Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
The healthcare industry has realized that they cannot completely prevent change. But they can delay, water down and fool the voters (or more pecisely: let media and politicians do that). So only very decisive opposition from Sanders and Progressives can destroy the new fairy tales. Sanders has one advantage: even people that do not like him or do not think his plans are realistic doubt he has HONEST intentions.
so I guess many people who do not have time and energy to dig deeper in it will just believe him and ignore the more or less sophistacted misinformation that will pop up. If it does not get the Sanders seal of approval ....
Sanders on the other hand will need to argue why the less the private insurance companies are involved the better the new system can work. That is heresy of course, the U.S. spends 3,2 - 3,4 trillion per year hardly any politician will dare to say that - and certainly no media outlet that gets advertising. Big Pharma are the next that are about to panick.
The level of healthcare "discussion" is abyssmal, the nonsense one gets to hear .....Or the more sophisticated attempts to muddy the water - including the THOUGHT STOPPING CLICHÉS:
People are used to it that there are private insurers, even if they are not well liked. And the concept "Why not offer choice" seems plausible on the surface. Private for-profit is not always better - and with healthcare it raises costs and introduces red tape or even dysfunction, nver mind toxic incentives.
Choice and have a private offer as well (or only a private for profit offer) would be sensible for any product and service where there is a "free market" possible and there will competition. That does not apply to healthcare. At. All.
But you will hear the "free market" lingo applied to the area of healthcare all the time. If people started thinking they could realize easily why healthcare is not at all like other products (sell more, market to entice people to consume, it is expensive, complex, often about life and death or future ability to life well and earn an income, impossible to assess for lay persons - even doctors consult other specialists.
Anyway: expect some serious propaganda:
it is a trillion dollar industry, the U.S. spends approx. 3,2 - 3,4 trillion per year - and if the U.S. had set up the system in a reasonable manner it would be in the range of 1,6 - maximum 2 trillion per year. (that would be 10 % of the GDP, more to the high end but acceptable. The other wealth nations spend between 7 and 11 % of GDP.
A part of the plus 1,2 trillion USD per year is lost of course in a dysfunctinal bureacraZy, better incomes for a part of the doctors - but a lot also is revenue and profit for large corporations. They are not simply rolling over. They will use every dirty trick and deception, and then some.
Sanders postioning himself more meekly will not change that, if he gives an inch - they will push further.
On the other hand if he says "damn right" that keeps the discussiona alive - and will be good enough for many voters.
NOW the Medicare for ALL Lite Bills are popping up, the lobyists are doing overtime. The Harris / Booker version is like a public option I think. Well wouldn't that be a gift to the industry ? (they want some public choice for people with private insureance they say - so is this the admission that ACA is a failure ?)
So maybe people till 25 and from 55 on would be under MfA.
Old age is a major factor for healthcare costs, so the private insureres do not even have the most expensive age group - not now (from 65 on they are with Medicare already, and with the Sanders version of MfA in the first round the people from 55 on will be included).
With a public option private insurers would have the chance to purge their pool even more.
Their packages would look good, the public agencies have all the costly patients. So it is easy to badmouth the costs of the public agencies. Some sneaky defunding should help as well - then the public agencies will be able to pay only insufficient rates for treatments - so doctors would not accept the patients, or give only shoddy services.
So it is "proven" that you NEED private insurance after all (they can offer seemingly reasonable prices to the extra purged pool - still overpriced, but there will be no benchmarking because they cover only a manipulated age group of 25 - 55. It is not even so much the size of the pool - take 100,000 people and it is fairly representative - but not when the composition of the group is changed in favor of the insurers.
10 % of the partients cause 90 % of the costs. So the advantage to be able to purge is huge and the population does not know how much leverage it gives the insurers. They very likely could parade their offers around as "good" - when they are still being overpriced considering the preselection.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Peer reviewed science - not a children's book from 1958. - the climate has always changed. Not always GLOBALLY. It has NEVER WARMED AS FAST - global average temperature. Remember two thirds of the globe is covered by oceans, water stores heat very well.
There was a catastrophic event 65 million years ago, even more abrupt and impactfull then climate change triggered by global warming. The then dominant species (highly successful had been around for a long time) went extinct.
No big deal (except for the dinosaurs) - life survived and bounced back. (In the grand scheme of things: mammals existed or predecessors - but then they got their chance).
