I have long opposed the EU data privacy regulations, but have to admit that this issue is an excellent result of those. It seems to actually have the potential of making the US security apparatus a bit more accountable. Hopefully it will also lead other US citizens to have a similar reaction to the their government that I do: shame.
I'm always surprised there isn't more coverage of this. We love to focus on how polarized the court is, but a surprising number of decisions are unanimous or near unanimous.
not everything on their docket has the same weight of importance as the other things on their docket, nearly everyone thinks the thing on the docket that they care about is more important than the other thing
just something to keep in mind when someone is trying to get you to pay attention to their cause
That’s because most of the decisions are like this one: “hey, I think this law is being interpreted wrongly” and then the Court says “no idea how you read it like that, it says this”. As they say in the closing statement, “We reiterate that today’s decision addresses only the narrow question whether §1806(f ) displaces the state secrets privilege. Because we conclude that §1806(f ) does not have that effect under either party’s interpretation of the statute, we do not decide which interpretation is correct. Nor do we decide whether the Government’s evidence is privileged or whether the District Court was correct to dismiss respondents’ claims on the pleadings.” This is how most of them come down, and how most of them should come down: “Congress wrote it like this, if you want to change it, get Congress to pass a new law”.
Where is the media money in unanimous or near unanimous coverage? A lot of the media model is around shocking news to pull in eyeballs to make more money. Outrage increases engagement and what's outrageous about the court being on the same page?
Of note: one of the co-authors of this article, Patrick Toomey, is a US Senator (R-Pennsylvania). The fact that someone in Congress is involved in this issue increases, however marginally, the odds that it will be addressed.
[edit] It appears I was mistaken, because The Hill website was also mistaken. Same name, different guy.
Are you sure it's the same Patrick Toomey? The article describes his bio as Senior Staff Attorney with the ACLU's National Security Project and legal Co-Counsel on the case in question. Presumably if the author were also a US Senator they would have mentioned it.
I know of a family with three generations of people with same First Middle Last name, but since grandfather goes by First, father goes by First Middle and grandson goes by Middle, there's no actual confusion.
I think the EU should be careful about overplaying its hand with respect to this agreement.
Especially with the the current economic situation, the EU is likely to be more heavily dependent on the US for energy (natural gas). In addition, the largest EU country (Germany) is very heavily export dependent.
If this escalates into a trade war, the EU would be on the losing side.
> If one studies the history of European countries you'll find bending over is the outlier.
Before or after 1945?
Before 1945(and especially before 1918), I agree. After 1945, the experiences of losing a generation in the crucibles of WWI and WWII seems to have broken the European martial spirit. Europe has done a lot of bending over since 1945 (decolonization was not because of some moral enlightenment, but mainly because they did not have the resources to continue with it). See Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. See Suez Canal. See Bosnia where Europe could not intervene to stop a genocide in its own backyard.
The US has begged for years for the EU to take their national security more seriously, even just the bare minimum required under the NATO treaty which most nations have not actually done.
instead they used that money to increase social spending happy to allow the US Tax Payer to fund their security...
I was really surprised how that was seen as a "far right" view
well because the guy that would actually say it ran on a far right platform, but I think its still odd how people aren't willing to separate various causes
or more so that its disappointing that we don't have a consensus mechanism that allows us to express interest in some causes while rejecting others and still getting a head of state that represents all of the chosen platforms
These days "far right" has lost all meaning when people commonly label even people that share what was mainstream 1990's democrat policy platform views as "far right"
What is considered "right" in US Politics is sooo encompassing that it likely include 80% of the population. As the people that label everyone "far right" do not realize just how out of touch they are in their twitter echo chamber
Federalism has been finished since the national government discovered that all commerce is interstate commerce
Any activity of a state or individual is merely tolerated for the sake of future consensus making, but when more convenient the national government will curb stomp any state into compliance as if that state were a middle eastern country enriching uranium
This! I too am having to come to terms with being a fellow libertarian cosplayer. It sucks. But at this point I am willing to give up dogma to try and make this country better because whatever is going on now is not working, and is not making things any more small L liberal, from either side of the isle.
I’m more of a consensus maker, ideas I suggest and the way I present them results in all-partisan support, including in the US. I think we overlap in the observation that disunity is unproductive. For me its been a great opening that entrenched special interests moved to far extremes of their parties and ideologies, opportunity of a lifetime since the center became unguarded. So I do have an uncommon view of what reality could be, but I’d rather not have that taken as libertarian. That assumption undermines my consensus making ability :)
>> but it needs to remain in EU's good graces, if it wants to maintain its hegemony.
I dont think that is true, and in reality hitching our (the US) future to the EU's idiosyncrasies will likely lead to the US losing power not keeping it
EU is at best a Fair weather ally to the US. UK rightfully saw the problem with the EU and pulled out, I personally that that was the right move for the UK.
I think NATO is a better organizing body, and alliance than the EU. I think we will continue to see EU as a governing body reduce in power. Economic Free Trade and NATO will remain but there are structural issues with the EU as a Federation or what ever they consider themselves
> I dont think that is true, and in reality hitching our (the US) future to the EU's idiosyncrasies will likely lead to the US losing power not keeping it
Hard disagreement. The US is becoming less and less economically relevant, with the rise of the developing world. It used to be nearly half of the world's GDP - over two thirds, when combined with Western Europe. It's now at under a quarter (much lower when adjusted for PPP), and is utterly reliant on developing world supply chains for its most basic products - and its not doing so under the kind of gunpoint trade terms that the colonial empires of the 19th and 20th centuries could impose on their subjects.
If Europe's status drops to being an ally of convenience, I expect the sun to set on the American empire in about two decades.
I think that is likely going to happen anyway, The political leadership of the US has no desire do to what is required to keep power. They like the business world are too focused on the short term, in the case of politicians it is the next election, in the case of business it is the quarterly earning statements
Neither are looking at a 20, 10 or even 5 year picture.
US politicians publicly say they have a short-term focus, but the bureaucracy (Department of State, in particular) has a much longer view that has very little bearing on political campaign promises.
On the first week of the war, I thought that NATO was played like a fiddle. On the second week of the war, when the US demonstrated its ability to galvanize most of the world into unprecedented, crippling sanctions, it became clear to me that it still punches way above its weight, when it comes to soft power - because of its allies.
Yep. Never underestimate soft power. The UK managed to stay relevant for much longer than reasonable thanks to soft power. Even France, at the end of the Napoleonic Wars, managed to survive being invaded by all of Europe, solely on soft power.
It's interesting, because the EU also considers the US at best a fair weather ally, when not a bully. And that was before Trump.
During the Trump presidency, the EU was strongly considering the fact that the US could turn into an enemy any day, without any further warning. Kinda what happened with Russia, who was an economic partner and turned into an enemy without any further warning.
US literally had a trade representative tell Volkswagen to move their engine manufacturing facility to US, or face heavy import duties.
