Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Jimmy Dore Show"
channel.
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
* "controlled" healthcare discussion in the U.S. mainstream media. The disinformation or mostly non-information went on for decades. The U.S. audience hardly ever heard that they were paying 60 - 100 % more for healthcare per capita than the citizens of the WEALTHY European countries. (It is the historic achievement of Senator Sanders that hte changed the discussion, he used the platform the presidential campaign gave him and of course the FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION on the internet was instrumental). Or that healthcare - on principle and you cannot fix that with legislation or regulation - is a TERRIBLE FIT for the "free market".
And the arguments why the free market cannot work in healthcare are not THAT HARD to find, it is not like one would need to do a lot of investigative work, or would need to know a LOT about the systems. (I live in Europe and the harebrained arguments also in the townhalls with people like Ted Cruz, Diane Feinstein, etc are mind boggling. Politicians and newspeople have the mission, time and resources to dig a little deeper than the superficial "discussion-ending" propaganda words like "choice" or "free market" or "socialized medicine".
On an empiric level: after WW2 former mortal enemies (like Germany, France, UK) agreed in one point, that they would install or expand non-profit healthcare systems based on the principle of mandatory universal healthcare and solidarity (your income not your risks determines your "premiums").
Usually there are a lot of ethics restrictions when it comes to marketing and advertising for pharmaceutical industry or private hospitals or private doctors who have NO CONTRACT with the public non-profit insurance agencies. These private players DO exist (but they are a minority - of course if the public non-profit system is good, why would people pay out of pocket. They are either into specialities like weight loss, TCM, laser correction of eyesight (so you do not need to wear glasses, plastic surgery (in most cases).
So the media in Europe would not SHY AWAY from a meaningful and substantial discussion about healthcare (if that was necessary) - they do not have to keep advertisers happy. So they are FREE to discuss the truth and the facts. Instead of bury them with B.S. talking points.
And politicians do not get massive donations from the industry either, so they will side - in this area ** - with their voters and not with a few shareholder who make a lot of profit in the healthcare industry.
** European politicians betray their voters of course in other areas like "free" "trade" agreements - that's another story, but in the area of healthcare the environment that was set up after WW2 encourages that they actually serve the interests of the majority of citizens.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
The non-profit system of the wealthy European countries are as follows. The NHS in Britain is "government" run, very streamlined (in a well set-up system government employees can to a good job in administration ! - we would not have them be designers, inventors or anything creative. But running a streamlined system, sure. In Britain the NHS runs the hospitals and I assume the majority of family doctors are also government employees. They are funded by taxes, UK has the 2nd lowest costs for any wealthy country (be it large or a small country that does not matter according to the data).
In 2014 (World Bank, per capita healthcare expenditures) their costs were USD 3.900 per capita
(the Japanese have below 3.800 which is impressive because of their older population). However the NHS of Britain seems to be underfunded - and it has becoome worse in the last 2 years (more patients, more demand but not more funding). My impressions is that the conservative government wants to at least partially privatize the system (if is very profitable for a few after all). Since the British like their system and are proud of it, it has to be made dysfunctional in order to give a pretext for "reform" by privatization. Methinks the conservative Tories are playing a dangerous game, that could cost them the next election.
Anyway, all other wealthy European countries - wealth matters because if the wage levels are much lower it is hard to compare the costs and rich countries tend to afford the best healthcare) have higher costs. The British defunding attempt serves as a reminder that even well liked and well working systems can be politically attacked. The other countries are spending more on the healthcare and the quality of care is good and there are no waiting lines or long waiting times for surgery that can be scheduled (like hip replacements, cataract surgery, etc.)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
She got a platform at the UN - so at least her claim that she was in Syria must be credible. She speaks the foreign names very fluently, so I am willing to believe she does speak Arab and can actually interview anyone who wants to talk (no need for an interpreter). She comes across as congruent, she gives a lot of details in passing which would require a lot of preparation. I mean it is of course possible that an intelligent person uses a made up carfully constructed comprehensive ! story and rehearsed it then very well. This is more difficult than it may seem. As the saying goes "If you tell the truth you can wing it, for lying, you need to to be perfect in the details."
