h a l f b a k e r yOn the one hand, true. On the other hand, bollocks.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
| |
nonwithstanding that the guy sure appears to be a douchebag,
I still don't quite understand who the aggrieved party would
be. Legally it appears the aggrieved party is Facebook given
it's T&C was violated. Possibly the FTC is this consent decree
is as strict as the press appears to report. |
|
| |
These psychographic profiles are pretty psychobubbly to me |
|
| |
That's the nature of privacy laws, fraud campaigns,
and treason. |
|
| |
Good, functioning democracy requires trustworthy facts
and data upon which to set effective policy, and if there
are no means by which the truth can be teased out from
the clever fabrications of a ruling malevolent oligarchy
then you
are still living in a Moscow of sorts effectively. Ironically a
libertarian system of consumer beware practice suffers
from exactly the same fate. There’s a reason why a lot of
fraudsters and snake oil products emanate from countries
with poor regulatory oversight. |
|
| |
This scandal reminds me of something. |
|
| |
Sixty years ago, it was widely believed that advertisers could
control people's minds, to a much greater extent than they
actually could, or can. You may remember an episode of Mad
Men where the agency brings in a psychoanalyst to help them do
this. |
|
| |
With hindsight, that was mostly hype and pseudoscience, and I
suspect there are large helpings of those things in Cambridge
Analytica's business model, too. |
|
| |
What blows these things out of proportion is a combination of
the pseudoscientists, talking themselves up, with concerned,
progressive people who genuinely can't understand why others
disagree with them, and who are therefore quick to seize on the
story that, "Aha! Their minds are being controlled!" |
|
| |
Baked by the Kremlin, as used by the Whitehouse. |
|
| |
I agree with [pertinax] - much of the claimed power
of this kind of approach is just marketing guff |
|
| |
//much of the claimed power of this kind of approach is just
marketing guff// |
|
| |
Not to be confused with the claimed power of what it was
applied to, to wit, lying about things,
which has a long & noble proven track record through many
centuries of applied research by con artists (sorry.. politicians
& salesmen)
everywhere. |
|
| |
ok, [Ray], but not sure how that's related here. |
|
| |
You are dangerously close here to [xenzag]s delusion, where
the left is engaging in orgiastic fury in anything that finds a
way to blame anything "unnatural" for what happened. |
|
| |
I mean Jesus, it's well known fact that the Kennedy bought
Chicago votes, but the super evil Nixon did concede and
move on. |
|
| |
Ultimately the paradox of boundary conditions in our system
of democracy is that a small number of votes in Wisconsin
can swing things. It always could be a small town boss
stuffing ballots. Or someone being bused to vote. Or
asked for an ID. Or obviously, Jews voting for Buchanan
because of a bad ballot design. And now it could be a few
slightly better
placed Facebook ads. It's horrible, horrible, and it can be
exploited -- I'm not debating that. |
|
| |
But in each campaign both sides evaluate the battlefield
and do what they can to win. And sometimes, possibly at
least half the time, your side doesn't win. |
|
| |
It is truly amazing what a genius Obama was for using social
strategy when he won -- just review all that press, including
some acknowledgements that Facebook folks gave them
everything they wanted, because, "hope and change" -- and
how the language changes where the winner is on the other
side. |
|
| |
Anything that's going on too different from what the yellow
press was doing? Anything different from the age where you
knew with 100% certainty what a specific union district
would vote even though we have a secret ballot? |
|
| |
any more analysis necessary than knowing that if you walk
into a mechanic's shop in PA there's probably a poster of a
young lady in short shorts hugging a motorcycle or a red
sports car? These marketing geniuses figured out who
would vote for Trump! Wow! |
|
| |
Just remember, we could have had the Republican intellectual with realistic
foreign policy views in 2012. Back when "I'll have more flexibility after the
