Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "BBC News"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Hughjarce - that medieval warming (and the later cooling) period was REGIONAL - as opposed to GLOBAL WARMING.There are several cultures that may have went under in Latin America, for instance. It is like with El Nino - it brings some the desperately needed rain, others get rain torrents (after years of draughts), others have drier years and bad harvests. The ice cores show such events - where only a part of the world has a climate change.
As opposed to GLOBAL WARMING showing up in the OCEAN TEMPERATURES - and the melting ice.
Two thirds of the planet is covered with oceans - water has a tremendous capacity to store heat and thus to even out the "spikes" - for some time. That effect is well known - see oceanic vs. continental climate. When the OCEANS (worldwide) are getting warmer and more acidic more CO2 is in the air that will be dissolved in the water) we are in trouble.
It is not the planet that is in trouble, and mankind will survive - it is just the question HOW. It might endanger civilization and democracy. Just look what happend under the economic stress after WW1 in Europe.
China imports 40 % of their food, what do you think will happen if they are hit by a major draught ? .... one that lasts longer, or a series of poor harvests. Combine that with economic stress - because their customers in the wealthier countries buy less from them. The formerly wealthy countries have also much higher expenses to fight against the consequences of Climate Change. ... Let that stew for a few years. It took some time in Europe after WW1 as well.
Hint: China has 1,2 billion people, they have nukes, they went through a lot of suffering in the 20th century (and also in the centuries before). Don't underestimate them.
And then we have Pakistan, India. Israel has nukes, too. And the water situation is already difficult NOW.
Of course the U.S., UK, France, Saudia Arabia sent jihadists over to Syria to stir up trouble - regime change in Syria was an OLD plan (from the 90s, dusted off in 2001 - see General Wesley Clark, "U.S. war with 7 countries in 5 years").
But Syria ALSO had a terrible DRAUGHT (maybe caused by CC maybe not) that HELPED the evil governments (U.S., Saudi Arabia, UK, France, Israel, Turkey, Qatar) to pull off the PROXY WAR from 2011 on. And of course some of the reason that it is so easy to recruit mercenaries / jihadists have to do with the economic situation in those countries (regime change producing failed states like in Libya and to some extrent in Iraq, religious extremism exported, financed and promoted by the Saudis, ruinous trade deals in Africa "enforced" by the EU. But also when the people cannot live of agriculture anymore because of draughts or floodings (the other side of the medal of a more volatile climate). All that makes them an easy prey for the recruiters. And the rural population tends to be more religious and conservative anyway.
ISIS was allowed by the U.S. to extract and trade in Syrian oil, Turkey bought it, ISIS paid the best wages of all the jihadist groups when they were successful - recruiting is not only about religious zeal. Of course when the Russian airforce came on the scene those oil sales were cut off. Now the Syrian government is in control of the oil fields again - so that revenue stream has dried up.
1
-
1
-
John Pilger about the connection of Salman Abedi (Manchester attacker) and MI5 (all while May was Secretary of Home). Terror in Britain: What did the Prime Minister know. Neighbours reported that the young man had talked about suicide bombing, the FBI had warned. At best they were sloppy and negligent, at worst he was groomed as an asset by MI5 / MI6 and it turned out he did his own thing. - The U.S. UK and France are the worst under the regime changers and it is a longstanding tradtion to have a pact with the devil to get rid of a government they do not like. That created the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, later helped the moderate terrorists in Syria, even ISIS was friendly ignored for some time. John Kerry is on record Sep. 2016 : the U.S.wanted ISIS to become stronger in Syria, that meant trouble for Assad. There was a time where ISIS became stronger and stronger (Iraq, Libya, Syria). They were allowed (!) to control, extract, transport and sell oil, that financed mercenaries, weapons, and they were doing a good social media campaign.
These schemes ALWAYS fail. And U.S. and U.K. never learn.
So McDonnell and Corbyn should not have met with IRA supporters / IRA terrorists to promote peace ? Or it was not their place to have those secret meetings (even though the government DID have them) ? And they should have dennounced the IRA, etc. much stronger ? Maybe. But they sure had the right idea - it led to peace. And had a Corbyn been PM at the time when peaceful ! demonstrators were shot by the police in N.I. - maybe the whole conflict would never have escalated.
Anyway - THAT is over.
On the other hand the regime changer are all for Syria breaking up (that WILL happen if Assad loses control). The strongest military force are Al Nusra (spin off of Al-qaeda). Which would of course take over and replace a secular government with Sharia Law. What could go wrong ?
