Harvard orders professors to remove Black Lives Matter sign from office window

[JohnEngelman]

I love how Europeans brag about their national health coverage!! Of course they do! because we took care of their national defense since WWII.

At the end of the Second World War the United States greatly over estimated the danger of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. During the Second World War the Soviet Union suffered an estimated twenty nine million dead, and the destruction of one third of its industrial and agricultural ability. No country so devastated was about to enter on a career of world conquest.

 

[ll74]

At the end of the Second World War the United States greatly over estimated the danger of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. During the Second World War the Soviet Union suffered an estimated twenty nine million dead, and the destruction of one third of its industrial and agricultural ability. No country so devastated was about to enter on a career of world conquest.

You're not a good historian

 

[JohnEngelman]

You're not a good historian

What did I miss?

 

[ll74]

What did I miss?

Being a historian.

 

[icanhelp1]

What did I miss?

Nuclear arms as a combat multiplier.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Being a historian.

You haven't answered my question. I am not a professional historian, but I read a lot of history.

 

[ll74]

You haven't answered my question. I am not a professional historian, but I read a lot of history.

how exciting for a hobby.

You're not an authority on history. You posit as if you are. That's your issue.

You post opinions....as we all do

 

[JohnEngelman]

Nuclear arms as a combat multiplier.

During the Cold War the Soviet Union had a no first use policy about nuclear weapons. The United States did not. The United States presented more of a threat of nuclear war than the Soviet Union.

 

[JohnEngelman]

how exciting for a hobby.

You're not an authority on history. You posit as if you are. That's your issue.

You post opinions....as we all do

If you think one of my opinions is unsubstantiated, point it out. Let's discuss it.

 

[ll74]

If you think one of my opinions is unsubstantiated, point it out. Let's discuss it.

We are doing so at this very moment

 

[ll74]

At the end of the Second World War the United States greatly over estimated the danger of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. During the Second World War the Soviet Union suffered an estimated twenty nine million dead, and the destruction of one third of its industrial and agricultural ability. No country so devastated was about to enter on a career of world conquest.

Let's start here - cite your sources.

 

[JohnEngelman]

World War II losses of the Soviet Union were about 27 million both civilian and military from all war-related causes,[1] although exact figures are disputed. A figure of 20 million was considered official during the Soviet era. The post-Soviet government of Russia puts the Soviet war losses at 26.6 million,[2] on the basis of the 1993 study by the Russian Academy of Sciences, including people dying as a result of effects of the war.[3][4][5] This includes 8,668,400 military deaths as calculated by the Russian Ministry of Defence.[2][6][7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World... II losses of,the Russian Ministry of Defence.

During World War II, the Soviet Union suffered catastrophic industrial losses due to the German invasion and occupation of its western territories. The devastation targeted infrastructure, industry, and agriculture, while millions of civilians and military personnel were killed.
Scale of the devastation

• Infrastructure: Extensive damage was inflicted on railways, roads, and bridges, which paralyzed transportation and supply networks.
• Industry: The Nazis dismantled and destroyed factories, plants, and mines, wiping out a significant portion of Soviet manufacturing capacity.
• Agriculture: German forces devastated agricultural land, destroyed farms, and seized resources, causing widespread famine.
• https://www.google.com/search?q="So...HALgHAMIHBzIuMS40LjHIByI&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

 

[JohnEngelman]

dear leader demands all private university desks and windows display dear leader bible along with proper Putin/Trump photo in order.to.comply with the regime's requirements.

Additionally, banners of dear leader and Putin will be required at all entrances to campus.

praise dear leader

Document your assertions, like I do.

 

[ll74]

Document your assertions, like I do.

Lol...I have, racist dipshit.

 

[Meekly_Anna]

I love how Europeans brag about their national health coverage!! Of course they do! because we took care of their national defense since WWII.