election" was a minor thing being blown up by Republicans who want to scare
people with Russia. Amazing to behold. |
|
| |
No, [tc], I am nowhere near deluxenzag. Any effective
governance needs effective laws which in turn require
good
data. If your government is going to spend hundreds of
billions of dollars trying to prevent an imminent asteroid
disaster that turns out to be simply Boris Badoff’s
retirement fund and an Atari screenshot, then that’s
probably a bad thing, especially if Boris Badoff is funding,
pulling for, or in some way involved in campaigning for a
controversial figure in your
next election. |
|
| |
The Washington Post has it right. Democracy dies in
darkness. |
|
| |
// and how the language changes where the winner is on
the other side//
From my reading of the internet, which
I will happily admit has not since 1996 been comprehensive,
the language does not change, it just switches sides. The
Song of the Losing Party applies just as much for political
parties as parties in a court action. |
|
| |
People's view about this kind of privacy/civil
liberties issue is shaped, I think, more by the
corporation's previous actions than by the facts of
the case. So, looking back over Facebook's actions
over the last ten years, it now appears as though
they've been doing everything they can to ensure that
when they're connected to a really significant misuse
of personal data, no one will believe them, have
sympathy for them or give them the benefit of the
doubt. |
|
| |
// claims to have personality profiles on 200 million+ Americans. // |
|
| |
How does that compare with the number of Americans proven to have actual personalities ? Maybe seven or eight ? A dozen, at most. |
|
| |
So says the hegemonic swarm drone... |
|
| |
Good data is fine. Darkness, bad. |
|
| |
If the press sheds light, then we had 95% adoring glow, 5%
propaganda during the Obama years, and we have roughly
the reverse of that now. |
|
| |
Facebook just getting caught in the crossfire. While they're
continuing to stratify us, luckily their VR strategy will soon
let us fully separate into our respectful realities altogether. |
|
| |
I don't like change, unless it's my idea. |
|
| |
Could things in the secret-osphere get any worse? On the
right are those who have apoplexy fearing the worst: a
great data breach, financial calamity, a wiping out or
blackmail for the very data they deny having. On the left
are those who cringe at imposition of evil: cringe worthy
exposure of dark thoughts or actions, power in the hands
of bad folks, being trapped on a metaphorical iceberg as
the ship of state bears in. |
|
| |
Are bots that speak in political cliches two-faced or
multiply personified? |
|
| |
//Democracy dies in darkness.// |
|
| |
Like having an election overturned by un-elected, self
appointed rulers of the country that don't like who the
people chose? |
|
| |
I understand the "collusion" investigation is now an
"obstruction" investigation. Pick the penalty first, in this
case impeachment leading to a coup d'etat, then try to
find something, anything you can use to justify it. |
|
| |
Gotta hand it to these guys though. One way to get
around a person's right to a fair and speedy trial is to just
embark on a series of never ending investigations about
any made up crime you can think of. No
evidence of one wrongdoing? Make up another. Killed the
Lindberg baby? We're looking into it. Shot Liberty
Valance? We have possible credible sources. Blocked out
the sun? He's been unable to provide adequate evidence
that he hasn't blocked out the sun, but most importantly,
he may have obstructed the investigation into whether or
not he blocked out the sun which is now of course the
center of our criminal probe. |
|
| |
Bottom line is,these guys want a one party system ruled
by a handful of elites and according to them, the
American voters aren't elite enough for them. |
|
| |
All these little stories popping up, sex "scandals", utterly
useless social media propaganda programs, even more
useless data mining schemes are just more "evidence"
that nobody should be running things but them.
It's democracy that's CAUSING this outrage, and it must be
stopped. |
|
| |
See link to enjoy Obama talking about how only a moron
like Trump would think Russia, or anybody could somehow
influence the presidential election. Why did Hillary lose?