Gaddafi had to go, he was very well behaved in the last years, he cooperated to fight jihadists (which were a threat to his reign as well). And of course the human traffickers could not get through from Africa. No UK France and Hillary Clinton massively lobbied the White House in 2011 for war, they absolutely wanted to topple him - in that case it was not WMDs it was that the army allegedly committed mass rapings. The humanitarian bombing helped the rebels to oust and kill Gaddafi. The mass rapings (the pretext) had not happend - no one cared. And then quickly Libya split into warring tribes + ISIS.
The Manchester boys - incl. family Abedi - played a role in that fight in 2011. - The visitors of the concert paid the price for the reckless AND clueless gambles. Needless to say a PM Corbyn would have used the carrot and stick approach with Gaddafi and he would help fight terrorists.
The "terrorism support" from Corbyn and McDonnel starts looking good. It did not get Brits killed - it was neutral or helped with the citizens being SAFER. They did not put people in harms way by consulting with the fighters.
But the war policy creates danger.
1
-
US Department of "Defense" End of 2001: We will take out 7 countries in 5 years starting with Iraq, then SYRIA, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan… GENERAL WESLEY CLARK in his book Winning Modern Wars - the interview with Amy Goodman is online (Democracy Now). In 2009 ! Roland Dumas former French Foreign minister under Sarkozy met with British Diplomats in London (he called them friends). On that occasion he was told that Britian intended to go to war with Syria - if the French wanted to join ?? He revealed that in an interview (without giving away if and to whom he conveyed that message - of course not - I guess he feels an obligation to keep his countries secrets.). We are led to believe that in Syria there is a "civil" war and that it started in 2011.
And miraculously Saudia Arabia and the US and some Western countries fund even terrorist organisations - as long as they fight against the Assad "regime". (Note the use of the word regime in the news - who is called a regime and who is not).
I give you an alternative scenario: Saudia Arabia and the US + maybe some NATO states long before the "uprisiing" of 2011 infiltrated Syria with regliious fundamentalists and mercenaries and started funded Syrian opposition.
Why: Syria is one of the few functioning states left in the region that is friendly with Russia, so the US cannot COMPLETELY dominate the region (and indirectly the world supply of fossil fuel for friend ! and foe). The pipeline that Qatar wants to build via Syria to supply fossil fuel to Europe. So Europe would buy no more from Russia - thus clearing the way to stick it even more to the Russians (one of the few nations capable of resisiting US hegemony).
I found an excerpt of the General Clark's book on http://www.demetrikofinas.com/the-famous-7-countries-in-5-years-memo-is-looking-more-and-more-relevant/ - see the text of the article below.
I also highly RECOMMEND watching the full lenght of the interview with Democracy Now (there are also shorter clips uploaded on youtube if you are pressed for time)
We know from declassified government documents that the CIA has consistently been used, since its founding, to destabilize and “soften-up” regimes that the US government does not like. The 1953 overthrow of then Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, was preceded by staged protests paid for by the CIA, and run by non other than Teddy Roosevelt’s own grandson, Kermit “Kim” Roosevelt.
Although the protests in Syria and Libya may have a legitimate foundation, the fuel feeding the fires may very well be coming, in part at least, from black operations paid for and run by western clandestine intelligence services. And let’s not forget about Israel, which has the most to lose form any unguided instability in the middle east. Exactly what role is the Mossad playing in all of this? I can promise you that they are not just sitting on their hands, that’s for sure.
In light of the military actions now being undertaken in Libya, the massive unrest in Syria, and all the talk about civil war in Sudan, I came to wondering – what ever happened to that famous 2001 “7 countries in 5 years” memo that Gen. Wesley Clark talked about after retiring from the military? You know, the one he mentions on page 130 of his book “Winning Modern Wars:”
“As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan…He said it with reproach–with disbelief, almost–at the breadth of the vision. I moved the conversation away, for this was not something I wanted to hear. And it was not something I wanted to see moving forward, either. …I left the Pentagon that afternoon deeply concerned.” – Gen. Wesley Clark, Winning Modern Wars
We know from declassified government documents that the CIA has consistently been used, since its founding, to destabilize and “soften-up” regimes that the US government does not like. The 1953 overthrow of then Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, was preceded by staged protests paid for by the CIA, and run by non other than Teddy Roosevelt’s own grandson, Kermit “Kim” Roosevelt.
