Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Status Coup News"
channel.
-
14
-
13
-
10
-
Socialism was STRONG in the U.S. in the 1930s. It got FDR the leverage to push through the New Deal. FDR promised to stand up for that - if the UNITED left movements would stop talking about a revolution. (And the black citizens were sacrified to placate the Dixiecrats of the Sough). FDR saved capitalism from its own excesses. Not that the oligarchs appreciated that. (many resigned themselves to it - they remembered the Russian Revolution in 1917.
Some Republican industrial leaders looked with envy at Europe, where many countries - not only Germany - went the far-right or even fascist route. They considered to have their own fascist coup in 1934 - well it never went beyond vague plans - search for Smedley Butler and bonus army if interested. They did not have the military and they did not have the support of the population. They had to bide their time).
In 1944 the Democratic party establishment (knowing that FDR was very ill already) rigged the convention and made sure to sideline the very progressive VP Wallace. (FDR had put up a fight to get nominated for a third term in 1940 and to have Wallace as VP in 1940. - in 1944 he did not do that - maybe knowing they would expose him as being sure to die if he opposed that wing of the party establishment. They could not do anything about FDR since he was so popular, but his illness helped them. (constant very high blood pressure, that causes a stroke within a few years).
The election was in Nov. 1944, in April 1945 FDR died. The right thing for FDR would have been to endorse Wallace in a run for the presidency. I read the Truman was not very well informed and did not even know about the development of the Atomic bomb until he became POTUS. Either FDR was delusional about his risks, or to vain to step down in time (even though he wanted to be the president under which the U.S. won WW2), or he detested Truman ....
Truman the war monger became VP and president in waiting - even though Wallace was very popular (only FDR was more popular, he had done well as Secretary of Agriculture) and he polled much better than Truman when the conventions pulled all tricks to NOT have the vote on him. They cut him off access to the stage, ended a session prematurely.
Those who control the institutions always find ways to violate the rules and leverage the burden of the rules against those who challenge them. That also showed in the 2016 race.
The Red Scare was useful to justify military spending, to start imperialism again, FDR had concentrated on the U.S. and had started a policy of good neighbourhood. Imperaialism in Asia and Latin America for the benefit of big biz. The pretext being the "danger" of communism - a little economic help would have gone a long way that these nations would have had no interest in associating a lot with the Soviet Union.
The U.S. had interests in Europe (needed against the Soviet Union, Europe not the U.S. would have been the first target of a nuclear strike. Also needed as market, they were more developed and white, also some cultural bias because the part of the population that counted in the U.S. had roots in Europe).
The U.S. oligarchs could not screw the working class at home like they used to in the 19th and early 20th century - but they for sure wanted to continue to exploit the poor in the developing countries and former U.S. colonies (like the Philippines).
9
-
7
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
No he was in better shape in the debate. I think he does not have the reserves: if he has to campaign a lot or has longer days, he malfuntions more. Because of corona it is not suspicious if he has no events. In general he had a light campaign (even in the early states, he had time to prepare and most other candidates hold an office).
But he worked for S.C. and then he won, the hectic behind the scenes to make him the front runner and to make pete and amy drop out. Then the many interviews and speeches on and after Super Tuesday. And he had to stay up for longer (it is called sundowning).
A few days ago they tried a virtual townhall, but cut that off swiftly. MSNBC reported on that and cut off the snippet before he started fumbling with a sentence.
The next sequence (on twitter)was that he answered a questions, he held a smartphone, there he read the questions (not sure if he was lucid enough to let the audience know WHAT the question was) - those audience questions can be from plants as well.
In the first clip he looked into the camera, in the second clip he looked at the screen of the phone for 1 minute or so, somewhat mumbling, then he forgot that this was not real townhall.
He likes to wander around with the mic in these.
So he wandered out of the focus of the camera. Obviously he forgot - and if he does an event where he is recorded it would be good to look into the camera from time to time, he did that in the first clip.
These were clips on twittter, I have yet to look for the unedited whole thing, but I am under the impression it did not last long and they ended it after they "lost" him.
So a lot of rest, maybe some meds or some oxygen treatment and his answers (what I heard so far) were well rehearsed. I would not be surpised if they had gotten the questions to prepare.
4
-
The shooting of Tamir Rice looked like a driveby mob execution, not like a level headed police action. Car drove there (way too close IF they really suspected the person in the park could be dangerous - or even armed with a REAL gun). Cop hopped out from the passenger seat and shot to kill within a few seconds (under 5). I saw the video online, not sure if it is still available.
Then they failed to provide first aide. A FBI agent happened to be nearby, heard the shot and came over, he tried CPR. Manhandled the mother that had come to pick up her boy. Lied that there were other people in the park, that is the reason for their unprofessional behavior, they feared for their life.
The driver (he had not shot, but the idiot had driven that close) backed up that lie. They did not realize that there were cameras in the park that busted their lame lies immediately.
Shooter cop was indicted, local prosector played the jury like a fiddle, did not even go to trial. And no accountability for lying about the situation either.
They had NO time to check anything out. If there were other persons in the park (No, so no immediate danger, except that the person could be suicidal) - if they had used a megaphone from a distance - and maybe calling backup so the "suspect" could not just leave, that could have been solved amicably.
They were able to get 4 cops on Floyd for a 20 USD counterfeit just fine.
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
in 2015 there was a draft campaign: Run, Liz run. Sanders coordinated with her before he announced: had she run, he would not have joined the race (that likely cost him valuable time). They planned their campaign with 30 million USD in small donations, he wanted some issues discussed, especially financial reform and healthcare. No one, incl. the Sanders campaign thought that they would give Clinton a run for her money.
he wanted to serve by having a platform to bring up the issues. He would have let E.W. do the job and likely would have enthusiastically supported her.
But she did not want / dare to annoy the Clinton machine, likely had her eye on a potential cabinet position.
Therefore no endorsement of Sanders. Deafening silence on Dakota Access Pipeline Protests (that was in fall / winter 2016 she did not come out even after the election. Can't annoy the big donros. Big oil, also big finance). Her team wrote a mail to the Clinton campaign that she was "flexible" regarding financial reform - likely to present herself as safe VP pick.
As if Clinton would pick a VP - a woman no less - that would be more popular than her. As soon as she had limped over the finish line and won the nomination she picked bland right-to-work-for-less Tim Kaine. Way to inspire the base, the young, and working class voters.
had Warren been courageous she could have won the nomination - or set the foundation for winning now. had Clinton picked her as VP she would be president now.
Warren played the game of political expendience then and it looks like she does it now.
AOC just explained that when she came to Congress she began to feel the enormous pressure from the establishment to "conform" shut up and sell out the working class voters. And AOC does not even need the party leadership for money or to have a platform.
So that offers some explanation why Warren caved (several times) and why she is flip-flopping and signalling with word salads (M4A) to donors and party establishment that it is "just talk" and that she will be flexible and very willing to compromise (Hint: compromise is what you do at the end AFTER the negotiation, not right in the beginning).
WHY does she think SHE is the one to bring the much needed change - and that change will have to be implemented against fierce restistance.
Stay out of the kitchen if you cannot stand the heat.
That makes her almost as selfish as Clinton - or Obama (Harris, mayor pete, Beto, ...and lots of other candidates). WHY do they think the country needs them - when they immediately give in to the pressure. OK some do it for fame and money and because they lust after power - but Warren does not seem the type. - Some professoral vanity maybe ?
After the campaign of Sanders was so succesful Warren might have had second thoughts.
3
-
3
-
3
-
6:00 Noam Chomsky disagrees. Watergate: one big players stepped on the toes of another - so the media covered THAT.
Trump provides one reason for impeachment after the next. THEN he goes after Joe Biden - boom.
At the same time when Watergate broke a illegal spying program on law abiding activists was unveilled THAT did not get coverage. (see his interview with Andrew Carr from BBC, it is from many years ago - and I think N.C. mentions Cointelpro).
As for Iran Contra - when that broke there was an opening and N.C. says that leading journalists told him that they were able to _squeeze some stories _ in that would not have been published in other times.
Noam Chomsky also says he knows people that are heralded as leading journalists (well he would) - and they are even more cynical about the free press than he his.
1971: Eight civil rights activists also incl. professors from a univesity broke into a FBI office in Pennsylvania and successfully stole important files that proved what they had known all along. The government spied on them and used disinformation tactics against the Civil Rights Movement / anti war movement (or used agitators, surveilled Dr. King, sent him a blackmail letter urging him to do the only honorable thing - obviously to kill himself because of alledged infidelity).
They sent copies to several outlets asking them to publish the files which included the proof that the government illegally surveilled the Civil Rights movement and that they sent in mules and agitators. One newspaper - the LA Times I think - not only did not publish the story, they also handed over the copies after the FBI asked them to do it (sources !!!).
That helped the government to go after the whistleblowers. Copies contain an identifier at what machine the copy was made (printers still contain that !). and back in the day (Muhammad Ali had a big fight, and they chose that night for the burglary) copy machines were not widespread. One professor (of theology) made the copies at the university and sure enough, the FBI showed up at campus.
His wife had visited the office before to find out something about the location. But she wore sunglasses and I think she was not good at disguising herself - she acted as someone that wanted to apply for a job.
Anyway, the professor got a visit from the FBI at home, 30 minutes after the FBI left, his wife came home. So they were lucky (the files they were able to steal contained information beyond what they wanted to prove, but at that time neither they nor the media realized how much the stolen information implicated the FBI. A program was mentioned - and only later it came out what it was.
These were smart and disciplined (and principled people). The plan was carefully executed (except for the wife and the alleged job interview). They drove in several cars to a house after the burglary. Then they never met again and did not communicate (and they had settled their affairs including who would take care of their children in case they would go to prison).
2
-
2
-
P+ Elizabeth + Another World Please post your comments (they are good) on THEIR social media (all progressive, they ALL dropped the ball when it was time to be courageous).
Noam Chomsky: Nixon was the last liberal president..... (me: WTF ?)
....because he FEARED the grassroots (not because he had a liberal philosophy), so he ended the Vietnam War and signed the Clean Air and Water Act *.
But there are limits how much the grassroots can drag a hostile or unwilling president
But Nixon also got done:
Weed defined as a schedule 1 drug like heroin (only those 2) = very addictivie, very dangerous, no medical value. Not even cocain is classified like that - it is a schedule 2 drug. That is important because the alleged danger of weed is the pretext for harsh punitive laws. Also note: no D or R president saw any reason to change that unscientific b.s. classification. Also not those who had used weed = Obama and Bill Clinton).
Covert war against the grassroots, they were infiltrated.
Assassination by cop / FBI of Black Panther members.
It used to be illegal that healthcare is for profit, Nixon changed that (around 1973).
Started the War On Drugs (to stick it to anti war hippies and black people, part of the covert war)
Southern Strategy
So dragging a hostile / resisiting president or politician does not get you very far.
Frank Thomas: "Fundamental change comes from the grassroots, whenever they had a mildly supportive president a lot of progress was made."
I think AOC, Sanders, Ilhan Omar, Rho Khana, ... might be better material for being pressured into doing the right thing than many others. Not sure if Sanders can be pressured, he is a big disappointment. More afraid of getting the Ralph Nader treatment than being Organizer in chief.
You do not ask for half a loaf. You ask for the whole loaf - then you have to compromise, maybe.
So ... giving "my good friend Joe" and the D establishment everything - in exchange for NOTHING ?
Ideally they would LEAD and there would be no need to pressure them .... Oh, well .....
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yep, because she might disappoint - as opposed to the shill that is the alternavite to Tuner. Brown for SURE will sell out and she already has arranged for the "get rich" part by shoving over contracts to her boyfriends company, if she starts that at the state level, imagine what she would do in the House. The D nominee will very likely win the general, so it will be Turner or Brown.
Now, that is a no brainer.
Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, AOC did not get "rich" They just do not have it in them to be the fierce fighters they needed to be (and in the case of AOC and also Tlaib) promised to be. They are getting death threats, it is possible that and the establishment coming down on them like a ton of bricks has shown some effect).
They are nice people that would need to find their inner asshole / renegade.
They would be needed as leaders, which they are not. But they are acceptable followers.
Turner is not shy to create some stir, she was one of the VERY few that dared to offend the Clinton machine in 2015.
And she is more mature than AOC and Omar, so maybe she will not lose her cool when the establishment gets nasty.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Sanders had it tough. Unseated a big whig in the VT Democratic party and long term mayor of Burlington in 1980. Funky stuff going on, Sanders in the lead during election night, the lead changed in weird ways, at some point his supporters threatened to kick down the door if the civil servants would not come out and count the votes before witnesses. Sanders won with 18 more votes, 10 after recount.
Had only 2 - 3 supporters among the aldermen, plus there were a few Republicans - and the pissed buddies of the ousted mayor. Sanders did not even have the veto power with those 2 or 3 musketeers, so first thing they fired the secretary of the mayor. First budget was written on the kitchen table with help of volunteers.
Sanders did what he could and communicated with the voters (rumour has it one could often hear loud voices arguing in city hall during that time).
The voters noticed and did not appreciate the games, next election gave him more support among the aldermen (and that was likely within a year. The mayor is elected every 2 years, so I guess they vote for the city council in the other years). So then he had at least enough support among the aldermen to have the veto power and started working on a case to case base with Republicans. And tried to engage the local businesses.
They were a white community (but they became a safe haven for queer people). But there was for sure poverty and it is not like they had these big budgets.
Sanders came up with new concepts (to finance public housing), youth work, saw to it that the police got equal pay (there was a difference and he got the support of one of the police unions over that issue). But also that they came from the community and served. - admitted that was certainly easier to accomplish in Burlington AND likely they were not hostile towards a part of the population to begin with. But Sanders looked at that issue.
There are these cute hilariously amateurish city TV videos from old archives. mayor Sanders roams the city and talks to constituents. A little awkward sometimes but I guess if you had complaints (as a business owner, teenager, parent or citizen) it was not hard to get hold of the mayor and have a 10 or 20 minute chat with him.
I think one issue was the snow plough. Some areas were more equal than others and were serviced well and early - and other citiens had to make it through poorly cleared streets. Driving to work early in the morning on snowy and icy streets. Sanders changed that as well.
I think there was some contracting-among-friends going on under the former mayor (a Republican Lite), so Sanders found some budgets when renegotiating contracts.
