The strange greatness of Donald Trump

[carpedm9587]

Of course, if you aren't for the stuff he is doing then it is your right to vote against Trump.

One of the problems of people on the internet is that they always over estimate what they know. Before you wrote the line" " you could have done a wee bit or work to research your claim and you might have found this in the Koran from Surah 5:51:

You are familiar with the acronym AFAIK? I speak to what I know, and note when my knowledge is less than complete on a subject (which is most subjects).

As for your quote, there is nothing "antisemitic" about it. I am actually familiar with the passage. First, it cites both the Jews AND the Christian as "wrong doing people." Second, you will be hard pressed to find a holy book of any religion that does not contain a proscription about falling in with, or being tempted by, or even taking up arms against, all those who lie outside the faith and are considered "wrong doers." Though Christianity is somewhat unique in lacking a "call to arms" in the NT, Christianity has also taken up arms against those of other faiths through its history. Judaism, for centuries, held it to be forbidden to engage with those outside the faith.

That sounds a bit anti-Semitic to me, my friend.

You are familiar with the acronym AFAIK? I speak to what I know, and note when my knowledge is less than complete on a subject (which is most subjects).

As for your quote, there is nothing "antisemitic" about it. I am actually familiar with the passage. First, it cites both the Jews AND the Christian as "wrong doing people." Second, you will be hard pressed to find a holy book of any religion that does not contain a proscription about falling in with, or being tempted by, or even taking up arms against, all those who lie outside the faith and are considered "wrong doers." Though Christianity is somewhat unique in lacking a "call to arms" in the NT, Christianity has also taken up arms against those of other faiths through its history. Judaism, for centuries, held it to be forbidden to engage with those outside the faith.

How about 5:64 And the Jews say: The hand of Allah is tied up! Their hands shall be shackled and they shall be cursed for what they say. Nay, both His hands are spread out, He expends as He pleases; and what has been revealed to you from your Lord will certainly make many of them increase in inordinacy and unbelief; and We have put enmity and hatred among them till the day of resurrection; whenever they kindle a fire for war Allah puts it out, and they strive to make mischief in the land; and Allah does not love the mischief-makers.

Surah 2: 63-66 And remember We took your covenant and We raised above you (The towering height) of Mount (Sinai) : (Saying): "Hold firmly to what We have given you and bring (ever) to remembrance what is therein: Perchance ye may fear Allah."

64. But ye turned back thereafter: Had it not been for the Grace and Mercy of Allah to you, ye had surely been among the lost.
65. And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected."
66. So We made it an example to their own time and to their posterity, and a lesson to those who fear Allah.


At least do a bit of research on the topics you state. Oh I forgot, you can't be convinced by examples cause they are not data.

The first I was not familiar with, the second I was. However, I make the same observation. The Kuran and Islam is not antosemitic - it is anti-not-us. So are most religions at some point in their history, and so too are passages from many (all?) holy books. The age of ecumenism is a fairly recent one.

[Mountain Man]

gmorton's anecdotes about the horrors of socialized medicine and substandard care in the UK are not outliers. There is plenty of objective data proving that government run healthcare just doesn't work.

Two articles from The Telegraph:

(2018) Patients will be forced to endure pain, disability and could even see their lives cut short by increasing waiting times for routine operations under measures aimed to cut costs, surgeons have warned.

NHS officials have introduced new limits which mean patients in some parts of the country will be made to wait at least three months for routine surgery, such as hip operations and cardiac procedures.

The Royal College of Surgeons last night attacked the move, raising fears that other parts of the country could follow suite in a desperate attempt to cut costs and push spending into a new financial year.

The measures, which have been introduced in Lincolnshire, mean instead of waiting an average of seven and a half weeks for operations, patients will have to wait at least a month longer before they can have any routine operations. Cancer surgery and emergency cases are excluded from the restrictions.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...pite-warnings/

Oh, good, so emergency and cancer care is excluded from his measure... but that's not necessarily good news because:

(2016) Almost nine in 10 NHS bodies are letting down cancer patients through late diagnosis, poor survival rates and delayed treatment, official figures reveal.

