Corona virus, China major city lockdowns, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

I personally don't think Trump will be cutting off China...

---

I've already said that it's not Trump that wants to completely decouple from China, but the shadow government(deep state) behind Trump, these people are controlling Trump. Trump has only two purposes: (1) Re-election (to attack China for re-election) (2) To make money from China

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

@Dreamanor, ... But you do seem to projecting Trump and the GOP's rhetoric onto the members of this forum who really aren't expressing those views. Most of us think China was actually pretty transparent and behaved pretty well during all this and we think the noises you're hearing from Trump etc. are mostly just bluster. Scary bluster, but still just bluster.

---

I did not project Trump and the GOP's rhetoric onto the members of this forum. As I said before, I just introduce some information about China to others when I have time and feel bored. Not only does wes4dbt know nothing about China, he does not even understand American politics at all, he does not understand the meaning of "want China's life (want to kill China)".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dreammanor

I've already said that it's not Trump that wants to completely decouple from China, but the shadow government(deep state) behind Trump, these people are controlling Trump.

---

That's a hoot!! All this time, Trump has been complaining about the deep state acting against him. Now you come along and say that the deep state is controlling him. There IS no deep state. Not his fevered dream of one, nor any other.

Every person pulls to a greater or lesser extent, and each in a direction of their own choosing. The result of all those different tugs in various directions is the course of any country. Any person or group that would try to control that course is just another tug in just another direction. If they are strong, the course may change in the direction they want, or not, or over correct. If they are more than one person, the course they pull for will, itself, be the result of the different pulls by the different individuals in the group.

Thinking that there's some intelligence behind the actions of any country is giving people too much credit.

"Trump rolled over for the Chinese"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmieUrXwKCc

At least one sport hasn't been shut down.

Let the games begin!!!

Quote:

---

That's a hoot!! All this time, Trump has been complaining about the deep state acting against him. Now you come along and say that the deep state is controlling him. There IS no deep state. Not his fevered dream of one, nor any other.

---

That's a relief, I thought maybe the Opus Dei really was controlling everything. But we must be diligent and keep our eyes on those sneaky FreeMasons.

Quote:

---

"Trump rolled over for the Chinese"

---

For once I think you're being unfair to Trump. It's international politics and he has precisely zero jurisdiction in China. He never had any ability to insist on sending American inspectors into China and, had he tried, China would almost certainly have told where he could stick them (which would have amounted to a gagging order in his case). If Biden's calling that "rolling over" for the Chinese he's being disingenuous. And if Biden thinks he could have done any better on that he's deluded.

However, I do think his previous fawning over Xi demonstrates exactly how hollow his criticisms of the WHO are but that's the problem the WHO faces. People try to put them down.

Quote:

---

the shadow government(deep state) behind Trump

---

Oh, that's what you're referring to. Yeah, couldn't disagree more I'm afraid. Trump isn't president due to some clandestine conspiracy, he's president because he played to populism, was lucky enough to be running against one of the most hated candidates in the history of the Democrat party and he had a much more savvy machine behind him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

However, I do think his previous fawning over Xi demonstrates exactly how hollow his criticisms of the WHO are but that's the problem the WHO faces. People try to put them down.

---

I see what you did there.
Just because you get around...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

For once I think you're being unfair to Trump.

---

My point is that demonizing Trump regarding China is pointless since his opposition now tries doing the same on steroids. Just when you feel Trump has reached new lows his antagonists find a way to be even worse.

Pelosi and her luxury ice cream show-and-tell as half of L.A. is jobless comes to mind. Now we have Biden out front crapping hard on China.

Trump is awful, no question in my mind. His opposition however is far worse. Pence is pretty darned scary in his own right as a political zealot. These are tough times.

Quote:

---

Pelosi and her luxury ice cream show-and-tell

---

I wasn't aware of any of this until I googled your phrase. To me the criticisms she was making seem valid. What criticisms do you think were incorrect? (I really only speed read it and didn't dig in)

I'm certainly not averse to criticising that Biden campaign film but are you seriously comparing that one video to the constant stream of politicising and misinformation that Trump is engaged in? It's included everything from touting cures that don't actually work to using the official Virus update meeting to play his own fluff films.

Quote:

---

the most hated candidates in the history of the Democrat party

---

Do you mean the one that won the popular vote by almost three million more votes than Trump?

Yeah, that's the one. It's possible to be both hated and popular and she seemed to qualify. You can go with "divisive" if you prefer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Every person pulls to a greater or lesser extent, and each in a direction of their own choosing.
The result of all those different tugs in various directions is the course of any country.
Any person or group that would try to control that course is just another tug in just another direction.

---

Right, so you are saying that there are "persons with aligned interests" which might form "groups" -
and that these groups will have a "certain influence on decisions of the state".

Hmm, and the degree of influence of these "interest-aligned groups" might be related to:
- their power (mostly due to the sheer amount of accumulated money available to these groups,
.. combined with the fact that most states are "hugely indebted")
- then there's also security-related influence (thinking about CIA, NSA etc.)
- and that many "heads" in those powerful groups remain in their position across several parliamentary periods

So I think, everyone here would agree, that the "pull" (on certain decisions of the state) as you've put it,
is certainly substantial from these groups.

