I do wonder if the terrorism potential matters more than the healthcare. Lots of Americans really dislike Obamacare, and those who like it probably weren't in the Trump camp anyway.
But if he looks incompetent or weak on terrorism that cuts against the Make America Great Again slogan. Not to mention, on substance, people won't be enamoured if it appears the President isn't taking national security seriously.
Also interesting to see how Trump handles the situation in the South China Sea.
David, Nate Silver gives another reason, which sounds plausible. House and Senate Republicans generally outperformed Trump, in part because most voters expected Hillary to win. But, she was a very unpopular candidate, so voters were keen to keep her in check, by voting Republican down ballot.
The desire for checks and balances will work the other way in 2018.
The value then might be in semi-safe Republican states to return Democratic candidates - e.g. a bet of four or more Dem Representatives in South Carolina might be value, or more than half (just under half right now) in Arizona.
Edited due to putting 'senators' instead of 'candidates', which made no sense.
Mr. Sandpit, bit annoyed with myself I only backed him for the title (each way) not the seat. So long as Mercedes have the best car and/or Hamilton retires halfway through the season, it should be ok.
I've £50 at 3.5, so will be £125 better off. It's my only bet in this market.
An e/w (top 3?) on him for the title should be a good bet if he gets the seat, but you'll have to wait a year to get paid out.
I think the NHS is a perfectly good model. It does need some reform and cash, but I'd much rather start from here than the US system - a bit of private provision on top (As alot of people have) works well.
Wheeled into A&E following an accident? NHS is par excellence.
Slightly more chronic condition, requiring MDT assessment, liaison between different areas within the NHS, even as simple as GP and hospital, and a timely treatment plan? Not so good bordering on incompetent.
The problem of funding healthcare may be insolvable.
It shouldn't be for those of working age.
One of the problems in the US is that the healthy under 40s don't bother with personal health insurance if not provided by their employer, pay for themselves if they need to see a doctor - so the insurance premiums are only paid by those that claim.
Obamacare tried to make health insurance compulsory like car insurance, but the fine was less than the premium so the youngsters just paid the fine instead!
Good morning everyone. The Daily Mail keep referring to the Berlin truck as being 25 tonnes. A 5 axle unit and trailer combination will be iirc a GVW of 38 tonnes. It will be a very light load if it's only running at 25 tonnes.
Mr. Jessop, nice to read. Lots of commentary I've seen have been rather more disparaging. It's a great opportunity for Bottas. It'll make or break him, most likely.
The NHS is a good model in so far the government does: 1. Regulation 2. Funding 3. Ensures free at the point of use
but fails badly because it also tries to cover 4. Delivery
The NHS is bigger than the Indian state railway system. It's an unmanageable monster that has become a lefty religion. Can we not just keep 1-3 and have a free market in 4 please?
That is a pretty misleading comparison with Indian Railways. The NHS is made up of 4 National Health services, broken down into many subunits, each operationally quite seperate. My own Trust employs about 13 000 people, with a budget of a few hundred million, not an unmanageable size at all.
Good morning everyone. The Daily Mail keep referring to the Berlin truck as being 25 tonnes. A 5 axle unit and trailer combination will be iirc a GVW of 38 tonnes. It will be a very light load if it's only running at 25 tonnes.
The 38t (now 40,000kg in EU) would be the max all up weight, including any load. I think.
Good morning everyone. The Daily Mail keep referring to the Berlin truck as being 25 tonnes. A 5 axle unit and trailer combination will be iirc a GVW of 38 tonnes. It will be a very light load if it's only running at 25 tonnes.
The 38t (now 40,000kg in EU) would be the max all up weight, including any load. I think.
Good morning everyone. The Daily Mail keep referring to the Berlin truck as being 25 tonnes. A 5 axle unit and trailer combination will be iirc a GVW of 38 tonnes. It will be a very light load if it's only running at 25 tonnes.
The 38t (now 40,000kg in EU) would be the max all up weight, including any load. I think.
The problem of funding healthcare may be insolvable.
It shouldn't be for those of working age.
One of the problems in the US is that the healthy under 40s don't bother with personal health insurance if not provided by their employer, pay for themselves if they need to see a doctor - so the insurance premiums are only paid by those that claim.
Obamacare tried to make health insurance compulsory like car insurance, but the fine was less than the premium so the youngsters just paid the fine instead!
That is f****** moronic.
Yep. They've raised the fines this year, but for young and healthy people trying to save for a deposit and pay student loans etc...
Christina Loucks of Franklin, Tennessee, a small city near Nashville, says the way she figures it, she might still come out ahead financially by paying a $695 fine.
The insurance plans she’s looked at would cost her about $100 a month in premiums, after subsidies. That works out to around $1,200 a year. But the coverage comes with deductibles of several thousand dollars. If she got seriously ill, she would be on the hook for that before her insurance started paying. Normally, she just goes to the doctor for allergy prescriptions.
I think the NHS is a perfectly good model. It does need some reform and cash, but I'd much rather start from here than the US system - a bit of private provision on top (As alot of people have) works well.