The first Ofsted-style ratings show that the vast majority of areas are providing substandard services, with just 14 per cent of areas receiving a positive report.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...nspections-to/

This, of course, is not a new state of affairs. Here's a Forbes article from 2011:

The National Health Service (NHS) -- the centralized public agency that runs Britain's government healthcare system -- is being forced to shave $31 billion from its budget by 2015.

...

In order to realize some savings, the NHS is raising the threshold at which patients qualify for treatment and lengthening wait times for surgeries determined "non-lifesaving." The Service is also cutting more than 20,000 NHS jobs over the next two years and shuttering a number of hospitals.

Patients are feeling the pain. For decades, they've turned over substantial portions of their hard-earned paychecks as taxes -- and accepted "free" health care from the government in return. Only about 11 percent of Britons pay for their care privately.

They've foregone cutting-edge medical treatments available in the United States, told by their leaders that these new therapies were no better than the old ones -- just more expensive. At least in Britain, they thought, everyone has access to basic health care. That has to be better than the situation in America, where tens of millions of people lack health insurance, right?

Hardly. The British healthcare system may "guarantee" access to care -- but that doesn't mean patients actually receive it.

Take the case of David Evans, a 69-year-old farmer living in Cornwall, in southwest England. About a year ago, he developed a hernia and needed an operation. Despite government requirements that he receive treatment within 18 weeks of diagnosis, he still hasn't been treated.

Recently, he had to use his own ultrasound equipment -- typically used to examine pregnant sheep -- to check the hernia himself and determine if it was getting worse.

"I was in quite a lot of pain," explained Evans. "There will be many more people like me who are suffering and are now being forced to wait quite a long time."

The law furnishes all Britons -- Evans included -- with health insurance. But he might as well not have coverage at all -- because he's certainly not getting any care.

A report released in October by Britain's health regulator found that a stunning 20 percent of hospitals were failing to provide the minimum standard of care legally required for elderly patients.

As part of the study, inspectors dropped by dozens of hospitals unannounced. They found patients shouting or banging on bedrails desperately trying to get the attention of a nurse. At one hospital, inspectors identified bed-ridden patients that hadn't been given water for over 10 hours.

The upcoming austerity measures will only amplify maladies like these.

The NHS is broken -- and not in some superficial way that a simple tweak would fix. The incentives are wrong. The government's main priority is keeping costs low -- not providing quality care. Patients can't choose how they receive their care -- it's one-size-fits-all medicine. And the entrenched NHS bureaucracy has no reason to improve efficiency.

The problems with "universal" health care aren't confined to Britain. Canada's single-payer, government-run system -- where any private health care is outlawed under the Canada Health Act -- is similarly failing its patients.

The Health Council of Canada recently surveyed over three thousand patients and found that those with chronic illnesses like high blood pressure or heart disease were largely dissatisfied with the medical care they received. Less than half of respondents with such conditions reported that the care they received was excellent or very good.

But aren't they getting it for free? Shouldn't they be grateful?

Not really. Despite the massive taxes Canadians remit to finance universal care, they still must pay out of pocket for some services. Nearly a quarter of chronically ill respondents said that they had skipped their medications or neglected to fill a prescription because it was too expensive.

Further, many Canadians travel to the United States and pay out of pocket for treatments and procedures, as they feel the wait in Canada is too long and harmful to their health.

The American health system is far from perfect. But it's wrong to think that government can fix it. The socialized systems found up North or across the Atlantic are proof. We need more market forces in our medical sector -- not more government controls.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypi.../#44844b9d3f2f

As I've said before:

-High quality healthcare
-Everybody covered
-Low cost

Pick two.

[carpedm9587]

DUH most people don't have serious health issues and that is when the system is bad--just when you need it. And I said, the system is great if you have the sniffles. And that is the problem. the 57% are healthy and such numbers make it impossible to get rid of the useless health system politically.

This is an interesting observation. So there are two facts that seem to raise a question about this. First, the older one gets the more likely that health issues become significant. Second, when you look at the UK stats, satisfaction actually RISES as the population ages. Higher dissatisfaction is among the youngest. How do you account for this?