It is remarkable that you will not hear bad reports about his time in Burlington. You bet there have been attempts to find dirt. The people who worked with him are loyal, if they talk to the press at all, it is positive (or funny) stuff. There must be people who dislike him, but even they cannot leak to the media.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
A German sociologist on the increasingly rabid anti maskers in 2020 (didn't have vaccines then). He said: Some people go into freeze mode during a crisis, others in flight or fight. The problem with a virus: You can't fight the thing, not with shouting at it, not with weapons, progpaganda, money, .... - so they needed something tangible to be furious about and to be adverserial against.
it is a quite primitive knee jerk reaction (my take, the sociologist did not put it that way). They are not exactely in panic - where people can get very irrational. So at some point they could use their frontal lobes. But they prefer and likely are used to fall back on the much older TRIBAL patterns of behavior.
in spring / early summer 2021 the mask mandates were loosened (until Delta came back to bite us in the bum), and no more lockdowns.
So what could they be angry about ? FIERCLY opposed to ?
Why, vaccination of course. the most standard way to defeat any epidemic and wide spread diseases, as they should know from experience if they were born in the 1950s and 1960s. When vaccination was enthusiastically embraced by governments and citizens alike.
The same people that got their polio shots and are blissfilly unaware of the term iron lung, or the fear which cases of polio, whooping cough and tuberculosis in the community triggered for parents.,
Whopping cough: Around 1900 a newspaper called it the Strangling Angel of Death for the little ones.
It is bad when adults get it, now imagine babies and toddlers fighting for air for days ! - it killed a LOT of children under 4.
And to round it off the many that survived measles but with severe lifelong harm.
The estimate is that 1 in 1000 dies - now with modern medicine, and maybe 5 - 10 suffer lasting (mental) damage). Measles is highly contagious (one, if not the most contagious disease. So a 1 in 1000 fatality when the majority o the population is exposed to it at some point, usually already as child - there will be a fallout for society. If one child got it in a family the statistical chances were not bad that the child would fully recover and then enjoy immunity. So no need to panic, although a sigh of relief if the child has fully reocovered. The is a deadly complications years down the road in 1 of 100,000 cases, BUT they found out recently that risk is higher for toddlers and even more pronounced if a child under 1 gets it.
The virus gets dormant and resurfaces years later - and attack the nervous system. There is no cure for that.
So it is wise that we protect the population at large, so the children are spared those risks.
The individually manageable risk of 1 of 1000 for individuals meant for society that there were victims every year, even in smaller communities and as new children were born (or immunity wore off) there were new victims.
Plus of course the people that bedame disabled because of polio.
Every communtiy and family had these victims. They were visible and put a burden on their families, so no one played stupid games of opposition when vaccines were - finally - available. On the contrary. And research was not as advances as it is now. See the polip campaing of the 1950s, they do not use inactivated viri anymore to stimulate the immune system.
People / parents in the 1950s and 1960s took a leap of faith. Polio vaccination was a bumpy ride, in the US they had to abort a campaign in the 1950s (the inactivated virus was able to infect some children. Now - polio can manifest in a light form, or even be conflated with a harmless infection *, so I do not now there was major harm done - but of course then public trust in that vaccine was undermined. In the late 1950s there was a bad polio season and they tried again with a different approach and that finally delivered a safe vaccine.
* that is how it can spread, it is not always detected, and does not always cause damage. Polio is not nearly as contagious as the new variantes of CoVid-19. And measles is still at the top, although the CoVid-19 virus has improved on being contatgioous since Feb. 2020 (in March a more contagious version turned the Chinese epidemic into a pandemic).
Parents in the early 1950s were not hesistant - knowing the last attempt had not worked, they trusted the process and lined up for the NEW vaccines.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
People that would be good in the fight against the monsters are often very controversial, struppy, adverserial people - unpleasant in person and willing to fight over nonsense, too. Also often not good with their fellow fighters, lots of infighting, over internal power etc. You must be a little crazy if you go against the machine. Reasonable and nice people would arrange themselves. Also because there is a good chance to be crushed by the system and to be worn out.
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman
I am glad that Cory Booker and Jamaal Bowman are sworn in, and hope Nina Turner wins her race. They seem to be made of stronger fibre.
And for the nice and reasonable, well intentioned progressives or mildy progressive leaning liberals: There is strenght in numbers (there would be also strenght in having a peaceful mass movement, but the citizens are also wussies, or too complacent or resigned).
It is possible that being always the lone voice also got to Sanders.
In a reasonably set up system with VOTERS that can be bothered to turn up (in the primaries !! of the Democratic party) good folks that were voted int, would not need to have an unlikely combination of compassion with enough asshole attitude. (not all voters like Trump, but they appreciate his I do not give a damn attitude. They voted for him despite his affairs, racism xenophobia. How they could overlook his stupidity I do not know).
Good intentions, their heart in the right place, not being corrupt, diligence and intelligence would suffice to do their job as REPRESENTATIVES.
The D party has very successfully resisted all attempts of the base for over 50 years. Lets make that 90 years. FDR likely had a big ego, but he liked the role of the benefactor of the masses and he had enough asshole energy to twist arms. Of Democrats - then and now it was Democrats that stood in the way of progress. Republicans only would have like to be an obstacle. They did have the votes and FDR made sure all of them voted for the New Deal bills.
The Democratic party abandoned and sabotaged their candidate in 1968 against Richard Nixon. The traumatic year when MLK and Bobby Kennedy were killed and then the protest at the D convention were brutally crushed.
LBJ did not bother to expose Nixon as traitor undermining very actively peace talks (It is possible that LBJ was not serious about the peace talks either, that he only gave in to the concerns of the D nominee that he could lose the election to Nixon. But it was only for show. That LBJ knew Nixon would continue HIS war and he prefered a win of Nixon.
LBJ could not admit that, could he.
I read that the DNC run ads against their own candidate, and I understood that was in the general (was it ? but even in the primaries that would be out of line). In other words the D elites then were as bad as they were today. Even though money equals free speech decision came in 1976 (and a Nixon appointed right wing activist judge was very important for that). They could not be as openly bought, but they had sold out in the 60s already.
2
-
2
-
The idea that the city is meant to work for ALL citizens, not only for big biz (or even small biz *) seems to be too exotic to consider. The myht (nothing is more important than a job) - was perpetuated when New York was supposed to be utterly grateful to Amazon for the intent to create "jobs" (not that many new jobs in the U.S. - if was a shift. No city is an island. they are all part of the U.S. So it does matter when Bezoes pits the cities agaiinst each other - and does not pay federal tax).
* Those schmucks can finance Amazon with their taxes while being put by them out of business
I know European countries where the federal government takes in more tax - and then the money is redistributed to the states and the communities. The cities and towns get a wage related tax (percentage) per employee. So they have an incentive to offer areas for commerce, build streets, electrify etc. Better wages mean more income for the community, but for retail it does not matter much if the company is a chain or it if is samller shops. They get the same for the budget for comparable wage levels.
When so much money comes from property tax the communities have an incentive to promote real estate bubbles and prices being driven up. Plus the developers bribe politicians with campaign and party donations and jobs for ex politicians. There was areason Crowley was speaker-in-waiting and had no primary challenger for the longest time - until AOC hit him. He was an excellent fundraiser, no doubt, wallstreet, and real estate developers.
Party and the Big donors were quite content with the siutation, they saw no reason why anyone should challenge him in the primaries. he did little for the constituents, so being around for decades (literally) was an advantage, he had at least some name recognition. The district was savely blue but why upset a smoothly running scheme.
Hardly any of them take the side of the citizens over the real estate "investors". They could limite the influx of international rich "investors" that buy up real estate (it is unused). That is going on in Europe, Asia, Australia, the U.S. New Zealand made it impossible to buy real estate for non-citizens. Berlin has such rules implented a few years ago. Small touristic communities in Austria have been doing that for the longest time, only permanent residents who spend most of their time in the community (they look at work, where the children go to school etc) can buy.
There is a mayor in ? California that ran in the primaries, she used eminent domain when the banks tried to foreclose (the city buying up homes, either turning them into city property for rent, or helping out the distressed home owners.) She had ideas about a public bank. Did not win the primary unfortunately.
New York would have had to bribe Amazon with 500 million USD in direct payments (financed by a loan ! ) and then approx. 2,5 trillion in subsequent tax gifts (at the back of everyone that does pay local taxes, I am sure they all like to give Amazon a free ride).
At a time when the U.S. supposedly has full employment.
So if New York would really get those 25,000 jobs over the course of maybe 10 years (attracting new people to the City, as if New York needed THAT) - it would only be after many years that New York would see tax from Amazon. Who knows - maybe the swarm of locusts would move on to the next place to plunder , before they ever get to the point of really paying.
Who SAYS the city even needs more jobs. And who says they wold get tax revenue ? Not from Amazon, if you follow their example from Seattle. Indirectly from the employees (new people in town) - but THAT comes at a cost, too. And there is the 500,000 million loan plus interest to pay, 500 millions divided by 25,000 would be 20,000 per employee - so they might compensate New York for the direct expenses to bribe their employer to set up shop in New York.
But the costs for the residents that are longer in New York, that have no affordable place to live ? the drain on the budgets are IMMEDIATELY so the public services for THEM are getting even worse. Amazon chose one of the few still affordable areas in New York. The Amazon employees might have rebelled if forced to move and forced to buy the completely overpriced real estate elsewhere in New York And there was an area "ripe for gentrification" so they intended to create an IT sector district - for the employees of Amazon it would mean short commutes, and the real estate will increase its value - so for them it would have worked.
A city is a place where people live, work, spend free time, move around, children need school, parks. Streets, sewage systems, police.
More jobs for highly paid professional that are lured into the city with generous gifts to their company - but not enough space to live for the regular people and a mass transportation system that is already on the brink for lack of funding.
Weirdly enough the Chinese or the Russians find the money to have modern, clean, fast public transporation, but the global financial center can't.
Those additional jobs would have come with displacement of low or normal income people in the area where the highly paid employees would buy up real estate and drive everyone else out. Those employees use of course more space than regular renters, they can afford to.
No plans whatsoever to build more affordable homes elsewhere. Of course not that is not where the real estate developers make the money, and the city has no intent or the budgets to fund that. And Amazon definitely had no intent to do something FOR the community. It could not be clearer that they wnat to leech off the community.
The New York elite political class was willing to splurge on something that would make all existing problems for regular people worse immediately with uncertain options (and no legal regress for that) for revenue in the future. I can see many businesses or co-ops throughout the city appreciating getting 20k per new full time employee - and that employee might not consume as much or pay as much local taxes - but they also will not cost the city as much in additional expenses for public housing - if the city would to its duty.
I assume poor people pay easily as much local tax as rich ones. The tax on a house is higher per individual. but the commoners pay the local tax - if only in form of rent - and many of them share the space that is taken up by one affluent home owner.
These new subsidized jobs might be for people that are already there, that live throughout the city and that have a much smaller footprint (how much space they use) compared with the upper ranks of Amazon. Advantage - the employees might pay less tax - but the company WILL pay tax.
Of course the oligarch class likes that kind of misleading and very reduced discussion (which is eagerly supported by the media / political mouthpieces which the oligarchs bribe) That kind of FRAMING muddies the water for the peasants. The peasants do not like the status quo but as long as the current state of affairs can be declared to be the workings of a natural law - "There is nothing we can do about it, like you cannot protest against how gravitation works" - as long they will not rebel (until things get really bad, then the oligarchs like to side with the fascists to help them keep the masses down).
People do not need a job, they need an income to make a living. (And they must be able to LIVE where they are supposed to WORK.)
- there is plenty of worthwhile work to be done - people can find themselves something to do, they do not need a corporate overloard to find meaning in their life by being productive (for a corporation).
So that would go in the direction of a jobs guarantee, of UBI or reduced worktime. The 40 hour week became the law of the land in 1940 !!! in the U.S. Massive technological shifts happened - the 40 hour week has been undermined (people work overtime, both parents need to work in a household, people work more than 1 jobs and way more than 40 hours, seniors still need to work to add to their income).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
But the costs for the residents that are already NOW in New York, that have no affordable place to live ? the drain on the budgets are IMMEDIATELY so the public services for THEM are getting even worse. Amazon chose one of the few still affordable areas in New York - they seem to consider it an area "ripe and well sutied for for gentrification" so they intended to create an IT sector district - for the employees of Amazon it would mean short commutes, and the real estate will increase its value - so for them it would have worked. But those IT workers and management would do fine in every city.
A city is a place where people live, work, spend free time, move around, children need school, parks. Streets, sewage systems, police.
More jobs for highly paid professional that are lured into the city with generous gifts to their company - but not enough space to live for the regular people.
And a mass transportation system that is already on the brink for lack of funding.
Weirdly enough the Chinese or the Russians find the money to have modern, clean, fast public transporation, but the global financial center can't.
Those additional jobs would have come with displacement of low or normal income people in the area where the highly paid employees would buy up real estate and drive everyone else out. Those employees use of course more space than regular renters, they can afford to.
No plans whatsoever to build more affordable homes elsewhere.
Of course not that is not where the real estate developers make the money, and the city has no intent or the budgets to fund that.
And Amazon definitely had no intent to do something FOR the community. It could not be clearer that they wantto leech off the community (see Seatlle)
The New York elite political class was willing to splurge on something that would make all existing problems for regular people worse immediately with uncertain options (and no legal regress for that) for revenue in the future.
I can see many businesses or co-ops throughout the city appreciating getting 20k per new full time employee - and that employee might not consume as much or pay as much local taxes - but they also will not cost the city as much in additional expenses for public housing - if the city would to its duty.
I assume poor people pay easily as much local tax as rich ones. The tax on a house is higher per individual. but the commoners pay the local tax - if only in form of rent - and many of them share the space that is taken up by one affluent home owner.
These new subsidized jobs might be for people that are already there, that live throughout the city and that have a much smaller footprint (how much space they use) compared with the upper ranks of Amazon. Advantage - the employees might pay less tax - but the company WILL pay tax.
Of course the oligarch class likes that kind of misleading and very reduced discussion (which is eagerly supported by the media / political mouthpieces which the oligarchs bribe) That kind of FRAMING muddies the water for the peasants. The peasants do not like the status quo but as long as the current state of affairs can be declared to be the workings of a natural law - "There is nothing we can do about it, like you cannot protest against how gravitation works" - as long they will not rebel (until things get really bad, then the oligarchs like to side with the fascists to help them keep the masses down).
2
-
2
-
Slave2PaperWithInkOn have they FINALLY released ALL precincts ? (I saw an article where one still was missing - graphic with popular vote and SDE, and the report was from yesterday, but the article of course claimed 100 % released). Iowa in total has only 41 NATIONAL delegates. which is 3 % of all National delegates.
The prize of IO is the media buzz and pete for sure tried to seize the glory of having "won".
Sanders has more votes and -
the SDE count already factors in that rural votes are worth more. So how - when Sanders is only 0,1 behind in SDE (if that, see the one missing precinct) - how does that translate to 3 delegates more ? 11 versis 14 ?
I read the explanation (in comments) that it is like the EC versus popular vote.
Well the SDE already reflects that not all votes are created equal. So what other rule could possibly give pete 3 more delegates ?
