US Politics Mega-thread - Page 676

On November 29 2013 13:56 xDaunt wrote:

Scary thought, huh?

The deal, Netanyahu argued, leaves Iran "taking only cosmetic steps which it could reverse easily within a few weeks, and in return, sanctions that took years to put in place are going to be eased."

"This first step could very well be the last step," he said.

"Without continued pressure, what incentive does the Iranian regime have to take serious steps that actually dismantle its nuclear weapons capability?"

Mark Regev, a spokesman for Netanyahu, said easing pressure will remove any motivation for Iran's leaders to make difficult decisions.

"It's like having a small hole in your tire, a small hole in the sanctions regime," he said. "In the end, like with your tire, you'll get a flat."

Hospital Puts Docs On the Spot To Lower Costs

Summa Akron City Hospital in Ohio is doing something unusual: sharing data with doctors on how much their patients and procedures cost the hospital.

The hospital is participating in one of the many experiments that the Affordable Care Act set into motion to help figure out how to reduce the nation's skyrocketing healthcare costs. ...

"I can tell you for the physicians in general, yes, it's uncomfortable," says Ken Berkovitz, chairman of the Department of Cardiology at the hospital. He says doctors know what it's like to be compared on quality — for example, they know how many of their patients have to be readmitted because of complications — but they have never been compared on costs. ...

The doctors have been meeting with teams of nurses and administrators to discuss the data and figure out more efficient and cost-effective ways to care for patients. Deirdre Baggot, a healthcare consultant with the Camden Group leads these meetings. Baggot says that in the U.S., an estimated 25 to 35 percent of what hospitals do is wasteful and doesn't improve outcomes. ...

On November 29 2013 23:33 Roe wrote:


Are you afraid to answer the question?

On November 30 2013 02:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Stories like this say a lot:


Link

The new, 'novel' thing going on in hospitals - giving two shits about cost. Would have been nice if they started doing that a generation ago, but better late than never

On November 30 2013 02:37 xDaunt wrote:

Of course not. The answer is that the calculus for the state and for the individual living in society are effectively the same. The difference in actions taken between the two lies in the difference between the scope of the social contract in each arena. International relations is far more lawless than intra-societal relations.

On November 30 2013 03:21 Roe wrote:


That doesn't really answer the question to be honest. And can you speak dumb for me? I'm a simple man, I do not possess a busyness or political degree. I just want to know how the decision between good and bad actions is no longer entailed in foreign relations! pleaaaaase

President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama stopped by the National Mall on Friday, the day after Thanksgiving, to speak with immigration reform activists who are fasting as part of an effort to push Congress to act on a path to citizenship for millions of the nation's undocumented immigrants.

"The President and the First Lady are visiting individuals taking part in Fast For Families on the National Mall and offer their support for those who are fasting on behalf of immigration reform," a White House official said, according to a pool report.

Activists have been fasting on the National Mall since Nov. 12 and have attracted several White House and Congressional leaders who have visited to show solidarity. The Obamas spoke with 18 day fasters and two activists who have been fasting for 18 days: Eliseo Medina (left) and Dae Joong Yoon (right).

During a speech centered on immigration in San Francisco on Monday, Obama noted, the "brave advocates who have been fasting for two weeks in the shadow of the Capitol, sacrificing themselves in an effort to get Congress to act."

When an activist interrupted his speech with a plea to use his executive powers on the issue, Obama countered by saying that the onus was on Congress to act.

"You have a power to stop all deportations," the activist shouted.

On November 30 2013 01:25 Danglars wrote:
When a fundamental Islamic state like Iran is intent on getting nuclear weapons to add to their threats of force, there is very little agreement possible. They know that. At what point will international action, including sanctions, force off this dream of nuclear weapons, if it ever happens? Who knows. I don't think a pause in one part of its uranium enrichment is worth the price we payed in the cards we hold.

Iran still does not recognize Israel. It's stated several times in the past its desire to see it wiped off the map. There is no reason here to pretend its aims are changed and its going to play nicely if we just extend more bribes.
source:cnn
I'm with Netanyahu. Bad foreign policy from the US, gaining cosmetic changes, costing too much in negotiating power.

