Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Humanist Report"
channel.
-
40
-
23
-
22
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Tiny VT cannot go against the trend - some ? 300,000 people vs. the dysfunctional practices of powerful industries "serving" 325 million people. - CA would be a game changer but the propsoal was undermined - the budget being the PRETEXT.
I live in a European country (Austria, neighbour of Germany) with single payer (in reality there is not ONE public non-profit insurance company (they adminstrate also retirement and disability pensions). There are about 15 - 20 (for the 9 states and certain professions like farmers, teachers, gov. employees, etc.) Some of these do not have risk pools of more than 100.000. That is enough - if the risk pool is not cherry picked (no one is "sorted" out because of age, risk, status of the family who also have insurance).
But of course each of those sub insurance agencies profits from the central drug price negotiations, the fees that are paid to the doctors or the hospitals with a contract are all within a reasonable price range (and they communicate about that). I would estimate that 80 % of familiy doctors, dentists etc. do have a contract (and there are hardly any for-profit hospitals). So it is not like the doctors flee from one region because they can charge more otherwise.
Some doctors offer specialities - and then they may be private. But most (also) accept the modest price structure of the public insurance agency. For that they get a regional quote. In a smaller town there will be only a certain number of doctors. Citizens can go to any doctor with a contract w/o any payment (usually in the city for practical reasons, but they could keep their doctor outside as well). That means they have a predictable income, a suffucient case load and even little rural towns will be attractive for starting out in the profession - if there is no other free slot with a contract.
They are not going to consume the (free) university education and then flee the country. The systems here (8,7 million) is the same as with large neighbour Germany (82 million people). So there will be enough doctors available.
It is entirely possible that doctors have less income here than in the U.S. (university is free though, and low income people get subsidies for the cost of living during their education), they are still doing very nicely.
Switzerland pays excellent wages, doctors here COULD go there (same language, and the Swiss like the level of training and the similar culture), but usually they stay in the country. -
In Vermont on the other hand if a public agency (singley payer) offered more streamlined contracts there is a chance the doctors would just go to another state. If the whole country switiches to a more European style system, most U.S. doctors would need the additional patients to have enough revenue (and they still would do fine) - and have much, much less hassle.
And from what I heard Vermont could not negotiate drug prices (that was forbidden on the federal level) nor can they import drugs from Canada. So the costs were too high - in that setting.
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
William Binney (NSA technical director for 24/7 spy programs turned government critic): IF that was a HACK (remote access by an unauthorized person) as opposed to a LEAK (insider) there is no way the NSA would not have TRACKS (they have EVERYTHING that travels over the net). AND: it would be SAFE to SHOW the PROOF - it does not reveal sources, methods etc. - Since they chose not to show it, they may not have anything (nor do they allege to proof in the report). Moreover the CIA depends on the NSA for intercepting. - That is what the NSA mastermind says on the technicalities.
The official "report" has as attachment the "Golden Shower document", it does not make firm statements - no "it is alleged ...", they make a psychological profil of Putin and his supposed desire for revenge - and they obsess with Russia Today TV = RT. Can you imagine, RT tries to stir up dissatisfaction, they reported negatively on Wallstreet greed, fracking and hosted Third Party Candidate debates. (In Nazi Germany and under Stalin there was a crime called "subversion" - I wouldn't be surprised to hear that term soon.)
Back to the official report of the agencies on fake news and the "hacking": Disclaimer of confidence. NSA (the experts on hacking on which the other agencies depend when it comes to surveillance and interception) has only MEDIUM confidence that "Russia did it" (whereas all other agencies claim hight confidence). Wikileak's Julian Assange said about the embarrassing EMAILS of Clinton and DNC (and it was never about anyhting else than these emails) : "It was a leak of a disgusted insider". Craig Murray former British Diplomat, now working with Wikileaks, also recently confirmed that he received the data in a park in Washington on a physical device - well then of course the NSA will not have any tracks - the data did not travel over the web.
Trump might have peace talks with Russia (Ukraine, Syria) reduce or end sanctions, reducing nuclear weapons - Obama signed a new excessively expensive nuclear program not long ago), end the politics of regime change.
To me it looks like a POWER STRUGGLE - would not be the first time the agencies undermine elected politicians, presidents, Congress (Carter, Iran/Contra) or LIE to the public (in hearings) or yield to political power to come up with desired "evidence" (WMD's in Iraq)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Please don't donate if your are not an US citizen. I read comments of non-citizens from time to time: Can I donoate ? No ! It is a good sign that foreigners want to chime in, but they are not doing the campaign any favors. On the contrary. - It is not legal, and all campaigns have to sort through all donations. ALSO for citizens and legal residents from within the U.S.:
- whether they give beyond the limit of USD 2,800 (or whatever it is, in that range). They have to return that (but monitoring the sum of what a person has given so far can be automated).
The Sanders campaign has much more donations to check than other campaigns. and they likely will return the 20 USD if you are not a citizen.
I am certain they use software for that (at least filtering the harmless and obviously legal donations) but if the data around a donations shows it might not be legal, then it might need the attention of a staffer. They pay the fees of the banks anyway, and with the extra attention the legally required handling and returning of such donations requires, well meaning people unintentionally CAUSE the campaign costs and hassle.
In 2016 they got over 2000 donations of foreigners, they had to return them. I found that on a blog of Hillary fans who were "incensed" about it. Many donations came from Canada, but also from Europe, Australia.
The amounts were modest, most in the range of 10 - 50 bucks, hardly some over 200 bucks, so it could not be weaponized against Sanders and mainstream media did not run with the story.
But it could be used to bring the campaign into disrepute if it happens more often this time. (Evil foreigners financing Sanders campaing. Who knows if it is a Russian ploy ? Stroking of a white cat and musings about world dominance is involved).
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
People have 4 or 5 k per month during the pandemic and leave (or so they say). hmmm....... They say there were belittling comments, he did not take them seriously ... etc. But no gross abuse (like Klobuchar throwing files at staff), or name calling. So an impatient, demanding, maybe sarcastic boss ? ... And several of them give up that job during the pandemic (or that wasn't a choice and they were let go ?)
Call me crazy but I think in real life most would suck it up, because it is likely he will lose and the job will be over in a few months anyway. If he was only an unpleasant boss with a shitty attitude ...
Or is it that they assume he will lose and are hedging their bets to be acceptable DCCC material in the future ? The DCCC made the rule that companies and persons that work for a challenger of an incumbent will be blacklisted. Now they must have assumed right away, that he had little chance to win. On the other hand they could turn that around and get into the good graces of the DNC and DCCC.
Now a few progressives have won, and maybe the party establishment are getting nervous. Even if he comes close, that does not bode well.
The staffers could move on to the next job in Nov. 2020, no bridges burnt. Well, not with the DNC or D.C. insiders........
It will be interesting to see where these staffers pop up next.
Methinks someone got job offers. Plus: Shahid may be an unpleasant boss.
The objection to his 100k salary seems to be far fetched.
A person that has 5k per month - that equals 60,000 per year.
So what would be the appropriate wage for him ? 80,000 ? That seems to be a petty argument. Obviously the campaign had the money to pay several staffers well.
4
-
Not correct - Germany allows optional ! regulated private health insurance (based on risk!) for approx. 10 % of the population - people with good income, some typical free lance professions like architects, and government employees who have a very steady income and do not get unemployed. This was a favour a conservative government long ago handed out to private insurance companies who had a chance to get a cherry picket segment of the popuplation: healthy younger folks with good income. High deductibles are not common - not sure if they are even allowed. The market is regulated, the 90 % of public insured patients set the bench mark for prices, so that helps the 10 % not getting ripped off for meds and treatments like in the U.S.
Even so they are not too happy with it - premiums have been going up a lot in recent years. And once a person opted for private insurance they cannot go back (not sure if not at all or if it is very hard).
90 % of the population are insured in a public non-profit insurance company and the premium is based on income not age, gender, familiy or health status. Now, technically they have MORE than one public non-profit insurance agency instead of one large for all of the country. That's a detail of organization - they are not private.
In Austria (their neighbour which organize their society pretty much the same as the Germans) there are 15 - 20 non profit public insurance agenices (one large for each of the 9 states, 1 for the farmers, the teachers,....) and they have 1 holding on top. While they have SOME independance (they may have different tariffs for doctors for instance) they also coordinate (exchange price information no doubt) and certainly do not compete. They are called Social Security Insurance Agencies- they also handle retirement pensions, inability pension.
Technically health care coverage is not a legal right in Austria, it is just so that everyone has it - either through work or other provisions. Only people who are completely lost - like folks becoming homeless because of addictions and who are not able to take care of the administrative stuff or cannot come up with the modest amount necessary to insure yourself - will be without insurance. They will get treatment (I thank that is a legal requirement at least in hospitals) but in case they ever win the lottery or inherit something they would have to pay back since they were not insured.
Since there are not many people that are that lost, they can be carried by the insured participants of the system. So there is not a huge bureaucracy necessary to decide who has coverage at all or to what extent. I would not make sense for the very few who do not have insurance. And anyone who has insurance has full coverage.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
+allegory - the Tories willingly sabotaging the U.K. healthcare system infuriates me - and I am not even an UK citizen - the snap election result gives some hope. Iif you have use for some argumentative points:
WORLD BANK per capita health care expenditures in USD in 2014: UK 3,900, U.S. 9,200, average for wealthy * European countries and Canada 5,000 - 5,500, Australia 6,000, Norway plus 8,000.
You ADD 40 / 45 % to the UK per capita expenditures and land at the German and Austrian level (5,600 resp. 5,400).
The NHS is and always has been a very cost efficient system (certainly the most cost-efficient in Europe, among the best in the world - of course other better funded systems might have been better or more comfortable. According to Larry Sanders the NHS runs on 100 billion GBP a year now, the Tories CUT 15 - 20 BILLIONS in the last 6 -8 years (which is HUGE), and planned 20 billions more in cuts (that info came from before the snap election).
The words RECKLESS resp. RUTHLESS comes to mind. - The average voter may not know it - but it is the job of a politician to know that you cannot have a system worthy of a First World Country without some MINIMUM funding. - The Tories evoke the vision of financial problems w/o ever mentioning that the UK always has spent much less than comparable nations. -The honest thing would be to admit, that the Tories do not want to have modern healthcare for EVERYONE - hard to sell that in a democracy, even some wealthy people who are fine themselves might get uneasy at the vision of people diying on the doorsteps of hospitals. Or children not getting life saving treatment because of the economic status of their parents.
Intentionally undermining the NHS makes sense (in an evil way), a public health service that works well (enough) and is still among the most cost efficient in the world * cannot be sold off to for-profit interests. Public means NON profit ! - in the eyes of the conservatives it is likely a major flaw that such a large chunk of the economy will on principle not benefit the financier and rentier class.
* comparing wealthy ! nations with each other: wages are a huge factor in healthcare, so you can compare Australia with France, Denmark, or Germany. The average wages in Hungary or Poland for instance are much lower, so that is not comparable.
Public means: it is only meant to do well for the patients and the staff (while staying within a reasonable budget).
Let me repeat: the U.K. had a healthcare system with lean funding that worked O.K. and then came the the FINANCIAL CRISIS and they started making cuts.
The crisis was caused by U.S. banks initially giving out subprime mortgages in a reckless manner, then they repackaged and bundled them for selling them. The highly respected U.S. ! ratings agencies declared them to be of good quality, the Europaen banks foolishly and recklessy bought them up in masses and THEN they all started speculating like crazy ON THOSE LOAN packages ! (most other banksters worldwide did it and and the City of London was big into it).
Needless to say: regulators and politicians worldwide looked the other way - of course all the INSIDERS KNEW something was fishy about these transactions - they created enough "plausible deniability" to fool the public in 2007 - 2009 and thanks to legal (or illegal) bribes (donations, lobbying, revolving door) they all stayed out of prison.
Add to that the the high costs of the wars and regime changes (which the U.K. population did not want in the first place) and the high costs of the bank bailouts and the effects of the economic downturn. These financial strains (caused by the financial sector plus to some degree by the war mongerers) were the PRETEXT to IMPOSE AUSTERITY and to make MASSIVE CUTS.
NEVER LET A GOOD CRISIS GO TO WASTE to wreck the publicly funded systems (that benefit only the low to middle income people, and on top the wealthier people might have to contribute more in comparsion to fund the healthcare and social care systems).
The madness has method and history behind it: Thatcher publicly promised to not touch the NHS, secretly planned otherwise - and her inner circle made a massive intervention, they were not as ideological and realized that move could amount to policital suicide.
Any party willing to compromise the healthcare and social care system, a press (owned by rich persons !) that does not call a spade a spade - and the part of the opposition (New Labour, Blairites) that does not fiercly oppose and call out those assaults are useless / evil / reckless / sell-outs.
As for the snap election result - Well done ! It's a good start.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
+ left leaning libertarian Public option - although some improvement - is not very good. Creating a 2-tier system, and not getting rid of the private for-profit insurance system alltogether, inevitabely makes healthcare more expensive and creates harmful or cost-driving incentives.
I live in a country with single payer (Austria, I also know the German system). Employers (small or large) and workers pay contributions as percentage of wage - the SAME percentage. The federal and local governments fund the system with taxes on top of that.
It is PUBLIC, MANDAROTRY if you have a job (or an income as farmer or entrepreneur) with more than approx. USD 500 per month. It is NON-PROFIT, UNIFIED and STREAMLINED thus very cost-efficient, and based on the solidarity principle.
"Solidarity" means contributions according to your income/wage - meaning you CAN afford it - your individual risk (and that of your dependent family members who are insured with you for FREE) DOES NOT MATTER. No more payments when you need treatment or a medical service. Everyone is insured.
Healthcare is a very bad fit for the usual "capitalistic" incentives and the free market. So in absence of the free market forces you need mechanisms to keep the system well functioning and cost-efficient.
Good thing: almost the whole country is in one boat here (not the Pharma Industry - lol)
The doctors will keep the system up to date (they are lobbied by the pharma industry, are invited to events, so of course they want the new technologies, techniques, tools). Workers and employers pay the same percentage based on the wage, so on one hand they want the system to be efficient, on the other hand they want good care - either as patients but the corporations have a stake in it too. Their top employees land in the same hospitals like everybody else - and they want a healthy workforce.
The public insurance agency will make some surplus in one year, a minus in the next, over time they are expected to even out and stay more or less within the budget. They do not need to make a profit (for shareholders or owners). They need to pay the bills of their contract partners (private for-profit familiy doctors or non-profit hospitals and the pharmacies) and they need to come up with the costs for IT, their staff, the buildings and equipment.
So the public agency has an incentive for preventive care (driving costs down in the long run), they will not be opposed to new drugs, technologies. Of course if it is very expensive it might be a drain on their budget - THEN there will be a PUBLIC discusssion. Will they need higher contributions (this is the means of last resort - employers don't like it) ? Can they shift budgets (rehab budgets are relieved for instance), can they save in other areas ? Last time they came up with the idea to regulate the Pharma industry more. There is a concentration process going on with hospitals to improve efficiency (the equivalent of the governors were part of the negotiations - the states subisdize the hospitals so they have a say as well). But if they are overdoing it and quality declines the governors would be blamed by the voters. Not functioning healthcare would be blamed on politicians - and those - unlike CEOs - can be voted out by the public (That's theory - our politicans know better than to be cavalier about healthcare.)
And important: everyone gets the same kind of treatment at the same places. So the wealthier segment of the population will see to it that the system is good - they are not going to put up with crap. You lose that corrective force with a 2-tier system. The media tends to concentrate on the woes of the haves - if the "basic" system for the unwashed masses does not function well, it is much more likely to be ignored. I think that is the case with VA care in the U.S. (and they have the advantage of a lot of prestige).
A 2 tier system requires expensive bureaucracy. It is a lot of hassle to DENY CARE - and to "differentiate" who gets what kind of care at what place.
Healthcare is a example for an ONE SIZE FITS ALL service. Even wealthy people will not opt for MORE X-rays. It is either necessary or not. Your cancer requires surgery - and then radiation, chemo - OR NOT. Should not have anything to do with having a "basic" or "luxury" plan. And if you are good with surgery and the cancer is gone, would you be annoyed because you miss out on the chemo ?
And no one says: that burn treatment was nice, I am coming back for a broken arm next year. Healthcare is not a "nice to have, I want more" product. Overtreatment is at least expensive, often even harmful. And not getting ENOUGH or timely treatment is devastating. So it is about getting the RIGHT and necessary and appropriate extent of care and prevention - not more and not less - and for everyone.
Wealthy people do not profit from more treatment and low-income people should not get less - or it will have massive negative impacts on the economy (apart from ethical considerations).
The private market with the public option means there will be one pool for the wealthy who are also healthy, and another pool for low income people (easily dismissed) and for older people or high risk people. So the cherrypicked pool will always look very good costwise, it will help the for-profit players to smuggle in some extra profits (because their costs cannot be compared).
The public pool has to do the heavy lifting. Considering the "level" of the current healthcare discussion in the U.S. it is sure to be constantly slammed for being too expensive, because "government healthcare is always, always inefficient".
With ONE risk pool* where costs are very transparent ! such claims can be easily debunked - you can compare costs on an international level.
* those pools can be state by state. If you do not cherrypick a few hundred thousand people are enough - Iceland has 300,000 and Germany 80 million people - both systems work, and Iceland beats Germany (might have to do with the average age or they live healthier).
A 2-tier system would offer the option to slowly STARVE the public system. And then slam it for not working well while being too expensive. The wealthy and healthy people will flee to the "better" private option - and those who cannot afford to switch can be easily ignored.
The Tories in the UK have more or less despised the NHS since it was founded in 1945 (class division is alive and well on the island) - right now they try to starve the NHS to death to "justify" a privatization. - They are in bad luck. Despite the media more or less colluding with that agenda (or at least not calling them out on the crap) the Brits are much more resistant. They still remember the NHS being O.K. (despite very lean funding even 10 years ago). There have been cuts of 15 % in the last 8 - 10 years when it always was one of the most cost-efficient systems in the world (for a wealthy nation). Until recently the Tories planned even more cuts - with the messed up snap election that is over. Labour under Corbyn is going to oppose them fiercly and has now a broad support on Social media. They do not depend of the mainstream media anymore to defend the NHS.
A good system should have mandatory participation even and especially ! for the wealthy people. The U.S. system is at least 40 % too expensive ** (compared to Germany which are on the higher end of the average for a European system), so there is some room for savings. On the other hand wealthy citizens and the profitable enterprises will subsidize the low-income people. When the system works well, the wealthy are getting something in return - and will be supportive of the system. As is the case in all other First World countries.
** WORLD BANK health care expenditures in USD in 2014: Germany 5,600, US 9,200, UK 3,900 - the wealthy European countries and Canada are usually in the 5k to 5,5k range.
3
-
3
-
Even IF the Russians hacked the emails (and that is not proven - as for Leak vs. Hack: hear Glenn Greenwald on that, or former NSA technical director Willian Binney = Father of 24/7 spying technology). Anyway the voters had more CORRECT information (not slander like the golden shower allegation story that the CIA officially attached ! to an official report !! about fake news !! This was an CIA attempt to smear Trump. I am not a Trump fan at all, but that is a SCANDAL. Where else do the agencies play politics ? Where else do they present such shoddy work, make such rookie mistakes, show such unprofessional bias ?
The truth is that HRC could have counteracted the effect of the leaked (very likely leaked not hacked) emails by embracing the progressive agenda - embracing it in a way that was believeable so voter turnout would be high and the young people would run for her campaign.
For any Sanders supporter, the leaked emails confirmed what was already known. Cheating the Sanders campaign, collusion with the media, pay for play, the DNC instructed ! the media ! to prop up fringe candidates (Ben Carson, Donald Trump) they hoped HRC could run in the GE against such a fringe candidate or that they would at least keep Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio in check. (Brilliant strategy).
The Dems made their pitch in the GE to Republicans, they thought the progressives had no other choice - they would not vote Trump AND they would come out for HRC because Trump is so bad. They thought that the white working class people who had voted for Obama, had no choice - so she could not be bothered (or did not have the stamina) to fight for their vote. Podesta said so (no leak or hack, official statement: for every blue collar we lose in the Rust Belt we will get 2 moderate Republicans. The email revealed that she did not really denounce TPP. No one who paid attention believed her change of opinion on it- so it was another confirmation of "She will say anything to get your vote and then do whatever the donors want".
The Clinton campaign strategy was : Trump is so bad and you have no other choice.
She actually ran such a bad and tone deaf campaign, there was so much hubris and entitlement - that she acutally ACHIEVED a loss against Trump.
3
-
3
-
As for single payer - Manchin is right - the costs would be different - they would be LOWER per capita - deduct 40 % of the U.S. per capita costs of 9,200 USD and you are at the German level - and per capita means: All that is ALREADY SPENT in one year divided through the US population of approx. 325 millions. That number of 325 millions includes of course the people w/o insurance and those who did not need or get any treatment in that year. Germany is on the higher end of the European average with 5,6k USD AND the German population is on average older than the U.S. population. Clearly there is a LOT of room for savings.
When all are insured, the costs for the majority of citizens would be lower. (The LABEL for the PAYMENT might change, for instance no more payment to a private insurance company, lower payments to the public insurance company, plus some taxes according to income - meaning unless you are upper middle class your net costs will NOT be higher; VERY LIKELY LOWER).
Wealthy single, healthy, individuals will pay more - either directly or in form of taxes. Of course if the insanely high military budget is ever cut, those taxes could be allocated to healthcare and not even the rich would have to pay more to help out with the financing of the healthcare of their fellow citizens.
Average per capita costs in Europe are 5 - 5,5 k, in U.S. 9,200 (World Bank, 2014, in USD). In the U.K. 3,900 - but they are clearly STARVING the NHS - the Tories try to ram through a privatization and before that they have to ruin the functioning public system - I guess it is more likely it will contribute to their political defeat - the Brits are not having it.
In Europe after WW2 all nations adopted Single Payer (and that includes nations that just had stopped being mortal enemies). And they all installed or continued/ improved a non-profit, public healthcare system based on the solidarity principle *.
Based on these principles all these countries (some very small, some large) came up with their national solution. And they all have good reliable healthcare, all of them have MUCH LOWER COSTS. Their citizens do not waste a thought on the healthcare system - why would they, it is there when they need it and the contributations for those who have enough income are mandatory. So it is all very simple and streamlined (and therefore cost-efficient).
And that is for sure NOT market driven (neither is the U.S. system, it is not a market - at least not a "free and fair" market. Healthcare is one of the services that is - on principle - a very bad fit for the free market mechanisms. That was the reason why ALL OTHER wealthy nations have a public, non-profit solution in the first place. There IS NO FAIR and FREE MARKET POSSIBLE FOR HEALTHCARE (or the railway, or the water supply, or the police, ....)
* Solidarity: that means you pay a contribution that you can for sure afford (and that can be zero for instance when you are unemployed, or below a certain income level) and that's it - no more payments when you get treatment. Solidarity also means your individual risk does not matter AT ALL (and therefore no bureaucraZy or denial industry is necessary)
Solidarity also means that the wealthier segements of the population, the young, healthy, single and urban, and the more profitable enterprises and branches "subsidize" to some extent the large families, low income people, the sick, old, people with pre-existing condtions, rural areas, and branches where the pay is traditionally lower.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@tcovington0711 there are plenty of weapons around but only a small fragment of the population owns them. And most of them would like to remain members of society. They are all talk - but they wouldn't engage in combat (except for the few crazies which is bad enough - see the attack on the church goes in Charleston). - your nephew very likely does not want to go to prison, lose house, job, home, healthcare insurance, car (to pay for the lawyers).
Trump does not have the military on his side for a coup (else it would be frightening). The AR15 are nothing compared to the gear the police, FBI, DHS and the military has.
Those vigilantes in the Bundy cattle standoff (cattle grazing fees on BML land for a rich racist farmer) did not win. The FBI took it very easy on them, and some of these guys repeated their stunt later. One of them got shot (another one that had hung out with the crowd, left and committed a murder in a restaurant.
They had their day in court, the legal expenses, not sure how many wound up in prison. (They were publishing quite whiney social media posts once the FBI had cut off electricity, food, not sure about water ... - it is one thing to pose as "fierce warrior" or talk a good game to your worried aunt.
after all is said and done, they want a middle class life and that does not square with militant revolutionary activities and the high risks for life, health, family and property that would come with such a fight.
3
-
@tcovington0711 Let me give you some encouraging insights about the cowardice of the big mouths (as soon as THEY could suffer consequences) - from the regime change in Eastern Germany in 1989. Civic groups had demanded and even protested for more freedom in the 1980s They sniffed morning air when Gorbachev got into power and loosened the grip on the Soviet society. Glasnost and Perestroika (Change and Opening).
The quite hardline Eastern German government had always been very obedient towards the Soviet rulers. NOW they dissented from the Soviet line for the first time. Economically Eastern Germany did better than the other Warsaw Pact nations (or the Soviet Union), they also tolerated religion as a private affair. Religious groups were part of the protest movement (and you bet the government had infiltrators).
But the protection of the ideological rules was done with German zeal and perfectionism. Those that held power and managed the country were not "true believers" - many turned right into the Capitalistic Conservative Neoliberal camp, once it was there where influence, power and good positions could be obtained (after 1989). The "hardline" stance and trying to control even what the population said among themselves had to do with a grip on power and they did it with typical German diligence.
they had a tight surveillance and snitching operation going on (that was very unpopular with the population, it could be that a family member or a work collegue or neighbour "turned you in". The harmless consequences were that you (or your teenage children !) could not pursue higher education, had job disadvantages, did not get the appartment when it was your turn on the waiting list.
Or it could get really bad for instance when you considered fleeing or you knew that someone was trying to and you did not rat them out - the suspicion that you "covered up for a refugee from the Republic " would get you intensely interrogated and if they thought that you knew something but didn't tell the authorities it would get you before a court and likely into prison. (No torture used but very long interrogations, with all the psychological tricks, and the trials were not fair of course).
The agency that did the surveillance and had the "informal informers" under contract was called STASI.
Soviet tanks and military had stopped attempts for a (more) democratic system in the 1950s in Hungary and Eastern Germany, and in the 1970s in Czechoslovakia (the crushing of the Prague Spring). And then the Soviets had made sure a hardline government completey alinged with the Soviet rulers was put into power. Some countries softened that after decades (Hungary or Poland) - but not in Eastern Germany.
But in the mid 1980s the Eastern German hardliners KNEW that Gorbachev was not going to send the tanks and the military to stop a potential popular uprising and "save" the ruling elites - and the democracy oriented cititzen groups knew it too.
Eastern Germany also had gotten large loans in the early 1980s from Western Germany - sure they had recovered from their currency troubles and they also exported goods: for instance household appliances, lower price segment, quite good for the cost (the largest catalogue sender in Germany had that line). Or furniture for Ikea. It is not true that Eastern Germany was "broke" in 1989.
But the rulers for sure had good reasons to not jeopardize the relationship with Western Germany and the citizens of Western Germany paid attention what was going on on the other side of the wall. So brutally crushing civic dissent would have been a PR and political disaster. Might have cut them off of more loans or trade.
The Eastern German elites got increasingly uneasy about the dissent and demonstrations. They did crush demonstrations but never shot at demonstrators (later it came out some had considered it - but they did not dare to Cooler heads and self-interest prevailed. Their thinking: It could be that at some time (maybe some 10 years into the future) there would be political change - so then they might be held accountable. it was not opportune to defend the hardline rule at PERSONAL RISK.
Well it did not take 10 years but only a few.
Towards the end the STASI started to destroy the files about their spying operation - they did not use computers, it was all paper files. Including the files about the informal informers = the snitches and the lists with the CLEAR NAMES of informers - that could also be journalists in Western Germany for instance ! They had those files down to a T - again German perfectionism.
The protesters learned about it and stormed the headquarters (unarmed, non-violent, they took over and preserved the files, they still exist * and people can ask for information).
You have no idea how shocked the officers there were. Under normal circumstances the protesters would have been shot to death - and those who survived would have landed in prison. But then the fierce and feared STASI officiers and their security team did not DARE to open fire or to even resist with physical violence. They knew there was a good chance there would be massive political change right away - and they did not want to deal with the personal consequences later if they "followed orders" - under other circumstance they would have shot them all without blinking an eye.
The people storming the headquarters took a calculated risk - they could hope it would go that way - but everything could have happened.
Citzens (from Eastern Germany but also other nations) that want to find out if someone had ratted them out, or if the STASI collected information about them, can do so (for instance well known journalists from Western Germany almost certainly had been covered).
Those seeking information have to make an appointment and the rule is that the clear name of informers (in the files they are always mentioned with their code name) will not be unveilled if they were minors at the time (as far as the information seeking person is concerned, so a snitch may be uncovered to one person but not to another one). The files are not published - you can demand insight and I think it is not allowed to make copies or photos.
If the STASI did not have a file on you they will tell you (that is unlikely though. IF a person suspects there was information collected about them, they are usually right). Some are even shocked that the STASI bothered to cover them when they checked it out just to be sure (Father was in upper management in a then nationalized steel plant in Austria, they collected information about his son when he went to university - they did a very thorough job. Father not really a big fish, Austria is a small country and the student son was a nobody).
Gaining insight - or not - is quite nerve recking for some citizens. I read a case of one Eastern German who KNEW someone had ratted them out to the Eastern German authorities, and he suspected it could have been his brother. So he hesistated for a long time - unsure if he even wanted to know.
In the end it turned out the informant had been an uncle with alcohol problems. Things like that were leveraged against potential informants to "recruit" them using blackmail. Also low level crime. Others just wanted to help their career.
STASI also groomed teenagers if they were loners and did not have friends or other difficulties (or on the other hand if the teenager was the leader of the pack and very popular). A fatherly or motherly figure would befriend them and convince them to help the authorities to "fight the good fight on the information front". Hence the rule that the clear name of snitches that were minors is not unveilled.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
So sorry to hear that. Had a situation in the neighbourhood last holidays (boxing day 2018). I currently live in Austria. Old but healthy man (nearly 80) experiences severe and increasing stomach pain. Family doctor arrived quickly, I think he checked for a possible imminent heart attack, the signs were inconclusive. (and the patient already had stents).
Doctor wanted an emergency ambulance (not a regular one, but one that is with a doctor on board and I think they are better equipped to do reanimation. These doctors are very experienced).
so in case he goes into cardiac arrest during transport ...
None available immediately so the doctor ordered a helicopter instead. family was told not to freak out. usually you know if they order the helicopter it is serious. In that case it was an upgrade and erring on the side of caution. Those helicopters also have a doctor on board. Transport time (driving) would have been 25 - 30 minutes to the hospital.
any ambulance (normal, emergency) or the airlift is of course free at the point of delivery.
Not to rub it in - but you need to tell that to people that badmouth "socialized" medicine, whatever that is supposed to mean.
Spending here: 54 % of the U.S. spending per person (U.S. 10,260 in 2017, Kaiser Permanente, also see world Bank data).
here the Red Cross does a lot of the normal ambulance services (they get paid by the public non-profit insurance agency). Volunteering for the Red Cross is a thing, some work as drivers, some on the telephone. And they get other help (which is free for the non-profits). There is the draft to the military for young males, if they do not want to do that they can instead opt for social services (and 2 months more).
They get paid like the drafted recruits (by the government), but of course not like in a professional career. Many are consigned to the Red Cross posts (which are spread out over the country also in smaller communities, think 8,000 people and upwards) - the Red Cross is one of the institutions that has been getting "conscientous obejectors" for decades, also public non-profit homes for the elderly, or in social projects,....
There is another non-profit that also does transports (the Samaritarians).
so regular transports are certainly cheaper (because they do not have to pay all the workforce), and the non-profit insurance agency has also a good tariff with the provider of the airlifts. Likely the agency or another org directly provides the doctor and a private company (or automobil club) provides the helicopter services for a region. (paid per transport) Helicopter and the doctor were on standby anyway. If the rates are well negotiated, the doctors "prescribing" the airlift can err on the side of caution. And the providers of the airlift service make enough because the service is often used.
I know a man who did his civil draft (the mandatory service) with the Red Cross and continued with them some time as volunteer in his spare time (Red Cross and other non-profits like the scheme they recruit lots of voluntary helpers which continue after the mandatory service). He said it used to be that the team of a normal ambulance (first responder training, but not doctors of medicine) could call the helicopter if they were the first "medical" staff on the scene (think traffic accidents). That didn't work out that well - they overdid it. So usually that right is reserved to doctors now.
But the doctors have choice - that is also an important point, people here do not want choice nor do they get it. If they earn more than 500 USD per month, 3,8 % of the wage is deducted (the yearly cap is 2,400 USD per year, so that would be a yearly wage of 60k before taxes) and the employer must match that (even small companies). The rest of the funding comes from the government.
The mandate constitutes also a right - full coverage (incl. for dependent family members). incl. airlifts if that is medically warranted. And no or little payments later (co-pays for drugs, around 6 USD, nothing dramatic).
The DOCTORS HAVE CHOICE on behalf of their patients. From a "framework" of medical services worthy of a first world country. Which is all the choice you really need. (the insurance agency was not asked if they approved of that specific transport. they would not have been available anyway, it was a holiday. Airlift is on the menu, the doctors decide).
If people do not call the ambulance in time it is not for fear of the costs. That neighbour intended to go by himself and he is a tough cookie, it then got bad fast. So the whole situation could have been less dramatic if he had paid attention 2 hours earlier (but that will not be held against him. Plus in his case. That attitude also means he is in good shape and does not let himself go. - it was an almost ruptured stomach, and no heart problem - and if you ask him now it was nothing, really ! He continues his long walks alone and we can all calm down !
3
-
3
-
3
-
vote progressives to get a more European style system, ACA was devised in the 90s by a rightwing think tank (Heritage Foundation) - of course it does not work for the regular people, it is meant to protect corporate profits. - the per capita expenditures of the U.S. are 60 - 80 % above the average wealthy ! European country or Canada.
Healthcare is one of the areas where "free market" is not possible on principle and the usual capitalistic incentives produce toxic results and dysfunction.
There is a reason that all European countries after WW2 implemented systems that lean strongly in the direction of non-profit, for the public good, solidarity based.
Everyone gets insurane, it is mandatory (and a matter of fact, no one even thinks about it, OF COURSE everyone is insured, pays in when they have a job and gets treatment when needed.)
Contributions are known in advance and are income based, no or little payments when treatment is needed so no unexpected costs, or bankrupcies. No denial of coverage or treatment.
Some countries had just stopped being mortal enemies in 1945 - but on that they agreed: Healthcare cannot be handed over to the private for-profit sector.
The whole sector is mostly off-limits for investors.
All countries buil their own national system (so they differ). They are all much more cost-efficient, have better outcomes, and their citizens do not worry.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@mbealhighjump I do not think it played that much a role, that Clyburn endorsed Biden. The Sanders campaign did not get out the non voters and the young (also not in S.C.) In 2016 the right wingers slandered his opponent (Hillary Clinton) he could take the high road. (He did not want that, it just happened to help him).
In 2020 he should have taken off the mittens. And I think the campaign preached to the choire (regarding the primaries). The young and nonvoters were not activated. Chuck Rocha did a great job with the Latinos and minority communities, but that did not work in the South. (In AZ the Lations came out for Sanders but that was not enough).
Either they did not believe Sanders was a good choice, or they could not be bothered. The brainwashed older black voters are beyond reach.
The fear campaign (Sanders cannot win in the general) worked. The contrary is true - Biden BARELY pulled it off, and only because Trump bungled the pandemic response so badly and was stupid enough to not insist on relief for the masses inearly fall (I think McConell wanted Trump gone, he stonewalled intentionally. He resigned himself to Biden, which would inherit the mess, Republicans could immediately start blaming Dems and could expect the feckless opportunists to not pull off a FDR.
So the Repubs would be back in the game in 2022 and 2024 - and Trump sidelined. I have seen an ad announed of The Lincoln Project: Mike Pence 2024 - a few days after inauguration. That's the Bush Republicans in action, they would be cool with Pence).
125,000 more votes in 4 states (that needed so long to be determined) and Biden absolutely needed 2 out of the 4. 2 in any combination were enough, but not less.
Won PA with 81,000 votes more - or AZ with 10,500, GA with 12,000 and WI with 20,700.
If Biden had won PA (the largest of the 4 states) that would not have been enough. (269 electors just shy of 1, a nightmare scenario). That could have gone easily in the other direction despite the 7 million more of the popular vote. (60 % in NY and 65% in CA help with that - but that does not win the Electoral College).
In the end Biden won PA with measly 1.3 % (or so) and WI with only 0.63 %. Both states should be solidly blue. And that was after 5 years of Trump in action and in the middle of the pandemic.
Sanders would have had SOLiD wins in PA, WI.
Also: Trump won Florida twice (1.2 and then over 3 %) and Ohio. 8 % (!) in 2016 and 2020. That's a solid win. Obama won FL and OH twice as well.
OH might have been in play for Sanders (with Nina Turner) and a believeable promise that TPP will NOT come. Biden could also not win Florida, not anymore than HRC - Sanders would at least have had a shot (with Nina again, and also AOC).
If Sanders had turned out YOUNG voters in SC and non-voters that do not listen to old Clyburn - I think Biden would have given up. Sanders did not need to win, just not lose by a high margin.
Biden not much later won states like Arkansas in a landslide and had not even campaigned there, or any groundgame. Decades of fawning of the media builds such a strong name recognition. And Sanders was too timid to take him out.
Warren took care of Bloomberg (which seemed also to be a threat in January and February, scary how his ad spending propped him up in the polls, U.S. voters are sheeple).
But Sanders sometimes talked about Biden as if he was on Biden's campaign. "Of course my friend Joe can win against Trump, ...."
People were for Biden for 2 reasons: can win against Trump and is a nice guy.
I disagree with both (w/o the pandemic Biden would have lost !) - but Sanders convinced voters that they were right with their assessment.
Nice older black lady. I like Sanders and his ideas, but this time it will be Biden, beating Trump is more important ....
It is not like Sanders needed to reinforce that !
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
She dropped out of highschool when she got her first son at the age of 18. (Neither GED nor diploma is really of any significance, and frankly also most college degrees. Nor does a training in law or medicine make you a reasonable person. See Ted Cruz or Paul Rand). Now, a kind reasonable woman with some common sense that has graduated from the university of life & struggle could be an excellent representative, never mind diplomas and degrees.
Cori Bush was homeless - that is worth 2 degrees when it comes to representing The People IF she learned the right lessons from that. Which is an issue of compassiona and character, not intelligence, knowledge or passing tests.
Dropping out from highschool would not matter and Boebart could stand by it - even if she had held unimportant jobs and then been the mother of 4 boys and homemaker. Instead of the many hustles she and her husband tried.
George Galloway who was a MP in the British parliament never went to university, almost all MP's NOW have a degree. It shows, the people that made a career through the unions (like George) are sorely missed in politics. But he is a SMART and knowledeable man, never mind an excellent orator.
The right and the neoliberals in the U.K. tried to frame him when the scandal around the Oil for Food program in Iraq broke, and some member of Congress picked up on it
Harsh U.S. sanctions under Bill Clinton. Officially only food could be bought, and of course there was a lot of corruption and U.S. companies in the middle of it. Galloway is married to a Muslima and engaged in charities and one of his most generous donors was in the middle of the scandal. A very rich "investor" form the Middle East. That was all the connection Galloway had with the scandal.
But Galloway kept the charity squeaky clean (and if not out of honesty then because it was predictable that the rabid right and U.K. media would come after a leftie, he is not stupid, like Lauren and her husband). He published all donations on time, full transparency - and he dragged the U.S. Senators in the hearing. It was quite unusual to order / invite a British MP to a hearing - and they got more than they had bargained for.
It was epic how he dressed them down - while being the one that was "interrogated" - by U.S. Senators with a law degree and a staff to help them.
She got her GED w just before she entered the race. A smart person that never got around to it (and never needed it) would not even bother. An imperfect resume can be a strength - if she is smart and only circumstances prevented her from getting the diploma.
Imagine she had built her own biz, got a child early on - and had better things to do. No one would care, if she had been a sassy woman that made an impact one way or another.
Imagine she had only taken care of her 4 boys, had a struggle in the first years as teenage mother (no doubt she got some handouts either from gov. or parents, now she is running her mouth, how she and her husand would never take money from the government). I she had had simple jobs, had later run mildly succcessful restaurants in CO. That is nothing to sneer at (if you consider she is mother of 4 boys age 7 - 14 in Jan. 2020) and gives valuable real life experience for a representative.
In which case she would have stood by being a highschool dropout.