(Hillary Clinton's alleged danger of coming under sniper fire at the airport in Yugoslavia was such a case of "the devil is in the details".
She mentioned not long ago how dangerous it was to arrive there - sort of highlighting her courage and qualification as POTUS - and didn't think of the small detail that there could exist footage of that arrival on the airport - proving the contrary. The footage was uploaded on youtube - Ooops).
Did you see the segment of her speech and Q and A at the UN * where the reporter from Norway asked Eva Bartlett why she would claim that most mainstream media reports are biased or dishonest and not based on facts.
She asked him in return: How many sources do the news outlets have there in Aleppo*........Silence ......Exactely, I will tell you: none. They depend on a state funded small operation in Bedford UK and on second hand reports from group like the White Helmets..... * I am not sure now if she said Aleppo or Syria, is it possible that the networks would have NO ONE in Syria ? And never mention that there sources are second hand. Well it would be scandalous - but then ....
White Helmets seem to be a evil bunch too, the Bedford operation are armchair war reporters (and possibly cosy with extremists - not sure about that)
For me she sounded convincing in that answer, very convincing. The guy wasn't impolite, felt obviously the need to defend mainstream media - and she crushed him - and even more mainstream media.
* BTW the room was almost empty, at least the newspaper from Norway SENT somebody. And I read in another comment, to another video that the Norwegian newspaper somewhat modified their reporting. Now if the BBC or the Guardian or ....gasp... the New York Times could be bothered to do that .....
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
+ rustyshack Cenk from TYT remembered a quote from Salman Rushdie, that he could not remember that the Muslims were as fundamentalistic some decades ago (when Salman grew up). Cenk heard the same from his father (who stems from an area that is now in Syria, near the Turkish border. I heard him interview his father, no, religion was not a big thing - some people went to the Mosque etc. his family didn't. And that was a rural community and people were usually not wealthy nor did they have the chance for much of an education.
The US intentionelly supported the Saudis and their Wahabism. They wanted strong and isolated allies in the Gulf region (Israel and Saudi Arabia). And since after WW2 the Arabic states wanted to take control of their own resources and get rid of colonial rule and influence, the US wanted an extreme fundamentalistic regime in Saudi Arabia. The Islamistic stance would make them "immune" against any "godless" left secular ideology and against the Soviet Union.
Well that worked. Saudi money finances thousands (19,000 not sure about the number) very fundamentalistic Islamic eductation centers. Some will be "only" fundamentalistic, some will outright promote Islamic terrorism.
I think the population in many of these Arab and African countries have given up on the Western system. Their elites and the Western elites have colllude to keep them down politically and to exploit their contries. So they turn to tradition and to the preachers who tell them about the righteous god-fearing just society (utopia) they could have under an Islamic government.
Add to that that traditional patriarchal agricultural societies are very positive about having many children (it used to be the same in Europe and the US, started changing 100 years ago). This has economic and polictal reasons. Children cared for their old parents, many children died young, there could be diseases. The king wanted disposable young men as cannon fodder, many women died because of pregnancy or while giving birth. Life was shorter so they needed more people to replace those who had died. Farming without machines needed a lot of cheap labour. Many people meant: many people desperate to work for little.
The way to turn that mindset around: have welfare programs especially for old people, raise the status of women, education, economic improvement and politcal stability. People when they live in very stressful societies (poverty, war) also procreate like there is no tomorrow - literally - must be a survival of the species instinct that kicks in. Only wealth in combination with women's rights makes people be content ! with having only 1 or 2 children (or even none). The Chinese had to harshly enforce that one-child policy. We in Europe do it voluntarily.
Societies like Egypt or Pakistan, Morocco, etc. do not even try to tackle that fertility crisis (Modern medicine and hygiene let more children and adults survive, so they absolutely need to reduce their procreation rate). Of course birth control even when accepted is expensive, condoms should not be stored in a hot place etc. So there are logistic problems on top of that.