Now looking for a term, which might summarize these influential groups...
... which are certainly "dug in deep" ...
(as in "hard to remove" ... because ... no "elections" and no "periods of office" there -
you know, to "mix them up" from time to time)

Hmm... think I got it, let's just call them:
"deep dug-in, hard to remove powerful groups, who influence the state"

Too long for you? ... please feel free, to shorten it to your liking... ;)

Olaf

Quote:

---

both hated and popular and she seemed to qualify

---

Another way to say that is republican hated and democratic popular and she seemed to qualify

Yep...some people call it a two party system.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqAQKtG5X_Y

Quote:

---

Another way to say that is republican hated and democratic popular and she seemed to qualify

---

I got the impression she's pretty much reviled by large sections of the Democrat party too. Particularly the hard left (or as hard left as you guys get in the US:rolleyes:)

@Dil, that's the objection? That she's wealthy and likes ice cream? It's hardly political dynamite. Were you expecting her to open up a fridge full of hair shirts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schmidt

Right, so you are saying that there are "persons with aligned interests" which might form "groups" -
and that these groups will have a "certain influence on decisions of the state".

Hmm, and the degree of influence of these "interest-aligned groups" might be related to:
- their power (mostly due to the sheer amount of accumulated money available to these groups,
.. combined with the fact that most states are "hugely indebted")
- then there's also security-related influence (thinking about CIA, NSA etc.)
- and that many "heads" in those powerful groups remain in their position across several parliamentary periods

So I think, everyone here would agree, that the "pull" (on certain decisions of the state) as you've put it,
is certainly substantial from these groups.

Now looking for a term, which might summarize these influential groups...
... which are certainly "dug in deep" ...
(as in "hard to remove" ... because ... no "elections" and no "periods of office" there -
you know, to "mix them up" from time to time)

Hmm... think I got it, let's just call them:
"deep dug-in, hard to remove powerful groups, who influence the state"

Too long for you? ... please feel free, to shorten it to your liking... ;)

Olaf

---

Okay, I'll shorten it to a single word: Lobbyists.

I thought you had a point, but after reading what you wrote a few times, I'm not sure whether you were serious or making a joke. Politics is ALL about influence. People band together to amplify influence, even though all the people banding together don't share that single view, they DO prefer the direction of pull of the lobbying effort, or else they leave the cause. That's how politics works. That's how politics has ALWAYS worked, whether in democracies, dictatorships, or any other form of government from the state to the local fishing club.

That's not the deep state that people talk about.

Today, Yu Xiangdong, deputy dean of Hubei Huangshi Central Hospital and director of the Quality Management Department of Edong Medical Group, was removed from office. The reason for his dismissal was that he mocked the Chinese government's anti-epidemic measures taken in the prevention and treatment of new coronavirus pneumonia, such as wearing masks, home management, closure of the city, and CT examinations during the screening of admitted patients. He also mocked the efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine on new coronavirus pneumonia.

Mr. Yu Xiangdong is one of the few people in China who has high scientific literacy and dares to fight pseudoscience (traditional Chinese medicine). He is also a person I admire very much. This incident should be a real example of China's lack of freedom of speech. I feel very sorry.

If American medical officials continue to ridicule the Trump administration's epidemic prevention measures, will will these medical officials be removed from office?

"If American medical officials keep taunting the Trump administration's epidemic prevention measures, will he be removed from office?"

Not as long as republicans have the majority in the Senate...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TysonLPrice

"If American medical officials keep taunting the Trump administration's epidemic prevention measures, will he be removed from office?"

Not as long as republicans have the majority in the Senate...

---

Sorry, what I want to ask is whether those medical officials who laugh at Trump will be removed from office?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dreammanor

Sorry, what I want to ask is whether those medical officials who laugh at Trump will be removed from office?

---

There is a real good chance that could happen. Just like an other serious minded expert that challenged him. Also just like anyone that remotely was part of his impeachment. He is gutting government institutions that he thinks aren't loyal to him. Why should Medical experts be exempt.

If they can be fired by Trump, they will be. There are few people that Trump CAN fire that he has NOT fired. He's been churning through appointed officials like it was some kind of bad reality show. He wants unquestioning obedience and if he doesn't get it, he gets rid of the person.

However, he lacks the authority to get rid of the people who are criticizing him, or else he would have. He REALLY wants to get rid of Dr. Fauci, but at this point, the doctor is more popular than Trump, so he doesn't dare. As soon as he feels he can, he will. I was going to make that prediction a few weeks ago, but by that point, it was so obvious that it was kind of like predicting that water would be wet.

The other is about press freedom. A few days ago, the New York Times interviewed Sima Nan, a Chinese political commentator, for more than 40 minutes. I listened to the entire recording of the interview. But when the New York Times published this interview report, it just excerpted one sentence "Fang Fang has become a political tool" from the interview text of more than 10,000 words. The true meaning of Sima Nan's conversation is completely blocked.

I guess this is why the vast majority of Americans do not understand China at all ( or know nothing about China).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

If they can be fired by Trump, they will be. There are few people that Trump CAN fire that he has NOT fired. He's been churning through appointed officials like it was some kind of bad reality show. He wants unquestioning obedience and if he doesn't get it, he gets rid of the person.