Getting the GED just before entering the race is kinda lame.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
FDR did bring big and bold change - and quickly - it did not take years and years (and he had to strongarm the Democrats to support him, especially in the beginning. (Let's be real he had to to pander to the Dixiecrats, and other racists to ge the policies through - that showed unfortunately). Then the citizens were even more DESPERATE than today (some people were starving to death), I think 25 % unemployment, 1 million people had joined the unions in 1932, the Russian Revolution was not so long ago (1917).
The haves and the establishment got nervous. That gave FDR some leverage - representatives then were wealthy and came from a wealthy background - many even of the Dems would have easily resigned themselves to a sceanrio where the masses would have to suck it up. Instead the regular folks got the minimum wage, unemployment benefits, Social Security for old people, employment programs for millions, 40 hour workweek in 1940, bailouts for farmers - and those who were still doing well had to pay high(er) taxes, first it was around 80 % top marginal income tax rate, that was raised to 94 % in 1944 (WW2) - and that was for a yearly income of more than 400k - today that would be 2,7 million USD).
So FDR HELPED the people and made the wealthy and rich pay for it. And was not afraid to incur government debt - in 1947 the federal debt was the highest EVER - the ratio of debt to GDP, absolute USD numbers are meaningless even if you would adjust for inflation.
Debt after WW2 was so high because of New Deal programs, lots of after war programs to assist the tansition from the war to the consumer economy, and of course the enormous war costs). Within 10 years that high debt was substantially reduced - with full employment, that means good wages and a base for tax revenue and and for business sales - and still HIGH taxes on the top segment of the income segment. No tax evasion, no outsourcing.
And taxes for the haves stayed high for many years, Nixon and JFK in a presidential debate discussed about an effective ! top marginal rate of 74 % (for a yearly income between 2 and 3 millions - look it up, taxation history in the U.S. or income taxes in the U.S. on Wikipdia, scroll down, there is a table).
FDR used radio to circumvent conservative possibly hostile media (media then that was the press and radio) who had of couse an incentive to badmouth and misrepresent his new ideas. See Fireside Chats.
Of course once he implemented measures that brought immediate relief to the suffering plebs, it gave him even more leverage as the populist president.
Even so the Dems had a mind to not put him on the ballot for his fourth re-election - the sitting beloved president - this was in 1940. They also objected to his progressive VP Wallace - which is a shame, Wallace after FDR's death would have handled the end of the war likely differently and the relations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union would have remained better (Stalin died in 1953, that was definitely a window of opportunity - well not for those who WANTED an U.S. empire and who wanted to profit of the Military Industrial Complex and the Cold War)
The U.S. leadership after WW2 was drunk with its power, imperialism and the Red Scare and Communism hysteria were the was the pretext to get rid of peace loving and left leaning movements and parties and to some degree the unions.
Truman and Eisenhower in the 1950s started these terrible imperial wars (but there were many imperial U.S. wars / invasions in the late 18xx and early 19xx, FDR ended the constant intervention in Latin America on behest of U.S. Big Biz for instance). In the 50s it was the catastrophic Korean war. Many MILLIONS ! of Korean civilians were bombed to death by the U.S.- the whole intent of the war was to stick it to China and the Soviet Union. In North Korea not one intact larger settlment was left. (U.S. generals bragged about it, some were horrified - there is a reason NK is so paranoid).
3
-
3
-
@dustinlerch9272 It is a reminder to judge people on their actions as they unfold AND to not be EMOTIONALLY INVESTED in a candidate and hope what a candidate would do - even if you work your behind off to get them elected. They still might disappoint (Sanders, the Squad). You have to go by words if you have no major track record. There is no possibility to avoid being lied to if the candidate is smart. Or conflicted, kinda schizoide between his activist self and the political insider (Sanders).
Some red flags if they use certain language (Obama in 2008). But Tulsi did not use think tanky jargon and she was not motivational but vague. Nor was she afraid to do controversial things. Endorsing Sanders, kicking some behinds (HRC, The view) when they accused her of being a Russian asset or useful idiot (for having a strong anti war message ).
She had been principled when she stepped down from the vice chair position of the DNC and endorsed Sanders. She is an interesting and complex case. Obviously not only a calculating careerist. I guess she saw things in the DNC she did not like and had it with the lot. And not afraid to act on it.
I give her credit for that.
If she had played nice with the Democratic party elites, she would be set up for life with a cushy job whenever she would want to leave politics (likely they would have arranged a media slot for her).
It is possible that the long distance flights to Hawaii got to her over time (it is a problem for those representatives), or she did not think she could win her primary - but if she had been a good party soldier no problem as incumbent. And a golden parachute if she wanted to leave politics.
Flying from Hawaii to D.C. and back once per week is not like D.C. / Florida or North Dakota or California. I think theflights to Hawaii might also be in higher altitudes than the flights that do not last that long (health impacts, radiation).
Tulsi ticked several boxes for the Democratic party: Veteran, female, woman of color, Hindu, eloquent, smart and attractive. Bonus points for being a surfer. They would have found her a cushy post if she wanted to leave politics.
She was a quota woman in the DNC - she was not long in politics, young, and had no powerful connections. But she could have exploited her combination of desirable traits to make a good and comfortable living.
She did not do that. I guess she has some strong convictions, realized that she would need the left to get anywhere in 2020, and crafted her message in a way that did not offend lefties, while also pleasing the right.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Medicare for America it is a public option. Now when there is Medicare already - WHY would there be ANOTHER program, also a public non-profit but it is NOT Medicare for ALL ? (rolled out as mandatory contribution for certain age groups Answer: THAT construction allows the private insurers to keep a part of the market of people younger than 65. They will only accept low risk, and likely develop 999 ways to get rid of patients when they cause higher costs. so the public offer will have all the high risks (they do not get the GOOD insured of ONE age group).
the private offer will appear to be reasonably priced while being way too expensive (purging the right people - and the number must not be that high in younger age groups - can dramatically lower prices).
And Medicare (plus 65 years) and the public option will get all the costly patients (either age or risk - both are major factors that determine the costs of the pool).
There is a DIVIDE AND CONQUER GOING ON. It will be easy to badmough the public agencies because they appear to be so "expensive".
It will be politically much easier to defund the public services. Creating thus the NEED to buy supplemental insurance from private insurers.
The moment profits are a goal (well THE ONLY GOAL) in the "healthcare insurance" in creates toxic incentives:
1) Denying to cover people:
insurers purge whole companies now when they in total have too high demands, that can be from family members of staff. They cannot officially deny coverage under ACA, but they can rise the premiums so high that the company cannot afford it. Either co-pays and deductibles rise for workers, ot they do not cover the family members anymore or the company has to stop buying from them, because they cannot afford coverage).
2) or denying to pay for treatment (when people had thought they had coverage), or the premium is only "affordable" with high deductibles and co-pays - so de facto ALSO no coverage.
Another important thing: having a very streamlined SIMPLE admin.
that goal is undermined when having parallel structures of co-exiting full private insurance.
1) it is more complicated even if no one wanted to maximize profits on the backs of patients, the doctors and insurers have to handle the billing, there is need for marketing and a sales staff.
and 2) there are labor-intense ways to make things intentionally opaque and complicated which help the for-profit insurance companies and hospitals to PROTECT THEIR PROFITS.
Sellers (no matter the product or service) hate completely transparent markets because it massively reduces their profits. The diversification is not only to meet different tastes and needs - it also helps to protect the profits. Which is O.K. with consumer goods. But not with an inevitable life and death service where One Size Fits All is a GOOD thing.
With garments or cars we want different offers. But what about the broken arm, the gall bladder surgery, the chemo, the early born infant in intense care ? Which "variety" of treatmetn would you prefer ? Well none being necessary to begin with - but if is is necessary then the one hat helps the best in the opinion of your doctor. That is NOT a matter of taste or preferences and it should not be a matter of what you can pay. That is a MEDICAL ASSESSMENT.
People want to get the RIGHT kind and extent of treatment, not too much and not too little. No one would WANT an extra round of chemo or another x-ray just because they have a "platinum" plan. But IF it makes sense to have treatments and tests they should be available for everyone.
This is very different for consumers goods. Where having varieties is a good thing, not everybody always want strawberry ice. plain vanilla can be good - or many other varieties.
We also accept that some people cannot afford certain goods (or the better verson of them). Think houses, cars, phones, vaccations, brand clothes, food, dining out ..... But what about the expensive chemo you need, or the transplant for a family member ?
These are not items where you can say: we are a down to earth family that must stay within the budget, and we cannot afford that.
Cost savings from STREAMLINED SIMPLE admin is possible if everyone gets the same COMPREHENSIVE GOOD coverage and treatment at the same providers.
No healthcare questions for instance when signing up: only wage determines what you pay (a percentage of wage), so no red tape there.
That saves a LOT of administrative costs.
If one person can on principle get a certain treatment - everyone can get it. (if a doctor ideally w/o for-profit motive decides it is warranted, for instance doctor / hosptial should not make money from the drugs like chemo which can be very pricey).
A public non-profit agency will not even be consulted. They provide a framework, they do not deal with individual cases. The individual cases are complex, there the patients could be exploited, and it is a good start if at least their insurance is a public non-profit.
If all citizens are MANDATED to pay a modest contribution form their wage or income AND that gives them the RIGHT to FULL coverage - allmost ALL citizens will use it. Most doctors and all hospitals will need to accept the contracts with Medicare (or they do not have enough patients). So they cannot discriminate against Medicare patients. If they do - it would create a major backlash, ALSO from young and middle aged people (so there would be a lot of political power. Even more than when someone with SS does not go rihgt).
Of course Medicare will need to get enough funding to pay enough to doctors and hospitals (the latter ideally being a non-profit).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The customers AND ONLY the customers should pay for intense use of broadband - like for instance watching NETFLIX. This (and similar) services increased traffic in the course of few years (and in an unexpected manner) so the providers may have to increase infrastructure investments.. Before, the providers offered unlimited packages, that made sense then, but maybe did not cover the extra costs of that intense use.
Let me explain: It may seem attractive for customers that NETFLIX SEEMS to pay a part of the costs of those infrastructure investments for the consumers (or seems to pay for the extra profit the providers, often monopolies, wish to make) - but these costs WILL shop up on your bill - one way or another.
Worse: These business practices ALSO keep new competitors (for example for NETFLIX) out of the market.
NETFLIX can easily pay the extortion fee of the providers. And when they are the only option (or beat everyone else because they have by far the best offer and no competitor can challenge them) they will be able to slap the extortion costs on the bills (and then some) and get away with it.
It also makes pricing very intransparent if a company APPEARS to COVER a part of the REAL costs of the service for the consumers.
And will allow the few large players who dominate the marke,t to impose intransparent costs at several points. While preventing competitors from entering the market. Especially smaller companies.
Once the providers have the systems in place to throttle some service sometimes they can and WILL get "creative". That includes extortion and worse - political and other CENSORSHIP.
Some of that is already going on. Facebook - what is trending, Google on the search results on Hillary Clinton (sure a lot of nonsense going on, but that is free speech, the search results did not reflect what was going on on the web).
People say some videos which they upload on FB are not shown, etc.
Just saw "Google turning into censorhsip engine" by RT America as youtube suggestion. lol
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It takes indeed a lot of work to NOT provide care. **Growth of Physicians and Adminstrators 1970 - 2009**. I found a BLS graph, * the number of physicians roughly doubled, number of administrators is TIMES 32 -
* Growth of Physicians and Adminstrators1970 - 2009
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; NCHS; and Himmelstein /Woolhadlerer analysis of CPS
These are the titels and descriptions directly at the graph (screenshot from Keiser Report)
I have it from Keiser Report Fake Healthcare
-or you can search with the headline titel ** - that and similar graphs (for other time periods or compared to Canada) show up in other reports on the web
As it is the GROWTH (in this case in number of persons) that is visualized, both lines start at "zero" in 1970, I would estimate it is 100 % in 2009 - that means it has doubled until 2009.
Really interesting is the numbers of administrators around 3200 % (yes threethousandtwohundred) that means the number of 1970 multiplied with 32.
In a reasonable, streamlined system where everyone gets the same treatment, not exceptions, no co-pays, deductibles (when it is medically warranted = single payer as is practiced in Europe) you would likely have MORE staff to provide goods service w/o waiting times (so more physicians, nurses, and therapists, etc.). But it would hardly need more administrators to organize them to deliver the care.
If you double the medical staff you do not need to double the number of adminstrators - not even close. Let alone times 32
2
-
2
-
2
-
Johnny Lee Clary, former high ranking Klan man, had a little black book with names (incl. the names of "respectable" citizens who did not want to openly associate with the KKK but gave them money. He also says there were a lot of policemen in the KKK or they were supportive, (also the police of L.A. was undermined by the Klan).
Clary's fiance was a FBI mule, the FBI got the notebook and the names, so these "orderly" citizens were visited by the FBI, often on their workplace. Oopps.
Search with his name and ABC Australia, the format was called "Enough Rope", there are only clips of it on youtube (4 minutes very funny). But on the ABC website there is a transcipt of the video, unfortunately the video.
(One can understand why he was the speaker and recruiter for the Klan, he is funny). It is also a hilarious story how one black reverend impressed him in his Klan days against his will - and how they became close friends after he changed his ways and had left the KKK:
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yes, he is a coward. A black professor that returned to his home in a good neighbourhood was arrested on his porch. When Obmama mildly commented on it police were upset. Needless to say Obama backpaddeled. He would like to meet that member of the police member for a beer - bla, bla. - on the local level the Dems collude with police.
In all first world nations the population in the urban area tends to vote for the more left parties in the country and the rural voters tend more to the right. In the U.S. that means that the cities vote for center-right neoliberal Dems that are to the left of Republicans.
In the city good money is to be made from collusion with real estate "developers". Pricing the locals, that live and work in the city out from the housing market. That comes at a price - there will be a permanent underclass (they never get ahead because so much income is spent on housing, schools are terrible, etc.
Neoliberal Dems and Repubs also have undermined manufacturing in the country, so people have to flock to the densely populated areas where there are the lower paying service sector jobs. Manufacturing jobs can be in the more rural areas too, the goods are distributed anyway, but service sector is where the people are. if more people got to the cities the rents explode.
you need an oppressive police force to keep those people down and show them their place. Stop and Frisk was a) unconstitutional and b) utterly useless to find people that had drugs or weapons on them. But Giuliani and Bloomberg and the NYPD carried on anyway. Why, if it was not effective ? It was never about preventing crime - it was a show of dominance and they targetted the part of the population that is the most feared by oppressors. YOUNG MEN. If a disenfranchised group will give them trouble - it will be their young males. (if the struggle is violent. but even in non-violent protest, at least in the 1960s and 70s it was like that. Nonviolent protest is the worst for the powers that be. but they also fear riots
On top of that police unions are well organized and have money. Neoliberal Dems have nothing to offer for their base, so a coordinated effort of police unions could hurt the reelection. And they also want the donations from the police unions.
These are the major reasons why the blue cities (= large cities) are the worst regarding police brutality.
Another international trend, the large cities have the highest crime rates in the country. No matter how high or low it is always higher there. So police is more stressed there, and will of course be more reactionary.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+ Don Parnell What do you mean you cannot compare a nation of 60 millions (or 82 millions like Germany, or 30, or 8 like Austria, or 300,000 like Iceland) with the 340 millions of the U.S. - you can scale the system up and down.
Even small Austria has approx 16 subdivisions in their system (the insurance agencies - but there is ONE head agency and they negotiate drug prices together and know the price list for procedures of the others. The patients do not feel that. If you have an out of state treatment or go to a very specialized center (organ transplants) the agencies have that figured out between themselves. The patient is not bothered with any tariffs or bills.
Same with Germany. Costwise it does not really matter if the country has 8 or 82 million people. Around 20 % of people cause 80 % of the costs. Most modern treatments target certain relatively common conditions. All sorts of cancer, standard surgeries (like gallbladder, appendix,....). Treatment of diabetes, of broken limbs, treatment after accidents, childbirth, ....
I guess if they have the need for an organ transplant in Iceland (which may be too much for the small pool of 300,000 they fly the patients to Denmark, Sweden and Norway and have it done there.
If anything the U.S. should have an advantage because of its size - although I do not think that the economy of scale really matters with healthcare. (On the other hand there are the states, so that makes things more complicated because they insist on individual solutions).
You need pharmacies, hospitals (placed all over the country so the transport ways will not be too long in case of emergencies), familiy doctors, and specialists. A central agency (or several) to administrate. Universities to train the doctors and institutions to train the massage therapists, nurses, ....
What about that is not SCALEABLE ?? Dependant on the number of USERS.
World Bank data 2014, per capita healthcare expenditure of nations ins USD:
UK with 65 million 3,900 * Germany with 82 millions 5,600 Austria with 8 million people 5,400
the U.S. 340 million people - and 9,600 (my number for the U.S.is 327 but anyway)
the NHS covers most of the UK expenditures and starting from a point where they had a very lean budget, their funding was cut - but I guess with around half of the U.S. per capita expenditures the system could run like a charm.
- it looks like a wealthy nation (wage level ! is important for the costs) needs at least around 4,500 USD per capita. Most wealthy European nations and Canada NO MATTER THE POPULATION SIZE are in the 5 - 5,500 USD range.
Countries like Candas and Australia maybe have higher costs because of servicing the outback (or the people there have to accept longer distances which may result in more casualties unless they use helicopters - which again is expensive.
Germany's population is on average older than the population of the typical immigration countries U.S., Canada, Australia. - so the U.S. should beat Germany on demographics alone
These are factors that DO play a role, the population size does NOT mattter (if I remember Iceland has lower costs than Germany).
Also: if the system only covers the basics and allows a 2 tier system this will immediately result in higher expenditures, it requires the additional buraucracy that has nothing to do with delivering treatment and 2 tier systems give dysfunctional incentives that are hard to weed out because there is such a gap of knowledge.
(If you pay for and upgrade insurance plan: is the test really necessary ? Or is it a way to bill more money (and the test will not harm you - but will do no good either).
If everyone either gets that test or not according to need, it would become too expensive to administer it - just because. When it actually helps the costs will be argued. Else it will not be used. Healthcare costs are constantly rising (ageing population, better treatments that cost more). So in an non-profit PUBLIC system with a certain budget that is expected to deliver the SAME GOOD care for everyone, there is an automatic pressure to search for and weed out unnecessary and frivolous treatments.
That is one of the advantages of "the exact same treatment and the same places for everyone". If the more affluent citizen get the same as the less wealthy - you bet the system will be good.
The affluent citizen pay more because the contributions are only according to what you CAN pay and not according to risk. And no more bills for treatment. The funding is with payroll deductions (businesses, all sizes tiny or multinational, and the employees - and they all pay the same percentage, plus some tax funding on the federal, state, and local level). So in the end the whole country has a stake in the system (so the CEO having an accident lands in the same hospital as the minimum wage worker, and there will be no difference in the treatments).
That in absence of the usual market forces * keeps quality good and costs reasonable.
* Healthcare is a terrible fit for the "free market" it shows in the U.S. costs and dysfunction) that .
The most cost-efficient systems have "one size fits all".
And healthcare is one of the few products where that is a good thing.
If you think about it: which kind of gallbladder surgery do you want - the basic or the luxury version ?
Well none, if possible. And if it must be done, than as little as possible and as much as necessary.
And if you think about that in combination with the effects of healthcare - or insufficient care - on life, health, the ability to take care of your family and yourself and your job - that is a unique situation which we do not have for any other service. so healthcare is not a product like milk, or a gym subscription or the repair job for a car.
Would you insisit on 5 cycles of chemotherapie (because you have the platinum insurance plan and want to get something for your buck) - when the doctor says surgery and then 3 rounds of chemo.
And if a person has only the basic plan - do you whithold the chemo, or do only 2 rounds ? (And the provider of care running the risk of "wasting" all the efforts - because the full treatment with the 5 cycles would have given the optimal chance for survival).
With many products there is a basic version and the better version. That is fine with restaurants and cars. But in matters of life and death or future health ?
For profit businesses usually want to sell more (the leather seats and the stereo sound system in the care). And they MARKET their services.
Selling extra for medical drugs and medical surgery ?
2
-
Another aspect: the veterans would be a STRONG ALLY for regular patients to make the system good and cost-efficient: Healthcare is a very bad fit for the "free" market. So in absence of the market forces OTHER MECHANISMS must keep the non-profit, public, solidarity based system good (quality) and cost-efficient. - In countries like Germany or Austria (which I know) that works well, almost everyone has a stake in the game: employers plus employees fund it, plus some tax funding for the hospitals, politicians would be blamed if there is a hiccup, employees (low AND high income !) are also patients, and business owners want a healthy workforce and land in the same system if they or their family is sick. Add to that the doctors (small entrepreneurs) and non-profit hospitals. The "single" payer public insurance agency wants things to run smoothly as well. They just have to stay within their budget. No need to make a profit/surplus, no investors to please. If they need a higher budget they have to provide a very good reason (rising wages mean higher payroll contributions so that takes care of inflation).
The WHOLE COUNTRY is in ONE BOAT (the hospitals are with very few exceptions non-profit institutions who have contracts with the public insurance agency. Some hospitals are private non-profits (church), some are run by local governments.
Only the pharma industry and the medical equipment industry is not IN the boat. So it is for example Big Pharma vs. 8,7 resp. 82 million people (Austria / Germany).
The Veterans would be a very valuable "asset" to keep or make a system good.
If the system sucks, it sucks for everyone and everywhere - but due to the respect veterans get in society they get more attention when they complain. I know VA services are often said to be of low quality. Veterans have one disadvanatage - they do not have the numbers ! (Compared to the 325 million people in the U.S.)
Regular patients and veterans could help each other, the veterans have the reputation and can command more media attention, the regular patients have the SHEER NUMBERS.
"Divide and Conquer" helps the powerful. Having ONE reasonable ! funded system for all (incl. the veterans) would reverse Divide and Conquer and help all (veteran or not).
ONE system works because in healthcare it is ONE SIZE fits all. We want cars with a lot of different feature and completely different prices (or no car at all) - but WHICH CANCER TREATMENT do people WANT ? The ONE that based on the medical diagnosis is likely to help best.
So this is always about weighing the medical chances. Not about product preferences, product diversifications, marketing and whatnot.
I do not need or want CHOICE when I have a broken arm (I would not know anyway), and do not want overtreatment or undertreatment - I want the ONE treatment (incl. tests or X-rays) that is medically reasonable and necessary.
And I expect to be helped by someone who has NO INCENTIVE for over- or undertreatment (NON PROFIT). And is not distracted by a huge bureaucracy like in the U.S. (it is expensive and needs a lot of work to DENY TREATMENT or to charge extra).
I can choose to which hospital or doctor I will go. I expect them to be in reasonable distance and I expect to get the adequate treatment in a professional setting in reasonable time.
For more specialized and plannable procedures like hip replacement, eye surgery, ..... there will be referals, hospitals specialize in PLANNABLE procedures. That means more expertise because of the higher case load, which means better outcomes and cost control.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It is no coincidence that NO country uses the public option. In single payer nations with currently well behaved profiteers (who get a small slice of the pie at most) it would slowly erode the system. Making it more bureaucratic, add dysfunction and unfairness and the costs would go up over time.
But note that in almost all other countries the for-profit insurers never got their hands on (much of) the healthcare market. Healthcare is a large chunk of the economy even when delivered in a cost efficient manner and by non-profits.
8 - 11 % of GDP in wealthy countries (versus 19 % in the U.S.).
That would be highly attractive - but private insurers there know there is no chance for them to expand their "market share", that the non-profits (insurance agency AND hopspitals !) dominate the field and no political party is going to help them.
They know it would not fly - and since the non-profits do a good job there is no justification to talk about privatization or handing a part of the system over to the profiteers.
Most countries overhauled or started the system after WW2, and they applied the crucial conditions of single payer: have as little for-profit as possible, especially where the complex decisions are made and a lot of costs manifest (insurance and hospitals). If you have for-profit players they must be small companies.
Do not allow an opt-out.
Big pharma = large and powerful for-profit playera but they have internationally standardized products - so the insurance agencies can contain them (they can compare costs with agencies of other countries, as non-profits they have no reason to "guard an information advantage" about the results of their negotiations).
All countries did their own thing most in the late 1940s, so the systems do have differences. Some did the "set-up" better than others U.K. did best, they reduced the for-profit players the most, even general practicioners are employed with the NHS. In most countries the doctor practices are like small companies.
see their spending only 42 % of the U.S. spending per person. The Tories cut funding for the National Health Service and it starts to show, with better funding - still low for a wealthy European country - the NHS would run like a charm. - Most wealthy nations are in the range of 50 - 54 %, Germany has 56 %, Switzerland whopping 78 % - with private insurers, they mandate that people have insurance, so it is universal - but it is not single payer.
The single payer systems are UNIVERSAL, the affluent / young and healthy cannot opt out from paying into it. So even the affluent can as well use the same providers as everyone else. No political party can make hay of opposing the system - voters of "conservative" or right wing parties like it, too.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Fox News shills seem to be clueless about the MASSIVE role of tax funded BASIC RESEARCH in the U.S. (see Noam Chomsky "The role of the military is misunderstood. When he was active at the MIT in the 60s, 70s, it was almost 100 % funded by the military. The companies producing electronics were there and got their basic research financed, those have vanished from campus, now Big Pharma is everywhere on MIT campus).
The tax payers shoulder a lot of financial risks - when something looks promising the for-profit industry will gladly take it and run with it (and they have much increased chances to get a blockbuster out of it - and can leave the taxpayer with the costs for the inevitable failures).
One of the advantages of entrepreneurship has a lot to do with finding out which products the customers would like and then to have product differentiation and MARKETING. (Is Nike sportswear "better" than that offered under the label of Addidas ? ).
That creativity and entrepreneurial spirit is "rewarded" with profit. Also one of the motives of capitalism is to SELL MORE.
So let's apply that to pharmaceuticals: Now, which diabetes medication would consumers like to take ? None at all - they would rather be healthy. But IF they need one, which one would they like ? Well the one the helps best and has the least side effects. how do you "design" such a product. Well, not at all. You pour a lot of money at such projects and hope that a least of few of them work out. I think with technology and product innovations many branches have it better than pharma. If Mercedes (or the companies that serve them) wants to get a better engine or a better airbag and if they pour resources and workforce at it - they have a pretty good chance to come up with some useful innovation. Much better chance than pharma (dealing with the processes of live and there is always the risk of unexpected bad side effects).
So - regarding product DESIGN there is not much creativity needed - and not much one can really do to get a better outcome. If is unpredictable if a drug will do what it is supposed to do AND heaven forbid not have any drastic side effects (Contergan likely did a good job with dealing with morning sickness in pregnancies - but the side effects were dramatic ...). So from that point of view: Pharma is not such a good fit for "entrepreneurship" and the "free market".
I am convinced a publicly owned agency that hires promising talent regarding research, that pays good salaries and offers a well funded research environment would come up with innovations regarding drugs as well (It has been done for other fields like IT in Europe, where "research centers" are funded like public universities). And they would avoid one inefficiency: The profit for the investors.
Moreover such a publicly funded pharma research institution could also do research and then SELL medications for rare diseases (they might not bring as much in sales revenue but could save a lot of costs in treatment - something that is not relevant to a private for-profit pharma company - but would make the investment even economically viable for society if you look at the larger picture).
Even poor Cuba has some medical inventions (something regarding lung cancer, needless to say it is not approved in the U.S. until now).
Last but not least: if new drugs are tested 1) ordered by the developing companies or the government. The results are always rosier in the tests of 1). Imagine a profit oriented company develops a new drug, it is doing it's job, it is safe to use. But it is hardly better than the stuff that was already around for a decade or longer. A for-profit corporation CAN and WILL have the study influenced (never mind the "neutral" institution that does the testing and hopes to get more such contracts in the future. The outcomes will lean to the very promising, positive side. While the independent government funded really NEUTRAL studies without any financial bias find hardly or only a slight improvement. (And there are studies that prove that pattern).
Let's not forget: the old drug has the advantage that it has been around for some time, so it is better tested for adverse (completely unexpected) side effects (that may have went unnoticed during the process of approval).
Now that is the more harmless scenario. It get's more sinister when we look at the OPIOD crisis. Those painkillers are very powerful, the company KNEW they were addictive. So at the maximum they could be used with a lot of caution in rare cases - then they would have been maybe a good (but potentially dangerous) tool.
The problem with such a responsible approach: not enough revenue if those drugs would have been used as sparingly as would have been prudent. Or more likely they would not have been approved in the first place.
So the company rushed through the approval process, probably presented a doctored study (or got help from those doing the testing), and let the family doctors and hospitals believe that those drugs are harmless. Which presicribed/used them, many people got addicted. After some time the dangers became more obvious, accesss to the drugs got much more restrictive and now these patients (unintentionally addicted) switch to heroin. Which has the same effects as the opiodes - Duh.
A non-profit institution would have no incentive to lie and mislead about the possible dangers related to a newly developed drug. They could "justify" the costs of the development of the painkiller with - it is effective, but should be used very, very cautiously - so it was a success, just not a commercial success.
There is a U.S: lawsuit (not sure which state) against the criminals who caused the extremely costly * opiod crisis, it started summer 2017 - criminal charges, not a civil suit for financial damages. Usually Big Pharma think they are above the law.
* costly in destroyed lifes and familis, in deaths, and also excessively costly if the U.S. now tries to offer rehab for these patients.
2
-
part 2 / 2 When it comes to a CHANGE OF PARADIGM - the ACTIVISTS always had be be way AHEAD of the professional politicians (Civil Rights movement, LGBT rights, marijuana, womans suffrage, end the Vietnam war, end slavery in the UK). It might have to do with cowardice, with political smartness, with how much a politician can require of the establishment w/o becoming the target of a smear campaign and losing too much political capital.
When MLK started to speak out against the Vietnam war, that cost him a lot of "political capital". His "ratings" dropped. That can severely damage your wriggle room in politics or activism - you have to be able to "afford" such a drop in ratings w/o losing everything you fought for - including the support for other good causes, and of course the career.
We know NOW: Had MLK lived longer, his integrity would have turned into a huge political advantage - the public seeing how he was AGAIN ahead of the curve. - On the other hand that might have been the reason he was killed - being against the war and organizing a March on Poverty (poor people of all races !! )
"MLK was not MLK in his time" - meaning he was not even that popular within the black community, many were afraid he would make things worse, if the rocked the boat too much. And going against what was considered "patriotic" did not help either.
He could not know if his position would "pay off" later - and he did not compromize because of such considerations - if the U.S. would have pulled off something that ressembled a victory and if less U.S. soldiers had died, the U.S. citizens (well at least not the majority) would not have cared that the warS in ASIA were unjust or how many Asians were slaughtered and harmed.
The resistance to the war in Vietnam could as well have remained a stain on his reputation, giving ammunition to his enemies.
The Civil Rights Movement had to strongarm even well meaning politicians. They incl. MLK were told be be more patient, it was not YET the time. (P.O.C. still would not be able to vote IF the Civil Rights Movement had CONTINUED to WAIT). - Well they did NOT wait, they used the power of the media, the fact that enough white, decent people were already uneasy about the situation.
In 1963 the police in Birmingham (a stronghold of white supremacy) arrested hundreds of nicely dressed children (age 8 - teenager) singing church songs and in that manner protesting segregation. They used dogs and fire hoses - luckily no one got seriously harmed - the pictures made it onto the front pages worldwide.
The racist mayor of Birmingham and his rabid police chief were SHAMED into giving in.
And JFK was FORCED to take a stand - he gave a statement the next day.
The activists in most cases shift the Overton Window - what is "allowed" to discuss. How far a politician can go.
As Sanders has shifted the Overton Window on Healthcare.
2
-
Sanders and Nina Turner (the Dems would have a HARD time pulling the misogyny / racism card). She is a good speaker, has a spine !!, comes accross as honest and down to earth and could activate the black vote. Being VP would allow Nina to develop her profile, gain experience.
And of course with a role for Tulsi Gabbard as well - she is very young, so if she is interested in higher office - she has time.
I think she would do well with conservatives, especially conservative women.
A president (or VP) does not need to know everything. But some intellectual curiosity would be good (I think GWB did not have that, and Trump certainly does not have it, neither did for instance Sarah Palin).
Some life experience and a well developed bullshit meter (so your advisors cannot fool you). The ability to process nuance and complexity and to do so quickly if necessary.
And then of course the willingness to select advisors (the right kind that will SERVE the people not the donors) and then to delegate to them. Letting them work on the long leash (while having the before mentioned BS meter - there is always a huge incentive (power, money) to pull the wool over the presidents eyes.
And beyond that advisors can have "pet" projects and ideological bias.
JFK did not listen to the top generals in the Cuban missile crisis - they advised him to strike first. - Given that the Soviet Union stepped down from the Arms race and the Cold War voluntarily at the end of the 80s beginning 90s (much to the shock of the Military Industrial complex which all of a sudden lost a very reliable enemy) - this would have been lunacy.
I think JFK had learned from the Bay of Pigs disaster and "was his own man" - he implemented rules to prevent any "accidental" escalation. Any high ranking military that would try to provoque an escalation, practically forcing the presidents hand) would have needed to violate the chain of command. They could not claim a misunderstanding later.
I think JFK knew very well why he established the rule that no ship in the waters around CUBA could be forcefully searched w/o the explicit order of POTUS for instance. That could have increased the tensions even more. (They did search ONE ship - and that was one that for sure was a commercial ship, had a "just for appearances" vibe about it. They for sure left ships alone that some military would have like to search).
2
-
Transcipt 3 of 3 - please upvote 17:49 Here's what I said about these individuals and why they're so wrong and why they don't have facts on their side. First of all contrary to popular belief abortion isn't tantamount to baby killing. Furthermore the abortion rate in general continues to decline in the United States year after year. But for the few abortions that do occur over 90 percent of them happen fewer than 13 weeks into pregnancies, which is the pre gestation period.
And just over 1 percent of abortions are performed after 21 weeks. Now note that states do not offer abortions to women if they are within the 22 to 24 week period of their pregnancy. Additionally nearly 1/5 of abortions are medically necessary.
And on the moral side of things if you think abortions are immoral because fetuses may have the ability to feel pain … while the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists found that a fetus can't actually feel pain before 24 weeks. The University of California found that they actually aren't able to feel pain until 28 weeks, and these are all statistics that are provided by the Guttmacher Institute.
If they're not convincing to you that's perfectly fine because if you still are against abortions, if you're morally opposed to abortions, that's fine. There is one tried-and-true method that absolutely reduces the number of abortions: Contraception ! Greater access to contraception not only reduces teen pregnancy but it also is much more effective at reducing abortion than prohibitive laws.
19:14 As the intercept's Zaid Jilani explains participants of the March for Life know exactly how to reduce abortions: they can push their government to fund contraception. People who are marching in the so-called March for Life protest they're not advocating for greater access to contraception.
In fact they're against abortion and contraception, so they want to have it both ways. On one hand they want to ban abortions but on the other hand they also want to ban contraception which just so happens to be the one thing that actually reduces the number of abortions.
Now I know that instinctively you might be inclined to say: Well, there's one thing that can reduce abortions for sure. You just ban it, but that's actually not true. In fact abortions, the abortion rate generally speaking in the United States overall was higher before it was legalized.
So legalizing abortion actually does decrease the number of abortions, I know that sounds odd, but that's the numbers, that's the statistics that are widely available. I think that I've said everything I needed to. Anyone who is supposedly pro-life nine times out of ten they're gonna be completely hypocritical and not care at all about war.
The next time you are confronted by someone who's pro-life, who tells you that you should support Brett Kavanaugh voting to overturn overturn Roe versus Wade possibly. Why don't you ask them if they realize that overturning Roe versus Wade won't necessarily do what they think it will do in curtailing the number of abortions ?
20:42 Why don't you ask them why they're not supporting initiatives to expand access to contraception ?
Why don't you ask them what they thought about Saudi Arabia bombing children with bombs that our military gave them ? What do they think about Saudi Arabia committing an actual genocide in Yemen with our approval and support ?
Ask them what they think about those issues and if they don't actually speak out and have a lot to say about Yemen, or the Iraq, or Afghanistan wars, or our drone strikes being carried out in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia - they're not pro-life.
We cannot keep calling these people pro-life, because I've said it once, I'll say it again: You cannot be pro-life if you are simultaneously pro war. And you can't just even be ambivalent towards the idea of war, if you are truly pro-life, then you better be one of the loudest people in the country speaking out against wars.
Seeing that most pro-lifers - quote "pro-lifers" mind you - vote for Republicans all the time and they're currently trying to ramp up tensions between the United States and Iran, which will be a war that would kill millions of people potentially, we all know that they're not truly pro-life.
2
-
+terriej123 good comment - AND: following the UK politics, the neoliberal wing of the Labour party has been throwing the same tantrum. The integrity of elections is granted in the UK, purging voter lists (even for the elections within parties) is much harder, so the last coup against Jeremy Corbyn failed. (Purging the voter lists for General elections is impossible, it is easy to register, they have enough polling stations, and one can vote from early moring till 10 p.m. They have hand count in public halls, which are reported by phone (often with live notification on TV). The end results of each district is read to the crowd watching the count in the hall. It is not possible to rig the results. So if a politican can acitivate the non-voters, his opponents cannot exclude them from voting (like poor or young people).
The result of the Brexit vote in June 2016 was his declared his "fault" never mind their political opponents called the referndeum, while they were completely split on the issue. The official Labour party position was Remain which Corbyn supported although he had been highly critical of the EU before - and rightly so. - The plotters and backstabbers had been active for one year, they reduced their efforts a little bit before the referendum. Many of the people blaming HIM for the Brexit result were people who had NOT bothered to campaign (much) for Remain.
Anyway it was a good PRETEXT to start another palast revolt. - The idea was he would step down - he didn't. They planned to NOT put him on the ballot in the vote where they challenged his position (although he had won the party leadership convincingly being directly voted in by the party members).
One year later the COURTS decided that the party MUST let him compete for the challenged position. And they MUST adhere to their own rules as written down. Meaning: the party base votes the leader, if you want to change that, the party MEMBERS must vote on that.
so that was a lost cause as well.
He won that challenge with even higher margin, campaigned all summer 2016 on it.
The polls were terrible in spring 2017 (no wonder with a party in constant backstabbing mode). The Conservatives thought they could increase their narrow majority and their politcal weight with snap election. That backfired. And Labour pulled the situation around within 8 - 9 weeks after the party - for once - united behind the leader. He is doing very well in campaign mode - Sanders style rallies - and they had Sanders campaign member to help them - social media, etc.
The big shots and the neoliberals hate Corbyn like always. But the regular Members of Parliament (which are also part of the "party establishment" although of course they are often not the big shots) were scared as hell that they would lose their seats (polling predicted a landslide win of the Conservatives).
On the contrary: The Conservatives lost their absoute majority and had to strike a coalition deal with an small, extreme Irish party - and Labour got MORE seats in Parliament. So many Labour MPs are NOW glad to have kept their job, see that the strategy is appealing to the voters and will support his populist and popular proposals.
The usual suspects have to shut up. - And the constant "Corbyn is unelectable" is off the table since the snap election in May 2017.
Lesson: If the courts would not have ruled in favor of Corbyn, or if he had given up - the neoliberals NOW would be back in power in the party and on their way to complete electoral wipeout.
In UK the parties get public funding and since they are instrumental in politics, they cannot just act like any private organization. Society has some claims over their actions and can take them to court (in the US parties can do as they please. The Labour party could have excluded Corbyn from the 2nd leadership, too - if such procedures had been agreed upon in the party rules BEFORE).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+ Hillary Clinton Universal healthcare/Single payer is HIGHLY popular among the PEOPLE. (so is Money Out Of Politics which is the root cause for depriving the citizens of delivery of healthcare worthy of a First World country. Sure 40,000 people die needlessly per year in the U.S. because of lack of adequate healthcare, plus the hassle, worries and high costs for the rest of the population (and that was under ACA with the funding under Obama).
You add 45 % to the German per capita expenditures and you land at the U.S.per capita expenditures - source World Bank. The Germans - all 82 million people in the country - have a good system, for everyone as I know from first hand experience. All wealthy European countries have those public non-profit insurance agencies, the contributions are everywhere based on what the citizens can afford, not on risk and there are no added payments WHEN someone needs care. The treatment is delivered by public and/or private players (and the private ones are either non-profit or for-profit, that differs and the countries have installed different ways to finance that - a mixture of payroll contributions and tax funding usually).
All these wealthc European countries realized after WW2 that healthcare is a very bad fit for the free market (and some them had been the mortal enemies of each other in WW2). But on that point they all agreed (it's logical). So you have 70 years of experience and plenty of models that have been tested. The Canadians came on board in the 1970s, not sure when Australia and New Zealand implemented it.
Germany BTW was the first country to implement a very basic version of Universal healthcare in 1873. Despite it being a monarchy, the Social Democrats and other left leaning worker friendly movements were on the rise there. The conservative, rigid, and traditonal government did not like them (at all) and their demands to better the lot of the poor people.
