Printable View
I think Esten and Canitas guy are really Ricardo in drag. Surely people don't actually approve of Obama. What are you guys commies?
And before I get accused of spamming, just wanted to mention I am headed to the illustrious Cocodrillo in a mere hour or two.
Who routinely deny coverage on terminally patients because they will not live long enough to fight for their rights under their insurance contracts? Congress has placed regulation of all group insurance policies under the dept of labor. The regulations say that the carrier cannot be sued if their follow their own internal policies--the federal courts have compared this system to having the wolves guarding the hen house.
These aren't left nor right issues--they are issues about corruption and lack of help for consumer either by private attorneys nor government regulation.
The shark eat ther smaller human fish on an ongoing basis. Unfortunately all of may be one of those fish one day.
The basic story line of SICkO IS A TERMINALLY ILL PATIENT being denied treatment that the carrier has their inhouse hack MD's have reviewed and denied. Moore then travels the world to see how the same situation is handled in other countries--which results that might shock many good americans. Yes, it's michael with his gratuitious jabs which may be factual or hyperbole, but the basic premise is shocking to folks from the usa who still think that the usa has the highest quality of life. We used to, but do not today.
The first rule of any good litigator is to always ask questions that you already know the answer to!
My response, would of course be No! That said, in my experience of treating patients I have never had first-hand knowledge or even heard of such an issue. I have sadly treated many terminal patients over the years and have never been denied payment by their insurance companies during their final days. Even more to the point, I also have rarely seen any patients coverage, during treatment, interrupted as a result of the carriers actions (on occasion I have seen coverage interrupted as a result of the patients actions)
As a result of attorney's being allowed to file lawsuits on "contingency" I am also somewhat hesitant to buy the arguement that the insurance company discontinues care because the patient is terminal. Any such action by the carrier would open it to legal recourse that would certainly survive the terminal patient (the attorney would of course still be alive).
We certainly agree on one thing Bobby. Insurance reform should be at the top of Obama's agenda. Healthcare reform is something totally different. Just for the record, I was raised in a socialized country with socialized medicine and the care totally sucks. Take it from a pro that at the end of the day it's pretty hard to find better healthcare anywhere in the world than the good'ol USA.
Monger on Bobby. Toymann
[QUOTE=Toymann]We certainly agree on one thing Bobby. Insurance reform should be at the top of Obama's agenda.[/QUOTE]Insurance reform IS at the top of Obama's agenda. And, he is piling up support from important national Republican leaders including Governor Schwarzenegger, Mayor Bloomberg, Bill Frist, Tommy Thompson, Howard Baker, Mark McClellan and many more. They surely aren't all socialists!
[QUOTE=Miami Bob]TOYMANN--do you support health insurers.
Who routinely deny coverage on terminally patients because they will not live long enough to fight for their rights under their insurance contracts?[/QUOTE]Bob, you're a very nice guy. But, this is such a gross overstatement, it almost bears no comment. Unfortunately, I can't help myself.
There are no health insurers who "routinely deny coverage on terminally [ill] patients because they will not live long enough to fight for their rights."
Plaintiff's lawyers have wet dreams over precisely this type of claim -- they're an odd bunch, and I know dozens and dozens of folks who litigate these things. Anyone who litigates in the insurance "bad faith" area knows this is adulterated rubbish. They won't admit it until you get a cocktail or two in them. Until then, and especially in front of a jury, they keep their game face on. But, if you could make them take a candor pill, they would all confess that the game is stacked heavily against the insurance companies. For lawyers, it's the equivalent of taking sheep to slaughter: You get a 55 year old housewife with some rare form of cancer in front of a jury. She was denied coverage for some experimental procedure that clearly isn't covered under her insurance policy. Who do you think the jury is going to side with? The housewife or the insurance company? If you guessed the latter, then you've seen too many Michael Moore films.
The problem with the whole debate is that there is only one side doing the arguing. Plaintiff's lawyers who file these claims make their living by villifying insurance companies. And, there is plenty of "living" available. The better practitioners make 7 figure salaries. Those who run plaintiff's mills can make 8 figure salaries. I don't begrudge them their income. But, when you hear these folks complaining about the insurance industry, you had better consider the source. They are far more responsible for driving up insurance premiums than medical malpractice lawyers, especially since nearly all states have capped med-mal claims.
And, who are they making their arguments to? Lawyers in congress. There aren't a whole lot of former insurance reps in congress. It's lawyers persuading other lawyers about the "flaws" in the system, and there are big dollars at stake. Then, these same bozos have the gall to complain about the insurance industry lobby? It's more adulterated rubbish -- but it sells, so they keep at it.
Sure, the health insurers have lawyers, too. But, they're not saying anything. Why would they? Kill the claims and you stop the gravy train. Better to keep your mouth shut and bill by the hour -- cha-ching! -- everybody gets rich. Premiums go up, but they just blame the insurance companies for that, too.
No one talks about this. Democrats won't talk about it because "trial lawyers," which means plaintiff's lawyers, are almost universally contributors to Democratic politicians. But, this is where insurance companies spend vast, vast amounts of money. They talk a little about medical malpractice "ambulance chasers," but that's just a distraction. Most of the guys who pursue med-mal claims are pretty sharp. They have to be. They've got to know the law and a lot of the medicine involved. Not so for bad faith insurance lawyers. Any kid out of law school can pursue those claims, and many do just that.
Any insurance companies that "routinely deny coverage on terminally patients because they will not live long enough to fight for their rights under their insurance contracts" were driven out of business long, long ago. Actually, that's not true. No such insurance company ever has existed. The stuff I set forth above is no secret to the insurance industry. They know that these claims are a wet dream to the plaintiff's bar, and they govern themselves accordingly.
Finally, you do your argument a disservice by holding out Michael Moore as a standard-bearer. You can try to disclaim his idiosyncracies and fabrications, but at the end of the day, he's still Michael Moore. Nothing that comes out of that guy's mouth, or that he puts on film, is credible in the least. And, yes, I have seen Sicko. It's about what you would expect if you gave a plaintiff's bad faith lawyer a camera and said "go make a movie to promote your law firm." Filthy, adulterated garbage.
Forget Michael Moore.
"Critical Care"
One of the funniest movies on health care. Whatever your point of view, you get to laugh. Best medication on the Planet: Humor.
Critical Care: [url]http://www.jaman.com/movie/Critical-Care/0KLcQ7ex7xl0/[/url]
Werner Ernst is a young hospital resident who becomes embroiled in a legal battle between two half-sisters who are fighting over the care of their comatose father. But are they really fighting over their father's care, or over his $10 million estate? Meanwhile, Werner must contend with his nutty supervisor, who insists that he only care for patients with full insurance. Can Werner sidestep the hospital's legal team and do what's best for the patient?
Nice post Stan.
Though I disagree with the last paragraph on Moore. To say none of his stuff is credible is not credible. His films leave some things to be desired, but I give him credit for shining light on things that otherwise get little attention. His impact on stimulating reflection, discussion and debate is significant and unmistakable. And I think that's a big net positive.
You will see the health carrier's at their best where dealing with high ticket end of life issues, not doing knee surgeries. Talk to the brain surgeons and oncologists.
WE are not discussing hatred for malpractice attorneys. That is another discussion.
I have significant contact with these types of situations on an ongoing basis.
My favorite story comes from a brain surgeon who gets on the or speaker phone with a health carrier rep:
Hi this is dr X calling from y about your patient Z. You denied authorization for the stent I requestested. I am in the patients brain and your decision will likely result in mr z's death. I need your full name or employee # for my operative report. There maybe a homicide investigation and I want to have the facts straight. Would you clearly state the basis for the denial of the stent.
The speaker is the head of neurosurgical icu at a major teaching hospital. He was providing tactics to doctors for obtaining authorizations from health carriers. This has nothing to do with hating attorneys. Don't let the general feeling of hate and anger which permeates this thread, let you take your eye off the ball here. Do You really want to intentionally have the health insurance industry making life and death decisions with no controls nor way to use the courts to protect the rights of average people.
Stan look up the rules. You are an intelligent guy. I this your preference--what you want for your family? How about you Toyman?
WW read this one--written by a successful businessman who thinks like a business man, but with concern for more than maximizing profit and without a pre-determined political agenda that provides an answer without thoughtful analysis appropriate to healthcare types of issues.
Bob
The group should get federal funding.
They are community organizers.
Check their website for more information.
Direct your font elsewhere. I have no time for your delusional rhetorical bs.
Regards,
BM.
[QUOTE=BadMan]Damn Hugo Jackson Chavez is on a deleting spree.
This is getting pretty bad. You're not even deleting commentary now just facts and figures.
Another good article, which will probably get deleted because it's not right wing propaganda. Read it very quickly guys before Jackson Pinochet wakes up.
Regards,
BM.[/QUOTE]Hey man, point out which other guys in this thread have not posted ANYTHING except political commentary.
Jackson made a statement a few days ago that Ricardo was free to post once he had made a contribution to the theme of this board, which should be something to do with mongering or could even have something to do with commenting on life in Argentina. As stated, he enforces that rule very strongly on his other forums. AP has been a little more loose, it seems to me, although I'm not sure why, but that will surely change one day when this thread gets too far out of control.
Bad Man, your comments, ignoring what Jackson said and continuing to harp on him like he is some nut case about to overthrow the crispy-clean American people for a dictator is pretty much how propagandist on BOTH SIDES act.
Now, I went through and looked at Ricardo's posts and he ONLY posts about politics, with the exception of one or two in the jokes section and stock market section (which is related) Why doesn't he just post a few facts or tidbits about Argentina and get on with the show?
I have to wonder why Ricardo has not posted a single piece of information about living in Argentina, or mongering, or what have you (that I saw) I could be wrong, but I would have sworn that I saw him mention at some point that he lived here.
But if not, are there no other blogs in which he can post, that are directly related to politics, where people are having these discussions? It seems a little odd to me that he is concentrating so much time trying to have "reasonable discussions" with those he considers diametrically opposed to his point of view, and those of a minority (it would seem) on this board.
Jackson's not running a political blog, he's running a mongering website that happens to have a thread on it which is getting out of control, it seems to me. When you have a thread that produces so much ire, it tends to take away from the rest of the theme of the board. That can actually be dangerous for business. It's why I quit posting here. It's ridiculous to keep trying to "convince" people of the other's point of view, and that's all Ricardo is doing on this forum.
The reason I finally wrote this, though, is because it cracks me up that you, Bad Man, of all people, would be giving Jackson a hard time for trying to restore some order on his forum with an iron fist. You, with whom I have had many conversations in person, about the fact that you are convinced to your core that totalitarianism is the only form of government that makes any sense! I assume that's why Sidney keeps making his comments about Chavez and other socialist / communist leaders in relation to you?
[QUOTE=El Queso]Jackson's not running a political blog, he's running a mongering website that happens to have a thread on it which is getting out of control, it seems to me. When you have a thread that produces so much ire, it tends to take away from the rest of the theme of the board.[/QUOTE]I occasionally look at the posts here. Like Queso I looked back at the political posts and compared them to the other topics. Of interest is the 9200 plus number of postings on the American political thread are about double those on any other thread. Given that fact one could argue that Jackson is actually running a political blog with other features.
Still, Jackson deserves a great deal of credit for creating and maintaining a very useful tool for people who live, work and play in Buenos Aires. Lots of non-political information is useful, some less so, but it still is a pretty good site as these things go.
As for Ricardo, his sin seems to have been having brains as well as balls and doing a pretty good job countering the bluster and bullshit offered in the juvenile attacks on Obama. He sure pissed some people off and more power to him I say!
