CPAC - the Coup Continues

[Shadowy Man]

Well, if it weren't for American Health Care, Stephan Hawkings would have died decades before he proved blackholes were actually just really dark dark dark gray ones. (I can't find the idiot that claimed as such... about American Health Care, a politician or propagandist)

Even as an astrophysicist, I would say that that might have been an acceptable sacrifice to be rid of the American style profit motive healthcare system for all the harm it has done to countless others.

 

[ZiprHead]

Well, if it weren't for American Health Care, Stephan Hawkings would have died decades before he proved blackholes were actually just really dark dark dark gray ones. (I can't find the idiot that claimed as such... about American Health Care, a politician or propagandist)

Stephen Hawking was a longtime champion of the NHS, but it was a glaring slip in the media that provoked one of his more memorable interventions. As the Obama administration sought to reform the US healthcare system in 2009, the US Investor’s Business Daily argued that Stephen Hawking “wouldn’t have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless”.

It was duly pointed out that Hawking was not only born and educated in England, but received more care than most from the nation’s health service. “I wouldn’t be here today if it were not for the NHS,” Hawking told the Guardian at the time. “I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived.”

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/mar/14/i-would-not-have-survived-nhs-enabled-stephen-hawking-to-live-long-life

 

[Stephen T-B]

From that article in the Guardian newspaper referred to by James Brown (Post #159)
"Pollock told the Guardian: “What we’re really worried about is changes in the model of care and quality of service, especially in areas of high deprivation. Practices may employ fewer GPs – and they may bring in substitutes for GPs like pharmacists and nurses – there may be cuts in services and reduced access, for example, closures of branch surgeries.”

"Operose confirmed the change of control, saying: “The care that we deliver to our patients and the services accessed through our surgeries will not change. We have followed all the required regulatory procedures, including obtaining consent from our CCGs. As a provider of NHS services, care remains free at the point of delivery. In addition, and as with all other GP services throughout the country, we will continue to be regulated and inspected by the Care Quality Commission."
Could be the thin edge of a wedge, but any attempts to introduce charging will meet with ferocious opposition, and I very much doubt oven our government has the stupidity to invite hostility and condemnation from all sides. (Though I could be wrong..,.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That seems like some American thing. US medical-insurance companies call the doctors and organizations that accept their insurance their company's "network", and they often charge more for anyone and anything "out of network".

Or out of network providers are not covered at all and you have to pay the entire bill and don't learn this until you get the bill.

My daughter fell down in her dorm room and hit her head. The EMTs said she was required to take an ambulance to the hospital to be checked out even though her dorm friend was willing to drive my daughter the whopping 1.2 miles to the ER. My daughter didn't know that she can refuse service and it turns out that the ambulance company is out of network for Aetna, my insurance.

We got a whopping $1500 ambulance bill. I consider that criminal.

I wouldn't consider the bill itself criminal (most of what you are paying for with an ambulance is the availability of the ambulance and all it's resources, not the ride itself--not to mention the callouts where nobody gets transported. When I got hit a few years ago someone in the other car called 911--I don't know what they said but police, EMS and an ambulance showed up. The accident was quite dramatic I ended up with nothing more than a pulled muscle and I'm sure nobody in the car that hit me was hurt in the slightest) but saying that it's required certainly sounds problematic to me. I've had a doctor want me to take an ambulance half a mile to the hospital, we said no and made our own way there.

And ambulances have little reason to sign on with the network as they are usually emergency cases where you don't get to pick them.

 

[bilby]

An odd conclusion...Our popular press was always dishonest, our much-envied medical system had been beset by perennial funding problems for decades, but the middle class was doing OK even after the 2008 bank bust-up.

After 2008, when UK citizens were suffering from a global recession, the UK government opted for Austerity, rather than Stimulation. The suffering only increased as the economy continued to free-fall. But after financial crises, nations tend to swing to the hard-right. Vulnerable people are susceptible to demagogues who blame the current crisis on Other People and who promise easy solutions. In the UK, the blame fell on Europeans, which led to Brexit

with which I generally agree...

which led to diminished trade, half-empty shipping trucks

That was a predication, dismissed as 'Project Fear" by the pro-Brexiteers which is very likely to come to pass, but Covid is an added element and disentangling the effects of the one (Brexit) from the other (Covid) isn't straightforward. Greater clarity will no doubt emerge in the months/years ahead.

and surprise four-figure bills from "out-of-network" medical specialists.

I know nothing about that.

