Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 1767

Thread: 2017 American Political Scene

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Idiot Mode [ON] OFF Senior Contributor YellowFever's Avatar
    Join Date
    17 Jul 06
    Posts
    6,094

    2017 American Political Scene

    If you look at all the inflammatory headlines it's always "Hackers used Zero day"* but if you actually read the story, it's always a variation of "The hacking group that hacked the DNC has been known to use Zero days before".

    The FBI report was pretty clear.

    "In summer 2015, an APT29 spearphishing campaign directed emails containing a malicious link to over 1,000 recipients, including multiple U.S. Government victims. APT29 used legitimate domains, to include domains associated with U.S. organizations and educational institutions, to host malware and send spearphishing emails.

    In the course of that campaign, APT29 successfully compromised a U.S. political party. At least one targeted individual activated links to malware hosted on operational infrastructure of opened attachments containing malware. APT29 delivered malware to the political party’s systems, established persistence, escalated privileges, enumerated active directory accounts, and exfiltrated email from several accounts through encrypted connections back through operational infrastructure.

    In spring 2016, APT28 compromised the same political party, again via targeted spearphishing.

    This time, the spearphishing email tricked recipients into changing their passwords through a fake webmail domain hosted on APT28 operational infrastructure. Using the harvested
    credentials, APT28 was able to gain access and steal content, likely leading to the exfiltration of information from multiple senior party members.

    The U.S. Government assesses that information was leaked to the press and publicly disclosed."


    In simple terms, they sent out emails saying "Your passwords are compromised.* Click here to input new password"...and they sent it out to everybidy, not just the Democrats....and the links directed them to websites that the Russians controlled.

    *I guess if you can say they did use Zero Days.....and those Zero Days were named Podesta and the ITs that the DNC employed.

  2. #2
    Regular
    Join Date
    07 Jan 08
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    I doubt you have ever read an economics book. If you had you would understand that free at point of service increases demand and thus increases costs.
    "Increase" in cost from what level? If we define the base level of total national health care cost to be that determined by the perfect market, then I agree.

    But you do realise that the perfect market does not exist, right?

    You can try to obtain an optimal societal outcome by:

    1. Approximating the perfect market in form with a heavily deregulated market; or
    2. Approximating the perfect market in outcome with a sensibly regulated market.

    There is no evidence to support the conservative notion that method 1 works better than 2. If anything, foreign examples have shown that method 2 works better in for health care. The best part about method 2 is that it is not ideologically opposed to certain solutions when they prove to be more effective.

    I would argue that your national health care cost would actually decrease with a properly regulated health insurance market.

    Besides, I do not imagine that the demand for health care is that elastic.

  3. #3
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,401
    Quote Originally Posted by hboGYT View Post
    "Increase" in cost from what level? If we define the base level of total national health care cost to be that determined by the perfect market, then I agree.

    But you do realise that the perfect market does not exist, right?

    You can try to obtain an optimal societal outcome by:

    1. Approximating the perfect market in form with a heavily deregulated market; or
    2. Approximating the perfect market in outcome with a sensibly regulated market.

    There is no evidence to support the conservative notion that method 1 works better than 2. If anything, foreign examples have shown that method 2 works better in for health care. The best part about method 2 is that it is not ideologically opposed to certain solutions when they prove to be more effective.

    I would argue that your national health care cost would actually decrease with a properly regulated health insurance market.

    Besides, I do not imagine that the demand for health care is that elastic.
    Free at point of use encourages overuse of the resource. The only way to counter this and retain free at point of use is via rationing. Which is why single payer systems do not innovate, design new drugs, and have such long wait times. Canadian system , US VA system, British NHS... really good at setting broken bones and simple care for chronic conditions, sucky at complex acute care like cancer. Well i take that back, the British ER system is breaking down and wait times to even get an ambulance are getting longer. Most ER patients in England have to wait more than 4 hours to even be seen let alone treated. In the US its seen in 30 and treated in 90.

  4. #4
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,199
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Free at point of use encourages overuse of the resource. The only way to counter this and retain free at point of use is via rationing. Which is why single payer systems do not innovate, design new drugs, and have such long wait times. Canadian system , US VA system, British NHS... really good at setting broken bones and simple care for chronic conditions, sucky at complex acute care like cancer. Well i take that back, the British ER system is breaking down and wait times to even get an ambulance are getting longer. Most ER patients in England have to wait more than 4 hours to even be seen let alone treated. In the US its seen in 30 and treated in 90.
    You're confusing healthcare provision financing with pharmaceutical R&D and surgical technique development. They are not even remotely connected.

    One's economic and political policy; the others are research and development.

  5. #5
    Senior Contributor antimony's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Feb 08
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,855
    If this is not disturbing...

