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

  1. A (McKinnsey) type like Buttigieg would have a skewed poll. Just in case he is challenged. Then they DO have a poll to cite - and media is not likely to challenge them on how it was done the methodology, etc.
    1
  2. Then Sanders can run as Independent - and wipe the floor with Trump AND HRC
    1
  3. Cleverly set up by the deep state: the poor children, see how terribly the die. And they did it over and over and over again. And now people of good will do not even DARE to question (you heartless monster, do you WANT Assad to continue ....) - it is important to have the "elevator pitch" ready. (like should we bomb Yemen - . or Israel. Also White phosphorus. ....)
    1
  4. "Reform" the police was a slogan or demand before, so WHAT has that accomplished ? And the other rich ladies of The View support the status quo.
    1
  5. The "more morderate" views of Biden put him over the finish line - just about in Georgia because some of those people this time felt comfortable with Biden. Did not help him in Florida (remember the Castro outrage ?). Trump did better with ALL groups except white males. Sanders on the other hand would have activated a more loyal base, the people that are allegedly the core of the party. Latinos, younger people, working class and middle class people. Blue collars. The party lost working class black people, especially males, same with the Latino males. That should give the Democrats pause. Even with black women Trump did better than in 2016. OHIO is notw solidly red - Obama (with hope and change, even if he did not mean it) won Ohio TWICE. Neither Biden nor HRC won Ohio. In Philadelphia Biden underperformed ! the surrounding suburbs helped him - these people will vote Republican next time when an less gross Republican or a less unocough fascist is on the ticket. they do not care that much for abortion, and gun rights as long as their financial interests are taken care of. And many of them work in the predatory healthcare industry. The problem: these voters are fickle, unless Democrats continue to betray their base 8which they like to do) they will be gone in a heartbeat when the next Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush comes around. I think Chris Christie or Jeb Bush would have beaten Biden. The Republicans had one hell of a ticket this time. Biden the normie 80s / 90s style R (with a D to his name) and the far right winger.
    1
  6. World Bank data 2014 - per capita healthcare expenditures U.S. USD 9,200 then (now 10k), Germany 5,600, most wealthy European countries between 5,000 and 5,500, Canada is in that range too, Australia has 6,000. There are outliers like the U.K. (only 3,900 but they are definitely underfunded - but with only HALF the U.S. expenditures their non-profit NHS which delivers most of the services would run like a charm). On the other hand Norway had 8,400. (High wages, likely very high standard incl. dental). Or Switzerland 9,600 they were even higher than the U.S. - but then they pay staff very well, and everybody is insured. Switzerland is one of the very few developed countries that do not have a non-profit public insurance agency but let the for profit private players have that niche . Well, it shows. I do not know of any larger country (except the U.S.) which lets for profit actors handle (most) of the healthcare insurance market. Switzerland has less than 10 million people, I think Singapore might lean strongly towards a private system. Let me add that most developed countries beat the U.S. when it comes to life expectancy and infant mortality. Most (or all) wealthy European countries have a population that is on average older than the people in the U.S. (so that should result in LOWER expenditures for the U.S.)
    1
  7. One aspect of cost efficiency is mandatory participation and very affordable contributions (not according to risks but to INCOME) and everyone gets the SAME treatment. - Medical necessity not your insurance policy or risk determine the treatment. Patients can often - but not always - choose where they are treated. Occasionally they will influenc HOW they are treated (in cooperation with the doctor). CHOICE is mainly for the doctors in the system: they DECIDE what treatment they will suggest to the patient (or decide FOR the patient). Example: after an accident, will an ambulance transport do, which hospital would be best, is an airlift necessary (speed - treatment in larger or specialized hospital). The collection of the contributions is simple. Wage deductions and additional government funding (so they have to chase down employers if they cannot pay, but not individual insured persons, so much less persons involved). The insurance agency pays the bills of the doctors and hospitals. so they do not have to chase the patients either. The insurance agency has no incetive to give doctors a hard time when they want to use an expensive tretment - in the U.S. the insurance companies try to weasel out of paying and start a fight either with the doctor or the patient (or both). It is agreed upon between the professional players what treatments will be covered. The patients do not have to care and there will be (almost) no payments when they get treatment (some countries have modest co-pays with caps). The revenue scheme according to the negotiated contract is mixed - some general payments and some payments for special procedures (or tests). To avoid the incentive to game the system (even a non-profit hospital could wish to get as much as they can from the non-profit insurance agency). So the revenue model is mixed to make it harder for the actors to strategize because the effects even out and the demands on adminstration would overwhelm the capacity (there are much less paper shufflers than in the U.S. system). Everything that is medically warranted in a First World Country will be included in the negotiated price list. Even if it is more expensive (think cancer treatment by chemotherapie and immune therapy). Better survival rates, return to be fully functional, less side effects - but also more expensive. Else there will be a public and political discussion why certain NEW treatments are not (yet) available for the public. That is theoretical: if a promising medication or surgery method or test or examination device is available it will be adopted - if effective. Doctors are invited by the pharma industry and the machine builders - if there is new device or drug that these for-profit players want to sell - the doctors WILL learn about it. They doctors consult with the non-profit insurance agency to get new treatments approved and included. That is an ongoing process.
