
Or that our healthcare systems aren't built around some middleman making a profit, pushing the end user costs even higher.
Yeah, and you get what you pay for. The care I got at the NHS in Huntingdon was worse than anything I received in Cambodia, Bangladesh, or even Niger and not even remotely comparable to the US or Japan. Wouldn't be over proud of it.
Well that seems fair. Rubbish our most treasured national achievement over a treatment for a minor ailment 17 years ago that cost you a pittance compared to what it may have cost elsewhere.
the point is it cost more than it would have elsewhere. RediMed in Indiana would have cost less than $20. so your snark aside, NHS is not this miracle great system its praised for. Sure I hear Brits talk it up to us all the time, but living there I heard and experienced far different. Maybe some cities are better than others, but it certainly is not all roses.
You make sweeping statements attacking a treasured national achievement based on a personal anecdote of minor inconvenience from nearly 20 years ago, and you better get used to snarky, tongue in cheek comments. You're lucky you don't get an eye roll too.
I'm glad your cancer meds are cheaper now, luckily the stent procedure for my father, the breast cancer treatment for my friends wife, and the extensive treatment for prostate cancer for my neighbour are all completely free of charge, forever. Aside from prescription charges of £8.80 per item or £29.10 for 3 monthly pre-paid, of course.
I'm enormously proud that any UK citizen can receive free health care for their entire life regardless of ability to pay, personal circumstances or medical history. That is a worthy, and noble achievement I think despite whatever else the British are guilty of.
And before you start posting up some republican gubbins rubbishing socialised health care and death boards or whatever it is your lot seem to think is the downside of universal health care, I simply don't give a gak, and never will. You can keep your insurance based system, and we'll keep ours, and we'd very much appreciate it if your medical companies would take their interest in our NHS elsewhere. Because apart from in the heads of some of the most deluded Tories, they are most definitely not welcome on this side of the pond thank you very much indeedy.
that magical "free" you guys keep lying about, its not "free" you pay for it each year ,your taxes are obscene.(you likely pay more in taxes than I pay for taxes and my premiums combined) thats what pays for it, by all means enjoy your welfare state, and super high taxes, even a tax on each TV in the house. How about we also keep all those medical advances our system provides, which while the UK is 2nd in, is orders of magnitude far behind us. see snotty attitude can go both ways, glad you dont give a damn, there is a reason people mostly go to the US for healthcare and not the UK. 11 hours for a simple diagnosis is "inconvenient" for a knee injury sure, sitting in pain for that long is no big deal, I am just glad it wasnt something like say a blood clot. thats not even detailing your much higher death rate in hospitals, and no thats not from some right wing 'Murican report but your own news agencies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: When the main complaint boils down to “I had to wait longer than I would have liked” and not any actual health outcomes, it should give one some thought.
again 3 doctors over 11 hours had it been a blood clot in my leg, could have been fatal.
Well, seeing as you're coy about numbers I did a bit of research, (about 60 secs on google) and it would seem that if you earn £50k in the UK the percentage of my total tax for the year that pays for the NHS is £2469 ($3344 ish). If I'm the only earner in the family, which coincidentally I am at the minute, that "premium" cover my whole family (wife and 2 kids) for full, comprehensive medical and dental care no matter what happens to them, guaranteed.
However the average wage in the UK is 27k, meaning a total tax bill of £5748 of which 18.5% is spent on the NHS which comes to £1063. Not bad considering that if you're single, or a family man you're still paying the same, and everyone gets the same health and dental provision.
Now, admittedly looking up medical insurance for US citizens is clearly riveting stuff, so I thoroughly enjoyed briefly scanning a handful of articles after my search which said much the same thing. American health insurance ain't cheap, in fact it's a bit more than our above average earner earlier would expect to pay and quitell a bit more than the averge chap in the street. And there's something called "deductibles" which seem a bit cheeky and don't half ramp up the costs at point of use.
Frankly, I'm not even that bothered if this is a grossly exaggerated Web of lies, but a brief search does rather satisfactorily suggest that, so far as numbers are concerned in terms of costs per head for each citizen when it comes to health coverage, you're talking out of your hoop old chap and does rather put your unfortunate story of agony and inconvenience in perspective. Maybe you should have gone private?
I am off course more than happy to be proven completely wrong, but tbh I cannot be arsed to dig about any further so if you could provide some sort of clear easy to read explanation to why this is all total rubbish that'd be great. (I jest, I don't care if you reply or not, I've wasted rather too much time bothering with this tedious conservative hot potato of bollocks as it is.)
Ps it's not a "tax" on each individual TV in the house, it's a rather outdated compulsory levy per household that pays for public service broadcasting but goes no where near the treasury. As it happens I thinks this is fething bollocks too, but I'd happily pay it, and twice more as long as I don't have American style health care in exchange.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Hey, it's not our fault that due to our single payer healthcare the pharmaceutical companies have to negotiate prices with large bodies capable of resisting their price gouging.
Or that our healthcare systems aren't built around some middleman making a profit, pushing the end user costs even higher.
Yeah, and you get what you pay for. The care I got at the NHS in Huntingdon was worse than anything I received in Cambodia, Bangladesh, or even Niger and not even remotely comparable to the US or Japan. Wouldn't be over proud of it.
Well that seems fair. Rubbish our most treasured national achievement over a treatment for a minor ailment 17 years ago that cost you a pittance compared to what it may have cost elsewhere.
the point is it cost more than it would have elsewhere. RediMed in Indiana would have cost less than $20. so your snark aside, NHS is not this miracle great system its praised for. Sure I hear Brits talk it up to us all the time, but living there I heard and experienced far different. Maybe some cities are better than others, but it certainly is not all roses.
You make sweeping statements attacking a treasured national achievement based on a personal anecdote of minor inconvenience from nearly 20 years ago, and you better get used to snarky, tongue in cheek comments. You're lucky you don't get an eye roll too.
I'm glad your cancer meds are cheaper now, luckily the stent procedure for my father, the breast cancer treatment for my friends wife, and the extensive treatment for prostate cancer for my neighbour are all completely free of charge, forever. Aside from prescription charges of £8.80 per item or £29.10 for 3 monthly pre-paid, of course.
I'm enormously proud that any UK citizen can receive free health care for their entire life regardless of ability to pay, personal circumstances or medical history. That is a worthy, and noble achievement I think despite whatever else the British are guilty of.
And before you start posting up some republican gubbins rubbishing socialised health care and death boards or whatever it is your lot seem to think is the downside of universal health care, I simply don't give a gak, and never will. You can keep your insurance based system, and we'll keep ours, and we'd very much appreciate it if your medical companies would take their interest in our NHS elsewhere. Because apart from in the heads of some of the most deluded Tories, they are most definitely not welcome on this side of the pond thank you very much indeedy.
that magical "free" you guys keep lying about, its not "free" you pay for it each year ,your taxes are obscene.(you likely pay more in taxes than I pay for taxes and my premiums combined) thats what pays for it, by all means enjoy your welfare state, and super high taxes, even a tax on each TV in the house. How about we also keep all those medical advances our system provides, which while the UK is 2nd in, is orders of magnitude far behind us. see snotty attitude can go both ways, glad you dont give a damn, there is a reason people mostly go to the US for healthcare and not the UK. 11 hours for a simple diagnosis is "inconvenient" for a knee injury sure, sitting in pain for that long is no big deal, I am just glad it wasnt something like say a blood clot. thats not even detailing your much higher death rate in hospitals, and no thats not from some right wing 'Murican report but your own news agencies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: When the main complaint boils down to “I had to wait longer than I would have liked” and not any actual health outcomes, it should give one some thought.
again 3 doctors over 11 hours had it been a blood clot in my leg, could have been fatal.
