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

  1. Bernie Sanders 2016 campaign: I promise you to implement automatic voter registration (.... I may not be able to implement things like Universal healthcare right away, but this I can promise you, if elected president .... ) - he was pretty definite about it.
    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
  3. As Greg Palast says: Democrats steal primaries, Republicans steal General elections. I found it confusing how the Dems would not even TALK about the voter suppression in 2000 in Florida (they had the presidency and the sitting VP needed the Florida votes), nor would they touch Cross Check in 2016 - a list with 8 million names. That seems to be confusing - the explanantion: winning is NOT the most important thing. Keeping the donors happy. Those donors who FUND and OWN BOTH parties. Who do not want the unwashed masses to become awake to the fact that this is more and more a meaningless shell of democracy. That the VOTE can be (and in fact IS) stolen away from the public. - If the Dems lose the donors will take care at least of the influental people in the party (revolving door, lobbyist jobs, cushy jobs for ex politicians). The not so influental people in the party would not even DREAM of crossing the establishment. And even if a politician does not take money from, let's say Pharma - their collegues and the upper ranks in the party do - and they have to take that into account as well. Only a few crazies like Nina Turner, Tulsi Gabbard or Bernie Sanders are so sure of their seats and the good standing they have with the voters that they will dare to rock the boat somewhat (Note that not even Sanders mentioned Cross Check - rest assured his campaign was informed about it, the people talking about it - like Lee Camp or also Jimmy Dore are all huge Sanders fans).
    2
  4. Productivity in producing goods and services has skyrocketed, so have profits. Sure Social Security is sustainable in such a rich and productive society. Moreover several time the SS funds were plundered (war). That money was never given back.
    2
  5.  @Bluecollarguy23  Sanders campaing did not reach eough of the young and non voteres (Chuck Rocha did a great job with the Latinos and other minorities in the first 3 states but that was not enough). Sanders also does not fight NOW. The stimulus check is STILL not passed. Sanders had reached those that were already active and interested, but they failed to broaden that. And I do not think those that understood what was at stake stayed home. Rather many did not understand and / or were deceived by mass media.
    2
  6. Federal Jobs Training, Medicare for All, Social Security are deliverd by an accountable elected entitiy. - And once established it will be hard to take them away from the voters . - Os opposed to things that are "granted" by the corporate overlords. Companies can (and will be) strategically bankrupted incl. their "pension funds" - ask the coal miners. - The Sanders proposals would take the money from the corporations - and the representatives of the people not the shareholders or their management got to decide how to allocate the funds. Getting a "jobs training" should not be even considered a "privilege". Moreover the unions were active in jobs training and teaching practical skills (like welding, etc.) Would help to strengthen them and with membership. The apprenticeship system (in its current form - it is centuries old) in Germany and Austria means 3 - 4 years paid internship usually for teenagers (15 years and older, sometimes adults are trained as well). They are protected, cannot be fired in those 3 years after a trial period, they must be paid (very modestly), they go to school 1 day a week during the usual school times (or a course in a special school with board - than 1 - 2 blocks per year). They must have the opportunity to come accross a variety of tasks in their trade - it is meant as training, they are not cheap labor. It is not allowed to abuse them for unskilled labour - for that one must hire a person and pay at least minimum wage. And they have 6 instead of 5 weeks vacations.
    2
  7. It is possible that there is some group dynamic going on. These people have chatted with each other. likely they know the lady in the middle has an opinion on Sanders / Biden. No, they do not have to script them, they just have to find the right kind of people.
    2
  8. Even the lost races are valuable. Better name recognition in the NEXT campaign. The Democratic "leadership" is OLD, even if Shahid Buttar does not unseat Pelosi this time (he ende up as number two in the jungle primary so 2 Dems compete in Nov.) - with some luck there will be soon a special race. Same could be true for Hoyer, Schumer, Mitch McConell, ... (where is corona virus when you need it). Name recognition is everthing in elections (and then you have to turn out voters). Paula from West Virginia * needed two races to win a primary. She could build on her first campaign in 2018. (* can't remember her last name, the coalminer's daughter) It is good for morale not only for candidates - but also for the electorate. It is worth their while to join the primaries to try out the outsiders, and Congress is elected every 2 years.
    2
  9. + Steve M doing the paste and copy job again ! - but thanks for reminding us how many progressives (often regular people with no campaign experience or institutinal backup) were brave and willing to engage in the uphill battle. Their FIRST attempt did not get them elected. Getting 30 % of the vote (as many did) is a huge success if you do not buy name recognition with the money provided by special interests. For all commenting in good faith: They can build on that name recognition in the next race. Reagan needed 3 runs (and collusion with the mullahs of Iran) to win the presidency. Sanders lost many races. He was an overnight sensation that was in the making since the 1970s. Being propped up by a lot and friendly Corporate media equals a lot of ad spending (and it is more effective, viewers are more influenced by the "news" than by TV ads). Party leadership and big donors can arrange for friendly coverage of candidates that are good for them (it is only 6 major networks - they are all in the same club to quote George Carlin). See Klobuchar (they still want to make her a viable candidate). Before they hyped Buttigieg, Harris, even Warren had her months of friendlier coverage. They constantly cover up for Biden's gaffes and cognitive decline, never mind his voting record. And they fawn over rich Bloomberg. They will get a lot of revenue from Bloomberg. I can't quite figure out why they treat Johnny-come-lately to a (still) crowded field so friendly.
    2
  10. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was behind in the polls 36 points BUT she had tapped into the segment of NEW voters (young people AND non-voters). The pollsters try to figure out who will come out to vote - AOC CHANGED WHO CAME OUT.
    2
  11. 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
  12. you could also take Germany, France, Austria, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, all the Nordic States, ....
    2
  13. Before the internet that tactic could have worked. If you are not tuned into politics and just hear the one sentence - "...access to healthcare" was the former soundbite, now it is ".. as a human right" - you would assume he is for one of those Canadian or European style systems ? It is intentionally misleading. It means: Perez and other shills are not prepared to take a lot of business away from the industries. He had some labor credentials so he could have become governor, but he just destroys his future chances. Oh, well the Big Donors will hopefully take care of thim. And Cuomo lies or is clueless about the costs.
    2
  14. 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
  15. +Beachdudeca Single payer systems (leaning strongly towards NON-PROFIT and common good) are much, much more cost efficient. The incentives of for-profit are toxic and cost drivers. For a product like healthcare - they work for other products/services. The "free" market does not work for healthcare.
    2
  16. +Beachdudeca The "free" market does not work for healthcare. The patients are by far the weakest party in the game. One (!) major reason is the information disadvantage - for an inevitable, time sensitive, life and death service that can become very, very expensive. One of the most expensive services a regual income consumer will ever encounter (more than a house). Even well intended regulation cannot change that - the incentive to maximize profit will alway mean that the more powerful actors are rigging the system to their advantage - and they always will be 2 steps ahead of the law makers and regulators and 4 steps ahead of the patients. The "profit" motive cannot be "tamed" for a service like healthcare. If consumers can make the decision "to not buy at all" if it is for a "nice to have, can do without product" THAT gives the consumers usually enough power compared to retail, and manufacturers (usually multinationals or huge companies). Being ripped off for broadband, cable TV or car repair is not comparable to being taken advantage of for expensive treatments. After WW2 some European nations had just stopped being mortal enemies. But as soon as there were signs of recovery - they all held the opinion that they wanted healthcare for every citizens no matter the income AND that it could not be left to the "free" market. They may not have agreed on much - but they agreed on that. Considering some basic principles all countries did their own thing - and they all have been beating the U.S. system cost wise for decades. Plus better outcomes.
    2
  17. +Beachdudeca Cost efficiency: There is plenty of room to have everyone insured, to eliminate the hassle for patients, medical staff and the administration (of the non-profit) - and STILL SAVE MONEY. - EXAMPLE: Germany is on the higher end of the average for a wealthy ! European country. Slap 65 % ON their per capita healthcare expenditures - and you land at U.S. levels. per capita expenditure means ALL that is spent in the country divided by numbers of people. So it does not matter who pays for the services, insured or not, ....
    2
  18. The (Koch Brothers funded) study published in summer 2018 works with very high estimates for Medicare for All. 32,6 * trillion for 10 years = 3,26 trilion per year divided by 326 million people that's USD 10,000 per year per capita. (Which is approx. what the U.S. has NOW with the very high costs caused by the expensive for-profit system). Like I said, add 65 % to the German expenditures (they are no cheapskates) and you land at U.S. levels. * and it is still lower by 2 trillion than the estimates if the U.S. continues with the current system. They tried to factor in rising prices.
    2
  19. His grades were underwhelming and he got a scholarship. but he interned with a Republican politician. Well, maybe the connection of the parents in law helped ... He earned his bachelor's in 1965 from the University of Delaware, with a double major in history and political science, graduating with a class rank of 506 out of 688. ... He then entered Syracuse University College of Law, receiving a half scholarship based on financial need with some additional assistance based on academics. By his own description, he found law school to be "the biggest bore in the world" and pulled many all-nighters to get by. During his first year there, he was accused of having plagiarized five of 15 pages of a law review article. Biden said it was inadvertent due to his not knowing the proper rules of citation, and he was permitted to retake the course after receiving an "F" grade, which was subsequently dropped from his record (this incident would later attract attention when further plagiarism accusations emerged in 1987). He received his Juris Doctor in 1968, graduating 76th of 85 in his class.
    2
  20. Biden is a roaring success if he (or Kamala Harris) can defeat Sanders and / or Warren. It does not matter WHO wins the GE - the big donors will be satisfied as long as no progressive that could rock the boat gets into the White house. The job of the Dems is to win in the primaries against blue collar New Deal style types and progressives. That is what they are paid for by the donors and for that they get the cushy jobs if they lose elections (if they were well connected with the party leadership and had good connections with the donors). That explains also the deafining silence * of the Dems on hackable voting machines. to quote Greg Palast: "Republicans steal GEs and Democrats steal primaries". They are not in a position to call out the R's - and voter roll purges, manipulating the count in the machine, or even the tabulation could come in handy in a progressive emergency. Ohio has never activated the safety feature of the election machines. Same in some districts in Texas. On principle the election there cannot be verified.  When Russia allegedly influenced / interfered with the elections and there are official competitions for 11 year olds to hack the machines ( they do it at samples of the machines, so it is all legal) - you would think the Dems and the media would finally ! talk about it ? - Nope ! . The 11 year olds hacked into it within 10 minutes (and more than 1 was successful). Operation Crosscheck in 2016: millions of ethnic names are purged. Not a peep from the DNC (also not from Sanders they all seem to be afraid to touch the issue).
    2
  21. @Daniel James It came out that the Trump admin (and the oligarchs behind it) put pressure on the U.K. government to have a hard Brexit (even under May) and to allow the privatization of the NHS (Corbyn showed the documents). - In case some fellow U.K. voters tell you about British sovereignty and "Brexit means Brexit". Johnson would be the bitch of the U.S. special interests and a hard brexit would set up the U.K. in desperate need to get into the good graces of the U.S. admin. Good help you if someone else than Sanders is in the White House (Republican or Corporate Democrat does not matter, they have the same donors). I guess a soft Brexit that allows to take railway, water back into public hand would be the best. Ideally with a president Sanders sworn in in January 2021. The U.S. insurance industry and the for-profit hospital chains prepare for the worst - that Sanders (or someone else) can push through a real reform and private insurers will become obsolete and hospital chains will see their profits going down. So they try to get a foot into the U.K. market. Make no mistake: if Johnson and Trump win the next election that will mean a massive assault on the NHS. A president Sanders would not blackmail U.K. (in desperate need of a trade deal after Brexit) to sell out the NHS. On the other hand president Sanders and PM Corbyn might quickly find common ground - Sanders can only be interested to have another example how economic reform works. If Labour wins the majority of seats they have budget control. (a president Sanders could be helpful to keep the speculators from going against the U.K. and the pound) Who gets the most donations from the helathcare industry in this election cycle in the U.S. ? Donald Trump - and then Pete Buttigieg who recently attacked the Sanders proposal. Sanders is the only relevant Democratic candidate that remains firmly ! in the camp of a geniuine single payer system. Not quite as cost-efficient as the U.K. system, but most wealthy nations have reasonable costs with it. Think 50 - 54 % of U.S. spending per person, versus 42 % in the U.K. - in case you have wondered why the NHS is in trouble. Some increase to match the funding of the cheapskates among the wealthy nations would do wonders for the NHS performance.
