General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Xyz Same
The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder
comments

Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder" channel.

Previous
9
Next
...
All

Was justice also done to the wives which the US assassination team also killed. Because they would have been witnesses and told the story how he maybe had surrendered. - Ossama bin Laden was a CIA asset and his family was well connected with the Bush family. So close that they were flown out of the country immediately after 9/11 when no other civilian plane was allwed to fly, the aircraft with Al Gore on board had to turn around and fly to an airport outside of the U.S.
1
@fl00fydragon Not all UBI proposals are created equal. And when the oligarchs of Silicon valley embrace it - then you can assume this is about securing some disposible consumer income so their sales / ad revenue continue coming in. That is one class of oligarchs that are still (at least !) tied to the PRODUCTION of goods and services - while Big Finance (read Big Specualation) mainly leeches off the productive economy. UBI when introduced in the right manner could break the dependency of humans to be obedient to a an employer and to do everything EVERYTHING to have a job. like when politicians sell handouts to big biz under cover of "creating jobs". If gives you an idea how much people are indocrinated to be thankful to even be allowed to sell their workforce so they can make a living. In N.Y. they argued with hopeful jobs creation when they wanted to give insane bribes to Amazon (500 million would have been in form of payments !, only the rest of the 3 billion would have been in avoided taxes). Amazon wanted to be in / nearby Washington and New York to begin with. The "competition" was just to get the data to what lenghts the politicians of different cities would go to bribe companies to be as gracious as to hire people and pay them. And maybe at some point the large powerful (now even more powerful) company would even contribute to the spending for infrastructure which they are using. Amazon does not have a good rep in Seattle for being generous towards the community. The consensus from the neoliberals - the "free market" crowd - seems to be that a very large company really shouldn't be asked to pay for infrastructure. That should be done by smaller companies and consumers. In N.Y. by the retailers, the smaller companies that Amazon is eager to put out of business - and they get plenty of handouts while doing that.
1
The homeless people in the U.S. going through the trash might find it an improvement as well to line up for food being given out by the government so that they would at least have the basics.
1
Of course Sanders did not mean that was a desireable condition per se. In Nicaragua in a time of civil war or shortly after a civil war (during which the U.S. put gasoline into the fire) that new government under massive economic attack from the Reagan administration tried to provide for the basic needs of the population. While being under attack from the very powerful neighbour U.S. who wanted to crush the eocnomy to punish them for standing up against a right wing exploitative government. Reagan was very seriously considering to go to war with Nicaragua.
1
It does not matter as the VP can overrule that "finding".
1
You can either know the location or the time but not both ! someone should make shirts with Schroedinger's fraud (the poor cat).
1
@phoenix5054 No those unions will operate / negotiate for OTHER things like in ALL other wealthy nations where they have a good deal regarding healthcare. The ost of extent of coverage has nothing to do with the industry, your employer, size of family or health status. In most countries since the end of WW2. The payroll tax is deducted from the wage, that is mandated and the employer is mandated to match that (or they pay more. 4 % would be common, but there are countries with less or more and the employers sometimes pays a higher percentage. Plus provisios for people w/o income. Also: usually there are yearly caps.
1
@rage2904 Single payer is ALWAYS MUCH more cost efficient - money is spent on the MASSIVE inefficiencies and the profits, that could either go towards wages or the company has less costs. - which makes it easier to argue for a payrise. The companies CAN pay it. Not every company is large and highly profitable. It helps when the insurers do not extort them. Yes unions get dues, they provide a service for that and must have budgets, if they get a small share from higher wages, that is well deserved. GM did leverage healthcare, 2 days strike and they stopped coverage (that also means family members did not have coverage). other companies might not leverage it, but people stay in jobs they would rather leave - and the only reason is because they of the healthcare insurance. In that way it TIES them to the job, especially if they or a family member need treatments or have risks. What if they want to start something new, get an education, start a biz, move and search for a job there. ... I saw a mother with a child needing expensive medication (and attention), she would like to be a stay at home mum, and they could forgo her income - but she needs the insurance (looks like it is better than that of her husband). Or a woman that would like to retire, but a family member needs the insurance. It is also a recruiting disadvantage for start ups - in single payer nations a small company may not be able to pay the same wages, but their staff has the some (comprehensive) coverage as staff from large companies. AND: companies and staff know EXACTELY what it will cost them. Payroll tax. Done. For the patients: Services free at the point of delivery. Except for smaller co-pays (noting remarkable) no unplanned costs. a non-profit public healthinsurance agency always beats the for profits. (it is a terrible fit for the free market and surprisingly well suited to be delivered by public non-profits). the insurers are MIDDLE MEN. Public non-proits are well behaved middle men with little admin overhead (streamlined) that have a lot of negotiating power (more than any insurance of even multinationals, they are set up by government to have that dominant role.
