Elerond

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_1wUwzVuIs ‘Nobody dies because they don’t have access to healthcare’ That explains lot

The average American has pretty decent insurance from his employer, which means he's no worse off than a millionaire in getting healthcare. Obviously that still leaves a lot of people in less than ideal conditions. Millionaires can buy healthcare that average person can't get even with very good insurance. Because they can afford to pay for treatments that insurance companies don't approve (because of cost, feasibility or some other reason), they can afford to pay get front in lines, they can afford to pay for most efficient drugs in every case instead of going with best price/efficiency ratio and you are able to get better doctors to treat you and so on. But that is just inevitable thing in any system where people can buy better service, because millionaires are much smaller pool of people than general population and they are able to pay even most expensive services from their own pocket, which gives them flexibility in tendering out services that most people can't just afford to do.

I would point out that bank where your checking account is could absolutely keep all you money if they want. And it isn't even hypothetical scenario but thing that has happened many times in history. Meaning that it is absolutely possible for biggest company in world can buy the bank where your account is and seize your money. I don't know where the heck you got that idea but in the US at least, no they cannot. And even if the bank failed the accounts are insured (up to a point). They may withdraw fess and other expenses and these are all things you agree too when opening the account. And that is the key, that account is an agreement, a contract between them and the account holder. They have to live up to their end and vice versa. So if I overdraft my checking account and they hit me with a $20 overdraft fee (or however much it is) I agreed to the rules when I opened the account so that is not taking money without my permission either. When you give them you money they are in control over it. It is government that gives you assurance that bank can't arbitrarily without consequences to do so, at least not without permission from the government (usually meaning that they have court order that gives them right to seize your money to pay your debts, or something similar). Meaning that even though you have agreement with bank about them holding your money with certain term it does not mean that they can't break those terms and just keep your money. And I would say that in case of bank failure bank has already mishandled money that you and others gave them and insurance exists because such mishandling can happen, even on level that threatens worlds economy. I would point out that governments have power that people give them, where big companies power is restricted by governments (world where there is no governments, who would be there to assure that big companies follow through agreements that they have made with you? You can just look how many big companies work in countries that have weak governments).

I would point out that bank where your checking account is could absolutely keep all you money if they want. And it isn't even hypothetical scenario but thing that has happened many times in history. Meaning that it is absolutely possible for biggest company in world can buy the bank where your account is and seize your money.

Clearly, if people prefer to live in a country where they can earn five times as much as they could in their homeland, it's a sign that literally no problems could possibly exist in that country. I meant they're coming over here to get medical treatment, I wasn't talking about immigration. Edit: Btw, my healthcare is fine, and so is most people's. Healthcare system and being able to get good medical treatment aren't same thing even though they are connected. As healthcare system is usually used when people are talking about people's ability access medical treatment they need. So country may have world best medical treatment facilities, but if only handful people are actually able to use them country's healthcare system maybe bad for most of the citizens of that country. Meaning that if rich foreigners come and buy those treatments that most people in country can't access it really don't tell anything about country's healthcare system.

Chris Bellamy, Absolute War: Soviet Russia in the Second World War (Knopf, 2008). Israelyan, Victor. On the Battlefields of the Cold War: A Soviet Ambassador's Confession. p. 339. Merridale, Catherine, Ivan's War, Faber & Faber: pp. 148-150. Kuban thing is from Russian source

But Nazis actually used chemical weapons on battlefield against Soviet Union (at least in Sevastopol (where they gassed city's defenders that had hidden in tunnels under city and in Kuban where they drop gas mountain range in order to kill soldiers fortified there). But mainly all sides avoided to use them in fear of that other side also starts to use them, although Japanese used them against Chinese, probably because there was no fear that Chinese would do counter attacks in Japan. But one thing where Spicer was right was that Nazis didn't use chemical weapons against their own citizens same way as Assad, meaning that they didn't bombarded their own cities with them they just gathered citizens in concentration camps where they gassed them. But I agree that Spicer tried to attack Assad, but he really picked bad way to go with it.