If there is abrupt change the grazers in the steppes might be decimated, their predators follow. The species go through a bottle neck. Likely at least a few species will make it.
No big deal, happened often.
Now transfer that idea to 8 billion HUMANS. With powerful technology and nuclear and biological and chemical weapons. AI soldiers maybe in the future.
Those "always happening" changes sometimes did not only trigger a few specied going extint - but caused mass extinction events.
there are charts how the temperature was during the medieval warm. On the North American Continent, especially the U.S. heartland and the South. Ooops .... it wasn't beneficial everywhere.
The dominant predator (homo sapiens) on earth is going to be affected, there are 8 billions of them and counting. And they have nukes.
Life WILL survive. Humans likely will survive. But civilzation and industrial mass production might not. And with it any claim to security (food, violence) and any modern comforts incl. medicine.
Under economic stress modern democracies either turn decisively left or go the fascist route (See 1930, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Portugal, Italy, Spain, ...Brazil had a rightwing dictatorship as far as I know, but that might have been an ongoing thing).
FDR and the new Deal may have been an aberation, it think it is morel likely that it goes to the dictatorial far right side - that is: as long as our economic system is able to stumble along and there is no WW3.
After that it could get really brutal and ugly.
Giving up meat and flying less does not sound too bad, you can still have the good life.
I did. And I have.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, he is neoliberal. And obviously clueless about economics. "Doing it like Germany" (he said that during the campaign). Does he mean - when EVERY country EXPORTS WAY MORE than it imports - then the economy would be fine ? Germany is in a descend from a high level.
They undercut wages ("welfare" and labour "market" "reform") and the Euro is weaker than the Mark - making export products relatively cheaper. The German citizens are not getting their reward for being the citizens of such an economic powerhouse, the currency they have now = Euro buys less in imports and vacations abroad than the strong German Mark.
Both undercutting wages and the switch to a currency that is too weak for Germany came into effect around 1999 and both were an enormous boost. But only for the German export industry - (almost) all large companies are exporters and they have the ear of the government
You can look at the insane export/import imbalance of Germany which started to develop beginning with 2000. They were always a strong export nation and did well even with the strong Mark (making their products relatively expensive, so quality had to be good). But they used to also import a lot, and spent some of their 5 weeks paid vacation abroad.
Interestingly one nation got it right with the currency, the EURO, and the wage rises in lockstep with productivity which influence the inflation. Too long for such a post to explain in all detail , but look up Heiner Flassbeck a German economist living in France (15 minute clip - Why the Europ will collapse in 2017 - he made that prediction 2 years before, expecting that Le Pen would win and abolish the Euro if the Germans and the EU would not adopt some sense - well they didn't and Le Pen lost).
If anyone got it right in Europe regarding the EURO, and the inflation, and the wages it is the French - but since the German government undermines the EU AGREEMENT about aiming at a modest and HEALTHY 2 % inflation rate - and not less inflation over many years caused by the stagnant wages - that does not help the French economy. If anything, the Germans skim off some of the French demand, that is still supported by their better wages and disposable income (which are justified compared to their productivity).
While the German government supported their companies (mainly the export sector) in not paying out the increases in productivity.
That means STAGNANT domestic consumption, not good for the citizens, not good for the companies serving the domestic market (many of them are smaller businesses). Only export is doing fine, they have become relatively cheaper.
Germany is not Germany anymore - they live off the old glory (and the former infrastructrue investments - those investments have been neglected too and it starts showing).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
WHY would a verification of the signature be necessary ??? The person is registered under an address, had to sign, show the ID and / or other paperwork SS number, etc. and cannot register twice (not that a signature control would help against double voting IF that would be possible).
Then the state sends ONE ballot per voter (or per request) to the address. Now: a family member or in extreme cases a sneaky neighbour could steal the ballot and then fill it out and send it back with a forged signature. If they do not have the voter rolls in order and automatically send out ballots even to people that moved or died some people MIGHT abuse it. But a) most voters don't do that b) they might be caught - one of the extremely rare cases of a person being caught. I think the spouse took advantage of the ballot for the late partner coming in and licked the envelope to close it. So they could nail the criminal. (Else he or she could have claimed that someone else must have stolen the ballot, and that that had it opened and had in in their hands (more DNA) but touching a ballot that came by mail is not a crime. Nope they sealed the filled our ballot and then sent it in. THAT is a crime.
