Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder"
channel.
-
3
-
Homo sapiens is a deeply social creature, with an instinctive desire for "fairness".Because of our deeply social instincts honed by evolution, inequality between tribe members makes us uneasy - solidarity and sharing have been key for survival of homo sapiens. That poses a conflict with the also natural selfish impulses. In small groups of hunter/gatherers our instincts ensure very social, generous, self-less behavior and they restrict very effectively the use of violence among group members. It avoided frictions in small groups who needed to have each other's back for survival.
The stronger shoulders quite naturally had to carry more of the burden - but they were richly rewarded for that - with status.
As for the instincive tendendy to appeal to "fairness". Watch for instance tax discussions. The libertarians and their opponents all argue with "fairness", they instinctively assume that if they convince the participants and even more the audience of the "fairness" of their argument - then they successfully made their point. People advocating on behalf of the wealthy could just say: I want to keep it all to myself. That would be perfectly rational from the point of self-interest - but it is not a good enough point to convince others. For that "fairness" is required, and to me it looks like those making the argument need the convinction that their proposal is "fair" as much as those whom they try to convince.
In fractured, anonymous large ! societies the selfish impulses (and the reluctance to use violence against another human) are much, much less checked. Homo sapiens still shows solidarity with the "tribe". And they are as eager as ever to have status - especially within the tribe. But the definition of "who is a tribe member" has changed.
The evolutionary tendency towards "fairness" is STILL STRONG - even in the posh upper classes.(back in the day "god" had placed them on the top of society THAT provided the sugar coating an placated the social and empathic impulses)
The "elites" NEED to cultivate a belief in the inherent "fairness" of our system a) the non-privilged outnumber them, they need to be placated and b) they need it for their own peace of mind.
So they cultivate ideas like: "Others can make it like I made it" - glossing over the fact that they often did not make it on their own. They like to have the impression that there is an objective reason that not everyone is as well off as they are - again glossing over the fact that it is not about inequality per se, but about the extent of inequality.
They need to have a high capacity for double think - the illusion that they are better, that they deserve to live so much better. Part of it is of course suppressing knowledge. Even if they were indeed better, and made it all on their own, the top 9,99 % get almost all the the wealth. The most effective way to avoid psycholocgical conflicts about it is to remain in blissful ignorance, staying in their bubble (which happens anyway) and looking the other way.
These people often use their acadamic training and intelligence and rhetoric abilities to NOT KNOW and to obfuscate. Before they fool others they need to fool themselves (to quiet down their better inner self rattled by evolutionary instincts).
Watch economic news on mainstream news, the hosts, their "experts", the politicians, think tank trained speakers - double think exercised by people who had the privilege of a good education. Many of them are certainly not stupid, they have access to information, how can they be THAT wrong. (Case in point: the abyssmal quality in healthcare discussion in the U.S. - that is mind boggling for persons who know the systems outside of the U.S.).
there is a saying - there is no fool like an educated fool. Intelligence can help to maintain a bias and double think.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Warren has been flip flopping a lot. She acted like a typical politician - incl. NOT wanting to offend the Clinton or party machine. - Every president that really ! wants to bring change will have a LOT of opposition. Warren staying silent when she could have shown bold leadership or playing nice with the Democratic elites is NOT a good sign she would be even TRY to fight.
She meets with the big donors and superdelegates. Another bad sign.
Last but not least: she NOW gets nice coverage in meainstream media (other than Fox). obama got that (very much opposed to how they treated Sanders during the campaings)
- the owners of the networks KNEW that Obama already had agreements with the donors incl. the banksters during his campaign. see citibank mail Oct. 2008 (Wikileaks) - they provided a list to chose appointees from. Good to know that the banksters (citibank also got a LOT of help under Obama) vetted the foxes that would be put in charge of the henhouse.
Never mind the hope and change rhetoric, Obama was not going to rock the boat
So the owners / managment greenlighted friendly coverage on him. something like that must be going on now. Maybe they see Warren as the lesser evil and the most likely to be able to contain Sanders. And she is already sending lots of signals to big donors and superdelegates that she will compromise.