Sanders did very well in the Satellite caucus (working class, minorities, people that can't vote in the evening, or would shy away from showing up at a very white event, for instance people from Somalia that are Muslims). They awarded the SDE proportionally. I suspect the party did some finetuning there to "make" pete the "winner".
Interesting. so rural votes count more (I suspect it has to do with the fact that in a rural location 90 people coming is a good turnout and in the cities (that get more attention by the campaigns) it is 300 or more. (I read a comment: You got 10 delegates with 94 people showing up ? We also got 10 - with more than 300 caucus goers).
Awarding more delegates to rural areas (indirectly, the precinct has 10 delegates whether 50, 90 or 300 caucus goers compete for it) could be a motivation for rural voters to participate. They make dent and above their paygrade, so to speak.
The same logic could be applied to the Satellite caucuses (which were not calculated with any extra bonus - but if they want to reduce the Sanders count - they could work there). Satellite caucuses are new, so maybe they have ambiguous rules or they changed the rules on the fly. Wouldn't be the first time.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
@ceciliachavez4668 it is still public option. As long as there a plans around where for-profit is the issue, the costs savings because of streamlined admin will not manifest, the more plans are around the more red tape. For billing - insurance company AND hospital and doctor have more of a hassle. The insurers need sales, marketing, the beancounters to know when to purge a company * from the pool. The have to check the applications and the healthstatus (for individuals) and they work with big data. Add to that profit, sales, marketing, lobbying.
All of that is under the assumption that all players (insurers and the hospitals and pharmacies are honest players. They are not, they are ruthless predators that will exploit the chances the complexitiy of healthcare offers them.
In other words: STILL TOO EXPENSIVE.
In singlepayer systems the profit motive and all toxic incentives and useless expenditures (useless to deliver healthcare with good outsome) are removed. Medical decisions and treatments are complex, billing could be made complex. profit is just not in the equation.
The medicare for some maybe proposals are misleading, they take a piggyride of a bill made popular by Senator Sanders. And they alls suffer from the flaw that they do not eliminate the profit motive. Does not matter is some individuals or some companies still operate under for-profit contracts.
they insurance companies WILL do purges to make more profit. Add to the inefficiencies the profit for the shareholders. The insurers are middleman a public agency can well do the job to collect the contributions, negotiate and to pay the bill, it does not require a genius.
* They already do that, if in a company there are more costly patients (not neceessarily the employee, that can be covered family members) then the companies raise the premiums or stip down the contracts - until the company ends the contract. (I do not think an insurance company can "fire" a client, or at least they don't do that - would be bad PR.
I got that from an interview with Wendell Potter.
Solution for the company ? Accept contracts with higher deductibles or exclude family members from coverage. Or fire the employees that are the "cost factors".
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Kevin Tewey Note that the "communication" director danced around the question: HOW MANY INVALID votes ? and the interviewer let her filibuster and did not press her enough. 100 invalid ballots, or 1000 or, 5000 ? - 18,000 people voted early on day one, if a high number has an invalid ballot, the PARTY blew it. They did not explain the rules good enough, or the ballot is confusing.
That party representative did not make the NV party look good. At all.
The training was obviously of poor quality (for caucuses - other leaks, the party is not transparent, volunteers asked how they would integrate the early votes into the precincts.
That is a logistics trap:
even if they act in bad faith, doing it that way is shopping for trouble. Don't make it THAT complicated. you need coherent rules for such complexitiy. They exist in manufacturing or in the way pharmaceuticals are transported (proper temperature).
But if you have volunteers who do it every 4 years, often elderly persons and on top you changed the rules - good luck with that.
Especially when complexitiy
1
-
I once read that cocain is the go to drug for cops, they have access (holding back from raids, or they have reliable "sources"). it is fast out of the system, the drug tests are announced a few days in advance, so no problem. Cocain boosts performance (night shifts AND side gigs !) - but it makes people also aggressive or reckless.
And the same is true for stereoides. Improves performance, growth of muscle mass, helps with weigh loss - but people can get highly aggressive.
Chauvin worked in a night club !! For many years !
a) conflict of interest (in THAT kind of biz even more, because they are often locations of illegal activities, like retail drug trade
b) working more night shifts !
In other countries police is not allowed to hold any other job. They are supposed to be well rested, and they avoid the obvious conflicts of interest. They might get a waiver to help out at a farm or a family business, but that's it.
The owner of the nighclub after the killing of Floyd (Floyd and Chauvin had worked there, they had butted heads over how Chauvin treated black patrons) said the officers that she had employed, incl. Chauvin were always skittish around black people, wanted to escalate fast if there was a problem, always called for backup.
So if the civilian bouncers were more capable, and level headed as bouncers and solved the situations better - why did she even bother to employ police ?
It is a protection / non-interference racket.
Even if she is careful to not allow / encourage illegal activities - police raiding herclub a few times can really mess with her business. They never have to find anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In the U.S. people must join the military (with all the risks for life and health, incl. psychological health) to get higher education and decent healthcare free at the point of delivery. In most other wealthy nations that is taken for granted. But it is hard to find cannon fodder - other countries have a military as well, but it is not nearly as risky to enlist.
The VA is another complication - the agency is no advantage when it comes to the delivery of care.
it is the admission of the U.S. society that only people that were willing to enlist (with a good chance to be IN a war) will get good medical care later (unless they have a very good job in the private sector, or are wealthy).
There may be some military related conditions and treatments. And maybe they do not want that civilian doctors see some conditions (Gulf War Syndrome). On the other hand if a vet needs a hip replacement or gall bladder surgery - they are not different than any other patient.
There is no reason to run a separate structure.
And the vets are spread out over the country - in a cost efficient system you want to have the doctor practices and the hospitals evenly spread out over the country (rural and urban areas) The patients usually can choose between a few (unless they are willing to travel) - enough but not too many providers in every area
hat can be planned (more providers simply do not get a contract), a certain number of eye doctors, GP, .... hospitals, physiotherapists per 1000 or 10,000 residents). And EVERYONE uses them.
VA is another form of in or out of network - and that makes things inevitably more costly and more complicated. At least they are allowed to negotiate drug prices - the only public agency that is allowed to do that in the U.S. They brought costs down by 40 %.
the last reform I think allowed vets to use "private" providers if using the VA unit would be a hardship, like long wait times.
it would be of course much more fair and more cost efficient to have ONE system for ALL citizens.
if it is reasonably ! funded (much less per person than now, but enough) it works well. See the wealthy nations that spend 41 to 56 % of what the U.S. spends per person (U.K. ..... Germany).
The U.S. spends 10,240 USD per person and 60 % of that is either subsidies or paid for by Medicare. That's 6,200 USD approx.
The single payer nations do not even pay that in total.
The insured and the companies have mandatory contributions that are very affordable and are a % of wage. The rest - a lot - is subsidies from general tax revenue.
But the subsidies are NOT as high as in the U.S. - because all the funding goes into a system that leans strongly towards non-profit. And it is much, much more cost efficient that the bureaucraZy in the U.S.
1
-
1
-
I currently live in a single payer nation (Austria 5,400 USD per person) and also know the Germany system (5,700), The care is good. Compared to the spending of 10,240 of the U.S. (2017, Keiser Family Foundation, based on OECD numbers).
Both are at the higher end of the average spending but the population is on average older which may account for some of the higher spending compared to other wealth nations (like Canada or Australia with only approx. 4,800 - 4,900 USD - these nations spend less than half per person compared to the U.S.)
The U.S. has a younger population too and should beat countries like Germany, France, UK, Netherlands only because of that.
Plus the outcomes are better - see infant / maternity mortality (that is for instance an indicator how the system works for lower income groups).
1
-
1
-
1
-
N Vannote The bills of Sanders, Jayapal and Booker/Harris have generous provisions for retraining staff. at least the regular people. Top management and no-show jobs for fmr politicians will not be covered, they can fend for themselves. - Wendell Potter became a Whistleblower on the industry, his last job in PR was with cigna. He had to come up with all the arguments why Canadian healthcare sucks, why private is better etc. - He said: a lot of jobs will become obsolete, like the job that I had. I will just not be needed anymore.
After Bush2 signed the China agreement (early 2002 under cover of 9/11 so to speak) the next wave of major outsourcing hit the manufacturing workers. Many had employer plans (for sure they cost too much then, but people were covered). With the jobs those plans disappeared. Of course not everyone has a health issue right away after losing their job and getting one w/o good coverage (or none), so it took a few years to fully manifest.
Around 2006 it started becoming apparent - Potter had become cynical in his early years as journalist and could square his job to do PR for the industry, but at that time he got uneasy.
Then cigna denied coverage for a liver transplant until public backlash made them backpaddle. By then the teenager's organs had started shutting down (her doctors had to give a pass on 2 livers that would have been a good match). As a father Potter was very relieved when cigna reversed their decision (the reporters had started calling and he was the go-to man to deal with such PR relevant incidents).
She died 5 hours after cigna had greenlighted the organ transplant. Potter handed in his resignation the next day and left a few months later.
The case of Nataline happened in late 2007 if I remember correctly. It should be noted that her family had a good plan - not a Cadillac but a Mercedes plan, so obviously a parent worked here. The plan covered organ transplants.
But she did not fit the profile of being a recipient with "good" survival chances (had leucemia treatment before, had gotten a bone marrow transplant). Her doctors saw a chance and wanted to give her a fighting chance - but the insurance said it was "experimental" and initially denied it, and in the time until they reversed their decision she became unfit for the surgery.
1
-
She has little chances to win the nomination (judging from the polling even BEFORE that foolish own goal). Did they think such ruthless tactics would endear them to the voters in the Rustbelt, to blue collars and lower income people of ALL races ? To the Rustbelt state voters that MUST be WON BACK in the general ?
These states voted for Obama (once or twice), and they voted for Trump (never mind his comments and record).
The common theme is desire for CHANGE, populism (both Obama and Trump deceived them) and the hope someone will shake up the establishment (in order to help them - not against real or imagined slights but with severe economic problems ).
I guess most people prefer a president that knows how to behave. But these silly games (that are so transparently self-serving and a smear of an opponent) repulse the voters. The "establishment" and D.C. insider games are unversally disliked by voters (R or D).
Expecting "hope and change" from Obama was naive - Noam Chomsky saw right through him in 2008, and recommended to vote for him in swing states only, and third party in safely red or blue states.
To expect Hope and Change from Trump (this time with a white and nationalistic tweak, Make America Great Again) was even more naive.
But the genuine and legitimate desire for "Hope and Change" continues to exist.
Do these unethical morons (Waren and team.... DNC, Clinton machine, Corporate media) really think regular people care about it if Sanders did say in a private * conversation_ "A woman cannot become president in the U.S."
* No one likes a backstabber, a person w/o a spine and selling out a friend by using a PRIVATE conversation - Warren just made herself poison for the GE. (the hidden mic of closed door meetings with donors is one thing, leaking info from a meeting of friends is another one).
I do not even think it is true that Sanders said it that way. Never mind: Sanders has the good sense to not say such things in public. **
** Joe Biden did allude to it and in public: that Warren would endure misogynist attacks from Trump, and that he is safe from such attacks - not that he condones it. If was circumspectly formulated by Biden (a very subtle hint that this makes him maybe more electable - but it was within bounds. He might be correct. There is no doubt however that there would have been a shirtstorm if Sanders had dared to mention such a thing in public.
1
-
1
-
1
-
But they would need to have defined and SECURE processes for the early voting and for keeping them SAFE. They want to bring the early ballots to the precincts and factor them in when people do the caucus LIVE. Volunteers asked HOW that is going to unfold. Information: the tool on the iPad will do that.
Sounds convincing.
If you have any experience with implementing process in manufacturing in organizations - having such a COMPLICATED procedure means shopping for trouble. No, chasing it down !
I do not think the party is good in setting this up, but even if - that is a recipe for failure. If they would be more competent they would realize that they try to pull off something above their paygrade.
First rule: Don't make things complex if there is no value in it.
In Iowa they had early precincts. They had their delegates awareded (only the DNC decided they were worth LESS delegates. In Iowa in a rural area a precinct with 90 people could have 10 delegates and in another area 300 people came and still not more than 10 delegates. so it is set up with to give the rural areas more weight (or compensate for naturally lower turnout). One could argue that it gives campaigns an incentive to not neglect these areas. It is harder to reach a lot of people, but the better vote count makes it worth your while. Pete had that strategy and I think also Obama.
The satellite caucuses were ranked in the middle by the Iowa State party. They have a certain number of state delegates (11,000 in the first round). these statellite caucuses were new and they had to make a rule how many they would be worth - that was in the middle, not doing them favors but better than the areas that are the easiest to work for a campaign (like College cities).
Sanders did VERY well in those satellite caucuses. So Tom Perez from the DNC decided that these low income, minority people, many had caucused for the first time, many working in the evening, driving longer distances to ge to that caucus (so it was not easy peasy to get there) - that these new precincts were worth LESS.
That is why we had Sandes and Pete tied in the NATIONAL delegate count (11 each) and then (media had already moved on) all of a sudden Pete got 14 and Sanders only 11. Now they do a recanvss, and in the very last days they have published the last updates to State Delegate Equivalents (the 11,000). Sanders is a fraction of an inch behind Pete in that count (that already factors in that different areas and votes have different weight).
So now Sanders is up to 12 and Pete still has 14 or 13
WTF ?? Sanders wins popular vote in both rounds, has the same SDE count (despit the fact that pete has an advantage because his votes from rural areas count more).
And pete gets more National Delegates ?
How does that work ?
In total the candidate that wants to win the nomination at the convention in the first round with 50 % needs approx. 1900 delegates. - On the other hand it might come down to a few delegates.
And it shows the pettyness of the DNC denying Sanders the narrative of "won in 2 categories" (popular vote in round 1 and 2) and tied in 2 other metrics (State Delegate Equivalents and National Delegates).
Which technically .... drumroll ..... makes Sanders the winner, not pete who is tied in two categories and second in two others.
manipulating the count of National delegates is a way to give pete the "win" and it was done AFTER media and voters had moved on (so it did not even create buzz for him, but they rewrite the record).
Pete's premature victory lap with only 62 % of precints released (several strongholds of sanders missing, and the state party KNEW that of course, they had the count of voters, and not that much was going to change).
That manipulation already gave him the media bump that is the real prize of Iowa.
1
-
The super rich can be taxed later - IF the voters stop being brainwashed sheeple. Same voters that could rock the boat big time every 2 years. Congress - not the president has the most power domestically. All of the House and one third of Senate is elected every 2 years.
Money is some bytes in a server. It is a virtual thing, a legal and societal agreement. Sure the rich CAN buy up land, patents, companies, media outlets, goodwill from universities - IF the voters let them.
