|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 14 2017 09:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:
None of you are answering the question as to what constitutes a big enough piece of land and what constitutes an optimal response?
China is taking land from the Philippines. The reason its problematic is that China did not even try taking them until they realized that the West did jack shit when Russia took Crimea. The Philippines is definitely upset about it, but are so much smaller than China.
How much territory are we comfortable being annexed before we say "now stop."
Do what's right strategically or morally?
Morally, don't be hypocritical on the world stage so there can be a moral argument to make.
Strategically, disrupt the OBOR project.
|
On January 14 2017 09:23 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2017 08:39 Nyxisto wrote:On January 14 2017 08:28 LegalLord wrote:On January 14 2017 08:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 14 2017 08:08 LegalLord wrote:On January 14 2017 07:59 mustaju wrote:On January 14 2017 07:46 LegalLord wrote:On January 14 2017 07:35 mustaju wrote:On January 14 2017 07:28 LegalLord wrote:On January 14 2017 07:25 mustaju wrote:
[quote]
I did not mention Hitler once. Nazism is a subset of fascism, your attack is unfounded and unfair. Do you think that some cases exist where fascism as defined is a good thing? Or do you agree that it is an ideology that should only be interpreted unfavorably? I deliberately did not make value judgements in my comparison of the definition of fascism and Russian ideology. I can assure you, there are people who call themselves fascists proudly, and see it as a valid ideology. Clearly, I do not belong in that subcategory, but that does not mean that comparisons are automatically invalid. I know there are. But if we're able to agree that fascism should not be seen as a good thing, then we can agree that the entire matter of making the label is less about description for useful understanding than for thinking about whether a pejorative applies. Which simply isn't very useful for any positive discussion. Of course, this is further complicated by the existence of the term neo-fascism, which can mean any number of things. Yes, it is true that Hitler/Nazism is not the same as fascism. And yet that is precisely the sentiment that is meant to be invoked, from characterizing the KKK to Trump to any given nation as fascist: to say that they intend to do something similar to what Hitler did because that is where the ideology leads. So it's not bad to skip to the chase and talk about those who are almost willing to just straight up say that Hitler weren't so bad. We happen to be on a large message board with a large plethora of views, and everything you are saying goes too far in assuming my intentions. Correlation is not causation in this case, especially since I clearly stated how I would not say Russia is fascist myself (even though there are academics arguing that to be the case) In any case, would you concede that any objective discussion of whether X is or is not fascist/fascism is tainted by the fact that no sane person would ever say "fascism is good" even if many elements that fit within the definition of fascism might appeal to people (and that that isn't necessarily a bad thing)? The original use of the term is almost certainly the pejorative since China is communist in name only. I don't think it's relevant to discuss what pejorative we should throw at China and Russia and instead talk more deeply about their acts of imperial annexations. What is a big enough target for them to annex to warrant a response and what is the proper response. Should we play the same game for "regime change" operations that kill the leadership but preserve (de jure, not necessarily de facto) state sovereignty and solidarity? The biggest difference is that Crimea is historically Russian, China has some claims to its islands, but the US isn't fighting in disputes involving historically contested territories. historical claims to territory are just about the worst reason to go to war though. That the US decides to involve itself in wars for rational rather than sentimental reasons, at least in principle, is somewhat of an improvement. Crimea is geostrategically valuable, but there certainly is a "history" argument for selling it. Same with Iraq and democracy/nation building. Not making moral judgements on any events, just noting that the difference between annexation and whatever else is done is due to pragmatic, rather than moral, reasons.
I'd argue its neither.
I think that the imperial rebellions of India and Vietnam are just too recent. Another 50-100 years time and we won't be happy with non-proactive annexations.
|
The Senate Intelligence Committee's review of Russian meddling in the 2016 election will include a look at intelligence "regarding links between Russia and individuals associated with political campaigns."
Sen. Richard Burr, R-North Carolina, the committee's chairman, and Sen. Mark Warner, D-Virginia, the committee's vice chairman, said in a joint statement that the investigation into alleged Russian interference in the election also will focus on Russian cyberactivity and "active measures" against the US.