    1
  8. The non-profit agency has a budget and has to stay within - that said, if they can prove the benefit of an effective new treatment method for society in general (often medication) - which would however overwhelm their budgets - there would be a political and lively discussion about how to increase their funding. These costs may well pay off for society ! even if one cannot put a price tag on the indirect benefits (elderly people can live longer unassisted, people can take care of their family, avoid the trauma of losing a family member to cancer, restore (quicker) the ability to work, how will that person fare in 20 or 30 years in their old age, ….) None of these considerable benefits _manifest for the insurance agency._, Since they serve the public and not the shareholders (with the incentive to maximize profits and think only short term) - they can include these considerations. The agency must have a reasonable budget - healthcare costs are always on the rise and the population is getting older - so that alone forces them to be economic and to weed out inefficiencies. Most doctors and hospitals have a contract with the non-profit agency - they bill according to the negotiated contract / price list. (Private doctors w/o a contract do exist - maybe 20 - 30 % of the practices. Private hospitals w/o a contract are rare, they would have a hard time finding patients). There are quotas - in an area with a certain population there will be only a limited number of doctors and specialists and hospitals that get a contract. (Consideration for touristic regions, saisonal demand in winter - skiing - and for very rural areas can be made to make sure they are served well). The patients often have a choice where to go - but that the number of contract for doctors/hospitals in limited, ensures that they have enough patients and revenue while working for very competitive rates. The Pharma industry has a negotiation partner that represents 300,000 or 85 million people (Iceland / Germany -). Now, Big Pharma cannot rip off little Iceland, the Vikings can have a friendly chat with the other Nordic countries (or the UK or Germany, or Netherlands). Or they could pool their purchasing with another country or threaten to allow imports from other countries. They will have a general idea what other countries pay for pharmaceuticals, machines, devices - these are the costs that a country / non profit system cannot control and where they could be taken advantage off. They control the wages for staff, the costs for training doctors and nurses, or the costs of construction and ongoing operation of a hospital - all these expenditures also contribute to the local economy and the country can provide the resources and also effectively negotiate the prices for them. Even in a small country. If they train doctors and nurses for free in the public education system (which is almost always the case) - they will not lose those potential employees in large numbers to other countries. That is one of the reason why Vermont did not succeed to have their own Medicare for All system - while Iceland beats Germany when it comes to per capita expenditures. They have about the same number of people - 300,000 - but Iceland CAN import drugs if the pharma industry would like to play games. And their doctors make a nice living but they will not leave for the next state because they can earn double. The income situation for doctors in the wealthy European nations is not that different and most do not care to move (even if though they can within the EU). Vermont would have lost many doctors to other states. The medical profession in the U.S. has very effectively made sure they do not have competition in the job market. Doctors cannot migrate to the U.S. - their training will not be recognized and it is expensive and time consuming to do it again - so not many are coming. And there are mechanisms to make sure not too many doctors are trained in the U.S. (like high costs for medical school). - That is why doctors earn almost double of their European counterparts (which have more competition so most of them are willing to accept the rates of the public contract - if they can get one). They are doing well btw, no need to pity them. But of course unless the availability of enough staff is tackled the U.S. will have a problem. The insurance agency is of course a powerful buyer on behalf of the patients. But: if most doctors CAN refuse to work for a a lower income than other (not exceptional doctors) are getting then there will be a shortage and problem for hospitals and general practicioners that have most revenue from Medicare for All contracts: Then the quality and/or waiting times will suffer and the doctors can promote a 2 tier system. Where people are effectively forced to accept the high rates of private doctors IF they want good treatment. with all the games of the private insurance companies 2 tier systems are invariably more expensive - and that is even in the European environment where the private patients profit from the fact that the competition from the non-profit sector somewhat prevented the worst excesses (like they are common in the U.S.) The government could of course invest in a public training system (with some forgiveness of student debt if they work for a certain time in the U.S.) Or losen the rules regarding immigration.
    1
  9.  @JB-qf5ep  it is possible tha the flat earth movement started like that. Some people started that (surely no one will fall for it - or will they ??) and once the idiots ate it up they fed them more nonsense.
    1
  10. There are many more parents that support the mask mandates, but they do not take out time of their day to show up for a no brainer. So it is a very vocal minority that loses their plot. To be fair the smaller children are not going to wear the maks correctly. And if they get mixed messages from parents even 10 years old (that could handle it) will be conflicted or sloppy or defiant (children love their parents and will defend them. Others will - also - be mortified).