    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...isis-medicaid-

    My family lives in central Appalachia, in places too tiny to be called towns. These rural “hollers” are the heart of this beautiful but hardscrabble mountain region. Roads are so difficult to navigate here that medicine is delivered by drones. So when the Republican party throws up its barriers to Medicaid, it will be rendered useless to many rural people in the region. Work requirements, co-payments, cancellation of transportation services and lockouts to coverage will cause people that I love to lose their health insurance.
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

  6. #6
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,401
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    You're confusing healthcare provision financing with pharmaceutical R&D and surgical technique development. They are not even remotely connected.

    One's economic and political policy; the others are research and development.
    They are intimately connected. If a government won't spring for the cost to introduce a new drug or procedure then they don't get adopted. This is one reason cancer patients in the UK are now 5x less likely than patients in many other Eurozone countries. Socialized medicine = rationing. Nothing is free, everything has to be paid for. For years the world has relied on the US for profit system to develop the new drugs and procedures. Turn the US into another non-profit rationed care basket case and medical innovation will tank.

  7. #7
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    12,894
    z,

    the German universal multipayer healthcare system as well as their very extensive pharmaceutical industry should be a pretty good demonstration that no, the drug industry and medical innovation will not suddenly tank.

    it should also be another demonstration that both for profit and non-profit systems can co-exist...which is essentially the case in the US already, with medicare/medicaid.

    moreover, you bring up the UK as an example. it's useful to note that the UK life expectancy ranking is rather higher than that of the US.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  8. #8
    Regular
    Join Date
    07 Jan 08
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    z,

    the German universal multipayer healthcare system as well as their very extensive pharmaceutical industry should be a pretty good demonstration that no, the drug industry and medical innovation will not suddenly tank.

    it should also be another demonstration that both for profit and non-profit systems can co-exist...which is essentially the case in the US already, with medicare/medicaid.

    moreover, you bring up the UK as an example. it's useful to note that the UK life expectancy ranking is rather higher than that of the US.
    I don't have time to post a long reply right now, but I do want to note that perhaps the Germans also have access to the US market.

  9. #9
    Senior Contributor GVChamp's Avatar
    Join Date
    26 Aug 06
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,215
    Yes, and as Milton Friedman pointed out, there is no poverty among Swedish-Americans, just as there is no poverty among the Swedish. And Minnesota, aka Swedish-Americans, has a life expectancy of 81, pretty much in line with the UK.

    Milton Friedman would also point out that German drug companies can sell their drugs to the American market, with its higher prices.
    "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

  10. #10
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,401
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    z,

    the German universal multipayer healthcare system as well as their very extensive pharmaceutical industry should be a pretty good demonstration that no, the drug industry and medical innovation will not suddenly tank.
    Mutipayer, not single payer...

    it should also be another demonstration that both for profit and non-profit systems can co-exist...which is essentially the case in the US already, with medicare/medicaid.
    Look at the difference in health outcomes for private vs medicaid...

    moreover, you bring up the UK as an example. it's useful to note that the UK life expectancy ranking is rather higher than that of the US.
    Life expectancy has very little to do with healthcare. The US has more obesity, much higher rates of violent death among some population sub groups, 50% more diabetes, higher rates of high blood pressure ect. Its not an apples to apples comparison.

  11. #11
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    3,804
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    the German universal multipayer healthcare system as well as their very extensive pharmaceutical industry should be a pretty good demonstration that no, the drug industry and medical innovation will not suddenly tank.
    Whether Germany has a multipayer healthcare system is actually a rather iffy thing. There's a rather stark diversification between what the public component pays for (research, education, infrastructure) and what the private component pays for (individual treatment, prevention). Within that diversification there's little overlap, the only thing i can actually think of is health prevention campaigns, in which health insurance companies work together with a federal agency.

    Sole exception, where the German system is really multipayer, is a federal subsidy - directly to health insurance companies, not to individuals - that pays for free coverage of dependents and for some payouts and coverage during pregnancy; this subsidy is reasoned with based on constitutionally mandated support for families. In return there's no medicare/medicaid in Germany.

    Technically German health insurance companies do work for-profit only. That used to be even more the case - as in those companies actually turning a pretty decent profit - up until a few years ago when the companies were still allowed to compete on pricing; since having their contributions fixed to a certain percentage of their employed members' salaries they have become a lot more dependent on the state of the economy. Which, since the economy's tanking, means that they're turning a couple billions profit right now - although there's some health insurance companies that like any business intentionally lower their profit margin to avoid e.g. taxes (my own health insurance took a 25 million loss in 2016 that way - on a operating budget of 24.6 billion, and with an average loss of 4 per member - having to pay their losses out of their 15 billion liquid asset reserves...).