It was known that intelligence panels in both chambers of Congress were tapped by Republican leaders to probe the hacking, but Friday's announcement makes clear the scope and details about the review. It is also notable that the announcement was joined by Warner, as Democrats have clamored for a bipartisan look into Russian meddling in the election.
CNN
Last April, the CIA director was shown intelligence that worried him. It was - allegedly - a tape recording of a conversation about money from the Kremlin going into the US presidential campaign.
It was passed to the US by an intelligence agency of one of the Baltic States. The CIA cannot act domestically against American citizens so a joint counter-intelligence taskforce was created.
The taskforce included six agencies or departments of government. Dealing with the domestic, US, side of the inquiry, were the FBI, the Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Justice. For the foreign and intelligence aspects of the investigation, there were another three agencies: the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Security Agency, responsible for electronic spying.
Lawyers from the National Security Division in the Department of Justice then drew up an application. They took it to the secret US court that deals with intelligence, the Fisa court, named after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They wanted permission to intercept the electronic records from two Russian banks.
...
A lawyer- outside the Department of Justice but familiar with the case - told me that three of Mr Trump's associates were the subject of the inquiry. "But it's clear this is about Trump," he said.
BBC
|
If nothing else I hope Flynn gets crucified over this stuff. It's clear he's total scum and, what's worse, incompetent at being scummy, and Trump isn't quite so brazen as to lie about knowing Flynn like he lied about having Carter Page on his campaign team (or knowing Putin or having any Russian interests, for that matter).
Also, I really hope that the Senate reactions to their intel briefing are indicative there is some nasty stuff here and not some shrewd Republican machinations. We'll see.
Burr before the briefing (although after another one):
"We don't have anything to do with political campaigns,” Burr said Thursday as he left a closed-door briefing with intelligence officials on Russian meddling. “We don't have any authority to go to any campaign and request information that one would need to do an investigation.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/senate-trump-russia-investigation-233572
Burr after another briefing:
"The Committee will follow the intelligence wherever it leads,” the senators said in a statement that said the scope of the inquiry would include—but not be limited to—“counterintelligence concerns related to Russia and the 2016 U.S. election, including any intelligence regarding links between Russia and individuals associated with political campaigns."
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/senate-panel-to-investigate-potential-links-between-russia-trump-campaign-2017-01-13
|
I'm not too fond of Flynn myself either. He strikes me as mentally unstable overall. But he's chosen directly by Trump without confirmation, so oh well.
|
On January 14 2017 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2017 00:39 Mohdoo wrote:
lol @ Cory Booker voting against Canadian medicine. The disconnect within the democratic party is insane. To think they are trying to groom this guy for a presidential run, while completely shitting on any hope of a positive image in the eyes of young democrats.
Cory Booker - GTFO Yeah, it was pretty dumb, especially since he had just recently voted to weaken FDA standards not long before. It's almost like several of those Democrats being top recipients of pharmaceutical campaign donations might have had something to do with it. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) is catching hell for this and is actually up in 2018, so folks are already looking to give her a progressive primary opponent. I'm glad to see you and Farv get it, but I noticed that Mag randomly blamed Bernie for Republicans trying to dismantle the ACA (as if it couldn't have been avoided by "moderate Democrats" falling in line and supporting a public option), and Kwiz hasn't expressed an opinion (as far as I saw). So I'm curious, what do mag and Kwiz, think of Booker voting against the prescription drug amendment?
I'm neither mag nor kwiz, but as a New Jerseyan I can tell you that I'm extremely disappointed that both Booker and Menendez voted against the amendment. They got a lot of angry phone calls from us. That being said, I'm actually not surprised they voted no, since there are big pharmaceutical companies in NJ (e.g., Novartis). The amendment would have been great for all Americans- including New Jerseyans- but it probably wouldn't have been great for NJ's state financial interests. I also thought Booker's excuse about Canadian drugs not necessarily being safe was total bullshit and a cop-out. Also, Booker being fundraised by Trump in the past makes me a little nervous as to how progressive and objective Booker could truly be.
|
On January 14 2017 21:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2017 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 14 2017 00:39 Mohdoo wrote:
lol @ Cory Booker voting against Canadian medicine. The disconnect within the democratic party is insane. To think they are trying to groom this guy for a presidential run, while completely shitting on any hope of a positive image in the eyes of young democrats.
