British Prime Minister Theresa May says US President Donald Trump has reaffirmed his "unshakable commitment" to NATO, after concerns the mutual admiration between Mr Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin could see it weaken.

• Theresa May says Donald Trump is "100 per cent" behind NATO
• She urged against any lifting of sanctions against Russia
• The British PM said she and Trump agree on many things
• Trump will defer waterboarding decision to Defence Secretary

In talks at the White House the two leaders pledged to bring their countries closer together, while Mr Trump moved to smooth over concerns he would reintroduce torture and played down suggestions he would relax sanctions on Russia.

Ms May, the first foreign leader to be hosted by Mr Trump at the White House, said she and the President had recognised NATO as the "bulwark of our collective defence".

Mr Trump had earlier suggested that NATO was "obsolete", and that the US might not come to the aid of countries that do not meet targets for their own defence spending.

"We've reaffirmed our unshakeable commitment to this alliance, Mr President I think you confirmed that you're 100 per cent behind NATO," Ms May said.

"I've agreed to continue my efforts to encourage my fellow European leaders to deliver on their commitments to spend two per cent of their GDP on defence.

read more:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-28/trump-may-talks-russian-sanctions/...

The report undermines President Trump’s pledge that no Americans would lose coverage under a GOP health-care plan and threatens support from the party’s moderate lawmakers. But Trump budget director Mick Mulvaney called the CBO analysis “just absurd.”

read more:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/obamacare-revision-would-reduce-insured-numbers-by-24-million/2017/03/13/ea4c860a-0829-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_cbo-desktop-430pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

See toon at top...

...

The Democratic economic agenda is broadly popular with the public. More people prefer the party’s views to those of Republicans on taxes,poverty reduction, health care, government benefits, and even climate change and energy policy. In one recent poll, 3 in 4 supported raising the minimum wage to $9. Seventy-two percent wanted to provide pre-K to all 4-year-olds in poor families. Eight in 10 favored expanding food stamps. It is noteworthy that each of these proposals found support from a majority of Republicans.

The Democracy Fund commissioned a comprehensive study of voters in the 2016 presidential election, and one scholar, Lee Drutman, set out his first key finding: “The primary conflict structuring the two parties involves questions of national identity, race, and morality.” Focusing on the people who voted for President Barack Obama in 2012 and then Donald Trump in 2016, Drutman found that they were remarkably close to the Democratic Party on economic issues. But they were far to the right on their attitudes toward immigrants, blacks and Muslims, and much more likely to feel “people like me” are on the decline.

The Public Religion Research Institute and the Atlantic also conducted an important study to analyze the most powerful predictors of whether a white working-class American would vote for Trump. The top predictor was if someone identified as a Republican, a reminder that party loyalty is very strong. But after that, the two best predictors were “fears of cultural displacement” and support for deporting undocumented immigrants. Those who felt their economic conditions were poor or fair were actually slightly more likely to vote for Hillary Clinton.

It’s worth considering how much the Democratic Party has changed over the past 25 years. Bill Clinton’s party was careful to come across as moderate on many social issues. It had a middle-of-the-road position on immigration and was cautiously progressive on subjects such as gay rights. The Democrats eventually moved boldly leftward in some of these areas, such as gay rights, out of an admirable sense of principle. On others, such as immigration, they did so largely to court a growing segment of Democratic voters, a process that Peter Beinart nicely explains in the most recent Atlantic issue. But in a broader sense, the Democratic Party moved left because it became a party dominated by urban, college-educated professionals, and its social and cultural views naturally mirrored this reality.

The party’s defense of minorities and celebration of diversity are genuine and praiseworthy, but they have created great distance between itself and a wide swath of Middle America. This is a cultural gulf that cannot be bridged by advocating smarter policies on tax credits, retraining and early-childhood education. The Democrats need to talk about America’s national identity in a way that stresses the common elements that bind, not the particular ones that divide. Policies in these areas do matter. The party should take a position on immigration that is less absolutist and recognizes both the cultural and economic costs of large-scale immigration. On some of the issues surrounding sexual orientation, it can and should affirm its principles without compromise. But perhaps it is possible to show greater understanding for parts of the country that disagree. 

read more:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-democrats-problem-is-not-the...

-----------------

Hell is paved with good intentions. By all account the democrats should have won the last Presidential elections. But they did not. An obnoxious pig got the gig. Why? Nothing to do with the Russians. The pig did not try to hide the fact he was obnoxious. The woman tried to appear as Saint Theresa. Some people don't fall for the holier than thou. But the battle was fought on more subtle grounds, including religious fervour. Trump played the game and did not try to rock the boat on abortion and LGBTi issues. He told porkies on "not going to war with anyone"... La Woman was a warrior through and through and proud of her cock ups. Overall, the end game rested with the Colleges -- not with the popular votes. The Democrats were in dreamland on this score... 

And no need to mention "the Russians"...

See toon at top...

McCain Returns to Cast Vote to Help the President Who Derided Him

WASHINGTON — Senator John McCain is less the lion of the Senate than its wildcat, veering through the decades from war hero to Republican presidential nominee to irascible foil for an unlikely president.

On Tuesday, the Arizona Republican ambled gingerly into the Capitol to sustained applause less than two weeks after brain surgery, casting a vote to aid President Trump, who has served as more tormentor than ally.

But moments later in a speech on the Senate floor, Mr. McCain turned what had been an applause-pecked moment for his colleagues — whom he saved from an embarrassing failure on the floor — into an ominous cloud for any health care legislation. He said that although he had voted to begin debate on repealing the Affordable Care Act, he would definitely not vote for a Senate health care bill without major changes.

Read more:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/us/politics/mccain-health-care-brain-cancer.html

Hard to find anyone on the planet that Trump has not derided... Let me know if you find one...