US is not free from being taken over by a national populist. Currently the highest rated TV show in US is run by a national conservative. Thank god, that American institutions are stronger than Donny, but had he been in office for another 4 years - it would have been dire.
This is not a helpful comment. The Trumpian Republican party is here to stay, and it's very easy to imagine it being quite damaging to European interests and security once it's back in power. If there's one thing that the Trumpian right has shown is an appetite for the exercise of naked power, without any mask of moral pretences.
It's unfortunate that this was the take by EU politicians when everyone's favorite villain, Trump, was telling the EU nations to increase its NATO spending to the 2% guideline and was telling Germany to get off its Russian gas addiction or face the consequences. [1]
Well, Germany (and its politicians: shown laughing at Trump in the video) are now paying the consequences of blindly walking into yet another trade deal with yet another autocratic power. [2]
You'd think playing host to the horrors of WWII would have taught Germany a lesson or two of the consequences of such powers but no, it's business as usual. [3]
The naivety of the EU in global politics would be laughable if it wasn't directly funding the artillery barrages and murder of more than a hundred children now by Russia.
I had several paragraphs to try and explain how scary Trump was for the rest of the world. I've deleted them because I don't want to enter an endless debate.
Just know that, for dozens of reasons, in Europe, the Trump administration was seen as irrational and dangerous to his allies. These views were shared by both Progressives and Conservatives, throughout Europe, even to a large extent in the UK. In comparison, Putin was seen as more rational, hence a more measurable danger.
It is now clear that the latter assessment was wrong. Regarding the former, the jury is still out.
Both assessments were clearly wrong, Out side of Harse words on twitter I would love to have anyone point to actual policy positions / actions that the Trump Administration took that put the world or the EU in greater danger?
This was an attempt to predict future behavior of Donald Trump based on past/present behavior, taking into account the possibility of Donald Trump remaining president for a second mandate.
If you recall, as seen from Europe, Donald Trump was:
- exhibiting a number of traits typically attributed to fascism (using Umberto Eco's classification, I count a perfect 14/14 for Trump, based on speeches I've seen him deliver);
- friendly relationships with many authoritarian/dictatorship governments (including Putin's Russia), hostile relationships/threats towards democracies (including most of the EU);
- a tendency to betray allies and leave them to die (I'm thinking of Kurds, but abandoning Afghanistan is a joint Trump-Biden venture);
- generally, a strong tendency to use international relationships as a pedestal to cater to the subset of his supporters that had no clue about international relationships and cheered him whenever he rattled his saber, threatened his allies and started a trade war that absolutely no sense.
While none of these points definitely meant that Donald Trump was dangerous to the EU, at some point, EU leaders started wondering exactly on which side the US were. They would have been crazy not to.
>>- exhibiting a number of traits typically attributed to fascism
Only if you actively misunderstand, or more likely only listen to selected clips by mainstream media
>>- friendly relationships with many authoritarian/dictatorship governments (including Putin's Russia), hostile relationships/threats towards democracies (including most of the EU);
Trump foreign policy was returning America to what it should have been all along, Free Trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none. Heeding the words of our first president. Clearly he could not just pull out of decades of entangling alliances but he was signalling a desire to reduce our entangling alliances, and increase our trade. I support that, and I can see why the EU would worry about that but not for the reasons you seem to think
>>- a tendency to betray allies and leave them to die
You believe that started with Trump? That has been a mainstay of US foreign policy at least since WWII, it was not even the first time we fucked over the Kurds.
As to Afghanistan, I lay the blame for that about 80% at the feet of biden and 20% at trump, The pull out could have been done ALOT better, and I think a Trump administration would have done a better job of it.
I 100% support the decision to leave.
>>- generally, a strong tendency to use international relationships as a pedestal to cater to the subset of his supporters that had no clue about international relationships and cheered him whenever he rattled his saber, threatened his allies and started a trade war that absolutely no sense.
I disagreed with the Tariffs, however I absolutely supported his desire to increase our manufacturing base in the US, and hold other nations accountable for their abuse of trade policy at the expense of the US which has been going on since at least Bill Clinton if not longer. The US has and continues to be asked to "sacrifice" our prosperity for the good of the world while other nations refuse to do even a fraction of what the US does, and even when we meet the goals often the rest of our "partners" like the EU pants the US as a bully, as evil, as the problem. Frankly we need a president to stand up for the US.
>EU leaders started wondering exactly on which side the US were
The side of the US citizen, first time in a long time the US President stood up for the US Citizen, not global corporations, or globalism
> Only if you actively misunderstand, or more likely only listen to selected clips by mainstream media
I watched entire speeches by Donald Trump. Were they representative? I have no idea. Were they scary? Not all of them. But a sufficient number that I stand by my estimate of a perfect 14/14. I'll let you check on Umberto Eco's scale to see if something is missing.
> Trump foreign policy was returning America to what it should have been all along, *Free Trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none*
(emphasis mine)
Interestingly, this is exactly what the EU has been moving towards for the past few decades. Hence the attempt to not be economically dependent from the US. Hence the refusal to take part in the trade war against China. I remember how France was – and, to some extent still is – covered with mud in US media for refusing to take part in the Invasion of Irak (forgot whether it was the first or second), but that was also a symptom of the same. Hence the balancing act with buying some things from Russia that the EU could also have bought from the US.
Selling weapons to Russia and buying gas from them? Didn't turn out so well, we can all agree. The alternative to buying gas from Russia was nuclear power, which would have been much better, but got much maligned after Three Miles Island, Tchernobyl and Fukushima. This will happen, eventually, but too late.
> I can see why the EU would worry about that but not for the reasons you seem to think
I realize that the way I wrote my post could have been clearer. While I can't escape writing some of what I think (in particular, the Umberto Eco scale of fascism), the general idea was to explain what EU leaders think, as far as I understand.
These worries are not personal to me.
On the other hand, yes, what you're pointing out is also true. Life without an alliance with the US is a scary perspective. And the EU has been quite slow to build its own army, relying too much on the fact that it is a nuclear alliance and has a large intersection with NATO.
I believe that, if Putin's invasion hadn't happened, EU countries would slowly have left NATO and concentrated on building a unified army. I hope that the latter will happen nevertheless.
> You believe that started with Trump? That has been a mainstay of US foreign policy at least since WWII, it was not even the first time we fucked over the Kurds.
Maybe? Also, you already pointed out (with different vocabulary) that, under Donald Trump, the US preferred isolationism. Does this mean that we agree that the US is not a reliable ally for Europe, especially under Trump?
> I 100% support the decision to leave.
I actually support that decision. But I think we can agree that leaving could have been done much, much better.
> I disagreed with the Tariffs, however I absolutely supported his desire to increase our manufacturing base in the US, and hold other nations accountable for their abuse of trade policy at the expense of the US which has been going on since at least Bill Clinton if not longer. The US has and continues to be asked to "sacrifice" our prosperity for the good of the world while other nations refuse to do even a fraction of what the US does, and even when we meet the goals often the rest of our "partners" like the EU pants the US as a bully, as evil, as the problem. Frankly we need a president to stand up for the US.