First it was the Russians, now it's Cambridge Analytical
and
their useless bullshit data mining. Next it will be
something else I'm sure. Anything but the fact that Hillary
was a corrupt, obnoxious, utterly horrible candidate. So
bad in fact that somebody who didn't even want to win
the election destroyed her. |
|
| |
When the public's choices are between candidate A,
who allegedly caused the Chicago Fire
singlehandedly by himself
and blamed an innocent cow and candidate B, who
as reported by 'someone who knows' created
radiation sickness to serve Satan, then at some
point democracy is
not being served well. |
|
| |
I'm not angry about the loss, I'm angry about their
business model and ethics. |
|
| |
Your find seems relevant to the vote counts, but not
the influence methods peddled by C.A. |
|
| |
Your skepticism is noted and predicted but does not
align with history. For example of how such
campaigns can be effective given the sensitivity of
people to minor influences, simply recall the Nixon-
Kennedy debates in which sweat and a bad shave
job cost Nixon the TV audience. |
|
| |
//I'm not angry about the loss, I'm angry about their
business model and ethics.// |
|
| |
You voted for Hillary Clinton and you're concerned about
ethics? It's fine to start every day burning a Trump doll in
effigy, have at it, but to describe Hillary Clinton as
anything other than a complete scumbag is absolutely
ludicrous. |
|
| |
//recall the Nixon- Kennedy debates in which sweat and a
bad shave job cost Nixon the TV audience// |
|
| |
Plus JFK's mobster father Joseph Kennedy rigged the
election, there's that. |
|
| |
// JFK's mobster father Joseph Kennedy // |
|
| |
Of course today, with DNA testing, it would be possible to show conclusively if Joe was really JFK's father ... |
|
| |
Here's another link to a story talking about how Trump
needs to concede the election when he loses because
blaming voter fraud is uncouth. |
|
| |
It goes on to talk about Richard Nixon who conceded
defeat despite reservations about the legality of the
Nixon / Kennedy election and to scold the Republicans
who will need to do the same when Hillary wins. |
|
| |
And again, the arrogant, scolding tone while lecturing
about how sore
losers need to shut up and accept defeat considering
what's going on now is just amazing. Can't make this stuff
up. |
|
| |
But I know what's going on. It's easier to talk about
Stormy Daniels than policies that might resonate with the
American voter and win the next election. Also easier to
get a
boner while doing so I
suspect. |
|
| |
// It's easier to talk about Stormy Daniels // |
|
| |
Sure is. The leaders of a half dozen Mideast countries got
together last weekend to meet with her. Rumor has it
Supreme Leader Jong-un has jockeyed a summit in hope of
meeting her, too! |
|
| |
Know what the real fallout of this "Hillary lost because
of big data." might be? |
|
| |
You get congress and the media involved in actually
looking at how useless social networking sites are for
doing anything other than making money from investors
and egotistical companies that are dumb enough to
believe that ten million people clicked their add for super
weight loss boner pills and the bottom could fall out from
under
this "Dot-Con 2.0". |
|
| |
"Click here to see the one weird trick that might make
the stock market crash." |
|
| |
And bun for the idea of scamming these assholes. Didn't
see that coming did you? Although how many Facebook
and Twitter accounts were found to be fake in previous
instances? So this is probably pretty well baked, although
for
different reasons. |
|
| |
so I think you're being a bit harsh on Ray, there, [dr] :) |
|
| |
But I still, genuinely, cannot figure out the aggrieved party
here. |
|
| |
Let's imagine I was one of these people whose data was so
used. |
|
| |
Am I annoyed that I saw an extra Vote For Trump message?
Make America Great
message? Locker Her Up message? In what actual way
could being used in a
targeted ad worse than being forced to watch a pro-hillary
ad on TV cause they
don't know better? |
|
| |
Could it possibly be worse than getting robocalls 20 years
after they passed DO NOT CALL lists? |
|
| |
Let's imagine the campaign used this data to divide people,
as pretty much every
political campaign that I've been aware of seems to do. In
what way were
the people whose profiles were used aggrieved. Were they
denied the opportunity to see a pro Trump ad
because their cousin who took the quiz happened to like
Hillary's page? |
|
| |
Let me ask everyone who has bothered to be in this thread,
or any of an infinite
number of similar threads on HB, on Facebook or elsewhere: |
|
| |
DID YOU PARTICULARLY NOTICE A LACK OF EXPOSURE TO
MESSAGING PRO AND
AGAINST YOUR FUCKEN POINT OF VIEW IN THE LAST
ELECTION CYCLE AND SINCE? |
|
| |
Dude, from my interactions with my dad and every
conservative contact I have, there were plenty
of people that fell for the fake news. I’d even bet you fell
for some too. Did you forget Pizzagate? |
|
| |
there's tons of garbage in every election and FB has made
this things worse. |
|
| |
Buy list of low income voters -- or just use the addresses in
a low income neighborhood -- and send them fliers with
