U.S. Politics: Confirming The Trumpocalypse

[Mr Fixit]

1 hour ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

The Thin Red Line is probably the big mistake he will be remembered for. Backing down on his own ultimatum and letting Assad call his bluff has led to the situation we have now with a prolonged war only ended when Russia came in and backed a genocidal dictator.  It doesn't help that the US pulling out of Iraq created a power vacuum that ISIS moved into. His weakness has emboldened Russia, Turkey and China.  The world is certainly not a safer place after 8 years of Obama, in fact its worse. 

1. Assad hasn't committed genocide as defined under Convention for Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. Shall we stop naming every single US foreign policy enemy a genocidal maniac? How many have there been already in the last 20 years alone? Four? Five? I lost count.

2. The war in Syria has been prolonged by money, weapons, training, and political support provided to the terrorists by neighboring countries like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar with an ambivalent quasi-approval from the US and their allies. Also, this:  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/15/west-ignored-russian-offer-in-2012-to-have-syrias-assad-step-aside

It's really something to see the recurring pattern among so many people: the only way to make the world safer is to be more hawkish! Apparently Obama's 7 foreign "interventions" (love the euphemism) aren't enough. Let's make it 8! 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Commodore said:

What's inhibiting competition/choice in treatment offerings?

And why should we make the assumption that markets will always develop to be the purely competitive ones of libertarian fantasy?

This is an old libertarian trick: Assume every market is a competitive one. No let's not assume that. 

[mormont]

11 minutes ago, Commodore said:

why have any classified information if people can leak with impunity 

'Impunity' seems to be another concept whose meaning you're struggling with.

I would ask, why have pardons if you're not going to use them?

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Mr Fixit said:

It's really something to see the recurring pattern among so many people: the only way to make the world safer is to be more hawkish! Apparently Obama's 7 foreign "interventions" (love the euphemism) aren't enough. Let's make it 8! 

You forget the Ukraine. So let's make it 9.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Still wanting to have it both ways, it seems.

Certainly the regulations could be drafted to make allowance for the fact a doctor acting in an emergency situation is different from a calm office situation, could it not? If the expensive treatment is likely to save the patient' life, then do it. But if the treatment is not likely to work, then maybe it shouldn't be provided, unless the patient in question has the additional resources to pay for it. 

Also, if you're worried about innovation, I'd suggest drop the Patent Laws and spend more money on basic research. It would probably save us a lot more money.

OGE,

I'm pointing out the problems with single payer.  I still favor it but I do so with my eyes open.  

Why would dropping patent laws make innovation more available in single payer situations?  Don't those innovating want to benefit from their innovations?  Further, if they know that their innovation will not be paid for under single payer... because it is an unrecognized practice what monetary incentive do they have to continue to innovate?  Consider, they have every incentive to try to save lives, that's a reward unto itself, but if the procedure will not provide them with compensation for their work that's a reason to stick to the tried and true, regardless of how much more effective the innovation is.  

Once again, I favor single payer, I'm simply pointing out that it is far from flawless and its usefulness comes from its utilitarian nature.  That utilitarian nature does not care about individuals.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

12 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

A central problem is that a patient is not really a customer. He is ill, in pain etc., he cannot choose if he wants treatment like choosing between fruit loops and cornflakes. There is a huge asymmetry in power and information between doctor and patient. Another is that the healthcare provider (doctor) should strive to make the patient healthy but he might earn more if the patient does not get well asap. So there is a conflict between the essential goal (health) and the economical goal (maximise profits). Then there is a very uneven risk distribution in the populace etc. All these factors show that healthcare is not just another market like cars or cornflakes.

Yup.  That's why I favor single payer.  But single payer, because it is a utilitarian measure cares little for the individual within the system.  It cares that the system works for most not that the system works for all.  It is a trade off.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

13 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

A central problem is that a patient is not really a customer. He is ill, in pain etc., he cannot choose if he wants treatment like choosing between fruit loops and cornflakes. There is a huge asymmetry in power and information between doctor and patient. Another is that the healthcare provider (doctor) should strive to make the patient healthy but he might earn more if the patient does not get well asap. So there is a conflict between the essential goal (health) and the economical goal (maximise profits). Then there is a very uneven risk distribution in the populace etc. All these factors show that healthcare is not just another market like cars or cornflakes.

clearing quote.

[Jo498]

4 minutes ago, Commodore said:

What's inhibiting competition/choice in treatment offerings?

The patient is far more dependent than a typical "customer" on what the doctor tells him. Not to speak of emergencies. And it is not that there were no choices left in countries with socialized medicine. You will often be offered choices, especially if you would pay more (if you can). I'd say that for rich people not much changes, for most of the middle class, healthcare becomes rather cheaper and for the lower classes it becomes available/affordable at all.