Cory Booker - GTFO Yeah, it was pretty dumb, especially since he had just recently voted to weaken FDA standards not long before. It's almost like several of those Democrats being top recipients of pharmaceutical campaign donations might have had something to do with it. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) is catching hell for this and is actually up in 2018, so folks are already looking to give her a progressive primary opponent. I'm glad to see you and Farv get it, but I noticed that Mag randomly blamed Bernie for Republicans trying to dismantle the ACA (as if it couldn't have been avoided by "moderate Democrats" falling in line and supporting a public option), and Kwiz hasn't expressed an opinion (as far as I saw). So I'm curious, what do mag and Kwiz, think of Booker voting against the prescription drug amendment? I'm neither mag nor kwiz, but as a New Jerseyan I can tell you that I'm extremely disappointed that both Booker and Menendez voted against the amendment. They got a lot of angry phone calls from us. That being said, I'm actually not surprised they voted no, since there are big pharmaceutical companies in NJ (e.g., Novartis). The amendment would have been great for all Americans- including New Jerseyans- but it probably wouldn't have been great for NJ's state financial interests. I also thought Booker's excuse about Canadian drugs not necessarily being safe was total bullshit and a cop-out. Also, Booker being fundraised by Trump in the past makes me a little nervous as to how progressive and objective Booker could truly be.
Glad to hear it.
Not sure whether I would prefer the BS from Booker or the silence we're getting in WA, but that's just a glimpse at what people have been saying about Democrats. If people take a close look at a lot of legislation, they'll find Democrats supporting things like H.B.2 (more commonly known as the "bathroom bill").
About time we hold them accountable when they act not only against our interests but against their alleged intentions, especially when they turn around and lie to us to cover their ass.
|
On January 14 2017 11:52 LegalLord wrote:
I'm not too fond of Flynn myself either. He strikes me as mentally unstable overall. But he's chosen directly by Trump without confirmation, so oh well.
I can't remember but I think it was either BBC or NPR had somebody who knew him professionally. They said that amongst the people in intelligence there was something called "Flynn Facts" because he didn't like to accept facts that did not agree with his worldview. A partner made in heaven for Trump.
|
It really bothers me Trump is too shortsighted to even figure out the best way to last out vengefully at people that criticize him or simply anger him (like John Lewis or the bizarre "Russia says they don't have material on me"). That, more than anything, make me doubt the "genius mastermind" hypotheses.
|
On January 15 2017 09:49 TheTenthDoc wrote:It really bothers me Trump is too shortsighted to even figure out the best way to last out vengefully at people that criticize him or simply anger him (like John Lewis or the bizarre "Russia says they don't have material on me"). That, more than anything, make me doubt the "genius mastermind" hypotheses.
I don't think he's a genius mastermind so much as an idiot savant. The guy knows how to own a room, the only time I've seen him not be in command of a room is when Obama was in the same room, and for stretches during the GE debates (but he owned the room for significant portions of those as well).
Trump's only real whiff on these has been the Khan Family, anything he's gotten wrong wasn't really him getting it wrong so much as old stuff clinging to him. I don't mean his responses are accurate or appropriate, just that he knows his audience and it's working for them, and more to the point, it's causing the fights he wants between R's and D's.
|
That SNL cold open was brutal. Probably went further than any of the other anti-Trump sketches. I'm honestly expecting some sort of tweet within the hour
|
|
|
Will be interesting to see how the "national security" Dems handle the transition to giving Trump unfettered access to the internal intelligence apparatus Obama helped strengthen, while other Dems carried his water.
|
The Dems mostly threw out their long-standing suspicion of the intelligence folk after this whole "Russian hackers" matter. At least on its face - they never really cared, seeing as how much horseshit Obama's "we want whistleblowers to expose our government's faults" was.
Oh well, I don't care as much as some others might.
|
On January 14 2017 04:12 farvacola wrote:Expect these numbers to rise even more during the next four years. Show nested quote +Every day in cities across the country, tens of thousands of people wait in line to have a needle put in their arms for up to two hours.