Well, seeing as you're coy about numbers I did a bit of research, (about 60 secs on google) and it would seem that if you earn £50k in the UK the percentage of my total tax for the year that pays for the NHS is £2469 ($3344 ish). If I'm the only earner in the family, which coincidentally I am at the minute, that "premium" cover my whole family (wife and 2 kids) for full, comprehensive medical and dental care no matter what happens to them, guaranteed.
However the average wage in the UK is 27k, meaning a total tax bill of £5748 of which 18.5% is spent on the NHS which comes to £1063. Not bad considering that if you're single, or a family man you're still paying the same, and everyone gets the same health and dental provision.
Now, admittedly looking up medical insurance for US citizens is clearly riveting stuff, so I thoroughly enjoyed briefly scanning a handful of articles after my search which said much the same thing. American health insurance ain't cheap, in fact it's a bit more than our above average earner earlier would expect to pay and quitell a bit more than the averge chap in the street. And there's something called "deductibles" which seem a bit cheeky and don't half ramp up the costs at point of use.
Frankly, I'm not even that bothered if this is a grossly exaggerated Web of lies, but a brief search does rather satisfactorily suggest that, so far as numbers are concerned in terms of costs per head for each citizen when it comes to health coverage, you're talking out of your hoop old chap and does rather put your unfortunate story of agony and inconvenience in perspective. Maybe you should have gone private?
I am off course more than happy to be proven completely wrong, but tbh I cannot be arsed to dig about any further so if you could provide some sort of clear easy to read explanation to why this is all total rubbish that'd be great. (I jest, I don't care if you reply or not, I've wasted rather too much time bothering with this tedious conservative hot potato of bollocks as it is.)
Ps it's not a "tax" on each individual TV in the house, it's a rather outdated compulsory levy per household that pays for public service broadcasting but goes no where near the treasury. As it happens I thinks this is fething bollocks too, but I'd happily pay it, and twice more as long as I don't have American style health care in exchange.
and still manage to completely ignore and gloss over all the gak in the NHS, you're as dishonest as I expected "web of lies"? ..cute., and yeah the little fellow in the truck that supposedly can tell if I have BBC said each tv, not each household. but your probably right, I have as low of an opinion of you as you have of me, so if dont care about reply sure, will be glad to ignore you too.
Which pretty much sums up the health care debate in America. One side demonstrates how much less it costs in socialist health care systems, and the other side throws their hands and says they don't care, it's DA EBIL SOCIALIZM!!!!!1!1!
Vulcan wrote: Which pretty much sums up the health care debate in America. One side demonstrates how much less it costs in socialist health care systems, and the other side throws their hands and says they don't care, it's DA EBIL SOCIALIZM!!!!!1!1!
Vulcan wrote: Which pretty much sums up the health care debate in America. One side demonstrates how much less it costs in socialist health care systems, and the other side throws their hands and says they don't care, it's DA EBIL SOCIALIZM!!!!!1!1!
Pretty much. Kings is just deflecting from the fact that a major claim his argument hinges on, the US healthcare is cheaper, isn't true. The healthcare you get will always be better than the healthcare you can't afford to get. Also harping on a tiny piece of anecdote that is outdated and irrelevant to the broader picture.
Vulcan wrote: Which pretty much sums up the health care debate in America. One side demonstrates how much less it costs in socialist health care systems, and the other side throws their hands and says they don't care, it's DA EBIL SOCIALIZM!!!!!1!1!
Vulcan wrote: Which pretty much sums up the health care debate in America. One side demonstrates how much less it costs in socialist health care systems, and the other side throws their hands and says they don't care, it's DA EBIL SOCIALIZM!!!!!1!1!
Pretty much. Kings is just deflecting from the fact that a major claim his argument hinges on, the US healthcare is cheaper, isn't true. The healthcare you get will always be better than the healthcare you can't afford to get. Also harping on a tiny piece of anecdote that is outdated and irrelevant to the broader picture.
Vulcan wrote: Which pretty much sums up the health care debate in America. One side demonstrates how much less it costs in socialist health care systems, and the other side throws their hands and says they don't care, it's DA EBIL SOCIALIZM!!!!!1!1!
Left and Right, pretty much hate one another.
Only one side hates facts, though.
riight, sure ...you keep believing that last one, leftists are as big a liars as anyone I have ever seen, the rights lies are lies, the lefts lies are 'facts" sure. glad of you to cherry pick my arguments, I made quite a few claims not just cheaper, but thats ok show that bias strong. pretty safe to say there is no "deflecting" we do hate each other.
Vulcan wrote: Which pretty much sums up the health care debate in America. One side demonstrates how much less it costs in socialist health care systems, and the other side throws their hands and says they don't care, it's DA EBIL SOCIALIZM!!!!!1!1!
Left and Right, pretty much hate one another.
Modern-day politics is just a giant game of soccer (that's football you European heathens!) with everyone falling down pretending to be hurt.
Vulcan wrote: Which pretty much sums up the health care debate in America. One side demonstrates how much less it costs in socialist health care systems, and the other side throws their hands and says they don't care, it's DA EBIL SOCIALIZM!!!!!1!1!
Left and Right, pretty much hate one another.
Modern-day politics is just a giant game of soccer (that's football you European heathens!) with everyone falling down pretending to be hurt.
I thinks it has gone beyond politics and into every day culture as well. Its not bad that we disagree so much is how we disagree with each other.
ScarletRose wrote: Lol, so cited sources vs. "it's all fake news". Yep that pretty much sums up US politics in a nutshell
the issue with cited sources is that one side or the other may not recognize the legitimacy of said source. The leaning of the source is often used to discredit or disregard and both sides do it. If you were to cite say, Forbes, CNN, and Fox, and I cited The Enquirer, NY Times and CBS, and we had different opinions on something, all of those sources are cited, but not all of them would be taken as equals (some certainly shouldn't be).
ScarletRose wrote: Lol, so cited sources vs. "it's all fake news". Yep that pretty much sums up US politics in a nutshell
Yep. As a country we've forgotten how to assess facts that run contrary to our political biases, and how to disagree in a civilized manner, and the very concept that someone else can honorably hold a different opinion.
Unless we get past it, it's going to destroy the country.
ScarletRose wrote: Lol, so cited sources vs. "it's all fake news". Yep that pretty much sums up US politics in a nutshell
the issue with cited sources is that one side or the other may not recognize the legitimacy of said source. The leaning of the source is often used to discredit or disregard and both sides do it. If you were to cite say, Forbes, CNN, and Fox, and I cited The Enquirer, NY Times and CBS, and we had different opinions on something, all of those sources are cited, but not all of them would be taken as equals (some certainly shouldn't be).
