Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Bernie Sanders"
channel.
-
32
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@__Andrew No duplicative coverage would be allowed under the Sanders bill. Like in all single payer nations ! (it is a necessary condition especially in the U.S.) - A doctor or hospital CAN refuse to have a contract with the public non-profit agency (in the U.S. Medicare)
- but IF they offer a treatment that would be covered by the Medicare for All Plan - then the patients must pay out of pocket. There will be no insurer that offers a plan for it, they are banned from doing so.
So technically it is not outlawing private healtcare insurers - but making them irrelevant.
As they should be.
They can offer supplemental insurance for extras, but nothing more.
Cash payment is a deterrent for doctors and hospitals. Especially when it gets very expensive (typically it would be for things like expensive dental, while basic is covered by the public agency, or specialities like accupuncture, ...)
I live in a single payer country and all hospitals (which are non-profits anyway, they are run by the state or cities) and 80 % of doctor practices have a contract with the agency. And accept their rates and the patients covered by them.
If you outlaw duplicative coverage it is harder for doctors to get patients- and "private only" services will be limited to the not so expensive, not essential treatments / services.
that has an effect on the rates of "private" doctors as well, their rates tend to be reasonable - or they would not attract enough patients. (they have to make do w/o the patients that are covered by the public agency).
That means that if you want to go to the doctor with the good repuation in accupuncture - you will be able to afford it. And you will likely pay for that out of pocket.
Although supplemental insurance often covers that, but their premiums are so high, that I never grasped the reason to have supplemental. If you can afford thpse premiums you can afford to pay out of pocket, if and only if you want extras.
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Tman20rox The Scandinavian countries are small if successful examples. How about Germany (85 millions), Netherlands (30 millions), France, Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, ....even less wealthy nations like Italy, Spain, Portugal.
even the U.K despite the neoliberal attacks have more holidays and universal healthcare (at 42 % of spending per person of the U.S. - which is admittedly not enough, the usual range is 49 - 55 % of the U.S. spending levels).
Thainland has a good universal healthcare system. Or Russia, Mexico, Cuba.
And free education (at least Russia and Cuba). The other benefits are likely not as good but they are not nearly as rich as the U.S.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@__Andrew the basic principle. The public non-profit insurance agency (like Medicare under the Sanders plan) is a middle man with enormous negotiating power (very much needed power, considering how weak the position of consumers is when it comes to healthcare). They use that almost monopoly power (as buyers of medical services) on behalf of the consumers and for the good of society.
For profit healthcare insurers are also glorified middleman. Their goal is to maximize profits, not to serve the public. The goal of the insurance agency is to make healthcare happen: for everyone and at a reasonable price.
The insurance companies are scared of single payer: no one would miss them
if the Medicare agency is properly funded ! and coverage is comprehensive (like in all other wealthy single payer countries)
Doctors and hospitals have the voters on their side to get sufficient but well negotiated rates - they can appeal to the court of public opinion if the agency squeezes them too tight and they could not make do with the revenue they would be getting. It helps of course that hospitals are non-profits (and in most cases public non-profits, meaning run by cities and states).
The large and powerful players are non-profits (insurance agency, hospitals).
Everyone is covered with a very affordable income related MANDATORY contribution. people w/o or with very low income are included for free (Children, students, unemployed, disabled, stay at thome parents).
So it is universal. Doctors rarely encounter "uninsured" persons.
Coverage and places to get treatment are the same for all - even wealthy people. THAT ensures quality. The wealthy are not putting up with crap, and the MASSES of voters would not tolerate it if they have bad experiences.
That means SUFFIECIENT funding - and the payroll taxes are not enough (they are kept affordable as to not be a burden, so that everyone can have coverage - universality). The rest comes from general tax revenue.
One size fits all - means also a lot of political leverage for the insured and patients. If a treatment would be denied to one patient - it means no one gets it. Time for the pitchforks.
In the U.S. some people will be lucky and have good insurance, and others detect that their plan does not cover all, that they are denied treatments have to pay out of pockets. - or they have no insurance at all. They are FRACTURED. Divide and conquer.
people in single payer countries cannot chose what their plan covers, nor do they care about that. Single payer means you are assigned to an agency (in reality there are often more single payer agencies in one country, Does not matter is they organize it per province or state, under the umbrella of one head agency or whatever).
People assume that they will get first world medicine when they need it - and no one knows what treatments will be available in 10 years anyway.
Signing up takes 5 minutes (first day in a new job), the employer deducts payroll tax and usually matches it. Done.
You show your insurance card at the doctor and hospital and are in. In emergencies the default assumption is that the person is covered The doctor has no hassle either. If you do have cover at tall, he can pick for you from the whole menu. And they get the money for their bills and on time. Plus billing is streamlined. No phone calls of doctors or nurses with the insurance agency, why would they. The framework has been negotiated and the doctors make the individual decisions.
Even under the best of circumstances healthcare in a first world country is expensive. See 0:40 most nations spend USD 5,000 per person and upwards (6,000 would be the high end of the average for a first world country, most are in the range of 4,900 - 5,500 - 2017 Kaiser foundation).
Population is ageing and that means disproportionte more spending - so that pressure to stay within the budget also straigthens out the players. They have to cut out inefficiencies to keep up.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
J. Muller I guess you mean you have worked 55 years, so you are at least 70 years old - or 75 if you started with 20. In the U.S. - or any other first world country - you have consumed a lot of benefits.
In the U.S. Medicare (the payroll deductions are NOT enough to fund it, same for SS). - People were diligent even before your era, that alone does not get people up the ladder, if the economy at large is not doing well.
Germans in the 1920s and early 1930s were as industrious and technically savvy as they were after WW2 - the circumstances and the political framework (austerity versus Keynsian economics) had changed.
If you are born in the 1950s then you benefitted a lot from MASSIVE government spending.
For instance from free college, even if YOU never went, these graduates helped the economy, helped everyone.
Also from the Interstate highway or the electrification of the rural regions - that infrastructure helped not only those who used it - it had ripple effects on the whole economy.
Or the massive government spending for electronics, the Race to the Moon. Which led to processors, computers, PCs, touchscreens, WiFi.
I recommend the video: Capitalism did not create the iPhone you iMbecile on the channel of Current Affairs, 8 minutes, entertaining and informative.
Then they had high taxes for the rich and fairly high taxes for businesses if they made good profits. Companies made good money, the only way to avoid taxation was good wages and investing.
U.S. DEBT was very high after WW2, the highest federal debt EVER (ratio debt : GDP). Government continued to spend after WW2 - so they had to make sure the money came back. In form of taxes.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@clarissamontgomery6484 there were precincts where Sanders was doing well or extremely well. The party KNEW of course where that was, they wanted to "quality control" but they had the numbers as the precinct heads had reported them. If Sanders has won with 50, 60, or more % and the number of counted people had been reported - that was not going tho change.
