Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Jimmy Dore Show"
channel.
-
2
-
@Danielv561 I cannot say what the EU spends - more precisely: What is spent in the EU member states and associated countries. There are for-profit companies, universities, hospitals that have talented doctors who try out things. Projects with EU grants too - at universities and elsewhere.
- I read recently read that the EU has a test run for heart surgery (reducing surgery time form 2 hours to 1). An improved method of micro surgery.
10 hospitals in different EU countries participate. It is not that revolutionary and there was a functioning procedure already.
This is not as spectacular and unique as the surgery that you talked about - but a common procedure that makes the system perform better, and more cost efficient. Slightly reduced risk, too - less anaesthesia, less stress if the patient is elderly or weak.
I know an elderly lady went to get eye surgery out of state - which was of course covered, just less convenient. (a better method, less recovery time). She had heard good things about the doctor and new method (she is a retired nurse).
Meanwhile that new better method has become the new standard.
Is this "research" ? Kind of - they had to try out the new method at some point of time. And then teach it and have it implemented.
How did you do your research for a doctor - did you have the help of specialists ? They have excellent centers in Switzerland and in Germany, too.
France, U.K. and Switzerland attract a lot of oligarchs - I would think they would have some capacities as well.
Anyway: There is no doubt there are excellent facilities (some world famous) in the U.S. but they can impossibly serve ALL 325 million people even IF costs were no issue.
For organizing a national healthcare service the big picture will be COSTS and OUTCOMES for the MASSES and the common cases. Then comes the next level to shine with outstanding performances.
The outstanding facilities are often historically grown (factors like having a lot very rich people like Switzerland or London or Paris. A famous university, an exceptional doctor is a resident and starts something.
An example: Smaller countries do not have their own car industry - they specialize in other manufacturing and BUY FROM OTHER COUNTRIES. If the surgery is rare and difficult it can make sense to have someone / an institution specialize. They would then also have more cases - improving their skills.
That may have been a reason they were so generous. Not too many cases like your relative - but when all goes well they build their reputation. And they increase their experience with the frontier cases.
I am under the impression it was an U.S insurance that refused to pay (the comment section is crowded, I did not search for your former comments).
Good thing the docs volunteered and that it went well.
The interesting question is if the insurance agency of of a single payer country would pay for such an out of country special surgery. - I do not know and countries might handle it differently.
In Canada, Australia, Germany, France, Netherlands, .... the media might pick up the story and shame the public agency into contributing or full coverage if they are unwilling.
A pregnant Canadian woman visited the U.S., got into premature labor, complications, they got a bill for 750,000 USD. (Mother and child were doing well). The media in the U.S. and especially in Canada picked up the story. The Canadian government helped them out and paid the bill.
Likewise a case like you mentioned would engage media interest and either the insurance agency would be pressured into paying for treatment outside the EU / outside the country (Canada, Australia, ....) - or a governor or minister would get active. 500,000 or 1 mio is a lot for an individual but not when it comes to the budget for the healthcare of millions of people.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@brettsears33 Minimum wage would be over USD 12 instead of 7,25 if it had kept up with inflation (based on what it was in 1970). It would be near USD 20 if they had continued to raise it in lockstep with productivity gains (as they did in the decades before). The purchasing power of average wages in the U.S. almost doubled between 1947 and 1970: plus 97 %. Productivity gains were 112 %. the charts are easy to find on the web and quite telling.
The average wages and the federal minimum wage rose in lockstep with productivity after WW2 until the 1970s. Then the U.S. had the war debt and the whole world had 2 disrupitve oil price shocks. (so the 1970s were atypical - and the oligarchs finally had their chance to hit back against the New Deal. In the U.S. the high Vietnam war debt was not helpful either). .
After WW2 automation was not nearly as sophisticated as today, no computers, marketing the old fashioned way etc. So the share of labor costs in products was higher. But the good wages incl. a relatively higher MINIMUM WAGE did not hinder economic progress or CONSUMPTION. it drove innovation.
Sure: goods were more expensive, but people still could afford them - and most was made in the U.S. or other fist world countries. There was at least an incentive to have them durable, not a throwaway culture like today.