1
@rage2904 The U.S. insurers have a toxic culture * , but even in Switzerland with elements of a strong direct refendum democracy they pay a surcharge. They are the only other rich nation (I know of) that rely on private insurance for healthcare. * US insurers can spend 2 more dollars (or 3, or 5) to make ONE dollar more profit. That wouldn't fly with a normal consumer product. But with healthcare - What are you gona do ? The plans all are overpriced (GM and Apple or Microsoft also pay too much) and you do have not the superpower of consumers with healthcare: The power to NOT BUY at all. As for "only other country" with only (mainly) private insurance coverage - To be fair I did not check out the rich oil theocracies. Switzerland: USD 8,000 per person, regulation works insofar that the Swiss get good services and no one plays games with the Swiss insured / patients, but private insurance makes it more expensive. for comparsion (globally): Same budget per person, same pool, so not cherrpicked, you get always, always more bang for your buck even IF the private insurers are well regulated. you will not find any example to the contrary on the globe. typical rich single payer country: spending USD 5,400 per person, take or leave 500 USD. (data 2017 Kaiser, also see World Bank). Now that is some range (some of it can be explained from age, lifestyle - Japan - or a little influence from costs of living. BUT: most wealthy nations are more in the range of USD 5,000 - 5,500 USD. So they all did their own thing after WW2 but adhered to some basic singley payer principles - and they end up in a narrow range. the surcharge for the U.S. system ? approx. USD 5,000 - per person MORE IN 2017: USD 10,260 spending per person. That includes in the U.S. un- or underinsured, bankrupt because of medical bills, getting too little services too late. It is the average, all spending divided by all people). Now the U.S. employers (if they pay for healthcare) do not pay quite as much - 10k. That average includes the spending for the old. In the U.S. you have the crazy situation, that the private insurers have a cherrypicked pool already, because the most costly group of plus 65 years is covered by Medicare. With the help of a lot of government subsidies. Other countries ALSO subsidize healthcare generously, so that the mandatory payroll tax that grants FULL coverage can be MODEST. That means everyone is in, and that adds to cost-efficiency (no hassle for doctors and hospitals: they hardly encounter uninsured patients. What coverage ? The same as everybody else. One of the reasons even well behaved insurance companies add red tape: it get's more complicated with the many different plans, for them AND the providers. . Payroll tax of approx 4 % with a yearly cap would not be uncommon. Where I currently live in Austria it is 3,8 %, with a yearly cap of approx. 2,400 USD per YEAR. Other governments spend not quite as much per person as in the U.S., and the companies and citizens pay much, much less. Well, if it costs only half of what it costs in the U.S.- all actors can pay less.
1
Rand is one of those that won the LOTTERY OF BIRTH. He is the son of a doctor that happened to get a federal salary as politicians and good healthcare (for the family) on top of it (as representative). To be sure Ron Paul could have made the same money as doctor, he had his own practice. For his PRIVILEGED son it does not matter, he lived a sheltered life, his parents were affluent (if not rich) and financially stable. Rand Paul grew up in a safe, nice environment and no doubt with good schools. In case he needed help with homework or if he or siblings had a learning disorder or just were not very organized in their learning - there was time, money, attention to help them. If he tested weed as older teeanger / young adult, it was not likley the police would make the young males in HIS neighbourhood targets. And then he went to medical school (I wonder if he ended up with huge student loans, it is ridiculously expensive in the U.S.). Or if the parents paid at least a part of it. I do not know if he ever worked as doctor of medicine (with his own practice). Later he went on to inherit the Congress seat of his father. He would not have made it in politics without riding the coattails of his father. Sure he is blessed with intelligence (not the same as being insightful), health - that is nothing he earned either. Beyond the financial stability and having caring parents (more blessings and UNEARNED GIFTS) he had to do the work of course, but he was GIFTED an excellent base to build upon and steady support while doing so. When his parents will die (father is in his 80s, was in good shape so far, but had a minor stroke recently) Rand and siblings are going to inherit some wealth. That's the crowd that is REALLY nervous if the masses for once getting something for free.
1
@Alan-wj5zc the DNC is outrageously privileged. They could have killed it in the midterms already with a COORDINATED Medicare for all strategy (problem: it is not only about the donors from THAT segment, the donors from Wallstreet also love for-profit healthcare). - make no mistake many people would rather have 4 more years of Trump than having Sanders. They and the donors can keep the tax cuts, the party can blame progressives (again), the media gets the rating (rachel Maddow !) and they al can clutch their pearls. And NOT talk about the issues let alone do something about it.
1
Those women (and the men) are NOT the majority though - imagine how they will breath fire when the unwashed masses get back the country .... the block of non-voters may be (almost) as large as the block of voters. (Get a 2nd FB or twitter account with a plausible name - to avoid potential problems in work - and activate the masses)
1
Snap election 2017 UK - Labour is villified by the media (as usual) but made good around 16 points in the polls (within 1 month from when the suprise election was called). A few days before elections a young man and first time voter: "Jeremy is the man ! Usually it is cool to say that you do not vote, it does not make a difference and interests no one. - Not this time. I am going to vote and everybody on by Facebook page is going to vote as well". THAT is how you beat the entitled group that thinks the country has to be run according to their ideas and "all is fine as long as I got mine." Labour got within 2 % of the governing Tories who lost the absolut number of seats in parliament (they were worse off after the snap election, they had a at least a narrow majority of seats before). Labour has much fewer seats despite the 40 % of the popular vote versus 42 % of the Tories (but many seats are considered marginal now) - they also have the winner takes all per district system in the U.K.. Young poeple used to vote at the same rate as old people (more than 70 %) in the 1970s, but participation of young voters had a massive drop (not old people) since Thatcher. That was reversed (partially) by the Labour Party in 2017. Which is good: Labour still has potential with that group.
1
2: 14 Kenneth Blank Atlantic Council admits - the DOJ cooperated with a low level judge who had no authority to investigate Lula in the first place.
1
11:30 Tax havens (incl. Singapore) are SMALL nations - it does not work for larger countries ! (the Netherlands are the only larger entitiy that is a helpful station on the way to avoid taxes. Ireland ? they get a lot of EU subsidies while playing the tax haven. - and the moment the U.S. would have 70 % tax, the European citizens would continue kicking the behinds of their politicians.
1
+Damon - the Fox-faithful are not her core constituency anyway. I think she should not have dignified it and make up a name for him childisch Donald or something. - or trolling him AFTER having talked to the Cherokee tribe. Having the DNA already tested in secret so that she will KNOW. and then acting as IF she was about to do the test reminding Trump of his bet, will he honor it - with the wording (he did not say how much or little !) . Watch him weaseling out. Then announcing she will do the test IF he pays to a native charity. And the voter suppression in ND would be an excellent point to make.