Although the protests in Syria and Libya may have a legitimate foundation, the fuel feeding the fires may very well be coming, in part at least, from black operations paid for and run by western clandestine intelligence services. And let’s not forget about Israel, which has the most to lose form any unguided instability in the middle east. Exactly what role is the Mossad playing in all of this? I can promise you that they are not just sitting on their hands, that’s for sure.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tiradoentertainmentllc Shapiro gets FREE airtime 1) by the BBC and 2) with Andrew Neil which is a high profile interviewer. that equals free advertising and has quite some financial value.
Shapire is not as well known in the UK. He was there to promote his book, but obviously the BBC will not let him restrict what they can ask him - like only about his book or the recent past.
He is free to buy ads, if he wants to control the content.
And he should welcome that the old positions are brought up. Or a spirited, even controversial, "robust" exchange happens (but it is an interview not a debate). If people search him it will come up anyway, it is part of his past (even if he finds it now inconvenient). He can clarify, defend, give context …
He did not even bother to google Neil. On Wikipedia he would have found out in 1 minute …. advised Thatcher, Murdoch man, … self described conservative.
Actually he should have known who Neil is, as he comments on politics for a living (and likely styles himself as part of "conservative intelligencia"). UK is an important NATO partner of the U.S. if you pay a little attention what is going on you invariably stumble upon an interview by Andrew Neil. With high profile politicians, too. which also get a grilling (at least sometimes).
The U.K. culture is not to do softball questions. Neil had a reputation, and to be fair he also squeezed the Tories from time to time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Tories ruthlessly defunded the NHS over 10 years (pretext for privatization). UK per capita healthcare expenditures - only !! - USD 3,900 * , U.S. USD 9,200 (among the HIGHEST in the world), Australia has 6,000. Wealthy European countries and Canada 5,000 - 5,500 (and for that money a First World country definitely can have a good and well working system leaning towards non-profit and solidarity).
* source: World Bank. Health care expenditures for nations, data 2014
Germany 5,600, Austria 5,400. I know from experience that both countries have good systems. 3,900, vs. 5,600 is a HUGE difference.
If the UK had 69 % higher expenditures per capita it would be at the German level - and most of it would land in the NHS budget.
see my longer comment under the thread of +Tiger Eye
1
-
1
-
1
-
It does not matter if your wage (= disposable income) comes form the mines or the IT sector or a restaurant. There is a term PRODUCTIVITY. And as long as wages and productivity rose pretty much in lockstep, the ECONOMY was doing fine - for EVERYONE. In the 1970s the model would have needed a tweak (reduced work times because of increased productivity) but the two oil crises rattled the system, the big industries were somewhat under pressure (steel, in the UK coal) - the increasing unempmployment was used by the haves to HIT BACK (in the U.S. against the New Deal).
the 1980s brought neoliberalism (heralded by thinktanks, the media even academia did not stand up much - well dissenting academics were weeded out mostly).
The reason to have free trade deals is to make outsourcing of jobs profitable and secure for the companies. They cannot sell the stuff where they produce (because they use the leverage they have against the workforce there to pay as little as they possibly CAN. So low domestic consumption. The stuff MUST be exported to the wealthy countries. And it must be sure that there will be low tariffs and no other barriers that would disturb the lucrative scheme).
The very competitive European and Japanes export industry developed and thrived when there were only somewhat free markets, tariffs, quotas, strictly regulated finance, governments fixed currency rates etc.
The "new" thing about globalization is the massive outsourcing of industrial mass production. "Free" "Trade" wasn't the game in the British Empire, among other things they destroyed the more competitive Indish textile industry.
LSE has poster of the election campaign of approx. 1904, there obviously had been attempts in the Free Market, and the Brits didn't like it (at all).
1
-
The Tories recklessly defund the NHS. UK per capita healthcare expenditures - only !! - USD 3,900 * , U.S. USD 9,200 (among the HIGHEST in the world), Australia has 6,000. Wealthy European countries and Canada 5,000 - 5,500 (and for that money a First World country definitely can have a good and well working non-profit system based on solidarity).
* source: World Bank. Health care expenditures for nations, data 2014
Germany 5,600, Austria 5,400. I know from experience that both countries have good systems. 3,900, vs. 5,600 is a HUGE difference.
The UK costs mostly stem from the public NHS system (plus the private services that citizens feel compelled to pay for extra if they can afford them).
If the UK had 69 % higher expenditures it would be at the German level - and most of it would land in the NHS budget. And if the NHS would be good and relyable without long waiting times etc., even wealthy people would see no reason to pay for private services/insurance.