Why are tax heavens than so popular if you are obligated to tax where you originaly created product which you sold much more expensive somewhre else? I would guess that those owners getting for example that 1.23 billion dollars profit tax free is reason to use tax heavens. Even if that isn't that big sum in comparison whole GDP of single country it is quite big sum when it is only shared by some thousands of people. And getting that profit amount bigger is reason why owners move production of goods in cheaper countries, so that they get bigger portion of that revenue to themselves (as they can sell product about same price even though production costs are lower, so company makes more profit, which mean that they pocket more money, and with getting more money they need to pay more taxes which increases attraction of tax heavens in order to cut those taxes down).

What part about 'its tied to GDP' you don't understand? My post was just to put things in perspective for people who are saying that Germany don't contribute in for Nato and general defense for Europe. Because speaking about GDP percentages has bad habit to hide which countries actually pay for things and who are mostly freeloaders. Well, if half of the companies employing people in Czech didn't payed their taxes in Germany maybe our GDP would be better Amount of Czech's monthly exports to Germany is about 108 billion CZK (~4 billion euros) and its monthly imports from Germany is about 67 billion CZK (~2.5 billion euros), so annual trade surplus with Germany for Czech is about 40 billion CZK (1.5 billion euros). So like Trump would say Czech is bad trade partner for Germany. would be, if those companies trading were not hold by german owners. For example Skoda Auto is part of VW concern and it make up almost 20% of our GDP Czech GDP is 189.982 billion dollars, Skoda Auto's revenue is 13.8 billion dollars (7.2% of Czech GDP), but it probably uses other services in Czech so much that it impact may rise close to that 20%. But Czech Auto's operative profit is 1.23 billion dollars before taxes. It also receives tax breaks and other comprehensive income so much that it total comprehensive income for the year is 1.4 billion dollars. It reports amount corporate taxes it pay to be 227 million dollars. For Trump part it does not matter if its is German companies doing all the trade, as we can see from his comments about Mexico. I don't understand why are you trying to pull in Trump, what I am telling you that VW concern pay its taxes from revenues in Germany (probably). Of course there are some taxes from income and from cars sold directly in Czech, but majority of revenue tax is paid in Germany. Whats so complex to grasp it? West Europe sees east as cheap labor. thats it It is operative income from which they pay taxes to Germany if they pay taxes to Germany. Taxes from revenue related things are paid to Czech. Revenue is what they get from selling cars they make, operative income is profit that they make from those sales. Difference goes to salaries, sales taxes, components/materials, etc. from which taxes are paid to Czech and which generally increase Czech's economy, as most of the cars they make are exported out from Czech, which means that those sales bring more money to Czech's economy. So that money mostly goes to Czech, although they may buy materials/components from China or some other even cheaper country, as for example Czech trade deficit with China is only little bit less than their trade surplus with Germany. By looking numbers alone you could make simplification that it is like taking money from Germany and sending it to China. Trump thing is because he just happens to talk about how similar situation is bad for USA, US companies produce goods, like cars, in Mexico and then bring them to be sold in US, meaning that he sees that it benefits Mexico.

What part about 'its tied to GDP' you don't understand? My post was just to put things in perspective for people who are saying that Germany don't contribute in for Nato and general defense for Europe. Because speaking about GDP percentages has bad habit to hide which countries actually pay for things and who are mostly freeloaders. Well, if half of the companies employing people in Czech didn't payed their taxes in Germany maybe our GDP would be better Amount of Czech's monthly exports to Germany is about 108 billion CZK (~4 billion euros) and its monthly imports from Germany is about 67 billion CZK (~2.5 billion euros), so annual trade surplus with Germany for Czech is about 40 billion CZK (1.5 billion euros). So like Trump would say Czech is bad trade partner for Germany. would be, if those companies trading were not hold by german owners. For example Skoda Auto is part of VW concern and it make up almost 20% of our GDP Czech GDP is 189.982 billion dollars, Skoda Auto's revenue is 13.8 billion dollars (7.2% of Czech GDP), but it probably uses other services in Czech so much that it impact may rise close to that 20%. But Czech Auto's operative profit is 1.23 billion dollars before taxes. It also receives tax breaks and other comprehensive income so much that it total comprehensive income for the year is 1.4 billion dollars. It reports amount corporate taxes it pay to be 227 million dollars. For Trump part it does not matter if its is German companies doing all the trade, as we can see from his comments about Mexico.