There are anti trust laws on the books, and things like wealth tax got them huffing and puffing. Not to forget the dirty L word: Land reform.
The U.S. oligarchs have regime changed any country that did that made even mild attempts at land reform or nationalizing key industries (and are super miffed at the few that somehow slipped through the cracks: Cuba, Russia, China. Also the hysteria about Venezuela although it is a capitalistic country where key industries are nationalized (oil). Even that is too much.
The whole Cold War was also to have a pretext to justify meddling with countries that were insubordinate to U.S. oligarch interests.
The U.S. voters couls have taken notice of successful land reform (one reason democratically elected Salvador Alliende was killed, he was a democrat, Chile had resources, that could have worked out very well and set a dangerous precedent. Countries using their natural resources and land to improve the situation of all citizens).
In Texas (ruthless) persons owned the oil drilling rights and land, and made huge amounts of money. That money could have served all of the state. It is like that in Norway. GWB and Cheney supported a coup attempt against Hugo Chavez, but the kidnapped president was released after 1 day or so (the masses had taken it to the streets and the military was not fully supportive of the coup either). One of the sins of Chavez: Nationalizing the VZ oil industry. You bet that rubbed GWB the wrong way.
There are things that you cannot undo - like declarations of war or climate change tipping points. or successful coups. Money is a highly virtual thing, if voters EVER care to understand it, they can reign in the oligarchs and the politicians that prop them up.
the U.S. voters could have had Sanders and rejected him in March 2020 (and the U.K. voters Corbyn in Dec. 2019) - so they are not ready for that, and that is the problem. The time for a general strike was in 2020. Did not happen, people just take it.
the bill might help to delay to point of no return regarding Climate Change. And if enough people suffer from the fallout they might remember. Also that the government CAN find the money if they want to.
1
-
1
-
Well, Bernie's VP pick for a start. She has been part of the Ohio legislature, so she lacks experience in the shark infested waters of D.C. In that respect she is like Mayor Pete. Only she has a spine, convictions and wants to work for The People, He is all about the sweet nothings, and she tells it like it is.
Nina is smart, and has a backbone and is young. Good speaker, woman of color so that helps to get the necessary electoral success (also in the midterms 2022) to get shit done, and to scare the hell out of those Democrats who are not rotten to the core but went along nicely with the machine. If the want to get reelected they better change course.
I hope Bernie has the generosity to give her (and other members of cabinet) a a BIG role in his admin, to deal with "She does not have the experience". She soon will have and high profile, too.
(Hillary's head would explode when Sanders wins in Nov. 2020, and she would be super bitter again if Nina becomes the first female president of the U.S. let's say in 2025 or maybe Sanders would step down in the middle of his second term. Which would give Nina the incumbent bonus.
(I wonder how the Democratic establishment would badmouth that - offending females, offending people of color).
Bernie has unusual energy for a man in his late 70s, but he needs a strong and good team (not the lobbyists) to share the burden. A strong VP (and potential future POTUS) would be part of that strategy. With being fully in the loop (so not like Biden) she could take over at any point or be a very strong contender in 2023 / 2024 if that should be necessary.
If the first term of Sanders is halfway successful (M4A, and some infrastructure, and increasing taxes for the rich) it should be a no brainer to have her as the frontrunner in the 2023 primaries.
1
-
1
-
1
-
btw: Sanders withdrew his endorsement of Cenk (running for Congress in CA) when his old baggage came up. Sanders and team have "not given in to PC culture" or the "demands of SJW's" as some friends of Cenk / genuine progressives like Kyle from Secular Talk claimed. Team Sanders just CHOSES THEIR BATTLES WISELY. Including when and how to have them. - The wisdom of unendorsing Cenk is now confirmed with the latest attack launched with the help of Warren - the first one that had the potential to HARM Sanders.
L.A. Times published an article going after Cenk but with SANDERS being mentioned in the headline (Sanders endorsed candidate ....). That article would have gotten PLENTY of coverage on TV, they would have snowballed it into a faux outrage campaign about Sanders - even more than a campaign against Cenk.
They were salivating about the chance to smear Sanders as being a sexist by proxy (and Cenk back in the day had made some weird remarks about sex, with animals. Sure it was meant as edgy and satirical. That kind of nuance get's lost in a smear campaign. If you cannot defend yourself with very simple arguments and very obvious fact you are going to lose in the court of public opinion).
Well, the Sanders campaign reacted immediately ("retracting" the endorsement) and robbed their enemies of that chance.
The DNC cultivated the impression in 2015 / 2016 that Sanders is a sexist, almost racially insensitive (they could not go any further, he had the Civil Rights record, while their candidate had been the Goldwater Girl and later wanted the young Superpredators brought to heel when she enthusiastically stumped for the Crime Bill). The many enemies of Sanders certainly intend to build on that groundwork to prevent him from winning in 2020.
They know that people in most cases read only headlines and maybe the first 2 paragraphes, the corporate media still can create, form and alter perceptions (they do it all the time when they help to push for war and regime change, or cement economic fairy tales). So of course they would have made that into a scandal, building on the "misogyny" narrative of 2015 / 2016.
Only that Sanders and team were smarter than that.
I think once Sanders is in office he can afford to handle it differently - but for now he has to keep the eyes on the prize and to stay focused: on getting elected. He will be smeared - but there is no need to hand his enemies ammunition on a silver platter. That recent attack by Warren and CNN was so over the top that it might have woken up some of the uncritical consumers of mainstream media. By and large it was a failure - and that makes it also harder for his enemies to launch the next attack on grounds of "sexisim".
I am now waiting for the accusations of Sanders being a Russian asset (Hillary Clinton did a test balloon in the Howard Stern interview, the guinea pigs were Tulsi Gabbard and Jill Stein, did not really work either) - or that Sanders is an antisemite.
Cenk has done a lot of good things for the progressive cause. There is legitimate critique as well (Russiagate, Hillary Clinton endorsement, in California (where the studio is located) they could have pushed for voting for Jill Stein. That was the strategy that Noam Chomsky recommends: voting for the Democrat in the swing state (while firmly holding your nose) and in the safely red and blue states voting third party.
But the good outweighs the bad with Cenk. Fighing against money in politics. Being critical of the war machine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Germany got the public option in 1884 and was the leader of the pack (not recommended, single payer for ALL is far superior). Many countries in Europe that had been severely hit by war overhauled their healthcare systems (or implemented something for the first time like the U.K.). I guess being hit that hard and then scramble to rise again meant a RESET in a way. Being occupied (like Germany and Japan) meant opposing parties came together to deal with the situation and make the best of it - so they had GOOD bipartisanship then (that was certainly the case in Germany and Austria).
Also: the Left had the moral authority in these times, (still in the U.S. with left economic policies, although the Red Scare provided the pretext to purge the left after the death of FDR).
in Germany / Austria some politicians of the provisory governments (allowed by the occupyers: U.S. U.K. France Soviet Union) came out of concentration camp (important political prisoners like leading Social Democrats were not kept in the worst camps, so they had a chance to survive).
Labour in Britain had a surprising win (during the war they had a unity government and no elections), in France the left and especially the far left (Communists) had refused to cooperate with the German occupiers, they were the Resistance etc.
The Lefties and even some of the Conservatives had convictions, and a spine. Being a Lefty wasn't for the faint of heart in the 1920s - 1940s.. It was not an easy and lucrative career then to fight for unions, or to become a Social Democrat, let alone a Communist or a memer / activist of any other far left movement (not even before Hitler had his silent coup in early 1933 - with the informal help of the "conservative" pillars of German society btw.). Many European countries went the far-right, even fascist route due to the ongoing economic stress after WW1 (which ended in Nov. 1918). Becoming a fascist state was only the most consequential in Germany.
In the U.S. there were some fascist tendencies, too. But far right (fake) populism was kept at bay by the left populism of FDR.
After WW2 there was also the insight that ongoing economic stress had led to WW2, so there were politicians who wanted to do better this time. Arranging for healthcare for all was one way to make sure the masses would not fall for rightwing populists again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The effect of even tiny cost savings per unit (that make only sense for the shareholders and management) is the reason for the Texas energy prices and policy to have a stand alone grid when they could enjoy the backup from the much larger national grid. Their prices and price policy do not allow for preparedness, do not allow to encourage reduced consumption in summer (the heat waves are the only time when some providers make some profits), or to pepare for extreme events they can expect to have every 10 years.
Except El Paso region, for geographic reasons they are on the federal grid, so they must abide by federal regulations which include pepraedness and more reserves - so they had no problem in Feb. 2021 and avoided all the damage for regular users.
The costs for winterizing would not be that high, that it harms consumers or normal businesses, but the large companies that the Tx politicians lure into the state can pass on the small savings as profits and thos savings do add up with large volume versus few beneficiaries.
Large companies (chemical or oil industry or call centers or server farms) usually have a backup plan (diesel generator), and will be the last to lose power, and they have maintainance crews to handle bursting pipes every 5 - 10 years.
They stand to save more by the low energy prices than they stand to lose by the occasional extreme weather event, and if not, they work to get bailouts. And which CEO that props up the current Tx policy with donations expects to still be in the company 10 years later ? Or to be in Texas ? They cash in on the short term gains and the motto is: After me the deluge.
(it is not like they pay an arm and a leg in El Paso region for electricty despite the investments they made after 2011. When they like all of Texas were hit the last time - and boy did those investments to winterize and to be willing to be on the grid - so they could ramp up imports - pay off). If you do infrastructure and construction codes ! right (insulation also helps against heat waves and occasionally against extreme cold) the first time you write if off over 20 or 30 years and be done with it. Cutting corners and then having to retrofit costs more.
1
-
1
-
@aozf05 And maybe in 2021 and 2022 Dems will get the Senate back (GA elections) - or later. Many Senators are OLD the landscape can change quickly if one has to step down or dies. - Then there is no Mitch the Turtle that helps sellout Democrats (their donors) by standing in the way.
If they now vote for M4A they will be reminded of that vote when it becomes a possibility to pass the bill.
If they bolt now or later it will be a major political liability, especially in Congress that is voted for every 2 years. AND FIERCE progressives should SET THEM UP for that dilemma by forcing a vote. Now.
it is a long term strategy, step after step they are DRAGGED. Talk (lip service for Medicare for some maybe) is cheap. A vote counts. And if you vote for now (sure it will not be passed anyway) how do you defend not voting the same way when I CAN be passed.
Back in the day voters and the pulic missed out on the information, mainstream media of course did not report on such strategic votes that changed as soon as there was a danger of being successful.
But NOW social media helps to kick their behinds and make the voters aware of the hypocrisy and the double game.
Sanders had a bill in the Senate and even Ted Cruz and a few other R Senators voted for it (maybe also with a cynical calculation - that they knew enough D Senators would desert). 13 Senators were against it becoming legal that drugs could be imported from Canada. (it would have started the legal process, it was not like the bill passes and soon after it is possible). Well it did no pass. In Jan 2017 it was known that Cory Booker most likely would run for president in 2019 / 2020. He was one of the traitors. If all the D Senators would have voted FOR the bill it would have passed because a few R's joined them. Ted Cruz on grounds of competition and free market. (Plus he may get more money from other industries and does not depend that much on pharma money).
Sanders expressed his "regret" that some Democrats did not vote for the proposal (I think it was no bill, as I said the first step). He was very mild in his rherotic but he did not forget to mention Cory Booker by name. Ooops ! And social media was not mild, they took their cues from Sanders and slammed the Dems especially Booker.
Booker came up with same lame excuse and took notice that votes like that could harm his run. Some of these sellouts may conclude that they would have to throw THAT industry under the bus if they want to keep their seat or aim for the highest office. so they would have to make do with only selling out to finance, big oil, the war machine, but give the voters at least healthcare.
That vote can be used against them in primaries and they know it. If they do not dare to be associated with a vote against M4A - well, one more vote for the good cause, steadily working on it.
If they vote against it it increases the chances of a progressive to win a primary against them.
many of the D politicians are old (I think even oler on average than the R's).
There will be special elections in the future Progressives better work on their name recognition, even if they lose the first races.
1
-
1
-
One reason why the single payer systems are all so much more cost-efficient: the money goes into delivering care, and not into a bureaucraZy. - Healthcare worthy of a first world country is so costly that it needs plenty of subsidies even in cost-efficient systems. - OR the LOWER INCOME GROUPS get no treatment. Or there will be unpaid bills and lots and lots or red tape.
If patients have high co-pays, have to navigate a buraucraZy (who gets what kind of helpful program) - many will not pay the bills, that starts MORE trouble for hospitals. Not only will they have to navigate many very different contracts. on top they will still end up with unpaid bills. The next level of red tape.
the proposal of +Shshadri goes in the opposite direction of simple streamlined cost-efficient admin. It increases complexity, red tape, admin costs.
if you do not let low-income patients die on the steps of the hospital (which would be the other cost-efficient method) - you can as well define a modest UPFRONT contribution for everyone (a percentage of wage), that grants FULL COVERAGE - and be done with it.
In either case subsidies will be necessary - but with single payer you keep at least the admin costs down. (Plus avoid cruelty).
Single payer countries get all advantages of preventive care. No chasing after unpaid bills. The doctors and nurses do not waste time to fight with a for-profit insurance company whether or not a treatment will be paid for.
The doctor makes a diagnosis and a treatment plan - it will be paid for.
Single payer avoids toxic incentives - like "milking" good insurance contracts to make up for the money of the unpaid bills (or just to make more profit). Or doing tests that are not necessary, or keeping some patients a day or two longer than necessary in the hospital.
If everyone can potentially have the test or a surgery, there are certain costs - which is fine if the outcomes can be argued. But testing just for the sake of it will not be done (and the rates are competitive, it would not even make sense for a hospital. They do not make money on the test or the drugs - and for worktime they do not get that much. The systems are set up like clockworks, they have a lot of things going via the lab (necessary testing) and that takes care of having enough revenue.
Every treatment that is medically warranted will be paid. The doctors make those decisions. The agency provides the framework and negotiates costs (like medical drugs, costs for ambulances or airlifts, what costs a day in intensive care or a day in a regular hospital bed, ....).
1
-
If a country wants EVERYONE to have healthcare w/o hassle - doing it with modest wage related deductions combined with gov. subsidies (but paid to the public agency, or the states or cities that run hospitals) is the MOST UNBUREAUCRATIC way to go about it = little overhead.
Subsidies that are paid to individuals are potentially more hassle. In single payer countries the patients do not need their wallet or bank account for the healthcare system. Their employer is resposible for the wage deductions, no payment is due when getting care.
The insured / patients have little contact with the public non-profit insurance agency (and do not miss it).