So granting healthcare was an attempt to steal their thunder - and when the young men were drafted for the military (I think there was military mandatory service) they found that many of them were unfit for military duty due to poor health.
The regime was not so benevolent - but at least they were smart enough to recognize that it is an disadvantage of the whole country if you allow to health of the little people to suffer.
And no one could accuse Bismarck of not being smart.
2
-
I have a crazy idea: imagine the U.S. would have a DEMOCRACY. You know, the system where people elect the government to represent them and take care of the details and organization and laws that should ensure the wellbeing of the citizens - not only the affluent - ALL of the CITIZENS.
And imagine a project that has become very popular (thanks the efforts of one Senator) - and I mean healthcare not the means of production * in the hand of workers, that has not been an issue Sanders campaigned on.
And imagine the representatives that are elected by the people (and PAID by them) would actually DO their job.
Now there are of course issues, where people have different opinions or a specific worldview/ideology is the base for a position on an issue.
Healthcare is NOT one of them where PUBLIC SERVANTS could legitimately have ANY OBJECTIONS. The experiment has been going on for 70 years. The systems of all other wealthy nations beat the U.S. and with a wide margin and on many parameters . There is no logical or defensible argument to not support Medicare for all (the current Bill is a not very strong draft and is unlikely to pass right now anyway - but it is a start).
All that are not even on board with the weakened attempt are doing so because they REFUSE to serve the citizens and because the try to getting away with serving the special interests - for their own financial/professional advantage. They are not doing their job - it is like being hired and taking the salary from one company and then quite openly working for the competitor. That would get you fired everywhere.
Politicians used to need the Big donors - for their own campaigns and they are also expected to raise money for the party or at the minimum to not piss off the Big Donors who buy their collegues.
Now, in that respect Sanders has shown the way - they would not be left alone in the cold, the progressives would flock to their support to get them reelected. In the end money in campaigns is only usefully if it is transformed into votes and voter activation.
And massive grassroots support can trump Big Money. People react better to personal conversations than to ads. The Civil Rights Movement or the Anti-Vietnam war movement did collect and need SOME money. But not nearly as much as they had impact, work done for free, never mind the danger and hassle folks put themselves into.
That's the advantage of have a good and just cause - you do not need to PAY people to support it and spread the message. (Me being a good example - I was incensed by your comment, you might be a paid troll of course - but then there are other people browsing throught the comments - I do often and I learnt a lot)
The other problem of Big Money and Special Interests in politics is of course the cushy positionsthat ex-politicians are getting by the Special interests - if the former politicians served THEM well when active and thus betrayed their voters.
Cushy position can mean hiring a family member for an excellent salary, a career as lobbiyest, or serving on a board of a company - Example: like Walmart had HRC on their board while her husband was the Govenor of Arkansas. Sure Hillary is a smart, well educated lawyer ,but there wee no doubt plenty of those around, do you really mean she would have gotten that position if her husband had not held that office ?
There is help with selling a book of the politician or ex-politician (such Big Donor support was mentioned in the Podesta emails - the idea was that the Clintons OWED someone for support during a book tour and that they should adapt their actions if they wanted that kind of support in the future), contracts for political advisors or consultants, or stragist.
The whole beltway circus.
That means that a politician must be a good fit for being a politician for longer time (because else they will have to start over in the middle of their life and if they did not sell out during office some powerful corporations might hold a grudge against them - they might have it harder than other people of their age to find a job).
On the other hand the pay, the benefits are good and planable for a period of time.
Take someone like Sanders: he was and is SATISFIED with the salary and benefits he gets as politician, he likes to be a politician (he stubbornly - and for a long time w/o success - followed that passion. His career took off at the age of 40 years when he WON his FIRST election as mayor, so no doubt he liked the better pay and financial stability (for 2 years, they vote for mayor every 2 years) - AND that was ENOUGH for him.
No chasing after additional benefits from the Big Donors. And enough grassroots support to get himself elected on his own merit.
2
-
2
-
2
-
I would have won but they stole the election saves the face of the narcissist. AND they FUNDRAISE on the gullible cult followers. The stipulations: the first 8,000 USD that they collect per donor can be used by Donnie personally, he does not have to use the first 8,000 USD per person for lawsuits, he can use it to settle his personal !! lawsuits, pay his campaign debts etc. The big donors have abandoned the conman. They quite happily accept neoliberal Biden.
If only Sanders had been the nominee. He might not have won GA and AZ. But he would have had a chance in Florida, in Texas even (thinking of it, they killed it with Latinos so AZ would have been in play even if Cindy McCain would not have campaigned for Sanders like she did for Biden).
But Sanders would have had solid wins in Michigan, Pennsylvania. Biden lost Ohio by a wide margin too (Obama won in TWICE), Trump got a LOT of union votes there. Mind boggling. (He did not even do anything for the blue collars there).
The margins were too close for comfort in all of the Rustbelt (and only thanks to the progressives who organized on the GROUND there was the groundswell that carried Biden in Michigan, PA, also Minnesota). The grifters in the Industrial Election complex get all the money so no money for grassroots to ORGANIZE on the ground.
Abrams and grassroots there (to the left of Abrams) did a voter registration drive in Georgia. To be sure the suburbs delivered for Biden (and who knows if they would have voted for Sanders as well). But the organizing was done by the grassroots. That is crucial but of no monetary interest for the industrial election complex. The workers are either unpaid OR they are regular staff. so money is paid and it delivers a good outcome - but no one gets rich of it.
That is why the party and usual primary campaigns are much more interested in TV ads (and the networks reciporcrate by offering jobs for obedient shills if they leave politics).
The Sanders campaign INVESTED IN THE COMMUNITIES. They wanted to win over Latinos ? they hired people from the communities who did grassroots works and leveraged the unpaid volunteers. with great results. So voter outreach would have been much better in the Rustbelt, in Florida (with secret weapon AOC) and in AZ. And Sanders would not have abandoned Ohio either.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Okay: Good cop / bad cop strategy. Sanders is too polite to the Dems - hopefully he is calculating that this fans will raise hell anyway, but noone will be able of accusing HIM of damaging the party etc., etc. (well, noone but the hardcore Hillary supporters, or those who are part of the consultant and political adviser class). - When he was calling out Cory Booker in January (defecting from the "import Canadian drugs bill"), Sanders did so politely, not saying very much, and never mentioning the 12 or 13 other Democratic defectors by name (even Ted Cruz supported Sanders with this bill, competition and price control). - Booker was not pleased, came up with a lame argument, promised to be on board next time, it was just his concerns about "safety".
Sanders was too polite for my gusto, but then - the defectors got the Social media response and townhall treatment - while Sanders did not burn any bridges and Booker had to give a good impression of being gracious.
That or he is simply not as forceful as he needs to be.
still doing good of course by relentlessly campaigning.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Australia: the basics (that can get very expensive, think hospitals, big surgery, ongoing costly medication) are publicly covered - of course ! Some services like specialists, likely also dentists are left to for-profit insurers and of course then the doctors can demand and will get higher rates.
I read an interesting comment by an expert (this was not about Australia, in general): if private insurers play a major role in a healthcare system, they have a bidding war on the services of the providers (doctors, hospitals). The providers can demand more.
even if there are for instance specialists that offer dental or eye care under the public contract: either the public agency has to pay more (to compete with the private insurers for the resourse = doctors) or the services open to publicy insured will be inferior because not many doctors will play along when they could get more, if they just insist on being "private". One way to handle this would be to dedicate only very short time to every patient.
Doctors demanding higher rates (because they can) is not "free market". Because the consumers / patients that need the specialis have not choice.
If the government decides to set up the system so that the doctors can earn more (at least SOME doctors = specialis, not necessarily those in the hospitals) and the for-profit insurance companies get a part of the market for no good reason at all - in the end the insured / patients will have to pay more (in premiums, in taxes, ...)
In wealthy single payer countries the doctors make a good living, but they do not have the high income of their U.S. peers. Especially in the U.S. the AMA (American Medical Association) made sure that not too many doctors graduate, they keep the numbers down. Rejecting good candidates for medical school, immigrant doctors are discouraged (certification not accepted).
The comment about bidding war came from an U.S. expert.
If the public coverage for some weird reason does NOT cover certain segments (eye care exluded or even basic dental), the budgets can be kept lower for the public insurance agency. These agencies always need additional subsidies to keep the mandated payroll tax affordable for companies and employees (goal universal coverage) - so there is extra government funding made possible with taxes from the upper income segments. (You get my drift).
The citizens cannot refuse to "buy" if they need a service, they do not benefit from the lower budgets of the public insurance agency, they will be made to pay one way or another.
So reserving space for private insurance = doing favors for certain groups. The strategy is typical for right governments.
More bang for you buck is possible with a comprehensive public coverage, enough budgets to make good services for all possible and leaving as little room as possible for private insurance. Or for-profit hospitals - or doctor practices that are private-insurance / out of pocket only - unless the doctor really offers something special.
If the public insurance agency is the dominant player, normal good doctors will have to accept the public contract. Else they would not get enough patients. If they think they do not earn enough they can take it to the court of public opinion. If their grievances are justified they will have the patients / voters on their side.
if the public agency covers most and all that is really expensive - but leaves out some services that are not life and death but still necessary (specialists) - the profiteers can make some hay of that segment. That is the Australian system:
it is NOT a public option because that would mean either full public coverage or full coverage by a private insurance company. (not that the private insurers get a monopoly for services that not super expensive but still hands them over a part of the "market").
I assume this setup was an Australian governments doing favors for industry, wealthy individuals and doctors. The Germans have another version of that.
I does not make things more cost-efficient. Or fairer.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mindped All insurers are adminstrative middlemen (for-profit or public non-profits). The non-profits just do a better jobs (for a service like healthcare and in general for natural monopolies). That is the case everywhere on the planet, there is not one private insurer that could beat the non-profits reg. cost-efficiency.
I know only of Taiwan, Switzerland and U.S. who rely on private insurers.
Taiwan: cost of living / wages not comparable (not sure if the services are quite comparable) and their spending per person has steeply risen in recent years.
The Swiss have 78 % of the U.S. spending per person - which is a lot compared to 50 - 54 % for most wealthy nations. Or 56 % in Germany (90 % under public coverage, they have the public option for the few privileged).
And of course the U.S. spending per person (in 2017) of USD 10,260 (which I took as base for the comparsion so that is 100 % - and insanely high - it is roughly doube than the amount of most other rich nations).
To be sure the Swiss have higher costs of living /wages - but the Germans have the higher average age. (Globally Germany is a close second after Japan). That is important because age is also a major driver of spending. So a lot of the 22 % gap is due to giving private insurance so much space in the Swiss system.
If the public coverage is comprehensive and reasonably funded and services are good - as they should be - there is no reason to have supplemental insurance. I find them expensive (I live in Austria). If you have expensive dental once in your life (basic is covered) or want accupuncture sessions it is cheaper to pay out of pocket. That way you are not tied to a long term insurance contract and have to finance the profits, admin, marketing, sales team of the private insurers. These contracts used to be tax deductible but do not get that boost anymore.
Even if insurers would be honest players (they are certainly not in the U.S.) they still would have higher costs than the non-profit agency Medicare. Think marketing, sales and of course the profit - profit does nothing for a better insurance product (which is admin ! *) - not with healthcare or natural monopolies. So profit is only a cost factor, does not give good incentives and on top adds toxic incentives.
the admin that is necessary: collecting contributions, negotiating contracts, paying bills, some plans around preventive care. That is what the public insurance agencies are doing. everything else adds nothing of value if you organize the healthcare for all of the country at low costs.
if private insurance gets you better services than the only reason is that some citizens get better budgets awarded than others (because they are veterans, teachers, work for a certain industry). Why should such differences exist regarding a life and death service.
Healthcare is also a black and white issue: either it is good or not. There is no such thing as a plain versus a gold plated gall bladder surgery. What would plain be ? they do not clean the operating room as carefully ? healthcare is systems, protocols, standards, it is about a uniform service where different qualities (basic versus luxury) make little sense.
There are often offers to have your own room, or better food - that is medically of no relevance, and when you need intense care you are on the drip and not alone in a room anyway. So those privileges play out for harmless procedures and become meaningless when you really get hit (and the large costs manifest).
2
-
2
-
part 1/ 2 It might be a case of "Choose Your Battles Wisely" - a) the movement must be better than the leader b) Sanders invited Noam Chomsky as mayor of Burlington in the early 1980s *, he disagreed very much with the Latin American policy of Reagan. (I heard him mention recently the destructive war/regime change the U.S. unleashed onto Guatemala - he got really animated.
Noam did the usual gig: highly critical of U.S foreign policy, including the policy towards the the State of Israel. Military Industrial Comples. The media as gatekeeper - Manufacturing Consent, one must not overdo it with democracy, the unwashed masses must be controlled by the "elites". - It is depressing how that speech is as relevant as it was in the 1980s.
Sanders is a coward AND / OR smart when it comes to the immensly powerful Israeli lobby and the even more powerful Military Industrial Complex.
One could say he creates enough vicious enemies with advocating for good healthcare, breaking up the banks, taxing Wallstreet and getting money out of politics (reform the campaigns and the Citizens United decision - the latter is not that much mentioned anymore, isn't it ? And to be clear: Citizens Unites was only the last nail in the coffin, other supreme court decisions since the 1970s had paved the way for undue influence of Big Biz in politics.)
Of course bringing good healthcare to the people would give any politician a lot of political capital to work with, some leverage to take care of more controversial topics.
JFK and LBJ might have been sympathetic to the cause of the Civil Rights movement. But did that mean they would take POLITICAL RISKS for the cause ?? Well LBJ did jump into the cold water - and he was aware that the Democratic Party would lose the South for decades (..."those negoes better vote for us because we will lose the South for decades ..." - nice statement).
A lot of good (or at least not bad) people ignored, or at least put up with the lynchings that were going on in the South even in the 1920s and 1930s. Due to the difficult economic situation black people could not even migrate to the North where the law was not as brazenly disregarded and the police not (or to a lesser degree !!) infiltrated by the Klan.
Many people in the Northern States had KNOWN for a long time that the law was violated that granted black people the vote. They just could not see how that could be changed (can't somebody do something about it !) or they were busy with their own affairs (Great Depression !! and then WW2)
Politicians, media owners wanting to sell books and films just would not upset the WHITE voters / citizens in the South who always had been above the law and above the consitution regarding the treatment of People of Color.
When the cartoon Peanuts started covering a black boy (and what was worse: to show black and white children in school situations together !) some Southern newspapers stopped publishing the cartoon. To give you an idea: that was AFTER MLK was shot and the cartoon was very poplar. Actually the assiassination of MLK inspired a white a school teacher to write to the artist and to ask him to draw black kids as well - and he acted on her suggestion.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
part 2 of 2 Civilized norms for a First World country (one of the richest on the globe if you take per capita GDP as an indicator) and the fact that the plebs still can vote require that people are not left to die on the street. So an excessive paper shuffling operation is necessary to keep up the appearance of giving coverage.
Even when people think they have coverage - when they really NEED treatment they find out that it does not cover all. It is a lot of work to deny care or make the furious / desperate patients jump through 4 hoops.
So all these subsidies sustain the profits AND the dysfunctional red tape (that is necessary because of maximizing profits within the need to maintain the facade).
The European systems have almost always the insurance via a non-profit public agency (insurance is mandatory, income based, FULL coverage, the duty and the RIGHT to have full insurance, no exclusion for any medical conditions, monthly forseeable payments = modest wage deductions. And that's it. No later bad surprises for co-pays, deductibles, caps and what not).
That agency negotiates with the non-profit or for-profit actors. And usually at least a part of the hospitals (where the large costs per case manifest) are non-profits. The for profit operations are often church run hospitals, they come from a charitable tradition, so even if they earn the church a modest profit - they can be compared to the other non-profit hospitals (benchmarks)
They are heavily regulated and there is an incentive for them to not spoil their reputation by exploiting patients or denying care (which would be impossible anyway, they send the bills to the insurance agency, and they are not allowed to charge the patients extra. The only way to "save" costs would be negligent care. Well - unlike the child abuse cases - that would go public quickly. So they don't abuse their strong market position. (Many of them operate in Germany and Austria for historic reasons, but they serve the common good).
The U.S. industry would prefer predatory capitalism - have the un- or underinsured die like they do in India for instance - but keeping appearances "nice" is part of the deal - so they resign themselves to the 2nd best option: make the system incredibly complex - that favours the big players against the patients. And even IF the regulators were on the side of the patients - the industry will always be 4 steps ahead of the patients and 2 steps ahead of the regulators (never mind they are usually bought off, or understaffed).
Patients are even more vulnerable since healthcare is often a life / death / later quality-of-life issue. Good and promp medical attention decides if you will live, how good your life will be and if and when you will be fit to work and take care of yourself and your family.
It is one thing to be ripped off by cable TV and internet providers with quasi monopolies - healthcare is much, much more important, cannot be avoided with some inconveniences - and is also much more expensive.
2
-
2017 healthcare spending per person of nations (Keiser Foundation also see World Bank). The U.S. 10,260 USD for every person in the country on average. Most wealthy nations (usually with some form of single payer) are in the range of 47 - 56 %, the most common range is 50 - 54 % (Sweden, Finland, Austria, ....), Germany 56 %. France Belgium, Australia, Canada even below 50 %
....and then there is the U.K. with 42 % of U.S. spending levels.
I looks like first world medicine with a certain age structure needs around 5,400 - 5,800 USD per person per year (level 2017). Or a little less if you are France, Belgium, Iceland, Japan ....
If the NHS would get the proper funding (which would of course show up in the per capita healthcare expenditures of the nation) the U.K.would still be at the lower end of the average rich nation - and the NHS would run like a charm.
Which would of course do away with all pretext why it has to be privatized or why they would need private contractors to make the NHS "better".
The Tories have been openly hostile towards the NHS in the 1950s, but they had to tone it down, because the voters loved it (incl. their own base, they cannot win with the vote of the affluent and rich only). Thatcher promised to leave the NHS alone to get elected but had of course other plans. Her inner circle implored her to leave the NHS alone (they should have let her !), they feared the backlash.
even when run cost-efficiently (so as little private for-profit as possible) healthcare is 7 - 11 % of GDP in most wealthy nations, again the usual rate is 8 - 10 %. That is a large part of the national economy. The Tories have always found it very offensive that it should be mostly off limits for the profiteers, "investors" and the landlord class.
The crisis caused by the banksters was a welcome pretext to have austerity and to defund the NHS (that had a lean budget to begin with). Running it into the ground was the necessary condition to "justify" more private contractors. Which do nothing to make things more cost-efficient, they add complexity, dysfunction and extract profits.
And no doubt donate to the Tories and provide cushy jobs for former politicians.
2
-
+ Joe Marks - actually having a "war on terrorism" is BRILLIANT. - The CIA did not foresee that the Soviet Union would step down from the Cold War - the S.U. deserted from being a reliable boogeyman and w/o much prior notice ;) - The Soviet army (and later the Russian army) resp. the governments are WELL DEFINED entities. They have a chain of command. And when the command is "it's over" then it is over. So there is the danger of an official END that is actually enforced by the other side.
Of course one can try to provocate a renewed arms race, the U.S. with the assistance of some foolish European Nato states has been busy doing that - it became quite obvious since 2008, but I assume it has been the plan since 2000 when Putin replaced the puppet of the West, Yeltsin.
Putin is too smart to take the bait to start another ARMS RACE - the Russian economy can't sustain it - so they use asymmetrical, much cheaper methods and of course keep their nuclear arsenal up to date. The Russian budget is the same or after some cuts even less than the recent INCREASE (for wthich almost all the Dems and the Republicans voted )- an increase by 80 billion USD to a total of 700 bn yearly regular military budget.
The trillion USD wars are extra. The letter agencies like CIA, FBI, NSA .... VA get 1,2 trillion per year. That makes a lot of private for profit contractors happy.
The M.I.C. would not suffer such a shock like in the early 1990s once more. Much better to have an undefined enemy, erratic war lords and religious fanatics that change their military allegience, the names of the groups, the financiers all the time. There can never be an end to the "War on terror".
And it is much easier to secretly fuel those conflicts with covert financing and regime changes, and what not. - The military budget during the Cold War was an official affair and a lot of it was "justified" with the "threat" of the Soviet Union.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Transcipt 1 of 3 - please upvote
Individuals with social media accounts have probably realized that conservatives lately have been more insufferable than usual because they've been doing a victory lap over the course of the last week in celebration of Brett Kavanaugh being confirmed to the Supreme Court
Now part of this is them just being excited that his confirmation triggers the libs because that's really a driving motivator for a lot of people who support right-wing policy and Donald Trump and individuals like Brett Kavanaugh.
But another reason they support bbkk isn't necessarily because they just love his judicial philosophy or think he has the right temperament to be on the Supreme Court. It's because they're gonna get something that the right has been wanting for a very very long time: an overturning of Roe versus Wade.
Just sit back and think for a minute in the event Brett Kavanaugh was that vote that struck down Roe versus Wade. Could you imagine how quickly states would act ? I think within the first year there'd be at least a dozen states that outright ban abortion.
They're doing what they can to restrict access to safe and legal abortions and in the event they finally get what they want, I think we're gonna see the policy repercussions of that almost immediately.
Now, part of the celebration isn't just from your conservative racist uncles, it's from actual law makers like Steve King who tweeted out a picture of an adorable baby with the caption: Soon babies like this little angel will be protected in the womb by law.
1:34 Now, what assumptions do you think are embedded in that tweet:
1) obviously is that abortion is tantamount to baby killing and 2) that Conservatives care about babies like that. Liberals we're all cold-hearted we don't give a shit about babies we're all for baby killing we're Pro baby killing.
That's essentially what he wants you to believe: That's the moral argument that he's making and he's using that picture to prime you to think about abortion in a less nuanced way, to get you to believe that any woman who does have abortion in fact committed an atrocity that is akin to murder.
That's exactly what he wants you to think and it's not just lawmakers like Steve King - propagandists on Fox News like Ben Shapiro also utilized this same tactic: They tried to get you to believe that abortion is murder by showing you images of fetuses in the womb and showing you that really - you know - abortion isn't so different than actually killing a baby. Literally.
Part of this is them just trying to prepare the masses for what may be an overturning of Roe versus Wade. So in order to avert some hysteria nationwide they're trying to get you to think. Well if Roe versus Wade is overturned it's really not that big of a deal.
So we're gonna talk about their argument. People like Steve King - but first Iwant to show you a clip of Ben Shapiro and what you're gonna see here is just pure Republican party propaganda:
3:09
"The pro-abortion movement suggests that pro lifers are extreme. In reality the extreme position on abortion is held by the Democratic party. Their platform calls for legal abortion all the way until point of birth.
But pro-abortion extremists get away with their rhetoric because they use euphemistic language to describe what exactly abortion is.
In fact the word abortion is itself a euphemism. The procedure of abortion isn't an anodyne [parts ?] removal
[He means most likely: removing the parts of a fetus without it feeling pain. I did not know the word, here a definition from Wikipedia: An anodyne is a drug used to lessen pain through reducing the sensitivity of the brain or nervous system. …. In literary usage, the word has escaped its strictly medical meaning to convey anything "soothing or relaxing" (since the 18th century) or even anything "non-contentious", "blandly agreeable", or unlikely to cause offence or debate].
It involves doing terminal violence to an unborn child. Ignoring that fact allows abortion advocates to avoid looking reality directly in the face.
So for just a few moments let's look reality in the face: This is a picture of a nineteen week old baby. This is a human child, this is not a ball of goo, this is not a cluster of cells.
In January 44 Democrats in the United States Senate voted not to protect the rights of babies older than this unborn child. Only 3 Democrats: Joe Manchin, Joe Donnelly, and Bob Casey voted to protect children at 20 weeks. Only two Republicans voted against such protection: Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski.
Take a good look at that baby, that is a human being with zero rights according to the mainstream of the Democratic Party.
And human life doesn't begin at 20 weeks. This is a picture of a baby at 12 weeks barely three months. You can see this baby with his hands near his chest, this is not a cluster of cells, this is not a ball of goo. His genitalia have already been formed. His liver and spleen produce red blood cells. This is an unborn human being.
Not a single federally elected Democrat would vote for an abortion ban that would protect this baby's life.
And life doesn't begin at 14 weeks. This is a picture of an unborn human being at eight weeks: you can identify the head of this unborn human you can see where the small buds are forming for arms and legs.
But guess what life doesn't begin at eight weeks either: it begins at fertilization when a new human life is formed, a new human being with its own DNA. This human being is not its mother it is not its father, it is not a polyp.
If we found a human embryo on another planet the headlines would rightly scream: Human life found on Mars". Human life is a continuous process of growth from the moment of fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life. The later the abortion takes place the more brutal the procedure. But no matter the brutality of the procedure, it is obvious that abortion is not some mere optional surgery to be performed for convenience.
And it's even more obvious that those who want to protect the lives of the unborn aren't trying to control women's bodies. Those who cherish abortion are trying to control and dismember the bodies of the unborn. Think about that next time you see a radical feminist and a Handmaid's Tale outfit suggesting that you'd better respect her right to carve apart an unborn baby in the womb or you're some sort of fascist.
5:56 When it comes to propaganda that has to be very effective, right ? Because he doesn't have the facts on his side when it comes to abortion.So what he tries to do is get you to suspend reason and logic and think more about your feelings. He's showing you the picture of the 12 week old baby and he's saying: Look this is this is a baby. Is that really different than an actual born child, look at the similarities here.
This is purely propaganda and we're gonna get through that. But first of all he just makes up things about what the Left believes and Ben Shapiro strawmans the arguments of the Left almost all the time.
He just outright made up something in order to demonize the Left and the Democratic party:
He says quote: "The Democratic Party's platform calls for legal abortion all the way until the point of birth."
That's factually incorrect because when you look at the Democratic Party's platform it says absolutely nothing about abortion all the way up until the last trimester of a woman's pregnancy. In fact they don't even specify when they believe it's still morally acceptable for a woman to have an abortion.
They don't say 12 weeks, they don't see 24 weeks, and they certainly don't endorse the idea that a woman should be able to get an abortion the day before she is due to give birth. Of course they don't say that Ben Shapiro made that up.
7:19 If Ben Shapiro heard me make that argument he'd probably say: "Well, what about the abortions - or the the Democrats rather - that support late term abortions ? "
Well, first of all if a Democrat or any Liberal or Progressive has indicated support for late term abortions, begrudgingly so, it was probably because the life of the mother was at stake. If it comes down to a doctor telling a mother it's you or the baby, you have to pick …that Democrat is doing what a reasonable person would do in saying: "I think that obviously the mother should be allowed to make that difficult choice that I couldn't imagine I would make if I were in that situation."
So we're simply saying that we want to empower women to make that choice and not say: Well, if it comes down to the woman or the baby the baby's got to survive and the moms got to die."
How can you say that it's reasonable for the government to impose that decision on someone. It's such a difficult decision ! How can you say that !
Now, I'm not saying that Ben Shapiro is actually making this argument, but certainly he would rebut my claim about that being untrue by saying that politicians like Barack Obama support late term abortions.
Of course that's just an intellectually disingenuous point to make because as usual we're saying that the mother should be empowered to make that really really difficult decision.
Nobody's pro-abortion. Some people might even surprisingly be against abortion personally, but still support someone else's right to have an abortion because they actually do put facts over feelings - unlike ben shapiro. We're get to that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Wilkerson: "...If I call President Obama for anything, it was his timidity, and his lack of courage. His lack of courage with respect to politics, and his lack of courage with respect to particularly his last three years in office. Where I know from talking with him personally, talking with him in the Roosevelt Room, that he understood.
He said [to me] there was a bias in this town towards war, with his Secretary of State sitting beside him. He said quote : "There's a bias in this town towards war" unquote. Well, he went on for another 20 minutes to elaborate on that.
Well, Mr. President if you knew that - why didn't you start doing something about it ? I mean, he could have done a lot more, if he'd had the political courage to do it .....
I think it's because, first you get trapped in that environment, and you want to make lots of money, and you wanna be very happy, and you wanna be very satisfied when you leave that office, especially if you're as young as he is. And you realize that if you start these fights, if you start these battles, not only might you be assassinated, you're probably going to leave without anything like the dignity, and the honor, and the emoluments, and the fortune that he left with.
And I don't say that lightly, that's a very difficult decision to make, when you stand up for principle, when you stand up for the country, when you are a true patriot, you usually are punished, not rewarded."
the complete transcript of that comment (only) is under the video (on the youtube channel of The Real News) - usually they have a complete transcript and the youtube video embedded on their website - but in this case there is not transcript on their site.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+ longwarn you were not "wrong" as you went by the record and information you had at that time. Gabbard likely would still have been a much better president than Cheney, Obama, HRC or Biden. - That said: this was a mask off moment, I am done with her - and a reminder for voters NOT to get EMOTIONALLY INVESTED into candidates. ALL support is conditional. To judge people on their ACTIONS now and also not on their words or even record earlier.
Concessions have to made for pressure and having to play the insider game - but that goes only that far. And she was not caught between a rock and a hard place and "forced" to agree to a shady compromise she did that out of her own initiative. pandering to donors, or future employers or she thinks it pleases certain audiences. Or she genuinely thinks that way - drone strikes have always killed many more civilians than the group they claim to target.
Kyrsten Sinema was very much agains the Iraq war that may have been a principled stance (would she have been against if Bill Clinton or Al Gore would have started that ? Where was she when Obama foolishly attacked Libya).
She talked a good game (anti war, higher minimum wage, environment), spoke at Green party events, maybe even run on their ticket .....
The voters of Arizona can be excused for being fooled. She won a primary against a progressive in 2018, there was already some talk about being bipartisan. One could hope though she would be a middle of the road Democrat, not too bad.
Turns out she is one of the most openly cynical grifters.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"...this is how I roll..." - this is how she is bankrolled. - German per capita health care expenditures 5,600 USD (source World Bank 2014) add 65 % and you will land at the U.S. level of 9,200 (meanwhile it is well over 10,000 USD in 2016 - I do not have the German numbers for 2016 - but the average for the other wealthy European countries and Canada was 5,000 - 5,500 in 2014. Some do it for as little as 4,2 k, the completely underfunded UK with 3,9k - Australia 6k. Oh, and in most European countries - and definitely In Germany (82 million people) the population is on average older than the U.S. - the U.S. should beat them cost-wise on demographics alone.
So generally speaking: for a substantially !! lower cost all Americans could be covered - so the high federal debt would be an argument PRO single payer or anything in that direction.
But some special interests (that no doubt fund her) stand to lose a lot of money, while the citizens would win big time. and the economy with them, more disposable income, more security, less stress.
The cost efficient systems are widely non-profit (the doctors are often private for profit and with a contract with the non-profit single payer insurance, the hospitals are mostly non-profits, and the insurance agencies negotiate with the pharma industry as well. So a lot of that niche is covered by non-profit players or the profits are somewhat restricted. Germany has 82 million people, the public non-profit insurance agencies (in reality there are more than one, but they cooperate) are powerfuly negotiating partners. And they do not have to make a profit. They must cover the costs of the staff, their IT, rent, etc. pay the bills of doctors, hospitals, make the contracts, .... fulfill their role so they system functions and stay within their budgets. And if that is not possible - demographic ghange, more old people, they have to ask for higher funding and give a good reason for it.
They have NO incentive to DENY care, no profit to be made (surplus is kept for the next year). And there is no bureaucraZy necessary to deny care - which is lot of work as the U.S. proves.
As everyone gets the same treatments the adminstration can be very streamlined and simple. Cost efficient !
.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So Jill Stein sat on a table in one of the important countries of the world and their president sat at the table, too ? So what ? If she was president or the CEO of a major company she would meet him (and other head of states as well). A Siemens CEO (the railyway branch) got harshly criticized when doing a business trip that was planned well in advance. Why ? The US had just "convinced" the EU to join them in the sanctions against Russia (because of Crimea).
Publicly funded German TV is supposed to be neutral - they are not, they have unsavoury connections to the Atlantic Bridge and other pro US, pro NATO, pro neoliberalism US think tanks.
So the interviewer (an "Atlantiker") asked him rather agressively why he had made that journey to Russia at all and had on that occasion also met with Vladimir Putin.
The CEO replied: "The trip was planned in ahead, as industry leader if you are given the chance to meet with Putin you do so - and Siemens has been active in Russia for more than 100 years and will continue to do so."
As LONG AS THERE IS DIPLOMACY and talk - there is NOT WAR. Having relationships between leaders that are agreeable (not only polite) is a good thing and can smooth out problems.
We had several close calls regarding nuclear warfare in the Cold War. Some of these dangerous situations were brought on in a cavalier manner (Cuba crisis and again in the 80s). In other cases there were false alarms.
One of these false alarms was in the 80s at a time when tensions were high. The Soviet officier in charge decided that the alarm did not fit the pattern they expected from a nuclear attack from the US. Their system indicated one missile - and then one more - in total five single missiles were indicated within maybe 15 - 30 minutes.
In a real attack very likely a bulk of missiles would have come at once. The system was known to produce false alarms from time to time, so he classified the alarms as such - and waited the 15 minutes. Well nothing happened, it was indeed a false alarm.
Another situation and more dangerous happenend in the Cuban crisis. A Soviet submarine nearby Cuba was detected by the US and the US ship shot a signalling shot. The Soviets were supposed to understand that this was NOT an attack, some sort of internationlly agreed signal (maybe more on the decisive side).
Anyway, the Soviets interpreted it as attack. Did I mention they had nukes ? The Soviet rules said that 3 officiers had to come to a decision: The captain, the next in rank and the leading "political" officier. 2 said let's retaliate against the US ship (I would assume with conventional weapons) 1 said Njet. So it did not happen. Which I guess was a good thing.
According to Robert Kennedy part of the crisis team: Some of the US military leaders at that time thought there was such a thing as a winnable nuclear war and urged JFK to allow a first strike. JFK thought otherwise. Had the US ship been attacked that would have helped the war hawks. His brother Robert sais JFK was grey in the face - no doubt completely overworked and worried out of his sleep. The people who make the ultimate decisions have only human strenght and are subject to stress and psychological misconceptions and peer pressure. It is better to not even come close to such a scenario, than to hope they get it right. One part of the "safety net" are good and polite relationships with major leaders in the world.
BTW: The crews of the US and the Soviet Union ships had a sort of Cuba crisis reunion some years ago in Florida. Another good thing.
Now imagine such a "misunderstanding" or false alarm while both nations are in a GOOD WORKING REALTIONSHIP. While they do business and get along nicely. Unclear or unpleasant events will interpreted and handled differently than in a climate of high tensions.
I assume Jill Stein was honoured with a place on the president's table (or he made just an appearance) because she was a US political figure. The German chancellors Kohl and then Schroeder had a good relationship with the Russian leaders. That could prove extremely valuable in a crisis.
I also saw a clip with Bill Clinton: He said: As president I tried to let the international figures save their face. If we had disagreements we fought them out behind closed doors. He was then asked about his interactions with Putin. Clinton said: "He was very honest." "How honest ?" Clinton: "Brutally honest". Did he keep his promises ?" Clinton paused for a moment, then "Yes, when he promised something he kept his word." That is a valuable information about Putin.
There is no need to like Putin - but having a good working relationship and giving him the feeling that his country and he as representative of that country are respected IS A VERY WISE MOVE.
Would also give some leverage to ask for human rights improvment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As for age: For someone who wants to really ROCK THE BOAT being old (provided the person is in good health) is an ADVANTAGE. Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn are a good example, they are not shy about calling a spade a spade, and the young people love the old guys for it.
The establishment will not be pleased with a progressive firebrand in power.
What do you do after having been POTUS. Usually they do not return to be in Senate or Congress (would there be a legal obstacle ? Or is is is just considered inappropriate or a decline ?
Would someone like Obama go back to be a community organizer ? Or work for a lawfirm, or start one ? Hardly, there are ethical objections, and it just wouldn't look good. - Being POTUS is one of the most powerful positions in the world - it sort of ends your career, nothing can top that. Obama chose to be very, very nice to Wallstreet, he was rewarded NOW with a 400k speaking gig. He got a very good book contract - and the publishers know they can give him such a high contract, the special interests will make sure the the BOOK is bought. They can order truckloads and gently pressure associated institutions, like think tanks to buy it up as well. Gift for Christmas for management or something, something to be dusted off in the library).
.
Jimmy Carter writes the occasional book, too. It helps him finance his charities. He does not hunt after big money. (And I do not think he was influenced by it as President). You can tell that when he makes statements from time to time. He does not shy away from making statements that are seen as controversial.
I think politicians have a constant more or less conscious awareness that they might a) lose their position (losing an election, or the party collegues start an intrigue against you). Or b) they just want to do something else.
That gives the special interests a lot of leverage over politicians in office. It shows even in Europe where elections are PUBLICLY FUNDED. Still Big Biz has way too much influence. Politicians often cannot afford or do not dare to piss off certain people, branches, corporations. Or their own party establishment which is of course worked by the special interests. - They might need them in the future to get a cushy job or in order to have a professional perspecitve.
I do not even condemn that. Even with good and honest work a politician might get into a burnout, find out the job is no longer a good fit for him or her, or lose an election despite good work (to someone backed with more money or better in PR).
And then they stand there empty handed. They were used to have a nice salary. And a politician will always have some Alpha personality features - they need them. So they are not going to do a humble job after that, and they are not going to live off their savings and lose status (from important lawmaker to lazy bum).
Doing charity like Jimmy Carter can be a honorable solution provided you are not greedy and do have some morality.
Of course politics in these days attracts and rewards careerists, especially Congress is a stepping stone to the final goal of a highly lucrative career as "consultant", lobbyist, etc. (Minimum age for Senate is 35, Congress only ? 25 - so if you are "designing" a career - as opposed to being driven by a mission like Sanders - than you will naturally try to find the donors that will purchase you the Congress seat. There you build your rolodex for some years, in your mid to late 30s you can go after the big money. Not the measly 100 or 115k + benefits they pay for a representative.
In the time in which other people build their careers they were in politics. So there is a lot of incentives to use the networks you have from being politician later - and as long as you are in politics to be very aware of the needs and the mood of special interests - to the disadvantage of the general public.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I remember, it was infuriating. She BEGGING him, so much so, that it looked like HE was her superior and like it was in his power to graciously grant or nicely but firmly deny the "pie in the sky request". - The voters are the bosses - he is getting his salary from the voters to act in their best interest. (It is like you hire an accountant or an lawyer to represent you and then you have to BEG them FERVENTLY so that maybe, maybe they will so oblinging as to not sell you out). That dynamic was very strong to see, exactely because she was so politely but consistently asking him.
I hope his sorry a$$ gets kicked out.
And what is more: I think he was relatively new in office - meaning theoretically there is a chance that he was not already completely corrupted - just trying to navigate the donor chasing w/o falling flat on his face right away.
I guess, he started out as careerist right away. Do some time, usually in Congress, sell out, court donors and party leadership, network. And secure a more lucrative position a few years later. A political office as stepping stone to make a lot of money later.
Unlike a certain Senator with unruly hair who was and is quite content with the salary as mayor, Congressmen and Senator. If you can self-fund your campaign and are happy with your pay and know your constituency rewards your honest effort with coming out for you on election day - then you can indeed vote your conscience.
You can even campaign for exotic concepts that the donors, Big Biz and the party establishment does not like - like Single Payer healthcare.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The UK is more democratic, this is why establishment "New" Labour could not prevent the success of the progressive wing of the party, the party is in the process of being taken over.
Admitted: the "Blairites" and neoliberal Labour did their best to fight progressives - and the tactics are the SAME as used in the U.S. (It is just that in the U.S. voter suppression is easier respectively possible at all. These tactics came in handy to restrain the progressives - that IS AFTER ALL the job of the Democrats - to take care on behalf of the donors that there will never be a really progressive movment in the U.S.
the tactics in the U.K. : allegations of racism, xenophobia, misogyny, anti-semitism,
Collusion with the media (to smear Corbyn on trivial points, no debate on the issues, condescending reporting or just ignoring him.
Constant backstabbing and leaking to the press
Purging of voter rolls (only for internal elections of the party leadership, they can't do in in the general elections - no doubt the conservative Tories and "New" Labour would love to have that tool (that the U.S. establishment D + R finds so useful).
broken promises to new party members who were excluded from the leadership election, temporarily closing down of the largest Labour organization in Bristol - they were about to go full Progressive, the establishment Labour claimed "violence", couldn't prove that - it is reminiscent of the "chair throwing" at the Democratic convention in 2016
Establishment members claim to be harrassed on Social media and to be really afraid of some of the Corbynistas (the Corbyn "Bros")
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The leadership of most European countries unfortunately behaves like vasalles to the US (became quite obvious with the NSA spying (citizens, head of states of allies !!) / Snowden / Evo Morales). I live in Europe, I was quite shocked - if the US says jump ! they say how high ? As for the Ukraine the Germans were served the US/NATO talking points in prime time news and the other side in comedy after 10 pm (and all that on publicly funded TV). A comedy format gave a very poignant overview about the web in which the leading press and also state related financial and economic institutions have been entangled with the "ATLANTIC BRIDGE" for a long, long time.