Instead of donating their blood plasma, these people receive payments for the time it takes to give their plasma -- the clear, straw-colored liquid part of the blood that contains special proteins -- to for-profit companies. The companies purify the plasma, turning it into life-saving drugs for immune disorders and other drugs, including those used in cancer and transplant patients.
“I donate specifically for the money because I work a minimum wage job. I work as a cashier and a stocker. I used to work as a repair technician for 14 bucks an hour, so I’m used to more than what I’m getting,” David, who donates his plasma, said.
In the U.S., most people technically donate their plasma but are paid for their time doing that.
The U.S. supplies 94 percent of the paid plasma used around the world. And nearly 80 percent of the plasma centers in the U.S. are located in America’s poorer neighborhoods.
Many of the people who frequent these centers to give their plasma are full-time workers and low-income Americans who are just unable to make ends meet.
William, who has two children and works at a Burger King in Kansas City, Missouri, says he gives his blood plasma twice a week.
“I go Fridays and Sundays. Right arm I use Friday. Other I use Sunday. I switch up every time,” William said. “It’s a 21-gauge needle, so it’s pretty thick.”
The payment they receive averages about $30 to $40, and for the companies, it is a $19.7 billion global industry.
Many foreign companies come to the U.S. to get the plasma for certain drugs instead of where they are headquartered because the laws in the U.S. are favorable for plasma donations.
“For a majority of people -- apparently -- it’s relatively safe. We really don’t know what the long-term effects because it’s a relatively new phenomenon," Dr. Roger Kobayashi, a clinical professor of immunology at UCLA, said.
According to the Plasma Protein Therapeutics Association, the frequency and volume parameters for plasma donation are approved by the FDA and have been in use for approximately fifty years.
"These regulations and guidelines are based on the best available science and are in place to protect the health of plasma donors. In just the past decade, the industry has collected more than 235,000,000 source plasma donations from dedicated donors that have treated hundreds of thousands of patients all over the world," the Plasma Protein Therapeutics Association (PPTA) said in a statement to ABC News. "Source plasma donation is safe and is highly regulated. Donors must meet criteria defined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and voluntary industry standards. Healthy, committed donors are the foundation of plasma-derived therapies."
Kobayashi said what was once “a simple gift of life has now evolved into a multi-national, highly profitable corporate enterprise.” Why Thousands of Low-Income Americans 'Donate' Their Blood Plasma to For-Profit Centers
It's the rational thing to do farv. It's worth a million dollars over a lifetime for a couple hours a week.
On October 28 2016 06:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 05:56 IgnE wrote:On October 28 2016 05:43 KwarK wrote:
Igne, I don't know why you can't use Excel so I can't speak for your numbers, only my own. Your assumption of the same amount being saved in the first year of working (18?) and the year they retire (58, good for them, early retirement) is unrealistic. People typically experience an increase in earning potential with age. However 700k will produce a reliable median income to live on for our early retiree. As for taxes, with just 5k a year and having him be low income for life, that's ROTH IRA territory. No taxes to pay. Not that he's owe taxes on that kind of yield anyway, so the tax status isn't important. Your completely hypothetical and totally unrealistic retirement saver who saves less of his paycheck year on year and retires early, he's fine. Sorry bro. you are basically assuming an upper middle class worker then. if the contributions go up over 5k maybe we should assume a young'n with a ~30k annual salary and no contributions till age 29. i assume you know what "median" means? do i need to pull up a graph of real wages vs time for the last three decades? you pretend like im ridiculous and wave your hands "its math, open an excel worksheet". yah ok. youve proved that kwarks everywhere can expect at least 700k. sadly not even millionaires. We've done this dance before and I'm sure we'll do it again before you learn to use Excel but basically right now I make an unremarkable income (still a while from finishing my CPA) but I still save far more than 5k/year and certainly wouldn't reduce my savings as a percentage of total income over time. You start with the assumption that it can't be done, set conditions that mean it won't be done and then conclude that you're right. The only problem being people like myself who are defying all your ironclad assumptions. Hell, something as simple as donating blood plasma ($20/hr 4 hours a week) and throwing it in savings is worth half a mil over a working life. You are the textbook example of the crab bucket mentality. You refuse to take responsibility for improving your own life and so you must try to undermine anyone who disproves your own delusions of helplessness.
|
On January 15 2017 16:05 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2017 04:12 farvacola wrote:Expect these numbers to rise even more during the next four years. Every day in cities across the country, tens of thousands of people wait in line to have a needle put in their arms for up to two hours.