Wheeled into A&E following an accident? NHS is par excellence.
Slightly more chronic condition, requiring MDT assessment, liaison between different areas within the NHS, even as simple as GP and hospital, and a timely treatment plan? Not so good bordering on incompetent.
It depends on the chronic condition (and be aware that private insurance excludes chronic conditions, maternity and mental health in nearly all policies). The emphasis on diabetes management in recent years makes care second only to parts of Scandinavia. When Obamacare goes in America diabetics will be uninsurable. Complications are horrendous there, particularly tbe chronic vascular ones.
I think the NHS is a perfectly good model. It does need some reform and cash, but I'd much rather start from here than the US system - a bit of private provision on top (As alot of people have) works well.
Wheeled into A&E following an accident? NHS is par excellence.
Slightly more chronic condition, requiring MDT assessment, liaison between different areas within the NHS, even as simple as GP and hospital, and a timely treatment plan? Not so good bordering on incompetent.
It depends on the chronic condition (and be aware that private insurance excludes chronic conditions, maternity and mental health in nearly all policies). The emphasis on diabetes management in recent years makes care second only to parts of Scandinavia. When Obamacare goes in America diabetics will be uninsurable. Complications are horrendous there, particularly tbe chronic vascular ones.
Indeed. But trying to get a hearing aid for long term deafness is like trying to get Ken Livingstone to admit there are good Jews about. Three years and counting since they admitted I need one - the useless morons are still stalling me.
I think the NHS is a perfectly good model. It does need some reform and cash, but I'd much rather start from here than the US system - a bit of private provision on top (As alot of people have) works well.
Wheeled into A&E following an accident? NHS is par excellence.
Slightly more chronic condition, requiring MDT assessment, liaison between different areas within the NHS, even as simple as GP and hospital, and a timely treatment plan? Not so good bordering on incompetent.
It depends on the chronic condition (and be aware that private insurance excludes chronic conditions, maternity and mental health in nearly all policies). The emphasis on diabetes management in recent years makes care second only to parts of Scandinavia. When Obamacare goes in America diabetics will be uninsurable. Complications are horrendous there, particularly tbe chronic vascular ones.
Indeed. But trying to get a hearing aid for long term deafness is like trying to get Ken Livingstone to admit there are good Jews about. Three years and counting since they admitted I need one - the useless morons are still stalling me.
As someone who is part deaf himself, I have sympathy. Audiology along with Dentistry is not worth bothering with on the NHS.
I think the NHS is a perfectly good model. It does need some reform and cash, but I'd much rather start from here than the US system - a bit of private provision on top (As alot of people have) works well.
Wheeled into A&E following an accident? NHS is par excellence.
Slightly more chronic condition, requiring MDT assessment, liaison between different areas within the NHS, even as simple as GP and hospital, and a timely treatment plan? Not so good bordering on incompetent.
It depends on the chronic condition (and be aware that private insurance excludes chronic conditions, maternity and mental health in nearly all policies). The emphasis on diabetes management in recent years makes care second only to parts of Scandinavia. When Obamacare goes in America diabetics will be uninsurable. Complications are horrendous there, particularly tbe chronic vascular ones.
Indeed. But trying to get a hearing aid for long term deafness is like trying to get Ken Livingstone to admit there are good Jews about. Three years and counting since they admitted I need one - the useless morons are still stalling me.
As someone who is part deaf himself, I have sympathy. Audiology along with Dentistry is not worth bothering with on the NHS.
Your sympathy is appreciated. In a few months I will be able to afford to go private, and I will. I already have for dentistry.
"In my view, the government should mandate a basic level of insurance for everyone, paid out of federal taxation, but chosen by the individuals and then if individual citizens want to top up their own cover they can do."
"In my view, the government should mandate a basic level of insurance for everyone, paid out of federal taxation, but chosen by the individuals and then if individual citizens want to top up their own cover they can do."
One of the really big costs in the US is medicines. Unlike almost anywhere else in the world, there are no big controls on the pricing of on-patent drugs and very little if any compulsory licensing. The simple fact is that US citizens subsidise the rest of the world on healthcare because the US is the place where research-based life sciences companies make their big money. We are very lucky that they do, but I would not be at all surprised if one day soon US politicians cotton onto this. If (when?) they do, it will present very serious issues for governments elsewhere.
I've seen some fantastic facilities and treatment, but I've also seen some of the worst administrative and process failures imaginable. It's twenty years behind the times.
I've occasionally mused on them removing the whole of the administrative function from the NHS, whilst retaining the care and treatment side.
"Compared to the current system in the US it is a huge step up for the poor."
It depends - if they make it to retirement age they are fine, as are kids currently (I think) and anyone who has healthcare through their work. Presumably, all that would go in order to pay for the basic minimum for everyone, as I am not sure that any US Congress would vote through higher taxes to pay for this scheme.
