So, Cambridge Analytica and all that claims to have personality profiles on 200 million+ Americans. These claims are a bit doubtful, because of the tendency for some of that data to be a bit half- baked in origin. Nonetheless, poisoning the well by creating a billion more bots and trolls with random, believable data seems to be a good idea. The KKKambridge Spamalytica firm will do just that, perhaps by outsourcing the work to the Russians and North Koreans...-- RayfordSteele, Mar 20 2018 Obama talking about how only an idiot like Trump would think Russia or anybody else could influence an election. https://www.youtube...watch?v=cruh2p_Wh_4Can't make this stuff up. I especially like the smarmy, self righteous arrogance as he dressed down anybody who would accuse Russia of even being capable of interfering with our elections. [doctorremulac3, Mar 21 2018] Hey Republicans! Shut up and accept the loss for the sake of democracy! https://www.politic...kennedy-1960-214395Written days before the Hillary / Trump election. [doctorremulac3, Mar 21 2018] Use_20cookies_20to_...tes_20look_20better [hippo, Mar 23 2018] 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-- theircompetitor, Mar 20 2018 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.-- RayfordSteele, Mar 20 2018 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!"-- pertinax, Mar 21 2018 Baked by the Kremlin, as used by the Whitehouse.-- xenzag, Mar 21 2018 I agree with [pertinax] - much of the claimed power of this kind of approach is just marketing guff-- hippo, Mar 21 2018 //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.-- Skewed, Mar 21 2018 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.-- theircompetitor, Mar 21 2018 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.-- RayfordSteele, Mar 21 2018 // 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.-- calum, Mar 21 2018 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.-- hippo, Mar 21 2018 // 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.-- 8th of 7, Mar 21 2018 So says the hegemonic swarm drone...-- RayfordSteele, Mar 21 2018 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.-- theircompetitor, Mar 21 2018 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?-- reensure, Mar 21 2018 //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.-- doctorremulac3, Mar 21 2018 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.-- RayfordSteele, Mar 21 2018 //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.-- doctorremulac3, Mar 21 2018 // JFK's mobster father Joseph Kennedy //
Nothing was ever proved.
Of course today, with DNA testing, it would be possible to show conclusively if Joe was really JFK's father ...-- 8th of 7, Mar 21 2018 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.-- doctorremulac3, Mar 21 2018 // 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!-- reensure, Mar 21 2018 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.-- doctorremulac3, Mar 21 2018 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?
what a joke this is.-- theircompetitor, Mar 21 2018 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?-- RayfordSteele, Mar 21 2018 there's tons of garbage in every election and FB has made this things worse.
So let me ask:
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?
I mean seriously?-- theircompetitor, Mar 21 2018 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!"-- doctorremulac3, Mar 21 2018 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.-- RayfordSteele, Mar 21 2018 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.
Do you have it?
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.-- doctorremulac3, Mar 21 2018 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.-- RayfordSteele, Mar 21 2018 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.-- doctorremulac3, Mar 21 2018 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.-- xenzag, Mar 21 2018 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.
We shall overcome.-- theircompetitor, Mar 21 2018 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.-- RayfordSteele, Mar 21 2018 //I will tolerate no collusion on the part of anyone with a foreign nation, especially not a sworn enemy.//
Unless it's Hillary.
//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?-- doctorremulac3, Mar 21 2018 Watching the Circle. Kind of interesting. Reality is simpler, isn't it?-- theircompetitor, Mar 21 2018 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.-- RayfordSteele, Mar 21 2018 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.-- doctorremulac3, Mar 21 2018 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-- theircompetitor, Mar 21 2018 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.-- RayfordSteele, Mar 21 2018 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.-- doctorremulac3, Mar 21 2018 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.-- RayfordSteele, Mar 21 2018 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.-- theircompetitor, Mar 21 2018 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.-- RayfordSteele, Mar 22 2018 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.-- theircompetitor, Mar 22 2018 //...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.-- hippo, Mar 22 2018 They were bankrupt a long, long, long time before that.-- RayfordSteele, Mar 22 2018 [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).-- theircompetitor, Mar 22 2018 //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.-- Skewed, Mar 22 2018 // 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?-- reensure, Mar 22 2018 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?-- theircompetitor, Mar 22 2018 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.-- Skewed, Mar 22 2018 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.-- theircompetitor, Mar 22 2018 //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.-- Skewed, Mar 22 2018 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.-- RayfordSteele, Mar 22 2018 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.-- theircompetitor, Mar 22 2018 // 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".-- 8th of 7, Mar 22 2018 //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.-- hippo, Mar 22 2018 // 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.-- 8th of 7, Mar 22 2018 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-- theircompetitor, Mar 22 2018 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."
Good eh?-- doctorremulac3, Mar 22 2018 [Dr Remulac III] See link.-- hippo, Mar 23 2018 Bunned it.-- doctorremulac3, Mar 23 2018 With my approach, the same effect, plus they can’t tease out ‘you’ vs. some random garbage account very easily.-- RayfordSteele, Mar 23 2018 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."-- doctorremulac3, Mar 23 2018 random, halfbakery