That means that these societies have vastly grown in the last decades. They have a lot of young restless men, looking for a (higher) purpose in their life and often they have no chance to marry or get a job. The quest for a meaningful life or to serve the cause of justice (as they understand it) also shows up in the biography of wealthy Saudi jihadists, here it is not about economic frustration. Moreover there is a Macho culture and a culture about male pride that harshly clashes with the economic reality. and even worse: Neoliberalism and Western war mongering ensure that the situation is not going to improve. And they know it. In the 1960s and 70s they still might have had hope. Not anymore - so they turn to religion. The Western citizens have what they do not have. And yes, Islam can be interpreted in a way that glorifies martyrdom.
The US gave another boost to the promotion of International Islamic terrorism when they created the mujihadeen. They were celebrated as freedom fighters and used to fight the "jihad" in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. A lot of them then were foreigners, what had the Saudis to do with Afghanistan - freedom or not ? Of course they were the fiercest fighters the US could dream of. They got Stinger rockets. To shoot down helicopters of the Soviets. And other modern equipment, money training - and more importantly they learnt to know each other, networked. The international jihad still profits from the connections that were forged ath that time.
Imagine the US had left Afghanistan alone (afer all they share a border with the former Soviet Union, they certainly had more reason to intervene there than the US). Without the modern equipment and funding the Soviets would had kept order in Afghanistan at least in the larger settlements. Without much resistance the SU army would have been much better behaved (There are reports that they reacted cruelly to the terror attacks of the underground fighters).
I assume withou US/Saudi aid there would not have been much resistance - how ? No one there had cars, modern guns etc. Afghans traditionally take pride in their rifles (especially in the rural areas) but these weapons are no match to modern weaponry. Moreover the country is very tribal, and the faraway tribes do not care that much about who is on the throne / the presidents seat in Kabul.
In the cities the Soviets were good for women, they brought a more secular view to the country and encouraged girls and women's education.
As odd as it may sound: had the US - wisely - in the 80s abstained from doing anything, I do not think the Soviet or the Russian army would still be there - and if - they would have to bear the costs and the risks. And there is a good chance Afghanistan would be much better off than they are with the US "help".
4
-
+k4yser in Germany - and any other democracy in the wealthy countries - the established parties are never SAFE from political competition, and be it the AfD. Or the Green Parties that became a thing in many countries (I know they are pretty much sell outs in Germany and now with Stroebele leaving ...)
But since the elections cannot be bought in Germany as they are bought in the U.S. (where they get funding of almost 1 billion !! in one presidentail election !) the German elections do not last as long and the amount of what can be spent on TV advertising is limited, the system is not completely skewed. - if you think that Germans are not well represented in the government (one could indeed have such thoughts !) just have a look at the U.S. and the mindboggling healthcare discussion they enjoy right now. If would be funny if it wasn't that serious.
When was the last time you worried if the electronic voting machines are rigged ? (not by the Russian, they are not needed for that, that can be easily done by the established U.S. parties) - That's right in Germany - and in any other reasonable country - they do good old fashioned very hard to manipulate hand count. Or when have you ever stood in line for a long time on a WORK DAY and tried to vote ?
The problem is that politicians get nowhere w/o the donors in the U.S. and (usually) nowhere w/o the party (establishmen) in all other democracies. So the special interests capture the party leadership. Not with bribes and campaign donations. But they can provide the cushy positions if the politician gets voted out of office and for good party soldiers who wish for a change of career. And since the politicians - if they are doing their job - invest a lot of time, they cannot build another career - and they usually get into politics when other people develop their professional profile.
so I can imagine a politician even doing a solid job, not being that charismatic, maybe crossing the party establishment by voting their conscience - and in retaliation being kicked off the ballot.
This is what we have to regulate (the revolving door, which jobs a politician can take after the end of the career) when we ever want politicians to work for the citizens. And it would require citizens to follow politics more closely, not being fooled so easiyl, so that less charismatic but HONEST politicians have a chance to get elected if they do not obey the party establishment (because there are more than enough boring and uninspiring party soldiers out there, but beware if you ever cross the powers that be).
And maybe make the Members of parliament less dependent of the party (allocation of financial budgets for instance, so one can have the assistance and office independent of the party). Right now the members of Parliament usually vote exactely along the party lines and as they are told to vote - why are there even as many in Parliament if the citizens do not profit from the multitude of experiences, mindsets and opinions. Crowd intelligence ! There could be 1 member for each party who holds the percentage as won in the elections - and it would hardly change anything in the outcome when the parliament votes.