Mr. Meeks, I'm unsurprised a foreign chap who forces differently-sized people, abusively derided as 'elves', to work for free, who makes children sit on his knee whilst he tells them if they're naughty or nice and that he has a special something for them in his sack, is seen as more of a Remainer
"Compared to the current system in the US it is a huge step up for the poor."
It depends - if they make it to retirement age they are fine, as are kids currently (I think) and anyone who has healthcare through their work. Presumably, all that would go in order to pay for the basic minimum for everyone, as I am not sure that any US Congress would vote through higher taxes to pay for this scheme.
But the poor with no coverage and the working poor with HMOs would be much better off with basic state coverage.
"Compared to the current system in the US it is a huge step up for the poor."
It depends - if they make it to retirement age they are fine, as are kids currently (I think) and anyone who has healthcare through their work. Presumably, all that would go in order to pay for the basic minimum for everyone, as I am not sure that any US Congress would vote through higher taxes to pay for this scheme.
I imagine cutting retirees benefits in the US would be as electorally toxic and suicidal as it is on our side of the pond.
I think the NHS is a perfectly good model. It does need some reform and cash, but I'd much rather start from here than the US system - a bit of private provision on top (As alot of people have) works well.
Wheeled into A&E following an accident? NHS is par excellence.
Slightly more chronic condition, requiring MDT assessment, liaison between different areas within the NHS, even as simple as GP and hospital, and a timely treatment plan? Not so good bordering on incompetent.
It depends on the chronic condition (and be aware that private insurance excludes chronic conditions, maternity and mental health in nearly all policies). The emphasis on diabetes management in recent years makes care second only to parts of Scandinavia. When Obamacare goes in America diabetics will be uninsurable. Complications are horrendous there, particularly tbe chronic vascular ones.
Have a look at Rexgenero. Doing some interesting stuff
My only experience of a chronic condition in the NHS was when I had a pilonidal sinus about a decade ago.
The initial operation was not great (Though I didn't realise this at the time), but the aftercare was brilliant (Home nurses etc) - anyway about a year later the sod recurred. Next time round I had a fantastic surgeon who was miles better and a round of laser hair removal treatment so the situation (touch wood) doesn't recur.
I imagine some people would consider sueing for the initial surgery (The second surgeon/operation/whole aftercare (laser) he arranged for me was clearly better) but ultimately the NHS sorted me out well for my condition.
Sure, but I personally think Obamacare is completely wrong. It was the attempt to introduce centralised healthcare while pretending it wasn't.
In my view, the government should mandate a basic level of insurance for everyone, paid out of federal taxation, but chosen by the individuals and then if individual citizens want to top up their own cover they can do.
You're basically describing ObamaCare, except that: 1) It's not all paid for out of federal taxation, because that would cost too much, so all you get is a subsidy 2) Because of (1), not everybody wants to buy it, so they let people who don't want in pay a tax penalty instead.
My only experience of a chronic condition in the NHS was when I had a pilonidal sinus about a decade ago.
The initial operation was not great (Though I didn't realise this at the time), but the aftercare was brilliant (Home nurses etc) - anyway about a year later the sod recurred. Next time round I had a fantastic surgeon who was miles better and a round of laser hair removal treatment so the situation (touch wood) doesn't recur.
I imagine some people would consider sueing for the initial surgery (The second surgeon/operation/whole aftercare (laser) he arranged for me was clearly better) but ultimately the NHS sorted me out well for my condition.
Whereas that or a similar cock-up might have not cured or exacerbated or killed someone with a more serious condition.
I guess the fundamental problem with healthcare system design is that demand will always outstrip supply - and therefore some form of rationing is needed because funding is limited. The choice becomes on what basis the system chooses to limit supply. I'm 49 now and cannot remember a time when the NHS was not simultaneously brilliant and in crisis. Probably the right answer is to offer a total supply equal to the funding available, do this as efficiently as possible, and let people pay for more privately if they wish and can afford it. This is the UK system - apart from the 'efficiently' bit.
One of the really big costs in the US is medicines. Unlike almost anywhere else in the world, there are no big controls on the pricing of on-patent drugs and very little if any compulsory licensing. The simple fact is that US citizens subsidise the rest of the world on healthcare because the US is the place where research-based life sciences companies make their big money. We are very lucky that they do, but I would not be at all surprised if one day soon US politicians cotton onto this. If (when?) they do, it will present very serious issues for governments elsewhere.
US politicians know all about it, it never happens because pharma is a very powerful lobby. Allegedly Obama agreed to go easy on them in return for them letting ObamaCare through. Trump has said he'll allow people to legally reimport drugs that are sold more cheaply overseas rather than buying them off the darknet, which would be a big, easy win if he goes through with it, but he'll have to fight if he really wants to make it happen.
Demand only outstrips supply not because of anything intrinsic about healthcare but largely because the training of doctors is state controlled and subsidised. Which is all quite right and proper.
