Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Thursday February 07 2019, @07:33PM   Printer-friendly

Senate approves Syria, anti-BDS[*] bill

The Senate passed legislation on Thursday breaking with President Trump's Syria policy. Senators voted 77-23 to send the legislation to the House that includes a provision warning Trump against a "precipitous" withdrawal of troops from Syria and Afghanistan. It also asks the administration to certify that certain conditions have been met "for the enduring defeat of al Qaeda and ISIS before initiating any significant withdrawal of United States forces from Syria or Afghanistan."

[...] In addition to the Syria amendment, the bill also included sanctions against the Syrian government, increased support for Israel and Jordan and a provision that would let states penalize businesses that take part in boycotts or divestments of Israel.

Both the Syria amendment and the anti-BDS provisions sparked division among Democrats. [...] Democrats had raised First Amendment concerns about the anti-BDS provision, which splintered most of the party's 2020 contenders and caucus leadership. "While I do not support the BDS movement, we must defend every American's constitutional right to engage in political activity. It is clear to me that this bill would violate Americans' First Amendment rights," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement last week.

[*] BDS: boycott, divestment and sanctions.

Also at NYT.

See also: Is the Anti-BDS Bill Constitutional? Yes, But...


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Thursday February 07 2019, @11:09PM (6 children)

    by Thexalon (636) on Thursday February 07 2019, @11:09PM (#798048)

    Universal healthcare means scrapping insurance, nationalizing everything pharmaceutical production included.

    Only if you think Canada and Cuba have identical health care systems.

    While the Canadian NHS isn't perfect, it's a heck of a lot better than what the US has, unless your goal is maximizing shareholder value rather than maximizing average life expectancy and quality of life of your citizens.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 08 2019, @05:57AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 08 2019, @05:57AM (#798194)

    It’s so good U.S. citizens fly north for surgeries they need immediately!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 08 2019, @09:01PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 08 2019, @09:01PM (#798540)

      Over 10,000 people die a year in the US due to lack of access to healthcare. So, rather than flying north, they just die or go into massive debt.

      You need to stop watching Fox News. For the average person, Canada's system is better than the one in the US. Though, there may be even better single payer systems out there, and it's all down to implementation.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by dry on Saturday February 09 2019, @04:12AM

      by dry (223) on Saturday February 09 2019, @04:12AM (#798696) Journal

      No, they also drive. It's a problem, Americans showing up, making up or borrowing a CARE (in BC) number and using our healthcare system.

  • (Score: 2) by dry on Saturday February 09 2019, @04:23AM (2 children)

    by dry (223) on Saturday February 09 2019, @04:23AM (#798702) Journal

    Canada doesn't have a NHS, 14 individual health systems between the Provinces, Territories and Federal government. The Federal government does set minimums and transfer money around (and is responsible for veterans, natives and such), money that the Provinces don't get if they don't follow the feds guidelines. Healthcare actually started at the Provincial level and like America, the Federal government can't force the Provinces to do healthcare and the feds currently treat the territories much as if they were sovereign Provinces.
    America could probably do similar and stay within your Constitution, I believe highway funding is already similar.

    • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Saturday February 09 2019, @07:06PM (1 child)

      by Thexalon (636) on Saturday February 09 2019, @07:06PM (#798892)

      Ah, my mistake. I should have consulted with my Canadian friends before posting.

      And yes, US federal highway funds do work like you think they do.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 2) by dry on Saturday February 09 2019, @07:35PM

        by dry (223) on Saturday February 09 2019, @07:35PM (#798901) Journal

        Even a lot of Canadians probably don't realize how it works, mostly as they don't think about it as it mostly just works and there isn't much difference in different parts of the country. OTOH, when outsiders talk about waiting lists and such, it's likely they're referring to particular Provinces. And the rising costs are a big problem nationwide.