However, he lacks the authority to get rid of the people who are criticizing him, or else he would have. He REALLY wants to get rid of Dr. Fauci, but at this point, the doctor is more popular than Trump, so he doesn't dare. As soon as he feels he can, he will. I was going to make that prediction a few weeks ago, but by that point, it was so obvious that it was kind of like predicting that water would be wet.

---

Speaking about Dr. Fauci...some Southern republican Governors are opening up their states against the science based recommendations. With absolutely no evidence I think Trump and his surrogates are behind that. I bet we don't see Dr. Fauci in tonight's nightly campaign speech. I think he would disagree with what those Governors are doing.

Quote:

---

I got the impression she's pretty much reviled by large sections of the Democrat party too. Particularly the hard left (or as hard left as you guys get in the US)

---

Yeah, I've felt that the only reason Trump got elected was because a large amount of people were voting against Hillary. Don't know if she is the most hated ever.

But I will agree with Dil on this "These are tough times". I can't hardly believe for two presidential elections in a row both candidates are terrible. I wouldn't call either of them a leader. Biden is such a marshmallow. But at least Biden is not morally bankrupt and I think he cares about the American people. Trump only cares about Trump. He had a chance to be a leader because of the virus. But instead, he's more worried about his ratings than about how many people die. And he is just incapable of being honest with the American people. Now I know politicians misleading people isn't rare, but this is some real next level stuff.

I was critical of many of our presidents through the years. I feel like I owe them all an apology, never realized how good we had it.

The ice cream was merely insult added to injury. Pelosi's corruption and anti-human actions go on and on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIDFYr2FjBQ

After all these years, I gotta ask: Dilettante, is there ANYBODY you actually LIKE?

Politicians? Darned few. Maybe Dennis Kucinich.

Aside from that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqV9NZSGIa4

;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Okay, I'll shorten it to a single word: Lobbyists.
I thought you had a point, but after reading what you wrote a few times, I'm not sure whether you were serious or making a joke.

---

Let's say, I was "half-serious" (writing all this with a bit of "gallows humor",
though trying to "stick to true statements", whilst doing so).

As for Lobbyists - sure, ... a proper, nice sounding, politically correct word -
and some of "those groups" indeed keep their lobbyism "civil and legal" (when trying to "pull" in a certain direction) -
others (the real powerful groups) - well, ... not so much.

Have encountered just too many "wag the dog"-moments over the last two decades,
to be anything else but desillusioned about these constructs, we call "western democracies"
(or more precise; what these once well-working constructs have evolved into in recent years).

A few decades ago, we voted for the "best person", or the "best party" (in the words true sense) -
whereas nowadays we kind of squirm whilst trying, to place our votes on the "lesser of several bad choices".
And worst of all, we find that "normal" (or try to tell ourselves, that the "the emperor in front of us is not naked").

It's clearly observable, that this "crazy train" is rolling ever faster and faster -
and we see quite clearly that its increasing speed (where no one can risk, to invest time, to really care),
will finally lead to disaster - but nobody seems to be able - or willing - to go looking for the breaks anytime soon.
(because the first one who breaks, will fall-back and never catch-up again)

On that note (and coming back to the topic at hand...) - the current virus seemed to be a good chance,
because suddenly every state, company or person had to indeed "break at the same time" (on a global level).

Don't know, if anybody else had similar thoughts in the first few weeks of "the shut-down" ...
but the whole thing had a certain "nostalgic, healthy air" to it, when everything around us "magically slowed down"...

But I already see the the signals for "full-speed ahead" getting green-ish again, (chances wasted).

Olaf

I'm not nearly that pessimistic, but I do see your point.

I'm not sure that any group ever saw the situation as any better in their day. In the US, we are more polarized than we have been in a LONG time, but out politics were never all that polite. Furthermore, we could fix things, and are....slowly.

In the US, our system sets us up to be polarized. Biden isn't a great candidate, but he's what came out of the primary system, which has plenty of flaws. We can't get a third party, because any viable third party can only win by cannibalizing one of the existing parties. Until that time, all a third party candidate does is weakens one of the two existing parties, making the other one virtually certain to win (assuming the third party gets any appreciable number of votes), and that's never what the supporters of the third party candidate really want. If they splintered off one of the main parties, then they'd prefer their person to win first, second they'd go for the candidate of the party they splintered off from, and the other party winning is a distant third. This creates a powerful incentive to abandon third parties, and that's what usually happens.

The primary process also makes people increasingly partisan. Both parties have to tack towards their respective corners to win the primary, then back towards the center for the general election. What Trump did, that was unusual, is NOT tack back to the center, but bet that he could win with angry white guys alone, as long as he got them angry enough. It worked...more or less, though he lost the popular vote, so it's also possible to say that his coalition wasn't really large enough.

We could fix it all by switching to rank voting, or one of the other systems. This would certainly create new kinds of problems, because no system is free of them, but it would get rid of our partisan divide.

Fixing our legislative districts would also get rid of the partisan divide, though not at the presidential level. Gerrymandering favors one party over another, which is why it is done. It could be eliminated entirely, but would take a constitutional amendment that those currently in office would certainly oppose, at the moment, since they are the winners under the current system, and would lose under a system that didn't favor them.

So, it could be fixed, it just might not.