Instead of donating their blood plasma, these people receive payments for the time it takes to give their plasma -- the clear, straw-colored liquid part of the blood that contains special proteins -- to for-profit companies. The companies purify the plasma, turning it into life-saving drugs for immune disorders and other drugs, including those used in cancer and transplant patients.
“I donate specifically for the money because I work a minimum wage job. I work as a cashier and a stocker. I used to work as a repair technician for 14 bucks an hour, so I’m used to more than what I’m getting,” David, who donates his plasma, said.
In the U.S., most people technically donate their plasma but are paid for their time doing that.
The U.S. supplies 94 percent of the paid plasma used around the world. And nearly 80 percent of the plasma centers in the U.S. are located in America’s poorer neighborhoods.
Many of the people who frequent these centers to give their plasma are full-time workers and low-income Americans who are just unable to make ends meet.
William, who has two children and works at a Burger King in Kansas City, Missouri, says he gives his blood plasma twice a week.
“I go Fridays and Sundays. Right arm I use Friday. Other I use Sunday. I switch up every time,” William said. “It’s a 21-gauge needle, so it’s pretty thick.”
The payment they receive averages about $30 to $40, and for the companies, it is a $19.7 billion global industry.
Many foreign companies come to the U.S. to get the plasma for certain drugs instead of where they are headquartered because the laws in the U.S. are favorable for plasma donations.
“For a majority of people -- apparently -- it’s relatively safe. We really don’t know what the long-term effects because it’s a relatively new phenomenon," Dr. Roger Kobayashi, a clinical professor of immunology at UCLA, said.
According to the Plasma Protein Therapeutics Association, the frequency and volume parameters for plasma donation are approved by the FDA and have been in use for approximately fifty years.
"These regulations and guidelines are based on the best available science and are in place to protect the health of plasma donors. In just the past decade, the industry has collected more than 235,000,000 source plasma donations from dedicated donors that have treated hundreds of thousands of patients all over the world," the Plasma Protein Therapeutics Association (PPTA) said in a statement to ABC News. "Source plasma donation is safe and is highly regulated. Donors must meet criteria defined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and voluntary industry standards. Healthy, committed donors are the foundation of plasma-derived therapies."
Kobayashi said what was once “a simple gift of life has now evolved into a multi-national, highly profitable corporate enterprise.” Why Thousands of Low-Income Americans 'Donate' Their Blood Plasma to For-Profit Centers It's the rational thing to do farv. It's worth a million dollars over a lifetime for a couple hours a week. Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 06:10 KwarK wrote:On October 28 2016 05:56 IgnE wrote:On October 28 2016 05:43 KwarK wrote:
Igne, I don't know why you can't use Excel so I can't speak for your numbers, only my own. Your assumption of the same amount being saved in the first year of working (18?) and the year they retire (58, good for them, early retirement) is unrealistic. People typically experience an increase in earning potential with age. However 700k will produce a reliable median income to live on for our early retiree. As for taxes, with just 5k a year and having him be low income for life, that's ROTH IRA territory. No taxes to pay. Not that he's owe taxes on that kind of yield anyway, so the tax status isn't important. Your completely hypothetical and totally unrealistic retirement saver who saves less of his paycheck year on year and retires early, he's fine. Sorry bro. you are basically assuming an upper middle class worker then. if the contributions go up over 5k maybe we should assume a young'n with a ~30k annual salary and no contributions till age 29. i assume you know what "median" means? do i need to pull up a graph of real wages vs time for the last three decades? you pretend like im ridiculous and wave your hands "its math, open an excel worksheet". yah ok. youve proved that kwarks everywhere can expect at least 700k. sadly not even millionaires. We've done this dance before and I'm sure we'll do it again before you learn to use Excel but basically right now I make an unremarkable income (still a while from finishing my CPA) but I still save far more than 5k/year and certainly wouldn't reduce my savings as a percentage of total income over time. You start with the assumption that it can't be done, set conditions that mean it won't be done and then conclude that you're right. The only problem being people like myself who are defying all your ironclad assumptions. Hell, something as simple as donating blood plasma ($20/hr 4 hours a week) and throwing it in savings is worth half a mil over a working life. You are the textbook example of the crab bucket mentality. You refuse to take responsibility for improving your own life and so you must try to undermine anyone who disproves your own delusions of helplessness.