Of course, neither side accepts as valid the sources the other uses, primarily because the sources in question do not validate their political beliefs regardless of how an independent source would rate the accuracy of the data. I've been told the Center for Disease Control is has a vast political bias because the data it reports on a particular political subject are in direct conflict with the beliefs of a political party.
ScarletRose wrote: Lol, so cited sources vs. "it's all fake news". Yep that pretty much sums up US politics in a nutshell
Yep. As a country we've forgotten how to assess facts that run contrary to our political biases, and how to disagree in a civilized manner, and the very concept that someone else can honorably hold a different opinion.
Unless we get past it, it's going to destroy the country.
Makes you wonder if we are way past that. Consider how vehemently we are here and we can at least all claim to have at least our hobby in common. I absolutely loathe the majority of the folks here and most outside eyes would consider us all part of one gaming community.
Health outcomes don’t depend on a news source, and by every measure the US has worse outcomes and higher cost than the vast majority of Western healthcare systems.
ScarletRose wrote: Lol, so cited sources vs. "it's all fake news". Yep that pretty much sums up US politics in a nutshell
Yep. As a country we've forgotten how to assess facts that run contrary to our political biases, and how to disagree in a civilized manner, and the very concept that someone else can honorably hold a different opinion.
Unless we get past it, it's going to destroy the country.
Makes you wonder if we are way past that. Consider how vehemently we are here and we can at least all claim to have at least our hobby in common. I absolutely loathe the majority of the folks here and most outside eyes would consider us all part of one gaming community.
If we are past reconciliation, then there will be a bloodbath in America, millions will die, and I would expect China to take action to make sure America never recovers, militarily or economically.
Perhaps we might try to work together despite our mutual dislike, to avoid that outcome? Compromise is not a dirty word. Even the Republican Saint Ronald Reagan believed on compromise to accomplish things.
d-usa wrote: Health outcomes don’t depend on a news source, and by every measure the US has worse outcomes and higher cost than the vast majority of Western healthcare systems.
I dont agree with you, according to forbes you are right, according to healthsystemtracker.org you are wrong.
ScarletRose wrote: Lol, so cited sources vs. "it's all fake news". Yep that pretty much sums up US politics in a nutshell
Yep. As a country we've forgotten how to assess facts that run contrary to our political biases, and how to disagree in a civilized manner, and the very concept that someone else can honorably hold a different opinion.
Unless we get past it, it's going to destroy the country.
Makes you wonder if we are way past that. Consider how vehemently we are here and we can at least all claim to have at least our hobby in common. I absolutely loathe the majority of the folks here and most outside eyes would consider us all part of one gaming community.
If we are past reconciliation, then there will be a bloodbath in America, millions will die, and I would expect China to take action to make sure America never recovers, militarily or economically.
Perhaps we might try to work together despite our mutual dislike, to avoid that outcome? Compromise is not a dirty word. Even the Republican Saint Ronald Reagan believed on compromise to accomplish things.
Well the one-two punch their is our respective tribes are not set up to do that. We punish politicions who compromise at the polls and our primaries insure the nuttiest candidate on each side wins. I do not believe for a second that Jim Webb or Lincoln Chaffee were bad candidates nor were John Kasich and Rick Perry. Boehner was hounded out of office and Pelosi seems next.
Vulcan wrote: Which pretty much sums up the health care debate in America. One side demonstrates how much less it costs in socialist health care systems, and the other side throws their hands and says they don't care, it's DA EBIL SOCIALIZM!!!!!1!1!
Left and Right, pretty much hate one another.
Modern-day politics is just a giant game of soccer (that's football you European heathens!) with everyone falling down pretending to be hurt.
Throwing your hands up in exasperation and saying half the nation hates the other half just because of their chosen tribe is one of the most embarrassing things I have seen posted here as an American.
That is certainly not true and it is really only the people who live and die by their party, which is sadly more people than it should be.
Furthermore, if you think you deserve to be seen faster in an ER and the staff don't think so, maybe you should trust their expertise. "But it could have been a blood clot!" Well it wasn't, but if you want to play that game. We can. They could have had multiple codes going off in the ER, had a few nurses assaulted by patients, and decided to take a breather on their 8-12 hour shift before getting to you. Why you ask? Because they are human, deserve it, and you only had a boo boo on your knee. Stop whining, take the pain, and move on.
Vulcan wrote: Which pretty much sums up the health care debate in America. One side demonstrates how much less it costs in socialist health care systems, and the other side throws their hands and says they don't care, it's DA EBIL SOCIALIZM!!!!!1!1!
Left and Right, pretty much hate one another.
Modern-day politics is just a giant game of soccer (that's football you European heathens!) with everyone falling down pretending to be hurt.
Throwing your hands up in exasperation and saying half the nation hates the other half just because of their chosen tribe is one of the most embarrassing things I have seen posted here as an American.
That is certainly not true and it is really only the people who live and die by their party, which is sadly more people than it should be.
Furthermore, if you think you deserve to be seen faster in an ER and the staff don't think so, maybe you should trust their expertise. "But it could have been a blood clot!" Well it wasn't, but if you want to play that game. We can. They could have had multiple codes going off in the ER, had a few nurses assaulted by patients, and decided to take a breather on their 8-12 hour shift before getting to you. Why you ask? Because they are human, deserve it, and you only had a boo boo on your knee. Stop whining, take the pain, and move on.
sure hope it happens to you. congrats on being part of the problem! you are not even worth actual explanation.
d-usa wrote: Health outcomes don’t depend on a news source, and by every measure the US has worse outcomes and higher cost than the vast majority of Western healthcare systems.
I dont agree with you, according to forbes you are right, according to healthsystemtracker.org you are wrong.
Inconsistent or unavailable data and imperfect metrics make it difficult to firmly judge system-wide health quality in the U.S., but a review of the data we do have suggests that the system is improving across each of these dimensions, though it continues to lag behind comparably wealthy and sizable countries in many respects.
Bench-marking U.S. quality measures against those of similarly large and wealthy countries is one way to assess how successful the U.S. has been at improving care for its population, and to learn from systems that often produce better outcomes. The OECD has compiled data on dozens of outcomes and process measures. Across a number of these measures, the U.S. lags behind similarly wealthy OECD countries (those that are similarly large and wealthy based on GDP and GDP per capita).In some cases, such as the rates of all-cause mortality, premature death, death amenable to healthcare, and disease burden, the U.S. is also not improving as quickly as other countries, which means the gap is growing.
A BIG part of the problem is the one I mentioned back in the beginning of the thread. Having 40% of the voters turn out to actually vote is a HUGE turnout in America. The other 60% never even bothers to show up.
If they all got together behind one candidate, they could put him in office hands down. Even a Green or Libertarian.
Of the people who DO vote, 35-40% will ALWAYS vote Democrat, and another 35-40% will ALWAYS vote Republican. Even if the candidate is Genghis Khan on a 'Raze America - to the ground!' platform, so long as the correct letter is next to his name they'd vote for him. So its only the remaining 20-30% who actually choose who wins.
Even there it's often the choice between awful, and somehow even worse than that. That's because, as thekingofkings mentions, the primaries pander to the extreme because that's how you get elected under American primary rules. Which tells me that it's time to change the primary rules because this way is no longer working.
