Tweet
Sometime in the next few hours a huge investigative report is expected to be released based on the massive leak of the so-called 'Panama Papers'. Supposedly numerous global political and corporate leaders are going to have their offshore finances revealed. We'll see how big it turns out to be...but supposedly the info dump will be 1000 times the size of wikileaks
-
-
This is an older story about the law firm that's about to have a bunch of its clientele revealed. They're based in Panama and specialize in setting up shell companies and money laundering.
Comment
-
Leaked documents show a massive fortune of at least $2 Billion tied to PutinComment
-
Thanks Strangelove. I hadn't heard about this but will be keeping an eye out for it now.Comment
-
The main website releasing the papers is under a continuous DDOS attack.
But heads of state for all the following appear to have been directly implicated thus far in having offshore money stashed away from prying eyes: Russia, Ukraine, Iceland, Georgia, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Jordan, and Argentina
PM of Iceland leaves interview when asked about his "family's" offshore company
Comment
-
Here's a good who's who among political figures who have thus far been implicated
Comment
-
As a journalist I am supposed to believe in transparency, but there's been enough of it in the last few years and it's time for that to pay off. There's a whole lot more coming, be it leaks like this or official efforts. We will know more than ever about multinationals, and in particular financial flows in the resources sectors. Is it gonna make an actual difference? That's a good question. It would be very sad if not, but we're all overworked and easily distracted. This stuff is never going to grab attention as long as ISIS and Erdogan and Putin et all keep grabbing it. It's only going to get proper media coverage if the big stars at the big outlets (Patrick Radden Keefe, please stand up) make a big deal out of it. There's very little appetite for coverage of the institutional efforts. The OECD isn't as sexy a story as Anonymous. Dodd and Frank aren't either.Last edited by hack; April 3, 2016, 02:11 PM.Comment
-
Nobody interesting on that list yet.Comment
-
Good summary of Hillary's emails. Convenience over security
Sent from my iPad using TapatalkGrammar... The difference between feeling your nuts and feeling you're nuts.Comment
-
If you have an interest in espionage, an old Philiby video was found:
“Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.” - Groucho MarxComment
-
The question isn't current doctors. The question is future doctors. The question is committing to the time and cost of becoming a doctor vs the benefits thereof as compared against other professions.That suggests that they will either no longer work or that they will be able to find a better place to work and go there. There aren't very many places at all -- IF ANY -- where practicing medicine is more profitable. And even if some were identified, it's not reasonable to assume that thousands of people who have settled lives and families etc are going uproot all that for a fatter profit margin, or that demand in those foreign places for health care is sufficient to absorb thousands of new doctors and overcome language and cultural barriers, etc.Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.Comment
-
What would that subset who prioritize money to that extent do instead? A subset of that subset will be well-rounded enough to chase a life outside the sciences. A subset of that subset could actually make the executive class and approach that former earnings level. Simultaneously there will be others willing to step up to the plate and fill the spots vacated, however large (or small) they may be. Those lesser candidates for grad-school spots are unlikely to be complete fools. But, in the end, I personally suspect the vast majority are gonna stick with it. I don't think this hypothetical scenario really causes concern.Comment
-
We disagree. IMO, materially altering the C/B calculus materially alters the outcome. But, that requires a belief in the rationality of humans. Crazy talk, I'm sure.
As an upside, we'd also see foreigners from countries with "more advanced" healthcare systems stop coming to the US for life-saving procedures and treatments and such.
fucking foreignersDan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.Comment
-
Several years ago I wrote a lengthy essay on health care reform that I shared with several forum members. That was before the ACA was enacted and some dynamics have changed since then. But the fundamental problems with our health care system remain and are exceedingly difficult to solve because of so many vested interests still in place.
The fundamental problem is that we spend far more on health care than other advanced nations and yet disease outcomes are no better and in many cases worse. I believe the entrenched dynamic is the profit motive. When you think about it there are certain fundamental services that we all need that don't thrive under a profit driven system. l am thinking of public safety and public education as prime examples. These services are more fairly provided in a publicly funded rather than a profit driven system. That is not to say people who can afford it cannot hire private supplements to these services. I put health care in this basket.
Who are the profiteers under the American system? At the top of the list I place the insurance companies. They don't answer to the public, they answer to their share holders. So a lot of their income is spent on marketing and other competitive undertakings. IMO they add NOTHING to health care outcomes while skimming profits off the top. Government provided services in other developed nations cost far less to administer than our current system.
Another element that adds little to improved health outcomes but a huge increase in cost is the drug companies. They spend a huge portion of their revenues on advertising and it is getting worse. You older members here probably remember the old days when pills were not advertised directly to consumers on TV, but the marketing was done directly to physicians. The result is that Americans are the most over medicated people in the world with very little to show for it. Of course we still need our pharmaceuticals but they should be prescribed by ethical providers.
Then there are the providers themselves. In the old days the Hippocratic tradition was that providers should be prevented from from directly marketing their services but now physicians are out there advertising on mass media. Of course, the incentive is profit.
We have in this country the cherished notion of fee for service. This means providers get paid to "do". It is particularly overt in the interventional disciplines like surgery and interventional radiology. I should know. I practiced surgery for 33 years. I'm not saying surgeons are unethical, just that incentives are geared toward a lot of un- necessary interventions.
This is a hugely complex situation and these are only a few of the many problems confronting us today. We are already far down the road toward a system of privately provided health care. I once heard a well-known ethicist speak on these topics. He stated there are two essential public activities that defy easy solution, birth control and health care.
This is a partial summary of my take on the health care debate. It is a huge problem and there are many more elements that I haven't mentioned. Interesting stuff, but also dead serious.Comment
-
The only way to make health care cheaper in the US without rationing it is to get employers out of the health insurance business, eliminate coverage mandates, and turn health insurance into actual insurance, not the socialized payment plans that they are now. Health care insurance shouldn't be used for anything but unforseen emergencies.Last edited by Hannibal; April 4, 2016, 09:04 AM.Comment
Comment