All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[Darkspellmaster]

Don't know you have heard about that but here in France they have noticed a curious thing, smokers seem to be less affected by the desease than other people. Like, only 5% of people infected are smokers. It could actually be related to nicotine.

Take it with a lot of salt but that's interesting.

I'm going to hope this does not get in the ear of Tobacco industry or Trump because next thing you know there will be people dying from nicotine poisoning because they swallowed pure nicotine thinking it will keep them safe.

[Jim Kelly]

What's the endgame for Trump and his business elites?

I understand that Trump is a moron, but he's being handled by corporate bigwigs who have access to the science. They know that it's quite likely that there will be a massive spike in fatalities if the economy re-opens too rapidly. They might gain in the short term, but a large number of deaths is going to scare away consumers and investors. So I don't really see what they hope to achieve.

[Mister Mets]

I guess from my perspective the trade-off is wealthy corporations, wealthy doctors etc versus people's health, lives and livelihoods. Like, someone who gets a chronic illness shouldn't have to go bankrupt. To me, it simple seems as matter of common decency that you would not allow your fellow contrypeople to die from lack of money. There isn't military insurance - US citizens are forced to pay for the defence of the realm as a common good. Why not healthcare? Having more healthy people makes more money, sure all capitalists can get behind that?

Re higher minimum wage. This goes hand in hand with lower taxes for big corporations and wealthy people - Voodoo economics. You don't have to be a Rhodes scholar to figure out that if someone on the minimum has a tax cut then they're likely to spend that money right away - on cinemas, restaurants, cafes, supermarkets, consumer electronics. Those businesses' sales go up, those workers can earn more wages, those companies can employ more people. Then those people spend their money and the cycle continues.

What's someone on $10 million a year going to buy? Another Ferrari? Another holiday house? Another yacht? That only helps a few businesses and a few more rich people.

I don't expect your country's culture to change. Like, it blows my mind that machine guns are still readily available.

It's not really clear that if the United States were to reduce the salaries for wealthy doctors and corporate officials, we'll have a health-care system that functions well while only costing two percent of taxable income, based on the Australia standard you articulated. One immediate question is who would determine the limits on what doctors can charge? How would you prevent people from going outside of that system?

In the United States, it is a lot of work to be a doctor. It is typically four years for an undergraduate degree, and four years in medical school, before the residency begins. There is a need to incentivize intelligent people to put in all that hard work, and money (Incidentally, I can understand any argument that we must cut wasteful spending by universities and medical schools to make it less expensive for future doctors).

Looking this up, Australia seems to have a two-tiered system with adequate and cheap care in the public system, and a private system where people who pay more get more.

https://www.vox.com/2020/1/15/210305...*****-medicare

That's a different policy discussion, which is going to involve the thorny questions of what's going to be good enough for universal coverage.

As for minimum wage, it seems your theory is that if the minimum wage goes up, in most companies this can be offset by reducing the salaries of top earners (one person will be paid $1,000,000 less each year so that a hundred employees can be paid $10,000 more.) That's unlikely to work for every company. One potential complication is the effects of a sharp spike in the minimum wage. It's different to increase from $14 to $15 than from $10 to $15. The sharper the increase, the greater the incentive to determine workarounds (swap out three okay workers for two better ones; purchase self-checkout; outsource when possible.)

Every modern country delivers better healthcare at a lower cost to All it's people. That is why it is a nonsensical argument.

Corrected for inflation from the mid 70s, the minimum wage should be almost $20. It didn't cost jobs then.

As I said refuted arguments.

The arguments don't really explain the effects of changes to policies now.

Other countries were able to curb medical costs in a way the US has not, which means we're going to have a different problem. It's one thing to limit cost increases; it's another entirely to make massive cuts.

As for the 1970s, we've since figured out how to automate and outsource many of those jobs.

[Mister Mets]

And that seems like a response designed to dodge the fact that you just claimed that voters might have to do "distasteful" things for the "greater good" but then won't own up to them when you know your party does things like intentionally disenfranchising black voters so they can win elections.

You're quick to bring up stats of African-Americans when it serves your conservative political purposes yet you won't even address the fact that your party intentionally obstructs one of the primary ways for African-Americans to address said issues in this country.

You have to realize that everytime you bring up "ethics" and the common "good" in these conversations people aren't going to just pretend you don't support a party that openly breaks the law and only serves the interests of it's own rather than "most" Americans -- especially if they are LGBT or people of color.