On November 30 2013 01:25 Danglars wrote:
When a fundamental Islamic state like Iran is intent on getting nuclear weapons to add to their threats of force, there is very little agreement possible. They know that. At what point will international action, including sanctions, force off this dream of nuclear weapons, if it ever happens? Who knows. I don't think a pause in one part of its uranium enrichment is worth the price we payed in the cards we hold.

Iran still does not recognize Israel. It's stated several times in the past its desire to see it wiped off the map. There is no reason here to pretend its aims are changed and its going to play nicely if we just extend more bribes.
source:cnn
I'm with Netanyahu. Bad foreign policy from the US, gaining cosmetic changes, costing too much in negotiating power.

The second translation issue concerns the word "map." Khomeini's words were abstract: "Sahneh roozgar." Sahneh means scene or stage, and roozgar means time. The phrase was widely interpreted as "map," and for years, no one objected. In October, when Mr. Ahmadinejad quoted Khomeini, he actually misquoted him, saying not "Sahneh roozgar" but "Safheh roozgar," meaning pages of time or history. No one noticed the change, and news agencies used the word "map" again.

At a news conference on 14 January 2006, Ahmadinejad stated his speech had been exaggerated and misinterpreted. [96] "There is no new policy, they created a lot of hue and cry over that. It is clear what we say: Let the Palestinians participate in free elections and they will say what they want." Speaking at a D-8 summit meeting in July 2008, he denied that his country would ever instigate military action. Instead he claimed that "the Zionist regime" in Israel would eventually collapse on its own.

Iranian government sources denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat. On 20 February 2006, Iran's foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference: "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize this regime legally."[91][92][93] Ahmadinejad himself stated that Iran is not a threat to any country, including Israel.[94]

On November 30 2013 03:23 xDaunt wrote:

Rephrase your question so that I know what you're asking.

On November 30 2013 09:45 Dapper_Cad wrote:


I think he's asking why you believe altruism is a pathology.

On November 30 2013 07:38 HunterX11 wrote:


So is Iran a fundamentalist Islamic state or not? Because the Supreme Ayatollah Khamenei issued a fatwa stating that nuclear weapons are unequivoically haram. But if that's just for show, and they aren't actually crazy, then of course there's no chance they're going to nuke Israel for shits and giggles. It can't be both ways. And more importantly, there's no actual indication that Iran is intent on getting nuclear weapons at all: if they were, why would they comply with IAEA safeguards?

On November 30 2013 09:34 radscorpion9 wrote:


There is actually a good deal of controversy about whether those statements were quoted correctly. From a New York Times article LINK:



To be fair the translator's in Tehran who work for the President's office disagreed and said that it was *still* an accurate translation. But in spite of that, you can hear from Ahmadinejad himself. From the Wikipedia entry LINK



Additional quotes from the same entry:



There is another quote from Ahmadinejad (which you can read) about how he has no problem with Jewish people and even accepts them in Iran as citizens, giving them representation in parliament.

It is clear that Iran's leaders don't like Israel (at least in recent history and the near future). But its a huge, *huge* step to think that they would actually go forward with nuking them without thinking about the obvious reprisals - and that the whole government would be insane enough to do this (not just one unstable leader). I really don't think that Ahmadinejad's rhetoric is a solid enough footing to have certainty that Iran will go through with this, especially considering all the official statements they have made countering what everyone seems to be so certain about.

Its similar to North Korea. North Korea is about as unstable as it gets, and they employ ridiculous levels of rhetoric about how they will rain nuclear fire on their foes...and then after a month nothing happens and they ask for food aid. Compare it to Iran, where all you have are ambiguous quotes at best that they maintain refer to regime change and not destroying anyone, yet somehow people take them 100x more seriously than crazy North Korea, and genuinely believe that when one leader says some offensive rhetoric, it 100% means nuclear war is imminent. Its just way too extreme of a conclusion to draw

This is all just one big misunderstanding!

On November 30 2013 10:29 xDaunt wrote:
Yeah, I'm done explaining myself on this theory of foreign policy business. If you guys don't get it after the last page of comments, then you never will.