One thing you need to understand. Most of those countries have quite small populations compared to the United States. Since we through NATO spend for their defence, and they don't have to spend as much on that, they can use that money to support social programs. Gotta look at the big picture. All the parts

Let's look at that. The U.S. is the wealthiest country in the world, with the third highest wealth-per-capita (behind only Switzerland and Australia). Meanwhile, military expenditures have dropped worldwide to under 2.2% of GDP (from a high of over 6.1% in the early 1960s). As of 2019, U.S. spending on military was at 3.1% of GDP. Military spending per capita in the U.S. is approximately $1,860. Norway, one of the countries on that list, is at $1,245. So yes, small populations lead to small numbers. That's why you look at the percentages - not just the raw numbers.

When you take in the big picture, you have to take in the entire big picture - not just cherry-pick the data that makes your case. Expenditures is only part of the picture. Wealth is the other part. And setting those expenditures against the global norm is yet another part.

I have to admit - I like the Norway model, and it is fairly well received. I think the Dems should be looking at some aspects of it as a model for the U.S.

[carpedm9587]

Because they give everyone in their country this excellent sniffle healthcare but bad if it is serious healthcare.

It was a joke, GR.

[Mountain Man]

Second, when you look at the UK stats, satisfaction actually RISES as the population ages. Higher dissatisfaction is among the youngest. How do you account for this?

Probably because older people are more likely to go in for regular checkups where they receive a clean bill of health (what gmorton refers to as "sniffle care") whereas a young person is more likely to only see the doctor when something is wrong.

What would be worthwhile is a survey of patient satisfaction split between those with and without a serious injury or illness.

[carpedm9587]

Let's look at this statement. Do you think doctors should be forced to work for free?

I have never proposed any such thing, nor will I defend it. The proposals on the table are for how healthcare is paid for - not how is required to do it.

If so, you believe in slavery for doctors. If you make healthcare free, then the government has to tell the doctors what they will be paid. I don't know what you do for a living but I don't think you would like it very much if a government bureaucrat determined your salary. In Canada, doctors can't go out on their own, they can and do in the UK after some years of practice. It is this Independent doctor care in the UK that provides the care for the politicians there, not the government owned system. But to go to one of those doctors you have to pay a lot of money. It isn't socialized at all. All the stuff I have talked about is what is provided to the poor. The wealthy in the UK still have better access to healthcare.

So this section is filled with sidetracks and misinformation. First, no healthcare is "free." The question is, how is it paid for. Second, the customer negotiating a price has a long history, and a single payer system does nothing more than consolidate the buying power of the U.S. population to establish the best prices. Assuming the current fee-for service model, the government would not be telling anyone what they can or should be paid - they would be establishing reimbursement rates for services. So instead of those rates being negotiated by a corporation whose choices I cannot influence and whose goal is to maximize its profits, it would be negotiated by a government whose representatives I can elect and who have a vested interest in getting the best deal they can for their constituents, or they risk losing their seats. I certainly would not advocate for a system in which doctors are not free to "go out on their own." Indeed, Medicare and Medicaid permit that now. I also don't think the "single payer" system needs to be structured to eliminate "private insurance" or "private practice. It's "single payer" not "single practice."

As for the poor/wealthy - that is a problem that will never be solved. Anyone with enough money will get what they want wherever they want it. Unless you propose laws to prevent them doing so, the question is how much better can we do for everyone else. Right now, with the system as it is, we have people deciding whether to eat or get healthcare. We have people rationing insulin because they cannot afford it. We have people (like my neighbor) not accessing any healthcare at all - so their teeth are rotting, and their overall health is in general decline. The healthiest people don't get insurance because "they don't need it," the wealthiest get whatever they want, and the sickest often cannot afford it.

to your comment

First, I pointed out above how shallow your knowledge of the Koran is--I have read it; clearly you haven't.

You are making some very large (and incorrect) leaps. Yes, I have read it (hence my comment), and have studied most of the major religions of the world. I was a seminarian for 4/5 years of my life. Some of those brain cells are under a few inches of dust - but they are there and a lot of them have been dusted off these past few years (thanks to TWeb discussions).

Second, I wouldn't want a bunch of German Nazi's imported here either--would that be wrong?