    2
  22.  @cosmotagliafierro8055  Now, that's a bit harsh - I protest on behalf of wolves and coyotes.
    2
  23. Sadly that is true - I cannot even remember if she made a strong stance for MfA or money out of politics. She sounds like a good candidate (one has always to wait until they are in office, talk is cheap). The DCCC blacklists all companies and strategists that work for campaigns that challenge an incumbent Democrat. But even I as lay person could have come up with a stronger message - if need be with a very simple video to keep production costs down. I also wonder if she has a strategy. It seems the district is wealthy in general - so how would that ad "get" them ?
    2
  24. Skilled Reiki practicioners do it OVER DISTANCE. no hair sniffing needed.
    2
  25. It could be sly calculation and knowing how PR works: just ACT as if you are the winner (knowing the good-for-nothing media will not contradict him). PERCEPTION is everything in marketing and politics. he does the victory lap and likely he has NOT won. But he gets at least a part of the bump of being the "winner". And Sanders gets none of the victory bonus.
    2
  26. So were you also up during the early morning hours (time gap) and biting your nails ? - I sure did. The margin was too close for comfort. I am glad Sanders and movement pulled it off, this victory should do more for his momentum than the premature victory laps of pete regarding Iowa.
    2
  27. IF there are different modes of subscriptions - why not offer full subscriptions and occasional subscriptions.
    2
  28. 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
  29. The dogs bark the carvan moves on ! - but the hypocrisy is remarkable. Rahm Emanuel then DCCC head cleverly worked for the donors in 2006 by installing Wallstreet Democrats. They saw a Blue Wave coming (voters had had it with Bush/Cheney - remember that was even before the financial crisis). The economy "looked" good in 2005. Well the numbers, even then it did not "trickle down". The numbers always look the best before the bubble bursts. Back to manipulating the Blue Wave in 2005/2006: the Corporate Dems packed ! the primaries with Wallstreet and pro abortion and pro gun "Democrats". If a Progressive made it into the GE despite the money thrown at the Wallstreet Democrats they were left to fend for themselves. So it is not like the Dems fight for EVERY seat, losing to a Republican is much better than getting one of those populists in. Remember: the Big Donors BUY both parties. Sanders somehow flew under the radar, and later he became so popular that it would have been hard to get rid of him. And he was only one exception to the rule. Vermont is a little state and also does not have major industries. Sanders in Texas or California would not have been possible. Either he would have sold out, or they would have poured in insane money to weed him out. After the good result of 2006, came the crisis and Obama in 2008. Obama deflated the enthusiasm of the base. The starting position of ACA was weak, even as little as the public option was too much - and then ACA was watered down from there. They lost the majority in 2010 - the voters (after 2008 !!!) sensed that it wasn't going to be "Hope and Change" after all and stayed at home. Obama sold out to Wallstreet in 2008, while talking a good game on the campaign trail. He saved those crooks from prison. The Wallstreet Dems from 2006 came in handy to vote for the bailouts. None of these ushered in candidates still hold office. They all lost the next elections because they had no connection to the base. It does not matter, many might have done it as career step on the way to becoming a lobbyist, anyway. And the shills are rewarded for their services to spare the Big Donors the politicians that would really work for the voters.
    2
  30. Obama was a movement killer: His donors wanted him to sideline his rainbow coalition. The grassroots that had formed to get him elected were immediately ignored. The big donors FEAR well organized grassroots. He obviously supported the move of Democratic mayors to attack Occupy Wallstreet in a coordinated manner. THAT was also a peaceful movement. And he sabotaged the Sanders movement. He could have been a great president - in a league with FDR, Lincoln - instead the careerist wanted to be a member of the insider club. He was not even expensive to buy.
    2
  31. Democrats and Republicans last summer increased the already insanely high military budget to approx. 680 billion USD (by roughly 60 bn - that is the yearly budget of Russia !). Add to that the costs of the wars - several trillions. Add to them the costs for the letter agencies, 1,2 trillion USD per year (and a lot of costs have indirectly to do with U.S. empire policies and mass surveillance is expensive as well). - And you bet Claire McCaskill would never ever dream of not voting for all these expenditures and budget increases. The federal debt - yeah.
    2
  32. The role assigned to the Democratic Wing of the Big donor party: win the primaries against progressives (or sheepdog them), and they are ALL for keeping money in politics (the Big Donors, both parties, the media).
