Chủ Nhật, 2 tháng 9, 2018

News on Youtube Sep 2 2018

>> Sreenivasan: FOR MORE, I

SPOKE RECENTLY WITH SARA

ROSENBAUM, A PROFESSOR OF HEALTH

LAW AND POLICY AT GEORGE

WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY MILKEN

INSTITUTE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC

HEALTH.

SARA ROSENBAUM, THANKS FOR

JOINING US.

SO, LET'S FIRST TALK ABOUT

KENTUCKY.

IT WAS POISED TO BE THE FIRST

STATE IN THE COUNTRY TO ADD WORK

REQUIREMENTS FOR SOME MEDICAID

RECIPIENTS, BUT JUST DAYS BEFORE

TAKING EFFECT, A JUDGE BLOCKED

THE NEW RULES.

WHY?

>> KENTUCKY'S PROPOSAL, LIKE THE

PROPOSALS IN OTHER STATES,

REALLY BOILED DOWN TO REMOVING

PEOPLE FROM MEDICAID.

THE STATE BY ITSELF PROJECTED A

15% DROP IN MEDICAID

BENEFICIARIES, AND WHAT THE

JUDGE SAID WAS, YOU HAVEN'T

SHOWN US HOW AN EXPERIMENT ON

THE POOR THAT REMOVES TENS OF

THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE FROM THE

MEDICAID PROGRAM FURTHERS THE

OBJECTIONS OF THE MEDICAID

PROGRAM, SO YOU HAVEN'T DONE

YOUR JOB UNDER THE LAW.

YOU HAVE TO GO BACK AND EXPLAIN

WHY REMOVING COVERAGE FROM

PEOPLE FURTHERS THE OBJECTIVES

OF MEDICAID.

>> Sreenivasan: ALL RIGHT,

LET'S TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT

THAT WORD, "EXPERIMENT."

ARE 50 STATES ALLOWED TO

BASICALLY HAVE 50 DIFFERENT

EXPERIMENTS ON WHAT COULD AND

WHAT COULD NOT WORK, AND IN THIS

CASE WHAT COULD AND WHAT COULD

NOT BE SUED TO STOP?

>> MEDICAID DOES NOT-- EXCEPT IN

ONE VERY PARTICULARIZED

CIRCUMSTANCE-- ALLOW A STATE TO

IMPOSE WORK REQUIREMENTS.

SO, IN ORDER TO CONDUCT A WORK

EXPERIMENT-- AND I USE THE WORD

"EXPERIMENT" QUITE LITERALLY

HERE-- THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

HAS TO TURN TO A DIFFERENT

PROVISION OF LAW, ONE THAT

ACTUALLY PREDATES MEDICAID

ITSELF.

AND SO, IN ORDER TO USE THIS

SPECIAL AUTHORITY WHICH HAS

BEEN AROUND FOR 55 YEARS NOW,

THE SECRETARY IS ESSENTIALLY NO

LONGER APPROVING A STATE PROGRAM

UNDER THE MEDICAID STATUTE.

HE'S APPROVING IT AS AN

EXPERIMENT.

>> Sreenivasan: THERE'S GOING

TO BE PEOPLE WHO LOOK AROUND AND

SAY, LOOK, WE HAVE HISTORICALLY

LOW UNEMPLOYMENT.

WHAT'S THE HARM IN ADDING WORK

REQUIREMENTS TO GETTING THIS

INCREDIBLE BENEFIT OF

HEALTHCARE?

>> IN FACT, THE UNEMPLOYMENT

RATES AS YOU POINT OUT ARE

HISTORICALLY LOW.

THE VAST MAJORITY OF POOR PEOPLE

WORK, LOOK FOR WORK.

THE NATURE OF LABOR IN A

LOW-WAGE MARKET, WHICH IS WHERE

LOW-INCOME ADULTS ARE,

OBVIOUSLY, IS THAT IT COMES IN

CYCLES.

YOU MAY GET MORE HOURS.

YOU MAY GET FEWER HOURS.

YOU MAY BE CALLED IN FOR A TIME

OR GET LAID OFF FOR A WHILE.

YOU MAY BE A SEASONAL WORKER.