For 25 - 30 years the model worked really well - also in Europe, Canada, NZ, Australia. Plus then taxes were high for high incomes and profitable businesses.
On the other hadn neoliberalism, austerity, wage stagnation and ever shrinking taxes from those who could easily pay them reign since the 1980s.
One era was called The Golden Era, the Economic Miracle, The Builing of The American Middle Class.
You tell me when the economy worked well for the regular people. and when major crises of the financial system and the world economy (for pure economic reasons) were unknown.
2
-
@brettsears33 I know the non-profit public healthcare systems of Germany and Austria well. These systems (like all "single payer" are much, much more cost efficient than the U.S. system (which has to do with the fact that the "free market" is on principle not possible for a product like healthcare. There is a reason all other countries went the non-profit public route. (Not Switzerland, well it shows, they system is good and everyone is insured but their costs are even higher than the U.S.costs).
per capita expenditures U.S. USD 9200.
Germany USD 5,600 Austria 5,400 (at the higher end of the average for a wealthy European country).
Which is STILL expensive, modern medicine gets a lot done, but it costs. A family of 4 accounts for at least 20k in a first world country (most nations are in the 5 - 6k range per person - that is an average for every resident, and only under the condition of having a cost efficient single payer system.
So to make it affordable the goverment must subsidize the system - like in the U.S. In the U.S. two thirds of healthcare expenditures are paid by the government. Which is not that weird: old people are expensive for the system, and Medicare (a public non-profit agency that works also very cost efficiently despite some obstacles *) covers the population over 65.
* defunding, they are not allowed to negotiate drug prices, people were medically neglected before so they arrive with illnesses that could have prevented had they gotten preventive care before, ...
A lot of the (way too high expenditures which Medicare cannot / is forbidden to influence) is covered by the U.S. government. But in the U.S. those subsidies finance not only the delivery of care and everything that is necessary for that, that funding also pays for too high medication prices. Partially the incomes of doctors are higher (not enough doctors trained and university is not free so the costs of training are prohibitive).
The private for profit circus needs a lot of adminstration: denying care, making the patients jump through hoops is a lot of work.
And of course the prices for the unnecessary treatments and tests of people with good plans (the doctors and hospitals have to chase unpaid bills and lose money if people go bankrupt so they try to make up for that with the "good" patients.
Last but not least the U.S. government funds the hefty profit of rich shareholders.
In countries with single payer the subsidies help to pay the wages of people who actually deliver healthcare plus a lean adminstration for a streamlined system. Everyone is insured, there is no discrimination who gets what treatment: if it is available on principle everyone gets it. The doctor decides together with the patient what happens.
The affordable wage deductions and the government funding pay for well negotiated services of doctors, and pharmacies (they are small businesses) non-profit hospitals run by muncipalities or church related organizations, medical drugs. Plus all that is needed (buildings, cleaning and cooking staff, medical devices, ...). Big Pharma is the only Big for profit player in the system - and they have a powerful negotiation partner that has a legal obligation to serve the common good (not the shareholders).
2
-
2
-
+Brian G your mother had much better chances to come legally 40 years ago. - the immigrants from Latin America would not even be a problem - like Canada. if not the U.S. military, CIA and the U.S. economic power (or sanctions !) would fuck them every chance they get - for ideology and for Big Biz.
The U.S. has been doing this for more than 100 years.
Surprise, surprise they never come on their feet.
Neoliberal and rightwing politics do not work for the little people and if they try even modestly left politics the U.S. comes down on them like a ton of bricks
Social Democracy had to be tolerated in Europe after WW2 (higher standard of education, cultural connection, they were needed against the Soviet Unions in the cold War and as battleground in case of a nuclear war.
But no concessions for Latin America. FDR ended the imperialism for some time and declared a "Time of good neighbourhood" around the mid 1930s
the U.S. had enough problems and the former meddling had mostly brought authoritarin regimes to power, so it kind of aligned with U.S. business interests anyway.