The first that will go is likely the electoral college, which may just disappear. Many states have signed onto an agreement that their delegates will vote split according to the popular vote. If enough states do that, the electoral college won't be a thing anymore, so popular vote will decide the election, instead of the electoral college. That's seeming likely, eventually. Some states are also going to different voting systems. We'll see what comes of it all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

I'm not nearly that pessimistic, but I do see your point.

I'm not sure that any group ever saw the situation as any better in their day. In the US, we are more polarized than we have been in a LONG time, but out politics were never all that polite. Furthermore, we could fix things, and are....slowly.

In the US, our system sets us up to be polarized. Biden isn't a great candidate, but he's what came out of the primary system, which has plenty of flaws. We can't get a third party, because any viable third party can only win by cannibalizing one of the existing parties. Until that time, all a third party candidate does is weakens one of the two existing parties, making the other one virtually certain to win (assuming the third party gets any appreciable number of votes), and that's never what the supporters of the third party candidate really want. If they splintered off one of the main parties, then they'd prefer their person to win first, second they'd go for the candidate of the party they splintered off from, and the other party winning is a distant third. This creates a powerful incentive to abandon third parties, and that's what usually happens.

The primary process also makes people increasingly partisan. Both parties have to tack towards their respective corners to win the primary, then back towards the center for the general election. What Trump did, that was unusual, is NOT tack back to the center, but bet that he could win with angry white guys alone, as long as he got them angry enough. It worked...more or less, though he lost the popular vote, so it's also possible to say that his coalition wasn't really large enough.

We could fix it all by switching to rank voting, or one of the other systems. This would certainly create new kinds of problems, because no system is free of them, but it would get rid of our partisan divide.

Fixing our legislative districts would also get rid of the partisan divide, though not at the presidential level. Gerrymandering favors one party over another, which is why it is done. It could be eliminated entirely, but would take a constitutional amendment that those currently in office would certainly oppose, at the moment, since they are the winners under the current system, and would lose under a system that didn't favor them.

So, it could be fixed, it just might not.

The first that will go is likely the electoral college, which may just disappear. Many states have signed onto an agreement that their delegates will vote split according to the popular vote. If enough states do that, the electoral college won't be a thing anymore, so popular vote will decide the election, instead of the electoral college. That's seeming likely, eventually. Some states are also going to different voting systems. We'll see what comes of it all.

---

I agree with a lot of that. Along those lines I wonder if we could take the elections out of lobbyist control with government paying for elections somehow to viable candidates? Doesn't the UK have something along those lines?

That probably wouldn't take anything out of lobbyists control. We'd have to stop third-party advertising, and I'm not sure how that could be done. I doubt that you could build such a wall that people wouldn't get over it. The stakes are WAY too high for interested people not to want to influence the outcome by any means fair or foul.

Quote:

---

I agree with a lot of that. Along those lines I wonder if we could take the elections out of lobbyist control with government paying for elections somehow to viable candidates? Doesn't the UK have something along those lines?

---

I've thought along those lines for a long time.

I think it would have a large positive affect (or effect, never have figured that out for sure). There would have to be some type of oversight organization and there would be cries of advertising censorship. It wouldn't be 100% successful but what is. Probably not going to happen because the lobbyist on both sides don't want it.

Quote:

---

but out politics were never all that polite

---

Very very true.

Weird:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaBXQ1irNA0

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/21/healt...nes/index.html

"Fox News has fallen out of love with hydroxychloroquine. After weeks of unrelenting coverage hyping the antimalarial drug as a potential game-changing treatment for the coronavirus, the network has all but stopped mentioning it on its airwaves. So has President Donald Trump.

The quite abandonment of hydroxychloroquine comes as studies indicate it is not an effective treatment against the coronavirus. A French study found last week that the drug does not help patients with the virus. And on Tuesday, a study of hundreds of patents at US Veterans Health Administration medical centers found that patients who took hydroxychloroquine were no less likely to need ventilation and had higher death rates than those who didn't take the drug."

Day after day Trump and fox news promoted the use of hydroxychloroquine with that moron Trump telling people "take it, what can it hurt". This was the height of irresponsibility. Now that studies proved them wrong they just shut up. They just stopped promoting it without saying they were wrong. Not even reporting it doesn't work and that it can even be harmful. In the meantime there were fears that supplies for people that need it for the purposes it was designed for were threatened.

I just understand why there isn't more outrage against what those two, Fox and Trump, do hand in hand to harm our society. I wonder how many people harmed them selves listening to Dr. Trump and the Fox medical institute?

Update:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachels.../#3d5c31eb4b40

A panel of medical experts from the National Institutes of Health on Tuesday recommended against using the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin to treat the coronavirus outside clinical trials, undercutting President Donald Trump’s early claims that the drugs were a promising treatment for the disease.

Quote:

---

Pelosi's corruption and anti-human actions go on and on.

---

I didn't follow it fully (mainly because it's couched in a lot of terminology that's specific to the debate in the US and doesn't travel well) but I think his point was that it would be better for US government to pay for treatment direct rather than covering insurance premiums, have I understood that correctly? If so, yeah, I agree. I think the insurance system you guys run is bizarre and exists purely to allow a bunch of middle men to syphon off loads of cash from the system without actually any concrete value.

I'd go further though. In the UK the supplier of treatment is the government (this isn't strictly true, we've been admitting more and more private sector into the system since the 90s, but the principle is there). So nobodies paying anyone anything, we simply provide the treatment at the point of need and our government run NHS procures the materials it needs to do so.

