Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Status Coup News"
channel.
-
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