Jul 17, 2017 -- 12:16PM, InsiderTrader wrote:
Mainly machine learning. The climate models are not using any of the latest tech that is available. Even if they were they are simply too many unknowns to model. One slight change in your assumptions and whole outcome changes.It is a massive case of the politics and business getting ahead of the actual evidence.It is not like learning maths, or English or basic physics. Its political. That is why Gove tried to get it out of schools back in 2013. He failed and it is still being pushed to point no one in the next generation will dare to challenge it.
Okay, so what does the evidence tell you? You're not an expert in climate but you still know that those who are are wrong because their models aren't robust?
I'm assuming Breedingmad's point was that there might be quite a lot of benefits to managing to find renewable energy sources even if climate change science is wrong.
Jul 19, 2017 -- 7:47AM, InsiderTrader wrote:
FS,It is a room with G20 heads, their partners and one translator for each G20 head sitting behind if required.The setup is clear from the photo:http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170719084734-01-g20-dinner-tr... wife was sitting next to Putin. You can surely see this. She does not have a translator. It all looks very informal.Trump's wife had no translator. She is talking to Putin through his translator. Bad? Trump bad for walking round a talking to his wife and Putin?Every single conversation at the dinner had a transcript? This an open room. Their were never any other officals there. It is an informal dinner. If Trump had spoken to Merkel through her translator would you guys be complaining?If Merkel's translator was German to English could she not speak to the Japanese?
As I say, your questions are straw men and you've not answered mine. Trump is entitled to talk to whomever he likes. Personally I don't think this is a terribly big deal but you'd have to be wilfully blind not to see that it looks a bit dodgy for him to have a long one to one with Putin, given the context. Quite possibly they were just talking about how fit Macron's wife is but I do think it's revealing that Trump didn't see how this might look bad, or didn't care.
Still waiting on my other questions, by the way.
Jul 19, 2017 -- 12:15PM, InsiderTrader wrote:
A private chat in a room of 40+ people with TV cameras? Absolutely nothing wrong with what he did. No he was not stupid to do it.
Okay, disagree but as mentioned, I don't think this is a big deal. Health care, on the other hand...
Probably better for Trump that the bill has failed given that it went entirely against his campaign promises to extend Medicaid and would actually have cut it dramatically (in order to fund tax cuts for the wealthy and huge tax cuts for the very wealthy).
Jul 20, 2017 -- 7:07AM, InsiderTrader wrote:
tony57,That is the whole point. Trump is up against the establishment in Washington. Both the Dems and Reps did not want him. They wanted to keep the status quo gravy train. Like the MPs in this country mainly opposing Brexit.If it was up to the MPs we would never get Brexit. Same case with Trump and healthcare.I find it interesting you keep shifting the debate on when one of your MSM based talking points falls apart.
Don't buy this narrative, certainly around health care, where the Republican establishment has been rabidly anti Obamacare. They didn't sabotage getting a bill through because they don't like Trump. They've screwed up repeal and replace because, somewhat oddly, their leadership managed to produce a bill that failed to get the full support of either the more liberal wing of the Republican Party (still very right wing indeed by UK and European standards) or the lunatic Freedom Caucus. That it was staggeringly unpopular with the public clearly didn't help. I actually don't think most of this was Trump's fault, as complex policy making was never going to be something he was going to be competent to be involved in. Did anyone else hear him talk about the bill? He clearly had no clue about even broad brush stuff, let alone details.
My previous point about this was more that clearly Trump was incapable of getting most of his policy agenda through, in various contexts because he didn't have a policy agenda, or didn't have one that could be discerned through his multiple contradictory statements and in others, such as health care, because what he'd said he'd do would have been impossible for anything short of a political genius with a forest of money trees.
Jul 20, 2017 -- 5:01AM, pxb wrote:
pxb those 20 million people surely are the people that could not afford health insurance before Obamacare?You may have been sold that line, but like Australia, Obamacare had to impose heavy financial penalties on the young to make those 20 million take out insurance to pay for other people's healthcare. From Wlkipedia,Medicaid in the United States is a social health care program for families and individuals with limited resources. The Health Insurance Association of America describes Medicaid as a "government insurance program for persons of all ages whose income and resources are insufficient to pay for health care". Medicaid is the largest source of funding for medical and health-related services for people with low income in the United States, providing free health insurance to 74 million low-income and disabled people
It's a different group of people. The estimated 20m who'd have been taken out of Medicaid weren't young fit people being forced to pay for health insurance. Certainly though, Obamacare does force plenty of people to pay more to extend coverage for others. It's clearly a worse way of doing it than most other insurance based systems but Obama was starting from a hideously unfair, expensive and entrenched mess. Insurance systems of all kinds are fairly widely accepted as being less fair and less efficient than socialised systems like the NHS, which offers terrific value for money. Which is not to say those systems don't have their own massive problems.
On the subject of political interference in the NHS, I'm rather conflicted. The problem is that you can't easily just take politics out of health care and leave it in the hands of an arms length body because then how do you regulate and control that body and how do you determine funding, which is going to be coming from the government? Having said that, the habitual redisorganisation of the NHS makes some kind of protection very appealing indeed.
Jul 22, 2017 -- 2:46PM, pxb wrote:
Slogger, this may interest you.http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-22/does-britain-have-worlds-best-health-system-only-if-you-ignore-outcomes
Interesting but profoundly flawed polemic. Don't even know where to start with it, really and may just make a couple of key points in rebuttal.
1. The argument about free health care removing the incentive not to seek treatment is to an extent a fair one but actually applies far more to non socialised health care systems than the NHS, which will essentially tell you to get lost if you don't meet clinical criteria, including particularly those specified by the admirably conceived and evidence driven NICE. In paid systems there isn't just an incentive for the patient to get something for free once he's paid for insurance but also, more crucially, a perverse incentive for the provider to offer ineffective or even harmful investigations and treatments, because that's how they maximise income. Insurers try to combat this, of course, with more or less success but it's hard to battle against the drive from both patients and providers to do more.
2. If the central thesis is that you judge a health system by health outcomes, then while that's superficially attractive, it ignores the fact that public health is not largely the preserve of health care systems. The single biggest change to health outcomes in history, for example, was the development of sewage systems to protect drinking water from contamination. What people eat, drink, smoke and how much they exercise is, if it's in any way the responsibility of public policy (I suspect the author might argue that it isn't), isn't that of health care systems but of wider government. The debate on minimum unit pricing of alcohol in the U.K. is a pertinent example. For example, a large proportion of patients dying of myocardial infarction will be dead at home or in the street without having had any recent contact with health services at all beforehand. The prevalence of the Mediterranean diet in Spain (used in the article) and the Grant C King diet in the U.K. probably account for the difference in outcomes far more than the respective health systems.
You need to open an account before you can add content to the forum.
Opening an account only takes a few minutes.