Rounding errors when doing percent calculations, the way the volunteer heading the caucus calculated the delegate equivalents, whether or nor a coin toss was justified - those things can be flawed. But it would not change the numbers of people that had lined up and had been hand counted.
he "release" of 62 % of precincts (that were NOT representative) was on Tuesday.
All the precints where Sanders did best were counted at the very end, so with 97 % of precincts numbers released after "quality control", Sanders leads in the popular vote round 1 and 2 (clearly - and he always has).
Both he and Pete will get the same number of National Delegates (11 or 12 each, not yet clear).
And now (3 % missing) they are an inch away from tying Pete on the SDE count. Those 3 % will also be high turnout for Sanders.
Sanders in the press conference in New Hampshire where he claimed victory: the media has been pontificating about the SDE. But after 2016 there was a reform and the STATE Delegate equivalent has become irrelevant for NATIONAL affairs for instance like the primary. SDE is still relevant for affairs of the Iowa Democratic party.
this was the only metric Pete ever lead with (and it used to be somewhat relevant in the past because State delegates then could change national delegates).
Rural votes bring more SDE that urban votes. Pete did better in that category and with the cherrypicked partial release of Tuesday he could spin the narrative how he was victorious. With hardly any pushback from the media.
Pete worked for McKinsey he likes that technocratic, numbers crunching approach (he proudly said in his book he had that mindset as mayor).
The Iowa party is used to the media circus they did not even caution that the partial release did not cover stronghold of Sanders, so don't run away with your conclusions .....
Not that the media would have been nuanced about it, but they did not even make that formal attempt to statistical consistency.
The satellite caucus events were set up to include people that cannot be there at the evening. Working in the evening, night shifts, no babysitter, disabled, .... The Sanders campaign reached out the the Latino, black community, low(er) income working class people - and they crushed it at the Satellite caucuses.
So naturally those were countes last (or still not counted, it is Friday I do not know if the party now has released the missing 3 %).
way to show respect for the efforts of volunteers, caucus goers that have to take time out of their busy day.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The success of Obama's task to deflate the energy of the base on behalf of the donor class showed in the midterm 2010 results. the voters had showed up in 2006 (blue wave midterms, the Dems - well Obama buddy Rahm Emanuel then DCCC chair - ran lots of Wallstreet Democrats. Some people had an inkling the bubble was about to burst and they would need "their" guys and gals in place) The Democratic base had a strong shwoing in 2008. They had not become too stupid to understand elections. I think on a deep level citizens "got" that it wasn't gonna be "Hope and Change" even if they missed to what degree Obama had deceived them (the nice media reporting AND the open racism of Republicans sheltered him. The base rallied behind Obama not questions asked).
someone close to the White House asked Harry Belafonte and Cornel West (both had endorsed Obama) in the early years of the presidency, why they didn't cut Obama some slack ? (they were not so easily deceived as the regular voters and noticed and understood ! the appointments and the bills that were passed, and those bills that were NOT created). Belafonte's answer: What makes you think we don't cut him a lot of slack.
Media and politicians are usually wealthy or rich people, even the anchors and "reporters" and "news" persons.
Added bonus for the Dem establishment if Trump wins the second time: they can blame the unreasonable progressives for the loss against Trump and fiercly attack third party voters. (those are a danger for the cozy scheme, voters that do not accept the blackmail of the Democratic machine. Nice little country you have here, wouldn't it be a shame if Trump happened to it.
The corp. Dems do not want to implement real reforms that would benefit the masses, so it is either things that do not cost their donors - abortions, guns, LGBT, or identity politcis. Republicans specialize in the same issues - they just cover the opposite side of the issues. Racism is variety of identity politics for instance.
Or they do "bipartisan". Or they lose elections and can throw up their hands in the air (if only the Republicans let us ...)
2
-
One has to give the Republicans credit, they execute the voter suppression strategy consistently (over decades), brazen, widespread, well-organized, diligently and with high levels of creativity. - Helped of course by a spineless Democratic party. Which also hands over the lower courts to them, no questions asked.
The Republicans would fight like crazy and then some if they were in that position. They would not fasttrack the appointments of "liberal" judges, and definitely not w/o getting something in return. Stacking the courts can be the last line of defense when you want to steal elections and hinder people to vote. See the court in Ohio in 2016, and of course the Supreme court.
Only Andrew Gillum and even more so Stacy Abrams clearly spoke up about voter suppression. Since the "liberal" corporate networks were interested to have a good blue result in the midterms of 2018 they even reported about it - a little bit. has vanished from the headlines though.
Bloomberg (the org not the former mayor) did a panel with Gillum and Abrams in spring 2019 about elections / voter suppression tactics and prospects for the election process in 2020.
It does not matter what a voter sees on the screen, it matters what the machine reports to the center for tabulation. That can differ - it is easy to achieve that on an electronic device, and the program can self delete after completing the task to change the vote. Or what the center does with the data even IF the data is reported correctly (again a self deleting code could be used). See the testimony of Clinton Curtis, coder, Florida (the clip is on youtube).
In Ohio the safety features on the machines never have been activated, so there is not even a paper trail - and having a paper trail is far from perfect as well - althoug it is hard to do large scale manipulation throughout a state).
Then there is normal voter suppression, closing down polling stations, making it very hard to register, and constant voter roll purges (purging 10 - 20 % of the rolls in 3 years - see Georgia and Florida).
ID laws, exact match laws (when struck down by a federal court, just pass a law on the state level that allows it anyway (if one blank, dot, abbreviation is different it is sorted out as invalid. That applies to voter registration and mail ballots that are coming in. With registration the data is compared to SS or DMV database. These databases are not coordinated, so the entry mask for data does not gear you towards certain formats nor are there warnings to maintain a certain format.
Deafening silence of the Dems on the very unsafe machines - also on how easily they can be hacked.
Al Gore also lost his home state Tennessee where his father had been Senator and where al Gore had won several times as well (and quite decisively) until he became VP for 8 years under Clinton from 1993 - 2000. Losing in Tennessee (by 1 % but still) was quite an "achievement". Always assuming he lost in a fair race.
But he and Bill Clinton could not be bothered to scream bloody murder when the voter suppression shenanigans of the Republicans in Florida were leaked:
Voter roll purges of people of color especially of black men under the pretext that they were ex felons. They weren't (of course not ! why would anyone risk 5 more years of prison for registering to vote as ex-felon when that was not allowed in Florida) - but the these legitimate voters couldn't vote anyway. Al Gore only needed a few hundred votes to win Florida.
Party leadership told him to go away quietly. Keeping the big donors happy (the donors that finance BOTH parties so they always win).
Keeping the money of the donor's was even more important than winning the presidency. The oligarchs do not like it if the unwashed massed get engaged in mass protests and start organizing and paying too close attention to the political process apart from the election circus.
The sheeple could be getting ideas while they are at it. The oligarchs / donors want the voters isolated, in a hamster wheel regarding work, and stuck with ONLY the choices THEY let them have on the ballot. Either a spineless sellout Democrat or a fierce Republican.
Al Gore clearly did not want the presidency as much as Cheney and GWB (can you imagine THEM rolling over and accepting a ruling by an activist Surpreme court, or a mob intimidating the people doing the recount which is a federal crime ?).
Gore was handsomely rewarded for not making a stink. After that he founded a carbon trading company with Goldman Sachs (Clinton buddies) and got very rich (we are talking about 100 millions more, he had a few as VP, but he was a single digit - millionaire before he "lost" the election).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jackstanfield4480 I currently live in a single payer country (Austria, I also know the German system well and some knowledge about the Swiss) - like almost all other (now) wealthy countries they overhauled their systems or implemented one if they did not have one before (like the U.K.).
They are all doing fine, just fine, the overwhelming majority spend between 49 and 55 % of the U.S. (spending per person, that is ALL that is spent in the country divided by ALL people. in the U.S. that includes of course people with no or not enough coverage, people going broke over medical bills,e tc.)
Sidenote: the U.K. has the most cost-efficient system in the world - but they spend only 42 % of what the U.S. is spending, and the strain starts showing. The Tories have intentionally defunded it over 10 years, also to "save" it with privatization. If the system hums along with a lean but sufficient budget how would they ever justify to bring in the contractors (their buddies and donors to the party).
These other countries have first world healthcare for all AT HALF THE COSTS of the U.S. (or less)
Sure MODERN MEDICINE is EXPENSIVE (think around USD 5,500 per person per year) even if the system is cost efficient. You should take into account though that most European countries (with the exception of Iceland) have a much older population than the traditional immigration countries U.S., Canada, Australia.
Japan, followed by German have the oldest population. Japan 49 % of spending (that must be lifestyle too, it is a phantastic achievement) and Germany 56 % of the U.S. spending per person. (Data for 2017, Kaiser Foundation, also see World Bank Data).
Canada, Australia, Iceland are in the range of 49 - 50 % so there the cost advantage shows, the common range is 49 - 55 percent of the U.S. spending. The U.S spent 10,260 USD per person in 2017 - note that spending per_person_ includes spending of persons in the U.S. who may or may not have insurance).
Age is a major cost driver in healthcare spending, you spend the most on the elderly in a first world nation (it shows in life expectancy).
But that is of little consequence (a few percent, so the countries with ageing population get createive to find inefficiencies) compared with what a cost driver it is to allow large for-profit companies dominate a healthcare system (hospitals, and private insurers).
In single payer nations the only powerful for-profit player are pharmaceutical companies. The public non-profit healthcare insurance agencies contain them well. Medicare COULD get a good bargain as well - they are forbidden to negotiate drug prices.
These public agencies are set up per nation (ever country has done their own thing, grandfathered in their traditional solutions, they had 70 years to develop apart, and there are differences. However, it is remarkable in what close range the spending of countries like Japan, France, Netherlands, Canada, ... Sweden) is.
Countries of all sizes (tiny or 85 or 120 plus millions), on 4 continents, and very different cultures and lifestyles /risk factors (diet).
But: They all observe the crucial rules for single payer - which I see reflected in the bill of Senator Sanders - an only in his proposal to the full (and very necessary) extent. All other D candidates that have a Medicare for xx proposals have deviated from genuine single payer, and they offer a public option while using the now popular term Medicare For xx.
They either have either fallen for the industry lobbyists (because they do not fully "get" it) or they know their plan is inferior (and sets up the reform for failure) and have sold out. No other developed nation has a public option, there is a reason for tht.
For the profiteers and predators in the U.S. Public Option is now the contingency plan (the insurance comapnies stay relevant, can subvert a reform and it offers them the best chance to keep the most lucrative part of the clients - the young and healthy, and they are in the best position to hit back).
You can see the issue has been dear to the heart of Sanders for decades, he did his homework: Benchmarking - what other countries (which all beat the U.S.) are doing.
It helps a lot with understanding if a politician does not have the lobbyists in his or her ear, and does not chase after donations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
the private insurance companies will lose more and more of the segment - and YOU WILL NOT MISS THEM. They are intermediaries, the non-profit public insurance agency = Medicare - becomes the new paper shuffler that is responsible for your coverage, and you will get a new card.
And they do not make more profit by denying to pay for treatment, they are not in the game to make a profit.
Since the new system is so much more streamlined many employees (on both sides insurance and providers) will not be needed anymore. The denial-to-pay-for-treatment departments, going with a fine comb over healthcare questions, complicated billing, telephone calls if certain procedures are covered - it all becomes obsolete.
These employees will be retrained (the MfA bills have budgets for that, a substantial number of people will not be needed after the 4 years rollout - it is testimony to the red tape they adminstrate in the current dysfunctional system).
All hospitals and most doctor practices will need to accept the contract with Medicare or they do not have enough patients. So no "networks", you can go to every provider that has a contract with Medicare. They will not be allowed to discriminate and they will not issue a bill.
Free at the point of delivery
And they for sure will not ask Medicare for permission to use certain procedures in INDIVIDUAL CASES.
If a drug or treatment is available in ONE case - it is on principle available for everyone, the doctors decide. The agency provides the framework (for instance negotiated drug prices).
The public agency negotiates, makes the contracts, arranges for preventive care, being up to date with medical developments and research. Collecting the mandatory contributions, usually wage related, and paying the bills of the providers on time.
No hassle, not for the doctors, hospitals or the patients.
That the system is so streamlined, simple and needs little overhead is one of the major cost saving factors.
And the task of the public non-profit agency does not require creativity or marketing or sales expertise. And not much medical expertise either * (there are no healthcare questions, pre-existing conditions do not matter). For negotiations, when setting up preventive care, the round table for new developments they need medical or even pharma expertise - but not for INDIVIDUAL CASES.
It is an adminstrative task - and public agencies can do good work in that area - they all do, spending is much lower in every other wealthy country. USD 4,700 - 4,900 spending per person in France, Belgium, Canada, Japan, Australia up to 5,700 in Germany. Most are in the 5,000 - 5,500 USD range. - Versus 10,240 in the U.S.
Keiser Family Foundation based on OECD data 2017
A part of the budget of single payer agencies is financed with the mandatory wage deductions. The deductions are very affordable, must be matched by employers, risk does not matter (signing up takes 5 minutes on the first day in a new job).
That is not enough funding - so those countries must of course subsidize - a lot - but since the system in general is so much more cost- efficient the governments still spend less per person than in the U.S. and the citizens spend much, much less.
Which you would expect when it costs roughly half compared to the U.S.
I live in a single payer country, citizens / patients have little to do with the public non-profit insurance agency (their employer sends the contribution at the end of the month, and healthcare providers have ongoing interaction of course).
The insurance agency has the legal obligation to serve the common good, they do not need to make a profit, and they do not answer to shareholders and "investors". They answer to the public and political oversight.
Patients go to the doctor and into the hospital and it is about the medical issues.
Since so many people are covered (low-income - upper middle class) that means enourmous political leverage. Much more than in the fractured U.S. system. Having the whole country (their employers, and all levels of gov.) involved has another advantage: no political party will dare attacking the system
(the Tories in the U.K. are the exception that proves the rule, must be the contempt for the lower classes. They have been defunding the NHS for 10 years, and it had a lean if sufficient budget to begin with. They spend ONLY 4250 USD per person (41 % of the U.S. spending) - but that is not enough for medical care in a first world country and the NHS is stretched thing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The app is not meant to change votes, they can't do that, too many receipts and witnesses. Not with a caucus - but I am worried about voting machines. Having them malfunction, voter roll purges (in Iowa there is same day registration so voter roll purges do not "help" if you want to suppress the vote).
BUT the app was meant to help with fast reporting which Pete hoped to spin to his advantage if he was doing fairly well. He did well, he has poured all his resources into Iowa and it shows.
USD 40,000 or even 100,000 is small change for the Pete campaign, he gets Big Donor money (and more to come), and if there is a chance that investment secures him precious, positive airtime .....
So if - IF - they paid partially for the app (we know they paid Shadow and related institutions, we just do not know for what) - the intent may have been to try to spin it while it came in.
If some things in caucus night looked good for Sanders and others for Pete - both campaigns could of course try to spin it to their advantage (examples would be: one leading with vote count in first round, the other in the second round, leading with SDE where rural votes have more weight etc.).
Pete could take for granted that the media would AMPLIFY HIS spin, if there was any chance to present it with a minimum of plausibility, and likewise that they would ignore the Sanders campaign narrative as much as possible.
Pete would of course try to put a spin on it and talk about it if there was any chance.
So investing the 40k or whatever was worth trying. To get what really counts out of Iowa, not the "win" (and the few delegates) but shaping the narrative.
1
-
Apart from that: I think the Iowa Democratic Party (IDP) just did a contracting-among-buddies scheme that backfired. I heard from Jordan Chariton (Rebel HQ) that in 2016 they used a Microsoft app to transmit the data. They counted the caucus goers in round 1 and 2 as always (by hand), likely taking down notes.
Then they calculated the awarded delegates applying the rules if it was tight (threshold, rounding up or down. Who gets votes that are up for grabs from non viable candidates, you can't divide people up. Rolling the dice, etc.)
And then they used the app to report. (I guess they had a line for phone calls as backup). So those numbers were entered in a database, and central had it easy to aggregate the numbers and announce them to the media.
In 2016 the volunteers running the caucus reported only the results of their delegate calculation (and that calculation may have been flawed in some cases. They award around 11,000 delegates on the day that gets the intense media attention so it is not THAT consequential if they get a few wrong. A few weeks later the 11,000 vote for 1,400 who then vote for 41 National Delegates that go to the convention).
In 2016 it was not quite as complex (only 2 dominating candidates, HRC and Sanders, and I think O'Malley was so much behind that he did not complicate things). Plus the vote of round 1 and then round 2 (after realignment) was not reported. That is a new rule to improve "verification" - the Sanders people had asked to include those numbers into the reporting because they thought things had not always been done correctly.
If Sanders supporters in 2016 thought something was not done correctly or some rounding defied logic and math rules they had no recourse. If such things were done systematically to harm Sanders - there was no way to prove it.
Not that I think there was such an effort in most precincts in 2016 or 2020. The people heading the caucuses are volunteers.
In the locations where they expect a LOT of caucus goers and in wealthy areas maybe party appartachiks running the show (and who knows what they might be willing to do) but in many places they are just volunteers (there are approx. 1680 precints and events). Sometimes the volunteer may be math challenged, or not up do date with rules, or set in their ways (we have always done it this way) - but not trying to cheat.
There was ambiguity over the process how to calculate the delegate equivalent in some cases in 2016, and Sanders people thought it was not always done correctly. - But the transmission of the data was so effortless in 2016 that people did not even talk about the app.
This time volunteers were told to download the new app, but it did not work on all phones. The volunteers had gotten PIN codes. But from the county party organisation, not the state party. The PIN did not always work.
During the training volunteers were told if the app did not work they should use the phone to report results (which this time took a little more speaking time because more was reported) - but the lines were not properly staffed or there was an attack. (it was 1680 events and a lot of people trying to call in at the same time).
Don't fix it if it ain't broke: Microsoft delivered a good service, but those fools gave the contract to some other company.
The secrecy (who paid for the app, who developed it - meanwhile it was leaked that Shadow Inc. developed it, and they have even apologized) may have to do with the corrupt bidding process, and doing favors to buddies.
IDP also has IT staff, they too might have developed something, or sticking with the app of Microsoft - MS knows what they are doing.
Those contracts under the table are possible if you order leaflets, a video, the opinion of a "strategist" .... it is hard to screw that up completely. At worst it is overpriced and useless.
But contracting-among-buddies is not a good fit for a critical process. Then you should shop for competence, experience and caution. Ideally companies that have a reputation to lose. Microsoft checked the boxes.
1
-
Or the Pete campaign had no such considerations when (if) they financed the app, but maybe they helped a donor to funnel money to a certain person or company - it is unlikely that they would have the intention to manipulate the numbers - they couldn't. Pete is a lot of things, but he is not stupid.
They (DNC, IDP, pete campaign) certainly do not act in good faith, but the raw data was published over the course of the week (discrepanies were called out by volunteers, caucus goers and even media like New York Times and corrected).
There are so many photos of lists, the Sanders people had their own app where they noted the results, and they were at every precint.
On the other hand no campaign would waste money (even if they have plenty) on paying for an app - when that is obviously the obligation of the state party with help of the DNC.
In the end we do not know if the pete campaign paid for that app or if they paid Shadow Inc. for something else. If Shadow Inc are darlings of the party big whigs (several former Clinton and Obama people) it is possible they shoved over the app contract to them.