Ricardo,
I will gladly write a few chica posts under your name.
The trade-off is that you will have to tone down the 'I'm from the government, I'm here to help' rhetoric.
[QUOTE=Miami Bob]My favorite story comes from a brain surgeon who gets on the or speaker phone with a health carrier rep:
Hi this is dr X calling from why about your patient Z. You denied authorization for the stent I requestested. I am in the patients brain and your decision will likely result in mr z's death. I need your full name or employee # for my operative report. There maybe a homicide investigation and I want to have the facts straight. Would you clearly state the basis for the denial of the stent.
The speaker is the head of neurosurgical icu at a major teaching hospital. He was providing tactics to doctors for obtaining authorizations from health carriers. This has nothing to do with hating attorneys. Don't let the general feeling of hate and anger which permeates this thread, let you take your eye off the ball here. Do You really want to intentionally have the health insurance industry making life and death decisions with no controls nor way to use the courts to protect the rights of average people.
Stan look up the rules. You are an intelligent guy. I this your preference--what you want for your family? How about you Toyman?[/QUOTE]Bob, that's the problem with unsupported anecdotes -- they're unsupported. Sorry, Bob, but any surgeon that would do that while on the operating table would and should be disbarred. And, I don't believe a word of it is true, or at least that it's very much like the "war stories" that lawyers tell: They grow larger by the cocktail, and they always paint the telling lawyer in a favorable light. Kind of like the "fish stories" we've all heard. If unsupported anecdotes like these are the basis for flushing billions down the drain in the name of government mandated health care, then I'll take the current system. The same is true for the three anecdotes Obama cited in his speech on health care about a month back: On further scrutiny, they didn't hold up.
And, I appreciate the suggestion that I'm an intelligent guy, but apparently not so much. I don't know what "rules" you're talking about. If it's the idea that there are no "controls," the truth is there are many, many controls -- insurance regulators, lawyers, statutes, judges, verdicts and the free market.
Would the government do a better job at "controlling" things? You and I will never agree on this. One of the core principles of the founding fathers was a hearty distrust of government. I do not like citing to the founding fathers because this is so often abused. But, it is almost beyond debate that our Constitution was framed to give the federal government [b]limited[/b] powers. At base, this is why there is such sharp disagreement over whether to let the government stick it's nose [further] into health care. Those in favor say the system is broken and something must be done. Those against say the system may not be perfect, but I definitely don't trust the government to fix it. The answer will come in two parts: Legislators will make a decision and then voters will have their say. These two parts will influence each other. Which side will prevail? Heck if I know. I just know what I'd prefer.
Back to Michael Moore for a second, the Wall Street Journal had a small piece on him today. Here's a brief review of his latest missive: "The movie is largely a paean to plaintiffs lawyers and unions, who alas depend on evil capitalism for their incomes." [url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298004574458943044664778.html[/url]
Hmmmm. It's almost like the author is reading the board. I made nearly the same point about Sicko just yesterday. All right you guys, fess up. Which one of you is writing for WSJ? Perhaps they'll be sampling this thread for their Letters to the Editor section next.
I saw Ricardo took a few thinly-veiled jabs at me yesterday and now the posts are gone. I wish they were still there. I actually dug up the Vanity Fair article he mentioned. It wasn't the current issue, and the stats were typically unsupported (e. G. Salaries of "major health care company CEOs," without an indication of what that means for comparison) But, that's what one would expect from Vanity Fair.
True, he's a gadfly, but sometimes everybody needs that. I understand that this is a monger board and that there must be some rules of decorum. And, I can only imagine that the task of editing things wouldn't be particularly pleasant. Perhaps we could just have an entirely separate thread where we could go to debate him? He's a bit over-the-top at times, but then, so am I.
I think that you are missing the point that I am making because of a re-conceived party-line. You are too bright to be caught up in a party line and you don't seem to be motivated by hate nor irrational fear.
