monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

There should be a general election.

I agree.

Nigel Farage is not the only Brexiter who has been to the US ambassador’s resident to meet President Trump this afternoon. Iain Duncan Smith, the former Conservative leader, and Owen Paterson, the Conservative former environment secretary, have both seen the president.

The election campaign is already underway.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

You've seen what free health care is like in America.

We have seen what it is like in the UK. But a lot of UK people will not see because they cannot get cataract surgery. Also cancer patients do not get treatment in the early stages in time to save them. Your country sucks. And the world knows it.

Quote:

Waiting times for NHS cancer treatment are at worst ever level

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jan/10/nhs-england-misses-multiple-targets-for-cancer-treatment

Quote:

Cancer waiting times hit new low as one in four patients do not start treatment on time

https://inews.co.uk/nhs/cancer-waiting-times-worst-record-nhs-targets/

Quote:

Unacceptable cancer waiting times are testing patients’ patience

https://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/11/12/unacceptable-cancer-waiting-times-are-testing-patients-patience/
It has been going on for quite a while. I do not see it being fixed, does anyone?

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

It's a snide election decided by a few thousand elderly well heeled Tories.

It would be one thing if things were pretty normal, but they're not.

I'm worried Johnson will get in and just run the clock down until October 31st.

The Brexiteers will be ecstatic, all for a few weeks, then the **** will happen.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
You are badly misstating the facts here. The comments addressed only the ability of U.S. firms to compete, along with local ones, for those services which the NHS routinely contracts with others.

More lies.

Quote:
There is nothing to stop American or any other foreign firms bidding for NHS contracts under current rules. The health reforms in England in 2012 required local commissioners to put large contracts out to tender. A subsidiary of the US company United Health, along with British firms like Virgin and Circle, is among private groups which has won such contracts.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48515506<br /> <br />

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

404 - Page not found

That is your link. Try again.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

I really think that in trade agreements governments retain the right to regulate public services.
At best, neither the ambassador nor Trump know what the NHS is.
Just a reminder: in the UK they have the NHS England, NHS Scotland, NHS Wales, and the Health and Social Care (HSC) in Northern Ireland - each health service system operating independently.
And - nota bene! - the UK Government is only responsible for England's NHS (the the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, and the Northern Ireland Executive for theirs).

2 Replies

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

We have the internet, which makes it entirely possible for people to communicate their full political views in a way that explains their reasons

Ah yes, the Internet has famously proven its capacity to make people express themselves with more courtesy, reason and nuance than at a public demonstration. That's definitely the obvious take-away from the past 15 years.

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

If I've got all this stuff from you and Izzy right, the UK NIS already does contract for services from outside providers, including some U.S. . If so the U,S. ambassador was merely using this, along with other obvious elements of trade as an example of what might be included in a trade agreement.

In this case the whole thing is much ado about nothing.

You guys appear to have very low thresholds of irritable hysteria.

1 Reply

@nimh,

nimh wrote:

livinglava wrote:
We have the internet, which makes it entirely possible for people to communicate their full political views in a way that explains their reasons

Ah yes, the Internet has famously proven its capacity to make people express themselves with more courtesy, reason and nuance than at a public demonstration. That's definitely the obvious take-away from the past 15 years.

Just because people abuse the internet doesn't mean it doesn't offer them the opportunity to be civil.

Probably the reason so many people abuse it is precisely because some people are terrified of how powerful democracy could become if everyone indeed communicated clearly and constructively.

In order to maintain power over the people, you have to keep the people fighting and thus dependent on authoritarian structure for peace and guidance.

The question is whether it will ever be possible to stop the internet from being abused as a tool for authoritarianism.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

You guys appear to have very low thresholds of irritable hysteria.

This "you guys" includes - besides us - the still acting PM, the Health secretary, a couple of other Conservative ministers, ... ... ...

Seriously, george: no-one talked about "contracts for services" but it was (and still is: watch tomorrow morning's ITV-interview with Trump!) the NHS.

3 Replies

@nimh,

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
You guys appear to have very low thresholds of irritable hysteria.
This "you guys" includes - besides us - the still acting PM, the Health secretary, a couple of other Conservative ministers, ... ... ...

Well I would never exempt any Brit from such criticism

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Health Secretary Matt Hancock rejected suggestions that the NHS could form part of a deal between the UK and the USA.
"My American friends, know this: The NHS is not for sale," he said.

Since such is known, it might well be irritable hysteria.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

MontereyJack wrote:
Really? People have been outlawing crazy and evil since Hammurabi 3000 years ago.

Cite one law anywhere in history that was successful in preventing people from murdering other people.

No law can ensure that nobody will ever commit murder again.

But:

1. That's nothing to do with the point about "outlawing" it. Outlawing won't stop it from ever occurring again, but you can definitely outlaw it. I'm guessing you agree that some things should be outlawed (murder, for example) even if that doesn't guarantee it will never happen again.

2. Laws can't banish murder and crime from the earth, but I assume you do believe laws can help keep the number of times people commit murder or other kinds of crime down... or do you think the whole apparatus of police, courts, prisons serves no effective purpose at all?

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Or "Trump Derangement Syndrome" as it is known here.

0 Replies

@nimh,

nimh wrote:

2. Laws can't banish murder and crime from the earth, but I assume you do believe laws can help keep the number of times people commit murder or other kinds of crime down... or do you think the whole apparatus of police, courts, prisons serves no effective purpose at all?

So you think it's ok to make a law, which criminals then respond to by committing more of the outlawed act; and then allow the criminals to intimidate the government/people into retracting the law in hopes of begging the criminals to commit less of the act?

I.e. Should the government retract laws and otherwise cater to criminals in the hope of them showing mercy? Should criminals be given the upper hand?

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

The proof that "there's a lot of support for President Trump in this country" is that one guy renamed his pub in Trump's honor?

Okay.

Meanwhile, in more representative data:

Compare:

1 Reply

@nimh,

I love the comparisons of a media protected President and a media attacked President. To think there are still people out there who think Obama's admin was "scandal" free.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

What's a more effective way to instill fear and intimidation than to start small and gradually increase the level of violence? It's like the Gestapo starting with a light tapping on the door and gradually increasing the level until they pound the door down.

That's... not what happened though. Beating opponents up - and much, much worse - was part of the repertoire of the Nazis from the start. I mean, they were Nazis. Hitler already launched an armed, violent coup d'etat in 1923. They didn't start off with milkshakes and gently work their way up.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Americans have become very accustomed to the criticisms ( and condescension) of Europeans over the past few centuries. Today's Europeans appear to me to be unreasonably, and sometimes laughably, sensitive about themselves and their affairs.

0 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know