(The U.S. also had its imperialism going on towards the Philippines)
The Mexican elites in collusion with the U.S. sold out Mexico with NAFTA. (But I guess if unwilling their being voted out by a referendum of mistrust could have been arranged - or worse...assasination, blackmail)
Mexico got some industry jobs with mediocre pay (nothing compared to the wages/purchasing power the U.S. workers/consumers got in the 1950s and later.
So those jobs and wages cannot JUMPSTART domestic consumption in Mexico.
a couples working just about make it, modest housing, when they accept a long commute, and they can send their 1 or 2 children to university. That's it.
They undercut their peers in the U.S. (which was the whole point of those "free" "trade" deals.
Under such deals the goods made for cheap can be exported into still wealthier countries - they for sure cannot consume the stuff in Mexico because they do not have the disposable income that comes from good wages.
for THAT they get U.S. crops into Mexico which destroys small farmers, which were living modestly enough even before that. These people stream into the cities, not nearly enough industry or other jobs for them, that keeps labor costs down.
In some cities and regions organized crime are the "good guys" They are the ones that hire. Or they try to get to the U.S.
And then there are or were the refugees from Colombia (another drug war, decriminalization - not legalization - worked well for Portugal and Switzerland regarding drugs).
The coup in Honduras that the U.S. immediately regognized.
The troubles in Venezuela that are intentionally made WORSE by the U.S. They are getting refugee status btw - which is interesting because not even the U.S. can style that as civil war - although I am sure they working at it (the civil war not the styling).
These are the poor people who walk over the border. Which is dangerous btw. The U.S. border control picks up pre-teens. How bad must it get that they send their unprotected children on a journey.
The wealthier come by plane and overstay their visas.
Then there is the war on drugs - in the U.S. and in Mexico (enforced by the U.S.) the firearms sold to Mexico.
The banks helping with money laundering.
They make hundreds of millions maybe billions - one cannot handle that with cash, completely impossible. They NEED the banks, the SWIFT system likely has backdoors for the NSA - the U.S. COULD do something about the cartels.
The chaos in Mexico serves them just fine. or they do not dare to do something about it
I doubt Obama ever had any intentions, he could not even bring himself to have cannabis declared as less dangerous substance. It shares with heroin the classification as schedule 1 - dangerous, highly addictive, no medical value, therefore no reserch.
Obama had smoked weed and so had Bill Clinton - but both never bothered to change that classification. Which of course was base for harsh laws and imprisonment, and made medical research almost impossible in the U.S.
And Obama also protected the banksters that had caused the Great Financial Crisis from criminal prosecution, his attorney general went out of his way to settle out of court and with fines if there was some action - so no intention whatsoever to do something about money laundering for drug trade.
The U.S. COULD do a lot to help make thos countries safe and with some economic prospects - then much fewer people would come.
Mrs. Kirchner of Argentine recalls that she once asked GWB if the U.S. would consider a Marshall Plan for Latin America. He told ther the way to get the economy going is war.
He for sure acted on that idea in the U.S.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Anyway the old man PROFOUNDLY changed the NATIONAL discussion on healthcare, and also on how to finance campaigns, and who can aspire to run for Congress and Senate (= normal people). It has become the new normal - folks tend to blend out how revolutionary this all was in 2015, 2016 - it is testimony to how much of an impact Sanders has made - even though he is a coward and wanna be revolutionary that quietly returned to his niche of being the enternal dissenter with no real power.
Having more power may be out of his comfort zone. FDR said: I welcome their hatred. Sanders is not cut from the same cloth. (FDR likely was also an ego driven larger than life character. I assume after some generations being the member of a family that is rich and influental becomes boring. he may have liked his role as the benefactor of the masses. FDR aspired for Senate in New york and of course also planned to run for president later.
I remember Sanders saying in 2015 that he was never one of the people that tell their image in the mirror, how they are going to be president on day. That one has to be a little crazy of WANTING to be president. That is the reaction of a normal, decent person that is not a narcissist, egomaniac, careerist or psychopath. Or eager to get the power to start wars and increase the fortune.
So it is those actors that make it into the the top positions in politics and big biz - and not the people with some basic decency (that are not a good fit for the blood sport).