Public TV got sued by a large newspaper over it, it went nowhere of course, but that was all the advertising the sketch needed. (It is still on youtube).
Atlantic Bridge: US Think tanks, leading media from both sides of the Atlantic. Maybe state officials, ambassadors, and industry leaders on the back stage.
It promotes - my definition - that Europe should have the same points of view and no other interests as the US and US dominated NATO. And Europe should not get too friendly with Russia. At All. That would undermine the absolute power of the US. The persons active or influenced by that "fraternity" are called "Transatlantiker" in Germany.
The uncritical pro US bias in almost all of the mainstream media was already known to many people in Germany. It became even more obvious during the Ukraine / Crimea conflict. The viewers called out the MSM time and again on their biased and often fake ! reporting. Sure Putin might have unleashed the trolls - I would have, if I were him :) - that kind of propaganda is done by all nations. However, ordinary citizens - not trolls - were pissed off as well. The older East Germans have a talent to read between the lines, they needed that under their old regime. They never grew up with the myth of a "free and unbiased media". The Germans from the "free West" have to do some catching up with those skills.
The "elites" notice that they start to lose control what news are reaching the public and how they are to be interpreted. The pro Brexit vote and Trump's election were not supposed to happen. The public is unwilling to buy all those "free" "trade" agreements (not about free and hardly about trade). Even though they try to ram them through.
This year France and Germany will have General Elections. If the Right Wing Parties win, the EU and the EURO is at stake, at least the EU needed to become a more democratic institution. THAT IS WHY FAKE NEWS ARE ALL OF A SUDDEN A TOPIC.
TV and other more established can be controlled with money, pressure, ads, favours, and access. You cannot control the web - as Erdogan of Turkey found out 2 - 3 years ago, which is why he started open censorship and an ever increasing assault on free speech. It is a little bit tricker to pull off that stunt in Germany, France, etc.
From time to time topics pop up - in the US and in UK, Germany like abolish cash, or now "fake news". That is no coincidence. The "Transatlantiker" (members and associates of the Atlantic Bridge) are getting their marching orders and they are supposed to sell the agenda to the public.
1
-
And I give her a LOT of credit for her bold and humanitarian stand on Syria. She visited Aleppo after it had been liberated. then she presented the "Stop funding terrorism act" in Congress ** . Check out her interview with CNN etc. about what is REALLY going on in Syria.
** Citizens that fund terrorist or groups go to jail. It should also be forbidden for the US government or their agencies).
Bless her heart.
This is a Proxy war, (not civil war), it is about dominance of the US in the region (Syria's long term allies are Iran and Russia, Russia has access to 2 ports in Syria. Moreover Syria prefered the pipeline project of Iran/Russia over the project of Qatar/Saudi Arabia/Turkey.
Foreign Islamists (financed by the US, Saudi Arabia) infiltrated the country, apart from the non-violent quest for more democracy it soon became apparent that this was an attempted regime change. Even in 2011 many the demonstrators were armed and intended to fight against the government. There are no "moderate" rebel groups, they are all Islamists, they are divided (and their outside financiers - US, Saudi Arabia, maybe Turkey, Israel) want them divided.
Especially the Christians and Alawites have to fear the fall of Assad. The country was and is secular and protects the (religious) minorities (Maybe politically oppressive but certainly not oppressing any religion). The father of Assad had crushed the Muslim brotherhood in the ?90s. Either another attempted regime change or there are less peaceful Muslims in the country - but they were never tolerated to act out.
There are Christian missionaries and convents in the country - meaning there are outsiders from Italy, Argentine, UK, etc. knowing the country well - and the several I have watched all contradict the story we get from MSM and the US / NATO governments.
The different Islamists groups take the citizens hostage when they conquer a settlement or city. The citizens of East Aleppo were hostages for 4 years, the people were violently prevented from fleeing to the government held areas (food, water, secure from bombs). Of course that meant that the government could not fight against the rebels without hurting the citizens. A Scandinavian photographer and conflict researcher Jan Obaum observed that much more damage to the houses seems to stem from ground shooting and bombing - house to house fights. Not so much damage from aerial bombings which destroy houses top down. Many buildings are still standing, roof intact but they have holes in them which is typical for ground fights and explosives shot from the ground.
The hostages tell about cruelty, constant fear of the rebels, looting, hoarded food that was sold at extreme prices, young girls forced into "marriages" , denied medical care or prevented leave to get medical care in West Aleppo. The combatants were also hostages in a sense. Some are die-hard fundamentalists, but many joined for the adventure, the money or were even forcefully recruited. If they didn't like the experience, were not OK with the cruelty - when they wanted to surrender or defect they were shot or killed in cruel ways (as deterrent).
Only when East Aleppo was almost completely taken back by the government, the - remaining - rebel groups elected a military leader and a board to negotiate an amnesty with the UN and the Syrian government. That amnesty and the evacuation of the fighters who had surrendered - plus family if they had their family in the city - was monitored by the UN. The "elected" leader gave an interview telling the story. So the "genocide of Aleppo" the MSM warned about was never intended and did not happen. There were a lot of desperate calls on social media - last call from Aleppo etc. Of course we cannot be sure if those message were even sent from Syra and if so if they belonged to one of the more extreme Islamist groups and were an attempt to shape public opinion.
it seems the account of the girl Bana is run very professionally, a blogger reporsts being blocked within 15 minutes at 2 am Syrian time when expressing doubt about the validity. Also the tweets did not stop when other people IN Eastern Aleppo were without power and connection and journalists had to drive well into the Western part of Aleppo to get a connection. That would indicate, that the Tweets from that day were prepared in advance and released from another location.
Bana does not speak English and the English of her mother is not good at all (there is an interview online). Not sure her mother was eloquent enough for the correspondence.
The media and US gov. certainly wanted to influence the public so they could go to war without the public protesting.
Remember the incubator lie to further the cause of the war against Iraq in 1991. Or how the bombing of Serbia was argued with alleged widespread atrocities (which was a complete fabrication). Atrocities did happen - much later. There had been warnings that if NATO actually would bomb Serbia (killing a lot of Serbian civilians) that all hell would break loose in that civil war and that the crazies on all sides would prevail over cooler heads. As happened. Also we know that Taliban were sent to intervene on the side of the Bosnian Muslim minority (the Bosnian muslims were moderate, the men drink beer, etc.). That was the doing of the US of course and it was like adding gasoline to the fire.
Everytime the pictures of poor children are circulated one can assume the Military Industrial Complex wants the public to be O.K. with another war escalation. A real humanitarian intervention would call for an UN mission to keep the fighters apart so the conflict can be sorted out and peace restored.
If they would care for the civilians - one bit - they would not have unleashed this proxy war onto Syria (there are estimates of up to 500,000 dead and millions are displaced).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We would not burn the cities, just polish the pitch forks and burn down the Council Houses and government buildings.
Our politicians know better than to mess with healthcare. It helps that in a non-profit public UNIFIED system almost all of the country is in ONE boat - only the (pharmy) industry is not in.
* workers, employers, taxpayers - they fund it.
* small AND large corporations they all pay the same percentage based on wage (smaller businesses do not need to watch out for cost control, Big Biz can takes care of that - or they will pay higher contributions as well).
*Doctors and nurses want good working condtions. and the tools necessary, it can't be fun for U.S. doctors to have to DENY care face to face
* Patients want a good system, as workers with payroll deductions they want it to be cost-efficient
* wealthy and normal people us the same facilities, that is true at least for the hospitals where you have the more expensive treatments. Your diagnosis decides your treatment - not your basic or premium plan. The procedures are either covered (if standard of modern medicine they will be) or not. And that applies to EVERYONE. The wealthy people are not putting up with crap. They will see to it that the system is good. The idea to have a 2 tier system is taboo.
* the doctors get lobbied by the industry, so they will ask for the new drugs, techniques, equipment.
* the non-profit insurance agency CAN think of the public welfare, and long term effects of prevention, etc. Sure they have to stay in the budget. But their task is to facilitate good care for everyone, not making a profit. At worst they have to ask for a higher budget if costly measures on a mass scale seem reasonable. They just have to make their case in a public discussion (which will be lively and include every side)
* Politicians: if the system does not work they will be blamed by angry voters. Since everyone gets the same treatment and everything is very comparable and transparent: If the system fails you - it is you and hundred thousand other people. The voters will not make subtle discernments, if in doubt paint with a broad brush.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tim Soel - Politics is more than the next 3 months - the Republicans NEVER give up on their demands and they play the long game. See abortion, see alleged election fraud, see voter supression, see tax cuts. See trickle down economics. Has been debunked for 100 times - they bring it up once more.
Now who WON on ALL LEVELS of GOVERNMENT over the last 10 YEARS ??? They didn't do it by not making no demands and being timid and compromising.
Their rabid agenda does not allow them to govern, Yes. But they got the seats they wanted, and not by being "realistic".
Right now the bill is a declaration of intent of the Democrats - and also a SIGN to potential voters and also an indicator for the donors (that's why many do not dare signing it even though it will not pass RIGHT NOW). But a politician will have a hard time to weasel out of the vote once they have the necessary majority. Voters pay more attention meanwhile. Feigning that it is "not the right time" is not as devastating as saying YES now and defecting later.
Lets be theoretical: The Dems become a REAL, FIERCE, OPPOSITION (and they tone it donw on the Russia, Russia) and thus give the Trump admin plenty of opportunity to show their true colors. ... Give Turmp and the GOP enough rope to hang themselves.
The Dems show they are willing to reform by enthusiastically supporting the Bill, the donors are pissed off (also donors from other branches are worried, this is a dangerous precedent).
So the Dems can embrace to get large donations out of politics while they are at it. Many voters (Dems, Progressives, Greens, Independents !, maybe some moderate Conservatives or Libertarians) are encouraged, Sanders drives up voter participation in 2018. The Dems take back the Houses. And a high participation would scare the hell out of the GOP and the establishment.
The Republicans are getting VERY UNEASY. Watching the shift in public mood AND public support on ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT.
Very likely the Dems STILL cannot get that bill passed after 2018 - but they continue trying it. If they control the Houses they can however, keep Trump from doing a lot of shit, including refusing to confirm another right wing Supreme Court Justice - two can play that game.
And they can dominate the debate in 2019 and 2020 with what they specifically intend to do regarding healthcare the minute they have BOTH houses and the presidency. So they GIVE the voters a REASON to come out for them in record numbers.
Of course some Republicans might be so frightened that they become cooperative in order to have a chance to keep their seat. Then the bill could get passed even before 2020.
It would be interesting if Trump would veto a bill that has a lot of public support. Maybe add a March on Washington ? I think Trump would veto it, he is not his own man, but the puppet of his cabinet.
Sanders ousted a 4 or 5 times elected Corporate Democrat as mayor in the 1980s (with a whopping 10 more votes !) The supporters of the former mayor in the City Council were not pleased (to put it mildly), they were completely stonewalling him (and he did not even have enough supporters in the Council to at least have the veto - so first thing the mayor's secretary was fired). Mayor Sanders DID WHAT HE COULD (and there are reports of shouting matches lol), the VOTERS TOOK NOTICE of the obstruction and his honest efforts, the next City Council election enough of his supporters were elected that they would have the veto power.. And he STARTED TO WORK with the REPUBLICANS on some projects. (And got his persistance rewarded by the voters with ever increasing election results - they vote every 2 years there).
In marketing it is all about DEFINING YOUR BRAND, find some STRONG POINTS and THEN STICK to them. Informing the BUYERS of the UNIQUE ADVANTAGES of your product. A weak "me too" Corporate Democrat or Republican Lite is not a strong brand (and crying "Trump is worse than us", "Russia, Russia" does not help either).
If "Republican" is what the voters want they will choose the ORIGINAL not the copy. So the Democrats should be a REAL, and DISCERNIBLE ALTERNATIVE. Sanders was: and filled stadions during his campaign.
The Democratic Party is ESSENTIAL for the DONORS in order to CONTAIN any REAL PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT. The GOP might be (even) better in tax cuts and allowing destruction of environment - but in that department the Dems are better. Progressives would not fall in line with a GOP platform, but UNTIL NOW they could always be held back by fake Liberals.
The most important job of the fake Liberals is getting more and more difficult.
Time to completely upset that game.
1
-
1
-
1
-
William Binney (NSA technical director for 24/7 spy programs turned government critic): IF that was a HACK (remote access by an unauthorized person) as opposed to a LEAK (insider) there is no way the NSA would not have TRACKS (they have EVERYTHING that travels over the net). AND: it would be SAFE to SHOW the PROOF - it does not reveal sources, methods etc. - Since they chose not to show it, they may not have anything (nor do they allege to proof in the report). Moreover the CIA depends on the NSA for intercepting. - That is what the NSA mastermind says on the technicalities. The official "report" has as attachment the "Golden Shower document", it does not make firm statements - no "it is alleged ...", they make a psychological profil of Putin and his supposed desire for revenge - and they obsess with Russia Today TV = RT. Can you imagine, RT tries to stir up dissatisfaction, they reported negatively on Wallstreet greed, fracking and hosted Third Party Candidate debates. (In Nazi Germany and under Stalin there was a crime called "subversion" - I wouldn't be surprised to hear that term soon.) Back to the official report of the agencies on fake news and the "hacking": Disclaimer of confidence. NSA (the experts on hacking on which the other agencies depend when it comes to surveillance and interception) has only MEDIUM confidence that "Russia did it" (whereas all other agencies claim hight confidence). Wikileak's Julian Assange said about the embarrassing EMAILS of Clinton and DNC (and it was never about anyhting else than these emails) : "It was a leak of a disgusted insider". Craig Murray former British Diplomat, now working with Wikileaks, also recently confirmed that he received the data in a park in Washington on a physical device - well then of course the NSA will not have any tracks - the data did not travel over the web. Trump might have peace talks with Russia (Ukraine, Syria) reduce or end sanctions, reducing nuclear weapons - Obama signed a new excessively expensive nuclear program not long ago), end the politics of regime change. To me it looks like a POWER STRUGGLE - would not be the first time the agencies undermine elected politicians, presidents, Congress (Carter, Iran/Contra) or LIE to the public (in hearings) or yield to political power to come up with desired "evidence" (WMD's in Iraq)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Exactely - but if more and more lose their seats the donors will not finance enough golden parachutes for everyone. And the sellouts becom eincreasingly useless for the special interests. Maybe the come up with something for the big shots in the parties but not for everyone. Labour in the UK shows that effect. The Labour Members of Parliament (many of them) subverted the Party leader directly elected by the base.The governing Tory party called a snap election last April - they thought it would be a landslide win, that they could expand their slim majority. Nope, on the contrary they lost the absolute majority and Labour won seats. - But before, the media, and every establishment figure, everyone - except the Labour base - was convinced Labour would be slaughtered, that would have meant a number of MPs losing their seat. - And let's face it, these folks invest in their political career when others citizens build their professional life. What are they going to do, when no one gives them a job ? Starting a biz ? (I mean a real and productive one , not some consulting/lobbying scam). Being self employed or an entrepreneur i's not everyone's cup of tea - although it would be a worthwhile experience for them.
to their great relief they could keep their seats and then some - and it is very satisfying to watch how they have become tame and do not backstab their progressive leader every chance they get. They were really scared to lose, and not everyone is a big number.
In Europe the campaigns are (mostly) publicly funded, there are fairness rules for TV, caps how much may be spent on TV ads, etc. European politicians are still almost as much captured by special interests as the U.S. politicians who are openly bought by the donors.. The reason is the dilemma - what is an ex-politican going to do. you can lose an election, or get burn-out, or just want to do something else. - and some just want to make much more money than was ever possible with a political position. - In all these cases it pays really off to think of the interests of Big Biz while in office - they have the cushy jobs as backup or as reward.
1
-
@leealexander3507 Did you notice Ellen proudly hanging out with "a very VIP crowd" in fall 2019. She had been invited by a friend. That VIP crowd included Bush2 and she brushed off the criticism with: "I am kind to people even if I disagree with them polticially.
Trump is mean, rude, stupid, a narcissist, uninformed, greedy and corrupt - never mind in cognitive decline. But objectively he still did not harm as many people as Cheney and Bush (with the eager help of the likes of Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Rahm Emanuel,... of course).
the Obamas were friendly received by the Bushes in 2008/2009 they got a tour in the White House before the Bushes left - they are friends now.
Obama and Michelle wanted to be part of the Big Club and now they are.
Dead Iraqis, U.S. soldiers, the Taliban offering to surrender after a few months and the Cheney / Bush admin just ignored them and started throwing money around to make people rat out each other instead.
Many were kidnapped to Gitmo who were NOT Taliban. Afghanistan had war, civil war, or a brutal regime by the Taliban since the early 1980s. Lots of scores to settle, and the population also becomes more ruthless.
Moreover a few thousand or ten thousand dollars is a LOT of money in that poor country. So more incentive to get back on the family that did not sell a piece of land, did not accept a marriage offer. Or family conflicts that cannot be settled openly - but let the U.S. take care of a relative and you'll inherit the property / house / farm.
Depleted uranium ammunition used AGAIN in Iraq (under Clinton it was used in Yugoslavia and he also sent over jihadists from the Middle East to stir up the pot even more, there is one minority that is Muslim, they were not extreme however. More conservative than the rest of Europe but much more liberal than in the Middle East).
the worst finanical crisis since the 1930s. Clinton paved the way by finshing the project of deregulation and , mergers that Reagan had started. Bush let the speculative bubble on top of a real estate / loan bubble happen.
Torture ?
the gov. asleep at the wheel before 9/11 ? (that is the benign assumption).
Who cares !
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The coal jobs are AUTOMATED away. Fracking is cheaper (fracking might be even worse than coal). The fossil fuel prices are down. And thankfully renewables are on the rise - and the U.S. has many areas that have a lot of sun and/or consistent wind. In sunny states when they need a lot of electricity for the air conditon - they will have it in form of solar electricity (Photovoltaic).
Some coal is necessary for steel production. But a lot of if is squandered on production of electricity. With a steam engine you loss more than 70 % of the energy of the fuel - most is lost as heat. That's a law of physics.
In Germany for instance they produce some or their electricity with steam engines (they subsidize German coal heavily) - and they use the heat to produce warm water and also use it for heating in winter. That means of course high standards for the energy provider (filters) so you can have settlements nearby that can use the war water without too much loss in temperature. Well in Germany you have high environmental standards anyway.
They use technology (a very German thing) to make better use of energy. (Same with gas turbines that produce electricity, or when they burn their SORTED household waste). They burn the fossil fuel, biomass, (or waste) and use it a) to produce electricity and b) also use a part of the heat to heat water for housholds nearby.
So with coal/gas/biomass between 60 - 70 % of the energy can be put to use. Of course that means higher costs for the technology and infrastructure and filters. While it may appear expensive It might be a blessing in disguise because it helps to keep the technical skills in the workforce alive (companies working in such fields will get orders, it makes sense for them to invest in development and research, and they can offer jobs to a skilled workforce).
The SOLUTION IS STORAGE - it is already cheap to produce RENEWABLE ENERGY when the wind is strong and the sun is shining. Even in the moderate climate zoneS (like in Germany) there is much, much more energy they get from the sun (spring - fall) than they use (in form of electricity and all the fossil fuel !). The problem is that demand and supply often do not meet each other.
So if they had well working, affordable storage ONLY for let's say 2 days that would result in a massive replacement of fossil fuels.
That means of course that the business model of the large, central, powerful energy providers who traditionally collude with politics would lose - BIG TIME.
Solar and wind is decentral. Small is beautiful. The necessary backup can be a relatively small energy plant (one generator) run by a village, or a muncipality. Some are already in operation, they work well - but they for sure do not donate to parties, or offer jobs for ex politicians. They are usually very down to earth grassroots or non-profit public operations. Solid pay for the workforce, good service for the customers, in the beginning an order for a medium sized company, that's it.
So neither the politicians (be it in Germany or in the U.S, or elsewhere) nor Big Energy have a real interest to THROW MONEY at research of all kinds of storage solutions. Sure there are of course SOME projects. Considering the risk and challenge of climate change this is small change.
There is no bold effort that would be comparable to the Race to the Moon, or the Manhattan Project. NO BOLD INVESTMENT. Why - because affordable, working storage solutions (for electricity, or to store heat, or to convert energy into fuel - solar to gas or artificial photosynthesis) would undermine a business model that is lucrative for Big Energy and lucrative for politicians. It could be of course an export hit - but not for the players that are at large right now.
Damned be mankind, damned be the planet.
Elon Musk Tesla will supply the world larges Lithium battery system to South Australia for a wind farm. The coal barons of Australia and some of the political establishment are not happy.
Central and North Australia have of course excellent conditions for solar (to produce warm water = solarthermie and to produce electricity = photovoltaic).
1
-
1
-
1
-
There is a VITAL difference between people who have their income from their workforce and from RICH people who can live off unearned income (dividends, rents, interest, speculative gains). - If you have your retirement partially ! invested in stocks it is - hopefully - a well diversified stock portfolio. Else you act as a speculator (which would be very imprudent if it is meant for retirement). So one branch in your portfolio underperforming will not matter much. Moreover, in the coming years branches like fossil fuel and automobile might underperform as well. I am not sure if the GOP was successful in slashing the best practice rules for financial advisors. Because betting on one horse (having only insurance stocks for instance) certainly would be against it.
For the low-income to middle income people the DISADVANTAGES in COST and QUALITY of their healthcare by FAR SURPASSES the GAINS they could EVER have from the stocks of the exploitative for-profit healthcare industry. And for old people the COSTS and RELIABILITY are especially important.
That is the reason why the very large corporations purchase the overprized plans for their employees. Sure it costs them more than the mandatory contribution that would be due in every other wealthy country (with a single payer system).
But private healthcare is complicated, it is not the core competence of Apple for instance. So they leave it as it is and just buy it.
The very well paid management, and the rich owners and shareholders can easily live with the higher costs of business for these healthcare plans. They can counteract those lost profits/dividend payments by INVESTING in stocks of the healthcare industry and will gain from the profits achieved by accepting a lot of misery.
That scheme works very well for the upper middle class and rich people. But not for the majority - the low to middle income folks. Any gain in dividends is offset by the exorbitant healthcare costs of the U.S. system which are - as a percentage - a much larger part of their monthly budget. The worries and the buraucratic hassle you get on top of it for free.
Here Social Security comes into the picture. The more modest the income, the more important SS it becomes for the retired person. A lot of people have nothing but SS. To not get into the discussion, if they should have chosen a better paying job. Enterprises like Walmart or McDonalds are highly profitable by leveraging the workforce of millions of these low-income people. So they are obviously a necessary part in the kind of economy we have right now. And if they have next to nothing - from a very pragmatic standpoint they will have no disposable income. Low income people will spend every additional Dollar right back into the economy.
A business owner, or rich person, or a libertarian can have ideological reasons to not be interested in the MUCH MORE cost efficient single payer solution:
If your mantra is that private is always, alway better than a public, non-profit solution (with government regulation), then you have to disregard on principle the European style systems.
You live with the status quo and if you are wealthy or rich you get your refund from your investments in insurance, and healthcare, and pharma shares.
If a public non-profit solution is SOMETIMES BETTER - for instance for healthcare - that opens an ideological can of worms.
As for costs: deduct 40 % of U.S. expenditures and you land at the German level, and their system is on the higher end of the European average.
I am not a fan of "stock market" based retirement savings as a solution for the masses. The stock markets SHOULD be somewhat connected to the economy. The market however is driven now by stock buyback - the CEOs of Big Biz "invest" the cash that Big Biz does not invest anymore into productive projects to boost their shares and their benefits.
And with shares you are limited to very large corporations.
That excludes a part of the economy.
If Social security payments would be increased - financed by corporate taxes - that would be a "dividend" from a strong economy as well.
Collecting the taxes is more cost effective - the structures are already in place. And you cut out the middle man. (Finance, advisors).
Before you scream about high taxes. They were raised to 94 % in 1944 in the U.S. (top marginal income tax for every USD over 2,7 million - in todays money). Then it was about 85 % after some exemptions.
Nixon and JFK discussed about 74 % effective tax rate (it was nominally still 90 % but with loopholes. JFK wanted to get rid of them and instead have 74 % for the top bracket, period. He expected to get more tax revenue from that (more tax collected, he did not argue on base of "it will improve the economy and then ... " no, immediately higher revenue) and he intended to SPEND more on education.
Corporate taxes used to be a much higher chunk of tax revenue. If I remember correctly the ratio of tax revenue vs. GDP is not that different now than in it was in the boom years. What I remember for sure is that the burden has been shifted: Biz pays a lot less (that may apply more to the highly profitable, large businesses that dominate 60 % of the economy, not so much to small businesses). Individuals, and the middle class contribute a much higher SHARE to tax revenue than in the decades after WW2.
High taxes do not strangle the economy, on the contrary - you just have to get them from those who will not reduce their spending because of these taxes. Rich people do not cancel vacations when they pay more taxes. Businesses will INCREASE their spending - they invest and innovate more to avoid paying taxes. And no, they will not give up on doing business alltogether. They did not do that from 1933 to the late 1970s.
Investing (so that the state does not get your money) means someone else gets an order, other workers have an income, so taxes will be paid by someone anyway. The money WILL RETURN to the state and and then can be reinjected into the economy .... for instance in form of social security or as infrastructure projects.
The base of the CONSUMER economy - the masses of low to middle income people - will have DISPOSABLE INCOME. The retired people among them will profit from a strong economy by a good Social Security payment - you can consider that a citizen DIVIDEND - no need to feed the middlemen of Wallstreet and in the financial industry.
Plus SS will never go bust. Bill Clinton intended to privatize SS and had a group working on it secretly. Thanks Monica Lewinsky. Clinton did not want backlash about SS on top of that scandal. The project was abandoned.
There are millions of people who have nothing but SS - now imagine the effects of the financial crisis if the banksters had gotten their hands on SS money.
1
-
Peaceful revolutions must not be bad for the peasants (but they will ruffle the feathers of the haves).
If you look at the policies of FDR - the ideas he adopted from Keyes were revolutionary. He came into office, first thing they had to close down the banks and do a reboot of the whole system. Which worked. Many, many people were unemployed, did they tell them to be more flexible, become more "competitive", suck it up and tighten the belt. (this was in 1933, the crisis started in 1929). No ! they set a MINIMUM WAGE. Those who still had work, could not be made to work for almost nothing.
Then they introduced unemployment benefits. Followed by social security for the elderly. Work programs that could be implemented quickly, followed by infrastructure spending (which needed some planning so it took longer to start them).
In the 1940s the 40 hour work week became the law of the land. Now the 40 hour week is dismantled. People work (often unpaid) extra hours or they need more than 1 job to survive.
With WW2 (first export to Europe, then the U.S. entered the war) it became Keynsian spending on stereoides. Financed with DEBT and HIGH TAXES and those who could paid them. No tax evasion, no outsourcing of jobs.
In 1947 the U.S. had the highest federal debt ever (debt vs. GDP ratio). Within 10 years debt was substantially reduced, not by cutting services or cutting infrastructure programs or education - on the contrary. No, they reduced debt with high taxation and they grew out of it with a booming economy (thanks to infrastructure spending, G.I. Bill etc.).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The official "report" has as attachment the "Golden Shower document", it does not make firm statements - no "it is alleged ...", they make a psychological profil of Putin and his supposed desire for revenge - and they obsess with Russia Today TV = RT. Can you imagine, RT tries to stir up dissatisfaction, they reported negatively on Wallstreet greed, fracking and hosted Third Party Candidate debates. (In Nazi Germany and under Stalin there was a crime called "subversion" - I wouldn't be surprised to hear that term soon.) Back to the official report of the agencies on fake news and the "hacking": Disclaimer of confidence. NSA (the experts on hacking on which the other agencies depend when it comes to surveillance and interception) has only MEDIUM confidence that "Russia did it" (whereas all other agencies claim hight confidence). Wikileak's Julian Assange said about the embarrassing EMAILS of Clinton and DNC (and it was never about anyhting else than these emails) : "It was a leak of a disgusted insider". Craig Murray former British Diplomat, now working with Wikileaks, also recently confirmed that he received the data in a park in Washington on a physical device - well then of course the NSA will not have any tracks - the data did not travel over the web. Trump might have peace talks with Russia (Ukraine, Syria) reduce or end sanctions, reducing nuclear weapons - Obama signed a new excessively expensive nuclear program not long ago), end the politics of regime change. To me it looks like a POWER STRUGGLE - would not be the first time the agencies undermine elected politicians, presidents, Congress (Carter, Iran/Contra) or LIE to the public (in hearings) or yield to political power to come up with desired "evidence" (WMD's in Iraq)
1
-
+Jkap - it may be an uphill battle - but I think the people of WV go along nicely with Sanders. And he (and all Progressives) might go the extra mile to make a point to the Democratic party establishment. And even IF the Republicans win - at least Manchin WILL HAVE LOST his position. Sometimes in war you will LOSE BATTLES - as long as you WIN THE WAR ! And you should not make the mistake to be so afraid of losing ANY battles, to choose the safest scenario in EVERY NARROW context, that you give up all leverage to win the war.
Of course Manchin can HOPE that the donors (he supposedly does not even know) will provide him with a cushy position if he loses (if he did them enough favors when being active .....). However, those golden parachutes may be limited AND the donors might be inclined to put their bets on the Republicans in the future. When the progressives help beating the corporate Dems (even if that results in a win of a Republican), those corporate Dems become USELESS for the donors.
The MOST IMPORTANT function of Democrats isto keep the progressives from winning.
That strategy might sound like self-harming, it sure sounds scary - but you have to see the bigger picture.
And anyway, the cautious route and going for the "lesser evil" has not worked at all. The Dems lost on every level of government during the Obama years.
As Jill Stein said: "Voting for the lesser of two evils every single time gave us everything we were afraid of."
It is a little bit like standing up to the bully on the school yard. Yes, you might get a bloody nose. But caving in is no solution anyway - and when the bully gets a bloody nose as well, he might be rethinking his position regarding you. Not only YOU lose - the bully loses as well. That might protect your interests in the long run (with some sacrifices).
If more and more Dems are losing their seats because of Progressives (even if the GOP wins THAT race, which means a loss in THAT narrow context) some Democratic ex-politicians will have to fend for themselves. And THAT prospect will make them nervous, very nervous.
It worked with the Labour Party of U.K. - the (mostly neoliberal) party establishment was so scared of losing in landslide - but on the contrary: all could keep their seats in Parliament and they won some extra seats.
So for once (and for the time being) they can be bothered to support their progressive (directly elected) party leader, and the mass movement that the party has become. At least the CONSTANT neoliberal backstabbers are silent for now. The progressive manifesto (the party platform) is the order of the day and I do not think they will dare to defect in the votes - the grassroots would be at their throats and they recentely have been threatened with "deselection" (being primaried). I had given up on the Labour Party - but if they are afraid enough, one can work with them for the time being. Either they change in a convincing manner (plus a lot of oversight and a$$kicking from the base) - or they will be replaced over time.
So FEAR OF HAVING NO POSITION AT ALL BRINGS THEM TO HEEL.
Manchin losing the primary in itself would be a very strong signal to all Dems.
It would be a reminder/request:
a) campaign with small donations
b) be very supportive of anything Sanders and the Progressives like - they are an unpaid army that is a real force to counteract big money - and if they like you, they will run for you
c) DO THE BIDDING OF YOUR DONORS - all those average 15 - 27 USD contributors
d) you have to be CONTENT with the salary and benefits of a politician, and you have to connect with the voters and acutally deliver FOR THEM. THEN THEY WILL GIVE YOU A JOB GUARANTEE (see Sanders in VT).
d) If you see a political career ONLY as a stepping stone * for a corporate / lobbying career switch to the GOP - you are in the wrong party.
* no kidding, some "representatives" secure corporate funding to get themselves elected into Congress. They do it for their C.V., they network, they connect with the Party leadership and the donors - the ulitimate goal is to get one of the lucrative lobbying positions, or to be offered a position on a board of a company, or to found their own lobbying or consulting firm (and to have the network that grants you clients), or at least have the SuperPacs buy truckloads of your books, ...
I guess such "well connected" suckers (former "interns" or even ex politicians) were running the Clinton campaign. And have you SEEN the sticker proposals the Dems sent out by email in the last days ? The citizens on the maillist which they ask for donations are "allowed" to VOTE on SOMETHING.
No person that is good in marketing, social media, or PR would EVER come up with such proposals. They are not only dishonest, they do not even lie well or with some wit, and they are utterly clueless about the mood in the country.
Those responsible for the proposals are not professionals, they must be darlings of the establishment with some college training and with good connections who are fed with orders.
It is a self sustaining, self-replicating system - one giant, lucrative, bubble. - Well, until now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Part 3 of 7 last but certainly not least: FIAT MONEY. if a bank gives out a loan they create approx. 90 % of it "out of thin air". If one person lends money to another they must "have" 100 % the money to begin with - but that does not apply to banks. A loan is an accounting exercise. Banks have a legal privilege:
if the borrower signs the contract with the promise to pay back (the contract specifies the conditions, like interest or fees, plus sometimes a collateral) - the banks are legally allowed to book that contract as "asset" on one side of the balance sheet (they enter the number of the loan amount - interest and fees come later and they are booked on OTHER accounts - revenue - as they come in).
Plus they open something that works like a savings account in reverse on the other side of the balance sheet (double accounting): the credit / loan account where they enter the numbers which represent the loan (and that is purchasing power for the borrower). They do not need to "have" money (or only a small part of it - in the range of 10 %).
if interested search with the term FIAT money. One of the best explanations I found is by Dr. Richard Werner (in a video the Finance Curse, the show was aired on Renegade Inc. which is a format of RT).
Loans given out by banks that use the legal provision FIAT MONEY allows to tap into the "dormant" resources of the economy. But it is only possible because a whole economy backs that concept up. With the law, with regulations. The loan gives purchasing power which would be meaningless if the borrower could not buy something of value with it - incl. things that help to start and grow a biz.
There is also the concept of fractional reserve: That introduces you to the idea that banks lend money which they do not "have", it is more of a theoretical concept, that is NOT how it works in practice now (it may never have been applied as it is lined out in the books - fractional reserve is a concept that shows up more often in academia especially in older literature). btw the central banks are supposed to have an eye on it that the banks do not abuse their legal privilege of "money creation" - well that used to work until the 1980s, then deregulation and mergers let the banks off the leash, there is little control how much money they create.
There are other ways of money creation by the governement (with help of a central bank) as well:
1) printing bank notes and coins (but they are a tiny part of the "money" we use - which is logical the big amounts are always transfered for safety and comfort)
2) direct money creation by the government (they did that with QE to the tune of trillions), and some experiments like the Brixton Pound in the U.K. in WW1. The banks do not want to masses to know how money creation works when for-profit banks do it (there are reasons to be made to let them have at least a part of that sector) - and they certainly do not want that the knowledge spread that the government could well work in that niche as well. For the benefit of the citizens.
In capitalism it is very important to have the "money" to pay upfront for the large investments necessary to have mass production of goods and services (there is a reason it is called "capitalism". The idea that not only rich people or banks can provide that money and that the government is not restricted to the budgets funded by tax revenue would upset the apple cart.
Banking, finance, interest rates, the stock exchange, speculation (now derivates), money (a virtual thing, a legal and societal agreement) has always been the playground and the tools of the rich and powerful to serve their interests.
FIAT money was used by banks in the 17th century, may not have been strictly legal then (today there are legal and accounting provisions) but they did it anyway, with impunity and only to the advantage of the few. Likewise there has been a lot of speculation going on on the stock exchange over the centuries. it is not necessary to have a stock exchange to finance an economy - but it has been the playground for the rich for centuries.
London Stock Exchange 1815, inconclusive reports coming in from the battle of Waterloo in Belgium. It took some time for the news to travel from the European continent to the island, and communication technology was not helpful. the reports came from people that were in the middle of it or watchd a part of the chaos from the sidelines. It was not clear initially that the troops of Napoleon were about to be defeated. Fortunes were made and lost that day in London, then the financial capital of the world.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Kofi Prempeh #ADOS 2020 One reason black people had to be villified was to justify chattle slavery (and later the fact that it had happened). It was an economic project. The rich landowners wanted cheap labor to put the land to use, growing indigo, tobacco and preparing the land was hard and unhealthy work.
If an European was willing to do that work, they would do so on their own land, not as farm worker for the rich (or only against better wages).
Servitude was fading out in Europe. the Catholic pope did not allow the believers to enslave each other (if they were white / European), the Protestants had qualms about that as well.
So killing each others in wars was fine but not slavery. Sure the ruling class deported poor people for minor offenses to the colonies to have cheap labor and to defend it against the natives, but that was just not enough.
So they started buying kidnapped people from Africa for the model of PLANTATION CASH CROPS.
The poor whites (not plantation owners these were often rich people from Europe that came over to use the business opportunities) would soon have found out that they had more in common with the black people than with the slave holders.
Socializing, eating, celebrating, worshipping with them and having babies together.
Now that had to be stopped. At all costs.
The rich were the minority they needed the poor whites to control the black slaves (or even free black people that were still discriminated against).
Which explains why it was O.K. for white men to have (forced) sex with black females, but all hell broke loose if a white woman would have been involved.
And they had to make it unthinkable that there could be honorable, recognized unions between white and black / brown people. Or close relationships ON EUQAL FOOTING.
Therefore segregation (officially in the South and informally in the North). Therefore inter marriages were forbidden.
1
-
1
-
Kofi Prempeh #ADOS 2020 One expression of discrimination / racism is economic disadvantages. Or the treatment by police and justice system. Less access to education, good jobs, easy voting, housing, loans.... Sanders policies would address those disadvantage, they would disproportionally help black people.
The people of Latin America have not been enslaved, they were often victim of U.S. imperialism which ALSO profitted the rich, not most Americans. Poor Latinos would also profit from the Sanders policies. People that fled their countries because of the U.S. meddling, propping up drug lords, local dictators - the consequences of that still affect the countries decades later.
The Sanders policies are not reparations but they would bring relief and FAST.
It would be hard to villify these policies using dogwhistles because low-income white, Asian, .... people would benefit as well.
Which is currently the ONLY way to get a politician elected that would do a lot of good also for the black community.
People are self-interested. Many of the the white people (or non-blacks) in West Virginia, Florida, the Rust Belt states have enough economic problems of their own:
Reparations will not be a winning electoral issue. It would be a lot of discussion for sure, a huge fight, Trump would have a hay day. Never mind it would be complicated to pull off - and then many poor black people might get some money but have still to deal with high rent and completely overpriced costs for health- and childcare, never mind student loans.
We might wish voters to be more selfless and vote based on moral principles - but WHEN have U.S. voters done that ? EVER ?
It was hard enough when they lost their sons in wars !
I think Dr. King recognized that in the late 1960s. The political advantage of pushing for UNIVERSAL programs for low income people - whatever the cause for their poverty may be (like being of the race that were abused as slaves).
Cory Booker does just fine, so does Kamala Harris (she has black heritage too). They can make do without reparations. They are of an income level where they help fund the programs for lower income people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The U.S. did not REBUILD the European nations with the Marshall plan - and apart from Germany and Austria the countries were NOT destroyed by the Allied Forces. The U.S., UK, French army were enthusiastically greeted in Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, France, .... (The Soviet forces not so much...)
The Marshall Plan was a wise move, certainly beneficial: But Western Europe would have recovered even w/o the Marshall Plan (I admit that U.K was in a bad shape, maybe it was more consequential for them, they also had taken out huge loans during the war from the U.S. to buy military equipment. And they were dependent on the colonies - which they lost after WW2, so the colonies were more of a military cost factor after WW2 than that they helped in the recovery.
Germany for instance was not completely wrecked by bombing (many people seem to believe that). They lost large areas of land, had to deal with a lot of German refugees (from territory of Tschechia, Poland). Many, many men had fallen.
And they were not allowed to increase steel production, it was restricted to only 25 % of the war output. The plan was to keep down the former economic and industrial powerhouse and to reduce it to a poor agricultural nation (Germany is in the moderate climate zone, so that was not ideal ...). It was not meant to be good for Germany - on the contrary - this was the Morgenthau Plan.
After 2 years if became obvious that Europe would not recover w/o the economic recovery of Germany. And in elections all over Europe the Left parties and also Communists became stronger (and the Soviet Union of course tried to infiltrate them, even though the European Communists did have their own profile). Germany was occupied so they could be controlled - but France, Italy, UK, ....