There are far fewer people in precarious situations wrt healthcare in "socialist" countries than in the US. (The Walter White scenario is almost unthinkable in Germany, not only because a HS chemistry teacher would be reasonably paid. It would be unthinkable for a janitor - the only people who could be similar affected are very few precarious self-employed without proper insurance, I think, and even they would probably eligible for some kind of social/welfare payments or social agencies would pay their medical bills) I don't think there is any evidence that there is less innovation in medicine in countries with socialized medicine.

The main losers are a few overpaid doctors, I guess. And maybe a few guy like me, see above...

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

snip

Again, you can't have single payer without, making some decisions about what will and what will not be provided.

We may have to cut down on elective penis enhancement surgeries to provide more treatment for pneumonia cases.

With regard to Patent laws: You do understand they basically create monopolies right? Now maybe the excess returns they provide arguably gives people incentives to innovate. But, it seems to me that we could lower the cost of innovation by doing more basic research without basically giving people monopolies where they can charge higher prices.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

12 minutes ago, Commodore said:

What's inhibiting competition/choice in treatment offerings?

The emotional nature of the decision for the family.  The physical, psychological, and emotional problems the patient is suffering from.  It's hard to tell grandma you just don't have the money to pay for her kidney transplant and that you are going to let her die.  

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

Again, you can't have single payer without, making some decisions about what will and what will not be provided.

With regard to Patent laws: You do understand they basically create monopolies right? Now maybe the excess returns they provide arguably gives people incentives to innovate. But, it seems to me that we could lower the cost of innovation by doing more basic research without basically giving people monopolies where they can charge higher prices.

Temporary monopolies, yes.  I agree that patents shouldn't last forever.  

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Temporary monopolies, yes.  I agree that patents shouldn't last forever.  

Question is whether we are being served very well by giving them out for 20 years or whatever.

[Ice Queen]

20 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Information on the BBC News now from their Washington correspondent:

1. The information regarding Trump - just the fact that Russia had some kind of intelligence on him, none of the specific details - was known about in late October/early November but because the intelligence services would not comment on them, the media could not report on them (unlike the emails scandal, with the FBI making public statements about it).

I've been wondering why FBI wouldn't comment on it--they sure did about Clinton. Could it be because they had just gotten FISA approval and didn't want to compromise the investigation?

I'm trying to give the FBI the benefit of the doubt here, because it seems that they were playing party politics when they're supposed to be non-partisan. 

[Ice Queen]

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The emotional nature of the decision for the family.  The physical, psychological, and emotional problems the patient is suffering from.  It's hard to tell grandma you just don't have the money to pay for her kidney transplant and that you are going to let her die.  

 

This is the United States of America. NO ONE should ever have to make that decision or let someone die because they can't afford it. 

[Werthead]

Just now, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

I've been wondering why FBI wouldn't comment on it--they sure did about Clinton. Could it be because they had just gotten FISA approval and didn't want to compromise the investigation?

I'm trying to give the FBI the benefit of the doubt here, because it seems that they were playing party politics when they're supposed to be non-partisan. 

The FBI can only comment on internal security cases, so I'm assuming they went on the email offensive because that was wholly in their remit. This Russian stuff involves foreign security issues, so I'm assuming they couldn't do anything without coordination with the CIA and other bodies. But yeah, it's more than a bit bizarre that the email story kept coming up and this stuff, which is far more incriminating, was kept quiet even though the media in Washington had a whiff of it in October.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Question is whether we are being served very well by giving them out for 20 years or whatever.

OGE,

Patent law is abused but it is useful in that it gives people a reason to innovate.  A financial incentive to innovate.  That doesn't mean it shouldn't be modified and reformed.

[Werthead]

Quote

It's hard to tell grandma you just don't have the money to pay for her kidney transplant and that you are going to let her die.  

The word you are looking for here is unacceptable. The US needs to torch this idiotic system and introduce a viable replacement ASAP.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

This is the United States of America. NO ONE should ever have to make that decision or let someone die because they can't afford it. 

With Triage, under Single Payer, there will be points in time where someone is not treated because they are not currently emergent and they die waiting for treatment.  I guarantee it.  

Single payer is the least bad option.  I mean that exactly as I say it.  It is not and cannot be a panacea.

[Mexal]

1 minute ago, Werthead said:

The FBI can only comment on internal security cases, so I'm assuming they went on the email offensive because that was wholly in their remit. This Russian stuff involves foreign security issues, so I'm assuming they couldn't do anything without coordination with the CIA and other bodies. But yeah, it's more than a bit bizarre that the email story kept coming up and this stuff, which is far more incriminating, was kept quiet even though the media in Washington had a whiff of it in October.

Well, investigating treason is within the remit of the FBI so they're perfectly able to comment on this. They haven't done so because none of this is confirmed and it wasn't public knowledge. The email situation was in the public forefront for a year and Comey was having a mini revolution in the FBI so he commented on it to avoid leaks and looking bad.

[Mexal]

2 minutes ago, Werthead said:

The word you are looking for here is unacceptable. The US needs to torch this idiotic system and introduce a viable replacement ASAP.

Yea, but it won't.