"US politicians know all about it, it never happens because pharma is a very powerful lobby. Allegedly Obama agreed to go easy on them in return for them letting ObamaCare through. Trump has said he'll allow people to legally reimport drugs that are sold more cheaply overseas rather than buying them off the darknet, which would be a big, easy win if he goes through with it, but he'll have to fight if he really wants to make it happen."
Yep - I doubt Trump is the problem here, it will be individual members of Congress. We are lucky the US is so keen to subsidise the rest of us. But I can't help thinking we are also being complacent. One day, things might change over there and were that to happen it would have a catastrophic effect on us. We should be looking at alternative means of funding pharma R&D while we have the US safety blanket. Right now, the patent system is what incentivises spend. But that is only sustainable for as long as the US carries on as it is.
One of the really big costs in the US is medicines. Unlike almost anywhere else in the world, there are no big controls on the pricing of on-patent drugs and very little if any compulsory licensing. The simple fact is that US citizens subsidise the rest of the world on healthcare because the US is the place where research-based life sciences companies make their big money. We are very lucky that they do, but I would not be at all surprised if one day soon US politicians cotton onto this. If (when?) they do, it will present very serious issues for governments elsewhere.
US politicians know all about it, it never happens because pharma is a very powerful lobby. Allegedly Obama agreed to go easy on them in return for them letting ObamaCare through. Trump has said he'll allow people to legally reimport drugs that are sold more cheaply overseas rather than buying them off the darknet, which would be a big, easy win if he goes through with it, but he'll have to fight if he really wants to make it happen.
Cutting down the pharma lobby would be a great start to Trump's swamp-draining, hugely popular with pretty much everyone except the lobbyists and shareholders.
One of the really big costs in the US is medicines. Unlike almost anywhere else in the world, there are no big controls on the pricing of on-patent drugs and very little if any compulsory licensing. The simple fact is that US citizens subsidise the rest of the world on healthcare because the US is the place where research-based life sciences companies make their big money. We are very lucky that they do, but I would not be at all surprised if one day soon US politicians cotton onto this. If (when?) they do, it will present very serious issues for governments elsewhere.
US politicians know all about it, it never happens because pharma is a very powerful lobby. Allegedly Obama agreed to go easy on them in return for them letting ObamaCare through. Trump has said he'll allow people to legally reimport drugs that are sold more cheaply overseas rather than buying them off the darknet, which would be a big, easy win if he goes through with it, but he'll have to fight if he really wants to make it happen.
Cutting down the pharma lobby would be a great start to Trump's swamp-draining, hugely popular with pretty much everyone except the lobbyists and shareholders.
Yup, the optimistic case for Trump is that there are things like this that have been stuck for years that only Trump can unstick.
One of the really big costs in the US is medicines. Unlike almost anywhere else in the world, there are no big controls on the pricing of on-patent drugs and very little if any compulsory licensing. The simple fact is that US citizens subsidise the rest of the world on healthcare because the US is the place where research-based life sciences companies make their big money. We are very lucky that they do, but I would not be at all surprised if one day soon US politicians cotton onto this. If (when?) they do, it will present very serious issues for governments elsewhere.
US politicians know all about it, it never happens because pharma is a very powerful lobby. Allegedly Obama agreed to go easy on them in return for them letting ObamaCare through. Trump has said he'll allow people to legally reimport drugs that are sold more cheaply overseas rather than buying them off the darknet, which would be a big, easy win if he goes through with it, but he'll have to fight if he really wants to make it happen.
There's only so much Trump can get through with executive action. He still needs to get reforms through Congress.
"At 12:00 noon on January 3, 2017 (according to the Constitution), the terms of 34 U.S. Senators will expire. At that point, the Senate will briefly consist of 66 sitting senators—until Vice President Joe Biden, in his capacity as Senate president, begins swearing in the senators-elect.
Before Biden begins the proceedings, he has a chance to preside over a Senate that consists of 34 Democrats, 2 independents who caucus with Democrats and 30 Republicans—as the remaining Senators are in limbo of being newly sworn in. At this point, Democrats could ask to finish Senate business as it pertains to President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland."
There's only so much Trump can get through with executive action. He still needs to get reforms through Congress.
This is true, but he has the ability to turn positions of his liking into Republican orthodoxy, and much as they like donations from drug companies Congress people are also scared of getting primaried.
@Charles,I am aware that Ultrasound is usually performed outside the body, but transvaginal ultrasound is what is proscribed in certain states that have placed restrictions on Abortion.
Their ever more rightwards crawl into extremism over cultural issues had began to turn off college educated conservatives particularly women to the advantage to the Dems in protraying it as a war against women. It helped that their was no shortage of loopy local Republicans to point a Camera at and listen as they say a women can not get pregnant after being raped, or that all miscarriages need to be investigated to make sure they weren't abortions.
Logic would suggest that the aim should be towards a more balanced position that the majority would support. But that is not happening.
The problem I see, is that no one has a real program that will boost growth in those rust belt stats or their incomes, massive tax cut's that benefit the upper class and big business.
I wonder what happens in four years time when nothing has really changed.