I don't know enough about the debate over there to either justify or condemn Pelosi's position but I get the impression you guys (collectively) have been rejecting any move in that direction throughout the last 3 Presidential terms haven't you? It seems unfair to lay that at Pelosi's door but, as I said, I don't fully understand that argument so I'm likely missing a nuance.

The nuance is that she proposes that the government pay COBRA health insurance premiums to the insurance industry for newly unemployed people rather than cutting them out and providing direct coverage without a profiteering middleman. Those are some of her biggest donors after the military industry. Her scheme also does nothing for anybody not facing COBRA, which is a system that allows laid off workers to pay their former employer's share of health insurance premiums.

It is no accident that she has accumulated over $100M in personal wealth since first taking office. Influence peddling can do that for you.

And the hits just keep coming...

Trump tweets he instructed the Navy to ‘shoot down and destroy’ Iranian gunboats that ‘harass’ U.S. ships

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...7c7_story.html

Coincidentally he tweeted that shortly after Fox had aired video of Iranian speed boats harassing US ships in the Gulf. That harassment has been going on for quite a while now albeit this was more aggressive than past ones.

So in the middle of a global pandemic the moron in chief is going to start a military offensive that would suck in our allies and bring war to the middle east. Try social distancing during a war :rolleyes:. I don't think he is deflecting blame with this maneuver like blaming WHO, China, the democrats, the media, etc. I think it is just the moron being the moron.

I'm anxious to see how he walks this back, if he does at all. I'd also bet when he tweeted that he hadn't said a word to the military.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dilettante

The nuance is that she proposes that the government pay COBRA health insurance premiums to the insurance industry for newly unemployed people rather than cutting them out and providing direct coverage without a profiteering middleman. Those are some of her biggest donors after the military industry. Her scheme also does nothing for anybody not facing COBRA, which is a system that allows laid off workers to pay their former employer's share of health insurance premiums.

It is no accident that she has accumulated over $100M in personal wealth since first taking office. Influence peddling can do that for you.

---

The US health care industry is the largest lobbying group in the country, taken as an aggregate (it's not just one thing). There is bipartisan reluctance to go against the interests there, hence the watered down health care bills we end up with. I don't really like that idea, either, but I do recognize that it is the path of least resistance. If the goal is to get the job done, I can see the point in taking that approach at the moment, rather than fighting against the grain. Providing direct coverage would be vigorously opposed by lots of groups, including most of Congress, for various reasons. Personally, I don't see how that would work. Seems like it would involve creating a lot of work identifying people to get the money to, which would have other knock-on effects. However, I'm not all that familiar with COBRA. I only know that they are the perennial opponents of G. I. Joe, and I don't know why we are paying their health insurance premiums in the first place.

Deleted ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

The US health care industry is the largest lobbying group in the country, taken as an aggregate (it's not just one thing). There is bipartisan reluctance to go against the interests there, hence the watered down health care bills we end up with. I don't really like that idea, either, but I do recognize that it is the path of least resistance. If the goal is to get the job done, I can see the point in taking that approach at the moment, rather than fighting against the grain. Providing direct coverage would be vigorously opposed by lots of groups, including most of Congress, for various reasons. Personally, I don't see how that would work. Seems like it would involve creating a lot of work identifying people to get the money to, which would have other knock-on effects. However, I'm not all that familiar with COBRA. I only know that they are the perennial opponents of G. I. Joe, and I don't know why we are paying their health insurance premiums in the first place.

---

It is the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). I've used it a couple of times. When you leave a job you can pay for the insurance your employer was providing for a while (I forget how long) at the same rate you employer had been paying. If offers continuity and a break in the cost of going out and getting your own.

Quote:

---

I'm not all that familiar with COBRA

---

I know that Boris Johnson doesn't attend their meetings. He's probably off hanging out with GI Joe, getting stuck on zip wires, that sort of thing.

The US health care system is bizarre, to me it seems broken. There is no cost control at all. I had an MRI on my back, luckily I have insurance. When I got a copy of the bill I noticed the cost was $6,000+ but they excepted @ $600 from the insurance company as payment and wrote the rest off. My doctor charges $130 a visit but they except $20 from the insurance as full payment (I think it might actually be $10 but you get the point). So the insurance companies have negotiated prices. So until things change it's cheaper for the government to pay insurance premiums than medical bills.

I'm all for a National Health System. Get control over pricing and then tackle big pharma. Nice dream but not happening in my life time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wes4dbt

The US health care system is bizarre, to me it seems broken. There is no cost control at all. I had an MRI on my back, luckily I have insurance. When I got a copy of the bill I noticed the cost was $6,000+ but they excepted @ $600 from the insurance company as payment and wrote the rest off. My doctor charges $130 a visit but they except $20 from the insurance as full payment (I think it might actually be $10 but you get the point). So the insurance companies have negotiated prices. So until things change it's cheaper for the government to pay insurance premiums than medical bills.

I'm all for a National Health System. Get control over pricing and then tackle big pharma. Nice dream but not happening in my life time.