Plus party insiders told pete, the establishment guy, that it would be appreciated if their campaign considered Shadow Inc (and associated folks and companies) as contractors. And pete would oblige - after all the big whigs in the party also helped with access to the donors.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Whitey Powers ?? Canada spends less than half per person compared to the U.S. They pay their doctors and nurses and it is not like they would flock to go to the U.S. - I live in a country where they have 54 % of U.s. spending level (8,5 million people Austria) versus 56 % in neighbour country Germany with 85 million people.
Needless to say they have better outcomes, too.
single payer works in tiny Iceland (with 360,000 people) or in Japan (I think approx. 130 million people) or Germany with 85 millions, or Denmark with approx. 3 million.
If anything you would expect the U.S. to have an advanatage because of population size (330 million).
What really happens: most costs in healthcare can be controlled within a nation (the buildings, training and paying staff, laundry and food in the hosptials). usually they need to import a lot of the equipment - but that is more or less a field where the "free market" works.
And then there are drugs - if big pharma wanted to sqeeze little Iceland they always can have a friendly chat with the other Nordic countries (or the U.K. or France, ... large countries) what they are paying (I guess behind closed doors I am under the impression the pharma companies have contracts with the national non-profit public agencies that have nondisclosure agreements. Which in reality means: they cannot put it on their website how much discount they get on the list prices.
The agencies in the U.S. are not allowed to negotiate drug prices (only the VA and they brought prices down by 40 %) and the insurance companies do not bother to bring prices down, not with drugs and not for the services of doctors and hospitals (Wendell Potter).
But if a private company would think they have gotten a good deal they would naturally try to protect their information advantage. National public non-profit insurance agencies have no such incentive. While the information is officially confidential - the information ripples through. (good news for Medicare, when they finally will be allowed to negotiate drug prices they do not have to reinvent the wheel, they can compare with VA and even better with the buyers from some major countries. Drugs are highly standardized internationally comparable products).
The Canadians are content with their system (I challenge you to go and ask any Canadian (see David Doel, the channel is Rational National), sure there could be improvements in Canada. For instance they do the funding per provinces. The problem is NOT so much the size of the pool - but that every country has regions that are wealthy and others (usually rural) that have less industrial or other well paying jobs, tourism or no natural resources.
Alberta is doing well (natural resources), but I think Manitoba has some problems due to lack of funding (waiting times for specialists - that CAN make a difference when a diagnosis is delayed or you are hardly able to work because of pain).
In Canada one province started to have single payer in the 1960s or 1970s and then all others followed - so that explains the fractured set-up. You can do that per state or provice - but then the federal government must even out the economic differences.
In every single payer system they have wage related contributions and government funding.
The payroll taxes are mandated and must be affordable (for companies and employees) so like in the U.S. there must be funding from general tax revenue. If that is not coming from the federal government but from the states there will be inequalities. (In Austria and Germany there are mechanisms of distribution in place).
1
-
Whitey Powers M.D. Anderson is a non-profit, pays no taxes, gets grants, (got plenty when it was founded) and has university status (which may give them access to doctors in training for a relatively low wage). If you could pay for 700,000 USD you either were affluent (when did you pay that amount ? might be much more money now), had an affluent family or a job that meant you could pay that in installments over several years (and life insurance if the doctors in Houston would not win that battle).
We live in a society with mass production and mass consumption, by definition not every one can have a high paying high skills job. Our eocnomic system would not work like that.
A regular teacher could not have paid that bill (they might give discounts according to income if they are a non-profit).
Besides: one excellent institution does not change the healthcare outcomes of the nation. If one of four or five patients ration their insuline it will show up in the statistics (preventable deaths, worse health, costly complications). No matter what M.D. Anderson achieves - they cannot compensate for the neglect of the bread and butter issues.
Germany, Switzerland, U.K. also have top notch research centers and university clinics. The improvement for the masses is of course to spread the skills, the knowledge.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Whitey Powers A 17 year old girl called Nataline was denied a liver transplant in late 2007 (her doctors - also at a very good clinic in California - had a good match and were ready to go). Her family did not have a Cadillac but a MERCEDES plan (employee insurance).
The insurance refused to pay anyway (the plan did cover transplants). The senior PR executive of Cigna, Wendell Potter started getting calls from the media, public pressure mounted, after some days (and 2 livers the doctors had to pass on) the insurance gave in to avoid a "black eye" (that's a PR phrase).
meanwhile her organs had started to shut down, she had become ineligible for the surgery and died a few hours after Cigna had given the green light.
Wendell Potter handed in his resignation the next day.
you should check him out: he knows all the "Canadians have inferior healtcare" arguments - it was his job to provide them.
He went to Canada later to fact check in reality - nope they are doing fine (by and large).
Where I live (Austria, 8,5 million people) 2 large hospitals do liver surgeries (more might do kidneys - but that is still a major medical intervention). the doctors will put the patient on a waiting list, when they get a good fit, the clock starts running. They would alert the patient and they have to come as quickly as possible. If family cannot bring them that means ambulance, or ambulance with a doctor on board or an airlift if that should be necessary.
Free of course (it is free at the point of delivery and ambulances are a part of modern medicine).
Then they would prepare the patient and perform the surgery.
Liver transplant is something that is available - it has become part of first world medicine so to speak (so on principle all can have it), the doctors decide, no one asks the public non-profit insurance company for permission, the doctors decide if the patient is eligible for surgery or not (and they make that decision without profit motive).
you cannot imagine the shitstorm if they would refuse to give a 17 year old that already had chemo and a bone marrow transplant a fighting chance.
Hospitals here are non-profits and that includes the university clinics (that are engaged in research).
Needless to say the same is true for the medication necessary for immune suppression. The doctors decide and patients get it with very modest co-pays.
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 1988 Independent 4 term mayor Sanders arranged to appear at a Vermont Democratic party convention (partially hostile territory *) and made the case that they should endorse Jesse Jackson. - and one elderly lady slapped him after he had left the stage ;) - Likely not because of Jackson but because of local politics.
But the base voted for the proposal and Jackson did win Vermont in the primary. Which was helpful because the black candidate showed he could win a white state. Not enough for Jackson to have a shot at the nomination, and of course the party machine did not want him to succeed.
I guess the media coverage was dismissive as well, and then they could not circumvent corporate media with social media.
Also raising small donations has become easier comapred to back in the day. people spontanuously give during a debate (10 bucks or 20), or when they read something, it is only a few clicks.
The old fashioned method encouraged people to give larger amounts in one setting.
The old guard of the VT Democratic party has left politics so now they get along fine and Sanders fundraises for them.
He always runs in their primaries - for Senate, and before for Congress, wins them of course, and then runs for office as Independent. (So there is no Democrat in the general in the race, only Independent Sanders, the Republicans usually have a candidate as life sign, and maybe some small Independent - that's a Vermont thing).