I had a scathing (and, frankly, rather stupid) reply for this.
And then I realized one thing. I find this line of "The US has and continues to be asked to "sacrifice" our prosperity for the good of the world while other nations refuse to do even a fraction of what the US does" extremely interesting. Because I've heard this line being repeated over and over:
- in the US, recently, by Trump-style Republicans;
- in the EU, recently, by far right parties;
- in the UK, recently, by the Brexit party (didn't Thatcher use that line, too, some time ago, now th...
>> Trump foreign policy was returning America to what it should have been all along, Free Trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none
> (emphasis mine)
> Interestingly, this is exactly what the EU has been moving towards for the past few decades. Hence the attempt to not be economically dependent from the US. Hence the refusal to take part in the trade war against China.
This fits with my original conclusion that the EU is hopelessly naive when it comes to global politics. Imagine someone with the bright idea to "diversify" so for the sake of diversity they sell half their energy imports to a dictatorship (this is actually what Germany did). It's quite obviously unwise, at least but they do it anyway because of that magic word "diversify".
If I can compare it to my own profession it's like a DevOps guy coming up with the bright idea to go multi-cloud, a tarpit where engineering hours go to die and which most often makes the stack more brittle not less.
Let's move on to Merkel and her magic stroke of genius to sell the EU on more of China, not less. Another bright mind walks in and declares, "with China on our side, we'll never have to worry about those bastards over in the US, protecting our ocean trade with their carrier fleets". Yet China is not a good partner, we know this already from their too-sensitive reproaches to such sovereign nations as Australia.
Every time the EU gets bit. It's as if they don't realize that the foundations of autocracy are poison and any partnership, especially one that puts the junior at risk of coercion, is doomed.
When will they ever learn? When will Germany, a land with personal experience in power-mad dictators learn that the price you pay for throwing your lot in with such company is paid for in blood?
You are right, obviously, but I suspect that you're underestimating the complexity of the situation.
On one end of the spectrum, one may imagine Europe allying entirely with Putin's Russia (or with China, or with any other dictatorship). That's obviously bad. You can live like this for a very long time, but that way leads eventual subjugation, through violence or otherwise. That's the choice of countries that join the Silk Road.
On the other end of the spectrum, one may imagine Europe letting the US take all the decisions and being entirely dependent on the US for many critical imports. In other words, becoming a dominion of the US. Certainly better than an invasion, but a far cry from independence.
To illustrate, I have heard it said and repeated that the UK has stopped being independent. That any meaningful choice on British policy is actually taken in Washington. I have no clue whether that is actually true, but let us assume for a second that it is, or may be in the future. If that's the case, this means that voting for anything other than local elections is pointless. That the UK is in a limbo, not a democracy anymore, not really a police state, either.
Again,let me emphasize: I do not claim that this represents reality. I only claim that this something that many countries around the globe fear when they talk about the US. And, let's be frank, many of these countries also fear it when they talk about European countries.
So, if you're a democracy, in Europe or elsewhere, how do you remain independent? Obviously, you want to ally with a strong country (e.g. US) against known predators (e.g. Russia) and suspected predators (e.g. China, Turkey). But you also want to guard against too much dependence on your protector (Russia, China, but also the US and European countries, for instance, have been known to use and abuse leverage for political control). You also want to guard against election interference from the your protector (European countries have been doing this all over Africa, while CIA declassified documents confirm that CIA has been involved in election interference all over Europe since its founding – undoubtedly also true of KGB/FSB, but they don't declassify their documents).
Of course, if you spend too much time looking over your shoulder at your allies because you don't trust them, you risk delivering yourself to your predator.
Remaining independent is a complicated balancing act that most countries, not just Europe, play as well as they can. Germany's recent fumble shows how complicated but not that it's unnecessary.
I will freely admit I am not versed on that, however in my very very brief reading of the idea's I think there is a lot of subjectivity in application, and one it seems to me right now one would have to look at Trumps words in the most unfavorable understanding of them to achieve that score, you have to weak man his speeches and rhetoric to get there. You have to come into the speech looking for anything to justify the score.
I would have to research more to say more, but when most people hear fascism they think Nazi's... That is also what the US Media rhetoric was for 4 years. I however see non of that in the Trump presidency, nor do I see any policy positions that were wildly different that other presidents or even Biden today.
In fact some of the immigration policies that the media and others lambasted Trump for as "fascist" or "Nazi" have been continued and even expanded by Biden, others were carry overs from Obama so....
So while you may get that from Umberto Eco's scale, for which I am unfamiliar, I do not see it or accept that conclusion on a layman's view of fascism
>> EU countries would slowly have left NATO and concentrated on building a unified army.
Germany would love that, and that is one of the reasons UK left. If it happens the EU needs to reform under a more Federalist model like the US. Its current model it would be a disaster to form a single military
The EU either needs to reform its governance to a Federalist Republic like the US, or it needs to take over NATO like structure for is over arching military.
Attempting a single defense structure under the current European Union structure would never work
>It would be interesting to try and see where this discourse originates from.
Many many many things, on core one was the shipping and outsourcing of middle class jobs via unfavorable trade deals allowed by a government that supported globalism and global corporations over the needs of the citizens. That would be where the issue started. I would say it really kicked off in the 1990's when trade started to ramp way up with China.
But there are other examples, most recently Climate Change is a good example. US has improved and continues to drastically improve its carbon footprint, but no matter what we do it is never enough, no people want us to hamstring our economy, wants us to kill our economic output, and want us to lower our standard of living
While making exceptions for other economies for all manner of seemingly rational reasons. However rational they are the end result is the same, the sacrifice of US prosperity
Then of course you have the topic of expecting to be the world police and then called a bully if we take any action, The world wants us there to Stop Russia, but they expect us to do that with out thanks, with out having any input to their actions, their governance, or etc... Hell they want us to thank them for the privilege of being able to send our citizens to die for their nation....
>>So, if I understand correctly, you're basically agreeing with EU leaders that Trump's US was not a reliable ally? Perhaps not an ally at all?
I guess that would depend on what you mean by an "ally". If you mean trade partner and willing to come to the EU defense military if needed provided they at least tried to defend themselves... I think the US under Trump would make a fine ally under that definition
If you mean a EU doorstop, to provide the common defense of the EU, asking or expecting nothing in return, and allowing the EU to ignore our national interests on the world stage while they enjoy the protection we provide... then no Trump would not have made for a good Ally.. and the EU is used to the former, where I would prefer the former
> In fact some of the immigration policies that the media and others lambasted Trump for as "fascist" or "Nazi" have been continued and even expanded by Biden, others were carry overs from Obama so....
I'm not going to defend media. I think that most of them are doing a very bad job, whether they're catering to left-wing bubbles or right-wing bubbles. This seems to be worse in the US than in Europe, but we're getting there, too.