  12. #12
    Senior Contributor Monash's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Mar 10
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,453
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    They are intimately connected. If a government won't spring for the cost to introduce a new drug or procedure then they don't get adopted. This is one reason cancer patients in the UK are now 5x less likely than patients in many other Eurozone countries. Socialized medicine = rationing. Nothing is free, everything has to be paid for. For years the world has relied on the US for profit system to develop the new drugs and procedures. Turn the US into another non-profit rationed care basket case and medical innovation will tank.
    Z, I've heard that argument before and it doesn't wash. The various national health care systems are you refer to are primarily resource distribution systems not production systems. They purchase physical goods (or services) produced by medical manufactures including drug companies in HUGE quantities and distribute them to consumers who pay for them to varying degrees (depending on the national health system your taking about) through either a combination of tax dollars and/or directly out of pocket costs. To the extent it's relevant criticizing them for not producing anything is like criticizing your local supermarket or car dealership for not manufacturing anything.

    And yes there is rationing under national health systems just like there is under the private system. In a free enterprise system people buy the medical services or products they need but people without money don't have access. That's a form of rationing to.

    As been pointed out time and time again in this thread, if you want to push the merits of the US free market health system fine, just show how and where it produces superior quantifiable healthcare outcomes to all those 'socialist' national systems you dislike. As I have stated before the demand and supply curves for medical services do not correspond to those for normal products, there is a lack of substitution goods and significant barriers to entry, all of which combine to hinder the efficiency with which a free market forces can be used to distribute sell medical products. Find away around all these obstacles and Nobel Prize in economics awaits you.

    I also think you'll find that most of the western nations which have adopted and maintained national health care systems haven't done so because they're enamored with the principals of socialism but rather because they can't find any other dam way of maximizing health care outcomes for the bulk of their population. Give them an alternative that works they'd drop nationalized medicine in a shot - but just to be clear the current US system isn't it. They'd want better outcomes for their citizens than they're getting now, not worse.
    Last edited by Monash; 20 Jun 17, at 22:27.

  13. #13
    Regular
    Join Date
    07 Jan 08
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Monash View Post
    Z, I've heard that argument before and it doesn't wash. The various national health care systems are you refer to are primarily resource distribution systems not production systems. They purchase physical goods (or services) produced by medical manufactures including drug companies in HUGE quantities and distribute them to consumers who pay for them to varying degrees (depending on the national health system your taking about) through either a combination of tax dollars and/or directly out of pocket costs. To the extent it's relevant criticizing them for not producing anything is like criticizing your local supermarket or car dealership for not manufacturing anything.

    And yes there is rationing under national health systems just like there is under the private system. In a free enterprise system people buy the medical services or products they need but people without money don't have access. That's a form of rationing to.

    As been pointed out time and time again in this thread, if you want to push the merits of the US free market health system fine, just show how and where it produces superior quantifiable healthcare outcomes to all those 'socialist' national systems you dislike. As I have stated before the demand and supply curves for medical services do not correspond to those for normal products, there is a lack of substitution goods and significant barriers to entry, all of which combine to hinder the efficiency with which a free market forces can be used to distribute sell medical products. Find away around all these obstacles and Nobel Prize in economics awaits you.

    I also think you'll find that most of the western nations which have adopted and maintained national health care systems haven't done so because they're enamored with the principals of socialism but rather because they can't find any other way dam of maximizing health care outcomes for the bulk of their population. Give them an alternative that works they'd drop the nationalized medicine like a shot - but just to be clear the current US system isn't it. They want better outcomes than they're getting now, not worse.
    Exactly. It wouldn't be "over-usage". It'd be a correction of under-usage.

  14. #14
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,199
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    They are intimately connected. If a government won't spring for the cost to introduce a new drug or procedure then they don't get adopted. This is one reason cancer patients in the UK are now 5x less likely than patients in many other Eurozone countries. Socialized medicine = rationing. Nothing is free, everything has to be paid for. For years the world has relied on the US for profit system to develop the new drugs and procedures. Turn the US into another non-profit rationed care basket case and medical innovation will tank.
    Wow. You must have a really low opinion of professional people.
    And, of the philanthropic sector.
    And, of the private sector.

    "If a government won't spring for the cost to introduce a new drug or procedure then they don't get adopted."

    Wow.

  15. #15
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,401
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    Wow. You must have a really low opinion of professional people.
    And, of the philanthropic sector.
    And, of the private sector.

    "If a government won't spring for the cost to introduce a new drug or procedure then they don't get adopted."

    Wow.
    The cost of moving a new drug from concept to actual prescription is huge. Companies spending that kind of money need a return on their investment. Only major corporations and governments have the money. Given that companies gave us $900 epipens prices for a drug that cost .05 cents per dose... There are a few charities, but not near a big enough of a factor. Government, despite so often helping big pharma is the source of seed money to get actual life saving drugs developed.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 11 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 11 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. 2017
    By tankie in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 22 Mar 17,, 12:55
  2. 2017 and the End of Ethics
    By bigross86 in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 02 Jun 14,, 21:05
  3. Lotsa great American political news out there today...
    By Bluesman in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 27 Aug 10,, 20:00
  4. American political duplication between Riyadh and Israel
    By ahmed in forum International Politics
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 29 Apr 07,, 22:06

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •