Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Hill"
channel.
-
95
-
54
-
35
-
31
-
25
-
23
-
18
-
17
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
citybank mail October ! 2008 to the Obama Campaign (yes, BEFORE the election) with a list of candidates to chose from for cabinet and other appointments. Sorted into minorities (Black, Asian, Latino, Native), disabled, vertan, .... the sender went the extra mile and even included an assortment of females even though that had not been requested.
citibank got lots of help under Obama.
Good to know that banksters vetted the foxes that would be picked to be in charge of the henhouse. (Makes you wonder who sent such a mail to the McCain campaign - maybe Goldman Sachs ?)
See Wikileaks, Podesta emails.
Eric Holder was on that list (can't wait to have him in the race, too, his record needs to be discussed anyway).
Needless to say Holder carefully avoided to prosecute any banksters * (nor did Loretta Lynch). But at least they are African American. (*see the story about whistle blower Alayne Fleischman and JP Morgan Chase, and what the DOJ did - or abstained from doing).
Show that to the still existing Obama fans.
I must admit: If I see Ovama or his wife in talk shows, I have to remind myself that I do not like them. They have comedic timing, they come across as down to earth, cool, witty etc. etc.
That is a god send for a politician.
Imagine what he could have achieved using his intelligence, charm (and the charm of his wife) and the movement/energy of his voters - if he had not just been a careerist who saw a moment in time and seized it.
12
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
@avatarmezzy2980 Sanders CAN beat Trump. See levels of grassroots supporters, enthusiasm of the base (both have that, Trump gets tons of smaller donations, too. Sandes has the young (savvy to organize on the internet, digital canvassing etc.) Like Trump he is the non-establishment candidate (Trump plays that and in a way he is), Sanders is not establishment for sure.
Trump might be good in activating people that do not vote (or did not until 2016). Thats the pool of voters in which Sanders taps as well.
Sanders needs only to win some swing states (in the Rust Belt - that is his turf. They voted once/twice for Obama the Hope and Change candidate, so he should do well. this time Hope and Change for real and not only rhetoric of a neoliberal sell out.
There are solidly red and blue states, Sanders will win the blue ones if he is the nominee, even the Hillary fans that are still pissed will not vote for Trump to spite Sanders (and it should not matter if they stay home, enough Dems to pull it off without them. That "liberal crowd is abundant in states like New York and California where there missing vote will not do damage. (The margin of Clinton of 3 million more votes came from these 2 states to a large extent).
In Florida a lot of Puerto Ricans have arrived after the hurricane. They WILL come out against Trump. Gillum has a voter registration drive to overcome the Republican cheating. Florida is always plus/minus 1 percent, so that is in reach (expect some major efforts to cheart - well Sanders might have it in him to call them out THIS time).
Andrew Gillum and Stacy Abrams have had it with the cheating as well (interesting panel discussion Bloomberg, March 2019
As for Warren: watch how she reacts when she is mildly challenged (or fathoms she is challenged) word salad, getting flustered or even impolite (towards a left leaning journalist who politely posed a legitimate question. Amy goodman does not "gotcha" and Warren should know that.
Trump would eat her alive.
But he chickened out from debating Sanders last time.
In a way Trump economically campaigned to the left of Hillary Clinton (and his Republican challengers in the primary, anti TPP etc.) That would not have worked against Sanders and still does not work.
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
The weird thing is that no one of HIS TEAM ever told him to cut out his "inappropriate" behavior towards females of all ages if they were cute / attractive. a) no one dared to make it an issue and tell him the obvious or b) he did not listen and did not like to be told.
They SHOULD have told Biden to stop that - if only because it is a bad look especially if you are a well known political figure (there are compilation videos on youtube).
Never mind respect for the boundaries of others - sheer political considerations should have resulted in The Talk by his staff and also ! his wife.
Even if he would not mean anything untoward - the photo ops with the families of politicians are cringe inducing.
A devoted and beloved wife (the marriage is allegedly good, at least they successfully portray it that way) would spell out to her husband that he shouldn't do that, if only for reasons of optics. Well, the old fool got away with that for decades and never realized that you don't do that.
Lucy Flores last year (and other women told similar incidents):
Hectic activities as the last rally of her campaign unfolds (for deputy attorney or sth), some celebs and the VP (much bigger fish then her) support her last big event.
She hardly knows Biden. While she lines up to go on the stage and concentrates to deliver a good speech, he comes from behind, places his hands on her shoulder and place a long kiss on her head.