It always amazes me that the US government spends more on its healthcare system per head than we do, yet we get close to a full service and they get Medicare and full service for veterans only.
One of the really big costs in the US is medicines. Unlike almost anywhere else in the world, there are no big controls on the pricing of on-patent drugs and very little if any compulsory licensing. The simple fact is that US citizens subsidise the rest of the world on healthcare because the US is the place where research-based life sciences companies make their big money. We are very lucky that they do, but I would not be at all surprised if one day soon US politicians cotton onto this. If (when?) they do, it will present very serious issues for governments elsewhere.
US politicians know all about it, it never happens because pharma is a very powerful lobby. Allegedly Obama agreed to go easy on them in return for them letting ObamaCare through. Trump has said he'll allow people to legally reimport drugs that are sold more cheaply overseas rather than buying them off the darknet, which would be a big, easy win if he goes through with it, but he'll have to fight if he really wants to make it happen.
Cutting down the pharma lobby would be a great start to Trump's swamp-draining, hugely popular with pretty much everyone except the lobbyists and shareholders.
Yup, the optimistic case for Trump is that there are things like this that have been stuck for years that only Trump can unstick.
Indeed. The first 100 days of Trump are going to be fascinating to watch from afar, the CEO in him will want a number of big popular but relatively easy wins - his most difficult job will be bringing enough Republican Congresscritters with him for stuff like this.
The reaction of the Democrats will also be interesting, surely the Elizabeth Warrens and Bernie Sanders will be all in favour of a bit of swamp draining?
My only experience of a chronic condition in the NHS was when I had a pilonidal sinus about a decade ago.
The initial operation was not great (Though I didn't realise this at the time), but the aftercare was brilliant (Home nurses etc) - anyway about a year later the sod recurred. Next time round I had a fantastic surgeon who was miles better and a round of laser hair removal treatment so the situation (touch wood) doesn't recur.
I imagine some people would consider sueing for the initial surgery (The second surgeon/operation/whole aftercare (laser) he arranged for me was clearly better) but ultimately the NHS sorted me out well for my condition.
Recurrence or complication is not necessarily negligence, indeed most frequently this is not the case. Litigation would only be possible if there was inadequate consent, or the first procedure carried out in a reckless or inappropriate manner. Without reviewing the notes it would not be possible to assess this, but most likely it would be a defendable case.
@foxinsoxuk As I said ultimately the NHS sorted me out well for my condition (Home nurse care, laser hair removal surgery), the surgeon had the experience and outcome of my initial condition and recurrence (Pilonidal sinus do frequently recur as I'm sure you're aware) in order to have a superior outcome for the second treatment. The move to a more litigous culture does worry me though so far as potential costs to the NHS go etc.
"At 12:00 noon on January 3, 2017 (according to the Constitution), the terms of 34 U.S. Senators will expire. At that point, the Senate will briefly consist of 66 sitting senators—until Vice President Joe Biden, in his capacity as Senate president, begins swearing in the senators-elect.
Before Biden begins the proceedings, he has a chance to preside over a Senate that consists of 34 Democrats, 2 independents who caucus with Democrats and 30 Republicans—as the remaining Senators are in limbo of being newly sworn in. At this point, Democrats could ask to finish Senate business as it pertains to President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland."
Ooh, that's a good one for the constitutional scholars.
My hunch would be that there is the equivalent of a standing order that the first item of business should be the swearing-in of those who have been elected. If Biden tries it, the Senate Republicans would probably try and have the meeting declared inquorate, or else talk all day about anything until Biden agrees to swear in the new Senators.
"In my view, the government should mandate a basic level of insurance for everyone, paid out of federal taxation, but chosen by the individuals and then if individual citizens want to top up their own cover they can do."
What happens if they can't afford to?
Then they get the basic level of coverage that is paid for out of taxation. That will be sufficent to provide decent levels of care but might, for example, require generics vs branded products.
So the poor get to die earlier than the rich. Fair enough. I am not sure how that will work electorally though.
Branded drugs aren't necessarily better than generics.
But, fundamentally, you are saying that well off people shouldn't be free to spend their money on themselves in ways that will result in unequal outcomes.
That seems a pretty hard left position to take - I suspect you didn't mean to suggest that.... or perhaps Jeremy Corbyn has worked his magic on you?
@Charles - you only get the generics v branded choice once a drug is off-patent. That will frequently mean no access to treatments and drugs that are under 20-25 years old.
One of the really big costs in the US is medicines. Unlike almost anywhere else in the world, there are no big controls on the pricing of on-patent drugs and very little if any compulsory licensing. The simple fact is that US citizens subsidise the rest of the world on healthcare because the US is the place where research-based life sciences companies make their big money. We are very lucky that they do, but I would not be at all surprised if one day soon US politicians cotton onto this. If (when?) they do, it will present very serious issues for governments elsewhere.
US politicians know all about it, it never happens because pharma is a very powerful lobby. Allegedly Obama agreed to go easy on them in return for them letting ObamaCare through. Trump has said he'll allow people to legally reimport drugs that are sold more cheaply overseas rather than buying them off the darknet, which would be a big, easy win if he goes through with it, but he'll have to fight if he really wants to make it happen.