    1
  11. why are they advertising their pied piper strategy ? Playing 3D chess to signal to the D party they should create a narrative of "oh no Sanders can't be the nominee he would also hurt other races ..." ?? Sounds a little complicated. maybe it is just motivational grandstanding
    1
  12.  @kekwayblaze3176  If she can't win in HER district (she was state senator) how do you think she would fare in a presidential race ? Winning the Congressional seat in 2022 and then SENATOR would be great. - I hope she continues to hit corrupt Brown and goes right into 2022 mode. Brown must defend her seat. People do not seem to care much for incumbents and in the midterms turnout might be higher.
    1
  13. Time to rewatch "Knock Down The House".
    1
  14. From a historical series: "If you go after the king - you have to kill him, at the first attempt and FAST." - This is methphorcial of course - BUT as a if you challenge the powers that be, you need to to so in a bold, determined manner. And fast, or they will organize the hit-back. Half assed and trying to appease them Will. NEVER. Work. They will gladly destroy any challenger in return and THEY will not have any second thoughts. (See: Corbyn HE appeased the rightwingers and neoliberals in the party. The neoliberals have taken back the party and do not hesistate whatsoever to kneecap the left. They did not do so under Corbyn and even less so under neoliberal Starmer). I think the Tudors (a BBC series). A young man trying to assassinate an older power broker and could not bring himself to drive in the knife. He let up and thought he would be forgiven because he had shown restraint, insight, and had some attachment. The power broker then talked a few sentences with him, laid his arm around him - and stabbed him in return. To death. And gave him this sage piece of advice.
    1
  15. 3:40 but the bill IS DIVISIVE - just think of the heated discussions, the emergency meetings in the higher levels of management / shareholders. - Investment funds will be wary to keep Pharma stocks - they will tank on Nov. 9th, 2020 - and so will the stocks of some other companies (or before it depends on the polling). Career plans will have to be overhauled (if done right, a LOT of the "market" will be lost for private healthcare insurers). I also think that the hospitals might need to revamp their biz - in the single payer nations they are usually public non-profits.
    1
  16. No, the oligarchs in the U.S. leverage the power of government, military, intel agencies, diplomacy. They HATE the governments that overthrow right wing dictatorships or nationalizee natural recourses or give land from rich landowners to poor peasants. - the problem is not the dictator (or democratically elected perfectly reasonable leader see Chile 1973). the U.S. governement and the media are supportive of much worse dictatorships. But dispossessing the rich is the worst crime there is, even forcing the rich to give up control over resources (with compensation) is terrible. They might get compensated for the equipment, etc. but they are not getting compensated for their future HUGE profits, that goes into the budgets and is used for the poor populaton (see Venezuela, as long as the lower oil price and sanctions did not get them into economic trouble). also Bolivia recently. getting rid of the oligarchs ? and taking back control of major industries and resources ? - that could be a very bad example for the U.S. citizens, they might be getting ideas. The Cold War / Red Scare (the letter was meant for domestic purposes !) was part of that propaganda mission. So the U.S. MUST make sure to undermine the economy of such nations, to goad them into war or an arm's race (Iran, Soviet Union, maybe Iraq in 1990 into invadin Kuwait). Heaven forbid Castro would have created a relatively open society and the population would do much better under left economic policies. That explains the sanctions from the 1960s until Obma era. Obama loosened them, Trump reinstated them (rich exile Cubans = donors). Cuba has never attacked the U.S. has never committed acts of terrorism (but the U.S. has against Cuba explosives in civilian ship freight), couldn't be a threat for the U.S. if they wanted to. See the end of monarchy in Russia in 1917. In the U.S. a united left (all parties incl. Communists and unions) were very active in 1932, enough oligarchs saw the pitchforks coming. They remembered the Russian Revolution and FDR's New Deal (from 1933 on) was the lesser evil. The Democratic establishment had to put up with FDR, but their man Truman was shoved into the VP position when it mattered (the insiders knew that FDR would die from his untreatable high blood pressure, it was only a question of time, he was already in bad shape in 1944 when he was reelected). They sidelined popular one term VP Wallace (and rigged the nomination process at the party convention). Truman restarted U.S. imperialism in Latin America and he immediately started to be hostile towards the Soviet Union even before WW2 was over. THEY wanted an enemy to villify the Left IN the U.S. and to justify an arm's race and the invasion of foreign countries 'cause Soviet Union (or China !). Violent revolutions very often lead to a new authoritarian regimes - it is not the mild mannered democratically minded leaders that prevail in such situations. Fidel Castro was paranoid about his security - or better he HAD to be because of the hare brained attacks of the U.S. and even wilder schemes that they considered (there is a memo that was declassified: the idea (put down in writing ! - even if they did not make concrete plans for that) was to shoot down an U.S. civilian aircraft and to blame it on Cuba). Likely as pretext to start a war with public backup. you would be excused from thinking think that Cuba was this powerful enemy to trigger even such ideas - nothing could be further from the truth. A right wing brutal dictatorship would have been completely O.K. but they went nuts that the Revolutionaries seized the property of rich Americans, rich Cubans and kicked out the mob for good measure.