In other words: tone deaf if it would come from a husband or lover (she is concentrating for an important event, don't sneak up on her like that). Already weird when a brother or sister would do that.
Completely inappropriate for Biden. He took the liberties of a lover or someone that is VERY close to her.
There must be a sexual / erotic component to it, and also display of power (ovestepping of boundaries happened with young attractice women when taking pictures, and then there are cringeworthy photo ops, where he ALWAYS had the cute little girls, or pretty teenagers standing in front of him. Not the boys of the family, the GIRLS).
But that hit on Flores (and others) is also about POWER. He does not have to obey the common rules of behavior towards a female that is NOT his wife / lover.
And no - shaking hands and holding babies at a rally is not the same. Or being hands on with Obama.
Obama had more power than him, and he touched him at neutral places. Arms, shoulder, ....
he did not sneak up on him to give him a long kiss on the head.... Cringe does not even begin to cover it.
There are "neutral" places on the body where even a relative stranger can touch a person of the same or the other gender (in our culture).
Mind you: that contact is typically initiated by the person with higher status if they are not close.
Let's say Biden would have approached Lucy Flores so she can see him coming, and gives her a reassuring pat on the shoulder, or takes and squeezes her hand - she may have liked that as a more personal attempt to boost morale.
Instead he hindered her to concentrate .....
Even a "stage" hug - the light version, if she sees him coming and he is aware of her body signals .... would have been O.K.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
It was worse: they started BETTING on the default risk of these bundled loans. Credit default Swaps
It was a real estate bubble with a derivate bubble on top. In the U.S. - Let me explain: European banks are not allowed to make such risky loans, the next best thing was to buy them form the U.S. banks.
It was sufficiently opaque that European regulators did not notice (and only the large banks did it - they would not touch them.
In Germany there are many middle sized banks that do boring bank business that serves regular people, and the productive economy, home buyers and companies. They weathered the crisis well and had done nothing wrong (although the economic crisis affected them as well).
The U.S. banks got the bad loans out of the books and could start the next round.
The European banks got confirmations (by the large international rating agencies or the large banks had their own legal departments) that the bundled loans were of good quality.
That gave them plausible deniability, they could play stupid it it would not go well. Of course they KNEW that the quality was not that good. (that is why they might have started the bets = swaps. Or the actors were eager to create new forms of bets and introduced them also with the argument to have them as extra "insurance").
The problem: the original loans were only given out in the U.S. for real estate in the U.S. - that is a small "market" for the deals of so many banks, and the loans were "backed" by inflated prices.
As for selling the loans: there was media hype about the good real estate situation with rising prices. At the same time due to outsourcing and job losses there was no way people could afford to buy homes in a prudent manner. - it solved some problems for the Cheney / Bush admin.
Bush had signed the China agreement, so he could not now declare the American Dream to be dead.
Construction propped up the employment rate, people felt wealthy and were happy to live in their home, the donors (real estate developers) were happy, I am sure politicians got a cut. So no one warned or had an interest to contain the boom.
If a person could not afford the house they could feel they made a smart investment, they would sell it if they could not afford the rates LATER (the contracts were designed to have a few years with low installments and interest rates). The profit from the transaction would be their starting point for their nest egg. - only that such a speculative approach only works for the big guys and not at a scale where the little people can profit.
The appraisers were pressured into delivering sufficiently high estimates - if they did not conform the bank did not contract their services anymore. Some banded together, they published an open later in the New York Times protesting the practice. That should have been a red flag. a prudently working bank doesn't act that way.
The European banks knew the quality was not that good and were looking for someone that would engage in a bet with them. covering the default risk was a wayto pass on the hot potatoe.
So far "passing on" meant the risk (maximal damage) remained the same. If the volume of the bets was only for max. damage amount the bets would not have made things worse - engaged more actors that would suffer from losses. But betting (derivates) had become a huge industry since Bill Clinton had completed the deregulation.
Many liked the new financial "instrument" now they did not bet on pig halves, oil price, who becomes president ... they betted on the default risk of these loan packages.
The problem: since the volume of bets by far exceeded the underlying contracts and values - once the loans started defaulting the sums that had to be paid out were not limited to the maximum damage.
Example:
let's say Deutsche Bank had subprime loans for 100 millions. And they had also the bets for the default risk - then they had to pay fees for the bet - normally they "lost". That cost them some money (not much), the actors on the other side of the deal were happy to pocket the money. But if the loans would default they would "win" the bet big time. So it had the function of an "insurance" the won bet would compensate them for the losses.