Your statements don't align. If you were to be consistent, you would be saying "I wouldn't want a bunch of German's imported here either--would that be wrong?" and my answer would be "yes." You see, there are militant Islamists who are antisemitic, just as there were militant German's who joined the Nazi party and held the Nazi beliefs. I would not want either in my country. But there are also an enormous number of peaceful Muslims - the majority of them, AFAICT. I have no problem with them coming to my country, so long as they pass all of the same checks and verifications that anyone else has to pass.

I don't think having a group of folk who hate another group is a good thing.

Agreed.

As the Koran quotes show, this dislike of the Jews has nothing to do with the State of Israel cause it didn't exist when Mohammed wrote the Koran.

Agreed that it has nothing to do with the modern State of Israel. Disagreed that it represents "antisemitism."

[carpedm9587]

My Rhode Island born and raised MIL would be having a fit about the definition of "Yankees" as including parts of the Upper Midwest.

My grandmother would be having a fit if anyone south of the northern Massachusetts border were called "Yankee"

[Cow Poke]

Probably because older people are more likely to go in for regular checkups where they receive a clean bill of health...

Ever notice how a "clean bill of health" is a death warrant, particularly to old people? How many times have you heard it said, about the deceased, "they just got a clean bill of health"?

[Cow Poke]

My grandmother would be having a fit if anyone south of the northern Massachusetts border were called "Yankee"

OK, OK... "North of the Red River in Texas" might possibly be a teensie weensie exaggeration.

[Mountain Man]

Ever notice how a "clean bill of health" is a death warrant, particularly to old people? How many times have you heard it said, about the deceased, "they just got a clean bill of health"?

As someone who was recently diagnosed with a serious but non-critical condition, I've adopted a new saying:

"I was perfectly healthy until I went to see my doctor!"

[carpedm9587]

gmorton's anecdotes about the horrors of socialized medicine and substandard care in the UK are not outliers. There is plenty of objective data proving that government run healthcare just doesn't work.

Two articles from The Telegraph:

(2018) Patients will be forced to endure pain, disability and could even see their lives cut short by increasing waiting times for routine operations under measures aimed to cut costs, surgeons have warned.

NHS officials have introduced new limits which mean patients in some parts of the country will be made to wait at least three months for routine surgery, such as hip operations and cardiac procedures.

The Royal College of Surgeons last night attacked the move, raising fears that other parts of the country could follow suite in a desperate attempt to cut costs and push spending into a new financial year.

The measures, which have been introduced in Lincolnshire, mean instead of waiting an average of seven and a half weeks for operations, patients will have to wait at least a month longer before they can have any routine operations. Cancer surgery and emergency cases are excluded from the restrictions.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...pite-warnings/

Oh, good, so emergency and cancer care is excluded from his measure... but that's not necessarily good news because:

(2016) Almost nine in 10 NHS bodies are letting down cancer patients through late diagnosis, poor survival rates and delayed treatment, official figures reveal.

The first Ofsted-style ratings show that the vast majority of areas are providing substandard services, with just 14 per cent of areas receiving a positive report.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...nspections-to/

This, of course, is not a new state of affairs. Here's a Forbes article from 2011:

The National Health Service (NHS) -- the centralized public agency that runs Britain's government healthcare system -- is being forced to shave $31 billion from its budget by 2015.

...

In order to realize some savings, the NHS is raising the threshold at which patients qualify for treatment and lengthening wait times for surgeries determined "non-lifesaving." The Service is also cutting more than 20,000 NHS jobs over the next two years and shuttering a number of hospitals.

Patients are feeling the pain. For decades, they've turned over substantial portions of their hard-earned paychecks as taxes -- and accepted "free" health care from the government in return. Only about 11 percent of Britons pay for their care privately.

They've foregone cutting-edge medical treatments available in the United States, told by their leaders that these new therapies were no better than the old ones -- just more expensive. At least in Britain, they thought, everyone has access to basic health care. That has to be better than the situation in America, where tens of millions of people lack health insurance, right?

Hardly. The British healthcare system may "guarantee" access to care -- but that doesn't mean patients actually receive it.

Take the case of David Evans, a 69-year-old farmer living in Cornwall, in southwest England. About a year ago, he developed a hernia and needed an operation. Despite government requirements that he receive treatment within 18 weeks of diagnosis, he still hasn't been treated.

