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