The insurance industry is regulated in return then they are exempt from many anti-trust rules. I am talking about the average person's rights to receive medical care based upon need and reasonable medical necessity. What are you, you parents or other people that you care about--including your sugar baby-- to do when they have such care blocked by a high school grad with no medical training beyond medical terminology reading off of a computerized data based and possib lely not having any idea what the doictor is doing.
I attend a number of courses designed for doctors because of part of what I do to make a living. The story is a true story told by a senior medical school professor. Ask toymann about what happens on the operating room speaker phone when there is a surprise in the middle of a surgery.[I have had such speaker phone conversations to arrange scuba diving and fishing trips during a surgery] I have represented the institution where that professor works and have know him for over 20 years. I am not a plaintiff's malpractice atty and have said nothing in any of my recent posts about malpractice.
I suggest that you read the article that ricardo linked. Dialog between intelligent people with different points of view does not have to be entirely negative nor turn into name calling nor retreat into a party line without indepenent dialog. You don't operate this way generally. Many people who regularly post in this particular part of ap behave in a way that they would rarely, if ever, act in person. Jackson explains that is part of what happens with on line personas. He knows more about websites and knows more members than anyone else.
Thinking outside the box is how creative solutions evolve. Ricardo as a gad fly? Do any of the people on this particular forum really believe that there is only one legitimate point of view and everyone else a gadfly or stupid? This runs counter to everything that the usa is suposed to stand for and the brilliant system that our founding father created. Yes, our nation is split down the middle. It might not survive if people don't have dialog and take control of our system away from large scale lobbyists----and return to something which more closely resembles the vision of our founding fathers. I am paraphrasing john mccain who I consider a very brave and courageous man when not running for the presidency recently. Ricardo quoted ike-- a true republican and a freind of W's grandfather. Rather than calling him a gadfly --think out what he is saying before rejecting it. Large scale lobbying and the associated public relations is warping our nation.
I get food for thought from some of the guys who post here--I am particularly thinking of el alamo--I have been forced to re-think about what government fucks up based on his posts keeping me intellectually honest.
Jackson and I disaggree on just about everything about politics, but have a real over laps in values. His friendship also helps keeps me honest and does not allow me to take the facile approach of just going along with the middle range democrats without questioning all of the implications of what they say and do. This forum can and should be valuable to each of us who have so many differences except we enjoy playing together.
You may react that I am a nice guy, but a gullible idiot. I assure you that I am no idiot and both a businessman who has periodically made money doing business in argentina and makes his living involved with organized aggression. I also appreciate that I have enough conflict during my average workday, that I would rather avoid aggression and unnecessary conflict with people who I play and enjoy other aspects of life.
Does everyone who posts here have to be a hard right republican or libertarian or are other points of view also permitted?
Mongers-
A big "FUCK YOU" to all the Rush Limbaugh / Jerry Fallwell / Burn and piss on the Constitution types who pollute this board with their Right Wing fascist inbred gunshow jesusfreak rhetoric. Other sitting US Presidents to win the award were Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.
Sorte,
Rock Harders, aka Nostradamus JR
Rock Harders,
Could you please ask Obama to make a peace plan with Cuba. I want to visit.
[QUOTE=Rock Harders]Mongers-
A big "FUCK YOU" to all the Rush Limbaugh / Jerry Fallwell / Burn and piss on the Constitution types who pollute this board with their Right Wing fascist inbred gunshow jesusfreak rhetoric. Other sitting US Presidents to win the award were Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.
Sorte,
Rock Harders, aka Nostradamus JR[/QUOTE]This has got me scratching my head. Obama has been in office a little over 8 months and he's awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. According to Rock Harders, so were Teddy Roosevelt, one of the biggest warmongers in U. S. History, and Woodrow Wilson, who got us into a stupid war.
The award was premature and a triumph of politics over merit.
"I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one"
Theodore Roosevelt, Nobel Peace Prize Recipient
I guess the Nobel Prize takes the sting out of the Olympics loss!