1
@ah2512a Actually it was not easy There was an element of luck in that he did not take her seriously, and had become arrogant because he and the party felt very, very safe that they can ignore the voters. Also: New York has a tradition of grassroots organizing (they are the progressive leaders in the nation - not California). Crowley saw no need to acitvate the official party machine against AOC. I think one of them got 10,000 votes - so that is not much in total. Crowley also did not inspire much turnout - he was the boring incumbent of many years - and clearly an establishment candidate. Tthe last poll made the usual assumptions (the young and the usual non-voters would not come out - so he had at least 10 - 15 points lead). AOC said that some people did not dare to volunteer. Not even have a photo taken with her. They work for the city ! and were afraid of losing their job. (So the party could have set the machine into motion and pressure people that work for the city to go and vote in the primaries.) That had never beeen necessary because Crowley winning - if there even was a primary - was such a no-brainer. He had not been forced to fight for his seat in a primary for many years, and had become complacent. There were many years (out of the 15 - 20 in which he had that seat), when there was no Democratic primary, he might sometimes not even have had a Republican challenger in the GE. * he was an excellent fund raiser (New York Real Estate - so opposed to the interests of the voters). That made him Speaker-of-the-House-in-waiting. It was taken for granted that a campaign needed lots of money and the Democratic Party and their donors had no intention to change the very satisfying, cozy arrangement when they had ushered him in into that district. And mainstream media did not bother them by unduly reporting of the challenger of Crowley. It was unthinkable he could be unseated. AOC's luck was also that the district is very blue. So the Republicans could not help out in that emergency. (you bet the whole lot would have prefered even for a Republican to win over AOC). The establishment is going to learn from it. Crowley btw ran as third party in the GE if I remember correctly even though the agreement was that whoever lost the primaries would retract. - well that was a lame attempt. The district is very blue. So he could easily afford to ignore the constituents - the Republican candidate was probably worse than him, the voters had nowhere to go, the party certainly did not finance any FDR type democrat in the primaries (that would have been only bad for the gravy train). Live was good ....
1
It costs 750 USD per day per child to take care of separateded small children in a center (and it is definitely cheaper to let them stay with the caregivers, in that case they need a space to stay, food, clothes - but no staff to care for them). DNA testing sets for private persons are sold for 99 USD - so in case there is reasoable doubt if the children belong to the adults ... Little children cannot fake a relationship. (But some of them actually "forgot" their parents after a few weeks. That can happen with small children when they go into shock / survival mode. They bond with the next person that takes care of them. When reuniting families some of these children were crying for other children that were held with them in the centers - they thought they were their SIBLINGS. Some of the little ones did not bond immediately with the parents when given back.
1
With Sanders on the ballot (as alternative to Trumnp) the young and usual non-voters would have come out. Progessives and young people would have worked their butt off to get him elected. HIGH turnout. Which also would have helped in the OTHER races. The Democrats would have the majority in Senate and Congress. Sanders would not have nominated Kavanaugh (who notoriously sides with Big Biz). In case he would have won he said that he would not nominate Garland again. some judges may be more liberal on social issues but almost all of them are pro business and help the neoliberal agenda. So the U.S. has been created and is run for the benefit of businesses - and everything else is subject to their demands ?? ... I don't think so. Sanders wants Citizens United overturned and he would not have nominated any judge that supports that. Whatever may be the academic considerations about free speech derived from interpreting a document drafted in 1776 for the "media" landscape then - and aside from any ivory tower discussion - the reality is: in the U.S. money DOES BUY elections and massive political influence. Even the election of Trump proves that: True, he spent "only" 500 million USD, while HRC almost raised 1 billion. The Trump campaign was saved in summer 2016 by billionaire Robert Mercer - with money and also with organisation and staff (like Bannon or Kelly-Ann Conway. Despite all his claims - Trump did NOT self-fund his campaign. a) early on he found ways to make money off the campaign and b) he lent money to the campaign and got paid back of course. The race for POTUS is unique - a ) the amount of money needed (Sanders raised around 230 millions - but that was only in the primaries !) - but b) also that is the one race where public exposure can better counteract "lack" of money. There are many other races for Congress, Senate and state positions where having much less funding is a severe obstacle. That is not democracy.
1
@gordthor5351 healthcare is not "only" to save your life - first how do you know for sure how critical it is going to be. And professional transportation is part of the procedures. - normally if a person can sit in a car and is not too badly off, family will bring them or they can drive themselves.. If they need to be transported while lying, if they need special care - maybe even a doctor - that is part of healthcare. A person lying at the side of the streets - like another commenter mentioned - could lie there for all sorts of reasons - including a diabetes coma, an injury, a seizure, a heart attack, stroke, drug overdose ... - or they are simply drunk and sleeping it off - which still can get dangerous when they vomit, or if they freeze to death. One could give such a person a ride (if they are only drunk of sleep deprived). people may fear however that they might vomit into the car, or that they are not coherent and get mad during transport. Or die during transport. That situation can be handled better in an ambulance - more expertise, space and 2 adults.
1
@twoshedsjohnson8540 The Senator DOES use the system he criticizes. - Single payer means a non profit public insurance agency PURCHASES services. from public and private non-profits (that could be church or charity run). And ALSO from heavily regulated private for-profit providers (regulated by contracts and usually law). The hospital has the advantage to have a steady stream of patients (60 % of revenue which is likely more than 60 % of case load). It sounds like they get extra subsidies on top (another thing that is quite common - in order to not give toxic incentives the budgets come in different forms. A mixed compensation: a lump sum per case or day and additionally payment for specific treatments. Plus subsidies. Many of the patients would NOT be able or willing to pay out of pocket likke Rand Paul . (people would resort to the less sophisticated treatment that can be delivered by other providers which are more typical for single payer systems.). That private hospital aiming to make (some) profits is not unusual for a single payer system (church run hospitals do the same in Europe. And if a foreiger uses their serives any hospital will try to get payment - even the public city-run hospital. If the hospital would not participate in the single payer system they would need to operate it with only 40 % of the current revenue. Might they get more international patients ? to compensate for the missing Canadians ? I assume if they are in high demand they would just expand their capacities and that they have the international biz that is possible. If not part of the single payer system (and truly private) they also would miss out on the experience that comes with having so many cases (training new docotrs). They could clearly not operate with that cost-efficiency w/o the "system". if it was possible to have such a "private" hospital without a single payer system - they would set up shop in the U.S. to do more of the same. - they might in the future if the U.S. adopts a more reasonable system.