Legal reimportation creates massive issues with the FDA.
How can you guarantee that products made abroad are made in FDA compliant facilities?
Parallel importing is also a nightmare in Europe (where it is legal) but that is because it results in an arbitrage of drug prices to the lowest country but results in restricted supply to, say, Greece and Spain
"German police are hunting a Tunisian man over the Berlin market attack after finding documents in the truck, according to reports.
The identity document was found under the driver's seat of the truck which ploughed into crowds at the Christmas market on Monday evening, killing 12 people.
Der Spiegel and Allgemeine Zeitung reported that the document, apparently asylum office papers, was in the name of Anis A, born in 1992 in Tataouine, Tunisia."
The Berlin terrorism chap is now reported as Tunisian
Paul Joseph Watson Main suspect in Berlin attack is a Tunisian migrant who had a "certificate of tolerance" from the German government. https://t.co/o6TnD4b0SE
One of the really big costs in the US is medicines. Unlike almost anywhere else in the world, there are no big controls on the pricing of on-patent drugs and very little if any compulsory licensing. The simple fact is that US citizens subsidise the rest of the world on healthcare because the US is the place where research-based life sciences companies make their big money. We are very lucky that they do, but I would not be at all surprised if one day soon US politicians cotton onto this. If (when?) they do, it will present very serious issues for governments elsewhere.
US politicians know all about it, it never happens because pharma is a very powerful lobby. Allegedly Obama agreed to go easy on them in return for them letting ObamaCare through. Trump has said he'll allow people to legally reimport drugs that are sold more cheaply overseas rather than buying them off the darknet, which would be a big, easy win if he goes through with it, but he'll have to fight if he really wants to make it happen.
Cutting down the pharma lobby would be a great start to Trump's swamp-draining, hugely popular with pretty much everyone except the lobbyists and shareholders.
Yup, the optimistic case for Trump is that there are things like this that have been stuck for years that only Trump can unstick.
Indeed. The first 100 days of Trump are going to be fascinating to watch from afar, the CEO in him will want a number of big popular but relatively easy wins - his most difficult job will be bringing enough Republican Congresscritters with him for stuff like this.
The reaction of the Democrats will also be interesting, surely the Elizabeth Warrens and Bernie Sanders will be all in favour of a bit of swamp draining?
The problem with draining swamps is that people might then build something on them that you don't like.
It's perfectly work safe but you are pretty much guaranteed to be giggling at quite a lot of these.
Thank you for brightening my day Alistair! Number 21 is especially brilliant (although I know I shouldn't really laugh at such a cock up, if you will pardon the phrase). I haven't laughed so much since the much-missed JackW's comments on his erotic dreams during the Olympics.
"German police are hunting a Tunisian man over the Berlin market attack after finding documents in the truck, according to reports.
The identity document was found under the driver's seat of the truck which ploughed into crowds at the Christmas market on Monday evening, killing 12 people.
Der Spiegel and Allgemeine Zeitung reported that the document, apparently asylum office papers, was in the name of Anis A, born in 1992 in Tataouine, Tunisia."
"At 12:00 noon on January 3, 2017 (according to the Constitution), the terms of 34 U.S. Senators will expire. At that point, the Senate will briefly consist of 66 sitting senators—until Vice President Joe Biden, in his capacity as Senate president, begins swearing in the senators-elect.
Before Biden begins the proceedings, he has a chance to preside over a Senate that consists of 34 Democrats, 2 independents who caucus with Democrats and 30 Republicans—as the remaining Senators are in limbo of being newly sworn in. At this point, Democrats could ask to finish Senate business as it pertains to President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland."
Wouldn't the Republicans just filibuster it?
Lame Duck Congresses definitely have the authority to pass legislation but don't under a self-denying ordinance.
I imagine that any attempt to do this would go straight to the Supreme Court and ruled out of order as disenfranchising many States.
The German police seem to have really screwed the pooch on this haven't they? Can you imagine the UK police seemingly having no clue where or who a terror suspect is after a attack like this.
Alos, like them or loathe them, one of the best defences or tools for the police are the CCTV. In london the guy would have been nailed down and captured on cam 100 times or more.
If the wanted man was courteous enough to leave his ID documents in the truck, how on earth did it take the German police two days to issue his details?
Why would you black out the face of your most wanted man, unless you had serious misgivings about whether he was actually the terrorist or not?
It's starting to become painfully obvious how they arrested the wrong man...the officer in charge is one of (a) insane (b) thick as Emily Thornberry (c) doing drugs or (d) all the lot together.
@Charles - you only get the generics v branded choice once a drug is off-patent. That will frequently mean no access to treatments and drugs that are under 20-25 years old.
Many branded drugs are no better than generics. For innovative products I'm envisaging a healtheconomic analysis performed by a body like NICE to determine what is in/out of the basic package.
