I was nobody. Nothing.
speaking of which, i am sickened by the fact that the whole world is embracing syrian refugees (including our fucking REPUBLICAN candidates,) but if you are from mexico or south/central america, you're on your own.Originally Posted by Miss Baphomette
There's El Salvador. What's going on in and around Juarez amounts to genocide. It's just UGGGHHHH. It pisses me off.
Active Member
No, wait. The whole not-directly-concerned-by-the-whole-shitload-of-present-past-and-future-issues-at-hand world is embracing Syrian refugees. That means you guys, Germany who actually needs new blood, and every country who's assured to never have any refugees from this region knocking at their door for the years to come.
Every European is super pro-crossing-of-the-mexican-border if that can put your soul at ease. We're all oh-so human and oh-so compassionate when the issues are oh-so remote.
What actually sickens me is that there have been refugees from countries at war for DECADES. NOBODY FUCKING CARED. Now one corpse on a beach all over facebook and suddenly everyone is outraged ? We have had boatloads of dead bodies wash ashore for years, fucking morons ! They weren't cute enough for you to shed a tear back then ? Too black perhaps ? Too old ? Not rebloggable enough ?
Fuck, sorry, but seeing everyone act all outraged and righteous all of a sudden makes me sick. As I said, there have been tragedies such as this for years, we have refugees in this country right now being transported from a camp to an other and never get anywhere, nobody gives a shit, it's not current, it's too complicated, not enough drama. Hell, we have a few million people who don't have an actual home, or even a place one could call home. Who cares ? Go drown, we'll see then.
/rant.
tempus est umbra in mente
wow.
We're living in some terrifying nightmare version of reality. It's getting increasingly difficult to process.
I've been wading through the peanut galleries, and I'm getting pretty distressed at the outpouring of comments like "Karma's a bitch!" from people. I don't expect intelligent or generally sane discourse on the internet, but it's sick.
These partisan outlets are fueling that bullshit, and it's kind astonishing when you see one of them actually take a step back and demonstrably realize "whoops, we went a little too far there. That would be obvious." It's not that they redacted it because it was insensitive or fucking bizarre, it's because they realized they were making their narrative too transparent.
Active Member
There really isn't a better thread for this video. Lots of stances on current events.
damn...
more: http://ludlow38.org/2015/07/mario-pfeifer/
Throbbing Member
Looks like Germany is about to restrict the refugee flow though its boarders. Apparently they are struggling to cope. They were overwhelmed this weekend. 13.000 arrived at Munich station in a matter of hours.
After bitching at poorer smaller nations like Hungary or Serbia for being inhumane. This is what they have been dealing with for months.
Nice sudden U-turn there Germany....that was quick.
I think the reality of Angela Merkels short sighted decision is setting in. How long was this sustainable?
In the mean time 40 people drowned in the Med this weekend trying to reach Germany. Dear god the EU is such a clusterfuck.
Stubby Member
Yeah, every country is restricting refugee flow right now.. They reached the borders of my country earlier today. They've been tear-gassed a couple of hours ago. Refugees of war. Let that sink in...
What Geneva convention?
Active Member
My take is that Germany, seeing that everyone was kinda looking at their watch and playing with their phone when the question of the refugees came up, decided to force everyone's hand by accepting refugees. Show everyone how it's done.
What should have happened was : everyone sighs heavily, complains a bit and follows suit. What happened was : Everyone thought "oh, Germany's on it, good, good..." and went back to their phone.
Merkel never striked me as an opportunistically foolish politician. The plan was never to accept the entire flow of refugees, they just tried to get everyone to stop fucking around and step up.
Problem is, it didn't inspire anyone to do the same, or not fast enough. Now the lane is blocked right in the middle of Europe, and all the other countries are NOPEing one by one.
And today I read an article about how Pope Francis is "setting an example" by giving shelter to refugees in the Vatican.
A family of four.
A family of four christians.
Good job Francis. You really showed everyone. I'm all teary-eyed now.
Active Member
Are you being facetious ? My sarcasm meter isn't working right now.
I say bring over here...
Active Member
Towards the pope ? Yes, although to be fair it's more about the article itself than anything else.
About Germany, no. I don't think there was any short-sight, I think they tried to force everyone's hand by doing the only thing we can really reasonably do.
The problem being that Germany was in position to shelter refugees immediately, while none of the other EU countries were either logistically, politically or socially ready.
You cannot fence Europe, that would be a fucking nightmare. You cannot destroy the Schengen space, that's one of the pillars of the EU. The only way to deal with the influx of refugees would be to actually deal with it. But that would require tight collaboration between the EU nations, which isn't just possible right now. We're not the USA, we're too culturally and politically heterogeneous right now. The only bound between us all is economical. There are some historical alliances, but that's way too loose for us to be able to quickly and smoothly act together.
So, as stupid as Germany's move may look, I think they simply overestimated the amount of pressure it put on the other member states, or their capacity and willingness to shelter and provide for thousands of refugees coming in every day.
Active Member
Something has to be done. It seems, from here, there are thousands of people just plodding across Europe.
Active Member
Yeah sure, "something".
There is no lack of people telling us that "something" must be done nowadays.
We are sorely lacking people being able to realistically plan "something" that isn't either welcome everyone with open arms everywhere all the time or closing down the frontiers, the roads and our homes.
I agree, something must be done, simply because we just have no choice. Those people are just here, we have to deal with that. Now what ?
This thing is a fucking mess. Even most of the richest member states are trying to deal with their own fubar economy. Many of those also have internal struggles with some members of their muslim communities, or the "good people" who are scared of them.
Now we are supposed to absorb this massive influx of people, for whom we have to provide during a long and frustrating process, while trying to integrate them ASAP. Or kick them out ?
There is no way to do either of those things without a seriously concerted effort from everyone. And thats not going to happen. Not in this economy, not in this state of social paranoia, not in those politically sensitive times.
There are solutions, and Germany has tried to show the way. You've seen how that went.
Last edited by Khrz; 09-19-2015 at 05:01 PM.
Active Member
Actually, I wasn't thinking just countries there. The U.S. Has taking large amounts of refugees before. Unfortunately, we seem to have a lot folks who want to build walls rather than remember that we are a country of immigrants. Hurts my head.
Bite me
It's too logistically difficult to get these refugees here. But, remember, hundred of thousands of Jews could have been saved from being killed by the Nazis but the head of immigration, here, denied passports and visas and kept the majority of them out when we had tons of room. He knew they were being killed, too, but it was swept under the rug. Don't want those dirty Jews messing up our country.
http://jstandard.com/content/item/el...the_jews/28056
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article....uleId=10007652
Saudi Arabia needs to do a LOT MORE. It claims it has helped 2.5 million Syrian refugees, but many are having a hard time believing that. Whatever, it can afford to help a LOT more. LIKE, THREE MILLION IN AN AIR CONDITIONED TENT:
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/gallery/w...o-according-un
Last edited by allegro; 09-19-2015 at 11:06 PM.
I was nobody. Nothing.
yeah @allegro , you would think middle eastern countries, especially the rich ones, should be the countries handling this one
The UAE, for instance, is a very small country, but they seem to have lots of money and cool shit
Good god, Saudi Arabia is MASSIVE. And the number of refugees that they have actually taken in is 100,000 or 500,000, depending on who you ask, according to wikipedia
Last edited by elevenism; 09-20-2015 at 12:12 AM.
Bite me
Yeah, a good friend of ours posted a pic the other day of the UAE Emir's private 777 jet. Wtf.
Saudi Arabia is saying they don't claim them as "refugees" because they are "brothers" so they haven't been keeping count but they are certain it's over 2 million. Mmmmm-hmmmm.
Last edited by allegro; 09-20-2015 at 12:33 AM.
I was nobody. Nothing.
that honestly made me laugh out loud.
Active Member
Excellent point @allegro . I'd like to think we aren't talking about death camps today though it sounds like the refugee camps are no joy ride.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/wo...d=nytcore-ipad
Drop in bucket
Administrator
So David Cameron mouth-fucked a dead pig one time at uni.
Throbbing Member
This is a snoutrage.
Active Member
Skype Down
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34312694
Happy mercury retrograde!
BACKROLLS?!
Administrator
Active Member
Good riddance!
Throbbing Member
So, what about Volkswagen, care much?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksw...ion_violations
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=VOW.DE#{%22range%22:%223mo%22,%22allowCh artStacking%22:true}
Member
I think the Pope broke him. After all, he spent much of his time with the Pope crying yesterday.
Throbbing Member
.................
Last edited by Your Name Here; 07-25-2016 at 11:51 AM.
Active Member
Actually, your "$750 pill" is the result of a company embracing the law. If it weren't for the FDA's bureaucracy, the USA would have access to this drug for the rates it is found in Europe and India.