This is when the U.S. became wise and came up with the Marshall Plan. And the provisory German adminstration lobbied the occupiers to also allow the increase of industrial and steel and coal production - it would not make much sense to give the Marshall Plan loans and to keep Germany down otherwise.
Europe was "needed" by the U.S. as ally in the Cold War and as potential site of first impact in case of a nuclear war between the S.U. - the U.S. has nuclear weapons stationed in Western Germany.
The U.S. absolutely wanted to avoid that the well developed European nations (technology !!, especially Germany) would become too friendly with the Soviet Union (resources, fossil fuel - and transport ways on land not on the U.S. dominated oceans).
Stalin died in 1953. In 1952 he had made the offer that the Soviet army would LEAVE the area of Eastern Germany and an unification would be possible (that was long before the wall of Berlin, etc.). But Germany should become a NEUTRAL state (then the NATO membership of Germany was discussed).That offer of Stalin was first kept secret in Germany and then dismissed as "insincere".
That would certainly have been a much better plan. At least after Stalin's death a thawing of relationships and a thawing within the Soviet Union would have been possible, the hostility of the U.S. always strengthened the position of the HARDLINERS in the Soviet Politbureau.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
World Bank data 2014 - per capita healthcare expenditures
U.S. USD 9,200 then (now 10k), Germany 5,600, most wealthy European countries between 5,000 and 5,500, Canada is in that range too, Australia has 6,000.
There are outliers like the U.K. (only 3,900 but they are definitely underfunded - but with only HALF the U.S. expenditures their non-profit NHS which delivers most of the services would run like a charm).
On the other hand Norway had 8,400. (High wages, likely very high standard incl. dental).
Or Switzerland 9,600 they were even higher than the U.S. - but then they pay staff very well, and everybody is insured.
Switzerland is one of the very few developed countries that do not have a non-profit public insurance agency but let the for profit private players have that niche . Well, it shows.
I do not know of any larger country (except the U.S.) which lets for profit actors handle (most) of the healthcare insurance market. Switzerland has less than 10 million people, I think Singapore might lean strongly towards a private system.
Let me add that most developed countries beat the U.S. when it comes to life expectancy and infant mortality.
Most (or all) wealthy European countries have a population that is on average older than the people in the U.S. (so that should result in LOWER expenditures for the U.S.)
1
-
1
-
The non-profit agency has a budget and has to stay within - that said, if they can prove the benefit of an effective new treatment method for society in general (often medication) - which would however overwhelm their budgets - there would be a political and lively discussion about how to increase their funding.
These costs may well pay off for society ! even if one cannot put a price tag on the indirect benefits (elderly people can live longer unassisted, people can take care of their family, avoid the trauma of losing a family member to cancer, restore (quicker) the ability to work, how will that person fare in 20 or 30 years in their old age, ….)
None of these considerable benefits _manifest for the insurance agency._, Since they serve the public and not the shareholders (with the incentive to maximize profits and think only short term) - they can include these considerations.
The agency must have a reasonable budget - healthcare costs are always on the rise and the population is getting older - so that alone forces them to be economic and to weed out inefficiencies.
Most doctors and hospitals have a contract with the non-profit agency - they bill according to the negotiated contract / price list.
(Private doctors w/o a contract do exist - maybe 20 - 30 % of the practices. Private hospitals w/o a contract are rare, they would have a hard time finding patients).
There are quotas - in an area with a certain population there will be only a limited number of doctors and specialists and hospitals that get a contract. (Consideration for touristic regions, saisonal demand in winter - skiing - and for very rural areas can be made to make sure they are served well).
The patients often have a choice where to go - but that the number of contract for doctors/hospitals in limited, ensures that they have enough patients and revenue while working for very competitive rates.
The Pharma industry has a negotiation partner that represents 300,000 or 85 million people (Iceland / Germany -). Now, Big Pharma cannot rip off little Iceland, the Vikings can have a friendly chat with the other Nordic countries (or the UK or Germany, or Netherlands). Or they could pool their purchasing with another country or threaten to allow imports from other countries.
They will have a general idea what other countries pay for pharmaceuticals, machines, devices - these are the costs that a country / non profit system cannot control and where they could be taken advantage off.
They control the wages for staff, the costs for training doctors and nurses, or the costs of construction and ongoing operation of a hospital - all these expenditures also contribute to the local economy and the country can provide the resources and also effectively negotiate the prices for them. Even in a small country.
If they train doctors and nurses for free in the public education system (which is almost always the case) - they will not lose those potential employees in large numbers to other countries.
That is one of the reason why Vermont did not succeed to have their own Medicare for All system - while Iceland beats Germany when it comes to per capita expenditures.
They have about the same number of people - 300,000 - but Iceland CAN import drugs if the pharma industry would like to play games. And their doctors make a nice living but they will not leave for the next state because they can earn double. The income situation for doctors in the wealthy European nations is not that different and most do not care to move (even if though they can within the EU).
Vermont would have lost many doctors to other states. The medical profession in the U.S. has very effectively made sure they do not have competition in the job market. Doctors cannot migrate to the U.S. - their training will not be recognized and it is expensive and time consuming to do it again - so not many are coming.
And there are mechanisms to make sure not too many doctors are trained in the U.S. (like high costs for medical school). - That is why doctors earn almost double of their European counterparts (which have more competition so most of them are willing to accept the rates of the public contract - if they can get one). They are doing well btw, no need to pity them.
But of course unless the availability of enough staff is tackled the U.S. will have a problem.
The insurance agency is of course a powerful buyer on behalf of the patients.
But: if most doctors CAN refuse to work for a a lower income than other (not exceptional doctors) are getting then there will be a shortage and problem for hospitals and general practicioners that have most revenue from Medicare for All contracts:
Then the quality and/or waiting times will suffer and the doctors can promote a 2 tier system. Where people are effectively forced to accept the high rates of private doctors IF they want good treatment. with all the games of the private insurance companies
2 tier systems are invariably more expensive - and that is even in the European environment where the private patients profit from the fact that the competition from the non-profit sector somewhat prevented the worst excesses (like they are common in the U.S.)
The government could of course invest in a public training system (with some forgiveness of student debt if they work for a certain time in the U.S.) Or losen the rules regarding immigration.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, the oligarchs in the U.S. leverage the power of government, military, intel agencies, diplomacy. They HATE the governments that overthrow right wing dictatorships or nationalizee natural recourses or give land from rich landowners to poor peasants. - the problem is not the dictator (or democratically elected perfectly reasonable leader see Chile 1973).
the U.S. governement and the media are supportive of much worse dictatorships. But dispossessing the rich is the worst crime there is, even forcing the rich to give up control over resources (with compensation) is terrible.
They might get compensated for the equipment, etc. but they are not getting compensated for their future HUGE profits, that goes into the budgets and is used for the poor populaton (see Venezuela, as long as the lower oil price and sanctions did not get them into economic trouble).
also Bolivia recently.
getting rid of the oligarchs ? and taking back control of major industries and resources ? - that could be a very bad example for the U.S. citizens, they might be getting ideas.
The Cold War / Red Scare (the letter was meant for domestic purposes !) was part of that propaganda mission.
So the U.S. MUST make sure to undermine the economy of such nations, to goad them into war or an arm's race (Iran, Soviet Union, maybe Iraq in 1990 into invadin Kuwait). Heaven forbid Castro would have created a relatively open society and the population would do much better under left economic policies.
That explains the sanctions from the 1960s until Obma era. Obama loosened them, Trump reinstated them (rich exile Cubans = donors). Cuba has never attacked the U.S. has never committed acts of terrorism (but the U.S. has against Cuba explosives in civilian ship freight), couldn't be a threat for the U.S. if they wanted to.
See the end of monarchy in Russia in 1917.
In the U.S. a united left (all parties incl. Communists and unions) were very active in 1932, enough oligarchs saw the pitchforks coming. They remembered the Russian Revolution and FDR's New Deal (from 1933 on) was the lesser evil.
The Democratic establishment had to put up with FDR, but their man Truman was shoved into the VP position when it mattered (the insiders knew that FDR would die from his untreatable high blood pressure, it was only a question of time, he was already in bad shape in 1944 when he was reelected). They sidelined popular one term VP Wallace (and rigged the nomination process at the party convention).
Truman restarted U.S. imperialism in Latin America and he immediately started to be hostile towards the Soviet Union even before WW2 was over.
THEY wanted an enemy to villify the Left IN the U.S. and to justify an arm's race and the invasion of foreign countries 'cause Soviet Union (or China !).
Violent revolutions very often lead to a new authoritarian regimes - it is not the mild mannered democratically minded leaders that prevail in such situations.
Fidel Castro was paranoid about his security - or better he HAD to be because of the hare brained attacks of the U.S. and even wilder schemes that they considered (there is a memo that was declassified:
the idea (put down in writing ! - even if they did not make concrete plans for that) was to shoot down an U.S. civilian aircraft and to blame it on Cuba). Likely as pretext to start a war with public backup.
you would be excused from thinking think that Cuba was this powerful enemy to trigger even such ideas - nothing could be further from the truth.
A right wing brutal dictatorship would have been completely O.K. but they went nuts that the Revolutionaries seized the property of rich Americans, rich Cubans and kicked out the mob for good measure.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Is Wales Corbyn country ? - well deserved. - So people were having second thoughts at the end according to Clinton. Those poor dummies fell for a combination of Russian interference - and what was the second thing ?? Comey. - Anyway: Sanders would have wiped the floor with Trump and with him an "interference" - Russian or otherwise - would just not have mattered. He does not have one email scandal after another. And I doubt if his campaign had been hacked resp. if there had been a whistleblower that it would have uncovered any embarrassing material (leading to the resigning of leadership figures like with the DNC).
And when the queen was anointed - because the party in its infinite wisdom did not think the several SELF-INFLICTED scandals and an ongoing FBI investigation would matter - Comey had not yet confirmed that she was off the hook. So the uncertainty went on well into summer, with the country voting in late fall. If she had graciously and voluntarily !! handed over to Sanders AND would have encouraged her fans to support him - it would have been a lovely 9th November. She could have travelled the country to close a cycle regarding healthcare. (and reap the honor, she tried as First Lady now she pulled if off, and she had enough stateswomanship to pull out for the sake of the country and to play it safe. After all nothing would be worse than even the remote chance of Trump winning.
With Sanders such an late "interference" (Comey thinking a few days before the elections maybe we have something new on her) would not have happend.
Bhengazi was avoidable as well. The abassador was there to send weapons over to Syrian "rebels" to further the uprising against Assad. UK, France and Hillary Clinton wanted war with Libya (and then regime change in Syria). Even though Obama hesistated, in the end the pro regime change/war fraction pulled off a narrow win in the cabinet and Clinton, France, UK got their war. Without that war the Bhengazi assault would not have happened. Say what you will about Gaddafi - at least the Islamist were not at large and the police and army controlled the country - it was not a failed state.
And because of the Benghazi hearings it came out that she had a secret server in the basement.
At least a little bit of karma.
So she won the primaries so gloriously - never mind the cheating, and never mind they started the primaries in the South where the Clintons are a household name and Sanders was completely unknown. Bill Clinton was the "first honorary" Black president. So she got a LOT of votes there. And 1 million votes were uncounted in California when the DNC already heralded the results in the last days before the convention.
Do the 4 million votes more in the primaries include the votes AFTER 1 month or 2 when the count was finished ? and conveniently huge New York makes it impossible to switch registration for a "newcomer" candidate .
So with same day registration, with starting out with SMALL states, with having enough polling stations, enough debates and not at impossible times - does Clinton really think she would have led in the primaries with 4 million votes ?
And talking about the primaries (many not open for people who are not registered as Democrats) - what weight does that have considering the largest voting block are INDEPENDENTS ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Supreme Court IS very partisan. And writing a good dissent does not change the impact it has over long time when 5 of the judges shape the future life of million of people.
Voter protection for low income and minority areas IS necessary. the Supreme Court was dead wrong to remove that. And they should have known. We can observe all the underhanded tactics to make voting harder (they had the voter suppression laws ready).
I read comments from Trump supporters how happy they were on Nov. 8th/9th 2016. Two mentioned in passing that it was totally worth 2 hours waiting in line.
- WHAT ? - and that on a workday !
(that was in In Pennsylvania, but remember the primaries in Arizona ? And they cut polling stations also in other areas)
Other countries have elections of a sunday or holiday - and if they wait 15 minutes it is long. And they have PLENTY of polling stations.
Well, it shows in the turnout.
The decision to allow so much money into politics in the 1970s was desastrous on the long term.
And the Dems were excited that THEY now also could get the big bucks so they never bothered to change it.
The court allowed for instance that the GOP makes up arbitraty "safety" rules for abortion clinics - that make it impossible to keep the facility open.
Or forcing a waiting period and more than one date, long drives, overnight stay on a woman. For no reason at all. Certainly not a medical reason. Scalia claimed it was to prevent the psychological damage from the female - w/o proof that there were such damage.
Abortions are legal, so any extra burden should be based on facts ,studies medical needs or real dangers.
There are none, there are many harmless procedures that are still more endangering than abortions. To have wide corridors is essential in a busy hospitals. They must be able to pass with 2 trolleys side by side. They have more visitors and patients, they must be able to quickly evacuate in case of a fire, etc. etc.
None of that applies for abortion clinics, it is not even a surgical procedure (in most cases). so no stretchers of trolleys. And they do not have that many patients, which are not bedridden, and not of old age and have hardly any visitors.
Hospitals have those spacey facilities, abortion facilites never had them - of course not they are not needed.
So the GOP DEMAND the unnecessary burden knowing full well, that the clinics do not have the conditions and will not find a building for rent that can fullfill them. And of couse hospitals are bullied to not do abortions.
THAT was found constitutional.
1
-
1
-
1
-
+ Don parnell Even cost-efficient healthcare costs 5,000 USD per capita - so that would be around 20k for a family of four (in a non-profit public system). That means low income families NEED some form of subsidies/help if they are to get healthcare that is worty of a First World country. And that budget has to be set up somehow. - Medical drugs are a another large cost factor - they cannot be negotiated right now in the U.S.
Plus the hospitals are still for-profit enterprises. So that would explain why single payer has not yet been installed in Vermont and California (you mention Blue California). In Vermont for instance they had problems with drug prices. Canada across the border is doing much better - also in that respect.
In the European style systems the hospitals (where the highest costs occur) are in most cases NON-PROFITS (private = often confessional institutions, or public - run by the muncipalities for instance). Small players like family doctors or pharmacies are like small businesses - the revenue covers the costs (practice, shop, equipment, the few employees), the surplus or profit is like the "salary" of the doctor or pharmacist who runs the business.
But no "free market". For instance there are quotas: how many doctors are even getting a contract with the public insurance agency in that town/area. Not more than can be expected to make a living in that community. The "price list" for the services is negotiated. The bills go only to the public agency. (Very streamlined, free of hassle and cost-efficient, but no free market either). Doctors are restricted in their marketing (especially if they have a contract with the public agency).
The problem is not only that someone has to pay for the profit of the shareholders or owners of the hospital (an extra cost).
The moment the profit motive is introduced into the healthcare system it produces dysfunctional incentives. That results in exploding bureaucraZy and high additional costs. Plus of course the inevitable ripping off of patients (which WILL happen, they have all the disadvantages and are in a much, much weaker position - again a very bad condition for the "free market")
Much less knowledge and usually a high (often immediate) need, and enormous disadvantages when they do not get treatment - in most cases right away. You can wait to have your car repaired, get a second offer, or save up the money for a later repair, or decide not to have it repaired and make do w/o car. Try that even with something harmless like a broken arm.
Healthcare is a very bad fit for the "free market" including the profit incentives - which works (well) in that system.
While the profit motive wrecks havock when applied to the product "healthcare".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Her husband: domestic violence charge (against Lauren) in 2004, nothing too bad, kicking, slapping or shoving her (she likely was not injured) but he spent a few days in jail. Showing his penis in a bowling alley to a few women incl a minor (also in 2004, they dated then. Lauren said she had not seen it, she was present at the site). He got some jail time in both cases, more for the indecent exposure - "Conservative" values.
The D party would strongly discourage such a candidate from even running, especially when you run on your "values".
The 6k grift related to their restaurants (likely STILL losing them money - and already doing poorly before the pandemic), is not the only thing, she also got an unusually high amount of milieage compensations from her campaign budgets. That may seem pathetic. But with 2 restaurants losing 240k in a year (2018 no newer data were given) not even the generous "consulting" contracts for her husband from 2019 and 2020 may be enough.
He does not work in the oil industry as well site supervisor anymore, his job became to help open and manage the restaurants (2013 & 2016) ....
Oh well ....
Of course a forclosed home with eviction notice - in 2010 - to round it off.
Dude used to work in the oil industry, not with a qualification that would justify two 460k contracts BUT enough for a secure (lower) middle class life even with 4 boys and even in CO - if the wife is a good homemaker or she has a side gig to bring in a little extra money. And her oldest boy was 14 (she got him at age 18) in Jan 2020, the youngest was 7 by then. I mean .... if a couple struggles with career and money one could consider not having a fourth child or do delay it until they are out of the woods. That child was born in 2012 or 2013 so only a few years after the lost their home.
I think she was eager to have a well paying career and "being" a restaurant owner seemed to be a good idea. I also assume that her husband did not like his oil job anymore, or was not all that good in it.
Because I doubt she could have landed a well paying job as employee and obviously was not capable of starting a more unconventional biz that needs some expertise. Think marketing, or sales, selling real estate, financial services .... Interior design, or offering office services. Looks like "managing" a restaurant is not all that easy, not even if it is gun themed and the staff does open carry.
Her being a frugal stay at home mum making the oil industry wage of her husband work, would have been more respectable than the clueless, ill-fated hustles and money grabbing schemes these 2 have going on.
The attempts to funnel money from the campaign into their pockets seems to be pathetic, why even bother and not be content with the big schemes (460k in 2019 and 2020 is not bad. She officially entered the race in Jan 2020, but of course she had contact with donors before).
But the pettiness is not so surprising if you factor in that they may be desperate for money. Like Trump has many pathetic grifts going on. Remember the veteran's charity that they used to make money from ?
That is likely as much as they dared to squeeze out of the campaign. Shows how stupid she is, even IF she would not go out of her way to be controversial and offensive, she could expect some opposition research from R opponents and D candidates.
Brazen stupidity - and probably a lot of financial pressure.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@misty G the U.S. SPENDS already DOUBLE per person ! what other rich nations are spending Keiser Foundation 2017. France, Belgium Japan USD 4700 - 4900, Germany, Austria 5,600 /5,400. Most rich countries are in that range. Australia has kept a part of the pie for the private insurance industry, it shows in the costs. They do have a public option which covers basics and the expensive stuff (hospitals), but somehow they did not go the full mile and offer ALL that is needed for modern healthcare in one comprehensive non-profit package.
So Australians are more or less foreced to cover some services out of pocket or they need overpriced (of course ! it always is too expensive) private for-profit insurance.
That is a scheme that does favors to the industry (to the doctors who get more lucrative contracts
, which makes things expensive they had USD 6,000 in 2014 according to World Bank (all other numbers are from 2017). and then there is the U.S. with world record 10,240.
There is PLENTY of potential to save costs. But after cleaning up the mess and taking care of the backlog the savings should manifest. Much more streamlined billing, pharma prices like in canada or Europe or Japan.
There are estimates that 1 million people will need to be retrained, so that will cost in the beginning - they are currently producing red tape to protect the profit making scheme. All MfA bills have budgets for that - shows you how insane that system is when so many people are involved in producing red tape.
Assistance for the eldery / disabled will be expensive (but also create jobs in ALL regions) - but having people that come into your house (mobile services) and they live independently is more cost-efficient than to place them in a home. Moreover often the family if nearby can manage to keep them at the family home or in their home with a helping hand - when they couldn't afford a private help.
1
-
Good framing Mike: it is not a handOUT it is a handBACK. (and if the millionaires and billionaires complain about the tax load - they just would need to pay better wages, not exploit desperate workers in poor countries, and not squeeze their supply chain like crazy (if they are smaller companies) resp. not establish their quasi monopolies.
Then they would make good but not the insane profits and they would not need to pay THAT much tax.
The money would circulate among population (wages), companies and government (taxes would be paid anyway, because other companies would do good if the ONLY way to avoid paying corporate tax is to invest, but before the money invested into government spending returns to the government, "money" would work some more shifts and facilitate MORE economic exchanges. It would provide the experience of wealth when many people (low income to regular income) consume goods and even more so services (as opposed to hoarding money).
Now money from manufacturing (and even more so from speculation) lands with the top which hoard it away (so it cannot do good). Money is like manure, if you pile it up it stinks, but if you spread it out on the fields (bringing the nutrients BACK into CIRCULATION) manure FACILITATES production / CREATION. (as money should do).
Right now much less (as share of all income) stays with regular people. So they do not have the purchasing power. The rich do not invest into PRODUCTIVE projects or research - not sufficiently considering how much of the income they suck up (and how much they already have been hoarding). There are industrial over capacities on the globe and the big companies in the branches had many mergers (they kept the brand names often, but they all belong to fewer and fewer individuals).
The money also does not go back to government that could spend it on behalf of regular people. Either creating jobs (infrastructure) or providing services that make a normal wages go further (public housing with affordable rent and security you can stay there if you pay the rent, subsidies for Medicare for All, free education, low cost chldcare, good and affordable mass transportation, ...)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In other wealthy countries: you get a new job, HR asks for SS number, name, address (plus the same for dependent family members) and sends the data to the single payer agency. Done. - Same procedure if you get another job. - if you apply for maternity leave, a sabbatical, retirement:
At the end of the month the company deducts payroll tax for healthcare from the wage - and all companies must match that amount.
Example Austria: 3,8 % of the wage, the maximal YEARLY contribution is 2,400 USD, so the cap is at a yearly wage of USD 60,000 - and the company adds their payroll tax (almost the same amount) to the transfer to the public non-profit insurance agency.
That payroll tax is mandatory for every employee earning more than 500 USD per month. (Different mandates and contributions for farmers, self-employed, business owners - but all very affordable).
The mandate also constitutes a right - to full coverage (incl. for dependent family members, minors, students till age 26, stay at home spouse / parent).
The insured are assigned to an agency (in reality the "single" payer agency in countries, means often several institutions, often per state or province, sometimes under one
federal umbrella).
There is some (uncomplicated) paperwork if you apply for maternity leave, retirement, sabbatical, disability pension or unemployment benefits. Healthcare is automatically included in the provisions - you STAY insured with the same agency, and keep your insurance card. So there is no change in the proceedings for the doctors or patients (or family members that are insured with that person).
Doctors and hospitals do not have patients with different "plans" or coverage or deductibles. Which saves a lot of red tape. Biling is much easier and the doctors do not have to check what is covered and what not. Rates are well negotiated by the agency, but they do not have to chase the money, they get the full amount and on time.
Patients or doctors or pharmacists need no advisors to navigate a system that is set up to be straightforward and as simple and unified as possible.
So no one can extract profits from offering advice (also she the middleman of pharma in the U.S. Pharma Benefits Management). So no cushy upper class jobs for managements (and maybe sales staff if they are paid well) and no "investment opportunities for shareholders or 401k beneficiaries.
Coverage for stay at home parents, retired / disabled / unemployed persons, : the same as always (and the same as for millions of people).
Doctor, hospitals ? the same as always (all hospitals and approx. 80 % of practices have a contract with the agency). Costs: free at the point of service (as always) and modest co-pays (drugs).
Retired persons have to pay a reduced contribution (the equivalent to the payroll tax). It is deducted from the monthly money transfer they get. But if you are on minimum retirement that contribution is very modest and you have no co-pay for medications (which is usually around 6 - 7 USD per package, unless you are low income, or you need a lot of meds per month, there is helpf for that).
No one checks what is covered in a single payer country - Why would they - obviousy ! everything that is available in first world medicine is included - free at the point of service - and that changes all the time anyway.
There are people working at the agency whose job it is to be informed about the latest state of affairs, to make the arrangements with doctors and hospitals (spreading information about the latest medical development, likely that is a 2 way process).
That is of no concern to the insured / patients. They also do not want to know all the details about how they run the sewage system (public utility) and what technical innovations are available for maintainance (like robots to navigate the pipe system to check for leaks).
eHealth CEO: We spend 600 USD to win a patient but we earn 1000 per patient. (It is a waste of money, they would not be in business in a single payer country - and someone has to pay for that waste of money).
CEO: We train our sales staff well, they make 30,000 a year (he advertised that as "good" jobs - so also a pitch for potential employees).
His main mission was to promote the stock of the company, to get affluent Medicare recipients interested (who can afford the private Medicare Advantage packages to make Medicare a really good total package).
And to bash Medicare For All (of course, his company would vanish, no need for them in a genuine single payer system). So maybe he wanted to brag about how little they pay qualified staff to run their business model - so more profit for shareholders.
Qualified staff (they need some training and he advertised that as a strength of the company - so a sales pitch to the Medicare recipients who might use the services. I think the insurance companies and providers pay eHealth commissions so the question is how GOOD their advice is - the Medicare recipients will have a hard time to detect it if they are getting only the 2nd or 3rd best option in this overprices system - because some actors pay eHealthc more commission than others).
30k for sales staff is not exactely much (maybe it is basic salary in the training phase w/o sales related commissions).
1
-
Back to financially comfortable "Nothing is more important than getting rid of Trump" Democrats: Warren AND Buttigieg have a lot of appeal to white, coastal, affluent, liberal voters with a degree. Does not make sense on the surface - their policy proposals (if there are any specifics, yes Warren, no Buttigieg) are very different.
If you believe that Warren is serious about her plans you would grade her as fairly left, and Buttigieg despite being so vague clearly wants to be perceived as "moderate".
So why do they share the same base ? -
Because these frequent and educated ! voters - who should theoretically be informed - like the VIBE they are getting from both candidates.
Buttigieg delivering his fluffy messages about unifying the country is good enough for THEM.
It is not that important for THEM that Warren likely will fold if she could win the presidency (and since she is like one of us they cannot grasp her weakness when it comes to attracting blue collars or to deal with Trump. Which are real, even if she would not already be signalling to the pary machine and the big donors).
Buttigieg only offers platitudes.
These comfortable Democrats will do fine nontheless. A candidate that afflicts the comfortable and comforts the afflicted is suspicious to them, many do not like the vibes they are getting from Sanders (they are right, some of them would net have less income, wealth. Still doing very well of course and then living in a better country. But often narrow self-interests beats vague do-gooder attitudes and generic claims how they wish everbody would do fine.
They appreciate that candidates like Warren, Buttigies (or Bloomberg) know to behave themselves and are obviously intelligent, and can string coherent sentences together.
They are not Trump, will not push to outlaw abortion.
If more presentable presidents with manners are puppets of a cabinet and admin filled with lobbyists, if the deep state and war machine drives them, if their policies create untold misery (see Obama) - the polished facade and colluding media keeps them in blissful ignorance.
The sensibilities of the upper class about uncough behavior and openly displayed meanness, corruption and cruelty will not be offended.
That is the value of having Trump in office: he is an ugly face for ugly things. Obama was a good looking, eloquent, intelligent and polished figurehead for very ugly things.
Such votersare content to have a president that serves the oligarchy and the war machine and a cruel dysfunctional way too expensive for-profit healthcare industry- as long as he or she has manners and does not embarrass them with being obviously stupid and brazenly corrupt.
The Syrian regime change meddling of the U.S. with the help of Saudia Arabia and other nations cost hundreds of thousands of lives, and millions of people are replaced. That regime change war was planned in late 2001 already. It is interesting how the puppet in the White House changes but the agenda is still carried out.
It is NOT a civil war, the U.S. put fuel into the fire.
Libya was a stable, secular ! dictatorship with good services / welfare net for the citizens. Now they have open slave markets, and it is a failed state and hideout for jihadits, and the likes of ISIS, AlQaeda. Now the transit route to Europe is wide open (as long as Libya functioned as state under Gadhafi they controlled the borders so the human traffickers did not try, not at a large scale. (the refugee crisis fuelled the rise of many xenophobic parties).
Honduras coup - immediately supported by Hillary Clinton. They are a neoliberal nightmare now.
Under the Obama admin guns were delivered to the cartels in Mexico.
Under Obama shit happened at the border as well. Not as much, they did not intentionally make it worse (Bush and Obama admin avoided separating children from the adults, only if there were criminal charges they were jailed. Drug offenses or suspected human trafficking for instance. Crossing the border was not a reason to detain people in jail).
Obama did not push for inhumane treatment out of personal meanness and to earn brownie points for getting elected. If it would have been easy and cost-free to act more humanely he would have done so (Trump wouldn't).
But he was certainly not going to take a stand or spend political capital to ease the fate of (economic) refugees. Created due to decades of regime change wars of the U.S. government protecting the interests of U.S. oligarchs. Also during HIS terms (Honduras). At least Obama left Venezuela alone (as far as we know), but they spied on Petrobrass (also to steal technology from them).
I guess JFK also did not like what was going on in the South but he was not willing to risk anything politically. To end segregation and to enforce the right to vote for ALL which pissed off the Dixiecrats that voted for Democrats, they had a safe base in the South - until the Civil Rights Movement forced JFK and LBJ to do something.
This is a lesson Sanders has taken to heart. REAL change comes from the bottom up and the citizens must fight for it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tell people that the candidates now hop on a watered down version of "medicare for all" (M. for America / M. for those who want it, etc.). They take a piggy ride on the brand, while ignoring that it is a specific bill that is about a genuine single payer system.
What most of them now seem to offer (because public opinion was shifted by Sanders) is a PUBLIC OPTION - which offers the possibility to OPT OUT. That seems to be a an innocent tweak or an improvement even ("Why not let the citizens chose and trust them instead of forcing them)
What they conceal - or do not realize - is that public option sets up the reform for failure.
The for profit insureres can keep the young, healthy and affluent and make good profits with cherrypicked pools.
I live in a single payer country: here a public option would slowly erode the systems. But the insurance companies have only a tiny slice of the market and know they do not get more. So they are well behaved (and regulated).
In the U.S. the healthcare insurers have a toxic culture, show predatory behavior and have the systems in place to screw the consumers, to lobby for more subsidies for the dysfunctional overpriced system to somehow keep it afloat.
In the U.S. a "public option" will set up the reform for failure, the reform will never be completed.
Some candidates did not do their homework, do not understand the dynamics in single payer countries (WHAT mechanisms and WHY they lead to good results) and they ignore the reality in the U.S. Plus some ideological bias (no the free market does not always get you better services, not with natural monopolies and not with healthcare).
Others may get it - and they shill for their donors while deceiving voters. I have that suspicion for Harris, Booker, Biden, Mayor Pete - he gets lots of donations from the industry and people employed in the industry. Only Trump gets more.
Wallstreet donors must be considered as well - they love their investements in for-profit healthcare.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
An opinion from a sociologist: humans in stress situations either freeze, hide, flee or attack. some people naturally go into (stupid) attack mode. Now - you can't attack a virus. It is invisible. So they need a TANGIBLE enemy:
Dr. Fauci, the libs in general, the Chinese that designed the virus and then unleashed it, big pharma and Bill Gates (vaccines) and of course the mask mandate and everyone that pushes it. Methinks that Bill Gates is on his way to replace George soros, someone that sends our the misinformation must have realized that he is very old, and that they have to build up the next effigy.
That theory would also explain why so many right wing males refuse to wear masks. Attack mode is more plausible for males. In that audience there was peer pressure, no self resepcting cultist (incl. females) can be seen with a mask there.
But even among Republicans and Trump voters the females support the mask wearing much more than males.
Ardent Trump supporters are not giving up the comfort of having an enemy that is cleary identifyable and a crusade that they can fight for.
It is about managing their fear, the uncertainty.
"conservatives" do not fare well under drastic change. No human does but they are more than usual averse to it.
Trump was so stupid, if he had handled the crisis better and had done something about healthcare and a UBI he would smoothly sail to his reelection.
But the cult has always seen the pandemic as an obstacle to his reelection. he just had the (allegedly) good economy (never mind the signs for an upcoming recession in fall 2019 already (repo crisis). Boom ! Pandemic - and now even feckless Joe Biden has a good chance to win.
So the pandemic is even more emotionally charged for cult members than the rest of the population (save people that lost their job, or have family seriously ill with CoVid-19).
1
-
1
-
Ah, those happy days when the (for-profit) mainstream media owned by a very few rich people successfully dominated the narrative. They controlled a) what would be discussed and b) which legitimate or harebrained arguments the public would be allowed to hear. The Dems could talk a good populist game, then turn around and do the opposite and sell out their voters. And at least the big shots in the party would profit from it. Because the salary and benefits they get for their jobs are just not enough.
The few people who saw though the scam in the past and who called them out, did not have a public platform. Free speech was not dangerous to the ruling class, the few dissenters had a very, very hard time to get attention and were reliably weeded out it they made it into mainstream media (and to some degree that even happened in academia).
The Soviets didn't get it right, no need to to resort to "unpleasant" measures like sending folks to work camps in Siberia for the crime of dissenting. There are much more refined and sophisticated methods to suppress dissent, truth, and an open public discourse.
That is why even the rulers of the European countries with elections in 2017 all of a sudden jumped on the bandwagon of "fake news" and "Russia might hack us, too" - just in case they face an embarrassing loss too they already work on their lame excuse.
And you have to build your case to justify censorship on the web, first start out mildly, let your willing stooges from Facebook, google, Twitter, establish the necessary software to apply censorship, and build from there over a few years.
The political establishment is under pressure in Germany, France, Austria, and the dissenters (sadly more often from the right, nationalistic side than the left ) can use social media and the web and can circumvent the "official" channels and establishment controlled media.
The claim that the integrity of the elections in France, Germany, I even heard Austria mentioned - by Sanders no less !, would be undermined by some made up wild stories on the web OR by Russian interference or hacking is ridiculous. The Russians could not swing the elections if they wanted to. This is on the politicians, not any foreign players. It is the fault of the political establishment if they have no good message to offer to the masses.
In all these nations they have reliable processes for the elections in place. No doubt they would rig them (like they do in the U.S.) if they could - well they can't.
They do hand counts, vote in person or by mail, no voting over the internet, no voting machines, purging of voter rolls is not possible, the polling stations are plentyful, registration to vote is automtic or not difficult, and voting usually happens on a sunday or holiday (or in the U.K. they can vote until 10 p.m.).
In the U.S. there is rigging of elections going on, probably including manipulation of the the voting machines or the calculation of the totals. Plus of course massive gerrymandering (for Congressional races and on the state level). All of that is pulled off by powerful people in the U.S. not by foreign actors - and nothing of that is possible in Europe.
There are no voting machines that could be hacked, the people cannot be hindered to go to vote. They have publicly financed TV (not sure about France, but certainly in Germany, Austria, UK) and there are fairness rules - like how many TV ads they are allowed to run, and that all viable candidates or parties that are on the ballot must be given equal airtime.
If the candidates and campaigns in Europe do not want to be hacked, they better ramp up security. And even better, try to not have communications that would be embarrassing or harmful.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Grayzone had Ben Norton on about the CIA connections of Buttigieg, the shady connection of the people that financed the Iowa app. Incl. pro Israeli settlements billionaires seth ? Klathman (not sure about last name). The Clinton / Obama consultant class members - and Pete checks the boxes. Those consultants are Ivy league educated, tech savvy, 40 something, and they want their place at the trough.
James Carville is of the same mindset just from the past.
Tara Whatshername is a stragist star in Silicon Valley and in D.C. (2 Obama campaigns). -
There is a consultant class that leeches off, and when they found to their dismay that HRC will not enter the White House they came up with "Russia did it" - and then started the companies to "help" against that hyped up threat.
Same company (New Knowledge) that wrote the professional analysis for the Senate (Mueller report / investigation) regarding Russian intervention, is a company that offers solutions for the "fearsome" Russian interferences - I think the name is New Knowledge.
And they were caugh redhanded using a red flag strategy in a Alabama race Roy Moore (the sexual predator, judge and right winger) against the Republican posing as a Democrat Doug Jones.
They hired Russian bots to follow the rightwinger (cyrillic names and all) and then leaked how he got help from Russia for his reelection. (Despite the credible claims of inappropriate behavior towards females often teenagers this far right hyprocrite only narrowly lost the race).
Another disinformation stratgy against him. a Facebook page that seemed to be from Roy Moore (or supporters) proposing to make Alabama a "dry" country (prohibition of alcohol). The scheme: it was supposed to drive the booze lovers to the ballot box to vote against Moore. - a rightwing judge with credible accusations of sexual miscondonct (statute of limitations expired, he did not rape anyone, but he certainly had a habit of hitting on teenagers. Abuse of power, family values, he was and I think still is a judge. - and Democratic slimeballs thought they had to resort to such detpths ?
Hackable voting machines (they have contests, 11 years olds work on machines as used in elections, 2 kids hacked them in approx. 15 minutes each).
Voter roll purges. Machines where the safety features have never been activated (Ohio, parts of Texas.) and the Ohio judge will not even accept a court case about forcing the state to activate them. (Needless to say activists tried NOT the Democratic party). John Oliver did a show about election machines and that some are used where it is impossible to VERIFY the results. There is no audit possible, on principle.
(Other machines have a print as paper trail and backup evidence, althought he rules to demand a recount are complicated and prohibitive. There is meddling possible if those ballots are destroyed while they are evidence in an ongoing lawsuit (Tim Canova suing against the result of an election where Debbie Wasserman-Schultz "won". The civil servant that orderd the destruction of the ballots is the same that got into trouble in Florida midterms 2018 - then she had to step down.
Neither Democrats (in D.C.) nor Republicans (who run the state of Florida) showed any interest to pursue that obstruction of justice. Sure the R's would like to win the district of Debbie, but in the end she has the same donors as them, so it is all one club. They for sure would NOT want Tim Canova the grassroots indepedent to win the Congressional seat).
Corporate Media can swing elections much more than Russian troll farms (they have them, no doubt. But the CIA is much longer in that biz offline and now online and spends much more. Also online: trolls from Israel and I think from India (Modi) and China).
So what ?
The media drowning out Gabbard or Yang is highly effective election rigging on behalf of the special interests. And Sanders has to overcome a major disadvantage, but he is so strong now that he can win the uphill battle. With fairer coverage he would lead nationwide in the polls.
The ruling Democratic class and their helpers the consultants (often ex CIA, NSA spooks etc) nurture the illusion that in elections in which billions are spent the measly Russian trollfarms can make a dent.
1
-
RT makes a dent - and they only need to tell the truth. And as long as freedom of media is still a thing they cannot outlaw them. - They have their own bias, but the people working there confirm that there is no editorial constraint (other than legal and libel stuff).
A necessary condition for working for FOX or one of the "liberal" networks is that you are incapable to understand single payer. You must like war, be completely uncritical of military spending or the idea that the U.S. has a right to determine the government in other countries (like Venezuela).
You must praise trade deals and manage to be oblivious the the effects of NAFTA or the China deal. Also: Be willing to present the GDP growing (artificially inflated by the speculation of big finance), the stock exchange doing well and low unemployment numbers as a "booming" economy.
People that cannot or willnot engage in these exercises of double think are not a fit for corporate media.
So the right wingers (FOX) and neoliberals have their niche (all other "liberal" large outlets) - but peoeple that are pro workers, anti-war or lefties have nowhere to go.
If they slip through the cracks or do not toe the line after being hired (being against the Iraq war of 2003, against TPP or wanting to give Sanders some friendly coverage) they will be purged. So the only TV outlet with some money that is a potential employer is RT.
They do not need to do recruiting, they just have to wait until good people that lean to the left are fired.
Factoring in some pro Russia bias one gets solid information with from a left perspective watching RT.
Intelligent, knowledgeable hosts and interesting guests (John Pilger, Stephanie Kelton would be a good fit, not sure if they had her, they had Dr. Richard Werner on Renegad Inc. excellent show - RT UK. Ray McGovern, Bill Binney, Bill Black - not sure if they get Noam Chomsky, but he would certainly be a good fit as well. Noam's is often on on Democracy Now.)
And they are more factual than the U.S. outlets, and let the guests speak w/o interruption (also no "pre" interviews - they may select the guests - but if they are invited, they can speak their mind, no test run).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Explosive growth: Reproduction rate 3,5 (1 infectious person infects 3,5 others *) Let's start with 10 infectious persons, and the time intervall is 3 days (which is plenty). On day 4 you have 35 cases ... on day 7 122 on day 28 788,000 people, and ...on day 31 2,76 million people.
Same number's game with "only" 2,5 reproduction rate and still 3 days intervall:
On day 19: 2,441 cases ... so that looks better (although more than that number are in various stages pf infection, home / hospital, morgue)..
BUT: On day 37: 597,000 cases and on day 40 1,49 million cases of people infected (some dead, some on the path of recovery, some still on the ICU). With THAT many cases the hospitals in that region are completely overwhelmed of course.