Perhaps the solution is to allow voters not registered with a party to vote in ALL party primaries? After all, independents (small i independents, not to be confused with members of the Independent party) might vote for ANY party's candidates; shouldn't they have a say in who those candidates ARE?
As for partisan slants on these healthcare stats: I’ve had the pleasure of having the current Republican Appointed Surgeon General Vice-Admiral Adams speak to my commissioning class. He stressed all these facts to us, and that he tasks all of us serving under him to do our part to research solutions and take actions to improve these statistics.
"by every measure the US has worse outcomes and higher cost than the vast majority of Western healthcare systems"
"Five-year survival rates for certain cancers are higher in the U.S. than in comparable countries"
"Post-op sepsis are better in the U.S. than in some comparable countries, but not as low as others"
by direct quotes, the US does not have worse outcomes and higher costs than the vast majority, it is superior to them in the two categories I put in there. according to Forbes we are worse in both categories. So source does matter.
Vulcan wrote: Which pretty much sums up the health care debate in America. One side demonstrates how much less it costs in socialist health care systems, and the other side throws their hands and says they don't care, it's DA EBIL SOCIALIZM!!!!!1!1!
Pretty much. Kings is just deflecting from the fact that a major claim his argument hinges on, the US healthcare is cheaper, isn't true. The healthcare you get will always be better than the healthcare you can't afford to get. Also harping on a tiny piece of anecdote that is outdated and irrelevant to the broader picture.
Vulcan wrote: Which pretty much sums up the health care debate in America. One side demonstrates how much less it costs in socialist health care systems, and the other side throws their hands and says they don't care, it's DA EBIL SOCIALIZM!!!!!1!1!
Left and Right, pretty much hate one another.
Only one side hates facts, though.
riight, sure ...you keep believing that last one, leftists are as big a liars as anyone I have ever seen, the rights lies are lies, the lefts lies are 'facts" sure. glad of you to cherry pick my arguments, I made quite a few claims not just cheaper, but thats ok show that bias strong. pretty safe to say there is no "deflecting" we do hate each other.
Devolving into generalizations, further deflection, and thinly-veiled insults really just proves my point. Also, I'm not liberal.
Your quoted texts states that your two superior outcomes at lower than other countries. And every country spends less than us to get sometime comparable, but most often superior, outcomes. The US might have given you a Tylenol in the waiting room (from my EMS and ER experience and years as a triage nurse, not very likely), but they could just as easily charge you $50 for that pill.
With all your concerns about sources, I give you this:
From a person with 17 years experience in the US healthcare system in many different types of hospital structures, from someone trained at the Masters level in my profession, as someone holding a national board certification in my specialty, and as someone holding a commission in the United States Public Health Service: the US spends much more and gets much less than the vast majority of Western healthcare systems.
I don’t argue this to score a point. I don’t argue this to convince anyone that we should switch to super-socialism. I don’t argue this to push for single payer. I don’t care what particular solution we come up with to fix this issue. But to come up with any kind of solution, regardless of the ideology behind it, we need to stop ignoring the undeniable truth that our current system is failing us.
Vulcan wrote: Which pretty much sums up the health care debate in America. One side demonstrates how much less it costs in socialist health care systems, and the other side throws their hands and says they don't care, it's DA EBIL SOCIALIZM!!!!!1!1!
Pretty much. Kings is just deflecting from the fact that a major claim his argument hinges on, the US healthcare is cheaper, isn't true. The healthcare you get will always be better than the healthcare you can't afford to get. Also harping on a tiny piece of anecdote that is outdated and irrelevant to the broader picture.
Vulcan wrote: Which pretty much sums up the health care debate in America. One side demonstrates how much less it costs in socialist health care systems, and the other side throws their hands and says they don't care, it's DA EBIL SOCIALIZM!!!!!1!1!
Left and Right, pretty much hate one another.
Only one side hates facts, though.
riight, sure ...you keep believing that last one, leftists are as big a liars as anyone I have ever seen, the rights lies are lies, the lefts lies are 'facts" sure. glad of you to cherry pick my arguments, I made quite a few claims not just cheaper, but thats ok show that bias strong. pretty safe to say there is no "deflecting" we do hate each other.
Devolving into generalizations, further deflection, and thinly-veiled insults really just proves my point. Also, I'm not liberal.
you sound like a leftist to me. were was a thinly veiled insult, its pretty obvious I have no regard for you and several others I have been responding to. there is no deflection. or do you just want to bait me into saying something so you can run to the mods?
thekingofkings wrote: "by every measure the US has worse outcomes and higher cost than the vast majority of Western healthcare systems"
"Five-year survival rates for certain cancers are higher in the U.S. than in comparable countries"
"Post-op sepsis are better in the U.S. than in some comparable countries, but not as low as others"
by direct quotes, the US does not have worse outcomes and higher costs than the vast majority, it is superior to them in the two categories I put in there. according to Forbes we are worse in both categories. So source does matter.
Just so everyone in the conversation is clear, one of the people involved in it posted this in another thread -
thekingofkings wrote: well we have really grown estranged from one another. I am fully guilty of taking likely more offense than is intended. I have found that over the years I generally have come to despise Europeans (except Russians, Poles, and Hungarians) and find it hard to even "talk" with them. Typing takes away so much of communication, someone here mentioned something about being in the room and talking might make a difference. That might be the case. I travel around the world a lot, but I find myself having less and less in common with westerners than the east.
In the US there is just a lack of trust and goodwill between growing segments of society. I generally assume (right or wrongly) that a leftist is a liar, and that a rightwinger is about 80% of the time lying.
Hope that's something the silent readers these debates are supposed to be for take into account. It's hard to have a good-faith discussion about facts when that's the attitude you're discussing with.
d-usa wrote: Health outcomes don’t depend on a news source, and by every measure the US has worse outcomes and higher cost than the vast majority of Western healthcare systems.
The factor that is missing here, I think, is the American lifestyle.
We do not live a healthy lifestyle compared to UK/Europe.
As such, because we're a much unhealthier bunch of people, the numbers will be skewed in such a way that's not seen in other countries.
So, I think it's unfair to indict the US healthcare system, without acknowledging that the US lives a very unhealthy lifestyle.
Spinner wrote: Just so everyone in the conversation is clear, one of the people involved in it posted this in another thread -
thekingofkings wrote: well we have really grown estranged from one another. I am fully guilty of taking likely more offense than is intended. I have found that over the years I generally have come to despise Europeans (except Russians, Poles, and Hungarians) and find it hard to even "talk" with them. Typing takes away so much of communication, someone here mentioned something about being in the room and talking might make a difference. That might be the case. I travel around the world a lot, but I find myself having less and less in common with westerners than the east.
In the US there is just a lack of trust and goodwill between growing segments of society. I generally assume (right or wrongly) that a leftist is a liar, and that a rightwinger is about 80% of the time lying.
Hope that's something the silent readers these debates are supposed to be for take into account. It's hard to have a good-faith discussion about facts when that's the attitude you're discussing with.
I see no reason to hide where my prejudices sit, and as fast as my initial post degenerated to personal attacks, there was no reason to believe in the "good faith" of the other side, there was none. I am not justifying my position, I don't feel in the slightest bit accountable to any of you for it, but I am explaining where I get my stance from.