They would rather have Harris, Booker, Biden or Buttigieg of course - neoliberals with some folksy or progressive veneer. But they would certainly prefer warren over Sanders.
(less determined, she already proved that she will stay at the sidelines, chicken out. Not endorsing Sanders, remaining silent on Assange, on DAPL, does not dare to cross the Israeli lobby (watch Sanders at the recent J Street event), voted for the bloated military budget.
SHE does not talk about rallying the masses to push bills through (like Medicare For All - the real bill not some hijacked copy-cat version that seems to be good but is a gift to the industry (like any ! form of public option). She does not say that she will campaing in states where members of Congress and Senate stand in the way - Republicans AND Democrats).
Plus Warren likely IS the weaker candidate in the crucial Rust Belt States. So Trump wins (which is fine, the donors got to keep their tax cuts).
Trump just needs more time and rope to hang himslef then enough Republicans will dare ! to turn on him. In comes Mike pence, the donors of BOTH parties are happy.
The Democratic establishment can continue to clutch their pearls for another 4 years - and enjoy their perks. Most are going to keep their seats, if not the donors will compensate them with cushy positions.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"Individually tailored programs" would mean a HUGE BUREAUCRACY - what became of small government ? And religious programs can force people to submit to religious rules when they are in economic despair. The rules for helping are arbitrary and depend of the whims of the local church leaders. Imagine a person is living together with a sexual partner - then they may be not DESERVING of help (and that would be arbitrary, some churches would help and others not). - The SECULAR society has an interest that people have the basics (food, housing) - it should nto be left to the whims of religious organizations.
Or you have to come to church service because then they give out the help. - Knowing the Republicans you can take for granted also an overreach into the privacy of the welfare recipients. There is at least one state where there is mandatory drug testing (one of the Carolinas ?). Completely ineffective, they made a lot of tests (a handout for the for-profit corporation(s) who process the tests - of course paid for with tax dollars). They caught almost nobody. Just a waste of time, money and humiliation for the tested. Humiliation may be a desired effect in the Republican mindset, maybe, just maybe that would keep people from asking for those benefits, because it is made so SHAMEFUL. And at the same time they have a contract they can give to one of the donors
And I think the budget for the tests counts towards the welfare budget. Another way to take out a chunk of the income of people in need of assistance and steer it to the top.
An ideological win, too. It has the benefit of propping up a certain image of welfare recipients - as lazy, useless drug users (an image that bigotted and smug well-off people have cultivated for a long time).
A combination of shaming and insulting people (drug testing everyone, nurturing prejudices), intentional ignorance (welfare recipients are not more prone to substance abuse, which BTW includes medication and alcohol), violating their rights as citizens (drug testing w/o probable cause), giving money to people / institutions who do not need welfare (drug testing labs and their owners).
And BTW even IF they take drugs - if would be cheaper to let these people have the basic minimum than recycle them through the police, justice and prison system. *
Regarding the drug testing "scenario": time to remind people that the police/FBI does not have the money and resources to process rape kits. Alleged rapists (or not yet identified rapists) are walking free, because the probes are taken from the victim but never processed. There are known cases were the man continued to rape - and the information to arrest him would have been available had the rape kits been processed.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
......voting records are a good place to start - like Biden, who wrote much of the 1994 crime bill and, as head of the Foreign Relations committee_was instrumental in ensuring the _Iraq war vote
Insiders (so certainly Biden, the Clinton's) KNEW that Cheney / Bush were putting massive pressure on the UN weapons inspectors and on the CIA to PROVIDE the "evidence" to justify the war.
Those mf'ers agreed on some things:
1) it would be profitable for the Big Donors
2) none of their kids, friends, relatives are in the army - certainly not in positions where you risk something or are engaged in the battle on the ground (risking injuries, death, killing ! people, and that inevitable means harming civilians too)
Joe Biden was never a member of the military (and he also did not protest the Vietnam war, he had a folksy line for that, why he left it to the hippies - I am paraphrasing).