A changed system would also mean that the politicians would form coaltions based on ideas. It would matter less WHO brought up the good idea in the first place. So in some cases the Conservatives would work with the Green Party and in other cases with the Social Democrats or the Liberterians. It would be a competition of ideas. And then sell the success to the constituency - even if that means individual politicians having "strange bedfellows" on a case to case basis - I know they various fractions work together sometimes - but only when the party leadership ALLOWS it.
4
-
US "Defense" Department: We will take out 7 countries in 5 years, Iraq,
Syria and Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Iran. You can search
online for the Democracy Now Interview of former General Wesley Clark.
(There are several uploads, I highly recommend the longer version part 1
15 minutes, part 2 10 minutes.)
Very enlightening.
In part 1 (the 14 min. part) about 6:45 discussion of how the Bush Administration and the Saudis are pumping money for covert operations into the Middle East... including Syria.
It is breathtaking with what cavalier attitude the Bush administration was willing to unleash war and misery onto the world (here specifically the Middle East). Not that former administrations or the current one are much different.
The US set the Middle East on fire, they have the blood of thousands of innocents of their hands. And Europe is unwilling to call them out on it (or participates).
Assad is terrible - he will use every means to crush his enemies - if the Syrian civilians happen to be in the way there will be no regard or mercy for them. Still many Syrians (if they cannot flee the country ) prefer his secular rule, what would come after him would be way worse, especially for minorities like the Christians.
Islamic terrorists were funded, trained, and armed by the US and Saudi Arabia in the 1980s (Afghanistan, Taliban, Osama Bin Laden). After the Soviet Union had retracted from Afghanistan the US detected they could not control the monster they had created. So the Taliban considered the US to be the useful idiots as much as vice versa.
The Taliban could not be bribed or intimidated - they are extreme Islamic fundamentalists and these troops were brainwashed to believe in the martyr death, that made them so especially usefull as fierce underdog warriors in the proxy war with the SU.
9/11 could happen because the Bush adminstration was asleep on the wheel - and that is the begnin assumption. They were lucky the Democrats did not have the guts to blame them for not keeping the country safe (Trump had the guts recently!).
George Bush and Cheney had every reason to deflect the anger and patriotic outburst to another target. So the US started bombing Afghanistan shortly after 9/11 - still in Septemer 2001 (note how the 9/11 attackers were mostly Saudis and were probably funded by Rich Saudis).
In 2003 came the invasion of Iraq based on lies. Including the use of radioactive Uranium ammunition causing terrible disfigurations in babies now. In 2009 ! the British knew they were going to war with Syria (Roland Dumas former Foreign French Minister learned that from British Diplomats - the interview with Engl. subs is on youtube). So the Syrian regime change was in the making as well (Obama administration), finally in 2011 the Civil War in Syria "emerged".
The French and British were eager to regime change Libya, Hillary Clinton was happy to be of help to persuade the Obama administration. (see New York Times articles of end of Feb. 2016 about the role of Hillary Clinton in Libya's regime change in 2011).
Libya was a stable secular regime with a relatively high living standard for it's citizens (healthcare, education, womens rights, public housing, even visiting foreign Colleges for free etc.)
The relationship with the US and the West has always been strained for several reasons. (Multinational corporations not being allowed to plunder the country was one of them, ties with the SU/Russia another). Long before 2011 Libya supported terrorists and rebels the US did not like but Gaddafi had given up that nasty habit (he watched Iraq 2003) and later Libya became an ally and a firewall against the Islamic extremists.
Now the country is a hellhole, a safe haven for ISIS, the huge gold reserves were stolen, but they still have the oil and - equally interesting - the water aquifers. Makes you wonder why the NATO states found it possible to get along with the Saudi dictatorship but not with Gaddafi.
The US did everything they could to spread the cancer of terrorism from 2001 on. These days Erdogan of Turkey seems more interested to suppress the Turkish Kurds than to secure together with them the long Turkish/Syrian border against ISIS, "moderate rebels" and the like. Turkish investigative journalists report about the supply of weapons from Turkey to the "rebel fighters" in Syria. These "rebels"/enemies of Assad are extremists or mercenaries. The journalist are thrown into jail or die from weird car accidents - now after the attempted coup it will get worse.