What part about 'its tied to GDP' you don't understand? My post was just to put things in perspective for people who are saying that Germany don't contribute in for Nato and general defense for Europe. Because speaking about GDP percentages has bad habit to hide which countries actually pay for things and who are mostly freeloaders. Well, if half of the companies employing people in Czech didn't payed their taxes in Germany maybe our GDP would be better Amount of Czech's monthly exports to Germany is about 108 billion CZK (~4 billion euros) and its monthly imports from Germany is about 67 billion CZK (~2.5 billion euros), so annual trade surplus with Germany for Czech is about 40 billion CZK (1.5 billion euros). So like Trump would say Czech is bad trade partner for Germany.

What part about 'its tied to GDP' you don't understand? My post was just to put things in perspective for people who are saying that Germany don't contribute in for Nato and general defense for Europe. Because speaking about GDP percentages has bad habit to hide which countries actually pay for things and who are mostly freeloaders.

How Germany is effing up Europe if they don't want spent their money to strengthen their own defense? I understand that Nato countries maybe angry if they think that Germany don't do as what has been agreed on, and they are free to kick Germany out if nothing else helps. What? There is so many reasons I can't force myself to point them all out. But at least the basics - If we have agreenment both sides should honour it. Its manners 101 Yes this is what all NATO members should do yet only 5 NATO members are paying what they should and contributing fairly, this includes the U.S., Greece, the United Kingdom, Estonia and Poland. So its not just Germany that needs to pay more http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/NATO-Member-Countries-Trump/2017/01/25/id/770363/ I know, thats why USA requested recently that all members should pay their agreed share, and as far as I know some states responded positively - even tho they stated taht it will take few years. Some may not do it, but at least they are not shouting it into media ffs Considering that Czech uses less of their GDP to military than Germany, I would say that you should complain to your own politician first how your country don't do what is agreed on. I am, but our government promised to raise our funding, besides we are behinde Germany by 0.1 percentage Also the Czech economy and GDP is much smaller than Germany's so I would expect Germany to contribute there share with much less objection we are talking about percentages against GDP. Germany gives much more in total for sure Germany is spending 47 billion dollars in their military, where Czech is spending only 2 billion dollars. So Germany is spending over 23 times what Czech, even though they only have 8 times the population that Czech has. But any way Czech would need to increase their military spending with about 2 billion dollars to be in agreed 2% where Germany needs to increase their military spending with about 21 billion dollars, ten times what Czech is currently spending. Germany is currently spending in their military about same amount money as Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia spend together. So it isn't like Germany don't invest in Europe's defense, especially when you take in consideration that they give financial aid for several above mentioned countries.

How Germany is effing up Europe if they don't want spent their money to strengthen their own defense? I understand that Nato countries maybe angry if they think that Germany don't do as what has been agreed on, and they are free to kick Germany out if nothing else helps. What? There is so many reasons I can't force myself to point them all out. But at least the basics - If we have agreenment both sides should honour it. Its manners 101 Yes this is what all NATO members should do yet only 5 NATO members are paying what they should and contributing fairly, this includes the U.S., Greece, the United Kingdom, Estonia and Poland. So its not just Germany that needs to pay more http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/NATO-Member-Countries-Trump/2017/01/25/id/770363/ I know, thats why USA requested recently that all members should pay their agreed share, and as far as I know some states responded positively - even tho they stated taht it will take few years. Some may not do it, but at least they are not shouting it into media ffs Considering that Czech uses less of their GDP to military than Germany, I would say that you should complain to your own politician first how your country don't do what is agreed on.

How Germany is effing up Europe if they don't want spent their money to strengthen their own defense? I understand that Nato countries maybe angry if they think that Germany don't do as what has been agreed on, and they are free to kick Germany out if nothing else helps.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/congress-officially-made-it-legal-to-kill-hibernating-bears_us_58e93960e4b05413bfe36c1b? Hunters in Alaska can now track and kill hibernating bears thanks to a U.S. House and Senate resolution rolling back Obama-era regulations against the practice. President Donald Trump signed the bill into law on Monday, which rolled back Alaska’s ban on killing the vulnerable bears, along with wolf cubs in dens. It also allows for hunters to target the animals from helicopters. The Republican-sponsored legislation impacts 76.8 million acres of federally protected national preserves across Alaska. Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) took to the Senate floor last month to denounce the previous rule that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued in August. Murkowski called it “bad for Alaska, bad for hunters, bad for our native peoples, bad for America,” and a “direct attack on states’ rights.” In Sullivan’s argument, the lawmaker said the change was for Alaskans “who value hunting as a deep part of their culture.”