If a country would give subsidies per person HOW would you do it ? Via income tax ? - what is with people who do not have a job, or pay little tax, etc. etc. - it is easier to calculate the costs for the whole pool and that the large players (agency, gov. hospitals, ...) deal with each other and leave the citizens alone.
That is how the single payer nations do it, that is how the Sanders MfA proposal works: wage deductions, and money from the gov. to the Medicare agency.
People with better wages pay more although there is often a cap (not sure about MfA - the systems that I know), the company pays more for the staff with high wages (more is relative - think 2 - 3,8 % of wage before taxes), and the rest comes from general tax revenue (from affluent people and profitable biz).
That means that low income people or start-ups and smaller biz that do not make much profit have an advantage.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
to be fair it is tough to govern in cities like Soutbend when the federal government promotes deindustrialization, the budgets are limited, he inherited problems AND a racist police force and racial disparities. Maybe Pete even did an O.K. job, or decent in some areas. BUT:
I mean O.K. for someone operating under a neoliberal paradigm and he used that office only as starting point for his career.
Sanders also aimed for higher office but he CARED about his constituents as long as he was there. He had no big donors, that was the first well paying jobs with benefits, and he was 40 years old. He strived to deliver as long as he served as mayor and the voters gave him good grades.
Won first election with 10 more votes, in a race with a Democratic incumbent that seemed unbeatable plus 2 Independents, Sanders being the one Independent that got relevant support. The Republican party did not even bother to run a candidate in that race.
2 years later it was a race with 3 major competitors: a R, D and incumbent Independent Sanders (plus maybe more independents that played little role, outsiders running as Independents is a tradition in Vermont). Turnout was much higher and Sanders won the 3 way race comfortably.
he wanted to keep that job, and his employers (the voters of Burlington) gave him good grades. I think that is one of the advantages of Sanders: he owes his career and secure financial status to the grassroots, he was content with thepay and benefits of the office (and did try to get more). He never forgot about the power of grassroots and who are his employers (the voters).
Pete does not care: He did not notice the homeless that surround Harvard (those elite universities drive up rent and pay no local taxes, so no budgets for public housing), he was slightly dismissive of the movement to get living wages for the blue collars that keep Harvard going. There were students that stood with the workers - but not Pete.
he just has no regard and real compassion for the little people, so he does not bother to get creative. Plus those grassrootsy solutions that can help a mayor to stretch budgets violate the neoliberal paradigm. Usually it means that real estate developers and the landlord class do not make the big profits.
There is a mayor in California who tried to use eminent domain against the banks when they sat on forclosed property during / after the crisis. in the end the state Supreme court stopped her - but her voters knew that she tried. They came after Chevron (fossil fuel) which had poured a lot of money into the local races to get a Chervron friendly city council. Under the leadership of that activist mayor voters cleaned house over the course of 1 or 2 elections and Chevron DID finally pay what they owed in local taxes.
There is a community nearby New York City which has had an alternative currency (Ithaca Hours) for decades. Might help the local economy a little bit - and citizens see that local government does something.
Black and white complacent Southbend citizens - for pete they were voter material and he needed them to get his career started.
The gigs with McKinsey helped to network (the professional managerial clas and the consultant class is often initiated at McKinsey). the gig with the CIA helped as well (plus he ticks the "veteran" box, likely his service was less dangerous than for normal soldiers. Given his meagre record in office he had to polish up the resume).
to offset any good he may have done in Southbend - of course he very gladly obliged his biggest donor after he won the first time and fired the first black police chief. And coddled the white police force (a part of them racist for sure). Did not care about disproportionate weed arrests (1 : 4 white to black arrests).
Bulldozed 1000 homes. They could have tried an alternative currency to finance repairs, to house the homeless, getting people (homeless) back to work, train them at construction. (there are experiments regarding alternative currencies, an academically minded person like him should know that). Also: he could have studied what Sanders did in Burlington (creative ways to finance public housing or projects), I think that was quite successful and got Sanders national attention in the 1980s).
People that already did well and then see some development in a few areas (even if it means gentrification for low income people) interpret that as a success story. A part of the city looks much better, and more presentable. Plus the mayor is well-spoken and educated and a veteran (well it was a CIA gig) - so for voters that do O.K. Pete was good enough.
1
-
1
-
They can spoil the media buzz for the first won caucus but they cannot steal the votes. They were called out on twitter to make the corrections. And the Sanders people had fought hard in the reform commission that the numbers of round 1 and 2 (count of people)were released, not only (like in the past= the calculation of SDE's that the person did that headed the event.
Plus to reduce the importance of the STATE Delegates Equivalents. still relevant for the STATE party, but not for the NATIONAL convention where the nominee is announced / elected. Out of tradition (SDE used to be more relevant because in the past they could indeed change the National delegate count) media always showed that metric, the only one that ever mattered.
Now there are approx. 1680 locations, usually run by normal people, volunteers. They couldn't cheat and I think in most cases they wouldn't do that anyway. Might be different in the cities where the most people come and where maybe party apparatchiks run the event and might be tempted to manipulate in favor of party darlings.
So I guess there were mistakes made but not intentional. Normally the mistake are not that consequential. The large assembley should be run more professionally, and the smaller and many events should not matter, the errors should equally harm all, so in the end it does not change the outcome.
In the past caucus goers that thought something was not quite right had no recourse. One person leaves early ? they are included in the base when they do the percentage calculation.
So starting with 95 persons, 2 leave before the first count is even done. The rules are clear, they must calculate based on 95 - , but if they didn't do it correctly that can make the difference between being viable or not.
if the total is 93: 14 persons will get you over the threshold of 15 %
if the total is 95: you will need 15 persons to get over the threshold.
If a group for one candidate does not make it in the first round they can try to convince others to join them in the second round - but if that does not work out they are not viable. Now the location may have 10 delegates to award (rural areas get a lot of delegates comparatively) - but that is 10 of 11,000.
Also new rule: if a group got more than 15 % in the first round those group members are BOUND, they cannot "realign" with another group. Such a group can court others to join them, but they cannot lose members. Only: such cases also happened in the 2020 caucus.
But I doubt it made that difference in the gand scheme of things unless a lot of people were allowed to desert. (If they leave they can only leave the event, but they are not supposed to SWITCH. Let's say one person joins team Bernie, which is viable, and then sees that Biden is not viable in this location. Well - too late, that vote is locked down.
Again if n t mass desertation mass was allowed in locations with many caucus goers, it should not matter in the grand scheme of things.
Sanders had 6000 votes more in the first round compared to number 2 Pete Buttigieg. Sanders gained in round 2 but Buttigieg gained more: so the gap was reduced to 2,500.
I guess the votes that were up for grabs in round 2 came from more centrist leaning persons (Biden, Klobuchar) and went more often with the centrist doing the best. I had hoped that Yang and Gabbard would be doing better and their fans would join team Bernie if they not viable, but that effect did not bring much.
So while it may stand out to disappointed Yang or Steyer or Klobuchar supporters that they spent 3 hours on a winter evening caucusing and could not earn their candidate some delegates - in the grand scheme of things it does not matter. I guess people are not always aware that it is 1 or 2 or 10 delegates out of 11,000.
They are supposed to close the doors: Caucus goers can leave (although they shouldn't if their team made it over 15 %), but you cannot hinder people to go.
But you cannot have more people IN TOTAL at the location in round 2 than in round 1. I suppose that was another mistake that volunteers made, maybe they could not control the doors in the location, maybe they did not know or care. I doubt someone "spiked" the event (Example: calling the wife from the couch "Come over honey, team Biden needs some help or they will not even make it over 15 %).
These are volunteers often people that know each other, normal people don't do that - party apparachtiks might do that - well often their jobs, budgets and privileges would be threatened. If they get orders from above to promote one candidate over the other (state party of Nevada 2016, remember the voice call, when they should have counted. They decided that team HRC was louder and team Bernie disagreed. Now team HRC might have been more numerous and even louder. But the rulse are clear: if there is any ambiguity there must be a COUNT. Now you cannot manipulate a handcount in broad daylight, but you can claim that the other team was louder and it was obvious who was the majority.
Media helped them to cover up for that by circulating the lie about violence and chairs thrown around.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Spending per person in 2017: U.S. USD 10,240, wealthy !! single payer nations 5250 on average (4,700 - 5,700 - Japan .... Germany). UK (defunding NHS in the last 10 years) only 4250 - that is only 41 % of the U.S. spending - but they are stretched to the limit.
Their NHS is nationalized and even doctor practices and all hospitals are run by the NHS and therefore public non-profits. That may explain the extraordinary cost-efficiency and how they stay afloat with the insufficient budgets.
Switzerland also relies on private insurance companies (but they are at least strictly regulated). USD 8,000
(that is what you get in the best case scenario with "private insurance" dominating. Even if you factor in the higher cost of living = higher wages, which are important for the costs - neighbours like Germany, France, Austria (5,700 / 5,400 / 4,900 USD) which are also wealthy nations with good healthcare have much lower spending per person and a comparable age structure in society. It is not only the highe wage costs.
All numbers from Keiser Family Foundation based on OECD data for 2017.
If it costs double of what it should cost - it is easy to do better after a transition phase. IF politicians are willing to step on the toes of the profiteers.
Most nations made the decision after WW2 that healthcare would be mostly off limits for the profiteers. Hospitals and insurance are non-profits. Doctors and pharmacies are small companies but have a contract, and they do not have THAT much power or resources to rig the system. The only powerful for-profit player is the pharmaceutical industry - and they have a very standardized
They do have insurance corporations - for other things - healthcare plays little role (some supplemental on top of public mandatory insurance that covers all that is medically necessary). So these insurance companies never got as greedy.
The free market can on principle not function with healthcare. For that all actors must have about the same power. consumers take a lot of power back (even if the product is complicated and they deal with multinationals) when they can avoid to buy or delay the purchase or improvise around.
That is not an option with healthcare. The industry will always be 4 steps ahead of the consumers and 2 steps ahead of the regulators and lawmakers (because IF the profit motive plays a role in very individual and complex scenarios - like a medical diagnos and treatment scheme - it is IMPOSSIBLE to monitor on behalf of the consumers. Regulators would need insane amount of staff, it would need to be very instrusive, and the large players with the money and lawyers would find plenty of ways to game the system).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why do politicians play along ? - those who call the shots ! in the party will get a cushy job if they want to leave politics or if they lose an election. 70 % of the D seats are safe, so the majority can blackmail the voters with "lesser evilism". Plus of course in the presidential races.
Nice little country you have here, vote for Hillary Clinton, wouldn't it be a shame if Trump would become president .....
The lower charges if they are obedient have a chance to be provided for as well. It creates an extra incentive to grovel before those who have power and "access".
Money in political campaigns ALSO fuels a jobs machine for lower charges: consultants, strategists. Mainstream media profits from the ads (a lot of spending) so they will help out and hire some ex-politicians.
Claire McCaskill got a job after she lost in the midterms - she did not get it for being an intellectual, well spoken, well informed, intersting or having charisma. (I do not know why she did not retire - she is old enough !)
The party establishment also are the gatekeepers to media contacts and the contacts to the big donors for campaigns AND for the jobs for ex-politicians (book deals, jobs for relatives, lucrative real estate deals, ...)
* I heard interviews with Frank - but did not read the book.
it was Cenk from TYT - Dems are paid to lose - like in show wrestling matches.
The story how Al Gore was told to not make a fuzz in 2000. How progressives that raise money in grassroots campaigns are TOLD WHOM to hire in some instances (they get a list - you bet the people on the list are loyalists that are rewarded for their help at some time to keep the self-referential system going).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Polls oversampling old voters are the new Superdelegate count. In 2016 the superdelegates votes which HRC got before even the debates started were always factored in by mainstream media when going on about her "lead"
She did have amajor lead in the beginning, but it was embarrassing how it evaporated given her instiutional advantages, name recognition, the money, the endorsements - then the "Superdelegate count help to preserve the image that she was the logical winner.
Since the superdelegates are removed in the FIRST round, media have no excuse to manipulate PERCECPTION.
NOW the polls they publish make Biden look good.
Landlines automatically oversample older people especially those living in less urban areas (they often need the landline there to even have internet). = people that tend to get their news from the gatekeepers on TV. And they - unlike the younger people - know Biden forever - he was at large under Bill Clinton in the 1990s.
It is also hard to poll correctly when a candidate changes WHO turns out.
That was to the advantage of AOC, and the reason why Crowley did not unleash the "machine" against her in a last minute effort. Together they had max. 35,000 votes in the primaries. A desperate effort with all the Democratic machine has to offer would have been embarrassing - but it could have saved Crowley (the means might have been illegal like to activate city employess and nudging them what to do - well it would not have had anymore consequences than the voter roll purge in the 2016 primaries).
But luckily the Crowley campaign relied on the usual method of polling which showed a comfortable lead for him in the week before the primary.
They had no means of assessing how AOC had activated non-voters and young people.
No chance for Crowley or the party machine to win the 14th in N.Y. back, that ship has sailed ....
The same difficulty for the pollster also showed in the snap election in the UK in 2017 where Corbyn made good on a 16 or 20 points lag within approx. 7 weeks - he activated traditional non-voters, especially young voters. The pollsters KNEW he had activated the young vote (that was a much larger race so more resources for polling, larger samples, etc) but they still did not get it right.
Now in the case of Sanders one could factor in HOW he is going to change turnout - but the pollsters have "plausible deniability" (technically they adhere to the rules of the trade) - and they support a certain narrative.
Sanders better kills it in the first primaries. (And the skewed polls might allow them to rig machines). The only thing that can counteract that is to overwhelm them with numbers.
Biden already reduces his campaigning, considering how "popular" he allegedly is that is weird. But these days everyone has a camera so the media doing nice close-ups and no wide shots covering the whole crowd will not help. Some citizen will provide the revealling pics. of another inevitable candidate with "intimate" events.
1
-
1
-
1) the story is a fabrication and a whitewash (and if so - a dumb one) Well allegedly she has a lot of former Clinton staffers, so .... 2) the story is true - in which case Warren is a fool / and would roll over before being pushed. Respectively giving up all power for perceived influence after Clinton had become Potus.
There was a Run Liz, run draft in late 2014 or maybe early 2015, and Sanders coordinated with her, before he announced in late April or early May 2015. In other words, If she had run and had supported a bold healthcare reform, he likely would campaigned for her - there is a very good chance she could be president right now. Warren would have taken away from the typical female Clinton support (Hillary would have been mad like hell), and Sanders would have delivered the Rust Belt States.
Warren also had no baggage (except for the First Nation heritage story and with some briefing she should have glossed over that).
She was certain (like everyone else) that Clinton would win the nomination and almost certain she would win the general election.
Sanders and Jeff Weaver planned the campaign with (modest) 33 millions in small donations - Sanders wanted to raise awareness on some issues (healthcare, regulation of finance) - they had no idea they would get so far (I got the 33 million statement from Jeff Waver in an interview in summer 2017. He was asked: What would you do differently.