Paul Ryan throwing momma off the train? -- politics is bare
knuckled business. |
|
| |
Buy list of "pro-trump" types on Facebook and feed them
bogus story about Billy Goat" -- end of democracy as we
know it? |
|
| |
Finance it with Buffet donation? Charitable giving |
|
| |
Finance it with Mercer donation? Democracy dies in
darkness? |
|
| |
From what I can tell, this new "scandal" is that social
media network data assimilation was used to formulate
an
advertising campaign. |
|
| |
This is nothing new, this is nothing dishonest this is just
another media/democrat machine created propaganda
piece that has a buzzword or two that most people won't
understand so it's presented to the sheep in such a way to
imply that something new, high tech and evil has taken
place. |
|
| |
"Cambridge Analitica? Oh my god! They must have
perfected some way to control our cerebral cortex and
make us vote for Trump! Probably using some kind of
scientific space beam!" |
|
| |
It’s a function of who is holding the purse strings, [tc]. I’m
not entirely convinced that Putin can feign innocence and
keep a straight face much longer. |
|
| |
And there is a measure of illegality about using a foreign
entity here. |
|
| |
My problem is not just about the election. It’s about every
financial interest that we involve ourselves in. |
|
| |
You mean like when Hillary bought the anti Trump dossier
from the Russians? |
|
| |
//I’m not entirely convinced that Putin can feign
innocence
and keep a straight face much longer.// |
|
| |
All you need it one, single piece of evidence that Trump
had
any collusion with this guy. One. |
|
| |
And when you find that, you can direct me to a link that
summarized the law against collusion? Is that a Federal
law? Is it a line in the Constitution that I missed? What are
the penalties? Is it a felony? Who was the first person
prosecuted for this? What's its history? |
|
| |
For being an impeachable offence it sure doesn't have a
lot of information about it out there. |
|
| |
I don’t really care that much if they don’t find collusion,
honestly. The fact that Russia did put their thumb on the
scales for a guy who certainly seems more gracious towards
a nefarious group of criminals than he should is simply
more than I am willing to tolerate, especially in the case of
that evil KGB bastard. |
|
| |
But you'll tolerate Hillary colluding with them? |
|
| |
Putin's a piece of crap, but I don't want to give him more
credit that he deserves. His team wasted a couple of
rubles
trying to see of social media could stir up unrest over
here. They did
pro Trump and pro Hillary stuff and I guarantee they
didn't change enough minds to have any effect one way or
another. Typical Russian nonsense,
but they had nothing to do with the outcome of this, or
any
other election. I gotta agree with Obama on this one. |
|
| |
Hillary lost because, well, she's Hillary. |
|
| |
Putin's tactics made sure the balance tipped in favour of
Trump. He did this because he knew that Trump was a total
moron who would fuck up America in any number of ways;
for example by increasing hatred and division. His plan has
worked to a treat. There is total chaos in the Whitehouse;
America is the laughing stock of the entire world, who now
live in fear of what this lunatic might do. |
|
| |
with my own eyes, on CNBC, I saw someone who I previously considered to be a
reputable person, say, but what about the Russian connection, does
this have something to do, for example with the founder of WhatsApp being a
Ukranian?!? |
|
| |
I mean this was ostensibly a journalist. I'm waiting for someone to remind us
that the founder of Google is Russian. |
|
| |
Ray -- this is where we spent two (admittedly very, very boring years) trying to
get to Hillary -- back where Wolf Blitzer's favorite words were
"where's the smoking gun" and not "Russia Investigation". The good doctor was
good enough to remind us how Obama was reacting to chances of
"rigging". This also reminds us how Hillary et.al was oh so freaked out -- no
doubt we can find discussions on HB from the time! -- about the chance
of Trump objecting to the results of the election -- remember that? |
|
| |
So it's just seems like the manufactured outrage machine is repeating all the
same lines, just faster, and switching sides whenever convenient. |
|
| |
As to Putin: trolling is a very effective weapon, and one that we've never yet
found an answer to. Perhaps this will increase the incentive and
finally get us an answer there. Isis was, at least temporarily, a much more
fearful thing than this last election, and it was also enabled by social
media. |
|
| |
It's just too new, eventually we'll develop an immunity. |
|
| |
Ray, here is the truth: Republicans bear enormous moral responsibility -- truly -
- for not telling Trump, right after Muslim Ban speech -- sorry, you cannot be a
candidate of our party. It would have been very simple, and there's a 99%
chance he would not have run further. And if he did, then maybe Hillary would
be President, or Jeb, or someone else. |
|
| |
The Democrats bear enormous moral responsibility for not telling Hillary, after
the email thing originally surfaced -- withdraw. Or after Benghazi. Withdraw.