Note: that attempted fraud was found. so in the time between the sending out and the processing of the ballots the death was entered and the extremely rare case of "dead person vote cast" become apparent.
There is a reason why is is super rare to find these cases. Most people are not stupid enough - and if they are stupid / brazen they have no incentive. There is no individual reward for doing that, but it is risky and in the large scheme of things it does not even change things.
So: the cases that became apparent (so they had a name and and case good enough to be prosecuted) tend to be right wingers. They eat up the propaganda (also about how the Dems cheat all the time) and foolishly assume, well if the other side can do it that easily, thenI can do it too. Nope, it is not that easy, that is just the lie they tell you, and then the idiots get caught because they do not fact check and do not think things through.
An impostor that stole a ballot from one person or household better handle them with rubber gloves. If they touch it with hands or lick the envelope to close it, their DNA will be on the ballot and envelope.
The legitimate voter will often urge the state to send the ballot.
State: we did send you one.
Voter: well, I didn't get one.
State / poll worker (assuming some mistake by default): Well, we are sorry but if your ballot does not arrive soon, you could only fix that by coming in person on election day. Please mention that you are listed as (mail ballot sent). The same could be necessary if the ballot or envelope is damaged or not functional. Stacy Abrams said her envelope had glue that did not work and she could not properly seal the envelope. That would make the ballot invalid, so she had to come in person (and it that case WITH the faulty ballot).
OR: the voter is aware that the ballot has arrived by mail, but now it has vanished maybem isplaced ? (nope it was stolen). Voter could go vote in person on election day, and it would nullify the mail vote. All the mail ballots are collected for counting after in person vote on election day has ended. Last polling station closed.
The voter rolls (well it is a data base, and they uses scanners and QR codes to make the taks easier and faster) will show that that voter already voted. Maybe in such cases a declaration by the voter signed would be required (to eliminate people who sent in their ballot then change their mind and create extra hassle).
When the poll workers open the envelopes of the mail ballots, they have to cross them off the voter rolls ("has voted by mail and we have that vote here". The in person voters have been crossed off earlier that day).
That is a database not a paper list. WHEN the mail ballot of the legit voter is handled the name of that person will pop up with an alert of "we sent the mail ballot - that does not equate it arrived - but the citizen voted in person" - There are many innocent explanations for that case (that apply in almost all cases). Could be there was a mistake they did not really send that ballot but made that entry in the database as if. Or they sent it but post made a mistake and it never arrived. Or the voter lost the ballot. or - very unlikely scenario - someone bothered to STEAL the ballot to impersonate the voter and among other things that person forged a signature. Which is a crime by itself.
Now in that case there are two options: the person just signs in their own style of writing but with the name of the voter.
OR the person fabricates a fairly good imitations of the signature. That has an important implication. It is not easy to have access to the post box of a person (security cameras if you steal the post, and you do not know WHEN the ballot will arrive so several acts of theft, always with the risk of being caught.
(btw matching up signatures is often prone with problems for legit voters. In florida they sign on a tablet. That signature is not pen on paper and it often looks different enough (although perfectly legal) to trigger an alert. And people's signature does change, even more so if they get older, have injuries or a stroke, or a disease that affects their micro movements, and vision.
Andrew Gillum (who is young and able bodied) has such problems with the system detecting that his signature was "suspicious". In his case he noticed that he writes differently on the pad (the electronic process makes it fast to compare, but the process is flawed).
These are crimes, can get you 5 years in prison. The reward: ONE vote more to the liking of the impostor (if the legitimate voter would vote as the imposotor likes it, what is the point !)
and IF the voters suspects foul play and have to show up in person (being annoyed, frustrated or irritated or suspicious that someone meddled with their ballot) they can easily have an extra alert for that too.
Either way the in person ballot was cast later and it is valid and the mail ballot (sent by the impostor will be sorted out). They do have that ballot and with the potential DNA traces. With a well or badly forged signature on the outer envelope.
If the mail ballot was lost before arrival - well the in person vote is cast it counts and they will never find a returned ballot to tie it to.
One aspect IF the ballot filled out by the impostor has a "good" signature replication only a limited number of persons are suspects. Had access to the mail box OR the household and has access to the original signature of the voter .....
If the impostor signed in their own handwriting - well that widens the circle of suspects a little bit, but that is evidence, too. If they have a good idea "who dunnit" they can match up the handwriting of that person with the amateurishly forged signature.