Remember: the U.S. recently had 1 million cases, New York did not have all of them, and things looked grim.
Realistic models would look differently. When so many people are infected spread starts to slow down (always hoping that with the HIGH numbers the virus does not mutate and the new strain attacks - one can hope immunity when you had the other mutation would help - but hat is not always the case. Or that a new form emerges that is worse - lethality, complication rate, reproduction rate. MERS another corona strain is MUCH worse but lucky us, it is not very contagious.
And because people would be locked at home (recovering) spread would also slow down.
But the numbers games should show you what EXPONENTIAL GROWTH means.
It would be a culling.
Good luck with giving birth or any accidents.
And of course hospitals would be hotspots of infection. With so many patients they cannot separate anymore.
1
-
1
-
1
-
I did not hear that - but I am shocked as well. She IS getting over it, she did not say much in the beginning, she did her job, did she ? her testimony is powerful - I must say the day after the insurrection the idiocy of the cultists somehow drowned out what this was.
I saw interviews on the channel of WUSA9 channel of police that held certain points and they describe it as an ongoing battle for hours, and they attacked with with all but firearms and explosives (the man squeezed against the door and yelling in pain. That was the second ! of three major indicents he had that day. Daniel Hodges also had that deer in the headlight look in the eyes. The nervous smile while he told his story. Pretending he was O.K. - nope, a few sessions with a trauma expert might be in order.
Another interview with a female officer, she was lucky she was not (much) injured, but also describes it as unreal, and a combat situation that was going on for hours.
They attacked a LINE of officers in riot gear they threw heave objects at them, not all were in blood lust, but if a person pounds on doors and yells where is she - you can brace for the worst.
Officer Eugene Goodman was in (soft) uniform and had a baton and a radio. The group he led away from from the then still unsealed chamber was less rabid.
1
-
It should not be HARD and an uphill struggle to cast a vote. People have to wait for hours in line. They need to have endless (legal) battles with the state of Georgia. The court orders the state to abstain from certain practices. They turn around and do it AGAIN.
Voters (again see Georgia 2018) do not dare to send in a mail ballot. Republican states have perfectioned the art to declare them faulty and to kick them out (if they come form poor areas with a lot of minority voters).
The old broken machines are allocated to the poor areas. That is if they do not find a pretext to close down a polling place alltogether. For instance if it is not suited for disabled persons. Now I am sure a solution could be found. Like volunteers helping disabled prsons accross the steps that are an obstacle for the wheelchair bound person. having a provisory ramp.
The affluent areas do have the the ramps and provisions, or they will get them. That is a small price to pay when it also helps to shut down polling place s in poor areas. (such a shame that the poor do not have the time and vehicles to visit the far away places and take a day off only to vote).
The option to vote in churches (early vote) is reduced or ended at all.
I read the story of a man that wanted to move to another state (he had gone to school there) and tried to register to vote for 2016.
His driver's licence and his birth certificate had a tiny difference. So he had to bring the school reports, his vaccination record (he had grown up in the state). I do not remember in detal the other hoops they made him jump through, but it was an uphill battle with 3 visits in person. And then he had finally come up with with the last piece of documentation they demanded him to provide to make sure he had not stolen the birth certificate and wanted to impersonate another voter) - He asked if he could sent if by mail. No - he had to appear in person (meaning a flight).
Then he handed it over to his lawyer. And decided NOT to move (return) to that state after all.
Oh, and he was black. Of course.
Let me tell you I know elections in European nations. If people had to wait longer than 15 minutes they would feel VERY badly treated. (usually it is 5 minutes, 10 minutes if the lines are long).
Broken machines, problems with the IT, power outages ? - not an issue.
They perform the elections OFF the grid and with unhackable procedures. The voter rolls are printed out BEFORE the elections (and are manually crossed off so that no one can cast a vote twice).
Usually they automatically sign up the voters (only in the U.K. voters have to register BUT that is easy and can be done by phone or online with a few clicks, name, address, SS number, birth date. They had a catchy ad for the snap elections 2017 to remind the voters of that. Sure enough more than 1 million people registered within 2 - 3 weeks - 600,000 in the last 2 days before the deadline. These were first time voters or people that had moved. 1 million in a nation with a population of 65 millions.
They all have paper ballot and hand count. The oldfashioned SAFE way that is IMPOSSIBLE TO RIG. And where the voters can follow the count and tabulation from a polling place to town / city / district / national level.
On the level of the polling place the commission consisting of civil servants and representatives of parties have to sign off on the hand count result. A village may have only ONE polling place, but larger communities have of course many.
In the U.S. t he vote (digital information that CAN be altered) is transfered from easily hackable voting machines (hacking can ALSO menat to cause malfunction. If the machines cannot be used for a few hours, tht is as well to suppress the vote in certain areas).
Then the hackable digital information is transferred to a central tabulation place - and in Ohio the safety features of the voting machines have never been activated. And no one knows or can VERIFY WHAT happens at the tabulation place (Funky stuff happened in 2004 when Kerry unexpectedly "lost" in Ohio. Obama had the FBI at headquarters in 2012).
In countries with functioning elections it would be highly unlikely that at the level of a polling place manipulation could happen - and that would be the ONLY place where it could happen at all.
All representatives of all parties would have to agree to the manipulation, incl. the civil servants that would lose a secure job, a pension if they were found out - and all would have their day in court.
For something that cannot even change the outcome of an election.
One polling place would not make a dent - but if the results were very implausible then it would get attention. And if they would manipulate, but only a little bit - the effect would be even more negligible and the idea to take risks even more ridiculous.
The results for every polling places in a town / city / district can be gotten by a FOIA request. Usually the numbers per city or district are published (intenet, newspapers - people like to see how their town voted).
And you can do the count from there if you like (but you CAN dig deeper, they just do not publish it by default, because it would take up too much space and be more of a distraction. No one doubts the results at the base level - but if there would be any doubt incongruencies could be easily verified (for instance by a party that does not do well).
The ONLY way to cover up would be to remove and destroy paper ballots in ONE pollint station only - of course while everyone in the commission at that polling place would need to participate in the election crime.
So the fact that everything is VERYFIABLE makes sure that no one even TRIES to MANIPULATE the COUNT at the base level OR the TABULATION at the higher levels.
And walking into your polling place and NOT being on the voter roll is unimaginable.
It is not rocket science to have a register (data base) in the era of computers. To sign up people automatically with the birth certificate adding 18 years. Or to remove them with the death certificate. Voters should announce when they move (they do not always comply) - in that case they can exercise the vote only at their old place.
It is also not rocket science to assign every voter a unique number that makes it very easy to verify in every state and throughout the country !! if a person votes more than ONCE or in two states.
The problem is that it would rob the Republicans of a narrative/lie they like to spout - and it would make it impossible to purge voter rolls or to hinder people to cast the vote (in reality).
1
-
1
-
it is called thought stopping clichés - short phrases like freedom, choice, capitalism, socialism, Venezuela are thrown ou .. these terms imply a lot, everyone has a lot of ideas what they mean (as opposed of having an informed precise definition). And then throwing the "phrase" into the ring replaces thinking ABOUT the issue or facts. (both sides are guilty, but of course the right wingers are conditioned to use certain clichés to avoid meaningful debates - which they would lose.
I borrowed the term from the discussion about destructive cults (like Scientology). - an example would be Ted Cruz in the townhall that he held with Bernie Sanders. He talked about "choice" or to offer certain groups (young healthy) the possibility to opt out (or have high deductibles). He talked about the "free market". That may sound superficially convincing. But he has never thought that through and derived the correct conclusions from the European systems (why are the public non-profit systems cost-efficient in a way that is IMPOSSIBLE for private for-profit systems).
He is ideologically blinded - or he KNOWS and lies intentionally.
The think tanks are of course eager to provide the "phrases".
In a rational debate the healthcare discussion would be over (apart from the technical details how to get it done). the overwhelming majority of the population (who have the the vote !) would decide: we get good healthcare, the industry and the politicians get much less profits or campaigns contributions, and very wealthy people have to pay more. The majority can easily resign themselves to those downsides.
From an economic standpoint this is good - the high income segment (including the rich owners of Big Pharma, Big Health and well-off politicians) can well exist with less money, they would not reduce their spending if they get less money, they hoard the money anyway there is not economic advantage in letting them have MORE.
Good healthcare would increase the disposable income of regular citizens = good for the economy.
The resources (time of medical staff administration would be used in a much more productive manner. The work would go towards delivering healthcare not shuffling the papers.
It is a lot of work to deny care.
that means the unnecessary adminstrative staff could be used for other purposes (can be government funded or be supported by increased consumer spending). Libraries, youth work, childcare, staffing civil services, smaller city buses. Or training some of the former insurance and hospital adminstrators to switch to care if it is a good fit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trump didn't give a shit in 2015 and 2016, all the negative coverage did not harm him - because he HIT a chord. Enough voters were fed up with the status quo (created and presided over by Obama and his VP Biden, not to forget SS Clinton).
I saw a WSJ piece (on youtube), they had a sit down conversation with black voters in Georgia. One man:
I voted Trump in 2016 and plan to vote for him in 2020 again. I knew in 2016 that he was not great on etiquette. I WANTED a bull in the china shop.
This was either late 2019 or early 2020, before the corona crisis became relevant for the U.S.)
Sanders is much better imformed (Trump is lazy, does not care about details, knows nothing, and is mean, brazenly corrupt and a white nationalist narcissist). But even by PLAYING the populist plus appealing to lower instincts (immigrants as scape goats) - he could make political hay.
He told people HE was not going to sign TPP and help companies outsource. He even paid lip service to healthcare, he was going to give everyone (read U.S. citizens) wonderful healthcare.
In 2016 Hillary Clinton gleefully, almost triumphantly told a crowd at a smaller rally: This country will never ever have single payer (yeah, the cost efficient system that they have in all outher rich countries. Most got it or overhauled their systems directly AFTER WW2 - and it is not as if the economy was great at the end of the 1940s in Europe).
That was after she had "won" the nomination.
1
-
Recently Hillarz Clinton demanded that the Trump admin should open the exchanges again, so that people that had lost employer bassed plans could BUY in (you have to sign up for ACA EVERY year, in January, and of course the Trump admin shortened the time when that is possible).
That was her let-them-eat-cake moment: Fed St. Louis survey in 2019 (allegedly with a "good" economy then. 40 % cannot come up with 400 USD in an emergency they would have to borrow.
The corporate Democrats are SO craven, so detached and useless that even a moron like Trump with his unrealistic promises, no details, no plans, can look good to voters who could be won to turn out for a D candidate:
Blue collars, lower income people, non-voters.
Not the mythical suburban affluent "moderate" Republican. Those are just embarrassed by Trump, they would be very much O.K. if Pence would have the same despicable policies, but just served with MANNERS. Or Mitt Romney or neocon warmonger John McCain. In the end they will protect their money and continue the I-got-mine strategy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If Sanders manages to push through good reform (with provisions like they have them in every other single payer country) that makes the private insurers almost obsolete * within a few years. That would be a very tangible improvement even for people to the right. Cost efficient good services for everyone.
That might give him the leverage to tackle other projects - like money out of politics.
FDR had that strategy: first bank reform and deposit insurance, right when he came in. That worked (60 millions out of then 90 million people hear the speech of the president sunday night, so you can imagine).
he made a good impression. Then he had to strongarm some Democratic "representatives" to support other bills that helped the desperate population. They gave in, so the president got even more popular because the population experienced tangible relief - and they got hope that this president would really work for them. That gave FDR leverage for the next measures, ....
His motto was: the old ways led to the crisis, the Republicans tried to fix it with conventional wisdom, didn't work. Let's try new things and quickly. If it does not work out, we can try something else or improve it. That strategy does not always work (certainly not to overhaul an existing healthcare system) - but some economic experiment can be tried on a smaller scale before being ramepd up. FDR was not afraid to experiment, and have some failures.
Some projects unexpectely became very popular: recruiting young (unmarried) men and have them work in the woods of the North and North West. Pale malnourihsed city boys got some food, wages, sun, fresh air and a work out. Replanting trees etc. - Former military leaders lead these camps, their relatives were glad they earned some money and were far from a place where they could get themselves into legal trouble or get a girl pregnant. Family men did not have to compete with them over jobs.
* the insurers (private, for profit or non-profit agency) are always middle men. The U.S. healthcare insurance industry are glorified administrative middlemen - who have no interest in controlling costs or bringing them down (Wendelll Potter) and they have very high administrative costs - and cause dysfunction elsewhere (with so many different packages billing is extremely complex for doctors and hospitals).
If the Medicare agency gets reasonable budgets so they can pay for comprehenisve coverage, the services (for which they pay doctors and hospitals) will be good AND the "insurance" will be cost-efficient. Rich people will have their arrangements (out of pocket) - but even the affluent will not have a reason to have private insurance (an upgrade = supplemental) if Medicare gets funding comparable to other single payer agencies. Right now they have only the most costly age group - plus 65 years, and they cannot even negotiate drug prices !
So the private insurers had the stage set for them: a cherrypicked pool (people 0 - 64), they could negotiate drug prices (but don't - the only agency in the U.S. that is allowed to negotiate them brought them down by 40 %, and more should be possible).
ACA propped up the for-profit industry (incl. for-profit hospital chains) by directing lots and lots of subsidies towards the overpriced dysfunctional system.
If Medicare becomes the major game in town they have a very strong negotiating position. No hospital and not many doctors will be able to make do without the patients covered by medicare. That strong position is very much needed: most countries have NON-profit hospitals and the American Medical Association kept the number of graduates down. (AMA was very much opposed to Medicare in the 1960s they almost prevented it from being introduced).
Unlike the paper shufflers from the insurance companies DOCTORS are really needed for the system. Of course their time will be put to better use with a streamlined admin and no more time on the phone with the insurance companies. even nurses have to call them on behalf of their patients. With Medicare (single payer) the agency sets up a framwork what is covered (all that is worthy of first world medicine) and the doctors are free to use the tools as they see fit.
Now, in most single payer countries the hospitals are also non-profits - so the doctors make these decision without any pressure regarding profits. On the other hand the rates will be shart and one can hope that many hospitals will get into local control - so they set a benchmark for the profiteers.
Sanders also has the rule in his bill to outlaw duplicative coverage. Medicare will cover all that is medically warranted (incl. basic dental, hearing aids, ...). If they offer coverage for something (after 4 years for everyone) - private insurers cannot offer that coverage. They are restricted to "nice to have" or non-essential things (expensive dental, accupuncture, laser eye surgery for short sightedness, ...) That restricts the healthcare insurers to the fringes.
People can of course go to a doctor that does not accept Medicare insurance But they will not be able to offer private insurance for payment if Medicare would cover it, it will always be out of pocket payment then. That is a deterrent for patients and doctors. It will reduce it to services like dental, ... - and only if the doctor is really good or has another unique advantage to offer (like accupuncture).
A competent doctor with acceptable waiting times should be standard and not require that you have to go to a "private" doctor while paying out of pocket.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Eidelmania + David vospor Gore chose or got ! Lieberman, Neocon, Israel Firster and a Blue Republian (I think he switched to the Rs later) as VP. - I think Al Gore also spoke out in support of the Afghanistan and Iraq war (Afghanistan was prepared in SUMMER 2001. 9/11 was a convenient pretext - and that is the benign assumption. Al Gore had the connections. Of course he knew that in 2001, and also that D.C. was buzzing with rumours regarding Iraq in 2002/2003. He certainly was aware that the Cheney admin leaned heavily on the CIA to provide evidence. And they went after dissenters and the UN weapons inspectors).
Al Gore would not have reigned in the banks - so they would have gone bust under him like they did under Cheney / Bush.
He could not be bothered during the campaign in 2000 or after the "loss" to defend the right of voters when Jeb Bush purged them in masses. It was headline news in Europe well before Novermber. He and Clinton COULD have done something about it.
D's purge voter rolls too, not as often and brazenly as the Rs and more in the primaries to get rid of blue collar FDR style Democrats and progressives. That is what the donors pay them for. So the Democratic Party usually does not make a fuzz about election stealing, they sit in the glasshose.
The Big donors and the party establishment like the possibility that primaries OR general elections can be rigged. Good to have that in the tool box.
Dems winning the GE is not necessary form the point of view of the Big donors. If Democratic politicians play along with the money interests they are handsomely rewarded when they leave politics or lose a race.
Al Gore did not stand up for the black men of Florida, for the integrity of the elections in general, for the constitutional right to vote (you bet that emboldened the crooks in the GOP) - and he also showed little fight for his bid for the presidency. As if it was more an automatic logical career step after having been VP for so long. As opposed to REALLY wanting to become POTUS. To SHAPE things - against FIERCE resistance if that had been good for the voters or the environment.
Party leadership told Al Gore to go quietly, the Big Donors did not want the unwashed masses to be activated and enraged. Dems wanted the presidency - but keeping the money and the Donors happy is even more important.
The sheeple must not be alerted, question the "democracy" or detect their power if they organize in masses and take it to the streets. Plus it would have KEPT public awareness ON the stealing of elections and opened a way for the shocked voters to funnel their anger into powerful restistance. (The unions had offered help - Gore declined).
Al Gore complied with the stand down order - and is very rich now !
The only good thing: he might have done more against climate change. But given the opposition of the money interests against any meaningful measures and his tendency to roll over before being pushed - not even that is certain.
He might not have been asleep at the wheel regarding 9/11. Lieberman was happy with the Cheney / Bush war agenda in the Middle East. But it is possible the Al Gore had no intention to set the Middle East on fire. Again not sure if he would have withstood the war machine eager to create more conflict, a pretext for testing the toys and more spending into the pockets of the contractors..
Obama went along quite willingly with the Cheney / Bush war and regime change agenda (7 countries in 5 years - Gen Wesley Clark). Although Obama talked a different game on the campaign trail and did not chose an ideologue / war monger as VP).
Come to think of it: Bush2 also talked "peace" when campaigning in 2000.
1
-
It is the other way round. Things must go swimmingly for the voters, after all they can't be bothered (O.K. 44 % of 80,000 people, it is not nothing, but then Nina has been in local politics and Brown is a newcomer tht is a crook. Also engaged in the local DNC org - THAT may have helped.
The black district of Cinncinati must be in great shape, that people can afford to completely ignore politics. - The oligarchs and their shills KNOW that they can spread lies about Nina Turner, she can have an ethics investigation. The sheeple stay at home and those that do go vote are more those that that stand to benefit from the status quo. I wonder if Republicans also voted in the primary.
It was a few percent of likely 80,000 votes cast, but Turner fell short of maybe 3,000 - 4,000 votes.
AOC was lucky that Joe Crawley had a close to date polling that worked under the assumption of business as usual (the same people, will turn out and he had a sufficient if not impressive lead. AOC changed WHO turned out).
It is possible that her on the ground game was stronger than Nina's. Only approx. 25,000 people voted in the 2018 primary in NY 14th, so her grassroots work had more leverage.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
2017 healthcare spending per person of nations (Keiser Foundation also see World Bank). The U.S. 10,260 USD for every person in the country on average. Most wealthy nations (usually with some form of single payer) are in the range of 47 - 56 %, the most common range is 50 - 54 % (Sweden, Finland, Austria, ....), Germany 56 %. France Belgium, Australia, Canada even below 50 %
....and then there is the U.K. with 42 % of U.S. spending levels.
I looks like first world medicine with a certain age structure needs around 5,400 - 5,800 USD per person per year (level 2017). Or a little less if you are France, Belgium, Iceland, Japan ....
If the NHS would get the proper funding (which would of course show up in the per capita healthcare expenditures of the nation) the U.K.would still be at the lower end of the average rich nation - and the NHS would run like a charm.
Which would of course do away with all pretext why it has to be privatized or why they would need private contractors to make the NHS "better".
The Tories have been openly hostile towards the NHS (foudned in 1948) in the 1950s, but they had to tone it down, because the voters loved it (incl. their own base, they cannot win with the vote of the affluent and rich only). Thatcher promised to leave the NHS alone to get elected but had of course other plans. Her inner circle implored her to leave the NHS alone (they should have let her !), they feared the backlash.
even when run cost-efficiently (so as little private for-profit as possible) healthcare is 7 - 11 % of GDP in most wealthy nations, again the usual rate is 8 - 10 % (or 19 % in the U.S.).
Even only 8 % is a large part of the national economy. The Tories have always found it very offensive that it should be mostly off limits for the profiteers, "investors" and the landlord class.
The crisis caused by the banksters was a welcome pretext to have austerity and to defund the NHS (that had a lean budget to begin with). Running it into the ground was the necessary condition to "justify" more private contractors. Which do nothing to make things more cost-efficient, they add complexity, dysfunction and extract profits.
And no doubt donate to the Tories and provide cushy jobs for former politicians.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Tamir Rice case was wild. I wonder if the jurors were afraid that police would come after them, or if they skilfully select meed or prejudiced persons. Boy was alone in the park, and police RUSHED in and killed him within seconds. I do not know WHY they assumed the worst possible scenario. Like he is a terrorist with a suicide vest on and Must. Not Escape. the 12 year old with the toy gun was treated that way.
Extremely unprofessional. (I have wondered if the shooter was / is addicted to drugs, and / or has PTSD or a severe malignant personality disorder. The killer had several other incidents with another PD, he was allowed to "resign" which means the investigations were not conducted (following complaints, this was not the first time he was unreasonable), and he kept a clean slate.
Stepping down is the trick how they can move on to other departments after misconduct w/o any consequences. A PD that sees what they are doing, and do not want to risk future trouble trouble or be the reason for expensive law suits - just send them on their way. wouldn't want to create problems for a gang member.
either Timothy Loehmann (German speaking descent at least from the side of the father), was acting out on trauma - then he needed ANOTHER job or he was on drugs. or he was a malignant bully.
Both did not give first aid (a FBI officer happened to be nearby, heard the shot and came over). They roughed up the mother that had come to pick up her boy and was in hysterics (understandably so), and the LIED about the situation. There were other people around, we feared for their life that is why we were in such a hurry to drive close and shoot immediately. Well the idiots did not realize the park had surveillance cameras. So they were busted on that lie. it was lame - so where had all those potential witnesses gone ?
Rushing in, NOT taking the time to assess the situation, and not calling backup either.
The trigger happy cop Timothy Loehmann hopped out of the car and shot within less than 5 seconds.
He had not time for anything. calling the boy to lift his arm, calling the completely surprised boy to react.
That this could be harmless OR even if the person should not carry a gun it could be solved w/o escalation did not even compute. They came in, car tires smoking so to speak and had the intention to shoot immediately.
The person could have been a drug dealer waiting for a contact / transaction. But then unless they are completey deranged they do not try to attract attention.
The only danger if they took a professional, cautious, prudent ! approach would be that a deranged person could escape - well they could call backup, they had cars.
Again there were many other harmless explanations why a person was alone in a park and had something that looked like a firearm.
The 911 caller said that they should check it out, but likely it was harmless. Even if that was not communicated that way to police - what made them automatically assume the rare, worst case scenario. Person does have a firearm, knows how to use one, and is so far gone, evil or deranged (mental illness, influence of drugs) that he would shoot at them immediately.
No one was in danger, until the cops showed up.
So what made them behave like they expected a very dangerous person that could harm them over a distance - and IF they expected that, they did not make the decisions in the first 2 seconds, they must have decided to arrive and shoot immediately before that.
A school must be nearby, Tamir waited for his mother and sister. and realistic looking toy guns are nothing new either.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I saw recently a woman that was covered by CNN - allegedly a "progressive". Website: she is for "access" to healthcare. The formula Tom Perez uses when cornered if he is for "universal" healthcare.
In this stage of public discussion, if "access to healthcare" is the best a candidate can come up with - they are hopelessly underinformed - in which case they have to business running. or they try to fool the voters.
2nd stage of the battle: progressive ideas are not openly fought, they have become so popular that they will be co-opted. Only for show of course.
Obama did that masterfully to get himself elected in 2008. The banksters that were somewhat nervous in 2008 (people were losing jobs and homes by the millions, they feared th pitchforks would come out for them).
They knew neither clinton nor McCain would harm them. BUT - the new guy seemed to be the even better distraction not only sold he out to them as well (in 2008 ! already) - he offered some advantages over Hillary Clinton.
So he was allowed to talk a little negative about irresponsible banks, he got funding and no doubt more funding for the party later (which gave him leverage over party and super delegates).
Meainstream media got the "green light" to cover Obama friendly and extensively (not like Sanders !).
The Big Donors behind the scenes knew the anti Wallstreet rhetoric was necessary and helpful to get their guy elected. And Big Healthcare knew he would not bother them with a European style system leaning towards non-profit. Talking about healthcare (and he even mentioned singley payer then, but not consistently !) was just a good trick to get the votes of the unwashed masses.
Again - unlike Sanders.
A candidate ONLY taking small donations and maybe money from grassroots that represent many citizens (like unions) is much less likely to intentionally deceive the voters. They have nothing to gain from such maneuvres. if THEY lose their seat after one term - the Big donors will not provide a cushy job for them.
So they have a strong motiation to convice the voters (THEIR donors) that they fight for them and have their best interest at heart. Which means the representatives can keep their job.
(One can see that with Sanders, against the odds he won the race for mayor in Burlington - with 10 more votes. in the city council the buddies of the ousted Corporate Democratic mayor stonewalled him. Which they could in the beginning, he did not even have the veto so first thing they fired the secretary that was the support of the mayor (until then).
The voters noticed, did not like it, the next council election improved his support, and Sanders started to work on a case to case base with Republican council members to get things done.
The next election he won comfortably in a more contested race with much increased turnout. And for there he always improved the results (he used the platform as mayor and the transformation of Burlington to improve the vote results for higher office). In 1990 he managed to get elected to Congress, in 2007 he switched to being Senator - always with IMPROVING results.
Voters appreciate it when they can rely on the honest intentions and that someone will - at least - give it a good try.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
4:00 I take my assessment back - she IS condescending - and completely clueless, caught up in her insider bubble. - Free healthcare, and free colleges are not a pie in the sky schemes (they only seem unachieveable if you serve first and foremost the Big Donors - healthcare and education have become lucrative FOR-PROFIT niches for them).
If you take the GDP per citizen, the U.S. is supposed to be the richest country on earth. The U.S. did have free (or very low cost) colleges. The rest of the wealthy countries DO have some sort of universal healthcare, most of them do it in a mixture of public non-profit and smaller private players. (Switzerland has private mandatory insurance, their expenditures are even higher than the U.S. expenditures per person - but they get soemthing for their money, Swiss costs of living are high, but even so they pay their medical staff (including nurses, cleaners ...) well, their sevices are known to be good, and everyone is covered.
All wealthy nations have had much lower costs (since the 1950 !!), they have a higher life exptectancy, a lower infant mortality (the latter is an indicator of how the system works for lower income people).
World Bank 21014, healthcare expenditures per capita in USD:
U.S. / Switzerland / average wealthy European countries and Canada / Germany / U.K.
9,200 / 9,600 / most between 5,000 - 5,500 / 5,600 / 3,900 *
* The NHS in the U.K. is clearly (and intentionally) underfunded - the Conservatives want to privatize as much as possible, you cannot "justify" that for a well working non-profit public system already on a lean budget. First you have to make it dysfunctional by major cuts to an already modest budget. It also helps to put additional burdesn on them to bring the system to breaking point.
Dismantling the public healthcare is harder in the U.K., the citizens have experienced better times with the system, so they do not buy all the propaganda despite the best efforts of the MSM (those who are called liberal are very restrained in calling the ruling Conservative, the Tories out on the scam. The majority of the U.K. press belongs to rightwing billionaire Rupert Murdoch, private TV networks also lean rightwing or neoliberal. If it were not for the internet and the progressive wing in Labour under Jeremy Corbyn they maybe could pull it off.
The next wealthy European countries in the ranked list do it for 4,2 - 4,5 k that seems to be the minimum to have a system that is worthy of a First World Country with the typical demography (more older people, less kids, Western lifestlye).
Japan had per capita expenditures of ? 3,700 USD in 2014 - even below the UK - that is impressive ! considering the overall age of the population. It seems to have to do with lifestyle. But for a population doing the Western lifestyle you have to calculate higher costs - which are well above 4k for all of the wealthy countries.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Senator Sanders could have organized the peaceful mass resistance (organized !) against evictions. In spring already, instead of giving away the farm for free to his good freind Joe.
Wanna-be organizer in chief turned out be be a huge disappointment. Fate served him his change to become highly relevent (never mind if he would be the nominee or not). Instead he walked back into the corner of the eternal, powerless dissenter.
Not only evictions - also for M4A and for real relief. He could have an army, peaceful mass protests and chase the Democratic party. people are left to themselves, they protest locally - but the oligarchs have captured goverment and network internationally. And THEY have the police.
You cannot beat them during a pandemic with local initiatives. Sanders would have been the natural cristallization point for mass protest movement.
but that scared him too much, and he is also afraid to be blamed for a potential loss of the craven Democrats..
When he should be constantly calling out the Dems how little they are willing to give to the voters, how cavalier they are.
"Nothing is more important than beating Trump" or "Voters should think of the Supreme court" (the latter now collapses RBG has died and the Democratic establishment folds instead of organizing fierce resistance - so how important is the Surpeme Court for THEM really ? It never was more than a lame attempt to scare voters into voting for them, w/o Dems giving their base anything.
How come THEY do not more to ensure a win like adopting very popular policies and advertising them. not only pulling off a narrow win, but making sure it will be decisive
(giving them enough margin for voter suppression and what not. The polling looks good for Biden, but there are the shy Trump voters, people that will not admit when called, that they are going to vote for Trump. HRC arrogantly thought she had this in the bag).
(Biden and Harris have now mentioned that they want to decriminalize weed. Those two do not have a history to inspire confidence. - Talk is cheap, I think it is a talking point to lure in the younger voters. If they would shout it from the rooftops it would be more believeable. If that would be center of the campaign.
But then they would be held accountable if they stick out their necks now. That is an exercise in lip service, they do not mean it.
Same for M4A it is even popular with Republicans, running on that would help to win, and not only - hopefully - pulling it off with a narrow margin. High turnout for the presidential election also helps with the other races - getting the Senate back and holding Congress is crucial.
HRC lost because she thought Trump was so bad that she could afford to not offer the voters anything (her "concessions" did not matter, it was clear she did not mean it, they pivoted to the right as soon as the convention was over. also see her right-to-work-for-less VP pick, who also signalled to fold now with the Supreme Court).
1
-
www.youtube(dot)com/watch?v=GQUOatkuv8k Public "Medicare for All" Saves U.S. Taxpayers 1.5 Trillion Dollars on TheRealNews. Two guests both for MfA, a doctor representing the medical profession and one economist who crunched the numbers on the different "versions" of Medicare for all. Interesting insight (*) The Sanders proposal has the complete insurance going PUBLIC (the version how it is done in most wealthy countries).
The versions that have the support of Harris or Booker version are a kind of mix: some public option, but still allowing the for-profit insurance companies a share of the pie.
Comparing the % of GDP that the U.S. spends 18 % versus the spending of other nations (it hovers around 10 % / 7 to 11 %) he said that 1,5 trillion USD are wasted in the U.S. every year. A part is lost for highly complex administration, IT that does nothing to make the product better (it is a lot of work to deny care and to make the patients and doctors jump through many hoops).
And a lot of it is profits.
The private insurance companies would lose much more than 1,5 trillion in revenue. They are not going to to go away quietly. They will use the paid for politicians to FAKE SUPPORT and either render MfA dysfunctional or they will try to hijack a part of the solution so that they can make at least some profits (and it will inevitably reduce the possible efficiency gains of streamlining the admin. Doctors would have ONE software, the insurance company would have one software).
A lot of admin jobs would be lost (that means doctors and hospitals would fire a lot of people - so all MfA proposals deal with that. Budgets for retraining them - these people could do worthwhile adminstrative or management tasks that ADD to the public welfare instead of driving patients and medical staff crazy on behest of the corporate overlords).
The economist said that the cost savings are in 2 areas: Streamlining administration and much lower cost for medical drugs (he said they cost double in the U.S. than in other rich countries).
The moment you deviate from the simple, streamlined solution and do public option and_hybride_ - you lose a lot of the potential efficiency wins. So the cost savings would be only half (160 billion per year instead of more than 300 if I remember correctly).
And there is no reason to have a hybride system, except for handing the private insurance companies over a part of the markets so they can extract more profits. It makes the system more complex, and complexitiy favors the for-profit players. They have countless possibilities to squeeze in their extra profits and to game the system - and they are very, very good at that game. They will be always ahead a few steps of the regulators and the consumers.
It also gives doctors and hospitals and hostile politicians the opportunity to introduce MORE COMPLEXITY. The doctors still have a chance to refuse to work with the public system. If the overwhelming majority of the populaltion is insured with the public insurance company (like in most European countries for instance) most doctors MUST accept those contracts and patients. And the higher their share is of the patient pool of any doctor - the more unlikely it is that they are treated badly.
It would also be impossible for hostile Republicans to defund the system when that ALSO hits the well-off and affluent citizens. If the system is good they will usually not spend extra money for a "private solution". someone like Howard Schultz or celebrities would of course (security and privacy issues might play a role, I assume their kids they would have a bodyguard, so he would not like to have them in a public hospital).
One of the advantages of making the affluent using the same system as the low income people ? They are not only going to be cost-efficient (economy of scale and streamlined) And they can install a two tier system. With all the extra costs. They can starve the public system or treat them worse
What I knew intuitively from watching the numbers of World Bank - the moment you have more "private" "for-profit" in the system it gets more complicated and more EXPENISVE.
profit is usually the reward for entrepreneurial efforts to find out about the very different needs and wishes of consumers and then cater to their needs. Doing good marketing too.
all of that is not needed or even toxic in healthcare.
With healthcare everyone wants the same: the best possible care to get well - AND NOT MORE (and preferably no healthcare needed at all !). The person with the platinum plan would not want to to have more X-rays or an extra round of chemo.
Which kind of chemo would wealthy or picky or tasteful person prefer to have ? The exact same as the low-income or unsophisticated person. The one the doctors think has the best chance to get them healthy again.
There is no "differentiation" necessary - on the contrary it is toxic and unethical. Healthcare is a MASS product, the systems must be run like clockworks to be efficient. STREAMLINED public non-profit systems can do a good job at that - when the politicians in the country WANT them to function. On the other hand if they want to "prove" that it cannot work they have countless possibilities to make the system dysfunctional. And it is even easier if the system allows for just a tiny bit of unnecessary complexity. Public option is the kotau to the private insurance companies.
With all the money lost in contracting, the U.S. military has a reputation of being very good in logistics. In the effort to get the boys out of the cave in Thailand logistics was the U.S. contribution.
Note how the military - at that level of having soldiers, trucks, pumps, tents, fuel, helicopters, communication equipment .... - is not a for profit scheme (not even at the next level because THOSE goods need to be solid quality, but they are not unique or that specialized, so that is not where the military loses the billions, not with tents and trucks, etc).
Public non-profit can deliver very good results.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Dems could have rallied behind Medicare for All as SIGNATORY POLICY ("Vote us in and we make it happen, the bill is ready !") and send out Sanders to activate the young, and non-voters. They would have killed it in the midterms (MfA polls 51 % with Republicans, plus 80 % with Democratic voters).
Winning back Senate ! and congress would mean effective damage control - and would set them up for a 2020 landslide. When the effects of Medicare for all could be experienced by the population.
They need the Senate - blocking more Supreme court confirmation, not for Trump's impeachment if they are smart. Pence would be worse. Heaven forbid Ruth Bader Ginsburg would need to retire.
But the donors are not having it - so the voters will not get such policies if the Corporate Dems can prevent it. And they certainly will not campaign with such a winning strategy.
They hoped that "Trump, GOP bad, bad - Russia, Russia" would be enough to pull off at least a narrow win (Congress at least). - They are not giving the base anything that would cost the Big Donors (same donors that finance the GOP, at least the industries are the same).
The base on either side gets identitiy politics, abortion, gun regulation and gay rights to be excited about (the GOP uses the same issues plus dog whistles, xenophobia and racism to get their base excited).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
4:40 "Researcher" 1227 deaths in CA (?) associated with corona, for 4,7 million (? for what area). and did they COUNT the numbers of death among undocumented migrants and homeless people (because THAT might drive up the numbers, and these people ALSO are a risk pool, from where the disease can spread).
Edit: they worked with data from they test lab and scaled them up - so not a legitimate way to calculate. the death rates are 5 - 15 % in other countries. (may depend if the older population gets infected, in Italy also the system being overwhelmed. Germany has an old population, but good care, many hospital beds, and they at no point got overwhelmed).
Anyway accepting these numbers would mean 0,027 percent (a little less than 0,03) . so far and with unprecedented measures in place. If memory serves the death rate of flu is 0,01 percent and the complication rate, the time where you have to quarantine, the time needed for recovery is not nearly as high.
Speaking bluntly: you are usually feeling better after 1 week if you have got the flu in almost all cases (and not infectious anymore btw) - or you are dead. Not 3 weeks in hospitals and 2 of them in the ICU. And then you might or might nor survive with or w/o lasting damage to your lungs, complications with blood clots for younger people etc.
That strain of corona virus is MUCH MORE CONTAGIOUS.
Reproduction rate is 1,3 for flu (1 person infects 1,3 others, so there IS growth). Versus 3,5 for corona (or even higher). with no safeguards in place likely higher.
That factor MEANS EXPLOSIVE GROWTH. And we do not have a base immunity (as with flu, even if the strains mutate), we have no vaccination and also no treatment drugs (like we have for flu).
I know the numbers of a European country, Austria. Reproduction rate was estimated to be 3,5 at a time when it was "wash the hands, watch your sneezing / coughing" and no large gatherings.
2,5 immediately before shutdown. Took them 3 weeks to get the reproduction rate down to 1 (ONE infected person infects one another).
And 1 more week to get the numbers down to 0,67 or 0,63.
They are stuck now for 2 - 3 weeks at that rate. So SLOW decrease.
Case numbers, hospital stays etc. are down, but despite the strict measures they do not get the reproduction rate down below 0,6 - 0,7.
They are reopening gradually now: highschoolers (for the final exams), some shops that are not essential, are allowed to open.
That damn virus must be much more contagious than most infectiuous diseases we have to deal with. And the many light cases when people spread it w/o knowing or having SOON symptoms themselves, do not make it any better.
You can easily take for granted that 40 - 70 % would be infected with little safeguards in place (CDC estimate), if letting it spread. And some more cases mean soon A LOT of cases when the growth is explosive.
That means at least ! 40 % of 4,7 million people (whatever group or region that doctor refered to) = 1,88 million people that are infected. or 3,29 millions if we have an infection rate of 70.
That would happen quickly - so there are consequences.
Many can recover at home, estimate 80 % of known cases, but some of them are very unwell. Think 7 - 10 days until they are feeling well and they have to quarantine at least another 7 days (if not longer) to not be infectious anymore.
btw someone should do the testing on that. Good luck when a major part of the population is home with corona, and / or recovering, and / or quarantining.
Then we have the complicateion rate.
20 % of known cases need to stay in the hospitals, a certain number need the ICU, and after a few days / weeks they can get off. With or without lasting damage.
And some die.
Plus the people that have other serious non-corona issues.
In Italy they did have a lockdown and their doctors had to decide WHO was going to get treatment and whom they were going to let die (at least they prepared for triage). And they had a higher mortality rate because the system was overwhelmed. . (Plus a number of cases of old people dying at home).
All of that is also true for medical staff.
That doctor / "researcher" is a busybody - or a shill for corporate world.
1
-
1
-
The U.S. spends 17 % of GDP on healthcare - more than every other nation of earth (and the stress, and hassle the cititzens get for free on top of the high costs). All that spending goes out of the pockets of regular people and lands in few pockets (shareholders - already very rich people how do not increase their spending because they already have more than they can spedn. The money lands on (offshore) accounts and sits there idly).
If the regular citizens get to keep more of that money - single payer IS much, much more cost- efficent, and if the spent money goes to the wages of those who acutally deliver the care, of course the economy will do better. There will be more disposable income.
No more economically DISRUPTIVE bankrupcies over Medical Bills.
Plus the economic advantages when people get the right care in time and things do not get unnecessarily bad (and more costly) because of delayed treatment. Treatment in the E.R. is also very expensive, so when uninsured or underinsured people finally show up in desperation, the ONE time treatment costs too much, regular treatment is not delivered by E.R. and despite the higher costs those patients risk not having a good recovery.
A healthy workforce is essential for a good economy, for stable families (where people are able to take care of each other). Consider the financial and other ! costs if a parent becomes mentally ill (being hit by schizophrenia or depression) and cannot get treatment. It is bad enough, when there is treatment provided, but when untreated expect even more harm - especially to the children of that unfortunate family.