I think farvacola wasn't objecting to them doing it, but rather the fucked up circumstances that leads to people doing that. Plenty of room for a discussion on the ethics of blood plasma trade.
|
Trump's John Lewis attack is emblematic of Trump's moral depravity - his response to a slight is to try to attack them in the most personal way possible. So he calls John Lewis, who was beaten by police in the civil rights fight, "all talk and no action". In the case of women, he attacks their appearance and hormones.
This is the thing I'll never understand with Trump voters who are actually politically active and intelligent - their endorsement of his moral depravity. The notion that it won't affect policy is pretty mind boggling. John Lewis said Trump isn't a legitimate president. Can we think of anyone else who has called a president's legitimacy into question? LOL
|
On January 15 2017 20:28 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2017 16:05 IgnE wrote:On January 14 2017 04:12 farvacola wrote:Expect these numbers to rise even more during the next four years. Every day in cities across the country, tens of thousands of people wait in line to have a needle put in their arms for up to two hours.
Instead of donating their blood plasma, these people receive payments for the time it takes to give their plasma -- the clear, straw-colored liquid part of the blood that contains special proteins -- to for-profit companies. The companies purify the plasma, turning it into life-saving drugs for immune disorders and other drugs, including those used in cancer and transplant patients.
“I donate specifically for the money because I work a minimum wage job. I work as a cashier and a stocker. I used to work as a repair technician for 14 bucks an hour, so I’m used to more than what I’m getting,” David, who donates his plasma, said.
In the U.S., most people technically donate their plasma but are paid for their time doing that.
The U.S. supplies 94 percent of the paid plasma used around the world. And nearly 80 percent of the plasma centers in the U.S. are located in America’s poorer neighborhoods.
Many of the people who frequent these centers to give their plasma are full-time workers and low-income Americans who are just unable to make ends meet.
William, who has two children and works at a Burger King in Kansas City, Missouri, says he gives his blood plasma twice a week.
“I go Fridays and Sundays. Right arm I use Friday. Other I use Sunday. I switch up every time,” William said. “It’s a 21-gauge needle, so it’s pretty thick.”
The payment they receive averages about $30 to $40, and for the companies, it is a $19.7 billion global industry.
Many foreign companies come to the U.S. to get the plasma for certain drugs instead of where they are headquartered because the laws in the U.S. are favorable for plasma donations.
“For a majority of people -- apparently -- it’s relatively safe. We really don’t know what the long-term effects because it’s a relatively new phenomenon," Dr. Roger Kobayashi, a clinical professor of immunology at UCLA, said.
According to the Plasma Protein Therapeutics Association, the frequency and volume parameters for plasma donation are approved by the FDA and have been in use for approximately fifty years.
"These regulations and guidelines are based on the best available science and are in place to protect the health of plasma donors. In just the past decade, the industry has collected more than 235,000,000 source plasma donations from dedicated donors that have treated hundreds of thousands of patients all over the world," the Plasma Protein Therapeutics Association (PPTA) said in a statement to ABC News. "Source plasma donation is safe and is highly regulated. Donors must meet criteria defined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and voluntary industry standards. Healthy, committed donors are the foundation of plasma-derived therapies."