---

I had a plate put in my shoulder not that long ago and there was a mix-up and they thought I didn't have insurance. They sent me a bill for about $17,000. When I called and gave then my insurance information I later saw they billed the insurance company about $45,000 dollars. I called the hospital about it and they said the $17,000 they billed me was a discount because they thought I didn't have insurance. What I think is the $17,000 was the real cost and they billed the insurance company the maximum allowed.

I'll never know for sure but that is an example of how wacky our insurance is.

Pelosi brazenly plans a bailout for the insurance industry in the face of mass unemployment with her scheme. There really is no nuance there at all: she is covering her donor base and leaving many people who don't even have COBRA with nothing.

I don't see any other message here. She seems to be saying "Trump is awful, but we dare to be even worse."

Quote:

---

I'm anxious to see how he walks this back, if he does at all. I'd also bet when he tweeted that he hadn't said a word to the military.

---

He had Pompeo do it for him...

"Referring to Trump’s tweet that Navy ships would “shoot down” Iranian gunboats that approach U.S. ships, Pompeo said, “What he said this morning, and what I know he’s told all of us in leadership inside the government, is take whatever action is necessary to make sure that you can defend and keep our people safe.”

That is a far cry that he ordered the Navy to destroy the Iranian ships...which the liar never did. I just wonder what our military and allies thinks about him spouting off like that in tweets. It is a good thing the rest of the world ignores what he tweets and waits for what he does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

If they can be fired by Trump, they will be. There are few people that Trump CAN fire that he has NOT fired. He's been churning through appointed officials like it was some kind of bad reality show. He wants unquestioning obedience and if he doesn't get it, he gets rid of the person.

However, he lacks the authority to get rid of the people who are criticizing him, or else he would have. He REALLY wants to get rid of Dr. Fauci, but at this point, the doctor is more popular than Trump, so he doesn't dare. As soon as he feels he can, he will. I was going to make that prediction a few weeks ago, but by that point, it was so obvious that it was kind of like predicting that water would be wet.

---

Consider this...I have not fact checked it myself:

A senior US government doctor who worked on the search for a coronavirus vaccine has claimed he was fired after resisting Donald Trump’s push to use the unproven drug hydroxychloroquine as a treatment, the New York Times reported on Wednesday.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ne-coronavirus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RexUJeWmzSE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dilettante

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RexUJeWmzSE

---

I didn't get any volume on that so I don't know what is being said but I do know that Faux news has completely backed off promoting that drug.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/22/media...ces/index.html

We will never know between the moron in chief and Faux news how many people their false reporting and promoting of unproven drugs, for the purpose of the corona virus, has harmed.

Wow i never new that Fox news were such experts in clinical trials or had a history of presenting the facts when other less trust worthy news agencies lied through there teeth....

... Oh wait they dont !!!

Why the hell does a news anchor think that they are suddenly an expert in medicine? why does her opinion matter? if she cared about the facts at all should would present them properly.

The french study was carried out on 20 or so patients, and several patients who took the drug, and ended up faring poorly, dropped out of the trial, and their outcomes were not factored into the study's final conclusions.

20 patients is just not nearly a big enough sample size for any clinical trial you cant be making claims of testing 20 people, and secondly how can you let people drop out of a trial and not record there results?, clearly your misrepresenting the numbers if you dont record them.

The New York study was not a clinical trial it was an observational study looking back at patients' hospitalizations, not a randomized clinical trial. It covered 1600 patients with Covid-19 patients divided equally into four groups: those taking hydroxychloroquine; those taking chloroquine, a similar drug; those taking hydroxychloroquine along with the antibiotic azithromycin; and those taking none of the drugs, as a comparison group.

Its not just clear from the study that some patients are receiving azithromycin as well as hydroxychloroquine, its part of the study and yet this is misrepresented as a mistake or failing of the study.

It along with studies in Brazil, Sweden, and a new study in France have all found no statistically significant differences in the death rates between Covid-19 patients who had taken the drug and those who had not.

But despite the mounting evidence this Fox News anchor simply quotes one french doctor (which is ironic as i can't imagine that in normal times a french expert in anything would be used by fox as a trusted source) who's study methods and results has been questioned and seems to use his words as gospel mainly because it reinforces her own case.

This is anti Science and anti sense, yes there are times when the consensus view can be wrong but with drug trials and studies in particular you have to be guided by the evidence not some ones words and believes and the mounting evidence is increasingly clear and it is coming from multiple separate sources and it is come from much larger sample sizes.

Also you've gotta love the bit where she denounces the New York study as a shoddy study clearly misrepresenting what it is, which is an observational study, and also praises french trial as a positive legitimate study.

Finally the claim that the problem with the New York trial is they were giving the drug to people who were to ill, and what they should have been doing is giving it to people who were less ill?

What the hell ???? its the people who become very ill from Covid-19 that are the problem, those that are not very ill in the first place will recover on there own any way without the need of hydroxychloroquine.

It possible still that we find that there is a group of people that benefit from this Drug in helping them deal with Covid-19 symptoms but we dont have any reliable study showing that and until we do we should be rightly sceptical of that claim.

And there in lies the main problem with this report, evidence should come first, it should be clear and it should be repeatable and repeated, we should not just jump something because it fits our narrative and then defend it to the death so we are not wrong about something.

Being properly sceptical about things means following the evidence and being prepared to change your mind based upon it, and if you dont yet have enough evidence then waiting until you do.