Or after putting down the women that Bill abused -- Withdraw. The world can
be run without you -- yes, even if Trump is doing it. |
|
| |
And then some random bits fall here and there, and some of them -- as always -
- are helped along by less than clean hands, and sometimes by completely
impossible coincidences. |
|
| |
I think the Republicans mortally damaged their party.
I think the Democrats don't have any answer. |
|
| |
And this is what Putin exploits. |
|
| |
I will tolerate no collusion on the part of anyone with a
foreign nation, especially not a sworn enemy. |
|
| |
At the time of Trump’s statements, he was trying to sew
the seeds of doubt about the election process, which at the
time and state of knowledge everyone had the right to
question his motives. Given the sad state of division and
the wretched way in which his base was conducting itself,
there was a serious fear he was pushing insurrection and
distrust based on nothing at all. So no, the situation was
not even remotely the same. |
|
| |
If it turns out he’s colluded, you all get to eat your words
here and his guilt is evident by the crime he accuses of his
opponent. Doubtful that’s the case, but I’ll let Mueller
have the final say. |
|
| |
//I will tolerate no collusion on the part of anyone
with a foreign nation, especially not a sworn enemy.// |
|
| |
//If it turns out he’s colluded, you all get to eat
your words here.// |
|
| |
Hillary's already been proven to have colluded with the
Russians. How many millions did her foundation get for
her vote on the Uranium one deal? |
|
| |
(Holds pepper grinder over plate of words) Would
Monsieur
like-a da fresh ground a peppa? |
|
| |
Just teasin' you Ray but come on, don't you think the
hypocrisy is a little thick with this one? |
|
| |
Watching the Circle. Kind of interesting. Reality is simpler,
isn't it? |
|
| |
I don’t see the uranium one deal in quite the same light,
frankly. I see no proof of influence-buying. Plenty of
opportunity and appearance, but nothing that actually links
the two. |
|
| |
Just a coincidence that they gave her all those millions
when she was one of the people voting for this transfer
eh? |
|
| |
Guess they just really liked her. |
|
| |
And of course, for that $500,000 speech Bill gave, I'm sure
those Russians were hanging on his every word. |
|
| |
See Ray? This is why we can't have nice things. |
|
| |
I would be just as shocked if Mueller finds that Trump
laundered money as I would be that Clinton was paid for
the speech as above. |
|
| |
You think Putin helped with beating Rubio and Bush, Ray?
Or that was only needed to beat the mighty Clinton
machine? Lol |
|
| |
I think Putin was most interested in pushing along the
underdogs to sew as much discord as he could, and also was
an anti-Clintonite. Trump became an obvious choice in his
team’s naivety, lack of size or experience, and previous
dealings. I don’t know about Rubio and Bush; it doesn’t
seem as likely. Bush kinda did himself in, and Rubio is,
well, Rubio. Frankly I was pissing myself with laughter with
the anticipation that this misogynistic neophyte with a gaff
for a personality was going to bring down the Republican
Party which in my mind had so richly deserved to be
kneecapped at all levels for its previous 6 years of shear
incredulous Congressional ineptitude. Color me shocked
November 9th. |
|
| |
Any one of those 9 could have objected if there was a good
reason to do so at the time. Any agency as well. And if
Putin wanted more dealings with her, well, that sort of was
silly pushing her away, no? |
|
| |
Remember that this was during the ill-advised ‘reset’ era
where we were trying to play nice with them for whatever
reason. |
|
| |
Bill Clinton's speaking fee which went way up
when Hillary Clinton became secretary of state. |
|
| |
2010 -- Russia, $500,000, Renaissance Capital (Russian
finance corporation) |
|
| |
There's a bunch of other money from Russia to the Clinton
Foundation. Whoever's interested can look it up. |
|
| |
Yes doc, I’m aware of the details. At the time I didn’t pay
much attention. I was more of a Bernie guy, remember. |
|
| |
It's just amazing to me how the "most" likely thing that emerges for Ray is that Trump is not
a buffoon that
won because people were taught not by Facebook -- but by NBC -- for 14 years that he's the
best
businessman, and then given free speech time not by Facebook, but by CNN and every
other cable channel
for 2 years -- -- but he won not because of this,or even freaking "whitelash", or whatever
Van Jones called it on CNN -- that would make more sense -- or that he had a better simpler slogan,
or even, for fuck's sake, that he was a man -- no none of those, you think it was