Please note that Turkey is a NATO member and neither the US nor EU can be bothered to scare some sense into Erdogan. (Doesn't the NSA have something on him ?? There should be plenty.)
The Islamist extremists wreck havoc, but when it comes to body count and mistery caused they cannot compete with the US.
So it is a good thing that the US culture (and also the culture of almost all of the Nato states) is secular but somewhat Christian-influenced and not Islamic. That they are the good guys, wealthy, modern, democratic and enlightened nations - else they would be horrible human rights violators and on top of it complete fools when it comes to foreign policy or to keeping their own people safe.
4
-
Maybe the Tech workers feel safe to speak out against Trump because their Big Bosses (donors to Clinton and Obama) do not approve of Trump either. It would not have anything to do with "FREE" "TRADE" DEALS, would it ? The private "courts" installed via TPP, TTIP, TISA and CETA might help to protect their tax evasion (it threatens their profit).
Copyright protection, help with patents. Moreover these deals (nothing to do with free and little with trade) make it almost impossible for a souvereign nation to impose import restrictions and tariffs to influence the multinationals to behave more socially responsible. It is almost impossible now under NAFTA, China trade deal and WTO, but it seems the net
is not yet tight enough for the taste of Big Biz. On the other hand if a super power like the US tries to undercut the status-quo rules (states losing their power to discipline business and finance or to pass legislation that protects citizens but lessens profits) - that could have some success. Not that I think one moment Trump would have the guts, wisdom or care for the people to take on such an uphill battle.
The idea that these deals might acutally fail frightens our ruling classes (all over the world). It means people voted in Trump because they did not like those rules (who work against them) and the sleeping giant might wake up and refuse to get screwed. That is scary. Being anti "trade" deal was a signature talking point of Trump, and against all odds such a candidate becomes POTUS. UNTHINKABLE. Kurt Tucholsky a famous German satirist: If elections would change anything they would be forbidden. Sadly Trump is not the man to challenge the system and quite helpless when it comes to governance. He surrounds himself with the embodiment of privilege and establishment and pay for play. .....Well maybe after the next HUGE financial crisis.
(Apple connected to Clinton campaign, Obama "warning" the European Union (500 million citizens vs. 316 of the US) this fall to inconvenience Apple's shady tax dealings with Ireland. The EU ruled that Ireland has to demand more taxes from Apple for the last years. 13 billions - Apple pays between 0.005 and 1 % taxes (so it is between 5 Euro for 100.000 Euro Profit ! not revenue! up to a whopping 1 % = 1000 Euro for 100,000 Euro Profit.). Normalfolks pay sales tax and income tax - easily 25 - 30 % even for low income. These companies want educated workers who use and need streets, kindergardens, firemen, police, courts, schools, aircontrol, customs, EPA and what not (all around the world). Their employees and their customers (the little guys) are paying taxes and paying for the infrastructure but not big biz.
That would not be possible had not politicians in collusion with big biz made it possible (while telling their voters that these deregulations and trade deals a) were unavoidable in a modern ecnomy and b) would do wonderfull things for the working and middle class). FDR, Truman and Eisenhower would disagree.
4
-
Aaxzej Y.+ Russia is - supposedly showing aggrission behind doors " - you mean not like the US (and to some degree European allies) who do it publicly ?? Hostility against Russia was a topic to make points in US presidential races - it was quite usual (Romney - long before Crimea!, HRC, Rubio, ...). Not that I like Putin or his stance on LGBT. BUT: since when is there a WAR going on against Russia - and WHY. The Soviet Union VOLUNTARILY ! stepped down from the Cold War.* And let the satellites states go and even allowed split-offs from the Soviet Union. Not one shot was fired.
And we should TRUST the US government, the intel community when they tell us they "know" that Russia is secretly hostile - they just can't show us the proof. They would not possibly serve an agenda and make up stuff ??
Democracy is a nuisance. Some politicians and war profiteers want to start wars, but they have to consider public mood and "convince" the not so war-happy electorate. Weapons of Mass Destruction anyone ? Or the midwife and the lies about babies kicked out of incubators (First US-Iraq war). Or the lies that were made up to justify bombing of Serbia (mainly hitting Serbian civilians).