Truth is - he and Jeff Weaver had planned their campaign with 30 millions in small donations in early 2015 (or late 2014, Sanders waited for Elizabeth Warren to step up, most likely that cost him valuable time). Sanders and Weaver NEVER expected to get that far, they wanted to push Clinton to the left and to use the platform of a campaign in a field with only 3 or 4 D candidates to "talk about The Issues".
Everyone including Sanders and Weaver was suprised by their success. They got 230 millions in small donations and he had (almost) a shot at the nomination. (if only Hillary Clinton had dropped dead in summer, the DNC would have been forced to nominate him).
I think Sanders is split between his former more revolutionary self (that worked gigs and was poor) and the pragmatic compromises he got used to making as soon as he had some power (starting with being the mayor).
And I think he does not SEE himself as holding that much power, that he subconscioulsy self sabotaged.
With all of these weaknesses and flaws - Sanders changed American politcs.
.....Jimmy can get over his love-hate relationship, he can give the 79 year old man a rest. With all the disappointments, Sanders made a major positive impact.
The best video I have seen so far is the fan ad based on the Bob Dylan song: Times are a-changin'.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Do you KNOW that he is a bad guy ? Have you ever noticed how not even the Germans, French etc. dare to piss of the U.S. government (= muscle man for the oligarchs) ? What would happen if a not very rich or even developed country became the target of U.S. imperialism ???
Kissinger in the 1970s when the U.S. siskliked the government of Chile. We will make them scream (meaning using their influence to ruin their economy).
2002 support for the coup against Chavez.
The drone attack not long ago. More and more sanctions. It is not only the sanctions, it as a signal for other countries and companies NOT to do business.
No country in our kind of economy can withstand being cut off from international . do you think Western banks outside the U.S. would dare to do biz with Venezuela ? Or their governments would dare not to go along with the U.S. sanctions.
Remember the affair when the president of Bolivia was not allowed to land, tank or fly over vasall states of the U.S. (Poland, France).
The machine had had the route confirmed in advance, but then the towers did not let them use the airspace. The plane of Morales finally went to Vienna and anounced they had a technical problem and needed to land. A plane MUST be allowed to land under such circumstances.
The Austrian president gave a press conference with Morales the next day and tried to smooth out things and gloss over the insult. (I think the police at Vienna airport had a glance into the plane. they did not dare to force entry for an inspection, they had been told the plane was empty. This was Vienna late at night. WHO had told police at the airport to kind of inspect a presidential machine ? Vienna airport in the night is not exactely the middle of the action.
(the assumption was that Snowden could be on board, some South American leaders had met with Putin in Moscow. It may even have been discussed but Snowden was still in Moscow, the U.S. AND the vassal states of the U.S had made fools of themselves, it indirectly helped Snowden.
The embarrassed citizens of Europe had to take notice to what degree their governments were lapdogs / stooges of the U.S. (Note that during that time it came out how the U.S. had also spied on the "allies". Merkels private phone, EU buildings.
The usual suspects for terrorism.
Obama started the sanctions (on individuals I think) WHAT for ? - the Gulf states can brutally suppress protests in Bahrain never mind Saudi Arabia. No one bats an eye.
Not sure if they have seized now the gas stations in the U.S. that belong to the state of Venezuela (at least partially).
The BoE recently refused to hand out the gold reserves of Venezuela. That is unheard of.
Believe me countries like Germany or France would struggle to withstand if the U.S. would at a whim put sanctions on them - well they are part of the EU. China can help itself. Remember how China is sanctioned for humanitarian violations ? Me neither.
The count of victims of unrest in Venezueala included ALSO killed police and soldiers.
The opposition hired thugs going after dark-skinned people. At least that is a very probable scenario. The road blocks usually do not include robbery (I am sure there is, but the politcally motivated acts of sabotage and roadblocks can be easily distinguished from crime. A man drove to work on a bike and had the bad fortune of meeting a street blockade, they dragged him off and set him on fire. He died.
Another man was set on fire when he stood among a crowd.
They pop up, are violent and hinder people passing by (in the night).
They target darker people, they are very likely poor and thus more likely to be Chavistas. And if not them - then their friends an relatives.