3) the vote was politically "safe" - if it turned out later that there was no reason to invade, it could be sold to the votrers as (trivial) understandable mistake. They deluded themselves of course that it would be easy and quick (in which case sadly the public really would not have cared if the war was against international law - after all no one cared about the terrible effects of the sanctions under Bill Clinton)
They knew of course that media would support them with the narrative and drown out every reporting to the contrary.
Iraq turned out to be a disaster, and it was much longer and costly, so there was some unexpected backlash negating the calculation about political expediency.
But not much
4) being for the war was the DEFAULT position, being against it could paint you as unpatriotic and at the minimum you had to EXPLAIN, even justify the anti-war position.
And the big Donors (incl. Wallstreet) like war - so why even make an effort.
3
-
3
-
@bigcrackrock good thing that single payer healthcare costs LESS per person than the private systems in the U.S. (or in Switzerland, they have at least a good, if expensive system, pay staff well and everyone has coverage). ALL single payer systems have lower expenditures per capita than the U.S. the vast majority between 5,000 and 6,000 USD per year versus 9,200 in the U.S. (World Bank).
To be clear: that refers to wealthy nations (Germany, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Austria, Australia, Canada, ...)
That's 55 - 65 % of the of the U.S. per capita expenditures. (in the U.K. a record low of only 44 % = USD 3,900 - but they are clearly underfunded, that is not enough for a well run first world system, the NHS is hanging on for dear life).
If in the U.S. everyone had coverage and got care in time the gap would be even larger (expenditures means ALL that is spent in the country no matter who pays for it divided by number of people).
In the U.S. also already 65 % of the expenditures are paid by government. That is not as bad as it sounds. Medicare covers the plus 65 people - which naturally and everwhere account for a good chunk of the expenditures. (Of course the citizens have paid into the system for years).
The government funding in a single payer systems is also generous (to keep the mandated wage deductions - a percentage that is matched by the employer, and there is a cap) LOW. But those governments funds go into a streamlined system with many (or exclusively) non-profit hospitals run by cities or states.
There is little overhead, they do not finance much profits - largest for-profit player is Big Pharma. Which is well contained (comparable standardized products, a good fit for negotiations - and the non-profit public agencies CAN negotiate. In the U.S. that is FORBIDDEN.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
per capita healthcare expenditures of nations: U.S. USD 9,200 then (now 10k), Germany 5,600, most wealthy European countries between 5,000 and 5,500, Canada is in that range too, Australia has 6,000. World Bank data 2014 -
There are outliers like the U.K. (only 3,900 but they are definitely underfunded - but with only HALF the U.S. expenditures their non-profit NHS which delivers most of the services would run like a charm).
On the other hand Norway had 8,400. (High wages, likely very high standard incl. dental).
Or Switzerland 9,600 they were even higher than the U.S. - but then they pay staff very well, and everybody is insured.
Switzerland is one of the very few developed countries that do not have a non-profit public insurance agency but let the for profit private insurers have that niche . Well, it shows.
I do not know of any larger country (except the U.S.) which lets for profit actors handle (most) of the healthcare insurance market. Switzerland has less than 10 million people, I think Singapore might lean strongly towards a private system, too.
Let me add that most developed countries beat the U.S. when it comes to life expectancy and infant mortality.
Most (or all) wealthy European countries have a population that is on average older than the people in the U.S. (so that should result in LOWER expenditures for the U.S.)
One aspect of cost efficiency is mandatory participation and very affordable contributions (not according to risks but to INCOME) and everyone gets the SAME treatment. - Medical necessity not your insurance policy or risk determine the treatment - which your doctor is free to chose for you.