Now, I do not know exactly why you and I focus on different things in political figure's speeches, but you seem to be very much more of a (political) believer than anybody I know. While I always vote, and while I grudgingly respect some candidates, I know that I haven't trusted anyone in a while. In particular, whenever I read the written statements of a candidate (and I pretty much always do before voting) or when I listen to their speeches (less often), I always work at decoding them. I listen to what they say, to what they imply, to who they flatter, to what they don't say, to the promises they make because that is what they intend to do and to those they make simply to sow doubt in the opposition. So far, while I can't claim perfection, my decoding of elected officials has proven fairly accurate.
If you're interested in such an exercise, I suggest reading propaganda from other countries (that helps keeping it dispassionate) and/or older historical periods. It's very interesting. For one thing, it's pretty much the same propaganda, repeated all over space-time, just with some name-changing.
> So while you may get that from Umberto Eco's scale, for which I am unfamiliar, I do not see it or accept that conclusion on a layman's view of fascism
That is, of course, your right. But, out of curiosity, how would you detect if a US candidate was actually a fascist? Or, maybe, to keep it more remote and make things a bit less passionate, if an Austrian candidate was actually a fascist?
> Germany would love that, and that is one of the reasons UK left. If it happens the EU needs to reform under a more Federalist model like the US. Its current model it would be a disaster to form a single military
I happen to be in favour of that, so I'm not going to contradict you :)
> Many many many things, on core one was the shipping and outsourcing of middle class jobs via unfavorable trade deals allowed by a government that supported globalism and global corporations over the needs of the citizens. That would be where the issue started. I would say it really kicked off in the 1990's when trade started to ramp way up with China.
Maybe, but I'm fairly certain that I already heard/read such speeches from the 80s. I don't claim that this is when they started but my personal suspicion is that Reagan/Thatcher both giving such speeches and ramped up globalism and that the reason for which they were adopting such language is the oil shock of the mid-70s, which caused stagflation, hence discontent among the lower- and middle-classes.
> But there are other examples, most recently Climate Change is a good example. US has improved and continues to drastically improve its carbon footprint, but no matter what we do it is never enough, no people want us to hamstring our economy, wants us to kill our economic output, and want us to lower our standard of living
I've heard Donald Trump make such claims. I actually have no clue where he gets that from. My suspicion as a cynical middle-aged guy is that this is more part of a strategy to cater to specific groups of voters (e.g. everybody whose living is based on coal, directly or indirectly) and build a shared identity as victims of bad actors than actual fact.
It's interesting, because on the same topic, in Europe, with the exception of far-left and far-right, the overall message is closer to "let's create jobs with green industries". And recently, of course, "let's use green industr...
> That is, of course, your right. But, out of curiosity, how would you detect if a US candidate was actually a fascist? Or, maybe, to keep it more remote and make things a bit less passionate, if an Austrian candidate was actually a fascist?
Gasp, too late to edit this.
Well, I wanted to emphasize that I do not believe that Trump is a fascist, per se. Unfortunately, it's not as much of an endorsement as it sounds: I also do not believe that all the leaders of the various fascist parties that took over Europe around WWII were necessarily fascists themselves, just as I do not believe that Stalin was particularly communist. I believe some of them were power-hungry sociopaths who saw an opening created by fascists (or communists, for Stalin) and used it to climb to power.
Now, what I do believe is that Donald Trump is employing the entire fascist vocabulary, in an attempt to voluntarily cater to the people who really are fascists (or close enough that the distinction is pointless) among both his voter base, his militants and his election machine. I have no idea how many people this represents but I believe that Donald Trump does. And I believe that using the real fascists in an attempt to reach/keep power is at the very least irresponsible, because it mechanically gives some power to the real fascists, as well as a very real path to ultimate power.
That feels as dangerous as, say, buying gas from the neighboring expansionist dictator.
I also believe that people should keep calling each other fascists/communists (am I being guilty of that?), especially without understanding what it means, but that's another debate.
That's...not how any of this works. The NATO 2% guideline doesn't apply until 2024, and European countries don't need to skimp on defence in order to fund social services, in fact things like universal healthcare actually work out cheaper (the US pays something like double what European countries pay as a proportion of GDP, while getting worse outcomes). Ironically, if the US adopted "socialized" medicine, it would actually have more money to spend on defence.
One the "better outcomes" is actually debatable due to a whole host of factors, including that American are generally less healthy not because of our healthcare system but because we have large amounts of high processed high carb food with little excersise which is not the case in the EU.
The only way the US would "save" money on socialize care is if they highly regulated and heavily taxed "bad food" which I am sure you would support but I dont as I oppose using the tax code for social goals
If you look at stats that take into account these factors the US health system is the best in the world. better Cancer Survivor rates, Lower wait times, faster times to specialists, lower Doctor to Patient counts, Semi-private hospital rooms standard, etc, etc.
Also looking a Total spend as a % of GDP is completely moronic statistic to compare as well, and there is NO WAY the government could socialize health care and capture anywhere near the amount of money to pay for it in taxation. Not even close, to believe that you have to ignore all of recorded tax history.
First, the USA has socialized medicine, but in the most expensive yet most ineffective way, and that is in the ER. American ERs can not legally turn patients away for inability to pay. Anyone that tries to argue against socialized healthcare in the USA is making a pointless argument, we already have it. They are just arguing against "effective" socialized medicine.
If I take the opinion of McDonalds customers, they will tell me McDonalds has much better food than if I include the opinion of McDonalds customers AND the people that don't go there. There is what the USA numbers show, outcome for people for whom the USA medical system works. The US numbers are self selecting, because many poorer people in bad health don't make it to the starting point to even be included in the numbers for "Cancer Survivor", they just don't receive any treatment and are invisible to you syshum. When you have a whole section of society (the section that happens to be less healthy, exposed to more chemicals, harsher working conditions, poorer diet on average) excluded from the numbers you use you can't really use your statistics for any valid comparison. My grandfather who had VA benefits had great healthcare. My grandmother, well, she was just invisible in your statistics because she had no healthcare.
For lower wait times, are you conflating elective surgery with non-elective? Please show me the USA vs other countries statistics that you are using broken out by elective and non-elective. I would say a better measure of healthcare would be wait time for non-elective treatment, while elective wait time is more a quality of life measurement, two different things. Kind of like medications versus vitamins, they are booth pills, but you don't die if you don't have access to vitamins. Take out elective (and highly profitable in USA but lower priority than saving lives under other forms of healthcare) and I think your statistics are going to show no advantage for USA healthcare.
Yes, the USA healthcare system is best in the world for rushing people into high profit surgery/treatment. But is that truely a healthcare metric, or is that more a quality of life metric?
Your last argument where you state the prior poster is moronic is purely opinion with no attempt at persuasion or presentation of reasons for the opinion.
I would agree that US has socialized medicine but not because of the ER, but because most of the Healthcare spending is now under 3 government programs. Medicare, Medicade, and VA.