Last race for Senate he won with 70 % so a spoiler candidate by the Democratic party would not matter anymore, but in the past that procedure guarnteed that if he won the D primary he would be the only "left" candidate in the race.
1
-
Sanders was an Independent mayor, in 1981 he had unseated the incumbent that was a big whig in the Vermont Democratic party. Sanders continued to annoy them by running in races for higher office. In Nov. 1988 it turned out that the Democrat had became the spoiler in a race for Congress - so an easily winable seat went to a Republican.
Then the DNC and Sanders came to an agreement that the state party would not run candidates against him anymore and he would caucus with them. (Note: how the willingness of Sanders to run and third party candidate gave him that leverage, that the DNC made concessions and pressured the state party to fall in line. Any Democrat could run as Independent of course, but not with help of their money or their apparatus).
So he won the Congress seat in Nov. 1990 and all races in Vermont since then.
In 1988 a Republican had won the congress thanks to the split votes (35 % of the vote, Sanders close behind, Democrat in the low 20 % range, plus a few % for Independents). The DNC did not want a repetition of that, and because VT is tiny, has no large industries (read: big donors) they allowed the Independent to get away with his stubborn outsider game (I am sure now many regret they did not crush him when they had the chance).
Burlington is the largest city in VT with 40,000 people and I guess many voters there voted for mayor Sanders the Indie, and else for Democrats. So voters did not care but the Democratic machine did not like him back in the day - to put it mildly.
1
-
1
-
Sanders has always known that for profit insurers are nothing but glorified middlemen. And he dares to say that they need to be made irrelevant. They do nothing to make the administration or delivery of healthcare better or more cost efficient. _
It is crucial to eliminate their role in the whole "market" in order to achieve a true reform. It is also crucial to mandate ! that everybody pays into the system (if they have an income). NO OPTING OUT or IN - no PUBLIC OPTION.
NOW many candidates take a piggy ride on the popular term Medicare for All - and they give it a "tweak" that seems to be innocent. Medicare for those who want it, etc. - So what they propose is a PUBLIC OPTION. I guess some know that it would set up the reform for failure - others just did not bother to do their homework - noting that other single payer nations don't do "public option". Which should give them pause.
It is plan B for the insurers and it is easy
Almost all developed nations realized after WW2 that for-profit / good and cost-efficient healthcare for everyone are a contradiction. The less "for-profit" there is in a system the better they are off. Every country did their own thing, for historic reasons some left either little or almost no room for profiteers. (For instance if public coverage does not include dental - that gives private insurers a small share of the pie). But all made sure that the large for-profit players got only a small share of the market.
Almost all developed nations set up their systems (or expanded already existing ones) in the late 1940s, Canada, Australia followed in the 1960s and 70s.
Single payer countries realized they had to set up the system in a way that the public non-profit insurance agency would offer comprehensive coverage (ideally with basic dental, visual, hearing aides, rehabilitation, and help with care for the elderly or disabled at home) - and that means of course sufficient funding - so that there was very little room left for private insurance companies.
they were smart they also saw to it that the hospitals are non-profits - insurance and hospitals is where the U.S. has the huge costs/budgets and inefficiencies).
big pharma is a powerful for-profit player. They have very standardized products, the prices are internationally comparable (if only behind closed doors) - so the national non-profit agencies can contain them in the price negotiations.
And that there was no OPTING OUT = public option allwoed. That would only undermine the public system Cherrypicking: the private insurers keep the young and healthy, the rest lands with the public insurance. 90 % of costs are caused by 10 % of the patients. Do the purges right and it can be highly lucrative and the offers to the young and healthy can still appear to be reasonably priced.
And the public agency has to offer coverage for the costly patients in such a scenario.
Germany does that - but only for historic reasons - the Germans got universal healthcare in 1883 / 1884 and then it was socialy acceptable to have a two class system, and the 2nd class was for the unwashed masses. (which then still was major benefit). After WW2 right governments did favors for insurance corporations and for their constituents (affluent citizens, doctors that get better rates from the private contracts).
A small part of the population can opt-out of public mandated insurance. They must have a good income and / or have a safe job with steadily rising income (teachers, civil servants, self-employed architects, lawyers, ...) people that will pay their premiums so the insurers do not have to chase the money. These citizens will not land in a hospital while having lost coverage (because of unpaid premiums). The insurance companies select the young and healthy as clients (for all others the offers are prohibitively high - so they land with the public agency. In essence the public agency gets only the riskier and older of the more affluent citizens and misses out on the higher contributions of the healthy and young from that segment).
Added advantage for the insurance industry: the people that get those private health insurance contracts are interesting customers for other insurance products (life insurance !), they are more educated,affluent and more likely to own homes and upscale cars. .
That cherrypicking does nothing for the fairness or cost-efficiency of the system - on the contrary. Roughly 10 % of the population has the "Public Option for the Privileged. They have full private insurance - and then there are also upgrade packages. The 10 % are somewhat protected by the benchmark the 90 % are setting (inflation rate for healthcare, and also what they must pay for at the minimum).
In single payer countries have a public option at a large scale would lead to a slow erosion. In the U.S. the insurers purged insured persons from the pool, or did not even accept them for coverage (or only at absurd costs). ACA outlaws that so they cannot do that at least not officially. Now they purge COMPANIES. If the contract with one company is not as profitable for them - the raise premiums or reduce coverage and worsen conditions until the company quits. (Or the company takes measures right away to avoid that and they fire the staff member if the employee - or a family member - needs expensive and ongoing treatments.
That means that the U.S. insurers have the systems already in place to screw those who buy healthcare insurance from them (departments of bean counters, call centers, lawyers, medical experts, bean counters, protocols and software). The private insurance companies in other countries do not have that expertise - it is just a too small segment of their revenue, never mind they are better regulated.
With the predators in the U.S. the public option would not slowly erode an existing well functioning single payer system - it would quickly undermine the whole reform (which likely would never be fully implemented).
being able to make seemingly good offers to the young and healthy is a divide and conquer strategy and undermines solidarity. Political parties can make hay of the "expensive" public service, defunding it can indeed result in lower quality and dysfunction, which can be used to argue in favor of the for-profit insurers.
But even without tricks and toxic incentives - private insurers have costs that the public insurance agencies do not have. checking the applications (healthcare questions). Marketing, sales staff, the profit. The billing is more complicated for the doctors and hospitals because there are so many different packages, and the insurers must of course control the bills before paying them also handling the many different rules that apply.
Sales/marketing costs are necessary part for connecting the consumer with very diverse consumer products. Consumers have different needs, tastes and budgest, companies cater to those needs, try to get the attention of the consumers - and profit is the reward for their effort, creativity - and sometimes just for skillfully pushing their product onto the consumers with huge advertising budgets.