A good healthcare system will take these things into account and address them. But I can see where something like “a good healthcare system addresses obesity and pushes policy to fix the problem” can be seen as a “get out of my personal health decisions” issue for many folks. Personally I think public policy and public interventions need to be a part of a comprehensive solution to our current crisis, but I’m a bit of a leftie there.
We also get into a chicken/egg discussion there: do our lifestyles and general unhealthiness drive our heath outcomes, or are our lifestyles and general unhealthiness a symptom of our approach to health maintenance and healthcare? Is our obesity a driver or an outcome? Is our general lack of seeming out preventative healthcare a symptom or a cause?
There is lots of good discussion we can have there, even if we won’t agree on anything, if the parties talking are honestly participating.
Spinner wrote: Just so everyone in the conversation is clear, one of the people involved in it posted this in another thread -
thekingofkings wrote: well we have really grown estranged from one another. I am fully guilty of taking likely more offense than is intended. I have found that over the years I generally have come to despise Europeans (except Russians, Poles, and Hungarians) and find it hard to even "talk" with them. Typing takes away so much of communication, someone here mentioned something about being in the room and talking might make a difference. That might be the case. I travel around the world a lot, but I find myself having less and less in common with westerners than the east.
In the US there is just a lack of trust and goodwill between growing segments of society. I generally assume (right or wrongly) that a leftist is a liar, and that a rightwinger is about 80% of the time lying.
Hope that's something the silent readers these debates are supposed to be for take into account. It's hard to have a good-faith discussion about facts when that's the attitude you're discussing with.
Yeah, I'm noticing he's in deep to the 'anything that disagrees with me is a lie' stance. Looking at the last two pages it's probably better to just ignore him an move on to more reasonable discussion, trying to deal with people debating in bad faith is what got the last thread closed.
d-usa wrote: Health outcomes don’t depend on a news source, and by every measure the US has worse outcomes and higher cost than the vast majority of Western healthcare systems.
The factor that is missing here, I think, is the American lifestyle.
We do not live a healthy lifestyle compared to UK/Europe.
As such, because we're a much unhealthier bunch of people, the numbers will be skewed in such a way that's not seen in other countries.
So, I think it's unfair to indict the US healthcare system, without acknowledging that the US lives a very unhealthy lifestyle.
Unfortunately that sort of statistic falls under the Preventable Illnesses statistic that I posted earlier. You can't just pin the whole mess on that.
d-usa wrote: A good healthcare system will take these things into account and address them. But I can see where something like “a good healthcare system addresses obesity and pushes policy to fix the problem” can be seen as a “get out of my personal health decisions” issue for many folks. Personally I think public policy and public interventions need to be a part of a comprehensive solution to our current crisis, but I’m a bit of a leftie there.
We also get into a chicken/egg discussion there: do our lifestyles and general unhealthiness drive our heath outcomes, or are our lifestyles and general unhealthiness a symptom of our approach to health maintenance and healthcare? Is our obesity a driver or an outcome? Is our general lack of seeming out preventative healthcare a symptom or a cause?
There is lots of good discussion we can have there, even if we won’t agree on anything, if the parties talking are honestly participating.
We have to take culture into account, where obesity and diabetes are more common, look at the foods eaten, Indiana is known for Sugar Cream Pie for example. Food is the biggest issue to health IMO. But size is an issue too, 300+ million people scattered over a vast territory makes a good efficient food assistance program a logistical nightmare. foodstamps mean well, but far too often the healthier food is just too expensive and a parent would rather feed their child what they can then get much less in fruits and vegetables. Some areas still eat foods that were fine when the average job was more outdoors and physical but with more jobs being sedentary, its easier to microwave a hot pocket than make a fresh salad. I am not sure I like how it works now, but I am no less suspicious of the "Food box" idea either..I dont know enough about it, but it too seems like a potential logistical nightmare.
d-usa wrote: A good healthcare system will take these things into account and address them. But I can see where something like “a good healthcare system addresses obesity and pushes policy to fix the problem” can be seen as a “get out of my personal health decisions” issue for many folks. Personally I think public policy and public interventions need to be a part of a comprehensive solution to our current crisis, but I’m a bit of a leftie there.
We also get into a chicken/egg discussion there: do our lifestyles and general unhealthiness drive our heath outcomes, or are our lifestyles and general unhealthiness a symptom of our approach to health maintenance and healthcare? Is our obesity a driver or an outcome? Is our general lack of seeming out preventative healthcare a symptom or a cause?
There is lots of good discussion we can have there, even if we won’t agree on anything, if the parties talking are honestly participating.
We have to take culture into account, where obesity and diabetes are more common, look at the foods eaten, Indiana is known for Sugar Cream Pie for example. Food is the biggest issue to health IMO. But size is an issue too, 300+ million people scattered over a vast territory makes a good efficient food assistance program a logistical nightmare. foodstamps mean well, but far too often the healthier food is just too expensive and a parent would rather feed their child what they can then get much less in fruits and vegetables. Some areas still eat foods that were fine when the average job was more outdoors and physical but with more jobs being sedentary, its easier to microwave a hot pocket than make a fresh salad. I am not sure I like how it works now, but I am no less suspicious of the "Food box" idea either..I dont know enough about it, but it too seems like a potential logistical nightmare.
I love fried catfish, but that is horrible for me, and while I do run and exercise daily, how much activity is enough? food ingredients also, most soda I have had outside the US uses actual sugar and not corn syrup (though you can get sugar sodas that are called throwbacks)
d-usa wrote: Health outcomes don’t depend on a news source, and by every measure the US has worse outcomes and higher cost than the vast majority of Western healthcare systems.
The factor that is missing here, I think, is the American lifestyle.
We do not live a healthy lifestyle compared to UK/Europe.
As such, because we're a much unhealthier bunch of people, the numbers will be skewed in such a way that's not seen in other countries.
So, I think it's unfair to indict the US healthcare system, without acknowledging that the US lives a very unhealthy lifestyle.
Unfortunately that sort of statistic falls under the Preventable Illnesses statistic that I posted earlier. You can't just pin the whole mess on that.
Not pinning it all on that... just an important factor.
It's a complex mess that needs improvement.
I'm still waiting for major hospitals to band together into larger entities... but, regulatory changes to facilitate that won't happen for quite some time. But, I'd suspect we'll see it in out lifetime as smaller systems/independent hospitals are having tougher times to weather the swings in the industry.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: A good healthcare system will take these things into account and address them. But I can see where something like “a good healthcare system addresses obesity and pushes policy to fix the problem” can be seen as a “get out of my personal health decisions” issue for many folks. Personally I think public policy and public interventions need to be a part of a comprehensive solution to our current crisis, but I’m a bit of a leftie there.
We also get into a chicken/egg discussion there: do our lifestyles and general unhealthiness drive our heath outcomes, or are our lifestyles and general unhealthiness a symptom of our approach to health maintenance and healthcare? Is our obesity a driver or an outcome? Is our general lack of seeming out preventative healthcare a symptom or a cause?
There is lots of good discussion we can have there, even if we won’t agree on anything, if the parties talking are honestly participating.