Food storage, hospitals, public transportation units are targetted. By thugs the rich of the country would not get their hands dirty, of course not. That does not make sense - stealing food that is meant for poor people would make sense - but setting it on fire ??
The concept is not new - they did it in Iran in 1953 (guess what it was also about oil).
They put economic sanctions on Chile in the hope to alienate the population from their government - that was before the U.S. supported coup.
The humans rights violation of dictator Pinochet did not matter. he had no ideas to use the riches of Chile for the citizens and AT & T got cheap copper.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Daniel Ellsberg jeopardized his career and (financial) wellbeing, even freedom when he blew the whistle. For Woodward Watergate meant fame, it was the highlight of his career. There seems to be a profound effect on the integrity of the person - based on the underlying rewards (after the one big case) or necessary sacrifices regarding the one case.
Ellsberg was lucky that the Nixon admin had burglared his psychotherapist, they tried to get dirt on him to villify or blackmail him. - A judge threw out the case on grounds of that burglary / harrassemnt because the government was biased against him. If he had been prosectued he may have ended up in prison.
Ellsberg was willing to make a major sacrifice then - and he still has integritiy. The risk of speaking out for Assange now is much lower than the risks he took in the 1970s.
Woodward was very willing to compromise in order to HOLD ON to his success by playing nice with the sources and with the powers that be (or only going after a few power players in very few cases. Like annoying the Trump admin now or the Nixon admin back in the day).
Woodward made distinctions WHAT would be CONVENIENT to publish as early as the 1970s, and what info he would hold back Or what major stories that are in the open he would simply ignore. Like Assange now.
The man had a distinguished career, he is old, he made a lot of money, I have no doubt his books sell well. Does he fear not to be invited on the TV networks anymore to promote his books if he offends them by speaking up for Assange ?
He could start his youtube channel and kill it there. Independent media would gladly give him a major initial bump.
NOW it would be very safe and low-cost ! to do the right thing - but the bad habit to make shady compromises sticks, no matter how much privilege and protection a person has NOW.
Compromising on ethical principles does not seem to be something that a person can switch on and off (for instance understandable if cowardly safety or carrer concerns in the past).
Compromising on principles creates LASTING ROT. it looks like there is no coming back from that.
It is a slippery slope downwards, not a crossroads where you could do the right thing after you often chose to do the wrong thing in the past. (That psychological effect also showed in the Milgram experiments. Those that refused to harm another person because someone "in charge" told them to in a matter of fact way - did so early on. Those who made weak verbal protests - and then did as they were told .... continued to do so even when the victim's pleas got more and more intense and harrowing. (The victim was an actor, and they did not really get the electro shocks. Wich was good because around 90 % of the participants were willing to give him a shock that could easily have killed him. he actor only played the response from I want to stop now, to (increasingly ! intense) protest, to begging - and then silence.
Once ego driven Dereck Chauvin had decided to kneel on the neck of George Floyd and then putting his hands in the pockets of his trousers (to show the protesting bystanders how little he cared) - it was a one way. It was not like he was willing / able to stop himself after 3 minutes. To change course. people that know at some level that they do wrong - but do it anyway (ego, greed, cowardice) usually DOUBLE down.
It is a one way.
Homo sapiens usually finds excuses when violating principles and moral stances in order to maintain a good self-image - and later they feel compelled to double down, I think it is to DEFEND what they did in the past. Even if later doing the right thing would come at low cost (never mind how challenging or easy doing the right thing would have been in the past).
The "sacrifice" would be that it hits home (how they compromised in the past, and the inevitable awareness how they were wrong or weak, or just more self-interested or selfish).
Woodward said in a longer interview (when he promoted his book FEAR about the inner workings of the White House under Trump) that he KNEW that the Nixon admin had a secret bombing campaign going on against Cambodia.
Let that sink in:
Neither (most of) Congress nor the voters got that information.
We are talking about a major campaign, not just some strikes. (Which would still be against international law and consequential, but never mind).
In an alleged democracy .....Can anything be more political and in need of approval than decisions about warfare - and in a far away country that is no threat to the nation, and could not be a threat if they wanted to.