AND SO, THERE'S A NORMAL

FLUCTUATING TO AND FRO, AND ANY

EFFORT THAT CAN BE MADE TO HELP

PEOPLE WHO ARE IN LOW-WAGE JOBS

WHO NEED SKILLS, TRAINING, WHO

NEED HELP FINDING WORK IS A

WONDERFUL THING, AND THE RESULTS

OF VOLUNTARY WORK PROGRAMS ARE

ACTUALLY QUITE STRONG.

WHAT IS A REAL HEAD SCRATCHER

HERE, FROM A POLICY POINT OF

VIEW, IS WHY YOU WOULD EVER

THREATEN PEOPLE'S HEALTH

INSURANCE COVERAGE OVER THIS

WHEN THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, IN

FACT, THAT MORE THAN THE

SMALLEST HANDFUL OF LOW-INCOME

PEOPLE JUST DON'T WORK AND DON'T

WANT TO WORK AND HAVE NO REASON

NOT TO WORK.

TO PUT AT RISK PEOPLE'S COVERAGE

SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY CAN'T REPORT

IN THEIR MONTHLY HOURS CLOCKED

AT WORK, WHEN, IN FACT, THERE'S

A TINY HANDFUL OF PEOPLE WHO,

YOU KNOW, ARE THE PROVERBIAL

NEEDLES IN THE HAYSTACK, IS I

THINK WHAT MAKES THE WHOLE

ENTERPRISE SO IRRATIONAL AND

FRANKLY SO INHUMANE.

>> Sreenivasan: ALL RIGHT,

SARA ROSENBAUM, A PROFESSOR OF

HEALTH, LAW AND POLICY AT

GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY,

THANKS SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

>> THANK YOU.

For more infomation >> A ruling against Kentucky's Medicaid work requirements could affect other states - Duration: 3:38.

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

The United States (USA) vs The World - Who Would Win? Military / Army Comparison - Duration: 17:42.

A Superpower is defined as a state with the ability to exert influence or project power

on a global scale, and if needed, in more than one region of the globe at a time.

The United States- currently the world's sole Superpower- fits this description, with an

official military doctrine that states its military forces must be ready and capable

to fight two major theater wars simultaneously, a capability no other nation on earth can

even approach.

But what would happen if the United States found itself in a war against the entire rest

of the world?

How would that war potentially play out?

The rules of this Wargame will be as follows: no nuclear weapons allowed, and war will be

simulated to have broken out after weeks of preamble, as in a surprise attack, the United

States with its forces spread around the world would likely lose its non-homeland forces

entirely, but not before delivering crippling blows to most of the world's major powers

and knocking them out of the conflict early.

The US's main opposition would be in the form of a European coalition to include Russia

and a China/India alliance.

The rest of the world's contribution would be mostly in material supplies or financial

backing, as while even nations like Japan boast a formidable military capability, they

mostly lack the ability to actually deploy that power outside of their own borders.

In fact, that would be the biggest hurdle to any global offensive against the United

States- with historical military preparations focused on conflicts such as NATO vs Russia,

or China vs India, most militaries around the world lack the ability to transport military

hardware across the oceans in a meaningful quantity, making a decisive assault against

the US homeland impossible.

Meanwhile due to its commitments to fighting wars well outside its own borders for the

last 80 years, the United States operates the world's largest air and naval transport

fleets that number in the hundreds of ships and aircraft- more than most modern nations

combined.

This lack of mobility will prove to be a major weakness for the global alliance, and severely

hinder their ability to respond to US actions.

Today the United States operates its forces in every geographic area of the world, and

has split its command structure into nine combatant commands, six responsible for global

geographic areas of responsibility.

In the weeks leading up to the outbreak of war, the United States would likely pull its

forces out of Europe and non-American bases in the Pacific, disbanding its European, African,

and Southern Commands.

Pacific Command, Northern Command, and Central Command would absorb these forces.

Battlefield 1: Middle East

US Central Command would receive an influx of former European assets, with the US bolstering

its forces in the Middle East in bases in Afghanistan and Iraq, with one goal- destroying

the major oil refineries and distribution centers while denying access to the sea lanes

that transport oil from the region.

81% of the world's oil reserves are located in OPEC countries, and over 60% of the world's

oil passes through the Arabian Sea alone; the US's strategic goals would be simple:

shut off the global oil tap.