Officially Reagan was happy about the end of the Cold War - maybe he really was. No doubt the Military Industrial Complex was in full panic mode. The old reliable boogeyman quit - and without prior notice !! The intel community had not seen it coming, too. The extremely high US military budget could not be justified anymore - not only soldiers (which are government employees), no, the for-profit manufacturers of the expensive war tools (aka donors and creators of jobs that were safe from outsourcing) would suffer a severe drop of revenue and profit.
Peace was a real threat - but luckily avoided.
The Soviet Union / Russia made a lot of concessions in the 1990s maybe they even TRUSTED the US and Europe - in hindsight this was a grave mistake. The US and US dominated NATO could not think about anything but how to exploit the situation as quickly as possible. In terms of economy: establish neoliberalism in Russia and at home !, privatization: Russian companies bought by Western companies - Putin stopped the firesale to the satisfaction of the Russian citizens.
And of course military and geopolitical strategy, the US would be the sole and completely dominant world power, no one could withstand their orders - resp. what Big Biz requires the US government to do for them on a global scale.
So they exploited the perceived "weakness" of Russia. The neocons could not stop winning - it is not only about greed and war profit, it is also about ideology).
4
-
4
-
I disagree. The cycle has been broken. If people are AWAKE a progressive candidate funded by the citizens might come in (like the Justice Democrats want for instance). Right now the deal between Big Biz and politicians is as follows: The politicians care for big biz when they are in office and biz takes care of them when they leave office. Sometimes politicians oscillate between politics and "private" economy. (The revolving door). In Europe one needs the party to get into a position of political power (and they serve the party before the electorate) and in the US one needs big biz right from the beginning to finance the campaigns. (Which is why it is the worst in the US, but not much better in Europe). The cure: First get campaign money out of politics. When that weakling of Senator loses his seat, big biz might still honour the "contract" and get HIM a cushy position (consultant, lobbyist, ..). The next coming after him might come in with small donations and is much less worth for big biz (of course they can try to corrupt him/her anyway, but that is much harder to pull off when the voters watch their representatives like hawks).
The problem is that politics can be a risky business, so the politicians play safe and play nice with the future suppliers of cushy jobs for ex-politicians. This is much harder to regulate than campaign finance, there are so many ways to evade the intent of regulation (the wife or relative gets the job, the legality - can you forbid someone to have a business for some time after politics ? If these were regular businesses they might have little advantages over other entrepreneurs, that would not do much harm. Usually ex-politicians are not active in providing and creating goods and services. It is usually something about "consulting".
Like Tonly Blair providing consulting, for instancte services for cruel dictators and cashing in milllions over millions for his good "advice".
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
D Master Pay Go: either offsetting spending with cuts elsewhere OR more taxes on the top 20 %. - If it was only limited to taxes on the 1 % there would be no problem. - I got that information from the Hill - here an excerpt:
There is considerable support among Democrats for "Medicare for All," extending the Medicare program to the whole population. While many do not interpret this as meaning an immediate extension of Medicare to everyone, even lowering the qualifying age to 55 or 60 will mean additional spending.
Under Pelosi’s pay-go rule, this extension would be prohibited unless it was coupled with offsetting budget cuts and/or taxes on the top 20 percent.
There are many Democrats who would support cuts to the military, but realistically these will only go so far. The same applies to additional taxes on the wealthy.
the full article is under: https://thehill ( dot ) com/opinion/campaign/420760-pelosi-would-sabotage-progressive-agenda-with-pay-go-rules replace (dot)
Let me add:
The Corporate Democrats also see the upper middle class as their constituency (the white collar professionals). it is true that they do more for the 1 % , but the demands of the affluent are also considered.
The rest of the country is thrown under the bus. Not only by the Republican politicians - also by the Corporate Democrats (and spineless or fake "Progressives")
With the example ** of European healthcare systems with a strong emphasis on non-profit public actors (insurance agencies and at least a part of the hospitals) - the Corporate Democrats can resign themselves EASILY to ten of thousands of US citizens dying of lack of care and many more patients hit by high bills or going bankrupt despite ACA.