Even if the UK expenditures would be raised to let's say only 4,2 or 4,5k like the next best wealthy European countries it might work much better.
With UNDERFUNDUNG it is possible to DESTROY / UNDERMINE even well working systems.
A NHS working like a charm and still being among the most cost-competitive systems in Europe would deny the Tories any pretext to privatize the NHS - no shares of the potentially lucrative pie for the their friends.
In all wealthy nations healthcare is 8 - 10 % of GDP (17 % it was for the U.S. in 2014 now going towards 20 %). That is a major part of the economy - and as long as a system leans heavily towards public non-profit - it is off-limits for the "investors". So it it is the first order to run it into the ground to have a pretext for "privatization".
(Thatcher inteneded that secretely despirte other promises before elections, but her inner circle feared the consequences and talked her out of it).
I gave the costs of wealthy countries in Europe - Poland or Hungary have lower per capita expenditures - but then their wage levels are much lower, and that influences costs very much.
(As you can see in the World Bank stats - the "Champions League" in Europe has a certain level and it starts out with around 4,2 k and upwards).
Countries with high wage levels and high overall standard of living like Switzerland or Norway have much higher expenditures (+9k resp. + 8k).
1
-
1
-
System Merkel. Austerity except when it came to propping up big biz, finance and affluent voters. Germany had good infrastructure and that can be neglected for some decades. Streets, school buildings but also DAMS. States and communites were also subject to austerity (we wouldn't want tax the rich and big biz, would we ?) so no money - never mind which part of gov. would have been responsible to reinforce them.
No switch to more sustainable practices when it comes to agriculture (good soil can infiltrate and store the water and will funnel a surplus into the groundwater. Sometimes it needs only soil. or modest measures. Sometimes it needs more alaborate earthworks (see swales, Geoff Lawton). Would recharge teh grundwater all the time, avoid erosion, help them mitigate times of draughts.
No change regarding zoning / construction of housing and the way water drainage / storage / infitration is handled.
The wise investmets ?
Comfortable apartment complexes, affordable public housing for the masses (those investments were slashed) - instead they got suburban areas for those who could afford them, where the rainwater is drained away (which leads to the overwhelming of the infrastructure in case of extrem rain evets) and manicured lawns cannot absorb heavy rains fast it is surprising how bad they are at that job.
If not everyone has their garden and pool (or only a small plot and that MUST be water absorbing (so no English lawn deserts). And every roof feeds into a water tank. But residents have generous public parks, BBQ and partying areas, water landscapes, playgrounds, food forests, public gardens, or can have allotments - then land can be dedicated for water storage, and water infiltration, and it can be the emergency "flood plain" to direct masses of water to, in case of an emergency.
good soil = good water infiltration and storage capacity.
a public park can do double duty (maybe planted with robust vegetation and not too expensive infrastructure - think playgrounds, pavillons and the like). They had that concept in Curitiba. And a ground breaking public mass transprot system and alternative currency. It is less effort to restore a lower laying park / flood plain with gravel zones (so there will not be standing water after every normal rain). Lawn and flower beds would be a mess, the trees might survive and the benches are not that expensive to replace, if they suffer damage.
The locals can do that even for free - as long as the homes, cars and businesse are O.K. and the streets and bridges are not destroyed. Cleaning up the park / flood plain every 10 years maybe is not hard to manage or finance. Ideally the vegetation is not super sensitive (the heirloom roses are grown elsewhere, and they also do not feature fancy fountains or lighting) and the infrastructure is easy to restore or extra robust (paths or benches).
The small creeks that sometimes unexpectedly wreck havock may get the excess runoff from streets, fields on a slope. If farmers and the owners of forests are nudged / rewarded / forced to see to it that their land stops, soaks in, spreads and stores the water they can avoid putting so much strain on the drainage system.
It also reduces erosion and losing the easily soluble nitrogen fertilzer that many farmers use (it is bad for soil life). The stuff is not good to begin with, and having it washed out is worse; it is a loss of money and it lands in streams, groundwater or the oceans where it does damage.
The drained away water, and the surface runoff often runs into the creeks and rivers, that is how they fill up so fast.
If the land (soil, ponds, swales = level infiltration trenches) can handle 80 - 90 % of the big rain event (and recharge the groundwater !) the rivers or creeks do not rise that much, the tribituaries also do not discharge so much into the larger rivers - or at least it happens slowlier - which gives time to prepare, or time for counter measures. Plenty of ponds and mini lakes all over the regions would also help, they can take some of the extra water and in normal times they are a buffer, have recreational value, help wildlife and are an emergency reservoir of water in draughts, and the retention bassins for excess water.
