Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Humanist Report" channel.

  1. +TheAsmodeus good comments!
    1
  2. The D running for Senate (don't know his name, lukewarm candidate anyway) talks about a recount now, he lost by 30,000 votes !! he profited from the Gillum momentum. If the party had run a moderately exciting progressive candidate for Senate the two could have helped each other to the win !
    1
  3. approx. 80 bn in weapons sales (for the U.S. alone - the orders Trump got) the Saudis cannot integrate the expensive toys, their army does not enjoy a high reputation. They have the same budget as Russia, btw ... oh well. The reason for the insane military spending is to buy the goodwill of Western politicians and the media. (the coverage is VERY benign !)
    1
  4. The people of Bolivia are still poor and I think they figured out it was better the Lithium profits help THEM. - The new president better have excellent security !! The evil forces will move to plan B.
    1
  5. the Iranians are NOT stupid. I could see them being capable to sneak in an attack using Maga idiots as cover. But then: they would be recorded, and they could not claim credit. - So not them BUT it is a good thing that ISIS is not at large anymore. That would have been an ideal situation for them to exploit. No one but the useless police chiefs was surprised that there was some unrest, and terrorists could send in their bearded folks to take advantage of the cover of such an event and potential unrest to carry out an attack. Or a mass shooter w/o policital motivations wants to leave life in a big showdown.
    1
  6.  @jen10272001  Actually he was a world class (brain) surgeon. - He should have stayed in his lane and have preserved his good reputation.
    1
  7. If only Hillary Clinton (and Obama) had not been a supporter of that rightwing neoliberal government in Honduras, not that it was good before, but now it is a hellhole. - Instead of building the country up, some generous help (Marshall plan and some protectionism would go a long way, Honduras is a small country). And stop the war on drugs - in the U.S. and in Latin America.
    1
  8. If Sanders had gotten the nomination the young people would have been his online army, and an UNTAPPED POOL OF VOTERS - and the door to door brigade. They would have known this was a once in a lifetime chance to get a fairly progressive president into the White House.
    1
  9. Manchin just does not want to have to compete in a Republican primary.
    1
  10. They are not used to being challenged.
    1
  11. In the 1960s Sanders organized the protest against segregation. young activits travelled from New York to Mississippie and were killed. - young students protested agains the Vietnam war (O.K. the young men did not want to go). They partied, had good music and did drugs - but they only got stupid as they became older !
    1
  12.  @gregorysias6090  Talk is cheap. Even Biden in this Oct. 2019 debate took a strong stand (verbally) against the tax code, that income from work is taxed higher than income from capital gains, that big biz pays little to no taxes. He called it ridiculous - I only saw that clip. I am afraid that no one on the stage or the media shills pointed out the obvious: _Biden has been working eagerly (and successfully) on behalf of the big donors (big biz, big finance) to create that situation.
    1
  13. You couldn't make this stuff up ....
    1
  14. Part 1 of 7 You imagine the bilionaire when they were a kid. You put them in an Amish community - or in a remote area of Alaska (and they stay there for life). If they become billionaires under these circumstances -then it was them and their genius True - they would still have support from that community / family. But with the Amish - whatever you achieve you have to do it with your OWN work or that of the family. And you have to work. No leveraging of the workforce of someone else for your gain or taking advantage of the workforce of poor people in developing countries (with the help of "free" trade deals or cheap access to their resources, farmland and labor with the help of the U.S. military and the CIA. Regime change wars and coups ! The Amish cooperate on large projects of course (barn-raising) where they are on equal footing - but else they are "self-employed", they don't do the boss / employer thing. If Jobs or Gates or Bloomberg and Trump do not become billionaires in THAT setting, too - then they massively profited from society (incl. legal norms, protection of patents, for many the chance to get rich with gambling aka the Great Casino aka Wallstreet or getting rich of real estate because they collude with politicians). They profit from internationally diversified industrial mass production / consumption. Society provides the most important resources in that kind of economy: workers AND consumers. Isaac Newton got that right: If I could see farther it was because I stood on the shoulders of giants. No one is an island !
    1
  15. It is possible that team pete targeted the rural areas more to get a disproportionate boost. (if you have a rural area they do not see the politicians stopping by, so a candidate doing that (or sending volunteers) might get more positive attention. If at a site only 40 people show up, it is easier to pick up votes in the 2nd round, to persuade people. a read that at one site 2,25 delegates were rounded up to 3 delegates (all of Iowa awards 11,000 in the first round, the one that gets all the media attention). That strategy would require the volunteers to drive the longer distances etc - but if the other areas are worked by so many candidates it could make sense. and it would be in line with a McKinnsey trained approach. My theory for the good results of pete despite the different polling, he might have cost Biden a lot of support. There is no doubt he DID do good, the Sanders campaign has results from precinct captains, and these people were there when the supporters were counted. So no "cheating" and rigging of numbers.