[QUOTE=Sidney]Herta Miller wins Literature Nobel. How priescient! She writes about Ceausescu and Communism.[/QUOTE]A quick Google search would have clarified this.
A German paper reports:
Müller was fired from her first job because she refused to work for Ceau şecu's secret police.
She refused to publish her first book because of attempts by the authorities to censor it.
She was refused permission to leave Rumania in 1985, then allowed to leave in 1987 after her searing criticism of Ceausescu's regime prompted many death threats from the secret police.
[QUOTE=Miami Bob]Thinking outside the box is how creative solutions evolve. Ricardo as a gad fly? Do any of the people on this particular forum really believe that there is only one legitimate point of view and everyone else a gadfly or stupid? [/QUOTE]Bob, I think you have unintentionally misconstrued what "gadfly" means. It's certainly no insult and, if Ricardo understands its origination, he should consider it high praise.
It derives from Plato's Apology, and it's particularly apt here. You can read The Apology here: [url]http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html[/url]
In summary, Aristotle was accused of "corrupting the youth of Athens." This wasn't "corruption" in the sense that we commonly joke about the Greeks and young boys today. The charge was that he was teaching Athens' youth ideas that the government found dangerous. In Athens at the time, when someone was convicted of something, the State was allowed to propose a punishment and the accused was allowed to propose a punishment. Generally, this meant that the State would propose a harsh punishment, and the accused would propose some milder punishment. Then, the judges were to choose between the two.
In Socrates' case, the State proposed death. Socrates proposed that the State provide him with "dinner at the Prytaneum" (essentially, the public eating hall) for the rest of his life. In proposing this counter-punishment, his point was that he was doing the State a great service by educating its youth on alternative viewpoints, so he should be fed at the State's expense as his "punishment." By proposing this, he essentially ensured that the judges would choose death.
Later, Socrates is in prison and his supporters urge him to escape and go into exile. The State had left the jail cell doors unlocked, because they would rather see him go into exile than have to put him to death and deal with all the negative reaction. Socrates refuses and describes himself as a "gadfly," meaning someone who perpetually bothers the State with his so-called dangerous ideas. In modern philosophy, this is highly encouraged -- you can't have a one-sided debate. [b]That's[/b] what [I]gadfly[/i] means in this context, and I think it's particularly apt here, if Ricardo has been banished.
It's an all-time classic, if you like philosophy, and I won't spoil the ending in case you're inclined to read it. Sorry if you thought it was meant as an insult. It was actually intended as precisely the opposite.
And now, back to your regularly scheduled postings.
[QUOTE=Rock Harders]Mongers-
A big "FUCK YOU" to all the Rush Limbaugh / Jerry Fallwell / Burn and piss on the Constitution types who pollute this board with their Right Wing fascist inbred gunshow jesusfreak rhetoric. Other sitting US Presidents to win the award were Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.
Sorte,
Rock Harders, aka Nostradamus JR[/QUOTE]Rock,
I know that this is an unimportant consideration for Obama worshipers, but please tell me [u]EXACTLY[/u] what did the Messiah do to earn a Nobel Peace Prize?
For example, Jimmy Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize because he actually negotiated a lasting peace settlement between Israel and Egypt.
So what did Obama [u]ACTUALLY[/u] do, besides kiss the correct European asses in all of his apology tours through the Continent?
Is there a Nobel Peace Prize for being a good political election campaigner?
Thanks,
Jackson
[QUOTE=Jackson]Rock,
I know that this is an unimportant consideration for Obama worshipers, but please tell me [u]EXACTLY[/u] what did the Messiah do to earn a Nobel Peace Prize?
For example, Jimmy Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize because he actually negotiated a lasting peace settlement between Israel and Egypt.
So what did Obama [u]ACTUALLY[/u] do, besides kiss the correct European asses in all of his apology tours through the Continent?
Is there a Nobel Peace Prize for being a good political election campaigner?