Yep. Exactly this... as it's not something that can be simply distilled as the root causes.
It's party why single-payer advocates have a hard time convincing skeptics that there's a better way.
I'm still waiting for major hospitals to band together into larger entities... but, regulatory changes to facilitate that won't happen for quite some time. But, I'd suspect we'll see it in out lifetime as smaller systems/independent hospitals are having tougher times to weather the swings in the industry.
In Pennsylvania it already happened, UPMC and Allegheny Health Systems have split every hospital in the western half of the state between them. Now healthcare is even more expensive, deaths in the operating room are up, and insurance is unaffordable to the majority of people. The state government has had to step in twice, and the Hippocratic Oath isn't just dead, they've crucified it on a billboard.
God Bless America. That will be $1600 for that consultation.
A lot of the “food culture” issues also goes towards public policy issues because quite often “cultural” issues are driven by factors such as poverty and access to food resources.
As an example: Native American rates obesity and diabetes are not just driven by the fact that nomadic lifestyles have gone. Via packaged commodities we have provided them with a diet that drives health disparities through the roof.
I'm still waiting for major hospitals to band together into larger entities... but, regulatory changes to facilitate that won't happen for quite some time. But, I'd suspect we'll see it in out lifetime as smaller systems/independent hospitals are having tougher times to weather the swings in the industry.
In Pennsylvania it already happened, UPMC and Allegheny Health Systems have split every hospital in the western half of the state between them. Now healthcare is even more expensive, deaths in the operating room are up, and insurance is unaffordable to the majority of people. The state government has had to step in twice, and the Hippocratic Oath isn't just dead, they've crucified it on a billboard.
God Bless America. That will be $1600 for that consultation.
as much as I hate to say it, if there is a national consolidation then it needs to be nationalized, the biggest problem with the ACA is it did not go far enough. Doctors and the high cost of training them needs to be addressed. I cant imagine anyone wanting to go so deep in debt for a public sector salary, so thier education would have to be either paid for or massively subsidized. It is not a popular idea on the right (most of the folks I know and associate with) but it would be a step. I would also consider that "basic preventive care" could be done by PA's as opposed to full on doctors. But this would cost a lot of money and would need to be better regulated. It cant be sustained without a lot of give and take.
Going single-payer is more feasible than going the nationalization route.
Having one middleman (ala, Canada) is easier to negotiate price-points within the existing system.
I don't think we'll ever get to the level of UK, or even Canada, but it'd certainly help drive down costs as the administration managing the reimbursements would see what every provider is charging.
whembly wrote: Going single-payer is more feasible than going the nationalization route.
Having one middleman (ala, Canada) is easier to negotiate price-points within the existing system.
I don't think we'll ever get to the level of UK, or even Canada, but it'd certainly help drive down costs as the administration managing the reimbursements would see what every provider is charging.
maybe more of a state level hybrid? most of the university hospitals receive state funding..maybe match with federal dollars?
whembly wrote: Going single-payer is more feasible than going the nationalization route.
Having one middleman (ala, Canada) is easier to negotiate price-points within the existing system.
I don't think we'll ever get to the level of UK, or even Canada, but it'd certainly help drive down costs as the administration managing the reimbursements would see what every provider is charging.
maybe more of a state level hybrid? most of the university hospitals receive state funding..maybe match with federal dollars?
ALL university hospitals receive state/federal fundings. Most (if not all) also have massive charity foundations that funds building/development/training/free-care.
The problem, is that there's TOO MANY layers between the patient and the providers.
d-usa wrote: A lot of the “food culture” issues also goes towards public policy issues because quite often “cultural” issues are driven by factors such as poverty and access to food resources.
As an example: Native American rates obesity and diabetes are not just driven by the fact that nomadic lifestyles have gone. Via packaged commodities we have provided them with a diet that drives health disparities through the roof.
The reality is that healthy food is expensive, often too expensive for many to afford with any regularity. $5 can buy someone a single healthy meal, or a 3000 calorie pizza for the same price.
whembly wrote: Going single-payer is more feasible than going the nationalization route.
Having one middleman (ala, Canada) is easier to negotiate price-points within the existing system.
I don't think we'll ever get to the level of UK, or even Canada, but it'd certainly help drive down costs as the administration managing the reimbursements would see what every provider is charging.
maybe more of a state level hybrid? most of the university hospitals receive state funding..maybe match with federal dollars?
ALL university hospitals receive state/federal fundings. Most (if not all) also have massive charity foundations that funds building/development/training/free-care.
The problem, is that there's TOO MANY layers between the patient and the providers.
whembly wrote: Going single-payer is more feasible than going the nationalization route.
Having one middleman (ala, Canada) is easier to negotiate price-points within the existing system.
I don't think we'll ever get to the level of UK, or even Canada, but it'd certainly help drive down costs as the administration managing the reimbursements would see what every provider is charging.
maybe more of a state level hybrid? most of the university hospitals receive state funding..maybe match with federal dollars?
ALL university hospitals receive state/federal fundings. Most (if not all) also have massive charity foundations that funds building/development/training/free-care.
The problem, is that there's TOO MANY layers between the patient and the providers.
so how to cut layers...would it be worth it?
Going single payer? I think so... but, it's a massive shift in terms of "creative destruction" of an industry and in terms of taxation.
Prestor Jon wrote: So Trump is going to bring back coal jobs by shipping tons of coal to NK as a form of Danegeld to get KJU to play nice and abandon his nuclear weapons program. Trump is clearly the best 5 dimensional chess player ever.
It would probably be Chinese coal. That stuff is filthy and China is weening off it as it modernises, so instead they can truck it to NK and their own emissions would look like they improved.
The US would be providing grain and other agricultural stuff. This would suit Trump very nicely, solving the problem Trump has created for himself by starting a trade war with China, as the Chinese response has been on US agricultural goods. Trump could minimise that harm by government direct buying a lot of produce and shipping it to China. The only loss then would be to th deficit, and I think we've established that's something people like to talk about, not something they actually vote on.
Anyway, what that deal would have been is now just talk because Pompeo has already walked it all back. Now the US position is nuclear weapons for sanctions relief only, and we shouldn't ever mention that just last week the White House was talking about something completely different. Quite why they opted to walk back direct aid isn't known. Maybe Trump hadn't bothered to read the briefing notes so Pompeo's earlier statement was the first time Trump heard that suggested and he hated it? Maybe they saw the blowback to the suggestion of the US giving aid and dropped that. Or maybe they decided that any deal dependent on US aid will only last until the US no longer wants to give that aid, and so it would a temporary, false peace, like the 1990s deal, and so would be irresponsible to world stewardship to follow that course.
Prestor Jon wrote: So Trump is going to bring back coal jobs by shipping tons of coal to NK as a form of Danegeld to get KJU to play nice and abandon his nuclear weapons program. Trump is clearly the best 5 dimensional chess player ever.
It would probably be Chinese coal. That stuff is filthy and China is weening off it as it modernises, so instead they can truck it to NK and their own emissions would look like they improved.