    2
  33. A public option would be abused by the industry to keep only the good insured and sort out the costly ones. Preexisiting conditions and every time someone starts needing costly treatments or turns out to be a risk they would be harrassed enough to leave gladly (or get completely overpriced offers). The private insurers already have a cherrypicked poos, the most costly group (older than 65) is already with Medicare. It could make their costs look reasonable while still being overpriced. (it is quite effective in health insurance BUSINESS to eliminate the few large riks, that can bring down costs considerably). And since the large risks before old age do not hit THAT many people it undermines the solidarity and having everyone in the same boat (riks pool risk) The few who are unfortunate with their health do not have the backup of the luckier ones who get to have private policies that look not too bad (but are of course still overpriced - and wait until a healthy person gets into trouble).
    2
  34. + 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
  35. 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
  36. They are idiots and I disagree that you need to be 26 to be mature, I mean they are on the internet, are they ?. - The govenor is even more an idiot (I think Andrew Gillum would have done a much better job). That idiot of govenor does not want to disturb the hospitality industry. Well, he will see how that will monkey up his state, I guess on the flip side he may lose the next election.  I understand that China did not realize immediately how serious it was. Italy also dropped the ball - but they have carneval, spring tourism and the response was too much delayed. Then some provinces shut down and people left the area to avoid the restrictions ! No coordinated federal response. They are paying the price now. But I am not sure any other country would have done better, it is a huge decision to shut down the country (when you are the first to do it). But after Italy the other luckier nations with the warning example of Italy in front of them - sprang into action. In China you could not say what is going on, it is a dictatorship - and frankly it is faaaar away. Italy - that woke up the Europeans. Not in America though While the science-avers orange moron lied about it and denied it. The doctor with the Italian sounding name (he is an American) that now tries to advise Trump (he earns his place in heaven already and certainly needs saintly patience) was asked what he thought that changed the mind of Trump and is stance on the virus. "He is a smart guy [Credit to the good Dr. HE is smart, knows you must flatter Trump to get his attention] - he saw what was going on in Italy and France. No kidding: two NATO allies (one of them a major ally = France, but Italy also has U.S. bases) shut down their countries. Which have first world medical systems. I read a comment: In France we went within days from "wash your hands" to "if you do not have a good reason you can't be outside" So THAT gave Trump the idea that it is maybe not just the Democrats exaggerating ? Splendid !
    2
  37. OF COURSE the dems will not JEOPARDIZE BIG DONATIONS. Their role is to WIN PRIMARIES and keep Progessives out. THEY would of course like to win the GE as well, but for the Donors that is not a priority. The ticket shows a Republican Lite or a right wing Republican - they always win. And since the unwashed masses have the vote it is better to maintain the facade and give them something to be excited about (Hope and Change). Voters wanting reall change cannot pay the hoards of lobbyists, strategists, .... so they must invest a LOT of energy and financial means. And if then their hopes are betrayed it dilutes the energy. Some hopelessness is not a bad thing. as long as they reliably do not vote ....
    2
  38. Claim to be wary of the (relatively few vile criminals) that could vote. (they would vote for a party / candidate that is not criminal - well at least not in theory). Meanwhile the white collar criminals that commit crimes that affect the lives of millions (lying the country into a war, laying before Congress, spying on representatives, the banksters) not only get to vote - they get to BUY POLITICIANS and ELECTIONS.
    2
  39. Dems are PAID TO LOSE (when it comes to the interest's of the common people). The special interests that finance and OWN the ONE Big Donor party want a wing with fierce Republicans and a wing with spinless Democrats. It helps to confuse the clueless plebs (they think they have a choice). And the more liberal leaning voters would be out of reach for the Republicans - so for the task of sheep dogging that segment the Democratic Party is better suited (although the Republicans are better on tax cuts). Power shifts between the two wings - usually every 8 years. The Dems are not per se weak, not when it is about defending the status quo, then they are getting quite resoureful, creative and forceful.
    2
  40. The most important task of the Corporate Democrats is to win PRIMARIES. The Dems would like to win the GE too, but keeping the money in politics and the Big Donors happy is more important.