    1
  17. The nurse that had a baby, though. during pregnancy it is not given. Birth and the milk shooting is is a hormonal storm and the pregnancy is also intense on the immune system of the mother (she had to tolerate the 50 % different DNA of the little one). so I get how a woman would want to wait a little bit before getting the shots. Normally she should be protected because everyone else (who can) has gotten the shots (and one effect of vaccination is that most people are not good in passing it on even now with the Delta variante IF they have breakthrough infections).
    1
  18. If you meant a donation for Mike or if you are an ex-pat - Have at it !
    1
  19. "entry" level skills is nonsense - it means ONLY immediately profitable for the employer, no long on the jobs training, no formal professinal training necessary. you start and you make a profit for the boss right away. - Walmart of Amazon do not tolerate shoddy work of slow work - these people get kicked out immediately.
    1
  20. In Australian the "assumption" of being a fellon cannot be used to kick voters (that are of course not ex-fellons) to purge voter rolls. See what Jeb Bush did for his brother in Florida in 2000, black men were purged in masses from the lists. Later it turned out not one of them was an ex-fellon that had registered to vote. Which was plausible, that was illegal and would have brought you 5 years in prison (only the act of registering to vote would be enough) - funny how that works .... if everyone CAN vote it is a solution without red tape. In Australia the 3 years candidates will be treated fairly. And people out of prison (ex fellons) can vote anyway. Moreover I do not think in Australia there are people that have LIFE sentences for relatively harmless non-violent offenses - 3 strikes and you are out, high minimum sentencing on drugs that are more likely to be used by poor people. Crack and Cocaine are the same substance chemically speaking. The amount that got you into legal trouble was a 1 : 100 ratio though and the minimum sentences were much harsher too. The supreme court reduced that ratio somewhat, but Crack still gets you more into trouble than Cocaine.
    1
  21. 9:25 the billionair class is getting nervous - and they should. - Did I see a hint of a grin ? (Yep !)
    1
  22. This was about general voting rights, which lead of course to the issue of voting rights of fellons and ex-fellons. But he did not foresee the sensationalism and disengenuity of the questions. I mean you can prepare for the reasonable objections - but how do you keep up with the smear attacks.
    1
  23. That said: Sanders should consider one fact about Trump. He did not double down - he ATTACKED. Being defensive is considered weak, I hope next time he has a good kick-ass answer ready. (And you bet he will be concerned trolled about his "controversial" stance.
    1
  24. The Harvards students did their institution no credit - is that the best the young "elites" can come up with ?
    1
  25. Speaking of kick-ass comments - please donate a small amount to the Mike Gravel campaign (even 1 dollar would help). Unlike Sanders, Warren, Gabbard he does not have to be cautious, polite or think of "decorum" - he had a good answer on twitter - or his 17 year old unpaid campaign staffers had ;) - with 65,000 unique donations (again 1 dollar would be enough) he will make it to the debates and rock the boat. And he can say things than Sanders cannot say so explicitely - drawing some of the contempt and the controversy and hpyocritical pearl clutching onto himself while the audience still hears what they need to hear.
    1
  26. Can you still give your online support ? texting ? they have a program on his site. If you can persuade on person to vote (by mail if need be) that is the equivalent of some money. It all is spent to GET the votes. So maybe you can do the short cut
    1
  27. No one needs to "start from scratch". Medicare exists since 1965. If the private insurers keep certain age groups untilt the rollout is completed for ALL (the full AGE group not ONLY the cherry picked good insured) they can be pressured to lower prices. They already do not have the most expenisve group of plus 65 years old (age is a major factor for costs. Medicare then would get the 55 year olds and the young until 25. so for private insurers another more costly group they got rid off. Children until age 5 need a little more (but nothing like the old). so the private insurers would be left with 25 - 55. that is not too bad regarding risks. It could be implemented that ALL private insurers get the same prices for drugs as Medicare (with would be allowed to negotiate, that is banned right now). Or they could buy via Medicare with a tiny surcharge. so effectively drug prices go down a lot. and some provisions to force them to not purge the pools, and setting max. insurance prices for the last years. There are possibilities for them to offer much better priced insurance. And if the rollout works well, it can be sped up. - I guess the ONLY reason to do it over 4 years is to not overwhelm the system, give time for adaptations and fix bugs. It is the question if there are enough hospitals - some closed down. or enough doctors.
