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

  1. 1
  2. 1
  3. 1
  4. 1
  5. 1
  6. 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
  7. 1
  8. 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
  9. 1
  10.  @terminsane  Yes - if ONLY for economic reasons undocumented migrants should get the chance to have affordable insurance coverage ! And pay into it. - They already get treatments !!! Good healthcare is expensive under the best of circumstance. It does not help that is costs double in the U.S. (compared to other rich nations) of what it should cost. Undocumented migrants work mostly in the lower wage sector. They will get some treatments - often too little to late. Also no systemic savings from going early to the doctors (before it gets too bad) or from using preventive care. - there are costs for the system - and they will not be able to pay for the big stuff. They can't - like legal residents often can't. The insurers rip off the citzens - it would be worse when undocumented migrants would be at the mercy of the insurance companies to get insurance. They would often hope for the best because it is as unaffordable for them as for U.S. citizens.. There are 11 millions in the country it is not possible to deport them all. So they WILL need treatments. It is either let them die - or treat them. If is only the question if the doctors will get the money. Now it is treat them - but they cannot necessarily pay the bills afterwards. The migrants do WORK and someone profits from their work (consumers: fruit, veggies, meat affluent people for services like maids, nannies. home buyers - construction. and companies). They pull their weight for the economy. They cause less costs (age is a huge factor for healthcare costs and they are younger than the average legal residents). If you want to set up a cost-efficient system you cannot have a number of people in the country who de facto will not have insurance COVERAGE. It causes dysfunction, red-tape. One reason single payers systems are so much more cost efficient are that they are very streamlined. Everyone is in - so the hospitals do not chase the bills. They concentrate on the medical part of the transaction. Migrants will clog up the ER system because there is no good access to earlier care. That is expensive, often too late, unfit for ongoing treatments. And on top they make it worse for those who should use the ER.
    1
  11. 1
  12. 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
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 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
  19. As mayor Sanders was STONEWALLED by the Democratic aldermen - best buddies of the ousted mayor. He had the support of only 2 or 3 - that was not even the veto power. First thing: they fired the secretary of the mayor (so the first budget was written on the kitchen table with the help of volunteers). - Sanders did what he could do given the obstruction and continued to engage the base. The voters did not appreciate the shenanigans of the aldermen, next election was not too long after that (they vote every 2 years it seems, likely alternating). Some aldermen were voted in that were supportive and from then on he had at least the veto power (but no majority). He started working with the Republican aldermen on a case to case base (the relationship with Democratis in Burlington and in Vermont remained strained for a long time). Next mayoral election he won very convincingly. His time as mayor was a success (1980 - 1988) and made him known in Vermont. Still it took 3 or 4 races for higher office until he won in 1990 the Congress Seat. He always had 3 candidate races (at least 3 major candidates, they have a tradition to run Independents in Vermont, so add some people with no real chance to win). But in the last race that he lost (1988 I think) the Democratic candidate turned out to be the spoiler: handing the victory to the Republican (Sanders was a close 2nd). So then the national party agreed with Sanders that they would not run (finance) candidates against him if he would caucus with them. Did not endear him anymore to the state Democratic party - but the next race he did win. As Congress man (under Bush1 and then Bill Clinton) his position was not that safe in the beginning. He had to carve out his niche and sell the transformation from mayor to member of Congress to his constituents - it is fine to win ONE election, but you have to repeat that.
    1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. That man may be beyond reach - until HE gets into trouble, then they see the light - but Progressives can't wait until that complacent crowd also gets screwed (which is only a matter of time with this economic system and the oligarchs trying to consolidate their power). More insightful persons willing to show more solidarity and compassion would be held hostage. That is one key feature of (closet) Republicans: they only recognize that something is wrong or should be changed when it impacts them. Addiction in poor white communities is a health issue. The crack crisis was because of black thugs. The compassion and insight how the environment creates diseases of despair (incl. substance abuse) was only mustered when white people got into trouble (and in typical red states). That's the kind of voters the progressives have to deal with, you have to work with the voters you have - they have to convince them too at least a part of them. Enough to win elections. I guess when his wage goes up (company saves on the expensive premiums) or Medicare starts covering the 55 year olds (first year of rollout in the Sanders plan) he would "get" it. Or when Medicare Advantage becomes obsolete for seniors. The PRIVATE upgrade seniors must buy if they really want really good comprehensive coverage). The progressives cannot rely on convincing enough of the dinosaurs - they need to turn out the vote of the people that have been screwed by the complacent I-got-mine crowd already. The young, minorities, low income people. In droves.
    1
  28. 1
  29.  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
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1