There is so much wrong with this reporting that it hurts my head to listen to the wrong headedness of it, and the insistence in following narrative and being right instead of looking at the actual evidence.

OK, couple of things with that last vid:-

1. When someone throws up air quotes around "Scientific Study" in the first 10 seconds of an article it tends to project their opinion of science and how they're likely to use it's findings.

2. She shows some other news sources who may (I cant be sure from the article) have jumped the gun on a scientific paper that says Chloroquine may actually be harmful and she points out that it was in pre-print form and not yet peer reviewed. She doesn't actually give any details about the paper so it's impossible to fact check this. Given the clips she shows it seems likely that the paper does exist (those talking heads are referring to... something) but it's impossible for the viewer to check the credentials of the paper or it's authors. It's certainly possible (I would say likely) that news outlets have been quoting a non peer reviewed paper (they do tend to lack vigour around such things as she subsequently demonstrates - see point 3 below) but her presentation makes it impossible to check the general credibility of it's publishers or whether it subsequently goes on to be peer reviewed. News outlets jumping the gun is a valid criticism but it in know way debunks the science whose gun they jump, all of which says chloroquine doesn't work.

3. In defence of chloroquine she subsequently cites Dr Didier Rault's recent (non-peer reviewed - so, yeah, there's that) study that says Chloroquine has had positive effects on 90% of patients. In case you don't know him, this is Dr Didier Rault. He's the inventor of Chloroquine. His credibility is currently collapsing and he has a clear vested interest.

4. It's Fox News for Christ's sake. They're about as credible as Moon Landing Conspiracies.

At that point I stopped watching, because what's the point?

Quote:

---

Why the hell does a news anchor think that they are suddenly an expert in medicine?

---

She doesn't. She explicitly says "I'm not a doctor, nor do I play one on television..." and then goes on to give her expert opinion.:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

OK, couple of things with that last vid:-

1. When someone throws up air quotes around "Scientific Study" in the first 10 seconds of an article it tends to project their opinion of science and how they're likely to use it's findings.

2. She shows some other news sources who may (I cant be sure from the article) have jumped the gun on a scientific paper that says Chloroquine may actually be harmful and she points out that it was in pre-print form and not yet peer reviewed. She doesn't actually give any details about the paper so it's impossible to fact check this. Given the clips she shows it seems likely that the paper does exist (those talking heads are referring to... something) but it's impossible for the viewer to check the credentials of the paper or it's authors. It's certainly possible (I would say likely) that news outlets have been quoting a non peer reviewed paper (they do tend to lack vigour around such things as she subsequently demonstrates - see point 3 below) but her presentation makes it impossible to check the general credibility of it's publishers or whether it subsequently goes on to be peer reviewed. News outlets jumping the gun is a valid criticism but it in know way debunks the science whose gun they jump, all of which says chloroquine doesn't work.

3. In defence of chloroquine she subsequently cites Dr Didier Rault's recent (non-peer reviewed - so, yeah, there's that) study that says Chloroquine has had positive effects on 90% of patients. In case you don't know him, this is Dr Didier Rault. He's the inventor of Chloroquine. His credibility is currently collapsing and he has a clear vested interest.

4. It's Fox News for Christ's sake. They're about as credible as Moon Landing Conspiracies.

At that point I stopped watching, because what's the point?


She doesn't. She explicitly says "I'm not a doctor, nor do I play one on television..." and then goes on to give her expert opinion.:rolleyes:

---

And guess who the moron in chief listens to...

"Laura Ingraham, Fox Guests Met With Trump at White House to Tout Unproven COVID-19 Drug: WaPo"

https://www.thedailybeast.com/laura-...ne-report-says

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

4. It's Fox News for Christ's sake. They're about as credible as Moon Landing Conspiracies.

---

LOL, well I have to give you that.

My point was that this particular topic has become something of a fact-free emotional sporting event on both sides of the question, so why not let the other side play?

Sure does get the knees jerking though. There must be something to the theory that many have a weird S&M relationship with their Trump-photo plastered bedroom walls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dilettante

LOL, well I have to give you that.

My point was that this particular topic has become something of a fact-free emotional sporting event on both sides of the question, so why not let the other side play?

Sure does get the knees jerking though. There must be something to the theory that many have a weird S&M relationship with their Trump-photo plastered bedroom walls.

---

That is what I suspected was going on ;)

Just what we needed; another complication.

This article is about blood clotting due to the virus. If you are not aware of it you should read it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/healt...s-blood-clots/

Quote:

---

My point was that this particular topic has become something of a fact-free emotional sporting event on both sides of the question, so why not let the other side play?

---

On some of the stuff you've posted, yes. Like I say, I really like the idea of universal health care but I don't believe universal insurance is the same thing and I don't really see either of your parties pulling for what I believe is the right solution.

On other stuff, maybe. I honestly don't know enough to either support or deny your claims about Pelosi's corruption. I want to have more of a look into that but haven't had time yet. It sure wouldn't surprise me to find out that a politician (of either political leaning) is lining their (and their friends') nest but it also wouldn't surprise me to find that a politician simply proposed what they thought they could pass and the other side chose to miss-represent it as something it's not. Definitely something worth finding out about.