1
@jjw6961 Krystal did not see the Storming of the Capitopl coming ? She got that wrong ? So what ? As a commenter she is supposed to comment on what happened and change her assessments (of past and future) as events unfold. She never downplayed it after the fact. - I must say I was also suprised by it - Trump, the Republicans and his followers plus right wing media always over deliver. Just when you thouhgt now you have seen it all .... Trump did not pull off a coup per se. He would have liked one for sure. He could not set up a coup to save his life ! To be sure Michaal Flynn tried to push the idea of using martial law in a meeting in December, that was a group that met with Trump. But Flynn was shot down furcefully by one participant that seems not have some reason left. And no one else came out openly for the idea. So there was no support. Trump surrounded himself by a certain kind of grifters, like him they take no personal risks and a coup pushed though with determination means taking risks. Someone would have to lead. No leadership to be found anywhere. But then IF Trump had an ability to lead he would have been a little smarter in 2020 and won the election. It came down to 43,200 votes in 3 states (WI, GA, AZ 20,700 / 12,000 / 10,500). 4 states were too close to call for days, if we assume that Biden would have pulled off PA (he lead with 81,000 votes = 1.2 % margin and in THIS state Jo Jorgensen did not have a multiple of his lead over Trump) - ha absolutely needed ONE of the 3 other states to win the EC. PA was not obligatory. But of the 4 nailbiter states Biden needed to win 2 in any combination. Even the smallest 2 (AZ and WI) would have pulled him at 270, so just the bare minimum. Trump could have easily won that, and Biden could have framed his poster: I won the popular voted with 7 million more ballots cast for me (60 % in NY and 65 % in CA help with that). No coup, no drama needed. What kept Trump from wiining this easily and legally - most definitely kept him from organizing a functioning ! coup. . Trump is not a leader he is a boss. Luckily. Beau of the Fifth column did an insightful segment on it. His ego was soothed that someone was putting up a fight for him, the idiot likely was very pleased as he saw the riots unfold. He was incapable of grasping that it would lead to nowhere and would harm is personal and financial interests. Dems determined to sue him. Now they were really motivated. He also had put his cronies in place (new Secretary of Defense) to make it harder for police to control the situation IF it got out of hand. he could only hope the protesters would get out of hand, he certainly did his best without outright telling him to storm it. But it is not like he could control WHAT they (or police) would do. On the other hand smarter police leadership could have easily undone his effots. They get highyl unusual order in advance (needing the permission of Secretary of Army for everything ? Contact Pelosi, Schumer and McConnoll. Leak it to media. Call them out one or two days earlier, make the highly unusal orders that hamstrung police to even react when they realized they were in trouble. Or disregard the orders of the SoD. The incoming Biden admin was not going to prosecute them. Sund (former Capitol Police Chief) is now pissed that he lost his job, respectively that Pelosi made him step down the next day. - Still not acting like a leader - he had ONE job. He likely did not want it to happen. He was just a feckless leader. Trump could not fire the Metropolitan police chief and also not the Sergeant at arms or the Chief of the Capitol police or the Capitol architect. They could have derailed the efforts to make the helpless. Trump and his cronies were like: Just in case the crowd goes out of control on our behalf let's see how far they get .... is not a smart coup strategy. Again: Luckily. Trump is not able to pull off a coup - Krystal got that right. He riled up people, because of feckless police leadership they got much farther than they should have, they got carried away (many). If - IF - the police leadership of the Capitol had been smarter and doing their job the masses would have been stopped at the perimeter. Most - not all of them, but most - would have been stopped by the police shooting a few of them, but they were emboldened.
1
@secularsam7678 The format is to have one outspoken Republican. At least they also hear a left pespective too. That is the value of Jimmy Dore, people that would not listen to Sam Seder listen to him. IF the left wants to win elections they have to sell economic populism. you bet the affluent suburban voters would rather vote for a Mitt Romney (if he does not openly attack abortion) or Jeb Bush types than they would vote for a Sanders type. so you have to get the votes from somewhere. That is wher people can agree on relief checks, higher minimum wage, but disagree on guns and immigration.
1
For instance Social Democrats in Europe use Economic Populism (but so do the center left parties to a wide degree or they would not win the elections. The center left forced them there after WW2, and they can't openly go against the popular policies that benefit the main part of the population ). Or: Nicola Sturgeon of Scotland. She is center or center right (but she does not exclude groups), but with lots of economic populism. Germany. More often than not the Center Right party was in charge OR lead a coalition government after WW2. Even more so in Switzerland: The country is solidly "conservative" in how they vote, but they have economic populism.
1
Maybe Glen Greenwald got that wrong or he factors in and makes concessions of how the rightwing viewers have been indocrinated. To have a common base for discussion and takes it from there to change the view of rightwingers on "scary Socialism". Sanders for some weird reason also calls himself a Democratic Socialist, I am sure he understands the theory enough - that he his more like a New Dealer / Social Democrat. In the U.S. that makes you a raging far-leftie. But the opponents and enemies of Sanders would have unearthed old footage of the 1970s when he run for a Socialist Independent small party in Vermon. In the U.S. everyone to the left of Attila the Hun is called a Socialist by the right wing if they run for Democrats (and even Corporate friendly media suports that even if their claims a slightly less ridiculous than of FOX). Sanders can as well disarm them by embracing the term - and defining it as HE PLEASES. That is not corrct in academic terms, but this was not aobut being correct acadmeically or theortically, it was about controlling the narrative and not letting your enemies defining you. So 2015 and Sanders stunned them by calling himself a Socialist. A Democratic Socialist. All Democrats are supposed to cower if accused to be "Socialists". Sanders did some political Jiu Jitsu here. Single payer is or used to be called Socialist medicine by many U.S. outlets (not only the grifters of FOX). Greenwald might accept that framing to have a common discussion base with the viewers. Which are to the (far) right after all, and primed by Fox or worse.