I don't think that there's any doubt that the "project fear" predictions have already come to pass. The data on export volumes for the first quarter show effect of Covid+Brexit in the figures for UK to EU exports, and the effect of Covid alone for UK to Rest of the World excluding EU exports. The difference is huge, and there's only one plausible explanation for it.

Of course, as various transitional arrangements are still in force, the real impact will inevitably be worse than was reflected in the 2021Q1 data. It's such a massive disaster that even the Tories are going to struggle to pin it all on Covid, despite their abject lack of embarrassment about telling massive and easily debunked lies.

 

[Stephen T-B]

Historians may never agree as to the causes of the referendum result, but as a contemporary observer, I attribute it to these facts:
1) An insipient hostility to, and suspicion of, our European neighbours which transcends socio/economic divides and has, for many many decades, been reflected in and encouraged by sections of the media, which never balked at disseminating falsehoods and outright lies - two specialties of Boris Johnson during his career in journalism, and which he continued when he led the Brexit campaign, tinged as it was by xenophilia and a loathing of all things "Brussels" .

2) A blaming of the EU for the hardships and disappointments which resulted directly from the government's austerity measures introduced after the 2008 financial crisis.

3) A sense, among some Brexit supporters that Great Britain was diminished by its EU membership, was under the thumb of unelected EU bureaucrats and that freeing ourselves from them would restore a (delusional) "sovereignty".

I think the slide towards declining influence/shrinking status and diminishing prosperity will be fairly imperceptible, apart from the occasional jolt which will send out short-lived and soon-forgotten shockwaves.

 

[Swammerdami]

From the article I linked:

If you live in London, you might not know it, but you’re going to be getting American style healthcare bills soon. That’s because GP practices in London have been sold off to an American “health insurer.” That’s going to make Americans chuckle — because it’s crazy. Brits aren’t going to know what hit them when they get a bill for, say, $4000 for an X-ray. But of course that’s what’s coming, because American “health insurers” aren’t in it for human kindness, but for money. Who’s dumb enough to choose American style healthcare — despite having had the best healthcare system in the world? Britain is.

Is this really correct? Won't these American companies, whatever their faults, continue to follow NHS rules? Are they even allowed to bill NHS patients directly? Maybe government-agreed changes are coming eventually but "you’re going to be getting American style healthcare bills SOON" seems premature. Am I missing something?

 

[Stephen T-B]

James gave a link to the article - and yes, these US companies will have to follow NHS rules.

(Though who knows what might happen in a decade-or-so hence?)

 

[Gun Nut]

That seems like some American thing. US medical-insurance companies call the doctors and organizations that accept their insurance their company's "network", and they often charge more for anyone and anything "out of network".

Or out of network providers are not covered at all and you have to pay the entire bill and don't learn this until you get the bill.

My daughter fell down in her dorm room and hit her head. The EMTs said she was required to take an ambulance to the hospital to be checked out even though her dorm friend was willing to drive my daughter the whopping 1.2 miles to the ER. My daughter didn't know that she can refuse service and it turns out that the ambulance company is out of network for Aetna, my insurance.

We got a whopping $1500 ambulance bill. I consider that criminal.

I would attempt to respond to that in a litigious maner... The EMS worker likely is an employee of the same company that runs the ambulance... They should be threatened civil suit for committing fraud by misrepresenting the medical service they offered if they do not drop the fee, and depending on response a threat of legal action for kidnapping and medical assault if they fail to acquiesce.

 

[bilby]

Historians may never agree as to the causes of the referendum result, but as a contemporary observer, I attribute it to these facts:
1) An insipient hostility to, and suspicion of, our European neighbours which transcends socio/economic divides and has, for many many decades, been reflected in and encouraged by sections of the media, which never balked at disseminating falsehoods and outright lies - two specialties of Boris Johnson during his career in journalism, and which he continued when he led the Brexit campaign, tinged as it was by xenophilia and a loathing of all things "Brussels" .

2) A blaming of the EU for the hardships and disappointments which resulted directly from the government's austerity measures introduced after the 2008 financial crisis.

3) A sense, among some Brexit supporters that Great Britain was diminished by its EU membership, was under the thumb of unelected EU bureaucrats and that freeing ourselves from them would restore a (delusional) "sovereignty".

I think the slide towards declining influence/shrinking status and diminishing prosperity will be fairly imperceptible, apart from the occasional jolt which will send out short-lived and soon-forgotten shockwaves.

The reason for all of those three reasons is simple: The tabloid media and it's tiny number of wealthy owners.