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]I'm happy the guy won. Personally, I think he's done some great things internationally, most recently with Russia and Iran.
That said, this award really cheapens the Nobel Peace Prize a bit. The real question is not what Obama has done. It is: What did Obama do in his first 11 days in office, and also before he became President, to merit nomination?
Candidates had to be nominated by February 1, 2009. This from the Nobel website: "The nomination deadline is eight months before the announcement, with a strictly enforced deadline of Feb. 1."
So, if the committee is examining a "body" of work up to this deadline (and, I would submit, it would be unfair to consider things that happen after the deadline) then I think there's little basis for this award. Or, it's clear that they looked at the eight months after he took office, on January 20.
Again, I like a lot of what Obama has been doing internationally. If he had been nominated and won [I]next[/i] year, it would make more sense. But, I don't think he did anything particularly noteworthy of a Nobel Peace Prize before he took office, and I can't fathom how his first 11 days in office -- when he did nothing internationally because he was dealing with the domestic financial malaise -- qualifies him for the award. So, that's why I say that bestowing this award on Obama, now, cheapens the award. It makes it appear to smack of politics, which the Nobel committee disavows. It's not that Obama is undeserving. It's just that he didn't deserve this one. Or, if he did deserve it based on only 11 days in office, then there really was a paucity of worthy candidates.
Jackson,
Don't you get it? The whole thing is a joke. We are a lot closer to 'War is Peace', 'Freedom is Slavery' and 'Ignorance is Strength' than I ever thought we would be.
The world is at the mercy of governments, international bodies and delusional megalomaniacs who make Geroge Orwell's 1984 look sane.
President Obama is not the culprit here. Obama is merely riding the surf of insanity.
P.S. I hope giving Obama the Nobel Peace Price will prove to be light years better than giving Jimmy 'shit for brains' Carter that award. Personally, I think Carter should have won the Nobel Prize for 'village idiot' every year for the last 35 years
When I saw this on the news this morning, still half asleep, I thought it was a spoof report. But, like Stan says, he's done some good work with Russia and Iran. The missile plans in eastern europe were incredibly provocative, and the arms control agreement with Russia could produce results. Plus the US-Russian-French offer to Iran to process its uranium is a creative attempt to break the nuclear impasse with Tehran.
I'd say its too early for the award, but as I read somewhere today.
"This Nobel peace prize is a down-payment on work yet to be done. It is an act of faith, based on the fact that Obama is making the right noises and seems to know what he is doing; and on the fact that, compared to his predecessor, he already looks like a master-craftsman".
And as for Obama making "apology tours", it wasn't perceived like that in europe. Building bridges with allies after 8 years of burning them is probably a good diplomatic move.
A cursory review of their post-WW2 history shows Norwegians have a "thing" about peace. Their brutal occupation by the Nazis had a profound effect on their collective national psyche, which led to both a national commitment to promote international peace and to maintaining military forces large enough to defend the country, which are under firm civilian control.
By awarding Obama this year's prize the Committee was following past precedent. The Prize has frequently been awarded with an eye to nudging world events toward peace, not just for finalized deeds.
For example, in 1996, the prize was shared by two Indonesians, pushing for East Timorese independence from Indonesia. That award helped lead to Indonesia's pullout in 1999. The 1994 prize to Rabin, Peres, and Arafat was awarded before they completed the Oslo Accords that held a promise of peace, but eventually broke down.
The Prize Committee is a bipartisan group of Norwegian political leaders - liberal and conservative.
The members include Thorbjørn Jagland, former Prime Minister, Minister for Foreign Affairs and President of the parliament; Kaci Kullmann, former Chairman of the Conservative Party; Sissel Marie Rønbeck, former Cabinet Minister; Inger-Marie Ytterhorn, senior adviser to the Progress Party; and Ågot Valle, former President of the Parliament.
Announcing the award, Jagland said he thinks the Nobel prize can spur peace, rather than simply reward its achievement. He noted the prize will put pressure on Obama to deliver on his promises.