1
Economic Populism covers wideprread welfare and public non-profit free or very affordable offers of essential services. Policies aimed to support the lower to middle income citizens. Right wingers always exclude one group or other, so then it is for the majority that is deemed worthy to benefit from the programs. The left equivalent is more inclusive, and does not rile up the potential voters (or subjects of a dictatorship) over the idea that the "wrong" segment of the population (migrant, Jews, another ethnicity or religion) could get the benefits as well. Socialism is: the workers, not government not a Capitalistic elite - controls the means of production. Universal affordable healthcare free at the point of delivey is not "Socialism" although rightwing U.S. media - including the Daily Caller where Greenwald appeared - styles it like that.
1
It is an excellent if unethical idea - just not for the patients or society at large.
1
Bernie has hurt the progressive movement. Sadly. I wish fervently he would be president elect. I think he has weaknesses. might have shrinked back from getting power when it was within reach. For. Real. - Self sabotaging (it looked like that). people that are decent and have some self reflection would have second thoughts on becoming POTUS. In 2015 he said: I think you must be a little crazy wanting to be president. Or a careerist, or vain, or having a huge ego. Or someone who is an ideologue, likes to start wars, a narcissist, or psychopath. These are the people that usually make it into top position (also in big biz) - and they do not have second thoughts whether they deserve to get that position. Also: persons that care about others like Sanders or AOC usually cannot muster the necessary asshole energy to fare well in the shark tank. Very adverserial types (Trump, or many Tea party types) do not care, and they also suffer less under personal attacks. The grifters, careerists that go along with the neoliberal and war agenda do not have pressure, and people that do not give a damn about the constituents have no conflicts. Only the nice people do. outer conflicts and likely inner conflicts as well.
1
Aren't there any workhouses for the poor ?
1
The rational for even having that extra solution of Medicare Buy In ? Creating ! need for private insurers and covertly giving them the chance to cherry picked pools (they are not hindered to take care of the 25 - 55 year olds in the 4 year transition phase - of ALL of the AGE GROUP). Harris and Booker allegedly want to give those citizens more options who do not want private insurance (in other words now they admit ACA did nothing to protect people from the private insurers). That is a sneaky way to help the private insurers. of course they will use every legal and illegal trick to get rid of high cost and high risk patients. Advantage: their packages will look better, the public agency has to deal with all the high cost patients. No international comparing of these cherrypicked groups (age groups likely still could be compared, but no nation in their right mind has groups that are cherrypicked like that). So it would be easier to badmouth MfA and Medicaid in the transition phase (look how "expensive" it is - no doubt mainstream media would gladly assist in the deception). With a little bit luck they could prevent rollout for the age group 25 - 55. Next step: defund the public agencies, then there will be an automatic need for "private" insurance if you want to have decent services. And many more doctors could refuse to offer services to patients who only have MfA or Medicare Buy In - there will be enough patients with private insurance that can be fleeced. The U.S. doctors are also good in keeping the number of doctors down. Immigration obstacles the credentials will not be recognized, prohibitively high costs of medical school, a very stressful - I think unnecessarily stressful - schedule for those who do the training. The ability to function with way too little sleep should not be a necessary condition to even become a doctor. Surgeans must be fit, they often need to concentrate for long times (I assume there is some adrenaline that keeps them going - that does not mean they should be sleep deprived all the time). On the other hand it would be a good idea to have those doctors well rested when they do not need to show extraordinary performances because a surgery unexpectedly takes longer. And for long procedures they could even PLAN to share (could even improve performance). A doctor can do excellent work in X-ray and diagnostics, with children, with a practice as an eye doctor or family doctor, or as dentist - even if they are not as stress resistant as other collegues.
1
if - IF - you want to give the age group 25 - 55 the CHOICE to be with the public insurance ageny, WHY not include them right away in the MfA solution ?? (Because Medicare is the best offer so they all would come - and the rollout in age groups is a compromise which ALLOWS SIMPLE ADMIN, age is simple to determine, no grey areas. They plan to do it in stages in order to not overwhelm the system and to fix the inevitable bugs that will show up in such huge projects). But what would be the rational to have a part of the age group 25 - 55 in the public system while NOT giving them MfA ?? Well the reason is obvious. The private insureres can keep the good patients and drive all of the high cost/ high risk patients over to the Medicaid Buy In public option. WHY setting up an extra complexity for a transition phase of 4 years until most of the citiens are in the MfA coverage. This is a BROAD coalition and defunding Medicare would get much harder. People would like it - so forget about EVER getting rid of it. Even young people would turn out to vote if they see the system attacked. Private insurance brings no value, so it would become a fringe market. Since the mandatory contributions would be modest of course there must be additional generous funding coming from general tax revenue. The broad coalition of low - regular income people (think: Majority ! of voters !) would think it an excellent idea to get that funding from rich people, highly profitable multinationals, the upper middle class and beyond, and unearned income / capital gains. And the U.S. is powerful enough to do something about tax havens.