With the world's 12th largest oil reserves, the United States could easily supply itself,

while denying the rest of the world access to vital Middle East oil.

Europe, which would represent the United States' most formidable adversary, relies on Middle

East oil for 40-50% of its total annual use, meaning an American stranglehold on the region

would cripple any European war effort as reserves run out and their economies begin to collapse.

China would face a similar problem, as 50% of its total oil imports all come from the

Middle East, making the region the first front in our war.

At the outbreak of war, the United States would first strike at oil production and distribution

facilities across the Middle East via carrier-based strike aircraft backed up by former European

theater aircraft now based off American bases in Iraq and Afghanistan.

With the world's largest air tanker fleet and flanking the all-important Persian Gulf

from both Iraq and Afghanistan, American aircraft could penetrate deep into Middle East territory

with impunity, striking at targets from the Straits of Hormuz all the way to the Suez

Canal itself.

Though regional forces would be able to offer some initial resistance, most operate outdated

Soviet-era or non-modern American built aircraft- with the exception of current US allies such

as Saudi Arabia, who would be able to field modern variant F15s, Typhoon Eurofighters,

and Italian/British Tornado multirole strike aircraft in small numbers.

Without European support however, the air war would go very poorly for Middle East powers

for several reasons:

Firstly, lacking a joint unified command, each nation would be unable to coordinate

its air assets with its neighbors, resulting in confusion and low sortie rates.

Most middle east powers also field very few electronic warfare or early warning and control

aircraft; Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel would represent the most formidable threats

to American air power, yet neither nation fields dedicated electronic attack aircraft,

while the US is equipped with over 200- mostly F-35 variants and EA-18G Growlers.

Without adequate numbers of AWACS and electronic warfare assets, Middle East powers would be

unable to coordinate the large amounts of sorties needed to counter US air power, and

they'd find their aircraft and ground-based air defenses actively jammed or spoofed by

American EW assets.

In the opening days of the Middle East war, the US would likely see moderate casualties

amongst its air forces, as it would be mostly operating against obsolete aircraft and disorganized

or inexperienced air forces.

The greatest threat to US craft would come from ground-based air defenses, which range

in obsoletism yet remain a formidable obstacle to US air power.

With a concentration of American power in the region, it's a forgone conclusion that

Middle East powers would have begun to move their air defenses to protect vital oil shipping

routes and manufacturing/distribution centers; yet Desert Storm proved how effective the

United States can be at dismantling a nation's air defense network, and most nations in the

region have invested little into modernizing their defense infrastructure in the years

since.

The US would suffer most of its losses to its 4th-generation aircraft such as its F-15,

F-16 and F-18s, while its 5thGen F-35s and F-22s would prove much more difficult to contend

with.

With an inventory of 385 active F-35s, over 1,800 more on order, and 197 F-22s, the US

retains the only operational 5th-generation air fleets, with current allies fielding a

token force of F-35s purchased from America, and the Russians and Chinese still not fielding

combat-ready 5thGen aircraft.

Despite its technological and operational superiority however, sheer numbers would present

a threat to American forces; so instead of seizing key oil production or distribution

facilities, the US would instead focus its efforts on keeping those facilities and trade

route choke points shut down while defending against attacks on its air bases.

A single sunk supertanker could block the Suez Canal for weeks, shutting down one of

the most important oil trade routes in the world, while constant harassment by American

air power would make the Straits of Hormuz impassable.

With few major naval threats in the Pacific, American Pacific naval forces would be split

between containing China and bolstering US Central Command forces in establishing a blockade

of trade routes across the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

With 20 carriers, 11 of which are supercarriers- more than the rest of the world combined-

a blockade of the Indian and Pacific oceans would be easily achieved.

With a staggering 80 percent of global oil trade passing through the Indian and Pacific

oceans, the rest of the world would be forced to abandon any plans to attack the US homeland

and first try to dislodge the Americans from the Middle East; yet they would be doing so

while operating on a ticking clock as domestic oil reserves begin running dry.

In a prolonged conflict, immediate development of oil reserves in Russia would begin, though

with only 80 billion barrels of proven reserves vs over 800 billion in the Middle East, it

would be imperative for the global coalition to dislodge the US from the region or face

eventual oil starvation and defeat.