If that happens more often (let's ay in 100 cases - and 1000 that fly under the radar)
a) that would be already be aired 24/7 on Fox and heralded by republicans
b) it would still not make a dent
c) statistcially speaking some of them would vote for D and others for R candidates - again no impact on top of no impact on the outcome.
We do not even have those 100 found cases per elections. I am not sure we have that many in total EVER.
Around 149 millions votes were cast in Nov. 2020 either for Trump or Biden. How are a few cases of undetected fraud / crime going to change the outcome ? not even possible in states with close margins (think 10,000). And why would the states pay a lot for sophisticated comparsions of signatures or make it more of a hassle for the OVERWHELMING mass of voters that are honest.
If there are a lot of false positive alerts of signaturre does not match like in Florida it does not at all make the elections safer or better. Just more expensive and more of a hassle. Someone has to handle that red tape. the voters on their free time, the poll workers need to be paid.
Some states no require that mail ballots must be signed by witnesses, and they cannot be related to the voter, etc. etc. That does not make the election more secure - in only creates a hassle for people that are old, infirm, and do not have people (other than family) around to help with get to the polls or getting their ballot to the mail.
At the same time no one bats an eye that in some areas voters have to wait for HOURS. THAT does impact the results, because it is a very EFFECTIVE DETERRENT.
As opposed to very very low numbers of voter impersonation, forging of signatures, etc. etc.
In the very rare cases of crime (related to elections) both parties get votes that are not legitimate. So that makes it even less impactful.
On the other hand the long waiting times TARGET certain groups (young, low income, minorities) and the base of ONE party only - Democrats. The effect is a) much, much larger than any hypothetical voter impersonation, double voting and what not and b) it is not balanced out by producing illegitimate votes on both sides. No voter suppression is very one sides.
it is a deterrent for potential voters that are eligible to vote but do not vote. They are on the fence of voting (at best) but if tehy would do it they would have to wait for HOURS. On a workday no less, and before that they must get to the polling station (w/o car maybe).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AllMustJump In Tx they had to make do with only Tx providers. That were so unwilling to prepare for a cold snap that they lost 40 % of capacity (when it was the worst). And WHEN they finally returned to the grid and did their job, or those that never went offline - they demanded much much more - because they could (and that was independent of the fact if they had THAT much higher costs).
In Tx those that were able to supply (only the normal output for a winter day) still demanded way beyond additional wear, more fuel and maybe a modest surplus.
To make things worse the natural gas pipelines are allowed to be above the frost free zone so the
gas for heating (and the power plants) was also missing.
So consumers also had to compensate for loss of that energy (trying to keep the homes at least frost free with electric heating).
Of course they have not storage for natural gas (costs some money). They produce and use oil and natural gas as they go. - However the production also broke down - you guessed it, they were also not winterized.
Eectricity is not "free market" but the SW grid leans much more in that direction than the closed TX scene.
If the AZ nuclear power plant ramps up production to help out El Paso region (which is NOT on the Stand Alone Grid) they DO have higher costs. I guess they got a good price, but the nuclear power plant in AZ was not the only option for El Paso in the LARGE SW grid, which means the most obvious option to help them out, also made them a reasonable offer.
W/o crisis it works because there are so many providers in Tx and they must sell (they cannot export because Tx by choice is not part of a larger grid). They are stuck with the 20 milion consumers, and the companies there.
They have also a lot of consumers that are encouraged to squander energy and industries that need a lot of energy.
Which is an incntive to never update the building code demanding better insulation (would bring down A/C costs in summer and would have also helped now). But in the closed Tx "market" to whom would the energy providers then sell ? some make the most money from the price spikes in summer. And they cannot export.
One reason to not mandate winterization.
It would slightly increase prices (but would have avoided the worst in 2011 and 2021).
If they would winterize and invest into preparedness there would be no reason to avoid the national grid - so Texans would have that crisis backup, too.
The large energy intense companies could pay more per kWh (added cost for preparedness - but they prefer the higher profits.
The providers are squeezed (at least some make little profits) and the race to the bottom for energy prices means that no one wants (or can) invest into preparedness, doing it voluntarily would reduce profits or be a competitive disadvantage.
Republicans were unwilling to mandate (or the be on the grid and under federal regulation) - they would rather please their big donors (the fossil fuel industry, the energy companies, also the companies that use a lot of energy like data centers or chemical industry).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1