    1
  16.  Cat Fox  I do not know if 80,000 votes are good for a special election. The local DNC worked for Brown. The NY 14 primary that AOC won in 2018 had under 30,000 votes cast.
    1
  17. 2) So the best outcome (and that was unlikely) would have been Charlie being able to survive maybe w/o the machines, but never come back to consciousness. There was a reason the doctors appealed to the court - and the courts incl. the Highest Court agreed with the decision of the doctors: to shut down the machines for the wellbeing of the child, and that the could overide the desperate attempts of the parents. If staying on the machines in the UK could have had ANY chance for improvement - the machines would have stayed on. If there was a genuine chance for relevant improvement in the U.S. maybe it would have been allowed - although it was very problematic (pain, and completely experimental, that is against ethic rules). The costs of treatment were NEVER an issue, the boys had been in intensive care for months - no bills for the parents. The hospital has a good reputation and they are a non-profit, so there was no reason for them to "eliminate" a bad case. The UK usually does not pay for treatments outside the country, but the parents had collected donations. So money or insurance did not play a role at all. These sort of cases to shut down the machines are always problematic (also Jehovas witnesses when they refuse their children to be given blood transfusions). This case was relatively easy to decide. The child would not profit and more likely suffer needlessly. In the end it was also a service to the parents. They might have felt like deserters if they had not moved heaven and earth - but less emotionally entangled parties watched out for the good of their son, when they couldn't. So that they could "allow themselves" to let go.
    1
  18. buttigieg is such a self-important weasel. His delivery is polished, too polished, it looks very rehearsed. - in a mail asking for donations signed by his deputy campaign manager: Polling Shows Sanders performs worst (well his team also lied about the black endorsement). In the interview: We have polling showing I am the strongest candidate to beat Trump.... We are not going to beat Trump by recylcing the same political mindset that brought us to this point. What I am offering (WHAT ??) is something completely different. And what I am insisiting (nice phrase) is what it takes to govern is also what it takes to win .... His governing is not flawless to put it mildly (put him at odds with a constituency Democrats need to win (and indeed he polls poorly with all minorities). He he ran for office in his state and also for DNC chair, and did not win against Democrats. Sanders ran for office many years, but it was clear the small donor campaigns by a left indepedent party would not win, they protested the Vietnam war etc. But Sanders worked his way up from being a very popular mayor to member of Congress (sworn in 1991) and member of Senate (2007 or 2008). Buttigieg also used the office of mayor to strive for higher office - but he thinks he is qualified or could add something as president - and hasn't come up with reasonable plans so far. Except for using the Medicare brand of Sanders. Of course watering it down to something else - like most candidates with the lobbyists in his hear (Medicare for those who want it).
    1
  19. 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
  20. then please give a buck or a few to Mike Gravel. - he could ASSIST the good candidates, he can afford to not give a damn and tell it like it is - but first he must pass the hurdly of having 65,000 unique donors to be allowed in the debates. 1 dollar would be enough.
    1
  21. No they are so hellbent on being adverserial that they latch onto anything, and there are enough grifters that bait them. - Or they are the wait-and-see crowd, and take a free ride on herd immunity - w/o the Delta variante that could have worked. Yes, manydo want to own the libs and be against - whatever they are told to be againt. BUT they do not expect that it would cost them. Therefore: - and in true "conservative" manner - as soon as it affects them, everything is different.
    1
  22. 3) The U.S. doctor SUPPORTED the decision of the U.K. doctors and made a statement to that effect - after he had come to the U.K. and after a discussion was held with the U.K. doctors (and I think the parents and their lawyer attended that meeting, the court had ordered they could attend and listen if they would not disturb the discussion between the doctors). That means: that the boy was beyond help and it would be the merciful thing to shut down the machines and to let him die. A few days after that the parents were with him when they shut down the machines, he died shortly after.
    1
  23.  @Transblackgoddess  Thanks for the many comments, it helps with the algorithm. It is more likely people will watch it, since youtube is more likley to recommend it. - your effort is appreciated.
    1
  24. It wasn't antifa or Iran - it was the Brits ! After all they also stormed the Capitol in 1814 !
    1
  25. 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
  26. DWS has breast cancer - that seat could become vacant. Even if Jen loses THIS race , there could come up another election out of order. Good for her to raise her name recognition.