I would be so bold and say actual politics Meaning starting conversation that aren't meant to one-up over another party, but actually start to seek things that both parties can mostly agree and build unity in United States instead constantly seek new ways to divide its people more, meaning seeking compromises that most people from both sides can accept. But it seem that polarization is what politicians and people want, as it isn't just encouraged it is celebrated as like it is something positive and to be proud off.

It does not cut taxes (as in my understanding Bush plan was to cut taxes from first 6000 dollars earned) but it instead gives people about 6000 euros as basic income, which don't change regardless of your other incomes, which means that in some case effective tax rate can go negative (you pay less taxes for your income than you get form government). Also in it effectively more you earn less you get, because your tax rate is higher so you give higher proportion of that extra income back to government (as we have tiered income tax, where rich have higher tax rates than poor). Also it is meant to remove current social benefit systems and replace them with one in order to make benefit system as general simpler and need less paper work.

If I'm understanding this correctly, it will have an immediate impact on those that need assistance most by reducing their monthly funds, with the hope of an eventual trickle down process that will raise their general standard of living? Basically, trickle down economics? It has some same elements as trickle down economic model, but there is also differences as in it you take money from current benefits system and loaning and pump it to country's economy and then you adjust tax rates in such that you get that money back to give it back in next month and so on. In grande scale it works so that you take money from people with high income and give it to those with moderate income in hopes that it boost general economy by increasing speed in which money circles around. Its major advantages that are seen to it compared to current system is for example if you live now on unemployed benefit or some other social benefit and take job that gives you 400€ in month you will lose part or all of said benefit that you are getting, which is seen in current system as major discouragement to take such work. In basic income system you would just get 400€ extra to your 500-600€ basic income, which would encourage people take such jobs. Of course there is criticism that such system would encourage employers hire more part time workers and cut salaries of current workers. And of course there is probably need to check if level of basic income is enough to live for people who aren't able to work/get job. An other seen benefit is increase of spending power with those who earn median income or less, which is seen to have high potential to boost general economy.

Yes that is idea behind it, because for rich it just works as delayed small tax cut, there is no point to exclude them, because it is basically system that moves money from rich to lower and middle class people and those that just live in social benefits lose some of their benefits.

Kooky. Huh, does everyone just quit their jobs then? I know I would! As a side effect, I bet their population will start BOOMING once they realize they can just pump out dependents for free l00t. Our current unemployment benefits are bigger that proposed basic income, so for unemployed people it just means less income, but for people in with jobs it increases income, especially for those who do temp jobs.

Interesting. I don't remember providing my fingerprints for my passport, but its been a while so maybe I did? It seems that USA only demands such thing from foreign passports and even though US Passports also now have biometric chip where such data could be saved and read from distance it isn't used. Clearly we need to take visa free travelling from people travelling with US Passports as they clearly have insecure passports I don't think we demand anything from foreign passports except that they identify the person and not be fake. As for foreigners travelling to the U.S., if they wish to enter U.S. visa-free under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP), they are now required to possess machine-readable passports that comply with international standards. Additionally, for travellers holding a valid passport issued on or after 26 October 2006, such a passport must be a biometric passport if used to enter the U.S. visa-free under the VWP. Finland and other EU countries adopted biometric passport because USA required it for visa free travelling, I thought that it was two way street where US passports have same information, but it seems that they don't.

Interesting. I don't remember providing my fingerprints for my passport, but its been a while so maybe I did? It seems that USA only demands such thing from foreign passports and even though US Passports also now have biometric chip where such data could be saved and read from distance it isn't used. Clearly we need to take visa free travelling from people travelling with US Passports as they clearly have insecure passports

Isn't that bit old news, because now its been at least for 11 years that order to get passport one needs to give clear picture of your face and fingerprints to government who will share them with other governments.

The better question should be who is dumb enough to buy a product (or candidate) based solely on an ad? Billions of people