On Chloroquine and the science around it, hell no. The credible scientific is in complete agreement that there's no evidence it does a damn thing (which is not the same as there being evidence it does nothing) and I haven't seen anyone claiming it does whose agenda was anything other than purely political.

Quote:

---

This article is about blood clotting due to the virus. If you are not aware of it you should read it.

---

It's behind a pay wall so didn't read it. It sounds like what Dil posted in post 633. Is it something different?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

On some of the stuff you've posted, yes. Like I say, I really like the idea of universal health care but I don't believe universal insurance is the same thing and I don't really see either of your parties pulling for what I believe is the right solution.

---

Universal insurance was all that COULD be passed, and that just barely. Universal health care is considered too high a lift for the US, at this time. Perhaps that will change as a result of COVID, but not likely. Costs for health care in the US are totally nuts. Wes4dbt (dbt....debate? Are you subject to debate?) mentioned one case of crazy costs, but there are any number of them. Comparisons for costs of procedures between hospitals in a single city always show wild discrepancies up to an order of magnitude, or more, difference. Health care executives generally can't explain the bills any better than the average person, either. It's a system. A large, ungainly, system, not well understood by people either inside or outside.

For that reason, when I need a random number for a program, I use a quote for some procedure out of a health care web service. It's guaranteed to be a more random value than any built in random number generator.

Quote:

---

It sure wouldn't surprise me to find out that a politician (of either political leaning) is lining their (and their friends') nest

---

This is a large and well known issue with Washington politics. I wouldn't say that it is fiercely debated. It is just used as a convenient club to bash those you don't like, but since it's so incredibly common, you can only really do that if you ignore the bit where the people you DO like are doing the same thing.

Members of Congress, along with senior staffers, get paid fairly well, but not very well by private sector standards. Some people object to how well they get paid, which is a fair objection, but the intention was to try to immunize them against bribery. What has ended up happening is that they can simply step out of office into lucrative private sector positions. After a few years in Congress, they can become a lobbyist or a 'consultant' for several times what they made as a sitting member.

This is understandable, of course. Decisions made in Congress can make or lose millions or billions from industries, so they have a VERY strong financial incentive to influence whatever, and wherever, they can. With the amount of money sloshing around Washington, if you aren't trying to influence it in some way, it's almost fiscal malfeasance for any large industry.

There are various attempts to stop that, such as forbidding people from registering as a lobbyist for N years after they leave office, but that's hopeless. There are too many ways to get around such rules.

I don't have a suggestion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

On some of the stuff you've posted, yes. Like I say, I really like the idea of universal health care but I don't believe universal insurance is the same thing and I don't really see either of your parties pulling for what I believe is the right solution.

On other stuff, maybe. I honestly don't know enough to either support or deny your claims about Pelosi's corruption. I want to have more of a look into that but haven't had time yet. It sure wouldn't surprise me to find out that a politician (of either political leaning) is lining their (and their friends') nest but it also wouldn't surprise me to find that a politician simply proposed what they thought they could pass and the other side chose to miss-represent it as something it's not. Definitely something worth finding out about.

On Chloroquine and the science around it, hell no. The credible scientific is in complete agreement that there's no evidence it does a damn thing (which is not the same as there being evidence it does nothing) and I haven't seen anyone claiming it does whose agenda was anything other than purely political.

It's behind a pay wall so didn't read it. It sounds like what Dil posted in post 633. Is it something different?

---

I'm not sure because I rarely look at video news. Maybe the dark spots on the toes were blood clots. It is all over the news now so you will probably run into it. It may explain many of the mysterious deaths that seem outside the scope of a "normal" virus. There is also news this morning that many of the sickest people didn't have fevers. That is scary too.

If you have flexible morals, like me,you can use Google Chrome incognito mode to get past the Washington Post paywall. It locks you out after a few articles but if you just shut down Google and bring it up again you can start over.

Quote:

---

Wes4dbt (dbt....debate? Are you subject to debate?)

---

Not debating you, you know to many big words. No, that was my user name at a programming business I worked for, call "D"ata"B"ase "T"echnology. Pretty clever right?

If you want to add another observation about the virus, Read this yesterday, one place is thinking about suggesting people wear a nicotine patch. Their information showed smokers infection rate was lower than non smokers. The down side is they tend to do worse if they did become ill.

I think maybe Phillip Morris might have ran that study.

Quote:

---

Costs for health care in the US are totally nuts.

---

I feel like your insurance based system is probably a large factor in that and I honestly don't think you will ever have a healthy health system without root and branch reform. Trouble is that democratic system tend to favour bureaucratic inertia so I don't reckon that'll happen without a major crisis to trigger it. As you say, Corono could do it but probably not. The political entrenchments on either side see to just be deepening on the back of this.

I do get (and actually quite admire) the whole American spirit of independence and self sufficiency thing and I think that it's been a beneficial part of your culture, for the most part. But I also think that a basic safety net is fundamental unless you're happy to let people suffer and die when things go wrong for them. I think your safety net's pretty good in most areas but, weirdly, at some point in your history you contracted the health safety net out to the private sector... and then wondered why it tried to wring as much cash out of the system as they possibly could.

I'm willing to bet sometime today we hear about somebody ingesting or injecting some kind of chemical disinfectant because of what Trump, aka the moron in chief, said about it on nationwide TV:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52407177


Edit:

Lysol put out a warning about ingesting their products...