Recently, he had to use his own ultrasound equipment -- typically used to examine pregnant sheep -- to check the hernia himself and determine if it was getting worse.

"I was in quite a lot of pain," explained Evans. "There will be many more people like me who are suffering and are now being forced to wait quite a long time."

The law furnishes all Britons -- Evans included -- with health insurance. But he might as well not have coverage at all -- because he's certainly not getting any care.

A report released in October by Britain's health regulator found that a stunning 20 percent of hospitals were failing to provide the minimum standard of care legally required for elderly patients.

As part of the study, inspectors dropped by dozens of hospitals unannounced. They found patients shouting or banging on bedrails desperately trying to get the attention of a nurse. At one hospital, inspectors identified bed-ridden patients that hadn't been given water for over 10 hours.

The upcoming austerity measures will only amplify maladies like these.

The NHS is broken -- and not in some superficial way that a simple tweak would fix. The incentives are wrong. The government's main priority is keeping costs low -- not providing quality care. Patients can't choose how they receive their care -- it's one-size-fits-all medicine. And the entrenched NHS bureaucracy has no reason to improve efficiency.

The problems with "universal" health care aren't confined to Britain. Canada's single-payer, government-run system -- where any private health care is outlawed under the Canada Health Act -- is similarly failing its patients.

The Health Council of Canada recently surveyed over three thousand patients and found that those with chronic illnesses like high blood pressure or heart disease were largely dissatisfied with the medical care they received. Less than half of respondents with such conditions reported that the care they received was excellent or very good.

But aren't they getting it for free? Shouldn't they be grateful?

Not really. Despite the massive taxes Canadians remit to finance universal care, they still must pay out of pocket for some services. Nearly a quarter of chronically ill respondents said that they had skipped their medications or neglected to fill a prescription because it was too expensive.

Further, many Canadians travel to the United States and pay out of pocket for treatments and procedures, as they feel the wait in Canada is too long and harmful to their health.

The American health system is far from perfect. But it's wrong to think that government can fix it. The socialized systems found up North or across the Atlantic are proof. We need more market forces in our medical sector -- not more government controls.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypi.../#44844b9d3f2f

As I've said before:

-High quality healthcare
-Everybody covered
-Low cost

Pick two.

I don't agree with your list. First, if you cover everyone under a single payer system, you can get a handle on costs to the consumer. The model is well established. Businesses all over the U.S. have been moving to the "self-insured" model because they find if they aggregate their people into a common pool and put commonsense rules in place*, they save a great deal of money. If a business with fewer than 150 employees can achieve this, imagine the savings if we can pool 350M people into that pool.

Beyond that, the rest is a balancing act. As you raise quality (for everyone) you simultaneously raise cost. So the question is, what is the cost/quality balance that works best for most. That often results in triaging procedures on a scale of criticality, and those who get pushed out are less than happy. I've been looking a bit at the UK system since the discussion yesterday. My initial impression is, "not the best one out there."

*One such rule I have always admired is: 100% coverage for the first $1,000 in expenses, 80% coverage for the next $15,000 in expenses, then 100% for anything above. Putting a small band of 100% at the front encourages people to minimize their unnecessary use of trivial medical services because they know they start paying OOP at $1,000. It has an amazing impact on overall costs.

[Cow Poke]

As someone who was recently diagnosed with a serious but non-critical condition, I've adopted a new saying:

"I was perfectly healthy until I went to see my doctor!"

Or, as in the case of my pinched nerve in my back, they tell you stuff you could have gotten for FREE.....

After careful examination:

Well, Mr. Poke, you have 3 things going on.
A) you're getting older
2) you're overweithg
C) you're out of shape

I PAID for that!!!!

[carpedm9587]

Ever notice how a "clean bill of health" is a death warrant, particularly to old people? How many times have you heard it said, about the deceased, "they just got a clean bill of health"?

Ever notice how old people die at a higher rate than young people? I wonder why that might be...?

[carpedm9587]

OK, OK... "North of the Red River in Texas" might possibly be a teensie weensie exaggeration.

Ya think?

[Cow Poke]

Ya think?

Possibly. MAYBE.