because of Russian spies. That's how the Occam's
Razor falls for you in this case. |
|
| |
But with Clinton, it's tons of smoke and innudendo and dogged obsessive Republican
hounding with no basis
in fact. And it's real crimes -- as in forwarding classified info- - perhaps ignorant -- perhaps
forgiveable,
but actually having occured -- but not worthy of an indictment not because of any tarmac
meetings or
Democratic candidacy -- simply because that was the fair thing to do -- that's the Occam's
Razor. |
|
| |
The peanut butter sandwich can't just fall on the peanut butter all the time, Ray. It is
conceivable that
sometimes it falls on the jelly. |
|
| |
Ultimately it doesn't really matter if trolling swayed votes. No different than it mattered that the
butterfly ballot got Buchanan votes and got Bush elected. Anymore than the Republican "Voter
Fraud" matters. Even foreign money doesn't matter much -- do you remember that Chinese money
was used in 1996 in reelecting Bill Clinton? Look it up, Johnny Chung. Was that treason? |
|
| |
We have a system of elections. Under that system with its flaws, which includes myriads of way in
which money rolls around from where influence is desired to where it can be granted, he won. It was
a
ridiculous reminder that the universe doesn't give a fuck. |
|
| |
Accept that Dems would have won if they ran someone other than Clinton (though unlikely with
Sanders), and be happy that there's a better than 50% chance whether in 20 or 24, that the
backlash would get you Universal Healthcare, and carry on. Hopefully by then advances in
medtech would make it affordable. |
|
| |
I’m sorry, I never bought in to the Apprentice buffoonery.
Seeing a realit show as some kind of indication of Trump’s
business acumen is a foreign concept to my psyche. |
|
| |
Divorce in your brain my motivation for this idea and my
candidate preferences. I am more angry about this sleazy
operation and their self-admitted setup tactics. Folks who
scream “DEEP STATE!” while giving C.A. and Robert Mercer
and company a pass just boggle my mind completely. |
|
| |
Considering Hilary and her alleged crimes, frankly after
hearing Republicans with pitchforks foam about Whitewater
and murder and god knows what else for years, I turned
that TV off. Did I miss legitimate news in doing so? It
seems I might have. Do I really care? No, Not really. This
is the penalty the wolf boy pays. All I know is that despite
years of R’s screaming Benghaz!i and complete email
bullshit, she’s still not in prison. So,
what side of the sandwich is that again? She’s either not
equipped with any jelly or she’s just that good. Had the
witch hunters not already used up their torches, maybe I’d
join in in calling for more investigation. But remember, I
was still cursing at them for their sins against good
monetary policy at the time with expensive shutdowns and
jackass posturing with our credit as a country. |
|
| |
What’s incredible to me is that in a single moment, Rick
Perry can ‘oops’ himself from the top to the bottom and
disappear into the ether, but this sadistic psychological
textbook case who can’t be bothered to read a memo can
take the win. Someone let the inmates out or something. |
|
| |
Ian, you might be interested in the studies that “Turd
Blossom” and company did on the subtleties of linguistics
on the population back in W’s day. |
|
| |
right, so that is amazing (rick perry versus Trump) -- but that's
the point -- that's why he won. Not because of Putin. and yes,
that makes the Republican Party morally bankrupt -- but that's
not Putin's fault. |
|
| |
//...Universal Healthcare, and carry on. Hopefully by
then advances in medtech would make it affordable// -
it's already affordable for the USA - but you've
decided that you don't want it. The USA already
spends more per head of population on state-funded
healthcare than the UK, just very inefficiently. |
|
| |
They were bankrupt a long, long, long time before that. |
|
| |
[hippo] to understand why you're wrong, you'd have to
understand that the US cannot do what European countries
do, and to understand why that is, read up about the VA
medical system in the US. |
|
| |
No, the US would only tolerate Medicare for All politically, and
that would bankrupt the country immediately (as opposed to
in 20 years). |
|
| |
//understand that the US cannot do what European
countries do// |
|
| |
Much as I might find it amusing to believe US citizens are
just "stoopid" so incapable of doing what any normal
European can the idea just doesn't fly, people are people,
economic reality is economic reality, math is math &
(instances of lying aside) 1+2 is going to turn out to be 3
anywhere in the world regardless of who does the math.
