Mexal Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Since we only get Trump's thoughts from twitter, here is his rant the last few minutes. If only he released his tax returns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Queen Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said: Your last part has some to truth. But a couple of things here. Even without the specter of malpractice claims, the doctor does have the incentive to over sell services. While, the insurance company, has the incentive to restrict the services. Typically, the patient doesn't have the knowledge to dispute the doctor's advice or know whether the insurance companies restrictions are reasonable. And that creates a case for regulation for what an insurance plan, at a minimum, should cover. Righto. In this case, I do have the knowledge to dispute it. My mother called UPMC and filed a complaint when the nurse she spoke with also disputed the doctor's claim. Otherwise, she would have been subjected to who knows how many tests, unnecessary medications, co-pays, etc. Most doctors now are on the payroll of hospitals--they don't own their own practices. So there is an incentive to bring in more money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 I'm shocked the left's lamentations about fake news were insincere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butterbumps! Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Just now, Commodore said: I'm shocked the left's lamentations about fake news were insincere Who has treated these revelations as uncontested truth? It looks to me like everyone here and in the media are viewing this very skeptically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Just now, 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. And I think its a real stretch to believe any of this is what cost Hillary the election. With regard to the thin red line thing. Obama shouldn't have said that. But, then, again, he shouldn't have doubled down by sending American military forces in Syria. The fact is a lot of Americans are just tired of American involvement in the Mid-East. Even lots of Republicans. Plus there is the fact, that such an intervention probably would have been dubious under international law, and you have to wonder what really are the American interest there. And the pull the out of Iraq was because of a deal Bush made with the Iraqi government. And that government and it's people did not want the US military there. I and most other Americans have little desire for our country to be occupiers. As far as "his weakness" with Russia, China, or whatever, I think that's mostly horseshit. I think he made the right call not to get us involved in Syria and the Ukraine, though I suspect the Chicken Hawk crowd will disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Just now, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said: Righto. In this case, I do have the knowledge to dispute it. My mother called UPMC and filed a complaint when the nurse she spoke with also disputed the doctor's claim. Otherwise, she would have been subjected to who knows how many tests, unnecessary medications, co-pays, etc. Most doctors now are on the payroll of hospitals--they don't own their own practices. So there is an incentive to bring in more money. Well, it's good you had that knowledge to call bull when you saw it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 2 minutes ago, butterbumps! said: Who has treated these revelations as uncontested truth? It looks to me like everyone here and in the media are viewing this very skeptically. Exactly. And this all started from a former MI6 agent and the US intelligence community briefed the president. This isn't fake news. It might be bullshit, but it's not fake news like we saw during the election where 16 year old moldavian kids made up stories and shared on Facebook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Just now, Mexal said: Exactly. And this all started from a former MI6 agent a guy claiming to be a former MI6 agent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 2 minutes ago, Commodore said: a guy claiming to be a former MI6 agent No. I'm sure that's easily verifiable by the intelligence community. It's not like the UK are allies or anything and this is potentially a big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 I hadn't heard the details before like the golden showers; but I absolutely remember hearing last August/September that these memos by a former MI6 agent were floating around, that most media outlets had them, and that no one was running with them because nothing in them could be verified. The closest anyone got to really reporting on them was as a tangent to that story about the Trump Org. server communicating with someone in Russia; which seems like it was probably an old spam mail getting regularly sent, rejected, and sent again (although I don't know if that was ever confirmed). Also, IIRC, the memos weren't leaked by intel agencies to the media. The story went that the MI6 guy had been hired by the Rubio campaign to do opposition research, but Rubio's campaign ended before anything really happened. However, the guy kept doing work on his own and eventually got in contact with some lower level folks in the Clinton campaign; not sure if they actually funded him or what happened. But he kept working, thought he had a huge find on all this, and started sending it out to everybody. I'm not sure if he sent it first to the media, then realized it was so big he should send it directly to the intel agencies; or if he sent it to the intel agencies, and when it seemed like they were slow-walking it he sent it to the media. But he sent it to the media, and its been a very open secret in DC that all the media orgs have had this stuff for months now. I don't know why Buzzfeed really decided to run with this now; but it wasn't because intel agencies just now leaked the memos. And I don't think it was because they got a tip that this was all finally verified; because if that was the case I'd think they'd have shown some evidence of that. The CNN story earlier yesterday was far more concrete and important; even if it was less juicy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 24 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said: Your last part has some to truth. But a couple of things here. Even without the specter of malpractice claims, the doctor does have the incentive to over sell services. While, the insurance company, has the incentive to restrict the services. Typically, the patient doesn't have the knowledge to dispute the doctor's advice or know whether the insurance companies restrictions are reasonable. And that creates a case for regulation for what an insurance plan, at a minimum, should cover. Understood, which prompts the question when it comes to medical decisions who should have control, the doctor or the insurance company? If an insurance company refuses to cover testing that could have allowed a physician to find and treat a serious illness should the insurance company that refused to cover be liable for their choice not to cover? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 24 minutes ago, Mexal said: Since we only get Trump's thoughts from twitter, here is his rant the last few minutes. If only he released his tax returns. Seriously, this is so spot on. The Orange Shit Thing might have a few less problems if only he had been transparent with us about his taxes. Funny how that works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Queen Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 2 minutes ago, Fez said: I hadn't heard the details before like the golden showers; but I absolutely remember hearing last August/September that these memos by a former MI6 agent were floating around, that most media outlets had them, and that no one was running with them because nothing in them could be verified. The closest anyone got to really reporting on them was as a tangent to that story about the Trump Org. server communicating with someone in Russia; which seems like it was probably an old spam mail getting regularly sent, rejected, and sent again (although I don't know if that was ever confirmed). Also, IIRC, the memos weren't leaked by intel agencies to the media. The story went that the MI6 guy had been hired by the Rubio campaign to do opposition research, but Rubio's campaign ended before anything really happened. However, the guy kept doing work on his own and eventually got in contact with some lower level folks in the Clinton campaign; not sure if they actually funded him or what happened. But he kept working, thought he had a huge find on all this, and started sending it out to everybody. I'm not sure if he sent it first to the media, then realized it was so big he should send it directly to the intel agencies; or if he sent it to the intel agencies, and when it seemed like they were slow-walking it he sent it to the media. But he sent it to the media, and its been a very open secret in DC that all the media orgs have had this stuff for months now. I don't know why Buzzfeed really decided to run with this now; but it wasn't because intel agencies just now leaked the memos. And I don't think it was because they got a tip that this was all finally verified; because if that was the case I'd think they'd have shown some evidence of that. The CNN story earlier yesterday was far more concrete and important; even if it was less juicy. Harry Reid wrote a letter back in August in which he all but accused the intelligence community, and especially Comey, of sitting on "explosive information" about Trump and refusing to disclose it even as Comey pursued an investigation of Clinton's emails right up to the election. So that information has been out there for awhile. If CIA can confirm, Trump is toast. Who knows, maybe they're just waiting for the inauguration. But one thing is clear: Trump now knows that CIA at the very least has some very damaging information on him tying him and his aides to the Russians, something that IMO was blatantly obvious from his appointment of Manafort. It was out there in plain sight and nobody said a word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Understood, which prompts the question when it comes to medical decisions who should have control, the doctor or the insurance company? If an insurance company refuses to cover testing that could have allowed a physician to find and treat a serious illness should the insurance company that refused to cover be liable for their choice not to cover? Probably neither should have the final say, for the reason, their interest will never actually align with patients. As to your second part: If the insurance company disallowed a test that was good medical practice then yes. If it disallowed a test that was only slightly marginally useful, then no. These type of situations create a case for government regulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Queen Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Understood, which prompts the question when it comes to medical decisions who should have control, the doctor or the insurance company? If an insurance company refuses to cover testing that could have allowed a physician to find and treat a serious illness should the insurance company that refused to cover be liable for their choice not to cover? There's your death panel. All the more reason to regulate them or even get rid of them altogether. Here's another thing to remember. Many hospitals and large research facilities ALSO own their own insurance plans. The patient really has no recourse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorn Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 29 minutes 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. And thats really just the big one. I wouldn't let Republicans off the hook for Trump at all, but is Trump a reaction to Obama? He's like the anti Obama in so many ways. The real culprit is the Democrats, who couldn't find a candidate to go up against the most unelectable man in recent history, and for Clinton who couldn't beat him. No, Obama's big mistake was interfering and picking sides in the Syrian civil war at all. Fortunately, he resisted Clinton's pressure for an all-in military intervention. Here is an excellent interview on the subject - long, but well worth the read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 6 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said: If CIA can confirm, Trump is toast. Who knows, maybe they're just waiting for the inauguration. But one thing is clear: Trump now knows that CIA at the very least has some very damaging information on him tying him and his aides to the Russians, something that IMO was blatantly obvious from his appointment of Manafort. It was out there in plain sight and nobody said a word. Manafort and Carter Page who has been associated with Gazprom for quite a while now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Queen Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 From the Guardian: McCain passes FBI dossier alleging secret Trump-Russia contacts https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/10/fbi-chief-given-dossier-by-john-mccain-alleging-secret-trump-russia-contacts The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. The Fisa court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October, but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full investigation. Another of the reports compiled by the former western counter-intelligence official in July said that members of Trump’s team, which was led by campaign manager Paul Manafort (a former consultant for pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine), had knowledge of the DNC hacking operation, and in return “had agreed to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue and to raise US/Nato defence commitments in the Baltics and Eastern Europe to deflect attention away from Ukraine”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 6 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said: Probably neither should have the final say, for the reason, their interest will never actually align with patients. As to your second part: If the insurance company disallowed a test that was good medical practice then yes. If it disallowed a test that was only slightly marginally useful, then no. These type of situations create a case for government regulation. Because a categorical regulation will help in situations that are necessarily individualized? Medicine varies from patient to patient. Malpractice is decided on a case by case basis as well, how can regulation, which cannot be individualized, help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 37 minutes ago, Commodore said: I'm shocked the left's lamentations about fake news were insincere I don't think you know what the definition of fake news is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.