Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 309 posts

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#191

Post by [deleted] »

Retric wrote: post #103
adventured wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you claim universal healthcare, with 12% [1] of the population not covered by any form of health insurance? The US system has very little in common with European style universal healthcare. To say nothing of the extreme cost most Americans still pay for their health insurance, or the bankruptcies that are still overwhelming in the system. Universal healthcare that bankrupts millions of people? That's an inher…

Universal! = free or total. If you test positive for AIDS you can after the fact buy health insurance long before you need significant medical care. That implies a defacto basic level of coverage for long term chronic conditions which is by far the largest issue. PS: As to the 11.9% figure, that does not include large numbers of people with significant access to health care that’s not based on insurance. EX: https://…

[deleted]

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#192

Post by meragrin »

mikeash wrote: post #133
meragrin wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Hillary couldn't or wouldn't have done the same thing? Personally, I think it would have sailed through much more easily had she been in office.

"A did X" is not refuted by "B would have done X too if B were in A's place."

How is "wouldn't have happened without him being in office" the same as "A did X"?

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#193

Post by berntb »

Systemic33 wrote: post #158
maratd wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The unfaltering support given to Israel seems strange There's nothing strange about it. Yes, it is militarily aggressive and has to be considering the neighborhood. The support given is purely selfish as Israel is the only nation in the region which mirrors the values the US wishes to promote in the region, provides military support when needed, and a plethora of other various benefits which none of the other playe…

> with rampant antisemitism in Europe Because Israel isn't escalating this at all with the palestine conflict... Netanyahu is a warmongerer that keeps the conflict alive, because it serves his interests, in increasing antisemitism, resulting in jews feeling increasingly threatened, and starts to consider relocation to Israel, increasing support for Netanyahu.

Consider e.g. the Sudanese government, with systematic murders/rapes in the millions. Not to mention organized sexual slavery.

Even with a Palestinian description of the Israeli govenments the Sudanese one should be at least a factor thousand worse.

Note also that the Sudanese government is supported by Iran and most Arab countries.

If you think antisemitism is a logical result of Israel, how should the non-muslim Africa then judge muslims...?

(Yeah, I'm hellbanned. And with what I wrote here and what seems to be the political opinions of the censors I'll probably continue to be. :-) )

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#194

Post by anigbrowl »

skylan_q wrote: post #47
acjohnson55 wrote: post #38

I think the future of the Middle East is a tense balance between Saudi and Iranian poles, with both countries being normalized in the international community. The USA can't bring either country to heel, but it can hopefully prevent the stalemate from being nuclear along Sunni-Shia lines. But what's also changed is that the US needs a normalized partner in Iran to fully isolate ISIS, the Taliban, Al Qaeda and other fa…

Iran is a country much more aligned with the US in many more ways than Saudi Arabia is. It's really a "natural ally" for the US in the middle east.

I've thought that for years, but I'm undergoing a rapid change of opinion in my geopolitical views. Strategically it makes much more sense for Iran to be aligned with Russia and China right now, which puts it into an oppositional relationship with the US.

I still think this deal is a good thing though.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#195

Post by Retric »

meragrin wrote: post #190
Retric wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Universal! = free or total. If you test positive for AIDS you can after the fact buy health insurance long before you need significant medical care. That implies a defacto basic level of coverage for long term chronic conditions which is by far the largest issue. PS: As to the 11.9% figure, that does not include large numbers of people with significant access to health care that’s not based on insurance. EX: https://…

If universal is not total, then we've always had universal healthcare. Oh, and you might want to inform all dictionaries they have the incorrect definition of universal. The legislation signed by Obama is not universal healthcare in any sense. Maybe universal health insurance, but certainly not healthcare. Insurance does not make healthcare affordable.

Universal is all people. (x axis) Total as in covering all conditions. (y axis)

"Universal health care is not a one-size-fits-all concept and does not imply coverage for all people for everything." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care Note from that page: "The Swiss Healthcare system and US Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are based on compulsory insurance."