That excess water will be in the ocean within a few days, so exreme rain after a draught might not even remedy a former draught). with wise investments it would mostly go into the soil or the groundwater, or ponds - you can bet there will be a draught soon, and on average there will be enouhg water, but it is not put to good use.
Monocultures of spruce have surprisngly dry ground even if you walk there during a (normal) rain. A natural forest (or one that kinda imitates natural diversity and has at least 4 - 6 different sorts of trees) on the other hand is very good at infiltrating the rain, it creates good soil.
1
-
No money to flood / heat proof the land. But big bucks for the banksters in the GFC (Joseph Ackermann of Deutsche Bank was her advisor, they got an indirect bailout with saving the unkown investment bank. The car indsutry got a massive stimulus package, which was a waste of money, consumers bought earlier but not more cars, with subsidies, which of course benefits those who have a little money to spare.
The tranistion to renewable electricity was caused by Fukushima and a state election the conservatives lost soon after.
It shows that her heart is not in it - still some good things came from it - but it helped investors and affluent people with homes that could afford to buy and did not get a lot of interest on savings accounts anyway, so getting solar panels on the roof was a no brainer and got them a good ROI.
who finances that ? Not the state with taxation (they would have to ask the rich and big biz) - it was all slapped on electricity prices. So the lower income people have the higher costs, but do not get the lucrative investment - the free energy once the investment has paid for itself.
That is typical how Merkel and her party run the country. (not to forget feckless, neoliberal Social Democrats).
Now that the prices for solar panels have fallen, and storage costs are bound to come down soon - NOW they limit the sizes of new installations (commercial and private - the limits are low, measly 6 kWhp for a home, no chance to have them on apartment homes or co-ops of renters or neighbourhoods, or a few companies banding together).
The hinder that by imposing prohibitize taxes / fees TWICE.
The first fee is for the produced and self consumed ! electricity and the other one (VAT) is imposed if surplus is sold to the grid. At this stage (prices for panels and inverters) subsidies are not even necessary anymore to make it viable in sunny regions and if the roof is a good fit, and it would also become attractive for companies if the roof is well suited, or they have space on the ground. So the government cannot impede more installations that way. (the installations were for show, virtue signalling and attractive investments for the voters that tend to vote for her).
NOW would be the time for mass deployment and NOW the government favors coal, lets them cut down the last very old natural forest for surface mining of coal, despite protests (one person died - Harbacher Forest accident of the tree squatters). Now they jump on the breaks because the for-profit "free market" electricity providers and car manufacturers have not arranged for storage, and do not want to change.
And the government did not much to subsidize the so crucial battery and storage research either - thus missing out on a historic chance. The diesel friendly car industry will get into trouble and they have to buy the batteries for the EV's they now MUST offer from other nations / producers.
Neither government nor the CEO's with their high salaries had the good sense to invest into battery storage research, big time.
Mercedes and VW could as well ALSO supply residential batteries - but instead they have diesel as evolutionary dead end.
Diesel is high tech, EV's are simple, transmission are not absolutely necessary or can be more simple, no German engineering necessary for an EV.
Of course the status quo defendants / profiteeres dragged their feet on INVESTING into the future (like Merkel ALSO did not invest in classical infrastructure like dams either. The attempted test for privatization of the motorway luckily failed after a few years, so they could not push that and hand over the cash cow to their buddies.
There is plenty of money but not for the necessary investments, for the future or the mass of low(er) income people.
Low cost, durable, residential storage makes the buddies of big biz obsolete, it would upset the "market", people and companies ! could go off the grid, have an emergency generator, or a furnace that runs on wood chips and doubles as provider of hot water (heating in winter) and electircity generator to bakc up solar .... there you go.
A person that is off grid might evade that double taxation: the first fee is to support the grid and providers in general, and VAT is imposed if surplus is delivered to the grid, that might of course change if people get more storate.
Most people and companies are not yet ready to go off grid. The next years will bring robust and cheap batteries (not Made in Germany though) and the short shighted favoritism of Merkel (and the "conservatives) will cost Germany dearly. The large providers WILL be upset anyway and no doubt demand a bailout.
Germany should have thrown money right, left and center on storage research - but didn't.
Before Fukushima happened Merkel (she had just won the election) had just shreddered a slow fade out from nuclear (a plan that was passed by the coalition gov. of the Social Democrats and the Green party). Merkel did hte exit form the exit, voters were told that the plants are safe and can run with little investment even longer, the industry uncorked the champaign.