1
Of course the single payer solutions are much more cost-effictive, so it would be the tyical 5,000 USD per person per year of wealthy single payer nations versus 10,000 USD in the U.S. (spending level 2017 see Keiser Foundation study). After cleaning up the mess, dealing with the backlog (people getting too little or too late, or not consistent treatment, no prevention, and medical damage resulting from that) costs should come down considerably. even if the government pays a lot of that in form of subsidies - "a lot" applies to reasonably priced services. There will be other inevitable transition costs (retraining 1 million staff from insurers and doctors that do the billing and deny treatment - which is a lot of work). And the U.S. likely needs to train more nurses AND more doctors. After 6 - 10 years it is realistic that the government subsidies would not even need to be higher than now although the contributions of individuals (and companies) would be much lower.
1
Medicare and Medicaid are already being defunded to come up for the missing revenue because of the tax cuts for the rich (the donors of the Democratic party love those as well, never mind Trump). Then there will be the costs of jobs programs, energy transition, ... so the broad coalition of MfA insured would be open to return to tax policies of the post WW2 era (until the 1980s). The donors of both parties are not going to like that - on the other hand what are they going to do if 250 million people would use their vote ? (In 2016 139 of 250 million used it = 55 %) Small biz and startups are going to like single payer: it is a recruiting advantage, their staff has no disadvantage compared to established companies and it does not cost them much (4 % from employee and 4 % from the company). If they are not (yet) highly profitable there are no or not much contributions via the general tax revenue. In single payer nations the public insurance is mandatory - wage related (percentage of wage with a cap usually) contributions of workers and employers, which must of course be very affordable. In Austria they are for instance 3,8 % for company and for the employee (with a cap of appox. 200 USD for each per month - the public insurance agency at the maximum gets USD 4,800 per year for an employee, with a good wage. So that is of course not nearly enough to fund the system, when currently on average !! USD 5,4000 are spent on every adult or child in the country. Participation is not only madated - it is also a right in all countries that are wealthy single payer nations - and they have typically approx. HALF the expenditures per person compared to the U.S.. The U.S. has 10,240 USD in 2017 - so Austria and Germany have a little more than half, Germany 5,600 - nations like France or Belgium or Japan do it for USD 4,700 - 4,900 per person per year)
1
A quadrillion to the fourth order is: one quadrillion times one quadrillion times one quadrillion times one quadrillion. She and the other cultists and grifters have no idea about maths, science or statistics. I came across a person claiming that the Biden results violate Bedfords' Law algorithm. - These people are fed ! big words, and do not care that they do not understand what they are parroting. (as evidenced when using Bedford's Law and the word algortithm in one phrase. The numbers when you do an analysis of data applying Bedford's Law (always assuming you have the necessary conditions, else it does not apply) are often presented on a logarithmic scale and someone got confused by that. Plus: algorithm is a word they heard before and it sounds sciency so they will throw that around.
1
Well until the 1970s those "old fashioned" ecnomic policies SERVED the marjority of the people in the wealthy countries well - just not the people with a lot of money. (Admited the developing countries got a bad deal, but that has not improved under neoliberalism - which is NOT a leftwing definition, let alone extrem. Neoliberal describes a well defined set of assumptions of how the enomy works. It is in action since the early 1980. You can compare the U.S. under the New Deal, and Europe in the Economic Miracle roughly after WW2 - 1980, and then neoliberalism till now. So when did we have economi growth optimism, full employment, job security. And when did we have NO financial crises (meaning huge or even internation crises of the financial sector). So when did we get the working poor, discontent and the rise of the right wing parties. Those people were around in the 1960s and 70s - but they VOTED the moderate parties. That is what people do when the economy works for THEM. Neoliberals policies do not take into account the economic realites, the political realities (1930s in Europe anyone ? ) - and do not get me started at not considering the hidden costs of fossil fuel use and pollution.
1
Ryan the liar does that at the National Press Club. Is the "press" going to call him out on his blatant lies ? - and it is true the countries with single payer pay much less for pharma drugs (so the industry will make less profits). Andthe doctors will earn less - they are well off in Europe, but the doctors are better paid and make more over lifetime (even if you consider that they have to pay for the education while that is free in most European countries). There is little competition in the U.S. for doctors, not enough doctors graduate (the costs of education are prohibitive) and they made sure they do not get competiton by migrant doctors (unlike IT staff). Usually their qualification is not acknowledged - so they would have to retrain in the U.S.
1
Gates built on the development of electronics, computers - all military funded and for decades !
1
Fox News and the right howl about Warren. In other news: Trump cheated on every of his wifes, need I say Stormy Daniels, Trump university, using the office to enrich himself, bankrupting upwards while NOT paying subcontractors, workers ..... - she should answer each of his tweets with "in other news .." What one can learn from Trump, to not give a damn, the people who howl would never vote for her. She should have unapologetically told her point of view, I trust my mother, she may have been wrong on the facts, but my father's family did have a prejudice, which made the story so plausible that I checked the boxes. BTW: I never profited - I am not a trust fund baby - but I did get help my my dear aunt, who took over my household so I could take care of my career when I was completely overwhelmed with taking care of my children and my job. (The Cherokee do have a point with so little in the gene pool - less than the average U.S. citizen she should have talked to them - and kept quiet. What I find much worse, she did not show up at North Dakota Access Pipeline, she does not slam ND now for trying to suppress the vote to make sure Heidi Heitkamp does not win the Senate seat)
1
Let Rep. Johnson pose his question. .... No, no let HER talk. Never interupt your opponents when they are making a mistake (or several). - Giuliani touched her at some point, he wanted to reign her in.
1
FOX NEWS playing government TV, not that the "liberal" media are better.
