ext_36450 (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
underlankers.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2014-03-01 09:21 am
underlankers.livejournal.com) wrote in talkpolitics2014-03-01 09:21 am
Entry tags:
Now the Long Knives are poised right in the back of Ukraine:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26400035
Fucking brilliant approach, this. First the attempt to play divide and conquer in Ukraine pretty transparently crashed and burned with the retun of Ukraine's Benazir Bhutto to political influence. Then, the Russians decide evidently that they really did move in Russian Army soldiers into the Crimea. Because the proper instinct when a risky gamble fails is to raise the stakes. This is not going to end well by any means. Now I'm wondering how long Lucashenko will have a country to rule as dictator, and what might happen with Round II with Georgia. If Tsar Vladimir I of the House of Putin succeeds in this kind of thing, that will only encourage him to expand his wars of aggression further because Ukraine is rather larger than Georgia, and this would permit Russia to begin aspiring to regain aspects of the old Tsarist boundaries. I sincerely expected Russia would use Central Asia for this kind of thing, not Ukraine.
The EU wouldn't give a damn about invading Muslims in Kazakhstan, but invading an EU state? That's not going to lead Russia to do anything but decide to engage in still-larger wars of aggression in the long term.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/europe/ukraine-politics/
And one of the chambers of the Russian legislature just approved this request. Hoo, boy.
Shit got real-er:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26403996
The Ukrainian Army is now on full combat alert. The prospect that the centennial year of the First World War will see the first large-scale conventional European war in decades has risen exponentially.
Fucking brilliant approach, this. First the attempt to play divide and conquer in Ukraine pretty transparently crashed and burned with the retun of Ukraine's Benazir Bhutto to political influence. Then, the Russians decide evidently that they really did move in Russian Army soldiers into the Crimea. Because the proper instinct when a risky gamble fails is to raise the stakes. This is not going to end well by any means. Now I'm wondering how long Lucashenko will have a country to rule as dictator, and what might happen with Round II with Georgia. If Tsar Vladimir I of the House of Putin succeeds in this kind of thing, that will only encourage him to expand his wars of aggression further because Ukraine is rather larger than Georgia, and this would permit Russia to begin aspiring to regain aspects of the old Tsarist boundaries. I sincerely expected Russia would use Central Asia for this kind of thing, not Ukraine.
The EU wouldn't give a damn about invading Muslims in Kazakhstan, but invading an EU state? That's not going to lead Russia to do anything but decide to engage in still-larger wars of aggression in the long term.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/europe/ukraine-politics/
And one of the chambers of the Russian legislature just approved this request. Hoo, boy.
Shit got real-er:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26403996
The Ukrainian Army is now on full combat alert. The prospect that the centennial year of the First World War will see the first large-scale conventional European war in decades has risen exponentially.
no subject
no subject
There is such a thing as being properly paranoid.
no subject
no subject
Conservatives were saying from the start that if we nationalize health care, it's only logical that there will have to be some sort of bureau or panel of appointees to determine who will be denied care.* Likewise that the bureau will be at serious risk of becoming politicized (as such organizations often are) due to the power controlling it would infer.
Liberals respond by calling conservatives liars, telling them that they're being paranoid, and say that there is nothing in the ACA as written about denying care to anyone.
Skip forward 5 years, the ACA has been passed, and suddenly liberals are talking about how we really ought to have a some sort of bureau or panel of appointees to determine who is to be denied care.
You can't rationally defend both statements.
no subject
Skip forward 5 years, the ACA has been passed, and suddenly liberals are talking about how we really ought to have a some sort of bureau or panel of appointees to determine who is to be denied care.
So, just to confirm here with your own words, there is no such thing.
Gotcha.
no subject
But you can't exactly claim that a policy that was seriously proposed and shot down is nothing more than a paranoid delusion either.
no subject
no subject
Sarah Palin made the argument that death panels were going to be instituted to put down the weak and infirm, non-productive members of society. She practically accused the ACA of instituting a 'T4' type policy.
"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. "
And then here's you taking it one step further, saying that some non-existent bureaucratic board will become a tool for political enforcers??
Yeah, to call that 'lying' is putting it mildly. There is no basis whatsoever to make that claim. Bonus points for whining about being called a liar, while simultaneously implying that "the left" has come around to the idea of rationing healthcare for nefarious political motivations.
Skip forward 5 years, the ACA has been passed, and suddenly liberals are talking about how we really ought to have a some sort of bureau or panel of appointees to determine who is to be denied care.
Yeah this one law student in Canada really sounds like he's (And by proxy, with no justification by you whatsoever, I guess the whole of the American Left??) arguing for a 'death panel' based on a patient's "level of productivity in society":
"the provincial legislature decided in 1996 to create a quasijudicial tribunal, the Consent and Capacity Board, to make these life-and-death decisions more quickly. If a patient’s substitute decision maker withholds consent, then doctors may apply to the board—comprised of lawyers, mental health professionals, and community members—for a determination that the proposed treatment is in the patient’s best interest. If so, the board has the power to consent on the patient’s behalf."
"Ontario’s Consent and Capacity Board provides an objective process for resolving these difficult, end-of-life dilemmas. The board is instructed by law to focus on the patient’s best interests, not the health care system’s, or the government’s bottom line."
You can't rationally defend both statements.
That's what happens when you set up a straw man.
no subject
That "the Left" paints any fears of rationing as paranoid delusion shows that they are either dishonest or irrational.
no subject
In the context of so-called death panels, I think nefarious is a completely appropriate moniker. Rationing is in no way comparable to that. If you think your definition is doing you any favors, it would apply to literally anything budget constrained, including every single economic good.
Or in other words, everything is death panels.
That "the Left" paints any fears of rationing as paranoid delusion shows that they are either dishonest or irrational.
The apparent fact that you think equivocation is a legitimate logical tool shows that you have no basis for judging rationality.
no subject
Congress? The White House? No and no. I have no need to rationally defend things that aren't happening.
no subject
IPAB and binding cost caps on both ACA and private healthcare providers were a popular topic during the September budget debates.
ETA:
Independent Payment Advisory Board