We are talking about consumer products that are not necessary for survival or to restore the ability to work and take care of yourself and your loved ones.
As opposed for a product that should not be pushed onto the citizens if they do not need it or beyond what they need. A service that consumers MUST have - if they need it - no need to persuade people to want treatment so they get well again.
All the incentives and mechanims of "free" market, competition, consumer "choice" do not make sense, are illusional (what "choice" - even doctors consult other specialists, medicine is that complex) - or the incentives lead to unethical and predatory behavior.
Profit does not lead to better outcomes for the administration and delivery of care (that is different with consumer products) and therefore there is no justification to let coporatiions extract profit - not for natural monopolies, and even less so for healthcare. Which is a service that is very complex, where the consumers are by far the weakest actors in the "market" and where consumers cannot abstain from buying.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Republicans have a whole system of voter suppression / stealing of elections, it is death by 1000 cuts. - The Corporate Dems keep deafening silence on that (almost all of them) - they have to please the SAME donors. In a "populist / progressive" emergency the Corporate Dems use those tactics as well. (Greg Palast spoke about mass purges of poor Latinos in New Mexico so an establishment candidate would win the primary. Or the preemtive purge in Brooklyn targetting Sanders. It would have been devastating for Clinton if she would have lost New York after she had been Senator.
The role of the Corporate Dems is to win primaries and keep progressives away from power, so they steal those not so much the GE (that is a Republican speciality).
Now when it comes to defeating Sanders the establishment of both parties might cooperate (in the primaries AND in the GE).
You bet Pelosi, Mr.Wallstreet Schumer, the Clinton machine, .... would rather have 4 more years of Trump than win the presidency and down ballot with Sanders. They and the corporate "liberal" media would not admit that of course.
Ratings for the media clutching their pearls (Trump bad, Russia, Russia), big donations rolling in as usual, the big shots in the party keep their seats in elections or get a cushy job provided by the big donors in case they lose.
All can keep the Trump tax cuts, there will not be the moment of truth where Democrats would have the power to undo them (but won't). If the Republicans run the show they can wring their hands. And do nothing else.
The ideal scenario from the point of view of Corporate Dems is to have the presidency and both houses but only with a tiny majority. There will alway be some (very gladly tolerated / encouraged) blue dogs who vote against the party and the interests of common people and with the Republicans.
That was exactely the situation when Obama purported wanting to do "bipartisan" regarding healthcare reform - despite having a majority in Congress and Senate and a resounding mandate by the voters (and that Republicans did not look good after 8 years of Cheney / Bush).
Never mind Republican members of Congress and Senate immediately had voiced their intent to NOT let have Obama any successes (so they fiercly opposed ACA, which is version of Romney Care, and like Romney Care based on a 1990s plan of the Heritage Foundation, which is a right wing think tank. HF developed that plan to counteract the initiative of Hillary Clinton to get healthcare reform - her plan would ALSO have let the private insurers have a major part of the "market" so it wasn't that good either).
Obama had sold out on the campaign trail already, it was his role to deflate the energy of the movement (the big donors are uneasy about organized mass movements). They did so by dragging out the process to get to a reform and letting the Republicans participate in developing the bill - but of course they only watered down what was an initially weak proposal. And still did not vote for it.
That effort of Obama on behalf of the big donors was succesful. Dems passed ACA (not even with a public options which is a very weak reform anyway - NOW it is sold as "alternative" to a genuine reform - 10 years after the Dems kiled it from the ACA bill).
ACA was passed despite fierce Repbulican opposition (incl. shutting down the government) when they had 60 filibuster proof days in spring 2010 - then they could have passed any bill - even a GOOD one.
1
-
1
-
@tuckercarlson6204 they (Germany 85 million people, France plus 60, Austria plus 8, Netherlands 30 millions) have lots of people with benefits. starting with child benefits (no means testing, so it is like UBI). Think 150 USD and 12 - 14 times per year per child (Germany, Austria)
Everywhere: healthcare free at the point of delivery. It costs per person 49 - 55 % of the U.S. spending per person, it is much more cost efficient because the profiteers are kept at the fringes.
The mandated payroll tax is modest (good for low income people and companies that are not very profitable or just started out). The rest comes from government funding, so that must be generous. NOT as much per person as in the U.S. of course, but still ....
Free higher education (not only university, also lab technicians, massage therapists, ... )
Students get the child benefits longer (still not means tested but they must be enrolled in education / professional training). Students from a low income background (that is up to lower middle class) get extra help (means tested).
Maternity leave, with payments to the partents.
Then rent subsidies for low income people, very affordable childcare (run by non-profits, usually the cities or towns).
1
-
1
-
@tuckercarlson6204 Broken promises of Trump: 1) Good and affordable healthcare for all. - Repealing ACA ? Good idea. But ONLY with a backup plan ready to kick in, and a good one at that.
2) Lowering drug prices - nothing happened in 3 years. That would be an easy one. Overhauling the whole system is a big project, but cutting drug prices would be the low hanging fruit.
Would be also politically smart - as very tangible success of his admin, 1 in 4 or 5 persons ration insuline. The exact same brand and volume costs 10 times more in the U.S. than in Canada. That also hits Trump supporters.
BUT: we wouldn't want to offend the swap creatures / big donors, would we ?
3) Promise: tax cut for the middle class not the rich. 80 % are for big biz and the rich - and that tax cut has added more than 1 TRILLION to deficit and debt already - more than expected deficit, mind you.
The cuts for big biz and the rich are permanent, but not those for the regular people. Many people had even a tax increase - if they have a regular income. The local taxes redued the federal tax burden. Of course NORMAL people get something back when their community has tax revenue to spend: streets, libraries, fire fighters, youth programs.
communities that ask middle class citzens to chip in to help good LOCAL services are punished, those voters are punished.
4) No more regime change wars. Meddling in Venezuela ?? I thought the general idea was to NOT have more refugees and migrants and upset in Latin America - so that people stay home and to not migrate to the U.S.
foolish attacks on Syria (Trump said: get the troops out - I'll give him credit he tried "sort of". BOOM "poison gas attack" - and he folded, in spring 2017 and 2018. In other words he was unable to stand up to the war machine.
5) the faiulure in Puerto Rico
6) Mexico will pay for the border wall (no they don't not even if the wall collapses in the wind and falls on their side).
7) bring the troops home. in Syria late 2019: Shuffling the troops AROUND in Syria, doing favors to Erdogan - moving them out of his way when he intended to attack the Kurds.
- the ALLIES of the U.S. - they NOT the U.S. contributed to defeating ISIS in that region.
plus sending U.S. troops to Saudia Arabia as human shields - the Saudis are unable to defend their oil fields from drone attacks.