So I find that (what you said there) a very odd statement? |
|
| |
//to understand why that is, read up about the VA medical
system in the US.// |
|
| |
You'll have to give me the CliffNotes because there
is no way I can possibly know what obscure little bit of
errata in the whole general mishmash of published
comment on the VA you might be thinking of & without
knowing that the chance of figuring out exactly what weird
conclusion you've drawn from it to support what
you've said is (for a given value of zero) precisely zero. |
|
| |
//that would bankrupt the country immediately// |
|
| |
Going back to my first comment //Much as I might find it
amusing//.. France, Germany, practically
every single European country (even the UK), Australia,
New Zealand, Israel, All of those (& more) can do it without
going
bankrupt but you insist you can't? I didn't believe you
people where so fucked up incompetent compared to
everyone else, but if you insist it's really true I guess
I'll just have to believe you. |
|
| |
// US cannot do what European countries do, and to
understand why that is, read up about the VA medical
system in the US // |
|
| |
I'd love to know what you're getting at, theircompetitor |
|
| |
No vet has to use the VA, because either Obamacare or
private insurance is available anyway. Depending on
circumstances, a vet can use the VA partly, totally, or not
at all. The VA can refer vets to a specialist, but unless
there's a contract with the specialist the VA doesn't pay
for the service. So, I conclude you're drawing an
inference to Brexit, i.e., European Union admission and
exit realities? |
|
| |
I was talking to [hippo]. |
|
| |
What I said is this, since you have such a tough time with it: |
|
| |
the VA (Veteran's Administration) health care system in the
United States is administered by the government. It has has
undergone major scandals in recent years for people dying
while waiting to be seen by doctors, etc, and while
politicians have sought improvements it continues to be
sufficiently unpopular to have caused people to call for
veterans to simply be able to see any doctor, with some
legislative work already having been done to that effect. |
|
| |
Medicare, which is the retirees health care system in the
United States, does allow patients to see any doctor who
would accept Medicare, and while that's not 100% of
doctors, it is a relatively large subset. It is not remotely
similar to the British or Canadian system of healthcare. It is
already unsustainable and scheduled to run out of money in
2029. |
|
| |
Medicare for all would suit Americans just fine
temperamentally -- sure, some doctors wouldn't accept it
but generally speaking, it would be nothing like the
European or Canadian systems where a much larger portion
of medical workers work for the government. |
|
| |
But it is already unaffordable at current taxation levels, and
in large part depends on generational payment (i.e. healthy
people paying, older people using). |
|
| |
Of course numerically it is possible to achieve the system
being used in Europe or in Canada. But Americans would be
pretty unhappy about it. |
|
| |
I don't understand why we even have to debate it -- the
theoretical fear of a European style system is why we have the Tea Party and
why we have Trump as President, and -- that's not enough proof? |
|
| |
I will merely note that //unsustainable// is a strong word,
too
strong, you need to justify & clarify it's use in this instance. |
|
| |
If
funding is cut or limited to below what's needed to pay for
the
uptake that doesn't make something "unsustainable", the
thing
in question can only be called unsustainable if society can't
afford it, you use a word I would associate (in this context)
with "can't" for a situation more closely aligned with "shan't"
in a manner I find comes perilously close to lying .. & no,
that's not
nitpicking. |
|
| |
Society can afford it (as proved by the fact European
society does afford it) so it is sustainable but (US)
society doesn't want to pay for it so won't. |
|
| |
It is unsustainable given current taxation levels and
universally
understood to be so by both major parties in the United
States. |
|
| |
Given European taxation levels, it will no doubt become as
sustainable as the welfare states of Greece and Italy have
proven it to be, but that is also not something that has
proven
palatable to the US. |
|
| |
Again, this is not to say -- as in the original point made way
above -- that this must stay that way. Advances in medicine
may alter the equation alltogether. Just a meaningful
change in the cost curve of support Alzheimer alone might
make Medicare sustainable. |
|
| |
//unsustainable given current taxation levels// |
|
| |
A fair enough observation I'd guess. |
|
| |
About the only thing (I really think) I know about the US tax
system is it's low & everyone with any chance at power wants
to keep it that way. |
|
| |
The US healthcare system is rather like the following
analogy. Once there was a man who wanted a car. He
bought several disjointed parts that partially fit together
from several different companies, designed in different
years.