    2
  41. If they lose their seat or leave politics they will be taken care of and get a cushy job. The Big Donors "honor" their "obligations" for the votes that were cast in their interest, or the valuable service to keep Progressives away from power. The party establishment are the gatekeepers - their role is also to keep all of the politicians of the party in line.
    2
  42. Fairy godmother to Corporate Dems: Chose between 2 scenarios They can win the midterms in a landslide (so they can do damage control on Trump), in 2020 they win the presidency and get a supermajority in the Houses. Then they can SHAPE policies. Undo the damage caused by Trump. Getting reelected is EASY, campaigning is mostly pleasant, grassroots efforts. Their jobs, the salaries and benefits as representatives are secure. Oh - and they MUST switch to publicly funded campaigns, and small individual donations no SuperPac Money. MONEY OUT OF POLITICS Important. Also restrictions on the Revolving door. It gets much harder to cash in on pro Big Biz votes after they leave office. (Other Western "democracies" still have corruption and the politicians working for Big Biz because of THAT). So they must be content with the pay they are getting. And work for their constituency - not Big Donors. **************************** OR 2) They can KEEP the MONEY in POLITICS. They continue to get Big Donations for party leadership and individual campaigns. And the whole lucrative circus for ex-politicians continues (incl. them becoming part of the election game, in media, as strategists or consultants) There are higher risks involved, one can lose a seat - therefore it is important to have served the party leadership + the Big Donors loyally. Then they will provide cushy jobs and lucrative contracts for ex politicians. **************************** The Corporate Dems can chose only ONE scenario (with all pro and cons of the package) What would the Dems choose ? Well, scenario 2 - MONEY - OF COURSE. P.S: Scenario 1) is realistic (even the super majority). - If they would rally behind a Sanders platform in a BELIEVABLE MANNER they could win convincingly and with increasing numbers.
    2
  43. So Singlepayer was not even discussed nor were experts invited, but the industry was of course invited * to the Senate hearing in 2009 (the successful system everwhere else since end of WW2 - * I got that from Ed Schultz when he still had the show on MNSBC). The public option is a very distant second best (especially in the toxic US culture). Never mind, it was killed shortly after, neither president nor VP could be bothered to say anything. THEN 10 years later - and by the efforts of others - it seems inevitable that some change will have to come and the costs explosion and extortion schemes of the industry get worse and worse - and THEN all of a sudden it is the public option ? Too little too late !
    2
  44. 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
  45. She showed a backbone in many cases - but what is she doing now (trying to get a job ??). And unfollowing Mike on twitter is a No, No.
    2
  46. Sanders helped them - unwittingly. Or getting scared of his own success.
    2
  47. They childishly do not want t be told what to do (but accept the Patriot Act, the pledge of allegienca and are plundered by the insurance companies). But they are not that craven that they say that they reject masks while being convinced that they would help. The petulant stance is assisted by a fact free assertion that masks are completely useless, and dangerous on top, and that many people are unable to wear them. (people that can make a scene in shops and look perfectly healthy to us). so you could not even lure them with the promise that masks would help Trump, first they would have to agree that they are not so useless after all. they already found an agreement with themselves that they will not admit that. Ever.
    2
  48. 7:50 if the child is already viable saving the life of the mother is not a medical argument. A late term abortion is much more complicated and it takes longer to prepare it (much longer) than inducing birth - or more likely having a c-section. A doctor that said he performed a lot of late abortions (and is now against abortions, at least late term) describes the graphic (gruesome) details of the process. If the pregnant woman is in a late stage the preparations takes 1 day. He also told how he got a woman with very high blood pressure (so high it might kill her within short time, kidney failure or even more quickly an aneyrisma). They delivered the baby in one hour (in that case it was a baby the infanct was viable, the specified the stage of the pregnancy I forgot). Mother and child lived. So I think in this stage a removal would be necessary if the fetus/infant has died inside the womb. They need to induce labor so the mother will not die of sepsis. An abortion would be used to not give birth to a severely disabled child or with severe genetic disease. Now that is an ethical grey area.
    2
  49.  @Boofyre  Thanks ... but still ... we can book that on the good side
    2
  50. She coined the term regime change war - and EVERY war is that. (or getting undue influence on the existing regime, see Saddam Hussein after the 1991 war. Bush1 was smart, he left him in power, but there was plenty of room for U.S. oligarchs. Making money WITH help of the sanctions.
    2