politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Is it Darkest before the Dawn? A look at the battle for the Ho

On-topic: interesting piece, Mr. Rkrkrk.

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.

Morris_Dancer said:

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.

Really excited about Bottas to Mercedes. I really rate him as a driver.

Sandpit said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

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.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Sandpit, aye. Bit daft on my part. But got odds of 26, which is about 5/1 for top 3, I think.

So you got double my odds but a year to wait. That's reasonable enough.

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.

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.

Josias Jessop, in my experience (involving a relative) the police do a much better job than nursing staff in working with mentally ill people.

Sandpit said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

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.

No subject too arcane...

tlg86 said:

Sandpit said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

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.

http://iwf.org/blog/2799200/Millennials-Opting-for-ObamaCare-Penalty

TOPPING said:

Pulpstar said:

On the subject of health

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.

ydoethur said:

foxinsoxuk said:

TOPPING said:

Pulpstar said:

On the subject of health

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.

"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?

SouthamObserver said:

"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?

They get basic cover.

SouthamObserver said:

"They get basic cover."

So the poor get to die earlier than the rich. Fair enough. I am not sure how that will work electorally though.

Compared to the current system in the US it is a huge step up for the poor.

"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.

SouthamObserver said:

"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.

foxinsoxuk said:

TOPPING said:

Pulpstar said:

On the subject of health

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

I want to know who REALLY funds Father Christmas's "free" presents.

I suspect 1, The North Pole is actually a massive tax haven.

Pulpstar said:

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.

SouthamObserver said:

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.

"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.

Sandpit said:

edmundintokyo said:

SouthamObserver said:

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.

Can the Democrats really do this or is it just a way to get people to sign up for a mailing list?

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

"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."

@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.

Warning, do NOT look at this link in an open plan office:

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.

Pulpstar said:

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.

edmundintokyo said:

Can the Democrats really do this or is it just a way to get people to sign up for a mailing list?

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

"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.

https://twitter.com/johnestevens/status/811497583545815040

Pulpstar said:

@williamglenn We're members of the EU so will need to comply with this.

And quite right too.

The biggest irony is that David Davis is one of the people involved in taking this to the ECJ.

She's very easy to annoy. Vlad and Donald will have a field day with her

https://twitter.com/montie/status/811497324040044545

@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.

edmundintokyo said:

SouthamObserver said:

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

Ukip’s short-lived leader Diane James finally reveals the story behind That Kiss

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

Sandpit said:

edmundintokyo said:

Sandpit said:

edmundintokyo said:

SouthamObserver said:

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.

John Mills: Labour facing "a bloodbath" in 2020 under Corbyn.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/21/labour-heading-bloodbath-2020-election-major-party-donor-warns/

AndyJS said:

"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."

http://news.sky.com/story/berlin-attack-tunisian-man-identified-as-suspect-from-truck-documents-10703902

A red herring left by the real attacker?

edmundintokyo said:

Can the Democrats really do this or is it just a way to get people to sign up for a mailing list?

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

"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.

@PAW

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin

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?

4merfetus ‏@4merfetus 12m
That should be easy to spot. We're looking for a guy walking around with a black bar in front of his face.

PlatoSaid said:

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.

Richard_Nabavi said:

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.

AlastairMeeks said:

Warning, do NOT look at this link in an open plan office:

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.

I always find terrible real estate agent photos good for a giggle: http://terriblerealestateagentphotos.com/

Breaking news: German police seeking man with hair, ears, and stubble. If you see such a man in your neighbourhood call the police immediately.