PS: Hospitals are required to treat some life threating heath conditions like gunshot wounds without asking about payment. So, that also counts as a limited (some conditions) form of universal (all people) heath care.

Arguably, free speech would be universal but not total as there are limits on nonpolitical speech.

Edit: IMO, the implementation was terrible, but it's still a huge improvement.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#196

Post by dingaling »

maratd wrote: post #113
user_0001 wrote: post #105

>(besides Israel, obviously) Out of interest, why obviously? The unfaltering support given to Israel seems strange (to most outside of the US who I have spoken to). Israel has it's religious fundamentalists (just like the rest of the region). Is militarily aggressive, disregards civilian life, commits war crimes, disregards international law and opinion (with impunity due to the US and their veto - and forcing other…

> The unfaltering support given to Israel seems strange There's nothing strange about it. Yes, it is militarily aggressive and has to be considering the neighborhood. The support given is purely selfish as Israel is the only nation in the region which mirrors the values the US wishes to promote in the region, provides military support when needed, and a plethora of other various benefits which none of the other playe…

> rampant antisemitism

Both Arabs and the tribes of Israel are Semitic people.

I think you mean anti-Israeli. One can be opposed to the actions and policies of a state without referencing its inhabitants or their religious notions.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#197

Post by [deleted] »

user_0001 wrote: post #105

>(besides Israel, obviously) Out of interest, why obviously? The unfaltering support given to Israel seems strange (to most outside of the US who I have spoken to). Israel has it's religious fundamentalists (just like the rest of the region). Is militarily aggressive, disregards civilian life, commits war crimes, disregards international law and opinion (with impunity due to the US and their veto - and forcing other…

[deleted]

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#198

Post by mikeash »

meragrin wrote: post #192
mikeash wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A did X" is not refuted by "B would have done X too if B were in A's place."

How is "wouldn't have happened without him being in office" the same as "A did X"?

I took that as meaning that either the seat was occupied by a rock, or perhaps by McCain.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#199

Post by Aqueous »

discardorama wrote: post #145
rayiner wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is militarily aggressive, disregards civilian life, commits war crimes, disregards international law and opinion (with impunity due to the US and their veto - and forcing other countries to at least abstain from votes), Israel is our ally not because they're the "good guys" but because they share, and can help spread, our basic values about democratic government. You can have militarily aggressive democracies (e.g.…

> Israel is our ally ... ... because a large number of conservative Americans believe that Jesus is not going to come unless Israel is ruled by a Jewish king (or something like that; see here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/washington/14israel.html?p... ) ... because a large number of donors to the Republican (and Democratic) parties are wealthy Jewish folk. And we know that in the US, money talks when it comes to…

And yet the President of the United States (and a member of the Democratic Party) just negotiated a deal entirely without the help of the Israel, in fact with a lot of hand-wringing and public protest from Israel and its leadership, a deal which Israel is very publicly angry about despite it being arguably in their self-interest to defuse tension within the Middle East.

Doesn't seem so much like we're in the pocket of Israel, at least not anymore.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#200

Post by wahsd »

anigbrowl wrote: post #194
skylan_q wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iran is a country much more aligned with the US in many more ways than Saudi Arabia is. It's really a "natural ally" for the US in the middle east.

I've thought that for years, but I'm undergoing a rapid change of opinion in my geopolitical views. Strategically it makes much more sense for Iran to be aligned with Russia and China right now, which puts it into an oppositional relationship with the US. I still think this deal is a good thing though.

Oil strikes again. The CIA / MI6 butt-buddy backed, Oil industry demanded Iranian '53 coup has been resonating through American geo-political policy and ramifications for decades now and has weakened the USA in the long run by, like you mentioned, pushing Iran in the direction of Russia and China, but also the other members of the BRICS block that really are the future.
Post reply on HN