Europe would be faced with the difficult decision of committing the majority of its air and

naval power to a Middle East campaign, yet with an American navy larger than the next

8 navies in the world combined, they would be doing so at the risk of leaving their coasts

vulnerable to harassment from American attack submarines and carrier strike groups.

American attack submarines, in particular, would prove to be an overwhelming force, with

55 nuclear attack subs alone.

Europe, to include Russia, fields nearly 100 submarines, yet only about a third of those

are nuclear-powered, and range from 10 to 25 years behind US subs in tech.

Lacking in major transport capabilities and the ability to adequately protect either their

sea lanes or any attempts to move troops by sea, the global coalition would be extremely

hard pressed to dislodge the US from the Middle East.

While an eventual overwhelming of US ground forces would be possible, it would take weeks

of buildup and slow moving of forces via ground routes, to avoid American submarines.

Victory in the Middle East would be possible for the global coalition, but would only come

at great expense of dwindling oil reserves, and any attempts to reopen the Middle East

trade routes would certainly fail, as the US would concentrate its nuclear attack subs

and carrier battle groups in the region.

The coalition would be forced to rely on existing land-based pipelines, though these would not

be enough to sustain the world economy, and the United States would certainly commit its

stealthy B2 bombers to the destruction of these pipelines and any attempts at building

new ones.

In short, a land victory would be probable for the global coalition, but without the

ability to challenge the US Navy, global trade routes would be permanently shut down, effectively

crippling the economies of coalition nations and the war effort.

Battlefield 2: West Pacific

The West Pacific and South China Sea is the most economically important water way in the

world, with a full 1/3rd of all global trade passing through the area, or about $5.3 trillion

dollars.

China, South Korea, and Japan would especially have a vested interest in keeping these sea

lanes open, yet none of those nations field a true 'blue water', or deep-ocean navy.

In a global war, the United States would invest the majority of its expeditionary firepower

in the West Pacific, having little to fear from an Atlantic incursion by European powers

due to their lack of major military transport capability, and navies designed for decades

to engage Russian ships in littoral combat rather than blue water operations.

Japan would pose a significant challenge for US forces due to its very modern and robust

self-defense forces, yet the island nation could be largely ignored due to Japan's lack

of air tankers limiting the range of its strike aircraft and 70 year self-defense military

doctrine, which saw the nation only recently begin to build an expeditionary capability.

With 155 F-15s making up the bulk of Japan's Air Force, and only a combat range of 790

miles (1270 km), it is doubtful the island nation would risk its 5 operational airborne

refueling tankers to attempt offensive operations against the US Navy and its over 1,000 fighter

aircraft, instead holding its air forces in reserve in case of an American attack on the

homeland.

The US's first goal in the region would be to cut off all trade routes passing through

the South China Sea.

China would represent the US's biggest global adversary, yet like every other global power-

to include Russia- it too lacks the navy and the transport capability to actually threaten

the US homeland.

In order to deny the nation the opportunity to build this capability, the US would immediately

move to cut off Chinese trade through the South China Sea- something China would be

particularly vulnerable to as over 60% of its trade is delivered by sea.

Though China lacks a navy formidable enough to threaten US Pacific forces, it more than

makes up for this shortcoming with its ballistic missile forces.

It's DF-26 ballistic missiles each have a range of 3000-4000 km, and would threaten

any US base or ship as far out as Guam.

At the outbreak of war, China would immediately launch a withering missile strike against

American facilities on Guam.

While Guam would be defended by THAAD, or Terminal High Altitude Area Defense anti-missile

systems, AEGIS-equipped destroyers, and Patriot missile batteries, China would rely on heavy

saturation strikes and overwhelm American missile defense systems, decimating the majority

of American ground targets on the small island and rendering it inoperative as a military

forward staging area for weeks.

This would force America to rely on its naval assets in the region, which would be the secondary

targets of China's opening barrage.

Though long-touted as 'carrier-killers', China's DF-26 and DF-21 ballistic missiles each rely

on a very long and complex 'kill chain', or chain of military assets required to recon

a target, track it, and guide a missile to it.

In order to accomplish this, China operates 30 Yaogan tracking and reconnaissance satellites

grouped into constellations that, working together, would provide China 16 opportunities

per 24 hour period to accurately target a US Navy vessel to within 10 kilometers anywhere

in the Pacific.