He stated: "we are awarding the prize for what he has done in the previous year" - mentioning Obama's reaching out to the Muslim world, restarting the Mideast peace negotiations, and working through international institutions to promote peace and nuclear disarmament.
Any smart businessman understands good will is a major asset for any organization. Good will towards the U. S. Will be increased by this award, which reinforces the results of the recent global survey that showed the U. S. Voters, by electing Obama, have remade America's international image and now it is the most admired nation in the world. The improved good will can bring tangible results over time.
Stan is right. This is a good thing in a time when there few good things to celebrate.
"This Nobel peace prize is a down-payment on work yet to be done. It is an act of faith, based on the fact that Obama is making the right noises and seems to know what he is doing; and on the fact that, compared to his predecessor, he already looks like a master-craftsman".
What a great concept. I'm going to my bank today to finance that 500 foot yacht I've had my eye on.
As a down payment I think the fact that I have been thinking of getting a job should be enough.
[QUOTE=El Alamo]"This Nobel peace prize is a down-payment on work yet to be done. It is an act of faith, based on the fact that Obama is making the right noises and seems to know what he is doing; and on the fact that,.
What a great concept. I'm going to my bank today to finance that 500 foot yacht I've had my eye on.
As a down payment I think the fact that I have been thinking of getting a job should be enough.[/QUOTE]True, that first part does sound a bit lame. But "compared to his predecessor, he already looks like a master-craftsman" is so true. You can't imagine, cannot conceive, how the rest of the world wanted a change. Maybe you don't give a fuck what the rest of the world thinks, we can go suck on it, but we do exist, and if you want to make diplomatic progress (maybe you don't?) Obama did more in a week than your guy did in 8 years.
Oh, now I get it.
We are in a popularity contest. It is important that the rest of the world love us.
No problem, we can win that contest.
First, open our borders. Let anyone enter our country - immediate citizenship, free medical care and welfare checks are a given.
Second, put 'cap and trade' restrictions on our industries without requiring other industrial powers to do the same.
Eliminate all import duties on products entering the United States while paying the ridiculous import duties other countries put on our products.
Increase foreign aid until the citizens of Somalia are the recipients of more federal money per capita than our citizens.
Refuse to conduct any unilateral military activities until we have been given permission by Castro, Chavez and Osama Ben Ladin.
I feel so much better now that the rest of the world is going to love us.
El Alamo,
Paranoia "baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others".
Having better diplomatic relations has little or nothing to do with a popularity contest. Its actually in your long term interests, economically and militarily to have better relations with the rest of the world. And please don't be under the delusion that everyone outside the USA wants to live there. We don't!
SteveC.
It was supposed to be funny.
I live in Paraguay. I couldn't care less about any of this stuff.
Sorry, I didn't get the joke. Just sounded like plenty of the right wing / Fux News style views we get on here. I've had a stressful week. Maybe I need a trip out of town this long weekend.
[QUOTE=SteveC]Sorry, I didn't get the joke. Just sounded like plenty of the right wing / Fux News style views we get on here. I've had a stressful week. Maybe I need a trip out of town this long weekend.[/QUOTE]SteveC, I think you understood the true intent of Alamo's post. Sarcasm and hyperbole are the norm around these parts.
Despite what you read on this thread our foreign image is important and has more to do with rhetoric than actual policy or action. In that, I think Obama has done a lot as you said before.
Alamo, for someone who doesn't care, you sure seem to care a lot.:-)
I don't give a shit either, I live in Argentina and have health care here. But in reality I do care because I might actually have to return someday. But hopefully not.
[QUOTE=Schmoj]SteveC, I think you understood the true intent of Alamo's post. Sarcasm and hyperbole are the norm around these parts.[/QUOTE]You're right. "Sorry. I didn't get the joke." My attempt at sarcasm. I do have friends from the USA who aren't so arrogant that they're not concerned about their image abroad. Not all democrats either.