    1
  28.  @thomaasfist6494  Well summed up !
    1
  29. Obama took the big Wallstreet money AND gladly took the many small donations in 2008 (many small donations mean grassroots support). And when elected turned around and protected the banksters from the anger of the voters.
    1
  30. Have you ever wondered how the Republicans FIERCLY fought against some proposals under Obama. - And then look at the things that got broad bi-partisan support during the same era. The SAME under Trump, never mind the "disgust" of the Dems. The same Big Donors OWN both parties - it shows when it really counts (taxes, no good healthcare,not even weed or net neutrality on the federal level, war, no regulation of banks, fossil fuel, ...) The Dems with overwhelmign support gave Trump more for military spending than he asked for. (Increase is more than Russia has in total per year). They are not going after the tax cuts for the rich. Pelosi is rich herself. She cannot admit it but she likes these policies. Bonus: they can blame it on the Republicans. Dems could not be bothered to fight against tax cuts mainly for the rich or cuts in Medicare etc. I forgot which one, Schumer could have not let a certain bill move forward. Later ! he voted against it - after he abstained from using his power and the only chance they had to either prevent or delay it. He KNEW it would pass once it went forward - and you bet the Big Donors that finance BOTH parties liked that outcome. So Schumer who is a master fundraiser for Wallstree money will be forgiven for his Nay. The Big Donors understand that politicians have to put up a show for the sheeple sometimes. The record shows that he voted against the bill - so he can play innocent.
    1
  31.  @jwil4286  Medicare for All would be much more cost efficent - you cannot afford to NOT have it.
    1
  32.  @jwil4286  your claim about near bankrupcy of nations with single payer or at least a public option is absurd. That would mean ALL other wealthy countries . No they are NOT ALL slowly going bankrupt. Switzerland is one of the very few wealthy countries which leaves healthcare insurance to the private insurance companies although I think some Kantons have a public option. (I know of no other nation - maybe Singapore). Well it shows in the Swiss costs - even higher per capita expenditures than the U.S. - USD 9,600 (but they have higher costs of living and wages, even so pay staff well, the system is good, and everyone is insured. At least they are getting something for their money and the U.S. hassle is unknown and so are medical bankrupcies). All other wealthy nationns are luckily not in the U.S. situation of increasing debt and deficit during an - alleged - boom. As is proven by the debt vs. GDP ratio. The internet is your friend. The countries you declare "on the brink of bankrupcy" have plenty of exporters - their businesses include the costs of mandatory employer contributions - and many of them kill it with exports (Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Japan among them) Look at the import / export stats. The U.S. does not produce enough anymore. Instead the cheap stuff comes from Mexico and Asia and the quality products from Europe and Japan.
    1
  33. 2:40 it isn't glamarous, you stand up every day, you do your civic duties. What does she think that the young people that cannot afford to have an apartment on their own and have a gig not a job - are doing ? Sleeping until afternoon and then release some pro Sanders tweets ?? She diagnosed correctly that many of the young Sanders supporters have to live with their parents, do not have a stable job with good prospects, and have a lot of debt. Then comes the "but" term. I read a piece in blabber - same tune before adresssing her self congratulating sermon she admits reality. But todays parents got it all wrong, she left her home after 18, returned for 8 months after they college to save up, then they and she were glad she would have an apartment. Dad even paid part of the rent to make that possible (!) But she never went make and todays parents coddle their young adult children too much. Ahem: she graduated into an economy when there WERE jobs (because of a bubble to be sure). Her parents could afford the extra costs to help her with the apartment in the beginning. She did not mention how she financed college, with how much debt she left and how many jobs she held during that time. The lucky one condescendingly telling those who came after her and have it harder "to suck it up". See how it did it (with more help and under better conditions). I also got the impression she is white. ... Yep, she is ! see https://www.babble.com/mom/to-the-parents-of-all-those-18-to-34-year-olds-still-living-at-home-youre-doing-it-all-wrong/
    1
  34. the insurers are always the administrative middle man - you just get more bang for your buck with the public non-profits. There is no innovation or creativity or marketing needed for the paper shuffling regarding healthcare. For-profit is always more expensive in healthcare and you will not find an example to the contrary - not for insurers and not for hospitals. If they have a high budget a private insurer can of course pay the rates for good services - no problem (they might try to weasel out of paying though - good plan or not). The teenager that was denied the liver transplant (doctors had a perfect matching liver and were ready to go) was on a "Mercedes" family plan that also covered organ transplants - literally Mercedes - via the car manufacturer (but in the U.S. - unthinkable in Germany). Wendell Potter was the senior PR guy for Cigna then and the reporters that started calling landed with him. It became a black eye event (PR lingo) so Cigna gave in after a few days. Nateline died a few hours after the green light had been given. It was the straw that broke the camel's back for Potter he handed in his resignation the next day. Being a father he emphasized a lot, he had been very happy when the company changed the decision. Cost of surgery then - late 2007 - 450,000 - plus of course ongoing medication. So Cigna could add that to the profit. The doctor that had gotten the files and made the decision was hundreds of miles away - and he knew of course what was expected from him. The girl had chemo and a bone marrow transplant before, while she was not a top candidate - she had a fighting chance to do better and survive for many years. Her doctors were from a prestigious California hospital and they protested the decision. Where I live (Austria) the doctors would not have needed to consult the public non-profit agency (and I do not think the insurance agency would have to pay 450k for the surgery). They get the perfect liver, they alert the family, get the teenager into the specialized hositals asap and do the surgery. If the transport would have required airlift (time, or her condition) that is be covered. With a doctor on board of course. Most likely it would have been her parents bringing her - or an ambulance with or without doctor.