The US would certainly seek to counter this capability with deployment of its anti-satellite

weapon systems, of which it remains extremely secretive about.

It is impossible to infer just how effective US anti-sat weapons truly are, due to a lack

of information, but it is known that in the early 2000s, the US Air Force successfully

tested a deployment of mini-sats designed to kill or hijack enemy satellites, and in

2008 the US successfully targeted and destroyed a defunct satellite with an SM-3 missile launched

from the USS Lake Eerie in the Pacific.

With every US destroyer and cruiser able to carry the SM-3, this could potentially pose

a serious threat to Chinese space assets and degrade the capabilities of their ballistic

missile forces.

In a push into the Pacific, however, the US would still suffer heavy casualties amongst

its fleet due to Chinese long-range missile strikes.

It's probable then that while it works to destroy Chinese space assets from afar, America

would instead send in its nuclear attack submarine fleet to blockade Chinese waters.

China operates about 60 submarines, yet for years those subs did not go on patrols or

even leave port as they were often sidelined by maintenance issues.

Only as recently as 2011 did Chinese subs actually begin to leave port, giving US subs

the opportunity to tail them and discover that Chinese submarines were surprisingly

easy to find and track due to their noisy nature; defense experts estimated that Chinese

sub technology was 10 years behind Russia and about 20 years behind the US.

The US meanwhile operates 55 nuclear attack submarines, with most of these being of the

modern Virginia class.

Armed with torpedoes and a complement of Tomahawk cruise missiles, Virginia attack subs could

easily threaten Chinese surface and subsurface vessels, and join its Ohio-class ballistic

missile submarines in cruise missile attacks against Chinese inland industrial and military

installations.

While in recent years, China has invested heavily into improving its anti-submarine

warfare capabilities, it is still critically behind even regional powers, such as South

Korea and Japan, meaning that in the end there is likely little China could do to stop US

attack subs.

Though it could likely keep American carrier battle groups out of the South China Sea for

the first week or two of the war, China would be helpless to prevent a naval blockade by

US attack subs.

India, also reliant on South Pacific trade routes, would certainly dispatch its naval

forces to attempt to break a US blockade, but would face the same issues in challenging

US subs that China would.

Having only 15 active submarines and also lacking in modern anti-submarine warfare capabilities,

the Indian navy would quickly find itself overpowered by American attack subs.

Employing a combination of its submarine and anti-satellite assets, the US would likely

break through the Chinese ballistic missile shield within 30 days and enact a complete

blockade of the South Pacific, strangling regional powers economically.

With a blockade of Middle East oil exports, the global war would then become a war of

attrition, with the US starving out the world's major powers, while able to sustain itself

off its own domestic oil reserves.

Having little to fear from a European transAtlantic offensive due to Europe's lack of major military

transport capabilities, American forces would be free to initiate ground offensives against

Canada and Venezuela in order to seize its oil reserves as well.

Ultimately the US Navy, the largest and best equipped in the world, would be the deciding

factor in a global war.

With such overwhelming firepower superiority, the United States would be able to fight defensively,

and without launching any major ground offensives outside of North America.

Fielding a larger fleet than the next 8 navies combined, the US Navy, backed by the US Coast

Guard, would easily defend the Atlantic sea lanes from any European incursion, while enacting

blockades of major oil shipping routes through the Persian Gulf, and Indian and Pacific Oceans.

While the world would eventually be able to muster a large enough force to threaten the

US, current military capabilities across the globe would be insufficient to prevent these

naval blockades, and would require years of build up and expansion of navies from every

modern nation.

With the majority of global oil trade shut off by naval blockade however, European and

Asian economies would quickly shrink or outright collapse, making such a buildup improbable,

and ensuring an eventual US victory.

Yet that victory would come at a titanic cost to even the US's own economy, and in the end,

the entire global economy would likely shrink to levels not seen since the end of the second

world war.

So, how do you think this scenario would have played out?!

Let us know your thoughts in the comments!

Also, be sure to check out our other video called North Korea vs United States!

Thanks for watching, and, as always, don't forget to like, share, and subscribe.

See you next time!

Không có nhận xét nào:

Đăng nhận xét