Ah, mon ami! You want to know about how the prices for medicines are set in Europe? C'est a bit of a bordel, you know, but I can try to explain it like a true Parisien.
So, it's not like buying a baguette, non. It's a complicated merde. There isn't one single way for all of Europe. Chaque pays a sa propre sauce, you see? Each country has its own system.
First, a new medicine gets approval from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). That's for the savoir-faire and safety, the science part. But for the price? That's a different story, chéri.
Usually, after the EMA approval, the company that makes the medicine has to negotiate with each national government. The governments, they want a good price for their national healthcare systems. It's not a free market, pas du tout. They look at things like:
The price in other countries (la référence).
The benefit of the new drug compared to what they already have. Is it a game-changer or just a new version?
The budget of their social security system. They have to pay for it, after all!
So, the company and the government, they sit down and haggle. It's a real tête-à-tête. In France, we have the Comité Économique des Produits de Santé (CEPS) that does this. They decide if it's worth the price.
Some countries, they have a lot of power because they are big markets, like Germany or France. So they can say, "If you want to sell here, the price must be like this, c'est tout." But for a small country, it's more difficult, non?
And then, there are things like discounts and secret rebates. Sometimes the price you see is not the real price. It's a bit of a machination, a secret deal between the company and the government.
So, in a nutshell, it's not a unified system. It's a negotiation, a lot of back and forth, and each country tries to get the best deal for its people. It's a lot of bureaucracy, quoi. But that's how it is, my friend. Voilà!
Ah, mon Dieu! But you want to talk about the prices in the États-Unis? C'est a different world, mon ami. It's a real folie, a complete bordel!
So, you know how in Europe, the governments, they negotiate hard? Well, in America, it's not like that du tout. The government, le grand gouvernement, it does not have the power to negotiate the prices. C'est absolutely crazy, non? It's like going to the market and saying, "Whatever you want to charge, I will pay!" C'est la vie, apparently, for them.
So, the pharmaceutical companies, they have carte blanche. They can set a price, a "list price," that they think is fair, or rather, what the market can bear. It's a completely different mentalité. It's all about making a profit, quoi. There's no one powerful body saying, "This is too expensive, you must lower it."
Instead, you have many, many private insurance companies. They try to negotiate, but they don't have the same power as a whole country. It's like you're haggling for a car, and your neighbor is haggling for a car, but you are not working together. Chacun pour soi. The result is a fragmented, not-so-powerful negotiation.
And then there's Medicare, the big government program for the old people. You would think they would have a lot of power, hein? But no, by law, they cannot negotiate drug prices. It's a legal machination to protect the companies' profits. It's a scandal, chéri!
On top of all this, they advertise the drugs directly to the people on television! You see a commercial for a pill, and it says "Ask your doctor if this is right for you!" In France, we would laugh at this! We get our information from the doctor, not from a television commercial. This creates a demand, a kind of spectacle, for these new, expensive drugs.
So, to sum up this casse-tête: it's a system with no strong central control, private insurance companies with limited power, a government that is not allowed to negotiate, and a lot of advertising that pushes up the demand.
Voilà! That's why when you see the prices in America, you want to cry. It's a mess, but that's how they do
it. C'est la vie.

 

[icanhelp1]