    1
  35. Politics could be so nice without the voters .....
    1
  36. Is Wales Corbyn country ? - well deserved. - So people were having second thoughts at the end according to Clinton. Those poor dummies fell for a combination of Russian interference - and what was the second thing ?? Comey. - Anyway: Sanders would have wiped the floor with Trump and with him an "interference" - Russian or otherwise - would just not have mattered. He does not have one email scandal after another. And I doubt if his campaign had been hacked resp. if there had been a whistleblower that it would have uncovered any embarrassing material (leading to the resigning of leadership figures like with the DNC). And when the queen was anointed - because the party in its infinite wisdom did not think the several SELF-INFLICTED scandals and an ongoing FBI investigation would matter - Comey had not yet confirmed that she was off the hook. So the uncertainty went on well into summer, with the country voting in late fall. If she had graciously and voluntarily !! handed over to Sanders AND would have encouraged her fans to support him - it would have been a lovely 9th November. She could have travelled the country to close a cycle regarding healthcare. (and reap the honor, she tried as First Lady now she pulled if off, and she had enough stateswomanship to pull out for the sake of the country and to play it safe. After all nothing would be worse than even the remote chance of Trump winning. With Sanders such an late "interference" (Comey thinking a few days before the elections maybe we have something new on her) would not have happend. Bhengazi was avoidable as well. The abassador was there to send weapons over to Syrian "rebels" to further the uprising against Assad. UK, France and Hillary Clinton wanted war with Libya (and then regime change in Syria). Even though Obama hesistated, in the end the pro regime change/war fraction pulled off a narrow win in the cabinet and Clinton, France, UK got their war. Without that war the Bhengazi assault would not have happened. Say what you will about Gaddafi - at least the Islamist were not at large and the police and army controlled the country - it was not a failed state. And because of the Benghazi hearings it came out that she had a secret server in the basement. At least a little bit of karma. So she won the primaries so gloriously - never mind the cheating, and never mind they started the primaries in the South where the Clintons are a household name and Sanders was completely unknown. Bill Clinton was the "first honorary" Black president. So she got a LOT of votes there. And 1 million votes were uncounted in California when the DNC already heralded the results in the last days before the convention. Do the 4 million votes more in the primaries include the votes AFTER 1 month or 2 when the count was finished ? and conveniently huge New York makes it impossible to switch registration for a "newcomer" candidate . So with same day registration, with starting out with SMALL states, with having enough polling stations, enough debates and not at impossible times - does Clinton really think she would have led in the primaries with 4 million votes ? And talking about the primaries (many not open for people who are not registered as Democrats) - what weight does that have considering the largest voting block are INDEPENDENTS ?
    1
  37. 8:40 KY cut polling places from 3,700 to 200, 1 place for 616,000 registered voters in Louisville's Jefferson County where half the states black voters live.
    1
  38.  @ginny9577  Joe Biden does not fare well under exposure - "Give him enough rope to hang himself" applies. And: he is only a few months younger than Sanders, had severe medical treatments earlier in life. I would argue that Sanders after the minor heart attack and the 2 stents - in other words with the fuel rods cleaned now - is in better shape than Biden. Physically and intellectually. Joe Biden playing the role of the frontrunner (at least in the media narrative) would take care of the concern trolling about the age of the two front runners. But Warren is not going to drop out. If push comes to shove she would NOT endorse Sanders or give him her delegates. She would "negotiate" with the party leadership and give her delegates to someone like Kamala Harris or Cory Booker - for the "promise" they would promote the progressive agenda and because they are minorities etc etc. Of course those promises would be broken !
    1
  39. Greetings from Europe - see my comment above about the defeats Sanders had to put up with ...
    1
  40. 9:00 No, The Democrats serve finance (Republicans too), the job of the Repubs is to funnel money into deep pockets and the job of Dems is to maintain the fiction of "How are we gonna pay for it". The Repubs splurge - but Dems make sure the splurging NEVER goes as far as investing into regular people, it always stops after the spending spree for the common donor, it never goes as far as providing job and income security for regular folks (which would make it harder to squeeze them).