The US would be providing grain and other agricultural stuff. This would suit Trump very nicely, solving the problem Trump has created for himself by starting a trade war with China, as the Chinese response has been on US agricultural goods. Trump could minimise that harm by government direct buying a lot of produce and shipping it to China. The only loss then would be to th deficit, and I think we've established that's something people like to talk about, not something they actually vote on.
Anyway, what that deal would have been is now just talk because Pompeo has already walked it all back. Now the US position is nuclear weapons for sanctions relief only, and we shouldn't ever mention that just last week the White House was talking about something completely different. Quite why they opted to walk back direct aid isn't known. Maybe Trump hadn't bothered to read the briefing notes so Pompeo's earlier statement was the first time Trump heard that suggested and he hated it? Maybe they saw the blowback to the suggestion of the US giving aid and dropped that. Or maybe they decided that any deal dependent on US aid will only last until the US no longer wants to give that aid, and so it would a temporary, false peace, like the 1990s deal, and so would be irresponsible to world stewardship to follow that course.
It probably wasn't the last one.
other than sactions relief, what real incentives do we really have to offer?
thekingofkings wrote: it depends on what you take as evidence, but Forbes (again depending on what you accept as evidence) has put out reports showing the US system being considerably more innovations in medicine and biology. That might be because a lot of our hospitals are linked to universities, but there are private hospitals like National Jewish in Colorado that are very highly regarded.
Uh, links between universities and hospitals is not some amazing thing that only happens in the US.
The reason the US trials a huge number of new treatments and medicines is simple - money, people and industry. Money - the US has more money splashing through its system than anywhere else, which means there is money funding per person for new trials. People - with more than 300m it is much easier to trial a lot of treatments across decent sized population groups, smaller countries, and ones with less diversity, would have to look at cross border trials, which adds a lot of cost and complexity. Industry - the US has the best venture capital system in the world, so promising medical research (which happens everywhere in the world) typically gets rolled in to testing and development in the US, just because that's where the capital is.
All of this is good, really, and it does mean the US drives a lot of medical advances. But none of it is changed by a change to the system that actually provides healthcare.
The reason you have middling healthcare results compared to what you spend is actually very simple - because some people get $100,000 care for minor afflictions, while other people can't access $500 treatments that might save their lives. It's great that a 78 year old can get an experimental treatment to prevent a disease that might extend his life by a year, but it's completely mad when the same system isn't able to provide juvenile diabetes screens for pregnant women, resulting in late term miscarriages and some really dangerous births.
When treatment is allocated based on wealth and insurance status rather than medical need, you end up with a system that costs a lot of money, while not doing the small stuff that really improves population health.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote: More Treason from Trump, he's promising to save Chinese jobs in an effort to create a rival for US tech firms.
This is so weird. ZTE have been fined billions for breaking sanctions on Iran, for stealing sensitive US secrets, and security agencies in multiple countries have stated ZTE is not to be trusted. So maintaining or even increasing the ban on ZTE would suit Trump's rhetoric on Iran and China, and let Trump talk about American jobs first. Instead Trump is tweeting about allowing ZTE back and how nice that would be for Chinese jobs?
I mean, obviously Trump's rhetoric on everything is total crap, but in everything else Trump has maintained the rhetoric in public while doing the crooked stuff behind the scenes. Here Trump is just saying that he's going to help a Chinese company for no explainable reason.
So weird.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
thekingofkings wrote: The leaning of the source is often used to discredit or disregard and both sides do it. If you were to cite say, Forbes, CNN, and Fox, and I cited The Enquirer, NY Times and CBS, and we had different opinions on something, all of those sources are cited, but not all of them would be taken as equals (some certainly shouldn't be).
You're getting close to an important truth here, but not quite. It is true that using sources only goes so far because peole can disagree on what a good source is. But what you miss is that a source shouldn't be accepted or attacked just because of the media company that produced it, it should be accepted or attacked based on whether the information given by that source is accurate and complete.
But people don't do that. In part because they're lazy, but mostly because US political debate has become so tribalistic that it doesn't even occur to many people to just read a source and think about whether what is being claimed is a logical conclusion based on the evidence provided.
But doing that would mean not just reading and actually having to think about stuff, it would also mean having to confront some beliefs we hold dear to. Hard work and humility. Not gonna happen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Modern-day politics is just a giant game of soccer (that's football you European heathens!) with everyone falling down pretending to be hurt.
Interesting analogy.
What's telling to me is one side is pretending to gravely hurt because a comedian told a joke about using burnt facts as eye shadow, the other side is pretending to be gravely hurt because a White House staffer joked about a senator with a terminal brain cancer being dead soon.
Both sides are undoubtedly exaggerating the impact for political effect. But there is a massive difference in the scale of performance vs actual substance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: The factor that is missing here, I think, is the American lifestyle.
We do not live a healthy lifestyle compared to UK/Europe.
Australians are fatter than Americans, but we deliver a better healthcare system for less cost. And if we look across American states you see massive differences in lifestyle that don't line up with cost/effectiveness of that state's healthcare.
I'm not saying that's not an issue, obviously it's easier to treat a healthier population, but it is not even close to being an explanation for the US healthcare mess.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Going single-payer is more feasible than going the nationalization route.
Having one middleman (ala, Canada) is easier to negotiate price-points within the existing system.
Nationalisation is not possible in the slightest. That's the kind of scheme you have to build from the ground up, starting in a country with minimal existing health infrastructure. No country today can go about buying up all the hospitals and health clinics. And especially not the US.
Single payer is more viable, but its still near impossible. It would mean cutting out multiple billion dollar companies employing hundreds of thousands of people. Not going to happen short of Sanders leading a coup and setting up machine gun teams to capture the Washington Mall.
What is viable is last resort coverage, ie medicaid for all. Most would still be covered through private insurance, but people who missed that because their work doesn't offer it, or they have a pre-existing condition etc, would still get coverage through a government system. It'd have limited networks, but it would mean everyone gets a basic level of care and won't be bankrupted for accessing it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
thekingofkings wrote: other than sactions relief, what real incentives do we really have to offer?
The 1990s deal had the US provide electricity generators, and subsidised fuel.
sebster wrote: The reason you have middling healthcare results compared to what you spend is actually very simple - because some people get $100,000 care for minor afflictions, while other people can't access $500 treatments that might save their lives. When treatment is allocated based on wealth and insurance status rather than medical need, you end up with a system that costs a lot of money, while not doing the small stuff that really improves population health.
A good point, but IIRC another thing that drives up costs is uninsured ER visits. Hospitals are legally obliged to do what is reasonable to save your life if you are critically injured, and that's not free even if you can't pay it back ever. The only way to get that money is to charge it to the other patients, which gives you those $50 Tylenol pills and other outlandish bills. Then there's the lawyers mentioned, ofc, negotiating to lower these costs with the hospital on the insurance company's behalf. They have to be paid too.
So while it might sound like it only concerns you (or your employer) when you have a nice private health insurance you still get billed for those less well off. It's just that it's not done through those evil socialist taxes but good healthy capitalism! And somehow - all those lawyers maybe - it gets to be even more expensive...
I've mentioned a few times that few in the US really understand how US power worked, or why. This included Trump, who like many Americans seems to understand foreign policy through little more than a kind of fuzzy brained resentment than any actual idea of the alliances in place and what they meant for the US and the world at large.