Then when called out for it, you claim it's an "ad hominem" instead of addressing the obvious hypocrisy -- and the blatant bigotry -- directly.

I wasn't talking about voting when talking about people who might have to do distasteful things for the greater good. Tradeoffs are everywhere. Doctors will sometimes need to amputate, even if it is distasteful.

Pointing out that a comment is an ad-hominem isn't a dodge. If it's an accurate description, it's fair to point it out.

What's the endgame for Trump and his business elites?

I understand that Trump is a moron, but he's being handled by corporate bigwigs who have access to the science. They know that it's quite likely that there will be a massive spike in fatalities if the economy re-opens too rapidly. They might gain in the short term, but a large number of deaths is going to scare away consumers and investors. So I don't really see what they hope to achieve.

I suspect for Trump if it isn't just wishful thinking, it may be a matter of positioning for six months from now when voters could be pissed off about restrictions and/ or the likely economic problems (massive unemployment, decline in GDP, reduction in trade.) If the social distancing is successful, many people aren't going to appreciate how bad it could have been, and may conclude that it was excessive.

[aja_christopher]

I wasn't talking about voting when talking about people who might have to do distasteful things for the greater good.

Of course you weren't -- even though it does fall firmly under the "distasteful" label that you mentioned in terms of behavior.

Because that would mean holding Republicans accountable for said distasteful behavior.

Far easier to just keep claiming it's "ad hominem" even when that's not the case.

In your own words you are arguing that it's a fair "tradeoff" when Republicans actively seek to disenfranchise black voters.

You've talked around the subject and mentioned "voter IDs" as if that's the only way you party attempts to do so.

In reality you know the uncomfortable truth about your party's bigotry and you'd prefer to talk around it than to address it directly.

Even with someone like Trump at the head of your party, revealing said truth for all the world to see.

[Jim Kelly]

Don't know you have heard about that but here in France they have noticed a curious thing, smokers seem to be less affected by the desease than other people. Like, only 5% of people infected are smokers. It could actually be related to nicotine.

Take it with a lot of salt but that's interesting.

People who smoke are less likely to develop Parkinson's Disease. It seems that nicotine protects the neurons from damage. And COVID-19 can cause neurological damage (which can be fatal), so maybe that explains it.

In my family, my father (a smoker) never developed PD, but his brother and sister did (they didn't smoke). And my two sisters have PD (both non-smokers), but my brother (a heavy smoker) doesn't. Mind you, my father developed heart disease and lung problems later in life (after he had given up smoking) and my brother has had two life-saving operations on his heart so far.

Of course this is just anecdotal. Michael J. Fox was a heavy smoker and he still got Parkinson's Disease.

[Gray Lensman]

Someone a few days ago posted a list of US pandemic deaths and I am still wondering where they found it - apparently my google-fu is useless since no matter how I try to look for that data I always get worldwide totals with no breakdown.

[aja_christopher]

Someone a few days ago posted a list of US pandemic deaths and I am still wondering where they found it - apparently my google-fu is useless since no matter how I try to look for that data I always get worldwide totals with no breakdown.

Coronavirus Cases:
848,994
Deaths:
47,676
Recovered:
84,050

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

[sammy_hansen]

It's not really clear that if the United States were to reduce the salaries for wealthy doctors and corporate officials, we'll have a health-care system that functions well while only costing two percent of taxable income, based on the Australia standard you articulated. One immediate question is who would determine the limits on what doctors can charge? How would you prevent people from going outside of that system?

In the United States, it is a lot of work to be a doctor. It is typically four years for an undergraduate degree, and four years in medical school, before the residency begins. There is a need to incentivize intelligent people to put in all that hard work, and money (Incidentally, I can understand any argument that we must cut wasteful spending by universities and medical schools to make it less expensive for future doctors).

Looking this up, Australia seems to have a two-tiered system with adequate and cheap care in the public system, and a private system where people who pay more get more.

https://www.vox.com/2020/1/15/210305...*****-medicare

That's a different policy discussion, which is going to involve the thorny questions of what's going to be good enough for universal coverage.

As for minimum wage, it seems your theory is that if the minimum wage goes up, in most companies this can be offset by reducing the salaries of top earners (one person will be paid $1,000,000 less each year so that a hundred employees can be paid $10,000 more.) That's unlikely to work for every company. One potential complication is the effects of a sharp spike in the minimum wage. It's different to increase from $14 to $15 than from $10 to $15. The sharper the increase, the greater the incentive to determine workarounds (swap out three okay workers for two better ones; purchase self-checkout; outsource when possible.)