Kobayashi said what was once “a simple gift of life has now evolved into a multi-national, highly profitable corporate enterprise.” Why Thousands of Low-Income Americans 'Donate' Their Blood Plasma to For-Profit Centers It's the rational thing to do farv. It's worth a million dollars over a lifetime for a couple hours a week. On October 28 2016 06:10 KwarK wrote:On October 28 2016 05:56 IgnE wrote:On October 28 2016 05:43 KwarK wrote:
Igne, I don't know why you can't use Excel so I can't speak for your numbers, only my own. Your assumption of the same amount being saved in the first year of working (18?) and the year they retire (58, good for them, early retirement) is unrealistic. People typically experience an increase in earning potential with age. However 700k will produce a reliable median income to live on for our early retiree. As for taxes, with just 5k a year and having him be low income for life, that's ROTH IRA territory. No taxes to pay. Not that he's owe taxes on that kind of yield anyway, so the tax status isn't important. Your completely hypothetical and totally unrealistic retirement saver who saves less of his paycheck year on year and retires early, he's fine. Sorry bro. you are basically assuming an upper middle class worker then. if the contributions go up over 5k maybe we should assume a young'n with a ~30k annual salary and no contributions till age 29. i assume you know what "median" means? do i need to pull up a graph of real wages vs time for the last three decades? you pretend like im ridiculous and wave your hands "its math, open an excel worksheet". yah ok. youve proved that kwarks everywhere can expect at least 700k. sadly not even millionaires. We've done this dance before and I'm sure we'll do it again before you learn to use Excel but basically right now I make an unremarkable income (still a while from finishing my CPA) but I still save far more than 5k/year and certainly wouldn't reduce my savings as a percentage of total income over time. You start with the assumption that it can't be done, set conditions that mean it won't be done and then conclude that you're right. The only problem being people like myself who are defying all your ironclad assumptions. Hell, something as simple as donating blood plasma ($20/hr 4 hours a week) and throwing it in savings is worth half a mil over a working life. You are the textbook example of the crab bucket mentality. You refuse to take responsibility for improving your own life and so you must try to undermine anyone who disproves your own delusions of helplessness. I think farvacola wasn't objecting to them doing it, but rather the fucked up circumstances that leads to people doing that. Plenty of room for a discussion on the ethics of blood plasma trade.
Well, both ways you are stuck with a terribly problematic dilemna. In France, it's only on a voluntary basis and a shitload of people can't get plasma when they need it because of how huge the shortage is. I'm usually appaled by this habit of turning everything into billion dollars businesses, especially when it feeds on human misery, but i don't see a favourable end to that one.
Maybe tight regulation (can't give more than once a month fir example) and monitoring on the corporation doing that, or even making it a compulsory non profit activity and leaving it to NGOs would be a good compromise.
By the way, I don't get the figures either. It's paid between 30 and 40$ a session. Twice a week it's 3500$ per year. You can't do much more than that, your body wouldn't take it. On a lifetime (say 60 years) you end up at 200 000 dollars.
It's a lot of money but very hardly a million dollars. And i doubt anyone does that twice a week for 60 years.
|
On January 15 2017 20:28 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2017 16:05 IgnE wrote:On January 14 2017 04:12 farvacola wrote:Expect these numbers to rise even more during the next four years. Every day in cities across the country, tens of thousands of people wait in line to have a needle put in their arms for up to two hours.
Instead of donating their blood plasma, these people receive payments for the time it takes to give their plasma -- the clear, straw-colored liquid part of the blood that contains special proteins -- to for-profit companies. The companies purify the plasma, turning it into life-saving drugs for immune disorders and other drugs, including those used in cancer and transplant patients.
“I donate specifically for the money because I work a minimum wage job. I work as a cashier and a stocker. I used to work as a repair technician for 14 bucks an hour, so I’m used to more than what I’m getting,” David, who donates his plasma, said.
In the U.S., most people technically donate their plasma but are paid for their time doing that.
The U.S. supplies 94 percent of the paid plasma used around the world. And nearly 80 percent of the plasma centers in the U.S. are located in America’s poorer neighborhoods.
Many of the people who frequent these centers to give their plasma are full-time workers and low-income Americans who are just unable to make ends meet.
William, who has two children and works at a Burger King in Kansas City, Missouri, says he gives his blood plasma twice a week.