The Daily Mail destroyed the United Kingdom, and is proud of it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

That seems like some American thing. US medical-insurance companies call the doctors and organizations that accept their insurance their company's "network", and they often charge more for anyone and anything "out of network".

Or out of network providers are not covered at all and you have to pay the entire bill and don't learn this until you get the bill.

My daughter fell down in her dorm room and hit her head. The EMTs said she was required to take an ambulance to the hospital to be checked out even though her dorm friend was willing to drive my daughter the whopping 1.2 miles to the ER. My daughter didn't know that she can refuse service and it turns out that the ambulance company is out of network for Aetna, my insurance.

We got a whopping $1500 ambulance bill. I consider that criminal.

I would attempt to respond to that in a litigious maner... The EMS worker likely is an employee of the same company that runs the ambulance... They should be threatened civil suit for committing fraud by misrepresenting the medical service they offered if they do not drop the fee, and depending on response a threat of legal action for kidnapping and medical assault if they fail to acquiesce.

We've only once ever called 911. By the time an ambulance arrived there was no longer a need to be treated or taken to hospital. I was asked to sign a paper documenting that I did not wish to be transported, which I did. Some few years later my employer instituted the same procedure for any person who was leaving for medical reasons, they could simply refuse to be transported. No doubt there is a liability issue.

I never received any bill for the ambulance coming to the house but I assume they did receive some compensation for responding to the emergency.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I haven't been defending anyone. I'm questioning why you are demanding some kind of action against them on the following grounds:

1. committed a crime,
2. established a pattern of being dangerous to our democracy,
3. been under investigation for bank fraud,
4. violated TOU agreements with social media platforms.

If you have some serious arguments for any of the above then lay them out. Personally, it scares me a bit that an organization such as CPAC, at the heart of one our two major parties, is administered by people who would choose to flaunt such an obvious symbol or white nationalism. But it's not an matter of free speech. We can't infringe on their right to say what they think. It's an issue of their veiled intent.

They made a Nazi symbol. According to what I learned on Talk Freethought, that is never accidental. According to what I learned on Talk Freethought, people who do that deserve to be cancelled even though they haven't actually committed any crimes.

Why are you defending Nazis?

 

[Treedbear]

I haven't been defending anyone. I'm questioning why you are demanding some kind of action against them on the following grounds:

1. committed a crime,
2. established a pattern of being dangerous to our democracy,
3. been under investigation for bank fraud,
4. violated TOU agreements with social media platforms.

If you have some serious arguments for any of the above then lay them out. Personally, it scares me a bit that an organization such as CPAC, at the heart of one our two major parties, is administered by people who would choose to flaunt such an obvious symbol or white nationalism. But it's not an matter of free speech. We can't infringe on their right to say what they think. It's an issue of their veiled intent.

They made a Nazi symbol. According to what I learned on Talk Freethought, that is never accidental. According to what I learned on Talk Freethought, people who do that deserve to be cancelled even though they haven't actually committed any crimes.

Why are you defending Nazis?

Back to my original question: What exactly do you intend for anyone to do in order to "cancel" them? What is this "action" you claim you were taught here that is required? Just come out and say it. And who is this NAZI you claim I'm defending?

 

[Elixir]

Back to my original question: What exactly do you intend for anyone to do in order to "cancel" them?

Libberpublicans are upset because they cancel themselves with their own hypocrisy. Then they get their panties in a wad because people with principles refuse to do that to themselves.

 

[Jarhyn]

I haven't been defending anyone. I'm questioning why you are demanding some kind of action against them on the following grounds:

1. committed a crime,
2. established a pattern of being dangerous to our democracy,
3. been under investigation for bank fraud,
4. violated TOU agreements with social media platforms.

If you have some serious arguments for any of the above then lay them out. Personally, it scares me a bit that an organization such as CPAC, at the heart of one our two major parties, is administered by people who would choose to flaunt such an obvious symbol or white nationalism. But it's not an matter of free speech. We can't infringe on their right to say what they think. It's an issue of their veiled intent.

They made a Nazi symbol. According to what I learned on Talk Freethought, that is never accidental. According to what I learned on Talk Freethought, people who do that deserve to be cancelled even though they haven't actually committed any crimes.

Why are you defending Nazis?

Back to my original question: What exactly do you intend for anyone to do in order to "cancel" them? What is this "action" you claim you were taught here that is required? Just come out and say it. And who is this NAZI you claim I'm defending?