ER is often a convenient target for explaining the high cost of care but while a factor is not the primary factor. Instead the high cost of normal care is down to regulations, poor government reimbursement rate under the 2 big programs, and our linking health insurance to be "comprehensive prepaid health plans" not insurance in the sense of any other insurance product.
>>>But is that truely a healthcare metric, or is that more a quality of life metric?
I would say it is both. This is another area where I disagree with the healthcare field in as too often healthcare does not factor in quality of life in to their choices. I think quality of life is critical
>>>For lower wait times, are you conflating elective surgery with non-elective? Please show me the USA vs other countries statistics that you are using broken out by elective and non-elective.
I guess then we would have to define what you consider "elective" as many nations with Single Payer health system have broaden that term to include any surgery that is not immediate life saving care.
So something like a hip surgery is "elective" to them, which I do not consider to be elective if you have a broken hip and are in pain all the time. In some nations however it is perfectly acceptable for them to live the rest of their life in a lower mobility state, using pain management drugs to suffer until their death. i find that morally abhorrent
That said at the end of the day even if government run care was grand, wonder, the best thing ever i would still oppose it. healthcare is not a proper role of government.
I do not want a paternalistic government to rule over me like I was a subject of the government.
> One the "better outcomes" is actually debatable due to a whole host of factors, including that American are generally less healthy not because of our healthcare system but because we have large amounts of high processed high carb food with little excersise which is not the case in the EU.
Having low quality foods IS part of public healthcare spending. Regulating and controlling what foods are considerable fit for humans is within the domain of healthcare too. Taxing highly unhealthy foods to deter excessive compunction, for example, works wonders since there's either more money for healthcare, or less people getting so sick.
Healthcare isn't just about covering the doctor's fee, it's also about reducing how much people need to go to the doctor or get sick in the first place.
I do not believe it is the proper role of government to dictate to me what foods I can and can not consume, or to manipulate my behavior on what they feel is the "best" diet today, that will change tomorrow
Remember the US government gave us the Food Pyramid which by an large indoctrinated multiple generations into the High Carb, low Protein diet that has lead to the Obesity epidemic
So you will have to explain why in hell I should trust them to tax and regulate my diet?
This is offtopic, but social spending isn't dependent in many NATO member states on defense spending. Germany literally can spend 4% of GDP on defense, without serious impact on socials pending.
There's also the other side of the issue - US has been unwilling to sell weapons and very willing to denounce nations who didn't buy outdated and overpriced US armaments.
You should also remember that after WW2 allies forced Germany into a particular mindset. And fall of the Soviet block - Germans are very much against "secret police" of any kind.
72 comments
[ 0.23 ms ] story [ 142 ms ] threadhttps://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/20-828...
One place for some interesting SCOTUS stats I like:
https://www.scotusblog.com/statistics/
not everything on their docket has the same weight of importance as the other things on their docket, nearly everyone thinks the thing on the docket that they care about is more important than the other thing
just something to keep in mind when someone is trying to get you to pay attention to their cause
[edit] It appears I was mistaken, because The Hill website was also mistaken. Same name, different guy.
Same Toomey [1]. Just a different mantel.
[1] https://thehill.com/people/patrick-toomey
This is the Pat Toomey that co-wrote the article: https://www.aclu.org/news/by/patrick-toomey/
The ACLU Pat Toomey is Patrick C. Toomey. Picture of him here: https://www.justsecurity.org/author/toomeypatrick/
The Senator is Patrick Joseph Toomey Jr.
Maybe the Hill automates scanning the bylines and adds links to bios. Obviously it isn't perfect.
Especially with the the current economic situation, the EU is likely to be more heavily dependent on the US for energy (natural gas). In addition, the largest EU country (Germany) is very heavily export dependent.
If this escalates into a trade war, the EU would be on the losing side.
Before or after 1945?
Before 1945(and especially before 1918), I agree. After 1945, the experiences of losing a generation in the crucibles of WWI and WWII seems to have broken the European martial spirit. Europe has done a lot of bending over since 1945 (decolonization was not because of some moral enlightenment, but mainly because they did not have the resources to continue with it). See Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. See Suez Canal. See Bosnia where Europe could not intervene to stop a genocide in its own backyard.
instead they used that money to increase social spending happy to allow the US Tax Payer to fund their security...
well because the guy that would actually say it ran on a far right platform, but I think its still odd how people aren't willing to separate various causes
or more so that its disappointing that we don't have a consensus mechanism that allows us to express interest in some causes while rejecting others and still getting a head of state that represents all of the chosen platforms
What is considered "right" in US Politics is sooo encompassing that it likely include 80% of the population. As the people that label everyone "far right" do not realize just how out of touch they are in their twitter echo chamber
I like liberty, I like freedom, I like federalism.
I oppose central government, I oppose social democracy, I oppose authoritarianism
Any activity of a state or individual is merely tolerated for the sake of future consensus making, but when more convenient the national government will curb stomp any state into compliance as if that state were a middle eastern country enriching uranium
I’m more of a consensus maker, ideas I suggest and the way I present them results in all-partisan support, including in the US. I think we overlap in the observation that disunity is unproductive. For me its been a great opening that entrenched special interests moved to far extremes of their parties and ideologies, opportunity of a lifetime since the center became unguarded. So I do have an uncommon view of what reality could be, but I’d rather not have that taken as libertarian. That assumption undermines my consensus making ability :)
The US can complain about this state of affairs all it wants, but it needs to remain in EU's good graces, if it wants to maintain its hegemony.
I dont think that is true, and in reality hitching our (the US) future to the EU's idiosyncrasies will likely lead to the US losing power not keeping it
EU is at best a Fair weather ally to the US. UK rightfully saw the problem with the EU and pulled out, I personally that that was the right move for the UK.
I think NATO is a better organizing body, and alliance than the EU. I think we will continue to see EU as a governing body reduce in power. Economic Free Trade and NATO will remain but there are structural issues with the EU as a Federation or what ever they consider themselves
Hard disagreement. The US is becoming less and less economically relevant, with the rise of the developing world. It used to be nearly half of the world's GDP - over two thirds, when combined with Western Europe. It's now at under a quarter (much lower when adjusted for PPP), and is utterly reliant on developing world supply chains for its most basic products - and its not doing so under the kind of gunpoint trade terms that the colonial empires of the 19th and 20th centuries could impose on their subjects.
If Europe's status drops to being an ally of convenience, I expect the sun to set on the American empire in about two decades.
Neither are looking at a 20, 10 or even 5 year picture.
On the first week of the war, I thought that NATO was played like a fiddle. On the second week of the war, when the US demonstrated its ability to galvanize most of the world into unprecedented, crippling sanctions, it became clear to me that it still punches way above its weight, when it comes to soft power - because of its allies.
During the Trump presidency, the EU was strongly considering the fact that the US could turn into an enemy any day, without any further warning. Kinda what happened with Russia, who was an economic partner and turned into an enemy without any further warning.
