Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

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.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Spoiler:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

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.

Prestor Jon wrote:

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.

We should remember, Persia-aka Iran, has been a regional empire in some form or another for what, 3,000 years?

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.

How much did you pay?

 thekingofkings wrote:

 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:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 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"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How much did you pay?

That's my question.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How much did you pay?

That's my question.

64 pounds 2001 value. so at the time, about $96 or so.

Get what you pay for seems the right adage then.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Get what you pay for seems the right adage then.

Had I been a citizen it would have been free most likely. but that was a very long time for a relatively small area.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 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.

 r_squared wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 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.

The NHS is objectively very efficient and cheap. That is just a fact.

 Da Boss wrote:
The NHS is objectively very efficient and cheap. That is just a fact.

glad your proud of it. looking at www.england.nhs.uk, not gonna agree with you competely.

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.

 thekingofkings wrote:

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.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

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.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

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.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/756734.page

 thekingofkings wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 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.

 r_squared wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

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.