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
Search for "youtube hillary clinton never single payer". Her argumentation: Emergencies can't wait for some high-minded ideas, I will defend the ACA, don't want the discussion to repeal ACA start all over it again ... Single payer will never ever happen IN THIS COUNTRY. - So what did she campaign for in the 90s as First Lady ? - She intentionally framed her arguments under misleading assumptions. - Single payer is not an unrealistic idea (this is why she said "in this country" - because that concept has been functioning well for decades in the wealthy European countries for USD 5,000 - 5,500 per person vs. more than USD 9,000 in the U.S. (World Bank: per capita healthcare expenditures, data 2014). While the politicians in Europe are often catering to the needs of Big Biz - at least the elections are not financed by large donors. This is why HRC said "..never, ever ... in this country".
Sanders did not just WANT to repeal ACA or frivolously attack it (like the Republicans - and she made it look that way in that campaign speech). It is possible to use the ACA WHILE working on a much more streamlined non-profit solution - that very likely iwould be implemented in several steps. Of course the tanker needs time for this major change of course.
ACA was a present with a bow for the healthcare industry. It caters to the idea that healthcare is a product like any other. That when all is said and done healthcare should be left to the FOR-PROFIT industry. - THIS is what Clinton fought for - the profits of the donors, not the well-being of the propulation.
And an amendment here and there will not cure the basic flaws of ACA - or any for profit healthcare system. - ACA is a very modest improvement to a situation unworthy of a developed nation, it is a provisory "solution" until something much more rational and better is implemented.
The healthcare industry is well versed in denying care and in ripping people off - and in lobbying politicians. Even IF politicians tried to REGULATE them - it makes things complicated (think inefficient), complexiity puts the patients even more at disadvantage, toxic incentives are hard to avoid - and the well versed profiteers will always be 2 steps ahead of the regulators.
That means even with best intentions the laws and rules will become more and more complex. That means inefficiency, intransparency and ample opportunities for overpricing for a "product" that decides over life and death, resp. quality of life.
There is a reason the ACA - from the very beginning - was such a complicated law with an incredible amount of chapters. One of the most complicated laws ever passed in the U.S.. And there is also a reason ALL OTHER wealthy nations have a very simple, streamlined, mandatory, much more cost efficent, public non-profit system *.
An EASY SOLUTION that allows a smooth TRANSITION TO A SINGLE PAYER system while ACA is in place: Lower the age for MediCare.
Fight for legislation to allow for drug negotiations, or for reimport of drugs (from Canada).
Reclassify marijuana (in accordance to science !) **, allowing it at least for medical use can help to reduce costs of healthcare AND actually help people that get relief with marijuana only - they would connect that relief with the Democratic Party.
Neither Hillary Clinton nor Obama had any intention of fighting for these issues and for quick if only partial fixes. - the donors would object to it.
** there is no way marijuana it is as dangerous as heroin, no way it is justified to classify it as schedule 1 drug. The Nixon admin implemented that classification to prosecute hippies and blacks. And no president ever annoyed the pharma and alcohol industry by having it reclassified.
Schedule 1 means very dangerous AND no medical usefulness. And that means it is almost impossible to do scientific research on it (in the U.S.). Correcting that obvious misclassification would not get the workings of the healthcare system in disarray, but it would help save costs - and it sure would rattle the donors.
Patients could use it INSTEAD of expensive drugs. It could help patients navigate chronic disease at lower costs. Patients could buy it - or could grow their own, if they are getting ripped off - there is a reason it is called WEED. - And that is why there is so much unscientific resistance against it (incl. Chelsey Clinton voicing her "concerns" that so much more research needs to be done - working hard for those contributions to the Clinton Foundation)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It seems the panel has Judith Miller on. The shill from the New York Times that would play the mouthpiece and stenographer for the Cheney / Bush admin with the Times - cheering on the war against Iraq 2003. She - like many others in media and politics - sold out the country. But I am sure it was very lucrative and did not damage her "career".