US is not free from being taken over by a national populist. Currently the highest rated TV show in US is run by a national conservative. Thank god, that American institutions are stronger than Donny, but had he been in office for another 4 years - it would have been dire.
Well, Germany (and its politicians: shown laughing at Trump in the video) are now paying the consequences of blindly walking into yet another trade deal with yet another autocratic power. [2]
You'd think playing host to the horrors of WWII would have taught Germany a lesson or two of the consequences of such powers but no, it's business as usual. [3]
The naivety of the EU in global politics would be laughable if it wasn't directly funding the artillery barrages and murder of more than a hundred children now by Russia.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwg
[2] https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3148374/an...
[3] https://stopgas.org/
Just know that, for dozens of reasons, in Europe, the Trump administration was seen as irrational and dangerous to his allies. These views were shared by both Progressives and Conservatives, throughout Europe, even to a large extent in the UK. In comparison, Putin was seen as more rational, hence a more measurable danger.
It is now clear that the latter assessment was wrong. Regarding the former, the jury is still out.
This was an attempt to predict future behavior of Donald Trump based on past/present behavior, taking into account the possibility of Donald Trump remaining president for a second mandate.
If you recall, as seen from Europe, Donald Trump was:
- exhibiting a number of traits typically attributed to fascism (using Umberto Eco's classification, I count a perfect 14/14 for Trump, based on speeches I've seen him deliver);
- friendly relationships with many authoritarian/dictatorship governments (including Putin's Russia), hostile relationships/threats towards democracies (including most of the EU);
- a tendency to betray allies and leave them to die (I'm thinking of Kurds, but abandoning Afghanistan is a joint Trump-Biden venture);
- generally, a strong tendency to use international relationships as a pedestal to cater to the subset of his supporters that had no clue about international relationships and cheered him whenever he rattled his saber, threatened his allies and started a trade war that absolutely no sense.
While none of these points definitely meant that Donald Trump was dangerous to the EU, at some point, EU leaders started wondering exactly on which side the US were. They would have been crazy not to.
Only if you actively misunderstand, or more likely only listen to selected clips by mainstream media
>>- friendly relationships with many authoritarian/dictatorship governments (including Putin's Russia), hostile relationships/threats towards democracies (including most of the EU);
Trump foreign policy was returning America to what it should have been all along, Free Trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none. Heeding the words of our first president. Clearly he could not just pull out of decades of entangling alliances but he was signalling a desire to reduce our entangling alliances, and increase our trade. I support that, and I can see why the EU would worry about that but not for the reasons you seem to think
>>- a tendency to betray allies and leave them to die
You believe that started with Trump? That has been a mainstay of US foreign policy at least since WWII, it was not even the first time we fucked over the Kurds.
As to Afghanistan, I lay the blame for that about 80% at the feet of biden and 20% at trump, The pull out could have been done ALOT better, and I think a Trump administration would have done a better job of it.
I 100% support the decision to leave.
>>- generally, a strong tendency to use international relationships as a pedestal to cater to the subset of his supporters that had no clue about international relationships and cheered him whenever he rattled his saber, threatened his allies and started a trade war that absolutely no sense.
I disagreed with the Tariffs, however I absolutely supported his desire to increase our manufacturing base in the US, and hold other nations accountable for their abuse of trade policy at the expense of the US which has been going on since at least Bill Clinton if not longer. The US has and continues to be asked to "sacrifice" our prosperity for the good of the world while other nations refuse to do even a fraction of what the US does, and even when we meet the goals often the rest of our "partners" like the EU pants the US as a bully, as evil, as the problem. Frankly we need a president to stand up for the US.
>EU leaders started wondering exactly on which side the US were
The side of the US citizen, first time in a long time the US President stood up for the US Citizen, not global corporations, or globalism
I watched entire speeches by Donald Trump. Were they representative? I have no idea. Were they scary? Not all of them. But a sufficient number that I stand by my estimate of a perfect 14/14. I'll let you check on Umberto Eco's scale to see if something is missing.
> Trump foreign policy was returning America to what it should have been all along, *Free Trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none*
(emphasis mine)
Interestingly, this is exactly what the EU has been moving towards for the past few decades. Hence the attempt to not be economically dependent from the US. Hence the refusal to take part in the trade war against China. I remember how France was – and, to some extent still is – covered with mud in US media for refusing to take part in the Invasion of Irak (forgot whether it was the first or second), but that was also a symptom of the same. Hence the balancing act with buying some things from Russia that the EU could also have bought from the US.
Selling weapons to Russia and buying gas from them? Didn't turn out so well, we can all agree. The alternative to buying gas from Russia was nuclear power, which would have been much better, but got much maligned after Three Miles Island, Tchernobyl and Fukushima. This will happen, eventually, but too late.
> I can see why the EU would worry about that but not for the reasons you seem to think
I realize that the way I wrote my post could have been clearer. While I can't escape writing some of what I think (in particular, the Umberto Eco scale of fascism), the general idea was to explain what EU leaders think, as far as I understand.
These worries are not personal to me.
On the other hand, yes, what you're pointing out is also true. Life without an alliance with the US is a scary perspective. And the EU has been quite slow to build its own army, relying too much on the fact that it is a nuclear alliance and has a large intersection with NATO.
I believe that, if Putin's invasion hadn't happened, EU countries would slowly have left NATO and concentrated on building a unified army. I hope that the latter will happen nevertheless.
> You believe that started with Trump? That has been a mainstay of US foreign policy at least since WWII, it was not even the first time we fucked over the Kurds.
Maybe? Also, you already pointed out (with different vocabulary) that, under Donald Trump, the US preferred isolationism. Does this mean that we agree that the US is not a reliable ally for Europe, especially under Trump?
> I 100% support the decision to leave.
I actually support that decision. But I think we can agree that leaving could have been done much, much better.
> I disagreed with the Tariffs, however I absolutely supported his desire to increase our manufacturing base in the US, and hold other nations accountable for their abuse of trade policy at the expense of the US which has been going on since at least Bill Clinton if not longer. The US has and continues to be asked to "sacrifice" our prosperity for the good of the world while other nations refuse to do even a fraction of what the US does, and even when we meet the goals often the rest of our "partners" like the EU pants the US as a bully, as evil, as the problem. Frankly we need a president to stand up for the US.
I had a scathing (and, frankly, rather stupid) reply for this.
And then I realized one thing. I find this line of "The US has and continues to be asked to "sacrifice" our prosperity for the good of the world while other nations refuse to do even a fraction of what the US does" extremely interesting. Because I've heard this line being repeated over and over:
- in the US, recently, by Trump-style Republicans;
- in the EU, recently, by far right parties;
- in the UK, recently, by the Brexit party (didn't Thatcher use that line, too, some time ago, now th...
> (emphasis mine)
> Interestingly, this is exactly what the EU has been moving towards for the past few decades. Hence the attempt to not be economically dependent from the US. Hence the refusal to take part in the trade war against China.