** European nations have single payer systems at least since the late 1940s (Germany had a major welfare reform in 1883 and 1884 that also introduced universal healthcare, I think they were the first country to have that).
The nations that did not have such provisions before WW2 got them after WW2 (like the U.K.). Australia and Canada came a little later - in the 1960s and 70s.
They all have been paying much less per capita (50 - 65 % of the U.S.), the majority of those countries is in the range of USD 5,000 - 6,000 per capita (and all residents have full coverage without a hassle).
Versus USD 9,200 per capita in the U.S. (World Bank, data 2014)
Per capita means ALL that is spent in the country on healthcare divided by number of people. So per capita includes healthy children that did not even need the doctor this year as well as middle aged people that do not have any insurance coverage and unpaid medical bills.
It is an average.
That impressively shows how inefficient and dysfunctional the U.S. systems is: expensive, a hassle AND despite the high AVERAGE costs for every person in the country (per capita = per head) still a lot of un- or underinsured people and people that do not get care in time or adequate care.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
+ James M. Campell - if I am not mistaken Marty Lives quotes the McCarthy inspired committee questions. They were not about nuance in the 1950s either. - During WW2 there were posters in U.S. post offices of "Uncle Sam" and "Uncle Joe" walking arm in arm (the latter refering to Joseph Stalin). U.S. citizens went to meetings thinking they would support the starving population of the military ally of the United States. Now that meeting might have been held by a Communist Party member (of a U.S. communist party ) - even such minor "transgresssions" could get people into trouble in the 1950s (even though such meetings were legal and by no means discouraged DURING WW2).
Apart from that I never understood why a party that was not resorting to terrorist tactics and did not fight against the constitution could be forbidden at all in a so called "democracy". - "They" could not pull off that nonsense in Italy, France, Greece where the Communist Party was traditionally strong, an established player in the political scene. Other countries had strong left parties so the Communists never got as strong there (the niche was already taken so to speak - for instance Germany or the UK, Austria, all the Scandinavian countries, Netherlands ....).
The communists were on the forefront of fighting against the fascists (in Italy) or the German occupiers during WW2 (and in Spain during the Civil War in the 1930s). So they had support from the population during the war. Underground fighters of all political and ideological backgrounds mixed and fought for their life side by side with those "scary" communists.
After the war it was hard to delegitimize them and their contribution in the public opinion. Not that the conservatives parties and also the CIA and U.S. think tanks did not try to smear them.
CIA related forces even had bomb attacks committed, which they blamed on the "Reds". See "Operation Gladio" and "Stay behind forces" - fascists, Nazi collaborators and even the mafia were engaged to fight against the "Communists" and to be there as "silent" reserve army - just in case the Soviet Union would ever invade, or the Communist party would win elections - I guess the latter was even more scary to the CIA and the U.S. government.
(A lot of former Nazi collaborators were engaged in that way, they were not held accountable, on the contrary they were groomed and got money, equipment, likely also training).
Swiss historian Daniele Ganser published a lot on Operation Gladio and "Stay behind".
4
-
People snap in other countries too (not as often) - or they are in a dark mood and consider ending their life. You do not want to have firearems around in masses in those cases and if so - let them be traditional hunting riffles. A mass killing with a knife is a lot of effort. even attacks with cars, can be stopped easier by the police when the terrorist does not have military style arms.
Also suicides can be pulled off in other ways. But they need more determination, time, effort, skills - and other ways to take your life are not as quick and reliable and may scare off the depressed/desperate.
That needed effort prevents a certain number of following through or "succeeding". With a gun around it is QUICK and easy to make an end - 100 % sure. Jumping from buildings, bridges or before the train - there are more hesistationd to overcome, because you have to do more than pull the trigger while the damage you will do to your body is on your mind.
.... Poison is hard to get, and those that are easier to get cause a painful death. Sleeping pills are not easy to get, one would need to collect them (time) and they do not always work (luckily). Hanging yourself you need some DIY skills to arrange for that.People have survived because the hanging device broke under their weight. etc. etc.
And if someone gets themselves in a fit of rage towards family or neighbours it would be a blessing for them ! and others if there is no potent weapon around (a weapon that is military style suited to kill a lot of people in quick time, like semi automatics). The crazies will end up with a charge of battery instead of manslaughter. And maybe then forced to accept treatment.