What was the point about 1776 ? About government tyranny.
Can anything be more newsworthy than a rogue government evading ALL constitutional and democratic stops and restraints ?
Woodward set himself up to be a shill then.
He likely made compromises as reporter before Watergate elevated his career. But after that he had a platform.
He very casually mentioned himself in 2018 that he held back the info about Cambodia bombing - he wanted to illustrate a point that a journalist does not go forward with ALL the information.
The interviewer asked him why he did it (although by no means giving him a hard time, but in the current state of affairs one has to be thankful that there was something like a follow up question).
I think the interviewer shared my surprise, and my opinion that this was a remarkable piece of information. Woodward is still very much O.K. with his inaction regarding the Cambodia bomging. He quietly and casually confirmed his stance (unfortunately I forgot the exact wording and "justification") - and the interviewer politely moved on and dropped the issue. Of course !
2
-
2
-
2
-
Alzheimer Reagan - the Dems can do one better ! - Reagan came into office in Jan. 1981 and was diagnosed with early Alzheimer's in March 1981. (he got life saving surgery after the assassination attempt, I guess he already was on a medication of a trusted doctor, and they had to come clean to the hospital doctors, it was a life and death situation. But the doctors kept silent)
Dude won the second term as well, so they propped him up with medication.
VP Bush was fine with the situation (8 years of Reagan, and then 8 years of Bush was the plan, no doubt, so they had nothing to win by pulling the 25th).
His wife, cabinet, the press - they all covered for him.
VP Bush, the neocons that were at large again under Bush2 and Nancy Reagan run the show - and neither Bush nor Nancy were NOT elected.
It is the question if Bush would have won against Carter. (who made a serious mistake in letting a brillant but ideological man like Paul Volcker run an experiment. How to tackle high inflation (caused by oil price spikes and a dropping USD) by extremeley high interest rates which strangled the economy. This was a self inflicted recession
The thing the actor Reagan had going for him was stage presence and being charming. That wasn't the forte of Bush.
2
-
2
-
+John Kesich - you mean Sanders held back at a time when he did not nearly have as much power as he has NOW and could not have changed the outcome anyway ? Did you notice that he NOW puts pressure on them. I admit he is still much more cautious * and polite that they deserve.
Maybe he knows something about the shark tank that we do not know. and from time to time he wants to get a share of military contracts for his little state.
I assume if HE had a say many representatives would get green investements and infrastructure budgets for their states - to have something to show for their votes. But that is not the world we live in - not now.
Never mind that he has had healthcare on the agenda since the 1990s when he came into office (and more informally since the 1970s when he campaigned with an Independent party in Vermont, but then he had no infuence at all).
The Dems are scared shitless of his influence and power and he wisely uses it in a subtle manner. FOR NOW he is invited as the outreach of the Democratic Party to MSM interviews (which he did not get when campaigning).
He does not give the Dems a pretext to launch a full fledged assault on him or remove him from that post. And he uses the time to go around in the country (union events, town halls in all kinds of states), he builds his youtube channel. Recently he did a townhall when Trump abandoned the Iran deal (it was picked up by the independent media but of course not by MSM).
Whatever the topic of a TV interview may be - he ALSO and EVERY SINGLE TIME mentions MEDICARE for All, the U.S. is the ONLY wealthy country on earth that does not guarantee healthcare for all , 15 USD minimum wage, debt-free college education (he varies the other issues, usually he mentions around 5).
Excellent marketing ! Building the brand and a CORE MESSAGE. And just in case some viewers do not yet know it - other countries have it better than the U.S. regarding health care (maternity leave, higher education, ...)
* Example for a very mild reaction
Corey Booker and Dems defected in Jan 2017 (Bill regarding imports of medical drugs from Canada. Those drugs are publicly negotiated in Canada, that would drop prices in the U.S. - his public "statement of regret" about the missing support was very mild - but the Dems knew what to think of it, they were irritated, some like Corey Booker wer eager to publicly explain themselves (likely he knew he could not afford to collect bad points when he wanted to run in 2020).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2