I get that we're just talking here and not going to solve all the world's problems but there is a lot of defeatism and heel-dragging here. The government can set the fees for services that doctors provide, like in Australia. Now, this isn't done by some nebulous bureaucrat in a windowless room, but health professionals and experts who decide based on evidence what to charge for certain procedures. Not everything is covered in Australia, but its pretty damn good, as we can see right now. And I get following the evidence isn't America's strongest suit.

It's also a lot of work to be a doctor in Australia, and doctors can get paid a lot of money. A people who earn a lot of money can pay a bit more tax to keep people alive. Again, back to my point - people have to pay for the military to (in theory) keep them alive. Why not pay for a hospital?

I should also add that the 2% is purely for our Medicare system of rebates, not the entirety of the healthcare system like hospitals and rehab stuff. That funding can come out of general revenue. But my general point is that wealthy people can pay a bit more tax to keep people alive, just like right now where EVERYONE will have to pay to keep all these businesses alive.

In regards to the minimum wage. We have a national umpire... let's call it a referee, who decides how much the minimum wage goes up every year for a full-time worker. They listen to evidence (or arguments and claims really) from business groups, the government, unions and social organisations. They then come up with a figure that is supposed to keep everyone happy but generally doesn't because businesses always want a wage rise of $0 whilst unions want a more livable wage.

Wages don't have to spike, they can be gradually increased every 12 months. There's no need to put things in the too-hard basket. And we only need to go back to the ridiculous bonuses that Wall Street bros were handing themselves just before everything collapsed and they had to be bailed out by the government. I'm sensing a pattern here.

The thing with more people earning higher wages and spending more money is that it creates more jobs and people pay more taxes which means eventually you get to a point where you can CUT taxes! Yay! Surely Republicans can get behind that?

[Gray Lensman]

Coronavirus Cases:
848,994
Deaths:
47,676
Recovered:
84,050

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

I'm thinking more of past pandemics rather than this one.

[SuperiorIronman]

What's the endgame for Trump and his business elites?

I understand that Trump is a moron, but he's being handled by corporate bigwigs who have access to the science. They know that it's quite likely that there will be a massive spike in fatalities if the economy re-opens too rapidly. They might gain in the short term, but a large number of deaths is going to scare away consumers and investors. So I don't really see what they hope to achieve.

Trump's plan right now for re-opening the economy is to get the numbers up before election day because the United States really is filled with a bunch of morons. If people are out buying things and companies can put out product then when the economy rebounds (and in a situation like this it inevitably will) the public will view him like a hero. This is also why he's rallying the states because he needs his base since a pandemic has left America in terms of it's land, people, and economy non-viable. Foreign assets be it legit or not doesn't see much worth in conducting operations in a place where money can't flow, power can't be exerted to its full extent, and the people WILL die. Essentially Trump is on his own and barring a miracle via the Anti-Christ he needs the economy moving to stay in power otherwise he's of no usage to the billionaires and without money flowing to produce a cure the country remains in limbo to foreign assets be it Russia or the economy.

[Jim Kelly]

Someone a few days ago posted a list of US pandemic deaths and I am still wondering where they found it - apparently my google-fu is useless since no matter how I try to look for that data I always get worldwide totals with no breakdown.

I'm a bing user myself.

https://bing.com/covid/local/unitedstates

[Tendrin]

The legal effort is being spearheaded by Speaker Robin Vos (R) and Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R).
Training particular fire on Andrea Palm, Wisconsin’s secretary-designee of the Department of Health Services, the Republicans argue that she was acting by “administrative fiat” when she extended the order to May 26.
The legislature is seeking a temporary injunction to halt Palm’s extension, ordered on April 16 and set to go into effect on April 24.
“Purporting to act under color of State law, an unelected, unconfirmed cabinet secretary has laid claim to a suite of czar-like powers — unlimited in scope and indefinite in duration — over the people of Wisconsin,” said the complaint.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/w...-at-home-covid

The GOP is a nightmare.

[jetengine]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/w...-at-home-covid

The GOP is a nightmare.

....but what about States Rights ? Their important right?

[Tendrin]

....but what about States Rights ? Their important right?

They refused to confirm the govenror's apointees, then use that as a part of an excuse to sue them. The fascist GOP in Wisconsin is just unbelievable.