Then came Fukushima - German citizens are more wary of nuclear power (and the completley unsolved problem of where to store the waste for 100,000 years, and they respect the Japanese as their equal when it comes to engineering. So that hit home. Chernobyl could be dismissed as substandard technology, but Fukushima not (Flooding triggered it NOT the earthquake. Both plants survived the earthquake and the nearby Fukushima Daini managed an oderly shutdown).
So Merkel (after the lost state election, the end of an conservative era in that state) saw the writing on the wall and did a 180 (she is good at that). And the fade out from nuclear was done so hastily that it allwoed the providers to sue for damages. I do not think that was a bug, that was a feature. The voters were placated and the buddies from the nuclear industry had betted on the favors under Merkel and they got them - just in another form.
In Germany that 180 is called the Exit from the exit from the exit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+ minceyjs - the mess is to blame on Republican govenor Rick Snyder and his buddies. (Flint had a water supply, it was decided FOR THEM that they would get water from another source because it seemed to be "cheaper" (and it think they needed a provisory solution for some time, maybe maintainance, but they used that to make the switch permanent).
The new water has other properties (ph value). The old plumbing was not good (often lead), but the other water did not REACT with the mateial of the pipes, or at least not by releasing high doses. the new water did react and dissolved dangerous amounts of leads.
Pediaticians were alarmed - they always get when they hear high lead levels and children in one sentence. Those scientific findings and public warnings were IGNORED.
Thanks to the internet, independent media on the web, the whole scandal could not be buried. I think also Rachel Maddow was following it closely (don't we wish she would continue to do such good work, instead of catching Trump derangement syndrome).
It does not hurt either that Michael Moore is from that area. - both have a platform.
Think of that: Lead is highly destructive for the brains of children, it causes irreversible damage to the intelligence and also can cause behavior problems (the brain not being able to control aggressions or to deal with frustrations).
Lead is unhealthy for adults to , but with developing children it is a catastrophe.
Rick Snyder, was willing to IGNORE the warnings of several doctors (and they had data, the water had been tested) for months. In that time the damage can be done to the children.
Family values ? Conservatism ? Wouldn't that include being responsible, own up to your mistakes, or having some foresight ?
Does "protecting the vulnerable" appear anywhere in that universe.
And how about lying ? In autumn 2014 member of his team uttered concerns (he had claimed he was unaware of any problems). In September 2015 the whole scandal became headline news , in October 2015 they officially stopped using the water.
How about only doing his duty under strong public pressure and dragging his feet for one year ?
They citizens had one advantage: that Maddow and Moore showed an interest in the case. If Snyder would have been left to his own devices they would stil not even be officially warned.
He is a "venture" capitalist. How fitting - the Wikipedia site is interesting. Well at least he will never be able to run for president, not with that baggage.
They COULD have used filters (200 USD per day) but they did not want to. COSTS.
The City of Flint is not free in their decisions. Because of the decline of the industry and outsourcing those cities all have financial troubles.
Flint was under the rule of an "emergency" manager - a Snyder buddy of course.
Plus the whole "deal" of shifting the water supply stinks. Likely the governor did a sweetheart deal with one of his buddies.
So while the Dems should have screamed it from the rooftops - in this case the whole mess was caused by the Rs.
1
-
+ minceyjs - I know European health care systems from experience (Austria, Germany). Healthcare FREE at the POINT of USE works well. It means that the citizens pay an AFFORDABLE % of their wage to the PUBLIC non-profit healthcare insurance company. Their employer has to match that.
The per capita healthcare expenditures * in USD are
Germany / Austria / U.S.
5,600 / 5,400 / 9200 World Bank data.
The UK has only 3,900 after years of defunding by the Conservative government. That is clearly not enough - if they had HALF of the U.S. expenditures (most of it would be used in the public NHS) they would do just fine.
* per capita healthcare expenditures ALL that is spent in a country on healthcare no matter who pays for it, insured or uninsured, divided by the number of all inhabitants.
The wealthy European nations (except for the UK) start out around 4,300 - up to 6,000 is the common range.
"Wealthy": wage levels (determined by cost of living) matter in healthcare
So even cost-efficient healthcare has its price, imagine a family of 4 (the costs are "per capita" that means also the healthy toddler - everyone is in the same risk pool, since the insurer is non-profit there is no cherry picking, healthcare is needed from birth till death - so there is no rational to split the population up into different risk or age pools).