    1
  41.  @age-ben4910  To be fair Sanders has an agreement with the VT Democratic Party to run in THEIR primaries. Which he invariably wins. And then he runs in the general as Independent against the Republican. so there is never a 3 party race - which might hand the victory to the Republicans when the left and liberals split the votes. Sanders was willing to be the spoiler in 3 party races in the 80s. Which DID give him some leverage with the Democratic party. He should have remembered that in 2016.  In that race he came out second, so the D candidate was the spoiler and the Republican got the seat. In the next race the Democrats did not run a candidate anymore - the deal was that he would caucus with them in Congress and they would endorse him even though he ran as Independent. No doubt NOW the party big shots regret they let that Independent in that little unimportant state be. Then it seemed to be a good deal. He won the elections and did not need much support or money. Whenever they NEEDED his vote in Congress or later in Senate they could count on it. He did his own independent dissenting votes and made dissenting speeches on the floor. But it made no difference in the outcome of the vote then and the public did not take notice - THEN. (The clips are on youtube). For the sell-out-the-citzens bipartisan shit they could always find enough Republicans to be the partners in the crime- but there were cases when he was usuful and needed (in Senate he was for 1 or 2 years the vote that gave them the slim majority).
    1
  42. Obama will not endorse Sanders, he will not even campaign for him after the convention if he can avoid it. Not that Sanders would need him, especially if he picks Nina Turner as VP.
    1
  43. The old man would remind Obama of what he could and should have done to make true on "Hope and change". Obama's healthcare and financial reforms were so weak (because both were were big donor friendly) that they were insufficient and highly complicated in the beginning - and they have been weakened ever since. If Obama had put up a real fight and rallied the masses in 2009, the midterms 2010 would have gone differently. ACA was passed only in spring 2010 - if he could get a GOOD bill passed because of blue dogs he could call out the sellouts and make sure the voters know for the next election. FDR strongarmed "representatives" that way - he had a talk behind closed doors telling some he would campaign against them if they would not support the New Deal. After successful midterms with high turnout in Nov. 2010 Obama could have pushed through a GOOD reform (which would have been ready on the shelf after kicking the ass of some Republican Lites in the Democratic party). The citizens would love it, the GOP could not touch it (they have been after Medicare and Social Security for decades and still were not able to ruin them). in 2016 any Democrat in the race could have surfed into the White House on that record alone.
    1
  44. Howard Schultz wants to run - Billionaire in a bubble called the shots in the company and was met with deference. So NOW he thinks he has a chance to get votes from plus 200 million people that are not under him in a company hierarchy. There are not enough really rich people in the country, someone should show him the numbers. But he might get the vote of some wealthy/rich Republican voters (and Democrats as well). or take away some fundraising possibilities from Trump. - he should totally run.
    1
  45. The Supreme Court IS very partisan. And writing a good dissent does not change the impact it has over long time when 5 of the judges shape the future life of million of people. Voter protection for low income and minority areas IS necessary. the Supreme Court was dead wrong to remove that. And they should have known. We can observe all the underhanded tactics to make voting harder (they had the voter suppression laws ready). I read comments from Trump supporters how happy they were on Nov. 8th/9th 2016. Two mentioned in passing that it was totally worth 2 hours waiting in line. - WHAT ? - and that on a workday ! (that was in In Pennsylvania, but remember the primaries in Arizona ? And they cut polling stations also in other areas) Other countries have elections of a sunday or holiday - and if they wait 15 minutes it is long. And they have PLENTY of polling stations. Well, it shows in the turnout. The decision to allow so much money into politics in the 1970s was desastrous on the long term. And the Dems were excited that THEY now also could get the big bucks so they never bothered to change it. The court allowed for instance that the GOP makes up arbitraty "safety" rules for abortion clinics - that make it impossible to keep the facility open. Or forcing a waiting period and more than one date, long drives, overnight stay on a woman. For no reason at all. Certainly not a medical reason. Scalia claimed it was to prevent the psychological damage from the female - w/o proof that there were such damage. Abortions are legal, so any extra burden should be based on facts ,studies medical needs or real dangers. There are none, there are many harmless procedures that are still more endangering than abortions. To have wide corridors is essential in a busy hospitals. They must be able to pass with 2 trolleys side by side. They have more visitors and patients, they must be able to quickly evacuate in case of a fire, etc. etc. None of that applies for abortion clinics, it is not even a surgical procedure (in most cases). so no stretchers of trolleys. And they do not have that many patients, which are not bedridden, and not of old age and have hardly any visitors. Hospitals have those spacey facilities, abortion facilites never had them - of course not they are not needed. So the GOP DEMAND the unnecessary burden knowing full well, that the clinics do not have the conditions and will not find a building for rent that can fullfill them. And of couse hospitals are bullied to not do abortions. THAT was found constitutional.