They did not have a strong groundgame because they had no idea fundraising would be so successful, they got 250 millions. Weaver did not say we did not believe we could win - that was obvious to me. Anyway they were were busy with hiring, training, testing things. Building the plane while it was rolling on the tarmac so to speak.
it wasn't in vain, they have applied the lessons from 2015 / 2016.
In other words: Sanders did not give a damn if the Clinton machine was pissed that he entered the primaries, or if fellow Democratic Senators would mind (that he challenged the annointed one) - he did his thing and created his platform.
Meanwhile Warren sat on the sidelines - and maybe she really foolishly believed she could exert pressure on president Clinton later.
Well more like - that she would get a cabinet position. - Sure, sure - Clinton would take kindly to being pressured and maybe being outshined by another woman. It was bad enough that she had to fight with 2 dudes - primary in 2008 resp. 2016. For the same reason Clinton would never, ever have picked Warren as VP. It was bland right-to-work-for-less Tim Kaine a conservative Democrat. Another sign to the progressive wing that her campaign saw no need to court them, but that they went after the mythical moderate Republican.
I read that Warren's team allegedly wrote a mail to team Clinton that Warren was "flexible" regarding Wallstreet regulation. (likely Podesta emails)
That is the reason she kept her deafening silence on DAPL. She did not want to offend the fossil fuel industry AND the investors (Banks, Wallstreet, ....) to keep her chances intact. Then everybody thought Clinton would become POTUS.
I hold DAPL more against Warren than not endorsing Sanders - but both episodes show how weak she is. With poor political instincts and unrealistic strategy (that is if they haven't invented the whole thing).
Warren is certainly better than most of the lot - but she is a very distant second, third, fourth best to Sanders (I would pick Yang or also Gabbard over her. Especially Gabbard has a backbone and on top she could deliver Republican votes. Not sure if Yang is honest, he is inexperienced, Gabbard at least has some foreign policy positions).
NOW Warren runs in the primaries. One could expect that she would take away from the votes of Sanders - and that does not seem to bother her. - Good thing that surprisingly her support (white, educated, affluent, coastal) does not really overlap with the support of Sanders. If there is a fight at the convention - I would not bet on Warren to support Sanders over Biden, or Mayor Pete.
Likely we would be treated to another fluff piece why it is a good thing to go along with the party establishement.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@roneen1000 She was lower middle class and her family was doing the best. so she had some insight even as teenager that she was lucky compared to her cousins. Also: she had to help her mother when the father died, and eventually her mother had to sell the home, she could not hold on to it. I hope she sold it to a good price, at least they could ward off being foreclosed.
They are not the kind of family that bankrupts upwards.
She worked service sector jobs and on campaigns and did not have health insurance until she became a member of Congress.
She was not exactely poor, and it helps that she has a boyfriend so she could share costs of living with him. but I think she understands struggle. Many politicians have a background where the family was always financially safe, always had good healthcare coverage.
If a person does not sell out (HRC also comes from a humble background) - having experienced or observed struggle shapes the world view.
A teenager that is thoughtful enough to registers: I am lucky. * will also have a different attitude like the son of affluent Dr. Ron Paul. His father has libertarian views, the son has them and more or less inherited the seat from his father. Rand Pauls family never had financial problems even though Ron was one of the better ones of the lot, and also not nearly as rich as many others.
Pelosi, Feinstein, Schumer, Gore, the Clintons, Obama, .... got rich during and / or after office. Holding on to the idea that you are a decent person (not a sellout) will require some cognitive dissonance, and it makes them unable to empathize with regular people (if they would do that their better self would stir and urge them not to be such sellouts).
AOC even as a teenager knew:
My parents got this house in a good neighbourhood (she was 4 or 5 when they moved), so we can go to good public schools (better than the schools of all my relatives). We can afford this house because my mother cleans houses. Her father was trained as an architect, but he either was not very good in his profession or in marketing himself. Probable also not very eager to make more money. And certainly not well connected.
(You bet the affluent folks in that area liked to have AOC's mother as cleaning lady. She was not one of the constantly changing employees of a company. She lived in the area, had her kids in the schools she had a reputation to lose. If a cleaning company works with hired staff the clients never know who will be the person that sees their homes, valuables, the floor plan, the setu up of the cameras and alarm system, the weak spots of the home (for burglary).
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Sanders plan DOES incluse dental and vision. it would be BETTER. Medicare is BANNED from negotiating drug prices. They have the oldes patient group (plus 65) which also likely needs the most meds - and pay way too much. They can easily reduce costs for that by 40 % and THAT effect can be instant. Big Pharma would riot of course - if they could not make more profit in the U.S. than in Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, ....
Not all cost savings potential would manifest immediately. It is better to have non-profit hospitals (they are often run by towns, cities or states - with financial help of course).
The bills have large budgets to help the staff of the denial industry with retraining (1 million people if I remember correctly. Not all will lose the job, but billing for doctors and hospitals would get much easier and more streamlined).
On the other hand there is a transition phase of 4 years so in that time they need to have the both systems, the staff, the software.
There will be a backlog - people are not taking their insuline, not only will that cause suffering and premature deaths (and completely preventable) - but it WILL result in higher costs WHEN the damage done by lack of proper and timely care manifests.
And the people that delay having surgery would use the opportunity etc.
but over the course of 10 years the spending per person should come done considerably. And no hassle.
The U.S. already spends on average 10,240 for every person in the country (healthy or sick, young or old, with or w/o insurance). That was in 2017. The wealthy ! single payer nations spend on average 5,240. The range is from USD 4250 (UK) to 4700-4900 Japan, Belgium, France, Canada, Australia .... to Germany with 5,700 USD
There is plenty of room for improvements if a service costs (almost) double of what it should cost. So it is certainly possible to include dental and vision without driving up costs or having co-pays.
1
-
@neilwilliams2883 You can see it that way - and your fellow citizens have the RIGHT to live their sexuality or to end a pregnancy within the legal boundaries. None. Of. Your. Business. I disagree with your assessment but that is beyond the point. A women can be "promiscious" as you call it (whatever that means to YOU).
It is none of your business. You think that if a woman gets pregnant (whether by "allowed" sex within a marriage, or "promiscious" sex) then it means she MUST carry the pregnancy to term.
You are entitled to your opinion for your personal decisions or trying to influence your family. You do you.
That woman (often a mother, often married) and her family have the right to do THEIR own thing, if they do not want to add that responsibility to their life, they are FREE to decide against it.
You may think that abortion is murder, the fertilized egg, the zygote, the embryo, the fetus is a person with the legal rights of personhood (Supreme court disagrees btw, and it does not rhyme with the medical facts).
But still many think a zygote or a fetus with 12 months is the same as a child a baby. Well, then you would not want to have an abortion in your family. Just keep your opinion to yourself or to your family.
Other people do not think an embryo has personhood and is the same as a cuddly born baby.
And all other first world nations (and the U.S. supreme Court in 1970s) agree with them. Plus the many females that had abortions when that was a high risk for their health and a high legal risk. Some of them are still alive to tell the tale of legal consequences for doctors that helped them and the results of backalley abortions. Not many qualified doctors dared to provide safe abortions, at least not for regular income women. The rich always could arrange for safe abortions.
Poland has some reactionary politicians that try to reverse the clock, after they forced out the sitting Supreme Court justices (with an age limit ) and stacked the court with their reactionaries.
(Ongoing mass demonstrations this fall).
I hope it costs them the next election. Also: Polish women can of course go to one of the neighbour countries, Germany, Ukraine, Russia, Lithuania, Slowakia. all but Russia are in the EU so easy to travel there. Meanwhile German NGO's have organized help to make abortions in Germany available and affordable for Polish women and families.
I assume they can get their hands on an abortion pill, too.
There are orgs who provide the abortion pills (which are an option for early stage abortions) to women in the U.S. They do an online consultation (to make sure if the woman has any health risks that would preclude her from taking it savely) and give the woman instructions how to use it. At home. And then send an inconspicious package or letter containing the pills.
In a country where women have easy access to safe and legal abortions the unwanted pregnancies are ended early.
As for the "later" abortions, they usually have to do with the health of the mother or the future child. "late term" abortions mean later than 5 months, sendond or third trimester (it does not mean a viable infant ready to be born and able to survive).
Those abortions are often tragic cases where the family very much wanted a child or was positive about the pregnancy. Until doctors informed them .....
You may think it is your place to interfere with the very personal and hard decisions of a family at that time.
Many other people disagree that oyu ahve the right to meddle with the personal life of your fellow citizens (not your subjects, they are your peers).
1
-
those who run the large cities (usually "Democrats") collude with the real estate "developers" and there is good money to be made. The profiteers are offering the sell out politicians sweet deals * - hiring family members, giving them tips about interesting deals on the "market" - or helping them to make them over 3 middle men. * Or giving them a job after they leave office.
(* the civil servant that made the "error" to purge the voter rolls in New York in the 2016 primary (Brooklyn etc. - Sanders territory) got a sweet deal for a house (selling price way above market price, the house was not in good shape). The buyer was someone who had connections to the Clintons.)
Millionaires buying up real estate for "investement" is going on all over the planet in interesting, booming, safe and beautiful destinations (peferably in Western democracies). The millionaire class prices everybody out of the market.
In Seattle it was the Tech boom on top. The city could use eminent domain to buy up houses and land and make them publicly owned (even better give them to coops, small ones and the city just offers services for advice of architects, maintainance know-how, legal advice). The renters of these houses / members of the co-op would have the right to vote as long as they live there, they would form close knit communities and would take good care of the house. They would know how lucky they are.
That effect could be seen in Grenfell Tower in London. The upper class that had come into the area, was taking over. That old building was there, it was affordable housing. The renters knew they were lucky to live there, that the haves would like to get rid of them. That helped to form a strong sense of community and they had activities like an annual summer fest. (in the interviews about the Grenfell fire I noticed many times that the survivors and people who lived nearby mentioned the community spirit and the Grenfell spirit).
The city council was sympathetic to the mindset of the landlord / investor class. The renters of Grenfell tower were sitting on a goldmine and a hindrance to the investor class to make money with that object (tear it down and build luxury apartments, get rid of the low and regular income people, and the old eye sore).
So they had no intention to do meaningful maintaince. On the other hand they just could not throw out the people who did not "deserve" to be in this now upscale environment.
those social housing units belong to councils and the Tories had the upper hand in that district.
Not that Labour dominated councils are that much better in their role as "landlords". The members of councils either sell out - and / or they are starved for money. (And under Tony Blair the party turned neoliberal and they made it impossible for the citizens to get rid of council members (no "primaries"). If one such shill got voted in they had a seat for life - or the Tory candidate won, which was even worse.
But even well meaning councils that respond to the voters are forced to sell off old social housing units to finance maintainance of old houses or building new ones. The number of available apartments does not decrease with privatization which is good for success "statistics" - but the renters are then exposed to predatory practices.
So what budgets the Tory council (comprised of affluent citizens) had were used to pretty up the facade of Grenfell Tower (THAT was no problemexcept for optics - it was concrete with metal windows). Energy efficiency is not that much of an issue in such a building, it is very compact.
The renovated, better looking facade dealt with the sensibilites of the investor class, Grenfell Tower just looked 70s social housing style.
All the requests of the Grenfell Action Group (renters of the house) which was very engaged were equally eagerly suppressed by those "who know best". The council was quite annoyed about the unwashed masses being so involved and demanding certain improvements (like new electric installation, the existing was a fire hazard because it was overused and not up to date, fires had broken out, but had been contained).
Such high rise buildings are not meant to be evacuated, they have structual "compartments" that are meant to restict a fire to certain areas and the firefighters can go in and contain it.
The first bidding for the renovation included cladding that was fire safe (or at least safer). The group of the renters had to resort to freedom of information requests to get that draft. But then the renovation company changed the type of cladding and the company that "managed the house" for the council did not notice or did not mind. The group was refused further insight into the files (THEY were worried about fires in general - electricity installation - and had architects in the group - they might have noticed the change that had so catastrophic consequences.
That kind of cladding was a little bit cheaper - and it became fuel when flames lept out of a window (a standard kitchen fire that was easily dealt with on the inside). The cladding was a thin aluminium hull around a core of polyethylen. If the cladding is exposed to heat for some time (it depends on time and temperature - a few minutes if it is hot enough) the PE starts melting, the Alu-hull cracks, the molten PE seeps through - and it becomes excellent fuel to ignite the neighbouring pieces of cladding. A chain reaction.
While the firefighters gave the "fire out" in the kitchen unbeknowst to them the fire had IGNITED the cladding on the outside. They would have had maybe 5 - max. 10 minutes to contain it, if they would have had ladders already in place on the outside. After max. 10 minutes they had lost the building - but they did not realize that right away.
The fire raced across the facade and reached the top stories within maybe 15 minutes. (original fire was in the 2nd or 3rd floor, the house has more than 20 floors).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It takes a lot of media impact and time to overcome such a strong brand (it does not matter if the brand - Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden friend of black people - has anything to do with reality). ALSO: Sanders KNEW that Corporate media would not be supportive - getting friendly or neutral coverage is a godsend if the candidate has a small donation budget (planned only 30 millions), no national name recognition.
Sanders got exposure by independent media on the internet, the left leaning are all firmly in Sanders camp. but older voters (white, black,....) still get their news from TV.
The effect of positive mainstream media coverage:
Buttigieg or Klobuchar- or Sanders in 2015, all nobody's nationally: Difference is pete was hyped a LOT, they tried to make Klobuchare a thing, too - despite low polling. Such media coverage is very valuable, it is better than expensive ads, because many people still believe the "news" on TV.
So the Sanders campaign had to prepare for the early states, it is harder to get volunteers when you are not well known. they were building the plane while it was rolling on the tarmac for take-off.
They were lucky: not many established strategist or consultants were willing to work with them (for fear of retaliation of the , so they had to hire activists / community organizers. Not the chic, well connected career oriented types that wan to get at the troughs in D.C.
Passionate people, that had fought for a cause before and usually with small budgets. So they tried something new and tried to find an approach where volunteers would hold small gatherings to recruit other volunteers. Or signing up people at large rallies.
It took them a few months to find an approach that worked, then they started phone calls by the millions - but then Iowa caucus was already around the corner. The Southern states were not long afterwards, so they never really caught up.
The comparsion with the campaign of Klobuchar is not correct she got plenty of friendly airtime. And not much scrutiny either - throwing things at staff. Not much reporting about the insane prosecution of a black young man, essentially with no evidence whatsoever, not considering his alibis etc.
Even IF not convicted. Putting a person throught the costs and stress of a trial should be avoided, not when the prosecutor does not even care if the suspect does have alibis. And public defenders are notoriously overworked and underfunded.