The average for WEALTHY countries is around 8 - 9 % of GDP - see World Bank, healthcare expenditures of nations, 2014. Scroll down, I think they do not only have the per capita expenditures (the U.S. 9,200 vs. the average wealthy European country or Canada 5,000 - 5,500 USD), if I remember correctly they also have the GDP percentages there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Financial regulation, Green New Deal, and ending the regime change wars is important (and will have powerful enemies as well). But the most TANGIBLE MESS for all voters is HEALTHCARE (then comes debt incl. student loan debt). Healthcare affects right wingers as well, and it is also pretty complicated (to sort the mess out). A president that solves that problem and proves he or she is a fighter on behalf of the people could also ask the masses for support for other projects.
FDR did it like that. He had to strongarm politicians within the party. First he sorted out the banking system. 5 days banking holiday to find out which banks could survive and which not - and national bank run was looming at that time, no idea why the outgoing admin did nothing. They had legislation ready (1933 was the last time the president was sworn in beginning of March, so almost 4 months to develop it since the election).
Democrats had Congress and Senate and passed legislation quickly, on Sunday night he explained deposit insurace to the nation on the radio. 60 millions of a population of 90 million listened.
That worked out well, trust was restored. In the next weeks the population brought the savings back to the banks.
Then he started to push for relief measures and got resistance from WITHIN. Democrats had majorities in both houses and I think by a wide margin). But like today most elected representatives were at least affluent - then it was even more unusual that a person with a poor background would get an eductation / make a political career. Many could easily resign themselves to the misery of the masses. The unwashed masses would have to suck it up, and they and their circles were doing fine after all.
FDR had to strongarm some, the narrative is that he threatened that he would campaign against some so they would lose their seat if they did not go along. They fell in line, the first measures were TANGIBLE improvements in the life of people - which gave FDR even more leverage.
1
-
the solution: a single payer system will stop to prop up the profits of big pharma and the private insurers. Then Medicare will be better funded and tehy will not have to ask the patients for those high premiums !
the U.S. spends 10,240 USD for every child / adult in the country (even if healthy or w/o insurance, it is an average of all that is spent no matter who pays for it divided by ALL the people).
And I heard that 60 % of all spending already comes from the government (that was a former medicare CEO). In other words approx 6,600 USD per person in subsidies (Medicare is also getting a lot of subsidies it is not only the wage deductions and what the insured have to pay extra).
In other wealthy countries the TOTAL average spending per person is in the range of 4,700 to 4,900 USD (Japan, BelgiumFrance, Canada, Australia) up to expensive Germany with 5,700.
The average is 5,250. And then there is the UK with only 4,250 per person - only 41 % of U.S. spending.
next time you hear that Canada has wait times or the NHS of the UK has inferior service (that can happen they are stretched to the limit, after 10 years of defunding). - the solution for that would be let them have HALF of the U.S. spending
In other words: these nations ALSO must generously subsidize healthcare, so that the individual wage or pension related deductions are very affordable, and almost no co-pays - - but their total spending per person is not as high as the U.S. SUBSIDIES per person.
The government pays LESS and the individuals and companies pay MUCH LESS in mandated income related contributions. Well, you would expect that when a service costs double of what it should cost. Plenty of lard.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Giving choice" to opt out = public option may seem like a little tweak - if you haven't done your homework and / or have fallen for the arguments of the lobbyists. No other wealthy country has the public option, there is a good reason why they all mandate to pay into the system (a very affordable payroll tax) and outlaw duplicative coverage. Which sets it up to nudge doctors to accept the contract of the insurance agency and for patients to use the same facilities as all patients (and to not retreat in exclusive facilities)
No duplicative insurance coverage: So the only way a doctor refusing to work with Medicare (and their rates) can offers services that would be covered under M4A is to ask for payment out of pocket. The patients cannot come with a private insurance plan - no insurance company CAN offer such coverage.
M4A coverage would be comprehesive, incl. basic dental - so the only field left for private insurance companies would be extras that are not medically necessary: expensive dental, extended psychotherapy, accupuncture, ...
No duplicative coverage almost excludes treatments with high costs (often surgery) - Out of pocket would be for services of specialists liky eye doctors, dentists, OBI-GYNs, ....
So only a small number of doctors 10 - 20 % could afford to refuse the contract of M4A - they NEED the patients. And they cannot get enough patients (outside of wealthy areas) if the patients have to pay out of pocket. Especially not if the public services free at the point of delivery are properly funded - and therefore good.
Even with the appointments / treatments that are not that expensive - it is in general a deterrent for doctors (chasing after the payments, not enough patients). And the agency does not accept half participation. if you have capacity in your practice you MUST accept patients under M4A if you want the contract to have the large volume of patients.
Patients would pay out of pocket on a case to case basis. That is very tangible - they will have a strong incentive to USE the services that all use, after all they are forced to pay for M4A (in form of payroll tax) - so they can as well use the services free at the point of delivery.
Which will be good IF the system has the SINCERE support of all political parties: enough funding, NOT making things intentionally byzantine, and also willing to straighten out flaws.
Modern medicine is expensive anyway and the population is ageing. So the incentive to use resources prudently is strong. The tempation to cut funding is counteracted by having the affluent use the same facilities and not offering them a chance to retreat into the equivalent of gated communities.
Giving the affluent a strong systemic incentive to use the same facilities is excellent political strategy to protect the system from the special interests and from disingenuous politicians. Protection over the decades.
That way no party (pandering to the affluent and business interests) can make hay from underfunding and villifying the public coverage. The mandatory payroll taxes MUST be affordable (usually also for the wealthy, caps are common) so the rest of the funding comes from government (in total single payer countries pay much less per person than in the U.S. aroud 50 %)
So it may be that the very wealthy pay more (in form of other taxes) than they profit (even considering the cost savings of a streamlined system). Well at least they SEE their tax dollars put to good use. The explicit payroll tax for them is not that high (usually there is a cap at a certain wage).
If they own a company: If they are not (yet) profitable they pay only payroll tax per employee to fund healthcare. Staff will have the same good coverage like everybody else - incl. staff from large and very profitable companies.
So the wealthy and upper class people resist the system less when they have to help fund it. Not even very neoliberal or far right parties openly attack the system. The mandate and no opting out is the simple but highly effective mechanism, that has been protecting the system from attacks - all of the population and all political parties have skin in the game.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
But if Sanders wins Iowa with an eclat it will undermine the credibility of the TV shills even more. Some people will remember. Once you realize that it is intentional and that they not only clueless sometimes, that it is propaganda - there is no turning back.
The networks cannot win back the trust of those viewers. It adds up: WMD lies, the wars that were started in 2001 / 2003 - and still not settled. The great Financial Crisis.
corporate media had for decades a cozy arrangement with BOTH parties that they would never have a factual, reasonable discussion about healthcare in the U.S. or a fact-based informative comparsion with all other countries - and Sanders with help of the internet (media outlets) has changed that.
The level of debate is still abyssmal - but now they cannot control the flow of information. Even the fearmongering does not convince the viewers.
They got Sanders wrong in 2015, 2016 - and they did not see the win of Trump coming.
The citizens at large cannot be bothered to be interested in impeachment. They lost the audience on that.
They had a media blackout on Sanders towards the end of 2019, only in January they could not ignore the polls anymore. So they prepared the viewers that he might do well.
If he kills it in Feb. - while being stuck in D.C. for impeachment - for consumers of mainstream news it must be a surprise.
How come they talked about all other candidates - and now Sanders is a thing in 2020 (again ! after 2016)
No one tells viewers of mainstream media of the unprecedented army of volunteers, (they talk about it, but do not really point out how strong it is). Or about the new strategies. Or how paid staff leverages volunteer capatains who leverage groups of volunteers (with the help of barnstorm events, the BERN app, etc.).
It would have been an interesting story just under the "horse race" aspect. But Corporate media chose to not cover that.
Nor did they tell viewers that candidates with an affluent middle age or older base are likely realistically captured by the polls. But that candidates that activate unlikely voters (young, low income, minorities) will likely outperform the polls.
Since they like to cite polls all the time, wouldn't that be an interesting insight for their viewers ? Iit is hard for pollsters to get it right, if a candidate changes WHO will turn out. The polls for AOC were completely OFF, she increased turnout by 68 % in the primary agains Joe Crowley.
Which was good, I think she was 10 or 15 % behind in the polls 1 week before the primary - and she won comfortably with 9 % margin (something like that). If Crowley had realized how much he was in trouble, he would have activated the New York Democratic party and union machine against her.
1
-
1
-
1
-
In reality many of the millions are locked up for relatively harmless non-violent crimes. With a good lawyer many of them would not even be there. - and the voting does not change that the (harmful) people are locked away from society. Plus: they vote for parties and candidates that are legitimate and non-criminal (well, at least in theory).
The Boston bomber in 2016 could have voted for Clinton, Trump, Stein or Johnson for instance.
Big deal ! 250 million people have the vote, 139 millions used it - the few really vile criminals will not make a dent.
But of course at the local level the prisoners might be able to get better conditions. There are whole communities that make a living of the incarcerated.
I remember seeing a video where a prison in Texas was overheating. The prisoners were crying for help. were they all "vile" criminals. Were some locked up for minor violations (and a less unequal, violent, vindicative, selfrighteous society would not have locked them up in the first place ?)
prisoners are dehumanized. Then they can be abused for cheap labor and are at the mercy of the officers.
I think it was Reagan that made closed institutions for mentally ill people (JFK considered to do something for that segment, but never came around to it).
If you are mentally ill and sometime erratic and poor and/or w/o loving family it is VERY easy to land yourself in prison.
The poor ! mentally ill in the U.S. are indeed KEPT in the prisons - in other societies there are offers like homes, hospitals, supervised open living, etc.
There was the mentally ill man that annoyed the wards. a usual punishment for "not cooperating" was to expose prisoners to hot showers. They did that for 1 hour, did not check on him inside, and let him yell for help. Although he cried for mercy and promised he would be "good".
That man probably was not able to control his temper (let's assume he even did give the wards trouble). In any just society he might not have been in prison to begin with.
The temperature was so hot that he died, his skin was blistered. they boilded him alive - literally tortured him to death.
Needless to say no one was prosecuted for that.
Maybe if the prisoneres could vote in a mayor or city council that made sure some basic human decency was observed, there would not be cruel and unusual punishment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I would advise progressives to reference FDR style economic policies - that might be more relateable to white blue collars. FDR was a decisive leader and not afraid to go into unchartered territory regarding economics.
Mainstream economics * had gotten the country into a complete mess and did not help with recovery after 1929 either - so FDR had the intellectual fortitude to DARE to listen to new economic concepts and to try out new things.
* laissez faire capitalism, deregulation, suppression of wages. Productivitiy (industrial production, more automation) rose after WW1, but the ruling class then had once more succeded in crushing the unions. So the ever increasing industrial output did not meet more disposable income of the consumers = wages.
This was one of the incentives for the haves to throw money at speculation. Investing in production did not bring profits - the masses did not have the increasing wages to keep up with increasing output. And consumer debt (which helped the U.S. to "cope" with the same problem after the 1970s) had not yet been invented.
There were no productive ways to invest all the money (which landed on the accounts of the rich mostly) - only unproductive and unsustainable ones = speculation. Until the bubble burst in 1929.
FDR's motto
"Let's implement programs quickly, if they do not work out as intended we can always tweak them or give them up, but let's DO something."
And of course all these programs were reversible - not like going to war. so it was a strategy of "Implement, monitor, report, improve or discard. Rinse and repeat."
he was not ideological about it.
Willing to listen to people that contradicted the economic generic "wisdom" - like austerity.
FDR might have had a racist streak, or he sold out in that respect to keep the support of the Democrats of the South - not sure about that. On the other hand he could win the loyalty of a woman like Eleanor ... so ...
FDR listened to John Meynard Keynes and also strong left U.S.. movements (unions, socialist parties) that were at large in the U.S. then.
The smart ones among the oligarchs and the rich knew that FDR was the moderate left solution. It would be him - or the pitchforks and/or the far left. (The Russian revolution was in 1917).
After 1929, especially in 1932 the unions and left leaning movements had made a spectacular comeback. (There were the Socialist Farmers of Kansas to give you an idea).
The minimum wage was legally challenged (Supreme Court). Well FDR had ideas (threats) of "packing" the Supreme Court. I think it was the idea to have more judges - and of course HE would appoint them. And he likely had the majorities to get them confirmed.
Of course furious Republican rich industrial leaders and Bankers (the top of the top) did not like THEIR higher taxes and the minimum wages - so they were restricted in exploiting people looking desperately for work.
There were new and strict regulations on finance.
They looked with envy to Europe - many countries there were going the fascist and rightwing route in the 1930s. They tried to have a coup in 1934 to install a fascist dictatorship in the U.S. as weell - maybe with FDR as figurehead (didn't go anywhere, they asked the wrong man, General Smedley Butler).
The most incredible thing about FDR - he not only made campaign promises - he actually (and cleverly) FOUGHT to have them implemented. And did NOT sell out to the Banksters and did not mind their hostility - "I welcome their hatred."
(I am looking at your Barack Obama ! - had a mandated like FDR sold out to Wallstreet on the campaign trail in 2008, talked a good game. And then it was an exercise of protecting the Big Donors)
After 1933 FDR's fight for policies for the relief of the masses included twisting the arms of some Democratic "representatives" so they would vote for his unheard of proposals.
He started the presidency with a looming general bank run - they shut down all banks for 5 days. In a population of then 90 millions, 60 million people listened on late Sunday evening to his first fireside chat as president.
This was a a radio format he used from time to time to inform the country - thus circumventing the gatekeepers of the press - in Republican hands, and the radio stations - also more Republican leaning.
The banks would be opened next morning, deposit insurance had been passed as a law. They had sorted out the banks - respectively created an environment where struggling banks could improve their situation - and if that did not work out - the saving accounts would be guaranteed.
That banking holiday and reset restored public trust in the system and the banks got MORE savings in the upcoming months.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sanders also does not fundraise, may be one reason he is an Independent, after the convention he immediately left the Democratic party which he had joined for the primaries.He gives support as HE sees fit by holding rallies, maybe he is willing to send out a mail on behalf of a candidate asking for funds (his people organize that, the DNC does not get the mail list).
AOC can run as Independent next time if she continues to build her profile. She is no lawyer and needs the help of others to form the agenda into a legal text anyway. Usually the lobbyists give them the texts - well that is not an option if working For The People.
There are already enough bills and laws. Voting against bills can be as important as creating MORE of them. Most do not help the people anyway.
She can give the insider info, alert the voters of what is going on while they do not pay attention.
With the attempted ACA repeal it came down to TWO dissenting votes ! She could have talked in 2009 about how in the Senate hearing only the industry was invited, not the nurses, no experts on single payer. Obama got a pass for being first black president, for hope and change, and because the racists attacked him.
Sanders was the one vote that gave the Dems the majority in the Senate !
The "Freedom caucus" = the Tea party wing forced the Republicans to shut the government down, literally.
AOC can get a lot done as part of a progressive caucus (they have one - but in name only). About time MORE progressives come in. And she can make the other shills make look really bad.
In short she will not get bills introduced or passed BUT she can be part of the minority opposition that annoys the heck out of the establishment. That too is an incredibly important role. So if the Dems - again - show a willingness to use SS as bargaining chip to placate the Republicans and to do the bidding of the Big Donors (which finance both parties) AOC can scream it from the roof tops. Which in turn puts some pressure on the Black and the so called Progressive Caucus.
We have the video clips of Sanders being the lone voice of dissent (literllay almost all seats are empty). No one thought these C-span recordings would be watched later.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+ Novusod I think it was a political project for her, something that would benefit the reputation of her husband and build her brand. Nothing wrong with that - although real passion for the cause would carry you farther (especially when there is stiff oppostion) and might achieve a better deal for the little people. She and Bill came from the tradition of working with the insiders, the "machine". Making deals, talking to powerful people. Maybe to get things FOR the unwashed masses, but not to achieve it WITH the plebs. I think she did at least some speaking events, maybe a tour. (and she had the assistance of Sanders then, who was in Congress).
Now, the powerful special interests were not about to roll over meekly. They attacked her - unfairly - and pandered to sexism of course. Everything they thought that could distract from the message and undermine her credibility or sympathy with the public.
And the media gladly assisted by not having a substantiated debate. And in the 90s it was much harder to circumvent them. Well I guess Clinton could have made her own Radio show, and build public support over time - that would have been the strategy of someone with a passion for the cause, willing to play the long game (as opposed to go for some seemingly low hanging fruits and pull off a politcal win).
She is ambitious, so I guess the defeat hurt - but that is nothing compared to the harm done to the voters. Empathy and passion could have given her the energy to pursue that topic longer. - That alone would have secured her the presidency in 2016.
She got defeated, pulled off some programs for kids (at least that) - moved on and never looked back. She and Bill continued to be powerful figures in the party - but they did not touch the issue anymore.
"This country will never, ever have universal healthcare ! "
Clinton in 2016 when the concept became more and more popular and KNOWN.
She said that with a lot of emphasis, almost in a triumphant manner. (Expressing regret or worry that the U.S. might not be ready for what the rest of the wealthy countries have, would have sounded differently).
Maybe it was the frustration that Sanders stole her thunder all the time - that he had the issues that really interested and moved people - and which forced her to react to it or to amend her message.
And maybe envy that HE could be able to pull off where she was defeated in the 90s.
Considering the tone and the body language of that "outburst" - this was about her and her bruised ego - never mind the people who are worried, desperate, lost loved one due to lack of coverage or timely treatment.
It was not the statement of a person who really, really wants their fellow citizens to enjoy the benefits of good healthcare like the citizens of all other wealthy nations.
1
-
1
-
A traditional responsible parent (stay at home mum) would watch what the kids are eating and offer healthy meals (homecooked). Now that family and lifestyle model does no function anymore. Kids stay a major part of their day away from home, and eat the food they get there. And let's get real: junk food and sweets etc. DO HAVE APPEAL*. If not, there would be no need for responsible parents to watch the food choices of their kids. - So that dumb Fox speaker a) states that many people do "take" unhealthy "choices" like donuts and b) HOW DARE Michelle Obama infringe on the "freedom" of immature kids to eat unhealthy stuff (because if the healthy food is all that is available, there is a better chance kids will end up eating THAT instead of the unhealthy stuff. The effect could be even better if the kids have cooking classes.)
I saw this video of a Canadian doctor: It's Definitely Not "Just One", And You Can't "Just Say No" on YouTube
How Big Food (Nestle, Coca Cola, ....) bought their way into school activities. "Our kids cannot as much as bend a grass blade on the sports ground without being "rewarded" with some prize they provide, like a pizza, or a burger + some softdrink, some sweets, .... We train them that rewards come in the form of unhealthy food.
Kids go to the movies to see "Frozen" at 9.00 a.m. in the morning and the parents are asked if they want to take "advantage" of the special offer (something unhealthy, very sugary). in what position does that the parents put who DENY their kids that extra junk food.
As he said: "My daugther was excited to go to the movies INSTEAD of class, there was no extra incentive needed" and also "We do eat snacks and fast food etc. - but it should not be presented as the only incentive, it should be the exception, not the rule - and you should have to go out of your way to get the stuff. Right now it is the other way round: Companies with the help of trusted teachers bombard the kids with the unhealthy stuff and kids and parents have to go out of their way to get the healthy stuff.
The food industry co-opts the schools, charity fund raising for children hospitals, even JUVENILE diabetes is supported by selling cookies at retail stores. They sponsor reading incentives, school sports events.
They have their lobbyists quite openly at the board of official committees which decide about guidelines for nutritions.
It is very CHEAP PR for them, trusted persons of authority help them (for a little contribution to the school budget) to make impressionable kids customers for life.
And if that is going on in Canada it is likely worse in the U.S.
And then we BLAME the population for eating unhealthy. There is a biological allure of fat and sweet food, that can be consumed without chewing it properly (and without the fibre content). And the industry does everything to promote that over healthy choices. Such food is the easiest anti-stress measure people can take to unwind (exercise would be healthier but needs more INITIAL effort and of course more time).
It is not that we make bad food choices, we live in a weird food environment that makes it very hard to resist. We have it hard to stay and eat healthy despite the coordinated efforts of industry and government to the opposite effect.
Another thing that doctor said: "We try to live and eat healthy, we object to many things that most teachers and parents seem to accept without thinking much about it." (like the constant sponsoring using unhealthy sugary food)
And that makes US almost the weird ones. It should be the other way round.
sometimes you do not want your child to be the outsider (with the "weird" food, while everyone else has the widely accepted unhealthy snacks and fast food).
There are only so many Nos a parent has, they are a powerful tool, we should not be forced to waste them on the unhealthy food temptations that constantly surround us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A fail-proof way to make sure no one can vote more than once etc. and that people are registered automatically at age 18 and that dead people are removed all of that would make voting EASIER for citizens. And a RIGHT to vote would also have ramifications for spending (so no broken outdated voting macheins to the poor areas. When they malfunction it only keeps poor people waiting for hours - that is another excellent way to suppress the vote.
And it is hard to PROVE the criminal energy behind it. Having the right to a technically functioning election system (best case - paper ballot, and hand count, that is very ROBUST and unhackable technolgy) would make voting easier. or that election day would be a holiday.
(so again no PRETEXT for purges, when there is a nation wide SYSTEM in place).
Voters are purged (in Republican states) simply because someone did not vote for some time. Even if the person did not check out, and moved, and registered elsewhere and votes there - so WHAT ?
In the times of computers it does not matter if the lists are longer. The only problem would be if people would vote in one place and then at the place where they used to live. WHO is going to do that - out of 250 million that do have the vote ??
Of course assigning an unique number to each and every person would easily SOLVE that issue (and again deprive the Republicans of a pretext to get millions of people with ethnic names on a purge list.
See Crosscheck 2016. A Robert Brown voted in more than one state in the same election. That must have been someone voting double, no chance that there could be more than one Robert Brown in the U.S. And of course they did not include middle name, SS number or birth date into the comparsion. Because then it could become VERY obvious that these were different people.
An unique number would put an end to such criminal efforts to steal the vote from citizens. Then they could make sure immediately if someone is registered double, if a purge was done it could be done according to where did the person VOTE in the LAST 2 elections. (I mean they could run the numbers after each election, not problem in the age of high performance computers and fast processors).
Tiffany Trump and some admin members still had old registrations. That does not mean of course that they voted double, they just did not check out, when they moved.
State governments before purging inactive voters have to pay lip service to the law: they send out very bland cards with warnings to inactive voters that they would be purged under the assumption that they had moved or were dead. The DESIGN of these mass mails was to be inconspicuous. So there was a good chance they would be overlooked by the citizens as irrelevant advertisement.
Then the voters would not respond and - hooray would find themselvea hindered to vote on election day. Needless to say these are the same states that do not have same day registration (it would undo the whole point of kicking SOME demographics off the voter rolls).
That of course would be very much disliked by Republicans - it would rob them of any pretext to do voter roll purges.
Republicans steal elections, Democrats do voter roll purges in primaries - Greg Palast. That explains btw also why they were yelling Russian interference but could not be bothered to do anything about hackable voting machines or Ohio were the safety features have never been acitvated. In case of a progressive "emergency" it would be good to have those tools of voter suppression. After all the Big Donors FINANCE the Democratic politicians so that they keep the progressives down. For that they must win primaries - but not necessarily the GE.
1
-
imagine the stubborn, childish, selfish people that make that worse, the U.S. could have been out of the woods since early summer, because it has enough vaccines and had them very early. If everyone that can get vaccinated would do so, it would be much, much better. They would have some breakthrough cases in the hospital, same close monitoring, oxygen to help them out (which is not intensive care, they can do that even at home or at care homes), after 5 - 7 days they are released, no ICU necessary.
Even with Delta - the vaccinated are not as good spreaders. Delta can somewhat undermine immunity but it might have run its course w/o the many willfully unvaccinated. 30 - 40 % of the people over 12 vaccinated is just not enough to stop the infection chains for a highly contagios disease.
I get concerns about teenagers - but all the better vaccination morale of adults has to be.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Hill article was a right-wing hit piece. Info about the author: Kristin Tate is a libertarian writer and author of “How Do I Tax Thee? A Field Guide to the Great American Rip-Off.” - she even included the silly trope "he was kicked out of a hippie commune for being lazy". Nope: the allegations are that he interviewed members of a farm commune and the "leadership" did not like it, thinking he kept them from doing their work.
Let's assume that that is even true - it was not HIM that was lazy.
And no one who watched the Senator kicking into townhall mode again right after the election Nov. 2016 - at his age no less - can accuse him of being lazy.
well he is not going after the Big Donors, in that resepct he is guilty of all charges. But he may compensate that by THINKING himself about proposals, or meeting with constituents.
He was certainly not good coporate, cubicle 9 - 5 employee material, but that does not make him lazy. On the contrary he showed remarkable committment to his political visions and the principle to not take money from Big Corpoarate donors. The many races in the 1970s looked like a fools errand and the race for mayor of Burlington in 1980 was a long shot as well.
As for being diligent: he has a reputation as amendment king (he and his staff are not getting the finished drafts from the lobbyists of the special interests. Which usually also tell the politicians what talking points to use, it is a little bit more work for him ! He must form an opinion and do the homework !)
That may explain why Sasha Baron Cohen could fool Republican lawmakers so easily. Those fools never think for themselves, the party leadership and the lobbyists tell them what to do and how to vote, and provide the drafts. And the think tank tell them with what soundbites to defend their positions.
Of course they fell for the alleged former IDF / Mossad member that offered firearms for toddlers. They likely hoped for some donations along the way (gun industry, military connections, Aipac).
1
-
1
-
1
-
I know MMT - and Sanders explaining how he would use it, would be a really bad idea. For a start he is less convinced than the two of us. But even if: it is impossible to discuss it reasonably. I currently live in a single payer system. One has to look from the outside to realize how abyssmally bad the discussion about healthcare is. And there IS a blueprint: 4 continents, 70 years, many countries, cultures, lifestely risks, average age of population. The overwhelming majority of these countries (all doing their own thing but observing some crucial principles) spend between 49 - 54 % of what the U.s. is spending per person.
One would think there would be a lively debate whether to follow the French, Canadian modell - or rather that of Sweden or Japan ?
If not even with that overwhelming evidence a rational debate is to be had - there is a snowball's chance in hell that MMT can be discussed fairly.
They would just use it to smear him, and he is smarter than deliver them ammunition. (see Jeremy Corbyn when he ran in 2015 for leader of Labour. There is no magic money tree. A search with Yvette Cooper, Jeremy corbyn, leadership debate 2015 Magic Money Tree should get you the clip.
cooper is a neoliberal within Labour (so technically she should be for the little people), big finance trained her on the talking points. And that would be the friendly reception.
It is necessary to make things SIMPLE. Or the voters will be overwhelmed. I also am worried about Sanders now introducing a plan for childcare. Not that it is a bad idea. BUT: people have been brainwashed into accepting that they can't have nice things, or good public services. Not even healthcare like in every other developed country.
If (older or middle aged) voters are really bold, if they can be lured into hoping then they will be able to envision that M4A could be possible. But there is not point in overwhelming them with the good things. In sales there is an insight to not overwhelm the clients with the advantages of your product. That can backfire. At some point there is a scepticism in the line of: if it sound to good to be true it probably is.
I think Labour made that mistake as well: they had bold plans in 2019, that would have cost, and they made sense. but it was not as coherent as the 2017 election, it did not compensate for other mistakes, it gave ammunition to the other side (promising the moon, completely unrealistic, unable to run a country they are dreamers etc).
Sanders knows the concept of MMT (Dr. Stephanie Kelton 2016 campaign), he is not very convinced.
I think he will need to use it. AFTER the election, no need to make it an election issue. But of course once he is in office he can apply it - if possible via the FED and w/o Congress. Using in in several regions, areas, cities as an example and to shut up the naysayers and then roll it out. (Public housing comes to mind, and of course GND investments, at least partially). Once some states get something of that, the others will be eager to get it too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Massive MASSIVE economic help (which would not be more expensive than the occupation), strentghening of the civilian structures, in order to control at least in the more populated areas. And retreat after 10 years or so (the U.S. could be there if they had acted wisely). - Building streets (in Afghanistan the tribes in the mountains do their own thing - it has always been like that).
Only when the remote areas interact more economically they will also become safer and the authority of a modern government will have more influence.
An underground army (Taliban, or whoever) cannot exist when there is no support of the local civilians (they usually have at least an idea where they are hiding, on which moutain paths they are getting the smuggled ammunition and weapons.
Stop the drug trade (it is said that the brother of the president is a big number in the drug trade, and also that the CIA earns some secret budgets in Afghanistan). Pay the farmers in the remote areas a much better price for their crops (the Taliban did that to stop the growing of poppies). Then they will have no reason to help with smuggling or joining the militants.
There are only a finite numbers of weapons manufacturerers. The CIA and NSA could start spying on them. And on the supply of equipment in "third states". firearms, etc. could get an unique number - a number that is publicly available. So it would be clear which weapons had been sold, traded, manufactured where.
And the West would need to play nice with China, Russia, India, Brazil so they do not try to deliver THEIR weapons to Afghanistan or whereever.
Of course that is not going to happen: the short term profit of the weapons industry is above all considerations of foreign policy and what would be good for the wealthy countries in the long run (meaning the REGULAR CITIZENS).
It seems the Taliban were WILLING to surrender and to have some peace agreement (they have procedures for that in the tribal culture of Afghanistan). The U.S. did not want to negotiate, to have peace (they also completely ingnored the peaceful resistance against the Taliban - the Revolutionary Women of Afghanistan for instance). When the Taliban noticed that they would go after them even if they DID return into civilian life, they returned to the weapons.
also the U.S. started throwing a lot of money around in Afghanistan. If someone would betray a "Taliban" huge amounts of money would be paid. Guess what: old tribal bills were settled. The Taliban in Gitmo were almost amused when also their former enemies showed up in the camp. One alleged Taliban was handed over to the U.S. forced for secret extradition. His family retaliated - whoever they though was the traitor, etc. etc. And that is not even considering folks of gangs who just saw an excellent occasion to have the U.S deal with a personal or business opponent. And the U.S. paid well: 30k, 50k if the kidnapped person was allegedly important, maybe even 100k.
Afghanistan has not had peace since the 1980s. You can imagine that it was already a dog eats dog society.
Now imagine getting such huge sums of money for selling other people out ? (And of course even only 30k in USD buy much more in Afghanistan than in the U.S. - Did I mention it is a very tribal society ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Transcipt 2 of 3 - please upvote I want to get two more of his arguments. He continues by saying pro-abortion extremists get away with their rhetoric because they use euphemistic language to describe what abortion is. Now first and foremost think about the language he's using to reframe the debate itself.
He's saying that people who support abortion are not pro-choice, they're pro-abortion and I'm not just arguing based on semantics. Framing really matters and it's something that Republicans do all the time in order to win over support for their right-wing policies.
What he's doing is: he wants you to thank people in support of safe and legal abortions are - as he describes it - pro abortion, pro baby killing, as they would argue.
9:32 But let me ask you this Ben: 57 percent of Americans support safe and legal abortions. D you honestly believe that a majority of the country is pro murder of babies ? Do you honestly think that they don't have a nuanced view on this issue ? Maybe these people actually support legal abortions, because they realize that banning abortion won't necessarily reduce the number of abortions that women have. It would just increase the number of unsafe illegal abortions that they have.
Also if you really care about reducing the number of abortions, he can use his platform to actually fight the number of abortions that are being had. He could influence lawmakers like Donald Trump to support contraception. Expanding access to contraception. But instead individuals like Ben Shapiro and right-wingers - they don't want to expand access to contraception which is the one thing that actually would reduce abortions.
So I don't even believe that individuals like Steve King or Ben Shapiro are genuinely believing the bullshit they espouse on this. Because if they did, they would be doing things. They would be promoting policies that would restrict abortions - or not necessarily restrict abortions but limit the number of abortions.
If you want to stop abortion or limit abortions you advocate for contraception. But they don't want to do that, which tells you that they're not truly looking to limit the number of abortions. And it's because people like Ben Shapiro they're propagandists, they have an agenda. He shows you images of fetuses to tug at your heartstrings.
Once he establishes that there's human-like qualities here, he then establishes the precise point where life begins. Once he gets you there he says life begins at fertilization. He even makes the point that if we found a human embryo on another planet headlines would rightly scream "Human Life Found On Mars."
Now, think of how odd that argument is: because if we found any life on Mars - we would be over the moon if we found a flower on Mars. We would all collectively lose our minds if we found a gnat flying around on Mars. It would be absolutely a huge discovery. But does that mean that that wouldn't stop Ben Shapiro from swatting those motherfuckers away from his face or out of his food on earth ? Of course not !
So he's trying to make a value judgment in a really strange and quite frankly counterintuitive way.
12:04 Eventually he gets to the point in this segment where he just drops all the innuendo and he just outright says what he thinks. He says abortion is the killing of this human life. The later the abortion takes place the more brutal the procedure. So if aborting a 12 week old fetus is brutal, but killing a 20-week old fetus is even more brutal, than fully developed human beings and children must be the ultimate sin when they're killed for Ben Shapiro. As they not only feel pain unlike fetuses before 20 weeks but they're actually aware of their existence and want to live.
So I'm assuming that Ben Shapiro cares the most about children and adults, right ? Seeing that he has repeatedly referred to himself as someone whose quote pro-life. So when you actually accept the Ben Shapiro's argument and you take it to the next logical conclusion, you make that jump, then clearly if aborting a fetus is awful, then killing a fully formed adult or child has got to be the worst thing imaginable.
It's got to be at the top of Ben Shapiro's priorities. So I take it he speaks out against war all the time, right ? If he's pro-life like he claims he is, then he's not gonna pick and choose. He's gonna be consistently pro-life and speak out in favor of all lives that are lost unnecessarily and arbitrarily, right ?
Well, let's look at a particular war. Let's just look at Afghanistan for argument's sake the number of civilian casualties that resulted directly or indirectly from the Afghanistan war was anywhere between 100,000 and 350,000 lives. Did Ben Shapiro scream at the top of his lungs that this is unacceptable, this is murder ?
Actually no. This is what pro-life Ben Shapiro said about the Afghanistan war, quote:
"Enemy civilian casualties ? okay by me." and here's what he says specifically: "I'm getting really sick of people who whine about civilian casualties. Maybe I'm a hard-hearted guy, but when I see in the newspapers that civilians in Afghanistan or the West Bank were killed by American or Israeli troops, I don't really care. In fact I would rather that the good guys use the Air Force to kill the bad guys even if that means some civilians get killed along the way. One American soldier is worth far more than an Afghan civilian."
This is the guy who tries to given us that he's pro-life. Ben Shapiro does not give a flying fuck about life. The only reason why he is against abortion is because he knows that this is a wedge issue that consistently keeps Evangelicals loyal to the Republican party. In seeing that he's a Republican party propagandist, then he's going to really try to hit home the point that abortion is murder.
Abortion is murder and murder is bad. But if murder is bad then why doesn't he care ? He literally said he doesn't care about civilian casualties. In fact the title of his article says: "Civilian casualties are okay by me" that's the guy who we're supposed to believe cares about life.
15:26 What is Ben Shapiro's say about the bomb that we gave to Saudi Arabia that hit a school bus and killed children in Yemen. What did he say about that ? Is that not an abomination to individuals like Steve King or Ben Shapiro ?
Now, look I know we're gonna say that article was published in 2002 but it's still up on Town Hall's website. He hasn't taken it down and he is still writing articles for Town Hall. He writes these opinion pieces and you'd think that if he moved away from that position and wanted to repudiate that view, that he would delete that article but it's still up. It's still getting clicks.
He doesn't care about life, he's not pro-life. When you call individuals like Ben Shapiro and Steve King pro-life then you are buying into their propagandist framing because people who are pro war cannot be pro-life. Being pro war and unapologetically in support of wars like Afghanistan, Iraq that's antithetical to being pro-life.
People like Ben Shapiro and Steve King don't care about life at all once life is born. They don't care about giving that life dignity or civil rights or civil liberties. They don't care if that life dies in wars. They don't care: These are not individuals who are pro-life. Calling them pro-life is the biggest joke ever.
Now, if you actually are one of the few individuals in the country that is consistent on this issue and you still are personally morally against abortion but you're also equally if not more outraged about war then I feel you, that's fine, I actually can respect that position. There can be disagreement on this issue and as I stated: People who are pro-choice some of them actually are morally against abortion, but they actually put facts of her feelings and they know that banning abortion wouldn't necessarily achieve their goal of limiting abortions.
Earlier this year I covered the so-called March for life where a bunch of right-wing evangelical Republicans supposedly marched for life and really this was just an anti-abortion protest. They didn't march to end wars, they marched to stop abortion.
1
-
1
-
I think the Establishment Democrats (and the people that FINANCE them) recognize menawhile that they cannot reign in Sanders or use him as a mascot - like they could contain Howard Dean for instance. Dean got some financial rewards and fell in line. - If Sanders would run as independent for 2020 - not even waisting time and money in a Democratic primary - he is likely to win the presidency. The 30,000 people events of 2016 are nothing - I think he could scare the shit out of Dems and Reps with events with 50,000 people or even more.
And he would for sure take away enough votes from the Dems that THEY would lose, and lose massively. That matters: the donors want weak Democrats, their role is to CONTAIN any Progressive movement , to keep them out of power. That used to work for decades. In 2016 they just about managed to avoid the catastrophe: the Sanders would be the nominee, and worse that he would win the presidency.
For that task - keeping the progressives down - the stream of money will remain intact no matter how the Dems will do at the ballots, except when they lose so catastrophically that they become obsolete for the Corporate interests. I guess they would then support a moderate Republican party or Libertarians.
As for now - the big shots (that make all of the party fall in line) will be taken care of, lost elections do not matter.
But if a LOT OF the lower ranks and generic representatives lose their seats, those disposable politicians (propped up with donor money when the party leadership gives them the nod) could end up with not being provided for (with cushy positions for ex-politicians).
They might come into a situation where it is better for them to vote for the interests of the people instead of being obedient to the party establishment - which are "bribed" by the donors to keep the rest of the party obedient.
Nina Turner is a rare case who seems to be confident that she will have a (political) future and who is CONTENT with a good but not excessive income. She works with The Real News now and apppears on a regular base (and I think she works for a Sanders asscoiated organization - fair enough she attracted the hostility of the Dems for supporting Sanders).
But I think she could make it back to politics and TRN gives her an additional platform and raises her profile (I recommend The Real News btw, also Larry Wilkerson for foreign policy and military issues).
Same with Sanders: A Senator has well over 100k per year (130 or something) plus benefits like good healthcare and a retirement plan. They have extra costs of course (living in their state AND in D.C. which is an expensive city).
So if you are content with that PAY, if you like the job as politician, and if the voters have your back (Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard), and you can be pretty sure you will be reelected even without the Big Money - then you can represent the people and you can vote your conscience.
Watch a Tulsi Gabbard town hall meeting (they put one online, it was in spring 2017 when other politicians were harrassed at town halls over healthcare). Now that was a pleasant event for everyone.
So even if Progessives would narrowly lose - the genie is out of the bottle anyway. - These are hard times for the donors and their stooges.
So it looks like the Corporate Dems are failing at the most important role the DONORS have assigned to them - and if Sanders runs in 2020 that amounts to a CATASTROPHE - for THEM.
Republicans are even better for the Corporate world than the Corporate Dems - but they cannot influence a growing Progressive movement - the Progressives will not listen to the GOP anyway. So here the Democratic Party comes into play. Luring the Progressives in with paying lip service, talking a good game, keeping them busy in "unity commitees", and "controlled opposition" and "controlled protest" - like the Women's March. Or bully them to fall in line or scare them with "have you seen the other guy".
And when it comes to ACTUAL influence in the party to use the rules and the bureaucraZy against them - while the party establishment generously bends the rule as they see fit. They use every underhanded trick they can, and ROAR in fake rage about alleged transgressions of the Progressives.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The most important principle is GREED. I am not hyperbolic - maximum SHORT TERM profit (at all costs and be it human lifes) or the lowest price. It is encouraged to externalize COSTS and DAMAGES and make someone else pay for it (in money in health damage, future generations with climate change, the tax payer for a clean-up). - That is not a good driver to build a just society or a sustainable !!! economy on. Or to maintain peace.
It is profitable to exploit the fossil fuels that took millions of years to form. One could provide energy for a first world lifestyle, that would be a combination of saving energy with technology (costs for instance quality construction, insulation, more modest house sizes) people using a well set up mass transportation system.
Plus generating renewables (also more costs compared to plundering the foss fuels). But also JOBS and an increase in technology. and the U.S. would save on the military and war costs.