    1
  27. Well, sooner or later some of them will die, unfortunately they will also be able to infect vulnerable patients. The federal government should make the Medicare payments dependent on a mandate for employees to get vaccinated. That would sort the idiots out. -
    1
  28. I like the term sweet summer child. But to be frank: I can see them talking about it among themselves or on social media but in front of the patients ?! - you have to admit no one in their right mind would have thought of that. We are not naive, we just believe in them having some minimal standards.
    1
  29.  @macgp44  Does your registration serve any practical purpose ? It could be necessary to still vote in D primaries. Not sure if there weren't a lot of Republicans voting to defeat Sanders in the D primaries (after all there was no need to vote in the R primary, it was clear that Trump would win the primary).
    1
  30. Let them play till the end. Such ad campaigns have often daily budgets. When the youtube algorithm in its infinite wisdom plays a PragerU ad at a progressive channel and you endure the ad - another innocent soul will not be deceived - and PragerU finances a progressive channel that way. If I remember correctly they are also played before potholer54 videos - who does EXCELLENT rebuttals of Global Warming denial articles (or if people who take it serously hype things up, he is strict with both sides, but of course the deniers get most of the attention). He also shreddered once PragerU and had the name in the title of the video - so .... It is entirely possible that youtube "remembers" that you are "interested" in seeing such ads because you let one play the last time.... As long as PragerU does not narrow down the targeting of their campaigns you can help to take out something of their budget and funnel it into a more worthwhile cause. The tag right now might be: "U.S. politics" or something like that
    1
  31. Did everybody SEE the tricks Sasha Baron Cohen played on right wingers (guns for children and toddlers). He posed as a former member of the Israeli military (or even Mossad). - They are so used to repeating whatever is presented to them that they read outrageious things completely uncritically from he teleprompter. Or in advertisements for a training program for toddlers. Others agreed while being in conversations. - I think they did not even get much money for it. They got promised an Israeli award (and were wined and dined), so they expected to be in the good books of the influental Israely lobby - that translates to money and benefits - or so they thought. Sarah Palin and Sen. Sanders were tricked to giving interviews with the pretense of Cohen being a disabled veteran. Palin was very much offended (so I assume she made a fool of herself - well at least they did not think she would jump on the award). Needless to say Sanders came out looking good - his facial expressions priceless, he was suspicious of the guys state of mind from the beginning but made a decision to remain polite.
    1
  32. The Guardian had a short clip - they edited it in a strange way (so click baiting, would it have killed them to make the YOUTUBE clip a little longer for more context). But the comment section was swarmed with bots or trolls. One liners. I do not believe this woman (or less "polite"), or "Sure, sure". Or "I am offended on behalf of men that someone would bother" (to sexually assault her). I reported 2 comments to youtube. But it looked very much like a well organized and orchestrated attack. Not a rightwinger losing it, and writing whatever, but someone either giving out the parole to attack her or even more organized.
    1
  33. 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
  34. The largest party in U.S. are the NON-VOTERS. And then there are the independents - and then the D's and R's (2016 250 million had the vote, 138 millions used it. ONLY 55 % turnout in a highly controversial, attention grabbing elections). - Let Howard Schultz run - Sanders and Gabbard should activate the SLEEPING GIANT. - A Sanders / Nina Turner ticket with Gabbard as Secretary of State would be ideal. It would tick a lof of the identity boxes (not that it matters, but it would drive the DNC crazy, how are they going after Nina Turner for instance). Nina Turner would not be the token "black woman". She is a passionate speaker and has a spine and the right priorities. She could activate the black vote. Raise her profile under the wings of Sanders - and be his life insurance, to be frank. She has a spine and real compassion. So all poverty minority related issues (War on drugs) could be her turf. Both ladies are young - they can cast the dice who does the presidency from 2024 - 2032 and from 2032 - 2040 (after 4 years of Sanders - I think that would be enought to change directions and pass on the torch).
    1
  35. Dems gave nothing of substance to the voters had NO signatory message (like Medicare for All - 70 % approval, 51 with Republicans), so they pulled off a "kind-of" victory. Heaven forbid that Ruth Baeder Ginsburg falls ill. If they had taken the Senate they could prevent another SCOTUS nomination. - With vote for us and you get MfA - the bill is ready we mean business - they could have had a real landslide. But .... the Big Donors do not like it.
    1
  36. Imagine the volunteers diligigently organising the event. Usually well done, they did round 1 and 2, and then they wanted to report the results for tallying. They had been told to download the app and to use it. Well that didn't work in many cases, some waited up to 2 hours on the hotline (they had been given a number if something didn't work. Some were able to use the app, but the DNC does not even report these provisory results.