Sunni of The View (a former defense attorney) held the feet of Klobuchare to the fire she had looked at the case and found it shocking.
A black little girl had been killed and having a "successful prosecution" was more important than finding the real culprit.
But after a short time of reporting the media "graciously" returned to friendly Amy coverage.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Voters like this man sniff that Warren comes from the same class as them. Sanders is just too "uncough" with the message for the working poor - on the surface you could think if they shrink from Sanders, what is the attraction of Warren ? She purports to be more or less the same. - but the existence of the working poor does not reflect well on that class of people and they are slightly bothered by it.
So they do not like the vibes of Sanders and they do like the FAMILIAR vibes of Warren (Republican until her 40s, defended big biz when they had to pay damages. Worked her way up in the upper middle class. Affluent, educated, white).
And based on that FEELING they reverse engineer their arguments.
Being a historian he is remarkably uninterested in FACTS (and the past of his prefered candidate)
Warren only talked tough when she scolded the banksters. I liked that like the next person, but that is not nearly enough. I quit being a fan of Warren because her actions show that she is NOT tough and not even principled enough to withstand pressure.
She is not tough with the party establishment the special interests and Big Donors.
(that is a hard one, beating Trump is a piece of cake comparatively),
She was a calculating (cowardly) politician when she should have shown some spine:
Never mind not endorsing Sanders. What about generic support for the war machine, military spending and cowardly shrinking from criticizing Israel ?
What the f*** kept her from supporting the DAPL protests in summer / late fall 2016 ? As person with alleged native heritage ?
Well, she was sure Hillary Clinton would win and did not want to annoy the special interests INCLUDING big finance. She wanted to keep her chances for a cabinet position. For the same reason her team wrote a mail to the Clinton campaign that she would be "flexible" regarding financial regulation for the banks.
FDR did not do "flexible", he pushed for the NECESSARY reforms. He strongarmed DEMOCRATIC politicians and it was: "I welcome their hatred".
The crazy thing: if Warren had let herself be drafted into the primaries in 2015 (Sanders waited for her and they coordinated, he would not have run, had she entered the race) - she could be president now. Sanders likely would have enthusiastically and efficiently supported her if she had made single payer part of her platform.
Instead she was maneuvering behind the scenes: first angling for the position of VP - as if Clinton would have chosen a female that had the potential to outshine her and to be more popular than her. (Bad enough that two dudes stole her thunder in 2008 and 2016).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stevencoardvenice in 1940 the U.S. got the 40 hour week - that was supposed to be enough for ONE breadwinner for a family (sure they lived more modestly etc. - but still). 40 hours was a good fit for the state of technology THEN. How about the 35, 30 , 25 hour week (with a living wage for those work times mind you)
between 1947 and 1970 the lion's share of productivity wins (coming from automation mostly) went to the workers in form of better wages, the purchasing power of hourly average wages doubled (and unemployment was LOW).
Then neoliberalism hit, and NOW people are working MORE than 40 hour weeks. And often 2 adults in a househould.
I think after 1970 the productivity gains could have been given in free time. - instead the increasing unemployment (also because of oil crises) shifted the economic system. Unemployment rose steadily and slowly anyway, automation, women entering in the workforce, ongoing immigration, computer use started).
Instead the rich used the first chance they got, to hit back against the New Deal. Later technology made outsourcing easier (computer, transportation, communication). And politicians made outsourcing safe for Big Biz - with trade deals.
Instead of everyone having the 1970s income level (with inflation adjustment to keep purchasing power steady) and working less but having JOB SECURITY and the luxury of time - people were pitted against each other and the poor workers of developing countries.
Once a certain level of wealth is reached and if there are good public services (child care, education. healthcare, affordable housing, public transportation) people do not necessarily need MORE and MORE purchasing power.
companies would have the SAME output (not more and more) and produce it with the same number of workers (who work shorter times however) and have the same labor costs (automation compensates for the shorter worktime). And the consumers = workers would have the same spending power to buy the stuff that is produced.
That would also take care of consumersim (to a degree).
Until the 70s there was intergenerational wealth built - people are losing that meanwhile (everytime someone goes bankrupt over medical bills for instance).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Next MAJOR problem with a "public option": Divide and conquer. BREAKING the political leverage of the population and the negotiating power of the only insurer (Medicare) that puts the interests of the insured FIRST. (first goal of private companies: maximize profits).
There is a possibility to evade the public insurance package and to resort to provider of services that do not work with the public insurance.
Hostile politicians can make hay by attacking the public insurer.
THAT is a major issue in the U.S. and also in the U.K.. and even cost-efficient healthcare is 9 - 11 % of GDP in wealthy countries, there is a strong incentive for profiteers to weasel their way into the system and would be worth their while to play the long game and to try over decades.
Affluent (or young and healthy) U.S. voters can retreat to the equivalent of gated communites as soon as (not if !) defunding or unnecessary bureautic hurdles bring the agency into trouble.
If the public non-profit healthcare insurance agency (in the U.S. this is Medicare) does not have the funding they cannot pay adequate rates or cover ALL that is medically warranted and should be standard in a first world country.
Many doctors and even hopsitals will not accept the contracts if the rates are not sufficient. to make things worse many hospitals in the U.S. are for-profit (in other countries they are non-profits, often run by cities and states, so they will be much less self-serving and will not try to rig the games against the insurance agency.
They (insurance agencies and non-profit hospitals in other countries) are expected to stay within their budgets: THAT- but not profit - is an important issue for them. If they have their ducks in a row - and they do with a service that is so tangible for the voters - and they have budget troubles they can start a lively political debate, certainly in the wealthy countries.
Along the lines of: you want us to perform ? we are doing a good job, but we need more money !
Back to the U.S. and "how to undermine a good reform with public option"
People that want good services and can afford it will be forced to buy upgrades (private insurance) or opt out alltogether (full private insurance coverage) or they pay out of pocket.
that means it is POSSIBLE for many doctors to have enough patients while not accepting the Medicare contract. So the public offer will be inferior and appear to be expensive.
Then the attacks will follow, corporate Democrats, Republicans, Corporate media, the industry AND their think tanks will unite and villify "socialist" healthcare.
The only protection from that: that ALL of the population (VOTERS incl. affluent ones) have skin in the game, and have been nudged to use it and have experienced it to be good. Then it will be possible to keep the system streamlined, unified, standardized (natural fit for medicine), simple, cost-efficient and good.
1
-
Healthcare is a terrible fit for the "free market" or "competition". (Consumers are by far the weakest actors in the game have a huge information disadvantage and cannot abstain from "buying").
Medicine and the way to organize its delivery (that includes "insurance") are very standadized.
So it is a good fit to be delivered by public non-profits (the "insurance" part = admin, negotiating rates and prices, collecting money. And the part of delivering the actual medical care).
you come to that conclusion when thinking things through - and there is EVIDENCE:
The high costs where the for-profits dominate, incl. private insurance = U.S., Switzerland. Versus the much lower spending on 4 continents, many countries, cultures and life style, and since more than 70 years, for over 1 billion people which were and are covered by single payer systems.
Almost all other wealthy nations have single payer, the overwhelming majority of them spend in the range of 49 - 55 % of what the U.S. spends per person.
Another important factor to protect a single payer system from sneaky or open attacks.
to nudge doctors in the direction of needing ! a contract with Medicare. In that case even the wealthy patients will be for funding the system adequately. Their doctor will have a Medicare contract and will also treat the unwashed masses, and services will be good nontheless !
Finland does something similar with their schools: they have outlawed private schools. So the wealthy and rich have to send the kids to the same schools as the lower income people. Needless to say they have excellent and well funded schools that enjoy broad public support and appreciation.
That approach regarding schools is unique, but in healthcare it is at work in every single payer system. And portected those plublic systems from attacks.
Healthcare is expensive even under the best of circumstances (think approx. 5,000 - 5,500 USD per person, and double in the U.S.) and it is a major part of the economy. The incentive for profiteers to get their hands on a service where the consumers are by far the weakest participants in the "market" is huge.
All political parties support a single payer when it is set up with the safeguards (or they would get into trouble with voters - even wealthy voters). That has proven to be a protection for DECADES:
Example for a sneaky way to undermine a good public system. The easiest one: Defunding it.
P
oliticians weaponizing complicated and bureaucratic rules - for instance Medicare (in its current form for the people over 65) cannot negotiate drug prices.
Only the private Medicare Advantage insurance packages cover that (and other things). On top of that Medicare is tasked with monitoring the offers under Advantage (in order to prevent abuse of the insures - you couldn't make this stuff up).
If Medicare would have enough funding they would offer comprehensive coverage and there would be no need for private upgrades.
1) It is unfair because not everyone can afford these upgrades.
2) Worse: the private insurers have much higher administrative costs, so why don't they let Medicare make the offers for extra packages if they need to raise more money ?
- Because Medicare would drive a hard bargain (so no niche for private insurers and less profit for for-profit hospitals or pharma companies).
With drugs it would be easy to get lower costs. (The insurance companies have no interest in bringing costs down, the consumers MUST pay and they just pass on the too high costs).
VA is allowed to negotiate (the only agency in the U.S.) and they brought prices down by 40 %.
1
-
I think the proposal of Gabbard would madante everyone to pay payroll tax. No opting out from THAT. (However indirectly opting out from getting treatment where the regular people get it). - Duplicative coverage would NOT be outlawed, (like in the Sanders plan).
"You can keep your private plan" - in other words insurance companies can continue to offer coverage for things that M4A covers as well.
That means the large employers and wealthy individuals would continue to buy private insurance. Doctors in wealthy neighbourhoods would not accept M4A patients, they can have enough patients w/o.
Sure the patients could always pay out of pocket if they cannot present their private insurance card in lieu of payment - but that is very tangible. If they can have treatment free at the point of service elsewhere - and they heard it is O.K. or good, they might try.
Getting only out of pocket payments is also a deterrent for doctors: If they do not have a high-end patient pool, they will have to chase the money in some cases - or not get enough patients.
Companies could not offer private insurance plans as benefit - plan for full coverage (when duplicative coverage is not allowed, they could offer maximal supplemental insurance).
Employers would offer other benefits or pay a higher wage.
Now the patients could take that higher wage and use it for out of pocket payments. - Or they keep that money and give the doctors and hospitals a try that have M4A contracts .....
Under the Gabbard plan the wealthy would be frustrated about the payroll tax (it would give them full coverage but they have an incentive not to use it). They would not profit and could not be motivated to root for the necessary good funding of the public system - because the can still opt out from receving treatment there.
It is a set up for attacks, especially Republicans would attack the payroll tax to appeal to their affluent base. Next thing: payroll tax for those who do not want to use M4A would be cancelled.
Also: the wealthy and rich would have to pay MORE payroll tax and also other taxes for the public system.
In order to make the mandated payroll tax affordable and politically acceptable for low(er) income people it can only be modest (for them). So there must be extra funding - from general tax revenue.
The (very) rich and highly profitable big biz will resist it anyway, they would pay a significant share to fund the good system for all (and the rich tend to have their private medical arrangements).
But the affluent / upper class citizens would pay not quite as much in higher taxes, benefit also from the cost-efficiency of the universal, standardized, streamlined system.
At least they see their extra taxes put to good use if the system is truly UNIVERSAL. Which requires adequate funding. And the bipartisan GENUINE support of all parties and beyond money.
If there are bureaucratic flaws, or inept managment of resources all major parties should have a strong incentive to straighten that out. To make sure that it works - not looking for sneaky ways to NOT make it work (see Tories in the U.K. see many U.S. politicians).
Healthcare cannot be a political football. That is another reason almost all other countries have good results with "government-run" healthcare, and half the costs of the U.S. - usually there is such a bi-partisan mindset.
That stance is very much helped when all of the population has skin in the game. and cannot opt out - not from paying for the system and hardly from using it (most of the time).
1
-
1
-
The idea that the city is meant to work for ALL citizens, not only for big biz - or even small(er) biz * seems to exotic for some. New York was supposed to be utterly grateful to Amazon for the intent to create "jobs" Not that many new jobs in the U.S. - if was a shift. - No city is an island. They are all part of the U.S. Bezoes pits the cities agaiinst each other - and does not pay federal tax and as little local as he possible can.
Bezoes uses something ALL of the U.S. offers = federal level: consumers, a justice system streets in all of the country, agreements with other nations, ....
* Those schmucks can finance Amazon with their taxes while being put by them out of business
New York would have had to bribe Amazon with 500 million USD in direct expenditures (financed by a loan ! ) and then approx. 2,5 trillion in subsequent tax gifts (at the back of everyone that does pay local taxes, I am sure they all like to give Amazon a free ride).
At a time when the U.S. supposedly has full employment one of the most vibrant cities in the workd must BRIBE Amazon for a few thousand jobs right now and more to coem (maybe).
So if New York would really get those 25,000 jobs over the course of maybe 10 years (attracting new people to the City, as if New York needed THAT) - it would only be after many years that New York would see tax from Amazon.
Who knows - maybe the swarm of locusts would move on to the next place to plunder, before they ever get to the point of really paying anything at the LOCALlevel.
Who SAYS the city even needs more jobs. And who says they wold get tax revenue ? Not from Amazon, if you follow their example from Seattle. Indirectly from the employees (new people in town) - but THAT comes at a cost, too.
And there is the 500,000 million loan plus interest to pay: 500 millions divided by 25,000 would be 20,000 per employee - so they might compensate New York for the direct expenses to bribe their employer to set up shop in New York.
1
-
1
-
1
-
part 2 of 2 * Warren "has a plan" - except for how she will use populist resistance and activism to kick the behinds of bought and paid for Congress and
Senate. The ONLY candidate that mentions that from time to time - like (young) people demonstrating in massess outside the White House - is Sanders and he has talked about that tool to make government work For The People since 2015.
No wonder, he was part of the resistance against the Vietnam war - and the masses were so furious - and PRESENT - that the government had to give in. (At some point they had parked a row of empty school buses inside the fence, in case the protesters would break through. Nixon and Kissinger watched the protests from the window: According the the memoire of Kissinger, Nixon said: Henry, if they get us they will kill us.
That's the spirit - that is how you get change.
Nixon also did not sign the Clean Air and Water Act because of the goodness of his heart. The citizens kicked their behinds (incl. congress, and that was bipartisan as well, Rivers On Fire because of the chemicals that were "disposed" into them - and not for the first time. That was it.
Sanders has a history as ACTIVIST (Warren has not) and he owes his financial stability, wealth and that he had a stable political career to the grass roots.
While Warren STILL needed the party establishment to get elected. She has never gotten to the point where she embodied: I do not need them, they
can go pound sand (Sanders is very polite and very skillful in how he navigates in the shark tank - but he does not need them and calls them out from time to time. Like the comment that the party leadership is "rearranging the seats on the Titanic" - I think that was in 2017.