While the New York Times FIRED Chris Hedges, Pulitzer price winner (a team won it) and long time WAR correspondent. He was always outspoken about war being horrible - but the New York Times liked that he actually went to the war zone, and these were far away wars. But when he got in the way of domestic power he was a goner.
He had seen that done to others over the years. His status as esteemed war reporter somewhat protected him, but he knew he was not completely safe. He got a reprimand, when he chose a graduation speech in 2003 to voice opposition to the war. The crowd yelled him down, cut the mic. University security removed him from the grounds (the university was not pleased with him either). He got reprimanded by his employer for bringing them into disrepute (I wonder if they did that with Judith Miller when the public found out about her collusion with the admin) - with the 2nd reprimand he would be out. So he COULD have kept his head down and he would have kept his safe position and the retirement funds.
Only that he couldn't (honoring the morale example of his father, a WW2 veteran but opposed to the war machine and likely an FDR style progressive / Democrat). So he chose to hand in his resignation (with a lot of sweating).
There were some well established media figures kicked out for daring to be against the Iraq war (in the U.K. too - Afshin Rattansi BBC, higher up management of the BBC. Piers Morgan fired by the Mirror. In the U.S.: Chris Hedges fired by the NYT, icon Phil Donahue lost his long time show. First - they got rid of people who were well known to the audience and could have an impact on public opinion and they could have a DIFFERING point of view. Second: it set a warning example to all others who had a mind to dissent to the line that the owners / management of the media and politicians found "fit to be presented to the public"
Noam Chomsky was ahead of the curve he spoke and wrote about "Manufacturing Consent" and the role of mainstream media DECADES before. He had been an early ! anti Vietnam war activist, so he knew that side of U.S. politics/media.
Jesse Ventura already had his 1 million USD contract, when the TV network found out he was AGAINST the Iraq war - he was a former marine ! how could they have suspected that ! He got the money, alright, but they never put him on air. He told them he would not shut up about the war.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@theaviationist.5719 you have missed the privatizations they are already making. Slowly and steady does the trick. Starting with the PFI's (I think that may have been started under Labour before 2010) "outsourcing" new buildings, maybe also equipment - way too expensive of course, same with schools, the loans drain the budgets. They are not allowed to hire enough staff but are required to perform and stay open. So if that requires more doctors on site they have to pay for contracted services. Things like that.
The nasty party is not stupid. Thatcher promised to leave the NHS alone, but had no intention to keep that promise, her inner circle implored her to not go ahead, they feared the backlash, and she gave in (search on the web, came out a few years ago, and old advisor talked about it).
The Tories have been hostile towards the NHS since it was founded in 1948. They are like the Republicans in the U.S. SS (public retirement) was introduced in the 1930s by president Roosevelt. They have still not gotten over it, and still try to do away with it, cut it, privatize it etc. (Not that the Corporate Democrats would lack interest to use SS as bargaining chip, but they fear the base - at least a little bit).
Healthcare is around 10 % of the GDP in a first world country. The Tories find it offensive that such a large part of the economy should be off limits for the extraction of profit (for the most part) and only exist for the good of the population.
2
-
2
-
@Nickle314 the Tories have run the NHS into the ground (intentionally to "justify" an ongoing privatization / more contracting, bit by bit). Johnson and surrogates during the campaign in TV interviews: "280,000 nurses work in the NHS every year 27,000 leave (in recent years)". - That is around 10 % and way too high - in other word testimony that they have driven the system into crisis.
Now they say they want to hire 31,000 nurses that makes 50,000 new nurses.
Yep, you read that right. Tory math:
We will make the NHS even a better place to work (George Orwell would be proud) and we will also convince 19,000 that were determined to leave to stay. So that makes 50,000 new nurses.
Objection interviewer: you count them double, they are not "new" if they are already part of the existing staff.
Objection Tory: but they would have otherwise left - so that is as good as new !
I am also sceptical about the hiring of 31,000 nurses. ( No EU nurses I hope - or even worse nurses with brown skin or Muslims)
Just kidding - but these numbers are not easy to find.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2