    1
  37.  @SIMKINETICS  Reality is not their strong suit
    1
  38. The 2016 Trump election broke Maher's brain and moral compass if he had one. I think it was in late 2017 when he jumped at Lawrence Wilkerson who dared to mention that it was not in itself a bad idea of Trump to meet with Putin in Helsinki, there were highly critical nuclear treaties about to expire. - Maher went ballistic - usually he was respectful towards Wilkerson who was a guest from time to time. (Wilkerson has forgotten more about international relations than Maher ever will know). I follow Wilkerson (for instance on the Real News) - very level headed, knowledable, still access to the insider sources in military and the letter agencies, knows the inside of the Military Industrial Complex and D.C. - but came to be much more sceptical about the use of the military. Also a self-proclaimed conservative, that warns of global warming and is fed up with the Republican party - because of racism and now Trump plus climate change denial. Never mind the Bush wars and torture.
    1
  39. So every time regular people settle small amounts via the options they are given by the financial sector (and the lawmakers) - someone takes a cut. Fair enough if the cut is tiny or if there is a general fee for having an account to make transfers or for using a debit or credit card. - if there is no way for COST-EFFICIENT exchange of small amounts of money other than in person and with cash - Absolutely ! Let's change that. President Sanders would be all ears.
    1
  40. Dr. Mike Hansen did a video when the second independent autopsy report came out. (he is qualified in intense care, internal medicine and pulmunology). Excellent communicator, check it out or refer people to it if they doubt what Floyd died of.
    1
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. What are you smoking - I would change the substance to one that gives you more pleasant hallucinations.
    1
  44. That is good - they have budgets, Mike get's money, let it play - so they fund their opponents. And likely if youtube can "deliver" the ad here to you - that means one delivery less to another viewer that clicks on a political video (because of the daily budgets- usually views or a maximum amount) - you can spare an innocent soul from being deceived.
    1
  45. There is a VICE clip, about midterm ads testing with a group of ? 16 people (D + R in equal parts With Ojeda (the "I am angry" ad) they could not make out for which party he run. youtube.com/watch?v=0Eb0Y2vHKjQ Georgia voters React To 2018 Midterms Ads (HBO). They had a scroll device turning it up and down while watching - quite interesting what words pleased and displeased the R and D supporters in the test group. The grading shot up and down in BOTH groups. - I think he was a good candidate for that region and would have been a FDR style democrat (not sure if he ran as Independent I think he was on the D ballot).
    1
  46. That is well intentioned but NOT a good idea - it opens the campaign up to critique. And if WILL be found out, these are public files. (you bet someone will be going over these files with a microscope). Plus it makes the campaign the extra work that they have to sort out and then reject the donation. you do not want to make things more complicated, do you ? (they could get donations from U.S. citizens, ex-pats, so they have to look at them.) Such donations - although small already resulted in some "concern" in 2016. And I had fun reading the snide comments on a private blog of a devout Hillary fan. She never paused to consider WHY citizens from all over the world would get the idea to send over 20 - 200 bucks (most were in that range). Surely it must be something sinister. The Canadians were leading in the evil plot btw, some Austrialan and Europeans too. They could not construct it to be a major scandal last time - but not for lack of trying.
    1
  47. You can help though by subscribing to progressive channels incl. the notification bell, liking vids with interviews with him (Sanders does have his own channel btw). That is an indicator for youtube that the vids are popular, so they will be suggested more often to other people. Commenting on vids.
    1
  48. Someone suggested phonebanking for people who are not allowed to donate: My understanding is that that would not be legal too.
    1
  49. These are people is search of a crusade and purpose in their life, they just don't have enough real (financial / physical) problems sot they are shopping for some problems resp. for some excitement. That one man would love to be part of a revolution, never mind what it is about. - . The U.S. has not suffered as much as other nations during WW2 and never had war IN the country. Since the end of Vietnam war (and the related risks and PTSD) can be outsourced to low-income families. looks like that created super entitled highly ideological folks (the rightwingers are not as extreme in Europe, and they do not have Evangelicals as mass phenomen). - These are people that are still well off, and they are a little bored. Looks like th alleged war on Christmas is not exciting anymore and they manage to make abortion harder and harder accessible (for low income folks) so they are winning that cause and that isn't exciting anymore.
    1
  50. Nope the Bernie Bro crap stays - the neoliberals are unable to learn from their mistake. They would have to come up with a new derogatory term - and what would that be ? Neoliberals LIKE to show their wokeness on issues that do not cost their big donors anything. Free access to abortion, LGBT rights, gun rights - and a female shill is as good as a male one. The Repubs cover the same issues to rile up their base and to distract them, they just are on the opposite side on all of these donor-neutral issues (LGBT rights, abortion, guns, ...).  But if the base of Bernie are not white males w/o higher education and unable to adapt to the new times - what are they going to use as a smear ? They can't go after females or minorities, or be openly condenscending about low income people !
    1