1
Addicted persons (or those in a cult or the KKK and groups like that) sometimes get off / out with the help of (fundamentalistic) religion. And meth is hard. So the my pillow guy changed one addiction for the next. The religious right is crazy. Biden is evil incarante and a tool of the devil (like all liberals). I am not exaggerating. Go to the channel of The Victory Channel and check out their video the day after the storming of the Capitol. Unreal. these pastors want to keep their congregation (well their donations), and one way is to rile up people. Riled up folks come back for their daily dose of rage, and that brings ratings (FOX, right wing radio) or donations (for churches and politicians) or election results w/o giving the voters anything that would cost the donors profits. It is hard to determine if those activist right wing pasters and "prophets" believe what they say. Likely - most humans do not have the intellectual fortitude to be vile cynical grifters and to be fully aware of it. Usually some double thinks sets in and preserves their good opinion of themselves. And making up shit is not hard, fact checking is a lot of work. So crackhead "found" god and rightwing preachers and that may have helped him to stop taking meth .... and now he believes that god will intervene in some way or other because Biden is evil incarnate. it is funny that they now have to villify someone like Biden. It was HRC or Obama or Ilhan Omar ... but 1980s Republican white Biden ?? The (formerly dog whistling) law and order guy, the servant of big biz ? The member of the good 'ole boys club that threw Anita Hill under the bus for the R Surpreme Court nominee ? That Biden ? The grifters have been poisoning the mind of their followers for decades, but they have to increase the dose. So now they have to paint Biden as "socialist" and a tool of the devil - it is getting ridiculous.
1
@markromine5103 The bourgoisee will always help the facists if they see their financial privileges only a little bit threatened (think higher taxes). See the Biden win and the behavior of Corporate media and normie Democrats in the last 14 years and now after Biden "won". Biden puts a friendlier face on ugly affairs (like Obama). - they hate Trump because he is uncough and because he openly shows he does not mind getting people killed IN the country. Obama and presidents before him did not mind either, but they had more sophistication or at least better manners (GWB). Obama et al did not mind that the current big-donor friendly healthcare system that he helped prop up for the profiteers gets 30 - 60,000 people killed per year. They STILL do not mind and gaslight the voters over "improving" ACA. But they are NOT following the most successful, cost efficient ! path that every developed nation has taken, and most of them 70 years ago. 30,000 preventable deaths was the number of a study (I think by Harvard) when ACA had been rolled out for a few years and Obama still in office, so that is with ACA fully implemented and funded to the liking of the corporate Democrats (the U.S. still pays double per person on healthcare compared to other rich nations. So of course it is easy to defund the bureaucraZy, because there are legitimate criticism of how overpriced it is. Healthcare - even when arranged for in a streamlined cost-efficient system - costs a lot of money Think 5,500 USD for every person in the country per year - take or leave 500 USD in the rich nations with single payer style systems. It seems that is what you need to have good healthcare for all. It is very unhelpful if the health "care" system is set up in a way that it needs double that spending. a) because the big donors take a big cut that way (and D + R shills help them) and b the complicated rules to "ensure" fairness and ethical behavior (from providers but also insurers which are only paper shufflers) and the inevitable bureaucraZy to evade those laws require a LOT of useless administrative work. providers have to chase the payment of medical bills (also costs that do nothing to make the service better for patients or the people / staff that provide the services). The profiteers can arrange themselves with the waste of adminstrative and other resources - they can easily spend 1 dollar to make 10 cents more profit. With a service like healthcare they just can pass on the excessive costs because with healthcare and admin around it = insurance there is not "free market" possible. Because the consumers do not have the most important of all choices: To NOT BUY. people need healthcare and if they are not multi millionaires (who could take a gamble and pay even a few hundredthousand out of pocket), having "insurance" will make or break their real "access" to good and timely and comprehensive care that does not bankrupt them. - almost all first world countries are in the range of 49 - 54 % of the U.S. spending per person (that was pre corona, data 2017). so the U.s.for profit healthcare system (now under ACA) needs a LOT of subsidies to even stay afloat while still being bad for a lot of people. I think that is a Havard study (effects of too late or too little care because of being underinsured or not insured). people have deductibles of 5,000 - 10,000 USD per year. Try that with an ongoing condition. That is a lot of things but NOT "insurance". But technically they do have "insurance" and the numbers of the insured have gone up. So Yay. Corporate media and Democratic establishment have recently rehabilitated George Bush. Not to downplay how bad a president Trump was. But Obama (by selling out in 2008 already) paved the way for a fascist, and they are lucky that THIS time it was an idiot like Trump. Biden would have lost if Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush would have run. And he would have lost if there had been no pandemic or if Trump had been only slightly better in his pandemic response. Do not let the 6 million more votes fool you. The EC "looks" good. Well - no. There were 4 nailbiter states, and I would say 2 of them are not in play if a more skillful wannabe fascist or a standard Republican runs. (Georgia and Arizona). Biden won the 4 states with a TOTAL of 125,000 votes more (Jo Jorgenson the libertarian got double that number in votes) and he NEEDED at least 2 of the 4 states to win. And realistically in other years it would be only those 2 states (PA and WI). HRC and now Biden lost Ohio (which Obama won twice, so voters gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2012, but then it was over with the vote for Dems). And both lost Florida. The more important red states were all won with a solid margin by Trump (Texas, Ohio, Florida, Tennessee that used to be blue). And Biden only eeked out a narrow margin in some he needed to win THAT after 4 years of Trump idiocy in action. Only 1 state out of the 4 would NOT have been enough, also not PA with 20 electors. that would have been 269 electors - so the more numerous Republican states would determine the president). On the other hand even the two states with the lowest number of electors (AZ and WI with 11 and 10) would have been enough to just put Biden over the finish line to 270.
1
No Sam does some good 'ol clickbaiting. Dore has grown a LOT.
1
3:58 in 2017 vastly increased turnout compared to 2014 * there are inconsistencies in the numbers Sam quotes - Her 512,000 losing votes were as much as total votes for the main candidates in 2014. 330,00 for Cuomo and 182,000 for Zephyr Teachout. In 20127 it was 977,000 for Cuomo versus 512,000 for Nixon. So to be sure - the machine could mobilize the base - and he has one. Throwing money at it did not hurt either.