Read from top...

WASHINGTON — President Trump will scrap subsidies to health insurance companies that help pay out-of-pocket costs of low-income people, the White House said late Thursday. His plans were disclosed hours after the president ordered potentially sweeping changes in the nation’s insurance system, including sales of cheaper policies with fewer benefits and fewer protections for consumers.

The twin hits to the Affordable Care Act could unravel President Barack Obama’s signature domestic achievement, sending insurance premiums soaring and insurance companies fleeing from the health law’s online marketplaces. After Republicans failed to repeal the health law in Congress, Mr. Trump appears determined to dismantle it on his own.

Without the subsidies, insurance markets could quickly unravel. Insurers have said they will need much higher premiums and may pull out of the insurance exchanges created under the Affordable Care Act if the subsidies were cut off. Known as cost-sharing reduction payments, the subsidies were expected to total $9 billion in the coming year and nearly $100 billion in the coming decade.

“The government cannot lawfully make the cost-sharing reduction payments,” the White House said in a statement.

read more:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/12/us/politics/trump-obamacare-executive-order-health-insurance.html

And in Aussieland:

Normally when governments storm into the marketplace to rein in prices and flex some regulatory muscle, the push-back from business is intense.

• Health insurance reforms won't have a big impact on profitability
• Private hospital and health insurance shares jumped on the news
• Any loss in revenue from lower premiums for insurers likely to be made up with higher participation rates

Not this time with the Federal Government's move on private health insurance in the biggest shake-up the industry has seen since the Lifetime Health Cover loading was introduced at the turn of the century.

The big players put out media statements supporting the reforms and investors jumped in an bid up the likes of Medibank Private and its smaller Newcastle-based rival, nib.

Even the big publicly listed private hospitals, which have a fairly testy relationship with the insurers over the prices they charge, got a hefty boost in their share prices.

What gives? Well, the short answer is despite insurance premiums and hospital prices being held in check, their profits probably won't be hit too hard.

The reforms are a bit of mixed bag for the insurers, where lower margins could be offset by increased participation rates and the hospitals have seen reforms of prosthetic costs coming from a long way back.

read more:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-14/why-private-health-insurers-are-no...

Read from top...

and please revisit:

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/912

By Barbara Ehrenreich

In the last few years I have given up on the many medical measures—cancer screenings, annual exams, Pap smears, for example—expected of a responsible person with health insurance. This was not based on any suicidal impulse. It was barely even a decision, more like an accumulation of micro-decisions: to stay at my desk and meet a deadline or show up at the primary care office and submit to the latest test to gauge my biological sustainability; to spend the afternoon in faux-cozy corporate environment of a medical facility or to go for a walk. At first I criticized myself as a slacker and procrastinator, falling behind on the simple, obvious stuff that could prolong my life. After all, this is the great promise of modern scientific medicine: You do not have to get sick and die (at least not for a while), because problems can be detected “early” when they are readily treatable. Better to catch a tumor when it’s the size of an olive than that of a cantaloupe.

I knew I was going against my own long-standing bias in favor of preventive medical care as opposed to expensive and invasive high-tech curative interventions. What could be more ridiculous than an inner-city hospital that offers a hyperbaric chamber but cannot bestir itself to get out in the neighborhood and test for lead poisoning? From a public health perspective, as well as a personal one, it makes far more sense to screen for preventable problems than to invest huge resources in the treatment of the very ill.

Read more:

https://lithub.com/barbara-ehrenreich-why-im-giving-up-on-preventative-c...

-------------

US pop music star Mariah Carey revealed that she was diagnosed with bipolar II disorder, otherwise known as maniac depression in 2001, in an interview with People magazine. The celebrity, who is in therapy and takes medication now, decided to share the story of her battle with the public in order to help eliminate the stigma people with this mental illnessendure.

The pop-diva herself came out after many years of living in “denial and isolation and in constant fear someone would expose me,” she admitted in the interview.

17 years ago, she experienced what was described as a physical and mental breakdown when her acting debut in the film "Glitter" failed. 
"Until recently I lived in denial and isolation and in constant fear someone would expose me," she admitted in the recent cover story for the US outlet.

In her shout-out to those suffering from the disorder and those near and dear to them, she stated that bipolar disorder "does not have to define you and I refuse to allow it to define me or control me."

According to Mariah, what she believed to be a sleeping problem, turned out to be the onset of bipolar II disorder; symptoms include sharp switches of mood from euphoria or irritability to depression, as well as insomnia, weight loss or gain, and suicidal intentions.

Read more:

https://sputniknews.com/viral/201804121063473046-star-mental-disorder-bi...

I rarely visit the doctor. It's a man thing. If I take a pill, it would be an aspirin to thin the blood when I catch a plane or when I have drunk too much red ned the day before. As well, after years of neglect, I have taken special care of my teeth. Sounds stupid, but teeth are one of the primary source of troubles. I am comfortable with the notion of my own death.

So I think I understand very well the two variant of health management expressed above, especially in Mariah's case.

I wrote a book (commercially unpublished but distributed to a few people) nearly 25 years ago on how to manage depression (in its various manifestations) for artists (creative people — "like me"). I personally deal with it by being "positively aggressive". It means that — to simplify the explanation of a solution to the very complex problem of mental "despair" that turns into carelessness — I always push myself into being active with a reward for doing so, while "resetting" the harmony between the mind and the body with a "purposeful" rest (NR-D — non reactive defocusing). The aggressiveness is not about aggressing people but about motivation of the self. The reward is not appraisal from other people but a simple treat (including a proper self-acknowledgement) from having "done something". Failure provides another opportunity to try again or to learn something new. It's not "spiritual", it's "mechanical" and animalistic... I have published a few chapters of this book on this site. Gus.