Sanders also waited in 2015 with his announcement. He coordinated with Warren:
If she had followed the campaign that tried to draft her("Run Liz, run"), Sanders would not have run.
Warren however, did not dare to offend the Clinton machine.
He did not give a damn - and started a campaign in the attempt to RAISE SOME ISSUES and to introduce a left leaning perspective into the discussion. He and Weaver then assumed that he had no chance to win the nomination (they calculated with a budget of 30 million USD).
Sanders did not join the race to get "exposure" and raise his name recognition, his seat in Vermont is very safe, and the fundraising for THOSE races are no brainers (have been for many years). Nor did he have any ambition for OTHER offices (well for POTUS, but that seemed to be out of reach, it is not like he wanted to improve his chances for upcoming races for Congress, or Senate. Been there, done that).
If we exclude the possibility that he cynically wanted to sell his books (think Newt Gingrich) - then he joined the race as a service for The People and because he has had it with the healthcare situation, the attacks on SS and Medicare, and the endless wars.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That man will now land in the prison system, I am not sure he even belongs there - he seem calm and deliberate in the short clip that Jenn has got. (he should not roam free either, in a civilized country there would be offers for treatment or for restorative justice. The scale is gliding from where people are NOT responsible for what they are doing to where they do have a mental illness / personality disorder but still can be and should be held accountable.
Preferably still not in prison (that man is low level offender).
Restorative juste is not only community service, that is a public apology and an apology in person. Nothing like looking the person in the eye that you have offended / done wrong and admitting what you have done wrong.
That is much more a corrective and sobering experience than generic community service. Where the offenders are spared the personal impact and also the personal admission. They do their time - but only have to interact with people that work for a good cause but they never had any spat with them. so that is neutral. They do not have to humble themselves.
I have been wondering if good and easily accessible offers for school counseling and offers for treatment for mental illness could have saved the 9 black victims of Dylan Roof and the young man himself.
If there had been offers for treatment and job offers (easy work) for struppy people, outsiders, weird (or just disabled) folks that will not get hired by Corporate world because they are off, or do not have a high or reliable performance - maybe he would not have been so obsessed with hatred.
Dylan Roof was activated in his crusade because of the Zimmerman trial, he 18 years then. (Clearly an outsider during school time.He was not well adjusted and very likely had an untreated mental illness / personality disorder. OCD, divorced parents, fahter likely abused his stepmother, ....).
His friends / aquaintances did not report him when he announced his intentions - they might have been more ready to report him. If they could be sure that he would not rot away in a prison cell. I think people hope in suche cases that a person making terrorist threats does not mean it but is just foolishly running his mouth.
If they had known that he would get into a system of social care and psychological treatment - there would be no risk that they would bring a young fool unnecessarily into trouble. By reporting him - just to be on the safe side.
Even IF he had just been talking crap - that is still a sign something is not right.
They came forward after the terrorist attack, so why not report him when he declared his intent ?
Because the U.S. system is cruel, punitive, because people get caught up that are not a danger in society and do not belong there. Because mental illness is not fixed in prison, it gets worse.
So that man is now also likely to get funneled into the system. Is he a person that will abstain from behaving like that in public because he is arrested, gets fined or worse has a trial ?
If he is rational - then yes, it will be a deterrent in he future.
But most rational people do not show racism in the form of unhinged insults hurled at random people. And if they have anger management issues the future punishment / trouble does not deter them.
It might be a deterrent for other racists who watch what happens to him. If THEY are rational they might think twice about it.
Liberals and progressives watch unhinged citizens - they love to despise the deplorables, indulge in righteous indignation and wonder how low these people can stoop (I am guilty of that like the next person - watching middle aged anti maskers throwing tantrums).
That is all fun and games - But as polls prove the majority of Americans are more reasonable than that (even Trump voters), the trolls in the comment sections, the occasional ridiculous person that is shown in a viral video, is not representative of the voters and citizens. They are a symptom of a changed culture, but they are not the main problem.
If the economy would work for all, if the politicians would not sell out the voters (Democrats) and fish for votes by riling up people (especially Republicans), the village idiots and the unhinged people would stay quiet in public. There are always some of them (it is a big country 330 million people), but they did not dare to be as open in the past (and it encourages also those with mental problems).
The more cultivated racists are the danger, the Reagan Democrats, the people that voted for Nixon in the year when MLK and Robert Kennedy was shot. The voters which the Clintons and Biden courted - with dog whistles about the Crime and Welfare Bill.
All the people that lost their jobs over Covid / mask / racist rants did not escalate the situation by becoming violent or damaging property or stealing the phone they were filmed with. Some intimidating behavior maybe, but not more than that (for instane the body language of the guy that worked for an insurance, shopping in Home Depot who was pissed off when he was filmed for not wearing a mask).
Why ? Because these racists / anti-maskers want to remain part of the middle class / upper class. Not getting arrested, the police showing up (the neighbours see it), having a criminal record or just having to spend money on a lawyer.
They have jobs and property that they can lose. usually they want to keep their status and reputation.
They are stupid enough to SAY things that earn them a prominent search engine position and maybe the loss of their job - but they are not SO stupid as to get into serious trouble with the law.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Corporate Dems (DNC, DCCC, luminaries like Obama * and Hillary, ...) can start a civil war within the party, lose the election against Trump and be JUST FINE. Stirring up the base by pulling off such stunts could be helpful.
* Obama will help them behind the scenes to make sure Bernie does not win the nomination in the first round and / or that the brokered conventions goes against him. If not even that helps, I guess he might vote for Sanders (and even endorse him or campaign for him with gritted teeth).
If they rig the game AGAIN, they can reactivate the narrative of the bad Bernie Bros and how Bernie (his base) are SO DIVISIVE. Media will glady help with the propaganda. Which will be the pretext why they can't nominate Sanders when he has 50 % plus, or has 49,5 % or why they have to change the rules unilaterally and bring in the Superdelegates in the first round already.
Sanders would have to signal that he is willing to run third party in the general. Trump said that in 2016 and the RNC believed he would and did not dare to cheat him (the base had voted for him, no doubt about that).
Only problem: Trump did not care if that would potentially hand the victory to the other party.
And: after all is said and done even Trump was going to be a big-biz friendly president. The donors did not like his nomination. He is too uncough, they like the figureheads in the White House to be more polished.
Jimmy Dore: Obama put a pretty face on ugly things, Trump puts an ugly face on ugly things.
Bonus after the Corporate Dems lose general with help of a civil war: they can scold the base for not turning out after they cheated the base out of a fair primary (again !) and blame them for the lost election. The history books will tell the tale how the divisive Bernie Bros were responsible for the second term of Trump.
All (politicians, media pundits, the owners of networks, the advertisers, the big donors of the Dems / Repubs) keep their tax cuts. Likely there will be war against Iran: the big donors love war, and it means ratings for media.
"Trump bad" for 4 more years means also ratings for the useless big media outlets, and the Democratic elites can continue to clutch their pearls and to collude with the Republicans on many issues (always good for their common donors and always against the interests of the regular people).
1
-
1
-
where I live the towns, cities and the states run hospitals. Meaning they are public, non-profits (and these hospitals have a contract with the public non-profit insurance agency). And then there are church run hospitals - that is historically grown - they are allowed to make a small profit, but have also a contract with the public agency.
both type of hospitals co-exist, and the agency sees to it that they complement each other. They do not compete, they specialize in some departments, enough beds in every region but no overcapacities.
There are no for-profit hospitals like in the U.S., let alone chains. They are not forbidden, but they simply could not compete, they would not get a contract (there are enough players already, that was built in the 1950s and 1960s). And the patients are not going to use them if they would have to pay - when they get good treatment free at the point of delivery elsewhere.
The mandatory public insurance coverage (modest wage deductions which are matched by the employers) gives full coverage, in any kind of hospital.
The modest wage related funding is not nearly enough for the system (drugs, hospitals, doctors) so there are plenty of subsidies - but not as high amounts are paid per person as are paid in the U.S. (never mind if that person in the U.s. even has insurance or got treatment that year, the total spending in the country is divided by all people in the country, the avearage).
And the individuals and companies in single payer nations pay much, much less.
Which is obvios - when the spending already is double per person compared to all other wealthy nations (it is 50 % - 60 % if they are "expensive" - the vast majority of rich countries is in that range) there is plenty of room to pay less - for the government and the citizens.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
5:30 Money in politics is hard to regulate ?? Nope ! regulate the amount of money that can be spent in elections and especially for mass media like TV and radio (they need to include Social media now). So any party that has AUTHENTIC and mass support and the grassroots will have an advantage. Money could not buy that support and it could not drown out the grassroots.
Restricting WHAT can be spent on elections and who is allowed to finance that and what can be spent of mass media - that is what they do in all other democracies. Usually they also do not allow underhanded, negative advertising.
One huge loophole is left open in most democracies: ideally they ALSO should regulate HOW much money special interests can give to parties (even if they cannot spend it on elections) - so the parties would need to have citizens supporting them, not the special interests.
And they often have fairness rules for mass media (even private ones) during election campaigns. If a format covers politics at all - ALL that are on the ballot must have a chance to make their case and be given equal airtime.
A government could allocate each citizen a budget (with limits how much they can give every time - so the parties would need to continually lobby the CITIZENS for support). On top of that there should be public funding of parties (according to popular vote).
That would ALSO mean that the parties are not "private" organizations that can chose candidates in smoke filled backrooms if they feel like it. That was the defense of the DNC lawyers in late 2016 before court when small donors asked for their money back, because the DNC had promised to be neutral !! in the primaries but was anything but. The lawyer's claim was: the DnC didn't just chose the candidate they wanted to - but they are PRIVATE ENTITY and theyare legally entitled to do so. The court agreed with that view. They can give themselves rules and advertise them to the voters - and completely disregard them. It is not even considered deception.
As opposed to the U.K.: there the party establishment of Labour started a coup against the directly elected party leader (Sept. 2015) Jeremy Corbyn after not even one year in June 2016 (until then they had backstabbed him all the time). Well, they would rather not have had him on the ballot for the election of the new leader in September 2016. They thought he would step down, but he didn't. Everyone new on the ballot needed the nod of 30 MPs (mostly establishment), J.C. just about got that in 2015 when no one thought he had a chance (but it was nice to have an outsider on the ballot, too it improved the optics of it being democratic). Corbyn would not have gotten the support of 30 MPs again after a large part of the Labour MPs (members of parliament) tried to undermine him and tried to force him into a resignation.
The party did not dare to refuse him the spot on the ticket (as an incumbent accepting the CHALLENGE) - but one of the rich donors to the Labour Party that liked neoloberal "new" Labour acted and sued against Corbyn being automatically on the ballot (which meant he would win, because he still had the support of the base, never mind that the party establishment and the career politicians threw tantrums).
They lost that case in court. The judge sees the parties in the UK as institutions of PUBLIC INTEREST, they get plenty of public funding. they have some freedom to give themselves rules and structures with a democratic process (so the procedures and institutions within the parties differ). But they must have a democratic process to set up and change the rules, they cannot alter them on the fly - and they are legally bound (not only by "honor" to abide by fair and democratic rules).
So Corbyn did not step down, remained on the ballot - and won even more convincingly in Sep. 2016.
If he would not have been on the ballot it would have split the party - giving the Tories a chance to call for a snap election, with good chances to win with a high margin (at that point of time).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
And I do not think losing elections per se says something about the candidate, their viability. Maybe they stubbornly refuse to take the easy route and suck up to the party establishment and the big donors. Sanders ran for an odd small Independent Left Party in the 1970s, they chose always the big races - and if they had 5 % it was a good result (they did not expect to win, it was to spread the anti war message).
Then Sanders had the unlikely race against the incumbent mayor, so well liked by Republicans and seemingly so established that they did not even run a candidate against him.
This was in 1980 start or Reagan era - and the U.S. media reported about the mayoral election result in a city of 30,000 in little Vermont. THAT is some record. Sure Warren had to win her first race in Massachussets too (when the public was enraged about the crisis and willing to listen to someone who gave the impression to go after the banksters).
Klobuchar ? she is almost a Republican and maybe her opponent sucked even more.
The wins of Warren and Kolbuchar with the nod of the party AND taking big donations was NOT like the uphill battle that Sanders had fought (over and over, and VERY often losing).
Admitted the CFPB was an uphill battle which Warren won (in the short term). Then Warren did good, but while such agencies are necessary, they will not bring the "big structural change" Warren is talking about (she is right about that, even though SHE certainly would NOT change the status quo).
A few years later and a hostile Republican admin can go after that agency and neuter it.
Same with ACA, even if it had not been that corporate friendly, it was a highly complex project, not tackling the core problem (private insurance, for profit hospitals, no cost control), so they worked around the fringes while being very cautious to NOT upset the big donors. - The Republicans and Tea Party were correct to slam Obamacare (even though they didn't do it for the right reasons) - and what little was good about it is EASILY UNDONE by the next hostile admin. Some defunding goes a long way.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
HotPeridot 30 April 2015, Sanders announced officially. Ed Schultz show had coordinated to report live. Ed got a call from * management 5 minutes before and was ordered to stand down (* joined at the hip with the Clinton campaign to quote Ed Schultz). There was a heated debate on the phone, but Ed had to give in and to cover something irrelevant, his contract was ended 30 - 40 days later.
Likely the Clinton camp had sent in an observer and they noted the camera team.
That was when everyone incl. Sanders thought he had a snowball's chance in hell. That does not reek of a confident and souvereign campaing of the clear frontrunner, no ? Well turned out she could not even beat the orange clown with help of 1 billion USD and with friendly media coverage.
The Clinton campaign thought initially Sanders could cost them a few % in some states and that worried them (Dr. Richard Wolff).
The Sanders campaign had only calculated with 30 million USD, so friendly coverage from the Ed Schultz show would have been helpful to introduce the candidate to the VOTERS.
This is not only about being unfair to Sanders, or O'Malley - the voters are tricked out of a chance to learn enough about a candidate in time.
For the same reason the DNC massively reduced the number of debates and also scheduled them on dates where they could expect to have less views (that strategy cost Clinton, she missed out on chances to shine on those occasions and to make her case to the voters early on. And they also neglected to have an early get out the vote campaign for the same reason, activating people beyond the usual loyalists would potentially activate people interested in the outsiders, can't have that).
The DNC played dumbed and denied the rigging of the debate schedule , until there was proof (Podesta leaks) - then Debbie wasserman-Schultz had to step down (followed by her replacement Donna Brazile because of the leaked debate questions).
Oh, and Sanders was late with entering the race because he coordinated with Elizabeth Warren - if she had entered the race he would not have run.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1