That would mean at least the equivalent of USD 4,500 x 4 per year = USD 18,000). So there must be some additional funding apart from what you let the individuals contribute. There is no other way if ALL citizens (including low income families or individuals) shall have GOOD healthcare.
That of course means a very streamlined administration. No bureaucraZy necessary to check out who gets what with what co-pays, no law suits, no incentive to deny treatment. It is a lot of work and costly to deny care.
There is mandatory insurance if you earn more than 550 USD per month. (provisions for students, unemployed, etc. who get it for free. Or worst case - insure yourself - the maximum amount of 70 - 100 USD per month will give you full coverage).
Extra tax funding goes into the budget of the insurance agency because the wage funding would not suffice - meaning the lower(er) income people, the low wage industries, the rural areas, the families with more children, and people with pre-existing conditions profit from those who are in a better (financial) position.
And that contribution covers everything. There is of course no evaluation of health status or preexisting conditions. It does not matter.
The insurance company negotiates the contracts with the doctors (70 to 80 % have one) and the hospitals (almost all of them are non-profit, some private, some owned by the city). Last but not least they negotiate drug prices with the pharma industry.
Non-profit means no other goal than to a) make good healthcare happen and b) stay within their budget.
A treatment is either available for everyone or for no one.
Testing just because the patient has a "good" insurance coverage that will pay: No.
The doctors decides: it is medically warranted - Yes, it will be done.
The doctors know about the latest treatments. (and pharma companies lobby them regarding their newest drugs). They want of course those tools available in their work.
So that takes care of medical progress and treatments that are worthy of First World countries.
There is an advantage for society to have up-to date medicine and treatments (the employers get their folks back earlier, there are less external costs like people not being able to care for themselves, their family or not being able to earn a living).
A NON-PROFIT insurance company CAN consider such costs for society.
A for-profit company would have no incentive to go for the more expensive treatment because survival rates are higher, or because the patients will make a better or speedier recovery - or make enough of a recovery to return to a job.
The non-profit agency can make that part of their arguments in case they would need higher funding.
Sure they need to stay within the budgets over time and they for sure would have to make a good case if they want more funding.
But all participants accept the premise that they aim for the best possible outcome for the patients - that is almost always ALSO the most cost-efficient solution for society and over time.
Same for preventive medicine.
I saw two videos where U.S. diabetes patients cannot afford their medication resp. insuline. Diabetes that is not managed well has terrible consequences for the patients and causes immense avoidable costs - let alone the suffering and premature deaths.
John Oliver reported on the dialysis scam. (the for-profit institutions that offer the dialysis (lucrative for them, plus some fraud with medication) do their best to keep the info from their (low(er) income patients that they should sign up for a transplant as soon as possible.
I guess someone with good middle class background often has an aquaintance or relative that is in the profession and knows that dialysis is a provisory. Moreover people with more income might be more atuned to do their own research and run from that "medical" provider as fast as they can.
Ignorance in medical matters (or that the person is past their intellectual prime) should be no reason to withhold reasonable treatment from people. I know no other wealthy country where such a scheme would be even possible.
a kidney transplant would very much increase their survival rate and quality of life. And would cost less - if you consider the whole system.
Such dysfunction and cruelty is unknown in systems with a strong non-profit component.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
UK per capita healthcare expenditures - only !! - USD 3,900 * / private U.S. system USD 9,200 (among the HIGHEST in the world), Australia has 6,000. Wealthy European countries and Canada 5,000 - 5,500 (and for that money a First World country definitely can have a well working system).
* source: World Bank. Health care expenditures for nations, data 2014
Germany 5,600, Austria 5,400. I know from experience that both countries have good systems. 3,900, vs. 5,600 PER PERSON (in the country !) is a HUGE difference.
If the UK had 69 % higher expenditures per capita it would be at the German level - and most of it would land in the NHS budget.
see my longer comment under the thread of +Tiger Eye
1
-
1
-
- UK per capita healthcare expenditures - only !! - USD 3,900 * , U.S. USD 9,200 (among the HIGHEST in the world), Australia has 6,000. Wealthy European countries and Canada 5,000 - 5,500 (and for that money a First World country definitely can have a good and well working non-profit system based on solidarity).
* source: World Bank. Health care expenditures for nations, data 2014 Germany 5,600, Austria 5,400. I know from experience that both countries have good systems. 3,900, vs. 5,600 is a HUGE difference.
The UK costs mostly stem from the public NHS system (plus the private services that citizens feel compelled to pay for extra if they can afford them).