If no firearm or a firearm with a few shots only is involved, bystanders and police have a chance in case of one of the rare massacres.
You do not need a semi-automatic to hunt animals, not even large ones. If you cannot take out the bear with 2 shoots - you have no business going after it. That is even true for hunters in Africa going after lions, elephants. A few shots should suffice - or your pathetic hobby becomes even more pathetic.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@dpersonal4187 It does not matter which solution Chomsky thinks to be workable He does not push ! for a solution and has no political power to make it happen. He DOES HAVE the POWER to EDUCATE the public about the injustices and violations of international and U.S. laws that are going on.
And he can add his two cents what he thinks could work.
It is not his duty to find a solution - or to be right about it. Even the best possible solution does not work if the parties do not stick to it.
That would be the task of the U.S. Israel, the representatives of Palestine, ....
The citizens of Europe, U.S., Canada, ... need to be INFORMED about the wrongdoing of Israel - so that THEY will put pressure on their governments, media to stop covering for Israel.
The nations / groups that are affected need to SEEK a workable solution - in good faith.
Israel undermined the treaty that Carter had brokered, in a second term he could have done something about it - but Reagan let them get away with murder.
Israel helped the U.S. government / the CIA to sell the U.S. weapons to Iran in the 1980s. That financed the illegal black budgets of the CIA for the terrorists in Latin America. That - and of course the drugs that the CIA helped to import into the U.S.
Congress had forbidden to fund the death squads in Latin America so the CIA and the Reagan admin got creative. George Herbert Walker Bush was VP then - and he was a former CIA director.
The Reagan campaign had struck a deal with the new government of Iran: if they would hold back the U.S. hostages from the embassy until AFTER the election and if Reagan would win they would sell them weapons. Needless to say there were sanctions on Iran for taking U.S. diplomats as hostages. Not even civilian U.S. products could be legally sold.
The release of the hostages would have helped Carter. Sure enough, Iran announced on the inauguration day of Reagan that they would release the hostages. As a "sign of goodwill towards the new president". (More like a not too subtle reminder of the agreement.).
Israel was instrumental in secretely pulling that off. So the weapons were delivered to Israel (that was inconspicuous) and than handed over to Iran. For such little services one can let them get away with undermining the peace agreement of the former admin.
In the 1980s Reagan sen U.S. marines to Lebanon to support the attempt of Israel to grab Lebanon. There was a terror attack with more than 200 dead - at least then Reagan (after the usual grandstanding) had the good sense to pull out. And Israel was on their own. Well they could not justify a bloody dragged out war to their citizens as well, so the land grab did not happen.
Lebeanon has water, they want the land. Israel tried again in 2006 - and there are rumours that they will try again now.
Hezbollah stands between Israel and expanding their Lebensraum. That is why Israel hates them so much - the undermine the reputation of their army. Syria and Iran help Hamas and Hezbollah - so they are announced to us a major supporters of terrorism. Well when has been the last terror attack by Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran in the U.S. or Europe ?? That would be the jihadists that are supported by KSA, the U.S. !! - and yes, Israel.
Chomsky has done a splendid job in educating the public. He has done so for DECADES. it is not his fault that the citizens and the mainstream media and the bought and paid for politicans ignore him.
He is a Jew and an intellectual heavyweight. That is helpful - his knowledge is so vast that he can even deal with smart liars like Alan Dershowitz (watch the debate, Dershowitz did not look good).
4
-
4
-
@ms711x Sweden (or Germany, France, Austria, Netherlands) are meanwhile very diverse countries . They do not traditionally see themselves as immigration countries, but there has been a lot of immigration from the 1960s on, and of course esepcially during the last wave that was caused by th U.S. with help of U.K. and France (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria)
They are homogenous in the sense that the wealthy European countries were never as complacent about having poor people in the country. If you are low-income you want to live in Sweden, Austria, Netherlands, Belgium, ... not in the U.S.
And their political system is n is not as currupt (the citizens watching when companied financed political campaigns, what can one expect). Therefore most of these nations did not deindustrialize.
4