Oddly, the car didn’t run for the most part, and broke
down
often. “STUPID YUGO STEERING WHEEL!” the man cursed.
Why
can’t it just work? Why can’t it stay bolted to the Ford
steering shaft? The bolts almost fit! I’ve spent a fortune
fixing car parts! |
|
| |
Most people would scrap the entire thing and just buy a
car. |
|
| |
The VA is broken because of decades of neglect and
mismanagement. That was allowed because it was just a
piece and not the whole. Medicaid is over expensive
because the rest of the healthcare system has too many
parts to maintain and break. |
|
| |
It’s a giant Rube-Goldberg monstrosity that simply needs
to
be thrown out, regardless of how much money trades
hands
in keeping their bowling ball falling at the right place to
wake the cat. |
|
| |
Most of Europe was rather devastated by WWII and had, as
it were, a reformat from which to start again on things
like
the NHS and such. The US never got such a hard system
crash and so the hard drive is a bit cluttered and
fragmented. |
|
| |
Luckily, the Medicare unsustainability point is either past or
nearly past the singularity point, so no doubt it will all be
solved by our AI overlords. |
|
| |
// herd people around with missiles // |
|
| |
If you want to herd people, sharp pointy things like bayonets are far more effective. |
|
| |
The thing about missiles, from simple missile weapons like the bow and arrow or firearms, is they're distance weapons, and they have to be launched - typically with lethal effect. |
|
| |
A spear or a bayonet can be poked into someone with a nicely analogue range of actions from "pretty painful, but not actually breaking the skin" to "nasty but non-lethal flesh wound" ending up at "dead". |
|
| |
//I don't understand why we even have to debate it -
- the theoretical fear of a European style system is
why we have the Tea Party and why we have Trump
as President, and -- that's not enough proof?// -
exactly my point - the USA has consciously chosen it's
current system of medical coverage despite easily
being able to afford universal tax-funded coverage
like many other countries in the world have. |
|
| |
// easily being able to afford universal tax-funded coverage like many other countries in the world have. // |
|
| |
Many other countries have endemic malaria. Just because other countries have something doesn't automatically make it a good idea. |
|
| |
right, [hippo] -- and my point was that 10 years out,
advances might
make Medicare For All (I should have said instead of
Universal Healthcare) affordable |
|
| |
Hey, if I can get back to this idea (which I like the basic
premise of)
for a second, I think there's probably a real way you can
be a naughty luddite and muck up these data miners on
Facebook or other social media. |
|
| |
Now they'd catch on to this eventually if they haven't
already, but when you get a second, just click that you
like "People's Lesbian Vegan Alliance For Social Justice"
then go over and click like for "Trump Lovin', Meat Huntin'
Fightin' F**kin' Truckin' Son's Of Bitches For The American
Way". |
|
| |
Just make it a matter of course to regularly click two
polar opposite ideological groups, movies, musicians,
politicians etc. |
|
| |
Worst case scenario they categorize you as "Completely
useless to anybody wanting useful, actionable information
on potential customers, suckers, voters, saps or mindless
drones." |
|
| |
[Dr Remulac III] See link. |
|
| |
With my approach, the same effect, plus they can’t tease
out ‘you’ vs. some random garbage account very easily. |
|
| |
Of course if any of these ideas to gum up the works
of these dumb data mining schemes is successful,
it'll
precipate a crash in these wildly over valued tech
stocks. |
|
| |
"Facebook and Google today announced that the
service they
provide is absolutely worthless. Stocks plummeted
over 3,000% upon release of this news prompting
the Dow to hire somebody who was, in the words
of one representative: "Better at knowing about
percentages and stuff." |
|
| |