Ah, mon ami! You want to know about how the prices for medicines are set in Europe? C'est a bit of a bordel, you know, but I can try to explain it like a true Parisien.
So, it's not like buying a baguette, non. It's a complicated merde. There isn't one single way for all of Europe. Chaque pays a sa propre sauce, you see? Each country has its own system.
First, a new medicine gets approval from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). That's for the savoir-faire and safety, the science part. But for the price? That's a different story, chéri.
Usually, after the EMA approval, the company that makes the medicine has to negotiate with each national government. The governments, they want a good price for their national healthcare systems. It's not a free market, pas du tout. They look at things like:
The price in other countries (la référence).
The benefit of the new drug compared to what they already have. Is it a game-changer or just a new version?
The budget of their social security system. They have to pay for it, after all!
So, the company and the government, they sit down and haggle. It's a real tête-à-tête. In France, we have the Comité Économique des Produits de Santé (CEPS) that does this. They decide if it's worth the price.
Some countries, they have a lot of power because they are big markets, like Germany or France. So they can say, "If you want to sell here, the price must be like this, c'est tout." But for a small country, it's more difficult, non?
And then, there are things like discounts and secret rebates. Sometimes the price you see is not the real price. It's a bit of a machination, a secret deal between the company and the government.
So, in a nutshell, it's not a unified system. It's a negotiation, a lot of back and forth, and each country tries to get the best deal for its people. It's a lot of bureaucracy, quoi. But that's how it is, my friend. Voilà!
Ah, mon Dieu! But you want to talk about the prices in the États-Unis? C'est a different world, mon ami. It's a real folie, a complete bordel!
So, you know how in Europe, the governments, they negotiate hard? Well, in America, it's not like that du tout. The government, le grand gouvernement, it does not have the power to negotiate the prices. C'est absolutely crazy, non? It's like going to the market and saying, "Whatever you want to charge, I will pay!" C'est la vie, apparently, for them.
So, the pharmaceutical companies, they have carte blanche. They can set a price, a "list price," that they think is fair, or rather, what the market can bear. It's a completely different mentalité. It's all about making a profit, quoi. There's no one powerful body saying, "This is too expensive, you must lower it."
Instead, you have many, many private insurance companies. They try to negotiate, but they don't have the same power as a whole country. It's like you're haggling for a car, and your neighbor is haggling for a car, but you are not working together. Chacun pour soi. The result is a fragmented, not-so-powerful negotiation.
And then there's Medicare, the big government program for the old people. You would think they would have a lot of power, hein? But no, by law, they cannot negotiate drug prices. It's a legal machination to protect the companies' profits. It's a scandal, chéri!
On top of all this, they advertise the drugs directly to the people on television! You see a commercial for a pill, and it says "Ask your doctor if this is right for you!" In France, we would laugh at this! We get our information from the doctor, not from a television commercial. This creates a demand, a kind of spectacle, for these new, expensive drugs.
So, to sum up this casse-tête: it's a system with no strong central control, private insurance companies with limited power, a government that is not allowed to negotiate, and a lot of advertising that pushes up the demand.
Voilà! That's why when you see the prices in America, you want to cry. It's a mess, but that's how they do
it. C'est la vie.

We are presently challenging drug prices. Big pharma is in for a rude awakening.

 

[icanhelp1]

During the Cold War the Soviet Union had a no first use policy about nuclear weapons. The United States did not. The United States presented more of a threat of nuclear war than the Soviet Union.

But they did have an expansion policy.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Lol...I have, racist dipshit.

I will ignore your characteristic vulgarity and ask you to define "racist" and explain how I fit your definition.

 

[JohnEngelman]

But they did have an expansion policy.

So did we. We called it "manifest destiny."

The Indians called it "White man speak with forked tongue." We violated nearly every treaty we had with them.

 

[ll74]

I will ignore your characteristic vulgarity and ask you to define "racist" and explain how I am a racist.

I don't care that I said some words that offend you

I've already had this argument with you and will not do so again.

 

[icanhelp1]

So did we. We called it "manifest destiny."

The Indians called it "White man speak with forked tongue." We violated nearly every treaty we had with them.

You’re changing the subject.

 

[JohnEngelman]

I don't care that I said some words that offend you

I've already had this argument with you and will not do so again.

Excuse me, you just renewed the argument by calling me a "racist." So I challenge you to define racist and explain how I fit the definition.

By the way, calling anyone a racist is name calling. Name calling is the lowest form of discourse. That is why I do not resort to it.

 

[ll74]

Excuse me, you just renewed the argument by calling me a "racist." So I challenge you to define racist and explain how I fit the definition.

I realize you want to argue the point again.

And I already said I wasn't interested.

By the way, calling anyone a racist is name calling. Name calling is the lowest form of discourse. That is why I do not resort to it.

Yes, that's your schtick.

 

[JohnEngelman]

You’re changing the subject.

No I did not. Tell the Indians, the Mexicans, and the Vietnamese that we did not have an expansionist policy.

 

[JohnEngelman]

I realize you want to argue the point again.

And I already said I wasn't interested.


Yes, that's your schtick.

In other words, you cannot even justify your name calling.