India has the drug for 5 cents per pill.
http://fee.org/anythingpeaceful/the-...ents-in-india/
I was nobody. Nothing.
It is now perfectly legal for Israeli police to use SNIPER RIFLES to fire on Palestinian KIDS armed with ROCKS.
They can do it "if anyone's life is in danger," which to me, translates as "whenever the fuck they want." Previously, they were allowed to fire "when THEIR lives were in danger."
They are calling the .22 caliber ruger sniper rifles "non-lethal," but 14 minors were killed by police with these "non-lethal" guns in 2014 alone.
Bite me
Well, that's not the whole story.
Even Trump laid into him.
See also this.
More importantly, see this article:
The major reason for the disparity in pricing is that the United States lacks any sort of central or universal healthcare system or agency that regulates across the board cost. In contrast, negotiations of drug prices between governments and pharmaceutical companies are routine in Canada, most European nations, and most countries in the Middle East and Far East. They have centralized authorities to negotiate more favorable prices with manufacturers, and some also have drug formularies and advisory boards that put restrictions on the use of new and expensive medications.
"In the US, we are covered under a fragmented system, where there really aren't enough numbers to negotiate effectively," said Leigh Purvis, director of health research at the Public Policy Institute at AARP (formerly known as the American Association for Retired Persons), a large membership organization for people 50 years and older. "We have different health insurers and they don't represent enough people to actively and successfully negotiate prices in the same way that other countries do."
"Countries like the UK and Germany are also willing to take a much harder line on the drugs and compare them with what is already on the market," she said. "In the US, once it's approved, that's pretty much it."
Price negotiations take place on an individual level in the United States, with each private insurance company negotiating with each drug company for the price of each product. Pharmacy benefits managers, a third-party administrator of prescription drug programs primarily responsible for processing and paying prescription drug claims, will also take part in developing and maintaining the formulary, contracting with pharmacies, and negotiating discounts and rebates with drug manufacturers. Dozens of plans are available in every state, and insurance costs and plans can vary significantly from state to state. They charge different premiums and copayments, and formularies may favor different drugs, which leads to variations in pricing and out-of-pocket costs to patients.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is the single largest payer for healthcare in the United States, covering nearly 90 million Americans through Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which is more than a quarter of the entire American population. However, by law, the federal government cannot negotiate for Medicare drug prices or obtain any sort of volume discounts. The 2003 Medicare Modernization Act explicitly prohibits the federal government from negotiating drug prices or establishing a list of preferred drugs.
The rationale for this move was that the market would lower prices and that each of the private prescription drug plans, in competition to attract more Medicare beneficiaries, would negotiate with prescription manufacturers to reduce costs. Whether or not that has come to pass is open to debate. Currently, Part D drug prices are determined through a negotiation between the private drug plan that administers the benefit and the drug manufacturer.
"We weren't supportive of that part of the legislation when it was enacted, but AARP did support the overall Medicare Modernization Act, which established the Part D benefit," said K.J. Hertz, senior legislative representative for government affairs at AARP. "We decided that the greater good was getting a prescription drug program under the Medicare program. What we've tried to do now is to get the message out there that we need to improve on that."
The organization has strongly advocated for giving the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) the ability to "negotiate on behalf of Medicare's 50 million plus beneficiaries and use that for potential leverage in getting prices for the drugs that seniors take in this country," Hertz told Medscape Medical News. "There has been resistance to that in Congress ever since the Part D program was initiated but, nonetheless, we keep fighting to get that message out there."
However, Medicaid, the program for low-income people that is administered by the CMS and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is able to negotiate with drug companies for lower prices. In fact, under federal law, drug makers must provide a discount or rebate equal to at least 15% of the average manufacturer price for most brand-name drugs covered by Medicaid. Federal law also guarantees discounts for the Department of Veterans Affairs, which can negotiate with drug makers to secure discounts on top of those guaranteed by law. Generally, they are able to negotiate prices that are 25% to 50% lower than Medicare.
In fact, many critics of the non-negotiation clause in Medicare point to the VA prices to show that direct negotiation by the federal government and price control statutes can result in lower prices and greater savings. A report by Families USA, which compared VA prices with those in Part D of Medicare, found a median price difference of 58%, suggesting that market forces are not bringing prices down, as was hoped.
Last edited by allegro; 09-27-2015 at 02:53 PM.
Bite me
I really hope that this totally bankrupts VW.
Likes: 
Faceplams: 
Reply With Quote