The Berlin terrorism chap is now reported as Tunisian
Paul Joseph Watson Main suspect in Berlin attack is a Tunisian migrant who had a "certificate of tolerance" from the German government. https://t.co/o6TnD4b0SE
'Certificate of tolerance' how very Germanic...
If anything (if true) it makes it worse for Merkel. War torn Syria is one thing, but Tunisia is a fairly stable safe country. Her open door policy dragged in all sorts.
If the wanted man was courteous enough to leave his ID documents in the truck, how on earth did it take the German police two days to issue his details?
Their performance so far strongly suggests that it took them all that time to remember that a basic requirement of criminal investigation was to actually search it.
If the wanted man was courteous enough to leave his ID documents in the truck, how on earth did it take the German police two days to issue his details?
He would have to be a right dope to leave such documents at the scene of an attack, which might go some way to explaining the black bar. That said a wanted poster with the eyes obscured strikes me as almost totally pointless.
The German police seem to have really screwed the pooch on this haven't they? Can you imagine the UK police seemingly having no clue where or who a terror suspect is after a attack like this.
On past performance they'd have got that bystander they picked up to confess to it, he's the right religion and everything.
Why would you black out the face of your most wanted man, unless you had serious misgivings about whether he was actually the terrorist or not?
It's starting to become painfully obvious how they arrested the wrong man...the officer in charge is one of (a) insane (b) thick as Emily Thornberry (c) doing drugs or (d) all the lot together.
God help the people of Germany.
I think he's the detective who oversaw the OJ Simpson crime scene...
"German police are hunting a Tunisian man over the Berlin market attack after finding documents in the truck, according to reports.
The identity document was found under the driver's seat of the truck which ploughed into crowds at the Christmas market on Monday evening, killing 12 people.
Der Spiegel and Allgemeine Zeitung reported that the document, apparently asylum office papers, was in the name of Anis A, born in 1992 in Tataouine, Tunisia."
Comments
I do wonder if the terrorism potential matters more than the healthcare. Lots of Americans really dislike Obamacare, and those who like it probably weren't in the Trump camp anyway.
But if he looks incompetent or weak on terrorism that cuts against the Make America Great Again slogan. Not to mention, on substance, people won't be enamoured if it appears the President isn't taking national security seriously.
Also interesting to see how Trump handles the situation in the South China Sea.
Edited due to putting 'senators' instead of 'candidates', which made no sense.
An e/w (top 3?) on him for the title should be a good bet if he gets the seat, but you'll have to wait a year to get paid out.
Slightly more chronic condition, requiring MDT assessment, liaison between different areas within the NHS, even as simple as GP and hospital, and a timely treatment plan? Not so good bordering on incompetent.
""Is it Darkest [just] before the Dawn? A look at the battle for the House of Representatives in 2018."
No, it's darkest at local midnight. Just before the dawn, it's quite light."
The differing levels of twilight:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eVHOzzfqPs8/UJUlW8FPe-I/AAAAAAAAAqI/5ijhBmdXu3U/s1600/Twilight_subcategories.png
What's for certain is you'll be able to lay off at much shorter odds if he's driving an on-the-pace Mercedes at the first race in March.
The Daily Mail keep referring to the Berlin truck as being 25 tonnes.
A 5 axle unit and trailer combination will be iirc a GVW of 38 tonnes.
It will be a very light load if it's only running at 25 tonnes.
Christina Loucks of Franklin, Tennessee, a small city near Nashville, says the way she figures it, she might still come out ahead financially by paying a $695 fine.
The insurance plans she’s looked at would cost her about $100 a month in premiums, after subsidies. That works out to around $1,200 a year. But the coverage comes with deductibles of several thousand dollars. If she got seriously ill, she would be on the hook for that before her insurance started paying. Normally, she just goes to the doctor for allergy prescriptions.
http://iwf.org/blog/2799200/Millennials-Opting-for-ObamaCare-Penalty
https://theodoredalrymple.wordpress.com/2016/07/23/how-the-west-invites-terror/
What happens if they can't afford to?
https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/811491620688461824
I've seen some fantastic facilities and treatment, but I've also seen some of the worst administrative and process failures imaginable. It's twenty years behind the times.
I've occasionally mused on them removing the whole of the administrative function from the NHS, whilst retaining the care and treatment side.
So the poor get to die earlier than the rich. Fair enough. I am not sure how that will work electorally though.
It depends - if they make it to retirement age they are fine, as are kids currently (I think) and anyone who has healthcare through their work. Presumably, all that would go in order to pay for the basic minimum for everyone, as I am not sure that any US Congress would vote through higher taxes to pay for this scheme.
Speaking of Christmas silliness, a short story of the deranged magic criminal is here: http://thaddeuswhite.weebly.com/writing-blog/sir-edric-and-the-stolen-sherry
The initial operation was not great (Though I didn't realise this at the time), but the aftercare was brilliant (Home nurses etc) - anyway about a year later the sod recurred. Next time round I had a fantastic surgeon who was miles better and a round of laser hair removal treatment so the situation (touch wood) doesn't recur.