The most shocking realization, however, is one that affects us directly: The West as we once knew it no longer exists. Our relationship to the United States cannot currently be called a friendship and can hardly be referred to as a partnership. President Trump has adopted a tone that ignores 70 years of trust. He wants punitive tariffs and demands obedience. It is no longer a question as to whether Germany and Europe will take part in foreign military interventions in Afghanistan or Iraq. It is now about whether trans-Atlantic cooperation on economic, foreign and security policy even exists anymore. The answer: No. It is impossible to overstate what Trump has dismantled in the last 16 months. Europe has lost its protective power. It has lost its guarantor of joint values. And it has lost the global political influence that it was only able to exert because the U.S. stood by its side.
A generation from now, when they talk about the end of the American order of the planet, people will ask why it happened, and the answer will be petulance and stupidity.
Spetulhu wrote: A good point, but IIRC another thing that drives up costs is uninsured ER visits. Hospitals are legally obliged to do what is reasonable to save your life if you are critically injured, and that's not free even if you can't pay it back ever. The only way to get that money is to charge it to the other patients, which gives you those $50 Tylenol pills and other outlandish bills. Then there's the lawyers mentioned, ofc, negotiating to lower these costs with the hospital on the insurance company's behalf. They have to be paid too.
So while it might sound like it only concerns you (or your employer) when you have a nice private health insurance you still get billed for those less well off. It's just that it's not done through those evil socialist taxes but good healthy capitalism! And somehow - all those lawyers maybe - it gets to be even more expensive...
True, though I'd say its two sides of the same coin. All the costs of unpaid emergency treatments get passed through the rest of the system, as you say, but it is a product of a system that doesn't have a simple means of getting necessary treatment and payment for everyone. Rather than treatment being cheaper preventative medicine with a single, simple settlement of the account, instead you get emergency treatment that can lead to a hugely expensive debt collection, legal dispute and final settlement.
The $50 Tylenol is impacted by that problem, but it has a bigger cause, which is a whole other problem of the US system. Because the the US system is a product of millions of deals between insurers and providers, with no transparency to those deals. Funnily enough some treatments in the US can be as cheap or cheaper than elsewhere, because on that one treatment a provider got a good deal, but then attached to that there'll be all kinds of hidden items with stupid mark ups to offset the price of that one discounted treatment. And heaven help you if you use US healthcare without access to an insurers negotiated treatment rates.
that magical "free" you guys keep lying about, its not "free" you pay for it each year ,your taxes are obscene.(you likely pay more in taxes than I pay for taxes and my premiums combined) thats what pays for it,
Well I actually did the math when I was offered a permanent position in the US instead of just spending 8-10 weeks a year there, and the results were the opposite.
My private plan here + taxes cost less than just the regular plan most colleagues in the US got (which was pretty comprehensive but nothing top tier)
I'm speaking about 10 years back but if anything the numbers will be worse now... plus now I have a son with a very expensive condition (ASD) that would cost upwards of 30K a year to properly treat un the US (schools, speech specialists, neuropaedatricians, etc) cost here is less than 100 euro a month for the extra private sessions, and I don't even have to worry about that affecting my own insurance policy.
depends, ACA has some really good plans. the thing is you would have options based on your needs. You might be better off not coming. Dont know how Poland's system is.
Apples to apples it's a no contest.
You can get affordable-ish, but only by compromising on high deductibles, high copays or patchy coverage. I did the math and to get anywhere close to what I got at home (private + public) I'd have to start looking at 4-figures a month, and that's with major compromises.
4-figures! compared to my zero deductible, zero copay, infinite allowable cost, subsidised meds public plan and my 60 euro a month private plan for the small stuff you want done quick and comfortable (such as your experience with the NHS).
And it's Spain actually, Poland is only a temporary location.
I think it's undeniable that the US has some very high quality care in specific areas - probably the best in the world in certain fields due to attracting large amounts of medical talent and spending a lot of money. If you want cutting edge treatment and high tech solutions the US is the place to be. If you've got a rare and complex disorder or require a complex and difficult to perform surgery, the US is likely the best place to get it.
However, this comes at the cost of general population health measures and efficiency in spending. So while those people with the really difficult complaints or those who can afford it are getting top of the line care, others are being ripped off on a huge scale and in some cases not recieving preventative care that could solve things before they get big and expensive.
These are all policy choices that any country can make. The UK has decided to have the most cost effective healthcare possible, which means limiting patient choice, accepting waiting lists, and having worse outcomes for some of the very expensive or difficult treatments. However, looked at overall, the general population gets a good standard of care and it does not cost them very much (I am not saying it's free, I'm saying it's efficient). You just have to look at Trump whinging that the NHS is ripping off US medical suppliers to see that collectivisation increases bargaining power and results in better deals. If I had a criticism of the UK system it would be that it is too open to interference for political gain and it is currently underfunded for the outcomes it is expected to deliver.
Personally, of the places I've lived in, I have to say I really like the German model. It seems like something that might be somewhat doable in the US too - a public insurance model that allows for some of the collective bargaining power of the NHS while allowing a bit more patient choice in terms of which doctor they get to see. Germany's secret weapon is having lots and lots of qualified medical personel though, something that requires a fix outside the healthcare system itself, but I don't think the US has a shortage of medically trained people and could just issue visas if they wanted more.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: I've mentioned a few times that few in the US really understand how US power worked, or why. This included Trump, who like many Americans seems to understand foreign policy through little more than a kind of fuzzy brained resentment than any actual idea of the alliances in place and what they meant for the US and the world at large.
The most shocking realization, however, is one that affects us directly: The West as we once knew it no longer exists. Our relationship to the United States cannot currently be called a friendship and can hardly be referred to as a partnership. President Trump has adopted a tone that ignores 70 years of trust. He wants punitive tariffs and demands obedience. It is no longer a question as to whether Germany and Europe will take part in foreign military interventions in Afghanistan or Iraq. It is now about whether trans-Atlantic cooperation on economic, foreign and security policy even exists anymore. The answer: No. It is impossible to overstate what Trump has dismantled in the last 16 months. Europe has lost its protective power. It has lost its guarantor of joint values. And it has lost the global political influence that it was only able to exert because the U.S. stood by its side.
A generation from now, when they talk about the end of the American order of the planet, people will ask why it happened, and the answer will be petulance and stupidity.
It's really something to see. And it's terrifying and depressing. The only people who benefit from this spat are our enemies. Europe feels somewhat surrounded now - Russia to the East and an increasingly bellicose and irrational US to the West, with unstable and desperate neighbours to the south. I guess it really is time to start looking to our own defense and interests. It's a shame, because once you build a hammer you start looking for nails to use it on.
over routine policy disagreements, if you're a responsible government run by functioning adults, but that's exactly what the republican party is doing.
Referring to that upper article: We had a ton of people with fainting/syncope as initial problem coming into the ER I worked at last month here in Germany. It is absolute standard here to take blood samples, do an ECG, a blood gas analysis, a physical examination, thorough anamnesis and then after all of this still recommend either being admitted to the cardiology or neurology ward for further diagnosis of a first-time syncope to rule out malign arrythmias, cardiomyopathies and newly present neurological issues OR at least do all of this in ambulant practices.