    1
  46. I feel sorry for all the volunteers. THEY did a good job. But were told to download and use the app. Which worked for some and not for others. If it was problems with bandwith it makes sense that the large events (read good for Bernie) would be readly to report results later (the process just takes longer). That means: when everthing was clogged up. Does not explain though WHY they could not get it done the next day. Mind you these are VOLUNTEERS and many likely hold a job ! Also sorry for team Yang, they didn't do good (Gabbard did not invest much in Iowa, she is engaged in New Hampshire).
    1
  47. Let's be positive here - Newsweek gave the company - Burlington coat factory - a free advertising.
    1
  48. + Don parnell Even cost-efficient healthcare costs 5,000 USD per capita - so that would be around 20k for a family of four (in a non-profit public system). That means low income families NEED some form of subsidies/help if they are to get healthcare that is worty of a First World country. And that budget has to be set up somehow. - Medical drugs are a another large cost factor - they cannot be negotiated right now in the U.S. Plus the hospitals are still for-profit enterprises. So that would explain why single payer has not yet been installed in Vermont and California (you mention Blue California). In Vermont for instance they had problems with drug prices. Canada across the border is doing much better - also in that respect. In the European style systems the hospitals (where the highest costs occur) are in most cases NON-PROFITS (private = often confessional institutions, or public - run by the muncipalities for instance). Small players like family doctors or pharmacies are like small businesses - the revenue covers the costs (practice, shop, equipment, the few employees), the surplus or profit is like the "salary" of the doctor or pharmacist who runs the business. But no "free market". For instance there are quotas: how many doctors are even getting a contract with the public insurance agency in that town/area. Not more than can be expected to make a living in that community. The "price list" for the services is negotiated. The bills go only to the public agency. (Very streamlined, free of hassle and cost-efficient, but no free market either). Doctors are restricted in their marketing (especially if they have a contract with the public agency). The problem is not only that someone has to pay for the profit of the shareholders or owners of the hospital (an extra cost). The moment the profit motive is introduced into the healthcare system it produces dysfunctional incentives. That results in exploding bureaucraZy and high additional costs. Plus of course the inevitable ripping off of patients (which WILL happen, they have all the disadvantages and are in a much, much weaker position - again a very bad condition for the "free market") Much less knowledge and usually a high (often immediate) need, and enormous disadvantages when they do not get treatment - in most cases right away. You can wait to have your car repaired, get a second offer, or save up the money for a later repair, or decide not to have it repaired and make do w/o car. Try that even with something harmless like a broken arm. Healthcare is a very bad fit for the "free market" including the profit incentives - which works (well) in that system. While the profit motive wrecks havock when applied to the product "healthcare".
    1
  49. One of the good things he did - getting that dog from the shelter. The Portugese Waterdog of the Obamas started a trend (never good when a dog breed becomes fashionable) - so one can hope that getting your dog for the shelter and not the puppy mill could get fashionable, too.
    1
  50. The Real News Network is located in Baltimore. There the good jobs are civil servants and everything related to the "justice system / law enforcement". If the city council is forced to investigate because some scandal broke new rules / regulations are presented to the police unions so they will approve of them before the "elected representatives" pass them. Money out of politics - and that includes donations from unions. Citzens should have budgets (given out by the government) that they can donate to parties, campaigns and races (maybe also a budget for the minors so they get more "representation" in form of donations. Can't wait to see politicians courting the parents with promises of good and affordable childcare, schools. What they have in all other first world countries. Also no direct or indirect funding of the parties. Which would be an advantage for Republicans who get a cushy job at a think tank or at board after they leave office. It used to be that Republican were the party of business and Democrats the party of the working people. That natural advantage of the representatives of big biz when they left office (and also to get funding for the party organization) was why the Democrats embraced the "money is speech" Supreme Court decisions in 1976 and 1978. They did not push for them (a Nixon appointee to the court was crucial - Powell - also see the infamous Powell memo. But the Democratic politicians certainly saw the possibilities of more money in politics - now they also could get a larger piece of the pie ! Budgets for voters to give to fund campaings would take care of the interests of the working class. Be it Planned parenthood, other NGOs or especially the unions - their leadership is too cozy with the big shots in the party. That explains partially why the unions have become so tame over decades. Another explanation which also applies: They are so scared of Republicans getting into office that they take everything from the Democratic "leadership". Even if they have not sold out or become very self-serving. That "solution" (rolling over regarding Corporate Democrats) gave them everything they were afraid of, but since the people in charge of unions are fine on a personal level the motivation to flip the tables is not there. They may even regret they cannot do more for the unionized workers. But in the end THEY and THEIR families are not suffering - so they do not fight with teeth and claws.
    1