This fits with my original conclusion that the EU is hopelessly naive when it comes to global politics. Imagine someone with the bright idea to "diversify" so for the sake of diversity they sell half their energy imports to a dictatorship (this is actually what Germany did). It's quite obviously unwise, at least but they do it anyway because of that magic word "diversify".
If I can compare it to my own profession it's like a DevOps guy coming up with the bright idea to go multi-cloud, a tarpit where engineering hours go to die and which most often makes the stack more brittle not less.
Let's move on to Merkel and her magic stroke of genius to sell the EU on more of China, not less. Another bright mind walks in and declares, "with China on our side, we'll never have to worry about those bastards over in the US, protecting our ocean trade with their carrier fleets". Yet China is not a good partner, we know this already from their too-sensitive reproaches to such sovereign nations as Australia.
Every time the EU gets bit. It's as if they don't realize that the foundations of autocracy are poison and any partnership, especially one that puts the junior at risk of coercion, is doomed.
When will they ever learn? When will Germany, a land with personal experience in power-mad dictators learn that the price you pay for throwing your lot in with such company is paid for in blood?
On one end of the spectrum, one may imagine Europe allying entirely with Putin's Russia (or with China, or with any other dictatorship). That's obviously bad. You can live like this for a very long time, but that way leads eventual subjugation, through violence or otherwise. That's the choice of countries that join the Silk Road.
On the other end of the spectrum, one may imagine Europe letting the US take all the decisions and being entirely dependent on the US for many critical imports. In other words, becoming a dominion of the US. Certainly better than an invasion, but a far cry from independence.
To illustrate, I have heard it said and repeated that the UK has stopped being independent. That any meaningful choice on British policy is actually taken in Washington. I have no clue whether that is actually true, but let us assume for a second that it is, or may be in the future. If that's the case, this means that voting for anything other than local elections is pointless. That the UK is in a limbo, not a democracy anymore, not really a police state, either.
Again,let me emphasize: I do not claim that this represents reality. I only claim that this something that many countries around the globe fear when they talk about the US. And, let's be frank, many of these countries also fear it when they talk about European countries.
So, if you're a democracy, in Europe or elsewhere, how do you remain independent? Obviously, you want to ally with a strong country (e.g. US) against known predators (e.g. Russia) and suspected predators (e.g. China, Turkey). But you also want to guard against too much dependence on your protector (Russia, China, but also the US and European countries, for instance, have been known to use and abuse leverage for political control). You also want to guard against election interference from the your protector (European countries have been doing this all over Africa, while CIA declassified documents confirm that CIA has been involved in election interference all over Europe since its founding – undoubtedly also true of KGB/FSB, but they don't declassify their documents).
Of course, if you spend too much time looking over your shoulder at your allies because you don't trust them, you risk delivering yourself to your predator.
Remaining independent is a complicated balancing act that most countries, not just Europe, play as well as they can. Germany's recent fumble shows how complicated but not that it's unnecessary.
I will freely admit I am not versed on that, however in my very very brief reading of the idea's I think there is a lot of subjectivity in application, and one it seems to me right now one would have to look at Trumps words in the most unfavorable understanding of them to achieve that score, you have to weak man his speeches and rhetoric to get there. You have to come into the speech looking for anything to justify the score.
I would have to research more to say more, but when most people hear fascism they think Nazi's... That is also what the US Media rhetoric was for 4 years. I however see non of that in the Trump presidency, nor do I see any policy positions that were wildly different that other presidents or even Biden today.
In fact some of the immigration policies that the media and others lambasted Trump for as "fascist" or "Nazi" have been continued and even expanded by Biden, others were carry overs from Obama so....
So while you may get that from Umberto Eco's scale, for which I am unfamiliar, I do not see it or accept that conclusion on a layman's view of fascism
>> EU countries would slowly have left NATO and concentrated on building a unified army.
Germany would love that, and that is one of the reasons UK left. If it happens the EU needs to reform under a more Federalist model like the US. Its current model it would be a disaster to form a single military
The EU either needs to reform its governance to a Federalist Republic like the US, or it needs to take over NATO like structure for is over arching military.
Attempting a single defense structure under the current European Union structure would never work
>It would be interesting to try and see where this discourse originates from.
Many many many things, on core one was the shipping and outsourcing of middle class jobs via unfavorable trade deals allowed by a government that supported globalism and global corporations over the needs of the citizens. That would be where the issue started. I would say it really kicked off in the 1990's when trade started to ramp way up with China.
But there are other examples, most recently Climate Change is a good example. US has improved and continues to drastically improve its carbon footprint, but no matter what we do it is never enough, no people want us to hamstring our economy, wants us to kill our economic output, and want us to lower our standard of living
While making exceptions for other economies for all manner of seemingly rational reasons. However rational they are the end result is the same, the sacrifice of US prosperity
Then of course you have the topic of expecting to be the world police and then called a bully if we take any action, The world wants us there to Stop Russia, but they expect us to do that with out thanks, with out having any input to their actions, their governance, or etc... Hell they want us to thank them for the privilege of being able to send our citizens to die for their nation....
>>So, if I understand correctly, you're basically agreeing with EU leaders that Trump's US was not a reliable ally? Perhaps not an ally at all?
I guess that would depend on what you mean by an "ally". If you mean trade partner and willing to come to the EU defense military if needed provided they at least tried to defend themselves... I think the US under Trump would make a fine ally under that definition
If you mean a EU doorstop, to provide the common defense of the EU, asking or expecting nothing in return, and allowing the EU to ignore our national interests on the world stage while they enjoy the protection we provide... then no Trump would not have made for a good Ally.. and the EU is used to the former, where I would prefer the former
I'm not going to defend media. I think that most of them are doing a very bad job, whether they're catering to left-wing bubbles or right-wing bubbles. This seems to be worse in the US than in Europe, but we're getting there, too.
Now, I do not know exactly why you and I focus on different things in political figure's speeches, but you seem to be very much more of a (political) believer than anybody I know. While I always vote, and while I grudgingly respect some candidates, I know that I haven't trusted anyone in a while. In particular, whenever I read the written statements of a candidate (and I pretty much always do before voting) or when I listen to their speeches (less often), I always work at decoding them. I listen to what they say, to what they imply, to who they flatter, to what they don't say, to the promises they make because that is what they intend to do and to those they make simply to sow doubt in the opposition. So far, while I can't claim perfection, my decoding of elected officials has proven fairly accurate.
If you're interested in such an exercise, I suggest reading propaganda from other countries (that helps keeping it dispassionate) and/or older historical periods. It's very interesting. For one thing, it's pretty much the same propaganda, repeated all over space-time, just with some name-changing.
> So while you may get that from Umberto Eco's scale, for which I am unfamiliar, I do not see it or accept that conclusion on a layman's view of fascism
That is, of course, your right. But, out of curiosity, how would you detect if a US candidate was actually a fascist? Or, maybe, to keep it more remote and make things a bit less passionate, if an Austrian candidate was actually a fascist?