If the UK had 69 % higher expenditures it would be at the German level - and most of it would land in the NHS budget. And if the NHS would be good and relyable without long waiting times etc., even wealthy people would see no reason to pay for private services/insurance.
Even if the UK expenditures would be raised to let's say only 4,2 or 4,5k like the next best wealthy European countries it might work much better.
With UNDERFUNDUNG it is possible to DESTROY / UNDERMINE even well working systems. A NHS working like a charm and still being among the most cost-competitive systems in Europe would deny the Tories any pretext to privatize the NHS - no shares of the potentially lucrative pie for the their friends.
In all wealthy nations healthcare is 8 - 10 % of GDP (17 % it was for the U.S. in 2014 now going towards 20 %). That is a major part of the economy - and as long as a system leans heavily towards public non-profit - it is off-limits for the "investors".
So it it is the first order to run it into the ground to have a pretext for "privatization". (Thatcher inteneded that secretely despite other promises before elections, but her inner circle feared the consequences and talked her out of it).
I gave the costs of wealthy countries in Europe - Poland or Hungary have lower per capita expenditures - but then their wage levels are much lower, and that influences costs very much.
(As you can see in the World Bank stats - the "Champions League" in Europe has a certain level and it starts out with around 4,2 k and upwards).
Countries with high wage levels and high overall standard of living like Switzerland or Norway have much higher expenditures (+9k resp. + 8k).
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Baby Barbie Extreme weather events are more likely, draughts followed by torrential rains, hailstorms, tornadoes in Europe, .... because there is more heat in the system, more water evaporates, the system is more erratic. That water vapor will come down somewhere and within days.
So we might get even more rain, but in a way that is harder to manage for us.
And the too warm Arctic ocean water makes such systems more stable (the same happens with hurricanes. Harvey was supposed to get weaker after 28 hours (that is the average after hitting land). The hurricane is fueled by warm ocean water and once it hits land that connection is weakened, so it runs out of steam.
Well, not anymore. Harvey became stationary and circled in Tx, (Houston area). If the system is 2.5 times longer in a space and fully delivers on rain, it causes more flooding.
This was too much rain in a short time, and it was not only a region thunderstorm.
The maximum rainfall was 158 mm, that is a LOT for that region BUT first world nations should be able to cope, it is technically possible.
They have to cope in developing countries. Of course zone and construction codes were not changed, people are allowed suburban homes where maybe 25 % of the area is left as open ground that can even absorg water, the rest is stones, tarmac, house, ....
No rainwater harvested from the roofs, so if there is unusal rain, the drainiage system is overhwelmed, good soil driveways where the water can infiltrate, wwodchip paths instead of stones, thaat would take some of the rain and reduce pressure (if all neighbours and communties are ordered to do that.
the soils, the slopes the storm drains are not built to deal with the masses of water, they got at least the amount that they get in all of July within short time and over a larger area of Europe I have seen the weather forecoast (I think here on BBC) one could see how more and more rain was sucked over parts of Europe and the damn system did not get weaker. The supply kept on.
There are mistakes like monocultures (fields, forests) and sealing off a lot of land for settlements. Then the water is all drained into the storm drains in cities or into the smalle creeks. Those either flood or feed the next larger stream. If the heavy rains go down over parts of Rance, Germany, Austria, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Belgium you get a LOT of water into small, medium and larger rivers. It adds up.
In the Germany city where the old castle and some houses and part of the motorway simply broke off there is mining of gravel going on.
The rivers is nearby the gravel site, so it was not hard for the river to change course (with extreme amount of water) and to undermine the soil.
A slope had major sinkholes or mudslides. I saw a photo from before, large areas that are likely used for farming, and those conventionally worked soils cannot absorb water well 8for that one would need good soil Same with manicured lawn, that is also surprisingly bad with water infiltration.
Soil is supposed to have lots of pores, and good soil has stable pores. That can soak up some water. But when it gets to much a layer of water underground can form, it is like a greased slide then.
good soil can take more, and if an area has strategically placed trees it is also better they literally anchor the land, especially on slopes trees and good soil are important.
Well, they obviously did not have that, I very much looks like conventional field on a slope. If the soil had a lot of gravel (or underneath) the water CAN infiltrate but then the soil cannot hold it. Again good top soil can absorb and HOLD water (so it does not form the sliding layer when the moisture hits inpermeable bedrock).
IF that was gravelly soil then trees normally root deeply (to get water), so they hold the ground.
1