I imagine some people would consider sueing for the initial surgery (The second surgeon/operation/whole aftercare (laser) he arranged for me was clearly better) but ultimately the NHS sorted me out well for my condition.
I suspect 1, The North Pole is actually a massive tax haven.
1) It's not all paid for out of federal taxation, because that would cost too much, so all you get is a subsidy
2) Because of (1), not everybody wants to buy it, so they let people who don't want in pay a tax penalty instead.
Yep - I doubt Trump is the problem here, it will be individual members of Congress. We are lucky the US is so keen to subsidise the rest of us. But I can't help thinking we are also being complacent. One day, things might change over there and were that to happen it would have a catastrophic effect on us. We should be looking at alternative means of funding pharma R&D while we have the US safety blanket. Right now, the patent system is what incentivises spend. But that is only sustainable for as long as the US carries on as it is.
In some clinics, only a quarter of staff had training in basic life support while nurses in charge of patients lacked training in anaesthetic problems, inspectors said. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/safety-failings-at-abortion-clinics-put-women-at-risk-3ptfns0nb
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/just-one-in-five-people-think-jeremy-corbyn-will-enjoy-a-successful-2017-poll-shows-a3425406.html
https://www.dailykos.com/campaigns/petitions/sign-the-petition-to-joe-biden-and-senate-democrats-confirm-merrick-garland-to-supreme-court-on-january-3rd?source=20161207sp3
Their ever more rightwards crawl into extremism over cultural issues had began to turn off college educated conservatives particularly women to the advantage to the Dems in protraying it as a war against women. It helped that their was no shortage of loopy local Republicans to point a Camera at and listen as they say a women can not get pregnant after being raped, or that all miscarriages need to be investigated to make sure they weren't abortions.
Logic would suggest that the aim should be towards a more balanced position that the majority would support. But that is not happening.
The problem I see, is that no one has a real program that will boost growth in those rust belt stats or their incomes, massive tax cut's that benefit the upper class and big business.
I wonder what happens in four years time when nothing has really changed.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/patricksmith/drugs-bunny?utm_term=.nkZlkrGEJx
It's perfectly work safe but you are pretty much guaranteed to be giggling at quite a lot of these.
The reaction of the Democrats will also be interesting, surely the Elizabeth Warrens and Bernie Sanders will be all in favour of a bit of swamp draining?
The move to a more litigous culture does worry me though so far as potential costs to the NHS go etc.
My hunch would be that there is the equivalent of a standing order that the first item of business should be the swearing-in of those who have been elected. If Biden tries it, the Senate Republicans would probably try and have the meeting declared inquorate, or else talk all day about anything until Biden agrees to swear in the new Senators.
And quite right too.
But, fundamentally, you are saying that well off people shouldn't be free to spend their money on themselves in ways that will result in unequal outcomes.
That seems a pretty hard left position to take - I suspect you didn't mean to suggest that.... or perhaps Jeremy Corbyn has worked his magic on you?
https://twitter.com/montie/status/811497324040044545
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38392128
How can you guarantee that products made abroad are made in FDA compliant facilities?
Parallel importing is also a nightmare in Europe (where it is legal) but that is because it results in an arbitrage of drug prices to the lowest country but results in restricted supply to, say, Greece and Spain
The identity document was found under the driver's seat of the truck which ploughed into crowds at the Christmas market on Monday evening, killing 12 people.
Der Spiegel and Allgemeine Zeitung reported that the document, apparently asylum office papers, was in the name of Anis A, born in 1992 in Tataouine, Tunisia."
http://news.sky.com/story/berlin-attack-tunisian-man-identified-as-suspect-from-truck-documents-10703902
What a difference 18 days make.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2016/12/ukip-s-short-lived-leader-diane-james-finally-reveals-story-behind-kiss
Paul Joseph Watson
Main suspect in Berlin attack is a Tunisian migrant who had a "certificate of tolerance" from the German government. https://t.co/o6TnD4b0SE
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/21/labour-heading-bloodbath-2020-election-major-party-donor-warns/
twitter.com/bopanc/status/811525640696561664
Conflict News
PHOTO: German media circulates a photo of the #Berlin attack suspect - @BILD https://t.co/1I4WzjP9sZ
Lame Duck Congresses definitely have the authority to pass legislation but don't under a self-denying ordinance.
I imagine that any attempt to do this would go straight to the Supreme Court and ruled out of order as disenfranchising many States.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Alos, like them or loathe them, one of the best defences or tools for the police are the CCTV. In london the guy would have been nailed down and captured on cam 100 times or more.
God help the people of Germany.
That should be easy to spot. We're looking for a guy walking around with a black bar in front of his face.
If anything (if true) it makes it worse for Merkel. War torn Syria is one thing, but Tunisia is a fairly stable safe country. Her open door policy dragged in all sorts.
It's obviously Elvis too. The Germans have jumped more sharks than Roy Scheider
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I91DJZKRxs