Let's break this down again, for the lurkers:

C-PAC creates a design for a stage and commissions it. Someone builds that stage for C-PAC. Now JH is calling for the blood of the middle man, calls for "shooting the messenger" rather than the actual Nazis who had a Nazi rally.

This is transparently a deflection from the people who designed and commissioned the stage. I had never even heard of that perversion of the Odal rune before. And while I'm disappointed that ANYONE left of center worked with the C-PAC Nazis, I'm not shocked that they managed to slip a few dog-whistlings past "the help". Perhaps this should serve as an indication of why "cancel culture" is important: if you don't entirely cancel the Nazis, they will absolutely trick good people into helping them write messages of hate.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

People are still​ talking about the stage?!

 

[crazyfingers]

People are still​ talking about the stage?!

Amazing isn't it?

 

[bilby]

People are still​ talking about the stage?!

Amazing isn't it?

It's just a stage they're going through.

 

[Stephen T-B]

Historians may never agree as to the causes of the referendum result, but as a contemporary observer, I attribute it to these facts:
1) An insipient hostility to, and suspicion of, our European neighbours which transcends socio/economic divides and has, for many many decades, been reflected in and encouraged by sections of the media, which never balked at disseminating falsehoods and outright lies - two specialties of Boris Johnson during his career in journalism, and which he continued when he led the Brexit campaign, tinged as it was by xenophilia and a loathing of all things "Brussels" .

2) A blaming of the EU for the hardships and disappointments which resulted directly from the government's austerity measures introduced after the 2008 financial crisis.

3) A sense, among some Brexit supporters that Great Britain was diminished by its EU membership, was under the thumb of unelected EU bureaucrats and that freeing ourselves from them would restore a (delusional) "sovereignty".

I think the slide towards declining influence/shrinking status and diminishing prosperity will be fairly imperceptible, apart from the occasional jolt which will send out short-lived and soon-forgotten shockwaves.

The reason for all of those three reasons is simple: The tabloid media and it's tiny number of wealthy owners.

The Daily Mail destroyed the United Kingdom, and is proud of it.

If only it were that simple!

No-one is forced to buy the Mail; people do because they like it, and one of the reasons many of those people like it is because it chimes in with their own opinions.
In common with all our national papers, it doesn't form opinions so much as reflect them.

Politicians are undoubtedly influenced by the most popular sections of the press (which happen to be owned by people such as Murdoch and Harmsworth who use them to project their right-wing views) but there are occasions when our political leaders have shown resilience. For instance, in the period leading up World War 2, the Mail was pro-appeasement and anti-the "war monger" Churchill, an embarrassment which it hopes no-one now remembers...

 

[bilby]

Historians may never agree as to the causes of the referendum result, but as a contemporary observer, I attribute it to these facts:
1) An insipient hostility to, and suspicion of, our European neighbours which transcends socio/economic divides and has, for many many decades, been reflected in and encouraged by sections of the media, which never balked at disseminating falsehoods and outright lies - two specialties of Boris Johnson during his career in journalism, and which he continued when he led the Brexit campaign, tinged as it was by xenophilia and a loathing of all things "Brussels" .

2) A blaming of the EU for the hardships and disappointments which resulted directly from the government's austerity measures introduced after the 2008 financial crisis.

3) A sense, among some Brexit supporters that Great Britain was diminished by its EU membership, was under the thumb of unelected EU bureaucrats and that freeing ourselves from them would restore a (delusional) "sovereignty".

I think the slide towards declining influence/shrinking status and diminishing prosperity will be fairly imperceptible, apart from the occasional jolt which will send out short-lived and soon-forgotten shockwaves.

The reason for all of those three reasons is simple: The tabloid media and it's tiny number of wealthy owners.

The Daily Mail destroyed the United Kingdom, and is proud of it.

If only it were that simple!

No-one is forced to buy the Mail; people do because they like it, and one of the reasons many of those people like it is because it chimes in with their own opinions.
In common with all our national papers, it doesn't form opinions so much as reflect them.

Politicians are undoubtedly influenced by the most popular sections of the press (which happen to be owned by people such as Murdoch and Harmsworth who use them to project their right-wing views) but there are occasions when our political leaders have shown resilience. For instance, in the period leading up World War 2, the Mail was pro-appeasement and anti-the "war monger" Churchill, an embarrassment which it hopes no-one now remembers...

I disagree. The news media certainly forms opinions, particularly on 'big questions' that your average tabloid consumer would never even contemplate unless prompted to outrage by the press.