> Germany would love that, and that is one of the reasons UK left. If it happens the EU needs to reform under a more Federalist model like the US. Its current model it would be a disaster to form a single military
I happen to be in favour of that, so I'm not going to contradict you :)
> Many many many things, on core one was the shipping and outsourcing of middle class jobs via unfavorable trade deals allowed by a government that supported globalism and global corporations over the needs of the citizens. That would be where the issue started. I would say it really kicked off in the 1990's when trade started to ramp way up with China.
Maybe, but I'm fairly certain that I already heard/read such speeches from the 80s. I don't claim that this is when they started but my personal suspicion is that Reagan/Thatcher both giving such speeches and ramped up globalism and that the reason for which they were adopting such language is the oil shock of the mid-70s, which caused stagflation, hence discontent among the lower- and middle-classes.
> But there are other examples, most recently Climate Change is a good example. US has improved and continues to drastically improve its carbon footprint, but no matter what we do it is never enough, no people want us to hamstring our economy, wants us to kill our economic output, and want us to lower our standard of living
I've heard Donald Trump make such claims. I actually have no clue where he gets that from. My suspicion as a cynical middle-aged guy is that this is more part of a strategy to cater to specific groups of voters (e.g. everybody whose living is based on coal, directly or indirectly) and build a shared identity as victims of bad actors than actual fact.
It's interesting, because on the same topic, in Europe, with the exception of far-left and far-right, the overall message is closer to "let's create jobs with green industries". And recently, of course, "let's use green industr...
Gasp, too late to edit this.
Well, I wanted to emphasize that I do not believe that Trump is a fascist, per se. Unfortunately, it's not as much of an endorsement as it sounds: I also do not believe that all the leaders of the various fascist parties that took over Europe around WWII were necessarily fascists themselves, just as I do not believe that Stalin was particularly communist. I believe some of them were power-hungry sociopaths who saw an opening created by fascists (or communists, for Stalin) and used it to climb to power.
Now, what I do believe is that Donald Trump is employing the entire fascist vocabulary, in an attempt to voluntarily cater to the people who really are fascists (or close enough that the distinction is pointless) among both his voter base, his militants and his election machine. I have no idea how many people this represents but I believe that Donald Trump does. And I believe that using the real fascists in an attempt to reach/keep power is at the very least irresponsible, because it mechanically gives some power to the real fascists, as well as a very real path to ultimate power.
That feels as dangerous as, say, buying gas from the neighboring expansionist dictator.
I also believe that people should keep calling each other fascists/communists (am I being guilty of that?), especially without understanding what it means, but that's another debate.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_171458.htm
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/total-healthcare-expendit...
One the "better outcomes" is actually debatable due to a whole host of factors, including that American are generally less healthy not because of our healthcare system but because we have large amounts of high processed high carb food with little excersise which is not the case in the EU.
The only way the US would "save" money on socialize care is if they highly regulated and heavily taxed "bad food" which I am sure you would support but I dont as I oppose using the tax code for social goals
If you look at stats that take into account these factors the US health system is the best in the world. better Cancer Survivor rates, Lower wait times, faster times to specialists, lower Doctor to Patient counts, Semi-private hospital rooms standard, etc, etc.
Also looking a Total spend as a % of GDP is completely moronic statistic to compare as well, and there is NO WAY the government could socialize health care and capture anywhere near the amount of money to pay for it in taxation. Not even close, to believe that you have to ignore all of recorded tax history.
If I take the opinion of McDonalds customers, they will tell me McDonalds has much better food than if I include the opinion of McDonalds customers AND the people that don't go there. There is what the USA numbers show, outcome for people for whom the USA medical system works. The US numbers are self selecting, because many poorer people in bad health don't make it to the starting point to even be included in the numbers for "Cancer Survivor", they just don't receive any treatment and are invisible to you syshum. When you have a whole section of society (the section that happens to be less healthy, exposed to more chemicals, harsher working conditions, poorer diet on average) excluded from the numbers you use you can't really use your statistics for any valid comparison. My grandfather who had VA benefits had great healthcare. My grandmother, well, she was just invisible in your statistics because she had no healthcare.
For lower wait times, are you conflating elective surgery with non-elective? Please show me the USA vs other countries statistics that you are using broken out by elective and non-elective. I would say a better measure of healthcare would be wait time for non-elective treatment, while elective wait time is more a quality of life measurement, two different things. Kind of like medications versus vitamins, they are booth pills, but you don't die if you don't have access to vitamins. Take out elective (and highly profitable in USA but lower priority than saving lives under other forms of healthcare) and I think your statistics are going to show no advantage for USA healthcare.
Yes, the USA healthcare system is best in the world for rushing people into high profit surgery/treatment. But is that truely a healthcare metric, or is that more a quality of life metric?
Your last argument where you state the prior poster is moronic is purely opinion with no attempt at persuasion or presentation of reasons for the opinion.
ER is often a convenient target for explaining the high cost of care but while a factor is not the primary factor. Instead the high cost of normal care is down to regulations, poor government reimbursement rate under the 2 big programs, and our linking health insurance to be "comprehensive prepaid health plans" not insurance in the sense of any other insurance product.
>>>But is that truely a healthcare metric, or is that more a quality of life metric?
I would say it is both. This is another area where I disagree with the healthcare field in as too often healthcare does not factor in quality of life in to their choices. I think quality of life is critical
>>>For lower wait times, are you conflating elective surgery with non-elective? Please show me the USA vs other countries statistics that you are using broken out by elective and non-elective.
I guess then we would have to define what you consider "elective" as many nations with Single Payer health system have broaden that term to include any surgery that is not immediate life saving care.
So something like a hip surgery is "elective" to them, which I do not consider to be elective if you have a broken hip and are in pain all the time. In some nations however it is perfectly acceptable for them to live the rest of their life in a lower mobility state, using pain management drugs to suffer until their death. i find that morally abhorrent
That said at the end of the day even if government run care was grand, wonder, the best thing ever i would still oppose it. healthcare is not a proper role of government.
I do not want a paternalistic government to rule over me like I was a subject of the government.
Having low quality foods IS part of public healthcare spending. Regulating and controlling what foods are considerable fit for humans is within the domain of healthcare too. Taxing highly unhealthy foods to deter excessive compunction, for example, works wonders since there's either more money for healthcare, or less people getting so sick.
Healthcare isn't just about covering the doctor's fee, it's also about reducing how much people need to go to the doctor or get sick in the first place.
Remember the US government gave us the Food Pyramid which by an large indoctrinated multiple generations into the High Carb, low Protein diet that has lead to the Obesity epidemic
So you will have to explain why in hell I should trust them to tax and regulate my diet?
There's also the other side of the issue - US has been unwilling to sell weapons and very willing to denounce nations who didn't buy outdated and overpriced US armaments.
You should also remember that after WW2 allies forced Germany into a particular mindset. And fall of the Soviet block - Germans are very much against "secret police" of any kind.