8) draining the swamp. he FILLED the swamp with more swamp creatures - different than the former set, but they are even worse and brazenly open about their corruption
9) the outsourcing has not stopped, after a little bit of grandstanding the companies are not bothered anymore - not even those who get lots of government contracts ! Some waited until after the 2018 midterms to announce they would move plants, to Mexico for instance.
Trump does not annoy the donors - he wants their big donations for 2020.
10) there was not much investment in the U.S. (the narrative was the tax cut would prompt investement - Trump supporters might naively have assumed that refered to the U.S.), either stock buybacks OR investment in Asia and Mexico
11) no the companies do not pay better wages because of the tax cut, on average they have hardly kept up with inflation.
A few large companies have raised the wages to 15 USD per hour (Disney, Amazon), unions, striking workers and Sanders made that happen, not Trump.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Polio Nine Candidates / politicians like Sanders were systematically weeded out from the party. There ARE NO YOUNGER people like him in office, the party establishment made sure of that. The leaders of the Civil Rights Movement were quickly elected into office once black people in the South could vote - but they have arranged themselves more or less with the system. And they are even older than he is.
It was with luck he could have a political career. - Sanders somehow could carve out his niche in Vermont (and survive there while in the country the New Deal was dismantled and neoliberalism took over).
The state is tiny, they have no major industries (read: Big Donors that would interest the D.C. insiders).
In Texas, New York, California, .... a Bernie Sanders would not have become or stayed member of Congress. They would have thrown money into the races against him left right and center
Because VT is so small a transformative mayor of the largest city - of 40,000 people - could win national races with grassroots back in the day (before the internet and independent media).
And he had enough integrity and stubbornness to never sell out.
Many arrived shiny eyed in D.C. but usually they were brought to heel or they feel for the incentives.
Fast.
See Howard Dean. Or Elizabeth Warren.
AOC said she expected pressure but it was even more impactful than she had anticipated. It gave her new appreciation that he had withstood the pressure to conform for so long.
The independent oddball was able to win if a Democrat was not the spoiler in 3 way races. So the DNC ** decided they would not run / finance Democratic candidates against him anymore to avoid unnecessarily losing the seat (his willingness to run third party gave him leverage).
Their condition: that he would caucus with them
The DNC made the state party fall in line with that decisions.
Surly the Democratic establishment in D.C. could tolerate him - what could he do, even if he wasn't in sync with the status quo and ignored how the game was usually played in D.C. ?
That was after the Nov. 1988 election: the Democratic candidate had handed the Congress seat to a Republican. Who won with approx. 35 %, Sanders as Independent with a grassroots campaign not far behind, the Democrat had in the low 20 %.
Sanders won the next race against a Republican in Nov. 1990.
** the state party (the machine, not the base) continued to not like Sanders for many ! years. Now they get along well and he fundraises for them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I assume that man voted for Obama - and Obama sold him out (like many other Corporate Democrats - and they are STILL utterly comfortable to "improve" ACA and to misrepresent M4A). The first order for the "reform" in 2009 was to keep the insurers (and also the for-profit hospitals) happy. Not to forget big finance: Wallstreet loves for-profit healthcare as well.
All other nations have taken the for-profit motive out of the equationmany decades ago (especially with "insurance coverage" and hospitals). They set a benchmark and regarding spending they all blow the U.S. out of the water, it is not even close.
Some people testified in 2009 about the advanatages to follow THAT highly successful long time tested model.
Obama and the Democrats ignored it. so the reform was based on a completely corrupted (in more than one sense) foundation and was bound to fail. As years go by, people do not only have "coverage" the need to USE that coverage manifests. So the flaws of the system became apparent within a few years.
Single payer:
4 continents, 70 years, different age structure (Japan the oldes nation, Iceland relatively young population, and outlier in Europe. Many cultures, lifesstyles (diet, alcohol, nicotine, ...) and countries. All developed their systems nationally and independently often grandfathering in existing solutions.
BUT: adhering to some very basic rules, and the interesting thing that the overwhelming majority of wealthy countries is in a narrow range of spending per person 49 - 55 % of what the U.S. is spedning (which was 10,260 USD per person in 2017)
I see these basic and crucial principles reflected in the bill of Sanders and of Pramila Jayapal - all other candidates have flip flopped and violate at least one crucial condition for a successful reform.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The DNC also has been ignoring all evidence that Republican governed states did a massive voter purge (Operation Crosscheck). The Democratic Party has the same big donors as the Republicans. The financiers do not want the unwashed masses to start questioning the legitimacy of the election process (it is abyssmal, there are states where the U.S. process is more like that in a banana Republic).
Corporate Dems (and especially the party "leadership") take their marching orders, a little complaining about ID laws and gerrymandering - but not a peep about easily ! hackable machines. About whole states where it is impossible to VERIFY the results. In Ohio the safety features of the machines have never been activated.
And the exit poll data are secret as well. The raw data must adjusted - but it would be interesting to see HOW they are adjusted. If that would be public, statisticians could see what is done and if that is plausible. you have to believe that the vote that you enter at the machine and see on the screen / on the print is the same as the data "in the machine", and that the data is also not altered after being sent to the tabulation center.
If there is a print there is at least a chance to do a recount. Still inferior to paper ballot, pen and hand count before witnesses.
There is NO way to verify w/o paper trail.
That is unthinkable in other democracies. - many states are won by 1 % or less - and it is possible to manipulate the exit polling so it could not be detected when the vote count would be manipulated. But even if so - it would be still impossible to prove that the election was stolen, only that result and polling are statistically implausible or impossible.
It would be much harder to pull off in a landslide victory because than the discrepancies would be glaringly obvious - provided the mainstream media would chose to report on that. (they might not when ordered by big donors / big advertisers / rich owners to not rock the boat. They all fall in line when it comes to war propaganda).
Deafening silence of the Democrats on hackable machines and potential (and untedectable) manipulation of the numbers (the change of numbers would be done with the smallest margin possible to not trigger a recount - in order to remain as near as possible to the polling results in order to not raise suspicions).
Greg Palast: Republicans steal elections, Democrats steal primaries. (He did not even refer to 2016, but to a primary in New Mexico: in order to help a neoliberal, Latinos were kicked off the voter rolls in droves).
The Big Donors assign to the Corporate Dems the task to win against progressives in primaries (and in an "progressive emergency" the ability also of Democrats to CHANGE the tabulation would come in handy.
That might explain the silence of the whole Democratic party on election results that cannot be verified.
Of course Dems and Repubs prefer to use methods that are less risky. Voter roll purges by "mistake", or under the pretext to remove people from the lists that have "moved". Or closing down polling stations at universities or in poor areas.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1