It is literally more profitable to squander the family silver, the heritage of mandkind. There will be a time when the next glaziation hits the globe (think hundred thousand years´,if humans still exist and have high technology the fossil fuels could help them to cope - that kind of climate change would come slowly.
The fossil fuels are a good raw material, but most is squandered with burning. for vehicles and energy generation that means an efficiency of under 25 % (the rest becomes heat and in most cases it cannot be used. They do that in Europe in power plants, if such heat can be used (heating and warm water for nearby settlements) the efficiency is driven up to over 60 %. Still not that good. and costs for technology and GOOD filters (the households have to be nearby)
There are physical limits to the efficieny of a combustion engine or a steam engine.
Capitalism is incapable to deal with the longterm necessity to change the business model - it would have been easy in the 1980s. or 1990s.
It will take massive government intervention. Again. (see 1929, 2008, ...)
the idea is that capitalsim has just to be "regulated" well. The incentives are strong, power and money accumulates - those who need to be restricted are in an excellent position to buy, bribe or intimidate the regulators. That is what happened in the past and now.
Capitalism started with the industrial revolution. They had plenty of time to became "tamed". Note that they showed ruthless behavior (like under the former systems of feudalism and slavery - mercantilims in some countries). It took a long time labor movement that was brutally oppressed, the conditions were horrible including for children. It took 2 World Wars to shake up the system enough for the upper class to give a few inches.
From the 1980s on they hit back and quite successfully.
btw the horrible conditions, the slavery on behalf of the almighty dollar still exists. They just do not exist IN the first world countries. people have not become more enlightened.
A system that PROMOTES greed and organizes the society around it (one driver of human nature but NOT the most important) will always have slaves and serfs - somewhere (Philippines, Bolivia ! not so long ago, Brazil, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, most African countries, India, ...)
1
-
The ruling class of Brazil, Boliva, Chile, Venezuela never tried to maintain the democracy / egality facade - they are more honest about their goals and their feeling of superiority. They hit back in recent years. Even though not one of the countries gave up on a mixed economy (many capitalists in the system) and not one strayed beyond what was done in the 1970s in Europe (nationalizing industries for instance in VZ - they had that in the UK or in Austria - after WW2).
Lula played nice with the rich of Brazil, and they benefitted from the booming economy, but the middle and upper class still resisted the ideas that the lower classes would show up in their malls and airports (finally able to afford that too). It got more expensive to hire a maid - they got other options. So the feudal order was disturbed.
(The white people in the South were also not doing poorly when they resisted minorities getting the vote in the 1960s - the economy is important but not the only source of fierce resentment).
Te U.S. capitalists are as pissed off that the poor were lifted out of poverty as the local oligarchs (when people get "uppity" and organize, they do not accept starvation wages and pollution or that foreign investors make the big bucks from their natural resources. also: Successful "socialism" could give the many poor in the U.S. bad ideas).
The U.S. and Latin American oligarchs can leverage the power of the CIA, the U.S. diplomacy and sanctions and U.S. military (open war).
See Smedley Butler War is a racket ...I was a gangster for capitalism.. Al Capone operated only in 3 districts I operated on 3 continents (regime change wars - he died before the end of WW2).
Koch brothers have interests in Venezueal, now Lithium in Bolivia, ....
Capitalism will always become crony - in the history of capitalism there was ONLY a 30 - 40 year period were the citizens had enough of the upper hand to make regulation work for them and ONLY in the developed nations. (1945 - early 1980 in the U.S., Europe was a little bit behind in the time line and the good times started later and lasted until the mid 1990s in Continental Europe (the "West"). The U.K. got neoliberalism and deindustrialization in the early 1980s with the U.S.
1
-
1
-
Where I live the employers and employees each pay 3,8 % of the gross wage (before deductions) with a cap (so in total the public non-profit insurance agency gets at the maximum appox 550 USD per month per employee). The rest of the budget for the public insurance ageny comes from government. That agency negotiates contracts with hospitals, doctors, pharma industry, ....
Every company no matter the size has to pay that. (Exception: monthly wage is below USD 580 approx - the typical student or mum stay at home job*).
And if you have 581 USD wage that means MANDATORY INSURANCE deductions - which give you full coverage (for the 44,16 USD you and the employer pay together per month ). Same treatment as people with a much higher wage, no unexpected costs later.
Contributions are according to the solidarity principle (stronger shoulders carry more weight) and free at the point of delivery
* one cannot live off that salary of 580 USD and usually those people have coverage elsewhere anyway - but they still have to contribute those 3,8 %. And for the employer there is no incentive to split a full employment to two 20 hour jobs for instance.
Coverage of dependents: students with parents, automatic coverage if you are jobless and searching for work or get inability pension, or for stay at home parents.
Students over 26 years have to get insurance extra, there are provisions BUT if you work a partime job that is over the minimum treshold you can get it cheaper that way.
I cannot imagine many scenarios where a person would have such a small wage and NOT be covered by other provisions anyway.
It was just an example for the solidarity idea behind the system.
The solidartiy and One Kind for AlL also makes the system very streamlined and cost-efficient. There is no bureacraZy necessary to decide who gets what treatment where (and if there are any co-payments etc.).
Or that you end up in the "wrong" hospital that has not contract with YOU insurer. They let the patients jump through many hoops. As long as the hospital is in the country you will be fine.
The doctors decide according to medical necessity and of course discuss options with the patients.
No talks to insurance companies. And either EVERY patient in a certain situation gets a certain treatment - or no one would.
No games to deny treatment to some patients.
The doctors do not know how high your wage is (that determines your contributions directely and indirectly via taxes) - nor do they care.
1
-
1
-
For real: Bill delivers the keynote speech ?? They are doing the Progressives a favor. They party establishment slights them at every opportunity - PROVING BEYOND DOUBT that they are beyond redemption. They are so addicted to the Big Donations - they just can't help themselves. And no doubt they hope that they can keep the money AND somewho pull off a narrow win. - They literally rely now on Trump being horrible to not be completely wiped out.
That strategy is cynical, disgustig, completely !!! irresponsible. (Climate change, war, tensions with Russia anyone ? Never mind the domestic situation that is not rosy either).
It gives one APPRECIATION of what FDR accomplished - and he DID have resistance within the party, make no mistake. Once he got the first unheard of economic measurements through, that improved his popularity - and gave him even more leverage.
People directly felt the effects (social security, minimum wage, unemployment benefits, the farmers were bailed out - dustbowl, later millions were being employed additionally to build infrastructure etc.).
And he circumvented the mainstream media (Newspapers mostly conservative, radio conservative leaning) and communicated his ideas and the upcoming action plan in "fireside talks". Like 1 hour radio speeches. They intentionally used simple language (very carefully crafted), they intended to appear somewhat informal, thus Fireside talks. He wanted people to UNDERSTAND what he was up to. and he did not leave the explanation to the newspapers.
The first fireside chat happened after the banks were closed down for a few days, they reset the banking system, closed banks or recapitalized others. 60 millions listened to that speech late in the evening. So he did reach the masses.
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Plutot - I disagree: Only Faux News ! has a relentless (if condescending) TV campaign against her - I hope she does not lose any sleep over that and has a thick skin - The audience that would potentially vote for her and other progressives (or even standard Democrats) does not watch Faux News (or take them seriously).
I wonder WHY they even bother to slam her. (well the advertisers = Big Donors told them). They are getting irrational - GOOD !
I think they try to rile up the base to come out against he crazy, dangerous Democrats (even worse that the standard Democrat)
So it is not the "War on Christmas", "Obama will take their guns, ..." "Death panels under ACA" ....
now it is dangerous millenials.
The only thing where she better make a strong argument is abolishing ICE. Which is used to paint Democrats as the party that wants unchecked immigration, preferably of the worst criminals.
For now they are leaning to the snide side (I love it when she is on TV it helps Republicans, she is so clueless, ...)
It is possible that they want to use AOC to increase turnout. Feinstein 2.0 so to speak. One redeeming quality of Sanders for the establishment is his age . AOC is YOUNG - they might have to live with her for a long time.
For now Faux News are more condescening, and since she is only one person, they cannot paint her as a grave danger. That would come if more Progressives are voted in.
Apart from that (higher turnout) it does not matter if default Republican voters cast their vote in a neutral manner or if they really, really detest AOC or the Democratic party The result is the same.
But there are so many non-voters, young people, voters who have given up - and they are worth the attention. Those people will likely watch the other networks (if they watch TV at all ) - where the interviews with AOC went well and she could make her case.
As for calcified Establishment Dems trying to lecture her about the rules in "their" club:
btw do they officially confirm that it is not about CONTENT and the ISSUES but how well one is liked with the collegues ? partisanship is clearly at work towards the other party (not let them have a success even if the idea would be good. So that is also at play WITHIN the party, unity, broad tent, etc.
Sounds more like "Mean Girls" to me.
I do not think that VOTERS care what these Corporate Dems say. They clearly do not care what the base thinks about Crowley trying to damage her race.
To be a success she must not introduce ANY bills. She must vote in the right way (think Patriot Act or Iraq - or MacCain in the last attempt to ditch ACA).
More like her in Congress and the 2nd war of Cheney/Bush could have been stopped in 2003.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Part 6 of 7 Of course the fiction is upheld that the communities do not have the budgets and the regular people don't have the money either - so the rich with a lot of money are allegedly NEEDED. Those who already are wealthy or rich have it also much easier to get loans at good conditions - so they can go into real estate and make profits from becoming the landlords that control a very important scarce resource - housing.
Those arguments - that the investors with money are essential - dissolve when you are aware that the loans they get for the real estate projects are 90 % created out of thin air. That society gives banks the legal privilege to do that. Fiat money functioned reasonably well to finance the expansion after WW2 - but even then it put those who had some or a lot at an advantage, and that advantage accumulates over time !
The banks do not need the money of rich people on savings accounts to be able to give out the loans for housing. Nor do we need the direct investment of rich people. Money is easily created - so why not give that power into the hands of the regular people to create the affordable NON-PROFIT housing that would be best FOR THEM.
Can't have that, can't we. - There is a reason the unwashed masses are not bothered with the information how Fiat Money works. The Great Financial Crisis and the internet helped to dispel the myths but the Corporate media, politicians, rich people continue the propaganda - so most voters still do not understand.
These housing projects would be non-profits. Preferably they are small so they stay grassroots, and they would be in the hand of a coop of renters (not even in the hand of cities - having control over affordable housing is so much power that it invariably leads to distortion, some corruption, nepotism). If a few houses and the people living there are in this together they become very protective of their house(s) - and very engaged. At that level people know each other and they do not get away with corruption.
There can be very modest interest rates or none on long term loans.. And the city/town can keep real estate prices reasonable when they require that no one can OWN real estate that is not a permanent resident.
The reason they don't do that is because it is highly lucrative for the ruling party and the mayor and aldermen to play nice with the "real estate developers". Interesting investment opportunities around 3 corners will be offered, family members employed, when they leave office they will get contracts and jobs.
New Zealand did something - but only when prices got out of control, now only citizens can own real estate (but a lot is already owned by foreigners who do not live and work in New Zealand, for them it is just a way to park their money).
Berlin did something to curb "real estate investment" from people not living there. I know that some smaller touristic regions in Austria require that you must have main residency to be able to own real estate (farmland or houses, apartments or land). So living nearby or being a citizen of Austria or the EU - it does not matter, you must live IN the village / town for the most part of the year or you have to rent.
Now the mayors and council there would be as easy to corrupt as everywhere else. But in these communities people know each other, and the mayor is not getting away with it. They do have the legal framework (by the federal government) so the voters there require that they must use it on behalf of the citizens.
There are some that successfully work around the rules, a celebrity buys a remote vintage farm house and everyone knows they do not live there year round - that is sometimes tolerated - but by and large it works. There is certainly not an influx of international investors that prices the people living and working there out of the "market".
Such provisions would keep the space available to build housing on - which is a major cost of the whole project in cities. Cities also could use eminent domain, or have very high local taxes. Every family would get a housing benefit that compensates them for the high tax (which would show up in rent as well), but the owners of luxury appartments (usually no one lives there) are stuck with the taxation which would be much higher for their units (value, space per unit).
If they do not live there permanently they do not get the housing benefit (it could be even in form of an alternative currency that must be used within a certain time and that pays for regular household expenditures). That would make holding on to real estate very unattractive for the international investor class. The revenue can be used by the city to invest in affordable housing and they could make sure that the CITY buys up those luxury apartments if they come on the market by the frustrated rich "investors". They could be adapted to offers space for more families. Or rented out to the affluent of the city. A lottery could help to keep things fair (else nepotism and corruption will flourish).
Applicants would have qualify by volunteering / community projects (if they are not disabled) - or they keep a family going without much help which is a community project in itself. To make sure the people getting in the really nice neighbourhoods have their ducks in a row, that they are able to function agreeably in a community / work place etc.
They just "gave" native Amercians housing in the reservations (but did nothing to change the SYSTEM). But the rug has been pulled out under the feet of these communities long ago and it is easier to destroy than to rebuild "the village" or "the tribe". Just giving them things or money does not make the community function or makes them capable to take good care of what they were given (when they did not have the luck to "have" when growing up. Incl. having parents that are not addicted, that is a major problems, often the grandparents raise many children - the offspring of their kids, or nephews and nieces).
having skin in the game, being part of creating and contributing to the community means that people can and will also function when they are gifted with affordable or free housing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
+ Aerial ... I assume there are many TROLLS posing as "concerned" Democrats (or sneering Republicans). - I think the strategists (both parties) look at the high number of non-voters, many of them young - potential voters for New deal style candidates, progressives - and if they are establishment, and know their trade they are worried.
Even worse now a lof of crazy folks now campaign under "money of of politics" and how they do not take SuperPac money and ask for small donations. If THAT becomes a thing .....
the hysteria on Faux News is testimony to that PROFESSIONAL insight - although the crusade is masked with ridicule and sneering.
Her district is a safe Democratic seat, her message resonated well during the primary campaign. No doubt many are proud of her who have not even heard of her before the election (Our district made positive headlines, our girl on TV).
On all the other networks (apart from Faux News) she got a friendly reception and could explain her positions (The View, Colbert, The Daily Show, ...)
Her potential voters likely do not watch Faux News.
Moreover she would have an army of volunteers in fall if there is any danger of losing.
Grassroots candidates can win even in Tea Party country. I saw a video of a Kirsten Kennedy who became a progressive mayor in Minnesota, inspiring, 10 minutes.
DCCC Employee QUIT To Campaign For THIS Progressive
youtube.com/watch?v=VMEYWvlKqJU
Money out of politics, being against corruption, is a bestseller.
She runs now for Congress, and the DCCC forced one of their employees who also volunteered for her to chose between job and working for that grassroots campaign. Classy !
Let the Republicans be condescending.
The Democratic party will need to be taken over, the sell-out Republican Lites managed to lose 1000 seats since 2006 (under a Democratic president).
And they managed to lose against Trump. That is no samll feat.
That is NOT a party in good shape. They have obviously lost the base and are not in a position to lecture anyone about how to win elections.
Time for a New Deal 2.0
1
-
Part 4 of 7 Now the unwashed masses are not bothered with the information how money / money creation works. If the fiction is that the banks must have money so they can give out loans which is essential to fund homes and businesses and even consumer goods consumption - then they can make the claim how important it is that the government and the citizens "court" "capital" (capital in that case means money - the precise definition of capital is assets especialy the means of production, real estate, patents, plants - not only "money"). But when we hear that "capital" leaves a country (not really some numbers are changed in computers) or that "capital is a shy deer" it always refers to the legal concept of "money" (bank accounts, bonds, most of it government bonds).
That conflation is also intentional. It props up the deception that no investment in the real economy would be possible if the people that have lots of money do not invest, either directly or they deposit their fortunes with banks which then are able to give out loans.
Nope !
Patents, expertise, skilled work force, business connections etc. are important, or a knack for design, creativity, managment skills. These are needed to CREATE goods and services in the REAL ECONOMY.
MONEY IS EASILY CREATED - but it is essential that money creation is tied to the creation of REAL goods and services (that rule was obeyed until the 1970s).
Now imagine a country (the federal government) would directly create money to finance BOLD affordable housing projects. MMT (you can search).
Communities usually do not "have the money" for housing projects from traditional taxation - there we go.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
the world allegedly taking a piggy ride on U.S. innovations: much smaller countries like Switzerland have a lot of Pharma companies, so does larger Germany (not sure about Japan). So there is a lot of innovation happening outside of the U.S. .... and if the U.S. companies retract from the market, the corporations from other countries will be glad to take a larger part of the niche. Germany it seems is good in protheses.
Of course the Swiss and German companies right now can take advantage of the dysfunctional U.S. market and prices, and that the U.S. citizens are not as well protected as the citizens of all other countries. - I do not know HOW MUCH they sell on the U.S. market.
Let's not forget the EU and associated countries are around 530 million people (the U.S. 325 million), then add Turkey, Russia, China, Japan, Latin America, Canda, Australia, New Zealand, ....
Also the number of packages sold in the U.S. might increase (people actually being able to afford their meds).
Profit is (roughly) revenue minus costs. The costs for new drugs are high, the development takes YEARS so of couse they spread out the costs over many years. Note how they have the costs covered and AFTER that come the high profits. Now, even with lower profits they still would have they COSTS for the innovatins covered - they just would have to give up a PART of the exorbitant profits of a market of - only - 325 million people. Be content with the profit level they have in Europe and all other wealthy nations.
And if the Pharma industry would not make concessions to the public non-profit insurance agencies those nations could actually take matters in their hands and develop meds. you bet the pharma companies do not want that to happen.
If the shareholders of some for-profit companies feel they do no get ENOUGH profit - well they are free to leave the field alone. Other companies or investors (including governments) can take their place.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+ amihart - that board rule is only valid for very large companies (usually listed on the stock exchange). - And it sounds better than it is regarding influence. Plus the management (think Big Auto) tried to corrupt those board members (paid travels, strip club visits, the parking space side by side with the CEO).
Those board members are w/o fail big shots in the unions and often switch into a political career in the Social Democratic party. So managment was like: If we cannot get rid of them, let's corrupt them.
In Germany and Austria it is also common to elect a board of workers in companies - of all sizes. The owner is not supposed to suppress that, there are laws in place to protect people from being fired if they START to organize in that way.
So if a person goes around in the company and asks the collegues for their vote - the protection from being fired kicks in, if the boss is upset (which can happen if the board would be new) you better get yourself elected.
Then the person cannot be fired as long as she or he is in elected position, or up for reelection. (A judge has to grant any termination and it would need extraordinary circumstances).
Of course a reasonable employer will work WITH the board. Not against it.
The employees that serve in that function (they are elected in a secret election) are almost always also union members (but it is not a union representation). The unions help them, train them regarding legal matters, how to conduct the elections (if the board is new) , and the unions saw to it in the Golden Era that the medium to larger companies all got their worker board.
And once it is in a company it is there to stay.
So if the workers have complaints and grievances - they can go to their representatives which will intervene on their behalf. Or ask for additional work safety measures, make suggestion for the work schedules etc.
They must be given free time for those tasks (paid). if the company is large enough it will be full paid leave.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
that is not true. Dore is no fan of Carlson. Like a broken clock even Tucker Carslon is sometimes right. He might have kept Trump from starting a war with Iran. That is a good thing even if we have to thank Tucker Carslon for it. Carslon also made a prediction for the general - before the primary voting started. Whoever will allow 30 year olds to marry and have children will win the election and deserves to win (strong hints towards Trump, this was before the pandemic).
The Hill (Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti) discussed that.
(and he called Sanders the lamest revolutionary ever in that segment. Sadly he does have a point. Full disclosure: Sanders fan here, but we have to be realistic about the limits of the good Senator).
He did have a point with a push for mild economic populism and if Trump had taken that hint and acted upon it (more so during the pandemic) he would have won again.
The win of Biden was way too close for comfort. If Trump had not shot himself in the foot several times, Biden would have lots.
The 7 million more votes come partially from 2 large blue states (CA 65 %, NY 60 5).
But Biden still needed to win the Electoral College:
he won with a total of 124,000 votes in 4 states and two of them were known as battleground states (PA and WI - AZ and GA were pleasant if razor sharp suprises but could not be the base for an election strategy).
But PA (1.3 %) and WI (only 0.63 %) should be solidly blue. Not nail biters. A 3 - 5 % win would have been in order. Such a lead also manifests early on in the ongoing count of mail ballots.
IF Trump won a state he won them with a solid margin. Improved in FL from 1.2 to over 3 %. Won Ohio AGAIN and again with over 8 %. Obama won both states twice !
Biden needed to win 2 out of the 4 states that were nailbiters (AZ, GA, WI and PA). Two were enough in any combination (the two smallest would have put Biden at 270 electors). But winning only the largest = PA and losing all the other 3 = 269 electors, a nightmare scenario.
A few tenthousand people staying home in each state or voting differently - and Trump would be reelected
Margin of Biden in votes
AZ 10,500
GA 12,000
WI 20,700
The state with the best result of those 4 critical states was PA with 1.3 % margin = 80,000 or 81k votes more - did I mention that ONLY PA was not enough ??
1
-
1
-
1
-
you are right and when people stop to believe they have no power .... 330 million people in the U.S. NOW. Roughy 120 millionvoted in 2016. - just did a search - and the Hope and Change election resulted in more turnout (and boy did Bill Clinton suppress turnout in 1996, and 2000 was lame as well).
The participation is way too low. In other countries a race with 2 controversial candidates (for the other camp) like Clinton versus Trump would have 85 % of the citizens over 18 voting - not approx. 55
or 61 % (it depends on which metric is used) - and prisoners would not make a dent.
From one article:
In 2016, 61.4 percent of the citizen voting-age population *reported voting, a number not statistically different from the 61.8 percent who reported voting in 2012.
(* that might include felons and ex-felons who often cannot vote)
There are statistics that report "eligible voters" so another metric. And the population has non-citizens over 18 (so technically "of voting age").
I got other numbers here - also allegedly based on "voting age population" - no "citizens" in the term though. so I assume that includes people who are in prison or ex felons and also non-citizens.
Turnout for presidential elections
1996 49,0
2000 50,3
2004 55,7
2008 58,2
2012 54,9 versus 61.4 see above
2016 54,7 versus 61,8 see above
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
2017 healthcare spending per person of nations (Keiser Foundation also see World Bank). The U.S. 10,260 USD for every person in the country on average. Most wealthy nations (usually with some form of single payer) are in the range of 47 - 56 % of that spending per person. The most common range is 50 - 54 % (Sweden, Finland, Austria, ....).
Germany 56 %. France Belgium, Australia, Canada even below 50 %
....and then there is the U.K. with 42 % of U.S. spending levels.
I looks like first world medical system with a certain age structure needs around 5,400 - 5,800 USD per person per year (level 2017). Or a little less if you are France, Belgium, Iceland, Japan ....
If the NHS would get the proper funding (which would of course show up in the "per capita healthcare expenditures of the nation") the U.K.would still be at the lower end of the average rich nations - and the NHS would run like a charm.
Which would of course do away with all pretext why it has to be privatized or why they would need private contractors to make the NHS "better".
The Tories have been openly hostile towards the NHS in the 1950s, but they had to tone it down, because the voters loved it (incl. their own base, they cannot win with the vote of the affluent and rich only). Thatcher promised to leave the NHS alone to get elected but had of course other plans. Her inner circle implored her to leave the NHS alone (they should have let her !), they feared the backlash.
even when run cost-efficiently (so as little Private, For-profit as possible) healthcare is 7 - 11 % of GDP in most wealthy nations, again the usual rate is 8 - 10 %. That is a large part of the national economy. The Tories have always found it very offensive that it should be mostly off limits for the profiteers, "investors" and the landlord class.
The crisis caused by the banksters was a welcome pretext to have austerity and to defund the NHS (that had a lean budget to begin with). Running it into the ground was the necessary condition to "justify" more private contractors. Which do nothing to make things more cost-efficient, they add complexity, dysfunction and extract profits.
And no doubt donate to the Tories and provide cushy jobs for former politicians.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@omkarki1516 the advantages of an older president (maybe less interested in the spoils AFTER leaving office) - excerpt of an inteview (it was mainly about Cuba)* of TheRealNews with Lawrence Wilkerson:
AM (the interviewer Aaron Maté) ...." What do you think of President Obama's handling of the Cuba issue ? ... "
LW: Yeah he should have, he should have done more. If I call President Obama for anything it was his timidity and his lack of courage his lack of courage with respect to politics, and his lack of courage with respect to particularly his last three years in office.
Where I know from talking with him personally, talking with him in the Roosevelt Room, that he understood, he said [to me] there was a bias in this town towards war, with his Secretary of State sitting beside him. He said quote : "There's a bias in this town towards war" unquote. Well, he went on for another 20 minutes to elaborate on that.
Well, Mr. President if you knew that why didn't you start doing something about it. I mean he could have done a lot more, if he'd had the political courage to do it
AM : What do you think is the answer, why didn't he ?
LW: Well, I I think it's because, first you get trapped in that environment and you want to make lots of money and you wanna to be very happy, and you wanna be very satisfied when you leave that office, especially if you're as young as he is.
And you realize that if you start these fights, if you start these battles, not only might you be assassinated, you're probably going to leave without anything like the dignity, and the honor, and the emoluments, and the fortune that he left with.
And I don't say that lightly, that's a very difficult decision to make, when you stand up for principle, when you stand up for the country, when you are a true patriot, you usually are punished, not rewarded.
* That is an excerpt from an interview with the title:
Wilkerson: Practically Everyone Opposes Trump's Reversal of Obama's Cuba
https://youtu . be/eMO4o5nRGQs (delete blanks of link)
In the comments of youtube you will find a longer transcript (sort after date).
TRN videos can be watched on youtube or they have the youtube video embedded on their site. In most cases they provide full transcripts on their site - but not for that video.
I found the remarks very enlightening and provided a partial transcript in the youtube comment section.
1
-
1
-
1
-
That is meaningless unless ALL people can get what they have a right to get - and in time and w/o hassle. The experiment was done. 70 years, several continents, many nations and cultures, more than 1 billion people. Real single payer healthcare = Sanders proposal. Wealthy nations do it with half the spending per person, many have a population that is on average much older (Japan, Germany, Austria ...). Age is a major driver of spending. Still they leave the U.S. system in the dust and have better outcomes on top.
Switzerland has 78 % of U.S. spending per person, at least their services are good and for everyone. They rely on private insurers only.
All other candidates that take a piggy ride on the term Medicare for XX have the public option in one form or another. The lobbyists have been busy. Public option = some can opt out is plan B of the industry.
- in other words the insurers can determine WHO is their client with the offers, the clients they do not want will get prohibitively high offers, deductibles.
With a public option they would lose a share of the "market" - but they could keep the most LUCRATIVE insured. They would keep the young and healthy and the costly patients would all be purged and land with Medicare.
90 % of costs are caused by 10 % of the insured. it is easy to make Medicare look bad cost-wise (no fault of them) and a little sneaky defunding (or subject them to complicated rules) can go a long way to really set them up for trouble.
a non-profit single payer agency or Medicare or for-profit insurers - are all administrative middle men. (The NHS in U.K. skipped that part they do the "insurer" part AND they run the hospitals and many doctor practices - that is the most cost-efficient solution, but may not be realistic to get passed. The private doctors with their own practice would riot ! and they would also strongly object to get competition from non-profit community centers).
If the insurers get the same budget per person for the exact kind of pool (risk, age, no cherrypicking) they will beat the heck out of the profiteers (that is systemic, all public non-profits with a dominant market position will - in every country).
They just have to get a reasonable budget. Then they can pay the rates to get good services for their insured. Then public insurance will give access to good services and the system will be cost-efficient.
Insurers do not provide good or bad services - they are the paper shufflers, they need the budgets, they need admin (getting contributions and tax funding, negotiating, paying the bills) - private insurers have additional admin to protect their profits (in the U.S.: doing the purges right or denying treatment, that is a lot of work). Even hones players (other countries) always have costs the single payer agencies (or Medicare) do not have:
Marketing, sales, profits. They do not negotiate the rates as well, they ALWAYS pay higher rates, which the doctors and hospitals - especially if they are for-profit - like very much.
They have less power, I once heard the phrase "bidding war for the scarce resource - doctors and hospitals". A strong (almost) monopolist like Medicare when it covers all age groups, is the counterweight to the other important monopoly (especially doctors - the American Medical Association makes sure not too many graduate, or can immigrate. Powerful AMA almost prevented Medicare to be created in the 1960s).
According to insurance whistle blower Wendell Potter the insurers have no interest at all to bring the prices down. Their goal was to have more and more plans with high deductibles - that way they can pass the high costs on to the consumers while maintaing the illusion of "coverage". - I agree - the insurers may have a hard time to deal with the for-profit hospital chains (medicine is complex), but they are the only ones that are allowed to negotiate drug prices.
Veterans Affairs can too, they brought prices down by 40 %, Medicare is forbidden to negotiate. Medical drugs are internationally standardized (it is easy to get the price information of other countries in backroom door exchanges) so it would be easy to negotiate. They did not do that though. (Their owners and managment may prefer to invest ! in shares of big pharma).
Medicare also takes care of the most costly age group (plus 65). The stage was set for the private insurers in the U.S. to shine: they are allowed to negotiate, they have a cherrypicked pool already and politicians provide the subsidies to make the system available for everyone.
So what do those for-profit middle men bring to the table ?
Are they better when it comes to negotiating results - because they for sure also have higher admin costs and on top they also CAUSE higher admin costs elsewhere (when the providers do the complex billing or have to chase the money of the patients if the insurance only pays for a part. Or they do not get the money at all when the patients declare bankrupcy).
And on top of that they cause incentives that result in higher costs. The inefficiens range from mild gaming of the system for instance "milking" of good plans (private insurance elsewhere is a niche, but there is a little bit of that going on) to the predatory cruel practices in the U.S.
They add no value but are allowed the role of gate keepers that can extract profit. Insurers (single payer agency, Medicare OR private insurance companies) are de facto gate keepers for people with low to upper class income.
The rich will always be able to pay out of pocket. But if 500,000 or 1 million puts a strain on your finances the insurer IS the gatekeeper to get the needed treatment - or not.
Single payer: no profit extraction and everyone gets the same coverage and a very streamlined admin - so if a country can afford the budgets per person (much less than in the U.S. though) this means the same first world medicine for everybody. That creates a LOT of political leverage.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Part 5 of 7 Back in the day the money that was injected into the economy stayed in circulation. government got it back (at least a part) in form of taxes. For that the taxes for the rich and highly profitable biz had to be high (they were until the 1980s !).
Taxation is the traditional form of funding gov. budgets, and with "scary" deb the only one that the voters understand (so far). When government after WW2 in the Golden Era spent the money - that meant contracts for businesses, wages for their employees. Or wages for civil servants or soldiers. Those wages were spent on goods, rent, etc. - so more contracts and wages for other companies. If the companies made good profits the money sooner or later returned to the government.
A part of company profits and private savings from wages landed on savings accounts - but as long as the people are not getting too rich that money is spent sometime (for instance when the children inherit and buy homes with it). Only when excessive fortunes are hoarded by some that money is kept from circulating and cannot do good.
Btw: high taxation of profit is a major incentive to invest, it encourages long term business strategies, paying good wages (better staff has it than the government) and ethical practices. What is the point of shady actions (that could get you into legal trouble) when the government takes 70 % of the ill gotten gains.
The rich and big biz made sure that taxation - one way to fund government spending - was slashed. Federal government can increase debt usually by issuing bonds. (Those bonds are very popular investment opportunities for the affluent and rich, they may clutch their pearls over debt, but then they happily turn around and buy the bonds. Instead of paying taxes they give the money only temporarily. They get it back and interest on top. Bonds are very safe when issued by the U.S. or other rich countries).
The Republicans usually go on debt rising spree even with a good economy, they start wars (expensive) increase military spending and reduce revenue by giving high tax cuts to the rich and big biz and time limited crumbs to everyone else. (It is the same blueprint time and again: Reagan, GWB and now Trump).
Local communties are starved for funding (they cannot do what federal gov. does - not that it would be recommendable for either). There is only so much local tax revenue they can get from regular people. The rich are not bothered with requests to pay their fair share (even if the have rich in the community) - collusion with local or state politicians makes sure of that.
1
-
1
-
They are desperate for something. Some may be in for getting their ego stroked and feeling better than others. ...others for the need of grace, mercy, connection, purpose, belonging, feeling important, validated, keeping a lingering depression down by the kick they get out of it. - I find it hard to sneer on those very humane cravings, nor do I think they "deserve" to be conned. - I mean those preachers could deliver an uplifting message, make a good living and be done with it. Win/win
intelligence and education do not help because obsessing like that operates on other levels of the human brain (older, driven by emotion).
Like when a person "falls in love" - good luck with reasoning about the object of love.
Older people from the Midwest or South might fall for such creeps. Younger people used to be preyed upon by Scientology - or a spin off. Or another cult.
- I got interested how someone can end up at Scientology - the recruits (those who had come out and recovered) are usually intelligent, articulate, many appear do be do-gooders, diligent, often a willingness to serve
It is challenging to watch that - HOW COULD THEY FALL FOR IT.
Well, easily enough.
A personality type, maybe being in a vulnerable situation AND some skillfully applied techniques.
Scientology offers entry level low cost "communication" courses (the only low-cost thing they offer, they lure people in with it) where they apply strong trance inducing techniques (like staring w/o blinking into the eyes of another person, or long repetitive actions).
No one talks about "trance" of course. Trance must not be a bad thing if done intentionally, in an ethical setting, thing hypnotherapy to stop smoking or applied during psychotherapy).
In that highly suggestible state they are bombarded with the messages delivered by the other brainwashed members (who are also not aware WHAT they are doing they are just well trained well to give certain informations and over and over again).
That can put the critical mind completely to rest.
Maybe those televangelicas have similar techniques in combination with strong sales techniques - slighly less efficient because they cannot deliver in person. But they leverage the big numbers in their favor.
When it is called "Technique" than it is something that works on the mind of many humans. It exploits an inherent weakness of the human psyche and mind.
We evolved in small groups of hunter and gatherers - mammoths and sabber toothed cats - we know how to deal with that.
Con artists exploiting spirituality ?- evolution did not prepare us that well for that challenge.
1
-
1
-
1
-
3:00 HRC on the "revolution" part. "We have to get the 60 seats back in the Senate" - (the fillibuster proof majority) - presenting that as the "grown up" and "mature" and realistic political goal. As opposed to pie in the sky "revolutionary" movements. . And a few in the audience are laughing. They are like high functioning autists really !
They lost the Senate and Congress (and the State Legislator seats) because they could never be bothered to show BOLD Bernie-style support for the regular people (which is considered "revolutionary" these days).
Of course if you sold out to a neoliberal, war mongering agenda on behest of the Big Donors, if you have nothing to offer but Republican Lite (added bonus gay marriage, and the right to abortion plus and "I am not Trump") than you have to try to convince your base that this is the best offer they can ever hope for - take it or else you will get a Republican. And sure enough the GOP can be trusted to always come up with a worse offer (for low or regular income people).
Note that the "liberal" stance of the Dems does not go as far as to change the classification of marijuana (it has been classified under Nixon as schedule 1 drug in order to have a legal pretext to go after his political opponents - Blacks and Hippies. The only schedule 1 drugs are Cannabis and Heroin, - it means very dangerous AND no medical usefulness (Cocain is schedule 2 for instance), so it is very hard to even conduct legal scientific research in the U.S. - and of course the alleged danger "justifies" harsh prison sentences.
A president does not need the houses to change that (we are not even talking about making weed legal) - and pot smoking Bill Clinton or Obama who know from experience that weed is not as dangerous as heroin - could never be bothered to have that classification changed.
The donors (pharma, prisons, alcohol, in the past tobacco) would not have liked it.
Gay marriage or the right to abortion do not cost the owners of the political process (the donors) anything. If these are the concessions necesary to keep the unwashed masses quiet, to give them the ILLUSION of PROGRESS ..... Of course the married gays may still not have a stable and well paying job, and a woman may have to abort because she could afford the pill, but not the visit of the doctor, so she is sort of winging it. And sex-ed still does nothing to prevent teenage pregnancies (abstinence only teachings).
The Corporate Dems and HRC seem to be oblivious to the fact that the "boogeyman fear campaign" and "this is the best you can expect" strategy does not work AT ALL for them (shown by the losses since 2009 on EVERY level of government).
They even managed to lose to Trump.
Now Schumer/Perez try to put lipstick on the pig and sell same old with a new wrapping.
If you discourage folks like that (do not even dare to expect something good and bold) voters do not make the effort to come out and vote for the slightly lesser evil - they abstain from voting alltogether.
And by and large young people did not see the advantage of voting either - none of the candidates seemed to have their back - until the Sanders candidacy.
On top of that, voting gets more and more inconvenient and time consuming the poorer the citizens are (and ID laws take care to make it harder for young people).
It is not like in civilized countries, where they have enough open places, election day is either a holiday or they are open untill 10 p.m. like in the U.K.
In other Western democracies they are not in the habit to purge voter rolls, and it is EASY to register to vote - that is if they do not have automatic registration.
1
-
Not qualified ? with Trump in office ? have you seen the episodes of "Who is America" with Sacha Baron Cohen ? - I heard the arguments of Ted Cruz in a townhall with Sanders in 2017 - regarding healthcare. Admitted he delivers the arguments in a superficially convincing manner.
For anyone who knows the systems of Europe, Australia, NZ, Canada, Japan and understands ! why they have been so much more cost-efficient for decades - his arguments are b.s. The nonsense is pretty obvious - but people that never left the U.S. bubble fall for these kind of arguments. (the rest of the wealthy countries have been doing it differently, since the 1950s ! and they pay less and have better outcomes. THAT should give any honest person pause.
Her inexperience led her to believe she could win that uphill battle. And with methods experienced people would not have used.
Inexperience in certain areas is easy to cure (and she is smart, she can learn quickly). She will save a lot of time on traditional chasing of donations. She can use that time to campaign (for other candidates - which will also help with fundraising if SHE needs money).
On the other ahdn being a dedicated sellout chasing the Big Donations ..... is an uncurable condition. And intelligence or experience does not help - either the person is efficiently doing harm, or they are too clever for their own good and unable to read the signs on the wall.
Schumer, and Clinton are VERY experienced, and they are not dumb - have you noticed the outcome of their campaign in 2016 ? (Summer 2016 Schumer: For every blue collar we lose we will get two moderate Republicans in the suburbs and we can replicate that in all the Rustbelt states, in Ohio, Wisconsin, ....)
While someone like Michael Moore (no Clinton machine, no insider connections, no consultants and pollsters) assessed the situation correctly. He warned of a Trump win and considered it likely.
The same thought stopping clichés - for instance regarding healthcare - are repeated by respected media persons and most Republicans - and Corporate Democrats.
I get that regular citizens fall for it. They have not the advantage to have experience with healthcare systems in other countries. Or the time, energy, and professional support (a member of Congress has) to dig deep into it.
Politicians are PAID to be interested in such things and to try to understand what works and why.
Well they gladly take the tax funded salary, the benefits, the extra budgets for staff etc. - and then they turn around and do the bidding of the big donors.
The lobbyists tell them what to say and think - and HOW to VOTE.
That is why Sacha Baron Cohen was so successful with right wing Republicans, they will literally repeat every nonsense that is put before them or on a teleprompter.
It did help that he posed as former Mossad agent when he convinced politicians to appear in videos where both of them were promoting to train toddlers to operate guns (in case a shooter or terrorists would attack their kindergarden)
For real: watch the clips if you haven't - there are some on youtube. Those shills saw potential for good connections with AIPAC - so posing as an Israeli was a very effective cover to deceive the pro gun morons.
Sanders on the other hand had to deal with a daft disabled veteran who allegedly interviewed him for his internet or radio show. He quickly realized that the "veteran" was dumb and weird (to put it mildly). Sanders was perplexed from the beginning of the "interview" so he obviously had gotten a taste of the experience while they set up the cameras. He tried to stay polite with the sucker - and to talk about the issues.
It was funny, Sanders was not mean nor did he make a complete fool of himself (like the Republicans), actually it made him look good.
Sarah Palin had also had the joy to meet that "veteran" and she was upset when she found out it had been SBC impersonating a veteran - so I guess she did not come out ahead in the interview.
Sanders is used to THINKING, and to developing his own ideas and arguments. That habit helps if a comedian wants to trip you.
The think tanks provide polticians (experienced or not) with arguments. That is why the same nonsense is replicated everywhere.
"Inexperienced" Alexandria chose other sources informed herself, ran a bold campaign and pulled off an unlikely win. Violating "commong wisdom" about how to campaign and whom to target. (Polls try to find out how those who usually turn out will vote - we changed WHO and HOW many turned out).
She needs to do nothing but vote RIGHT when she is in Congress - there are players like Tulsi Gabbard who can help her.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1