“I go Fridays and Sundays. Right arm I use Friday. Other I use Sunday. I switch up every time,” William said. “It’s a 21-gauge needle, so it’s pretty thick.”
The payment they receive averages about $30 to $40, and for the companies, it is a $19.7 billion global industry.
Many foreign companies come to the U.S. to get the plasma for certain drugs instead of where they are headquartered because the laws in the U.S. are favorable for plasma donations.
“For a majority of people -- apparently -- it’s relatively safe. We really don’t know what the long-term effects because it’s a relatively new phenomenon," Dr. Roger Kobayashi, a clinical professor of immunology at UCLA, said.
According to the Plasma Protein Therapeutics Association, the frequency and volume parameters for plasma donation are approved by the FDA and have been in use for approximately fifty years.
"These regulations and guidelines are based on the best available science and are in place to protect the health of plasma donors. In just the past decade, the industry has collected more than 235,000,000 source plasma donations from dedicated donors that have treated hundreds of thousands of patients all over the world," the Plasma Protein Therapeutics Association (PPTA) said in a statement to ABC News. "Source plasma donation is safe and is highly regulated. Donors must meet criteria defined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and voluntary industry standards. Healthy, committed donors are the foundation of plasma-derived therapies."
Kobayashi said what was once “a simple gift of life has now evolved into a multi-national, highly profitable corporate enterprise.” Why Thousands of Low-Income Americans 'Donate' Their Blood Plasma to For-Profit Centers It's the rational thing to do farv. It's worth a million dollars over a lifetime for a couple hours a week. On October 28 2016 06:10 KwarK wrote:On October 28 2016 05:56 IgnE wrote:On October 28 2016 05:43 KwarK wrote:
Igne, I don't know why you can't use Excel so I can't speak for your numbers, only my own. Your assumption of the same amount being saved in the first year of working (18?) and the year they retire (58, good for them, early retirement) is unrealistic. People typically experience an increase in earning potential with age. However 700k will produce a reliable median income to live on for our early retiree. As for taxes, with just 5k a year and having him be low income for life, that's ROTH IRA territory. No taxes to pay. Not that he's owe taxes on that kind of yield anyway, so the tax status isn't important. Your completely hypothetical and totally unrealistic retirement saver who saves less of his paycheck year on year and retires early, he's fine. Sorry bro. you are basically assuming an upper middle class worker then. if the contributions go up over 5k maybe we should assume a young'n with a ~30k annual salary and no contributions till age 29. i assume you know what "median" means? do i need to pull up a graph of real wages vs time for the last three decades? you pretend like im ridiculous and wave your hands "its math, open an excel worksheet". yah ok. youve proved that kwarks everywhere can expect at least 700k. sadly not even millionaires. We've done this dance before and I'm sure we'll do it again before you learn to use Excel but basically right now I make an unremarkable income (still a while from finishing my CPA) but I still save far more than 5k/year and certainly wouldn't reduce my savings as a percentage of total income over time. You start with the assumption that it can't be done, set conditions that mean it won't be done and then conclude that you're right. The only problem being people like myself who are defying all your ironclad assumptions. Hell, something as simple as donating blood plasma ($20/hr 4 hours a week) and throwing it in savings is worth half a mil over a working life. You are the textbook example of the crab bucket mentality. You refuse to take responsibility for improving your own life and so you must try to undermine anyone who disproves your own delusions of helplessness. I think farvacola wasn't objecting to them doing it, but rather the fucked up circumstances that leads to people doing that. Plenty of room for a discussion on the ethics of blood plasma trade.
We should prohibit people from selling their blood. That way, we will protect donors from those evil companies cohersing them into making money, they should only be able to donate if they don't get anything out of it, because profit is evil; more important, we will make sure treatment for cancer and autoinmune pacients becomes even more expensive and/or simply unaccecible, weeding out the weaklings.
Protecting people from themselves is always a lousy argument to make laws. See: War on drugs.
|
I donated my blood a few times in France.
I'd do it more often but a couple of hours is pretty precious to me and donating blood makes me nauseous. I can't give without wanting to throw up. I've forced myself a few times to get out of class but today I don't feel like doing it anymore.
I'm not sure I'd do it for money either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