1
The Democrats had House, Senate and White House in 2009 and a filibuster proof majority in 2010 (in spring then they passed ACA). They could have reversed that atrocity of bill (or amended and defanged it). They just could not be bothered.
1
finally - FINALLY - some politicians can be bothered to talk about the obvious. That has been always going on ! - Abrams made it close so the Republicans took ti from brazen to outrageous. And the Dems have a shot so NOW they can be bothered to report on it. Abrams must be in the good books of the party establishment. The tricks against Native Americans in North Dakota were not even talked abut.
1
Sanders has a sophisticated operation going on to recruit volunteers, and how they are used for the campaign. ** The polls likely do not capture what is going on with Sanders *. Warren had LOTS of nice media coverage - except from Fox. They obviously noted her signalling to rich donors and superdelegates and the flip flopping. People vote for (and name in polls) what they are familar with and the IMAGE of the politician matters. Corporate media can shape that image, especially if the consumers of "news" do not use the internet to gather information. People who do not pay a lot of attention and get the "news" from TV are likely to think of Biden as friendly uncle Joe, friend of the working class and elder statesman. And EW got lots of free airtime. Fox is blissfully unaware of all of that - they dislike Sanders even more but at the moment they do not know that Sanders can catch up with Warren and that Biden will eliminate himself. Bloomberg is going to cost Biden, Buttigieg, Harris, Booker votes - and also Warren (her support comes from white, affluent Democrats, the academic / managerial class). Good ! * The Sanders campaign works to turn out unlikely voters (they built on the 2015 / 2016 experience and refined it). That is hard to poll - pollster go after "likely" voters (those groups and age brackets who turned out the last times). That is why they did got some primary results of Sanders wrong in 2016 and that's why they did not realize what a danger AOC was to Joe Crowley. In the last poll one week before the primary she was 16 points behind, she won with a comfortable margin. AOC: "We do not rely on polls - we change WHO turns out." The Corbyn surge also was not manifest in the 2017 snap election (he made good more than 15 points in 8 weeks). I think AOC was lucky that the polls concealed her strength - else Crowley would have activated the machine and likely some dirty tricks. ** See how the Sanders campaign does it during the rallies (all get your phone out and download the Bern app, I will wait. Anyone already voluntering, show of hands please. Anyone considering volunteering - great ! Keep your hands up, volunteers with clipboards will come right to you. Or the recent video titled Workshop My Bernie Story: peer to peer video messages submitted to the campaign via the app. The campaign will review them. Likely to make sure nothing unseemly is said. Instructions are also: "Language should be family friendly, keep it short and do not bash other candidates", and also to avoid undermining from Republicans, special interests and what not. the media would concentrate on ONE video with racist content for instance, and not talk about the thousands of others or the orginality of the action. there will be an action day on Nov. 25th when they will publish these peer to peer videos on social media - likely to get media attention and to have a trending hashtag.
1
@Alan-wj5zc It is called statistics, they ask enough primary voters and then get a reliable picture - and no way that varies by 6 % - Also: Sanders did NOT destroy Hillary's chances - how was that the inevitable candidate would have needed HIM to win (never mind he held approx. 35 rallies for her after the convention - and unlike HRC in 2008 he did not mop for a day, did not get promised the post as Secretary of State, and the DNC leadership did not have to implore her to graciously endorse Obama at the convention. She was such a clueless candidate and so detached from the electorate that she managed to lose against the orange clown. - I recommend the interviews of the authors that were allowed to accompagny the campaign, provided they would keep confidentiality until after the election. the book is titled Shattered. (HRC: I do not understand the country anymore. - No kidding, she did not process how 2 populists stole her thunder. Trump as fake populists to the right, and Sanders in the tradition of FDR as left populist. Truth is: she hadn't understood the country for a very long time, but until then it did not matter. But with the internet, independent media, after the lies that lead to the Iraq war, 9/11, the Great Financial Crisis. NAFTA and then the China deal both had triggered massive waves of outsourcing. all of that undermined the trust into the institutions. And then SHE and Obama - and the rest of the Corporate Democrats were all for the NEXT "free" "trade" deal to have even more jobs outsourced). btw: are YOU going to vote for Sanders once he has become the nominee ??
1
I read the article of The Daily Beast - a lot of claims, nothing really to prove or disprove. And the experts are NOT from the FBI. The DNC did not hand over the servers. - It is of course possible that the Russian government tries or tried to hack the DNC - or other institutions. I am sure the Chinese, the Israelis, the French, the Saudis ... would do it as well if they manage to. And it goes w/o saying the US does it whenever they get a chance to do it (Remember Merkel's private phone ? or the spying within EU buildings - not sure if it was the EU commission). In short: stop whining, secure your IT better. (and no private servers in basements please). As for messing with elections: the US does that of course - and often does not bother to interfere with elections but skip that step and resort right to political assassination, coups, regime change or war. Democracy has an excellent report ton that with Mr. Stephen Kinzer. (promoting the paperback version of his book: The True Flag: Theodore Roosevelt, Mark Twain, and the Birth of American Empire You can search with Democracy Now Stephen Kinzer there are several videos.
1
The well educated female should KNOW that average life expectancy has a lot to do with survival of babies. If you have 5 children that all survive childhood and live till the age of 70 OR 4 survive till age 70 and one dies at age 1. The first have an average of 70, the 2nd group has an average of 56,1. Before modern medicine helped poor people at least a little bit they were doing good if they lost only 1 in 5 children at an early age. And these early deaths have a dramatic impact on the average. (btw - how do you measure the survival rates reliably in remote Indian villages - or in the slums, do these people all have IDs and birth certificates ? In India they vote so I guess even the poor are registered (unless in the remote regions) - but in other nations, the odd Phlilipine island I would not be so sure. Survival of babies has indeed improved - vaccination and if there is an epidemic - the U.N. likely would step up.
1

Previous
9
Next
...
All