The only problem: a lot of actors had those bets going on w/o having skin in the game, w/o an underlying contract (that they wanted to "secure"). So a default of a 100 million bundle could mean that some actors were owed 200, 250, 300, ....480 .... millions.
Once the defaults started they soon did not have that money. the perceived security was none and there was no difference made between speculation to secure a transaction in the real economy and speculation just because. And the banks had many forms of speculation going one, the wins of betting on oil were needed to cover the losses of betting on interest rates. Banks owed each other money.
It was a real estate bubble with a derivate bubble on top. In the U.S.
All other large banks saw what was possible for U.S. banks at the end of the Clinton presidency. So they demanded the same freedom to do whatever they wanted - including NO regulation for the big players regarding derivates. Other countries had their own bubbles and once the U.S. dominos started falling there was more scrutiny for other banks in other countries. And these bubbles popped as well.
Cyprus
Iceland
Austra / Germany (Hypo bank scandal)
Spain (the had their own real estate bubble)
Greece (European banks had lent the Greek state a lot of money).
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
I agree: a "layered" disclosure does not hurt her credibility. telling a friend 15 years later sth really bad happened when she worked for Biden without giving details, is a way to protect herself. Apart from unwanted publicity, she would either have been ignored, or if the claims were treated seriously she could realistically expect a smear campaign, retaliation ...
Biden has been an important player under the Bill Clinton admin ! He was a faithful servant of big biz / finance all his political career. Got frequent and friendly media coverage and had built a brand of Joe, folksy friend of the working class. A man with that power and public standing can destroy a life.
I think there is a psychological element of her being conflicted and not telling ALL to that friend (or last year when she backed up the claims of Lucy Flores).
1) people need to know, this man cannot be trusted - while he has a distinguished career and is getting very nice treatment by the media
2) sth bad happened but if I do not talk about the worst part - it is not real. As if talking about it revives it, gives it live. Makes her more of a victim.
I am sure it has been eating at her.
If he did it and then he does the heart string book tour after the death of his son (after leaving the White House), or the honor of being picked as VP, the cutsie reporting on the bromance with Obama - this man failed upwards and had a distinguised career.
Rape is often sensationalized. Even is the alleged perpetrator is not a powerful man now striving for one of the most powerful positions in the world.
Something just struck me:
2019 in a townhall Gabbard responded to a woman whose question was about sexual assault in the military (I seem to remember she was a survivor). Gabbard mentioned in her answer that there are soldiers that have trouble reporting sexual assault. Being viewed as that woman / man in their unit (that reported - which throws a shade at the unit). I think Gabbard was engaged in that work, and that assault victims had contacted her before.
Gabbard might rethink her ill advised endorsement.
5
-
It is good that the allegations gets some more air: IF he really did that brazen assault on her, there is a good chance she is not the only one. maybe other women take a heart and come out NOW.
Of course some might have gone along, in shock, or cooperated willingly to not endanger their career or they seized even a chance to promote it - in which case such swift action would have never gotting him any resistance.
I mean if he had tried to kiss her and backed off as soon as he realizes she is not into it .... but pinning her against the wall in one swift move (I remember she said then he was a strong man) and immediately penetrating her with his finger (while she struggles to process what is happening) - that is some brazen action. By a man who thinks he can do whatever he wants.
To think that she is getting that treatment after MeToo.
I do not know if her claims are true: but they are at least as credible as the story of Dr. Ford. (And in a way the alleged assault of the drunk teenagers is less horrible.
Very drunk, held her pinned her down under his bodyweight tried to take off her clothes which did not work, because she wore a one-piece bathing suit under her clothes. His friend was on top of that heap and then he toppled over, both laughed, and she could escape.
As opposed to:
A sober, mature man actually penetrating her - and at their workplace - is worse. Biden did not follow throught with more (DUH they were in the Capital at a semi public place, what if she started yelling for help). The teenagers were also not hell bent on forcing Blasey Ford, maybe the bathing suit saved all 3 of them: Blasey from rape, and the young men from becoming rapists.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@judydeters407 If a third party gets more than 5 % they get federal funding - a god send for small parties. It ALSO encourages people to vote for them NEXT time when they see the party is "viable". It boosts morale (it is a very thankless and exhausting job to be the little opposition party and to run with little money).
So a respectable, fairly good, promising result would keep them going.
Did I mention that nothing pisses off the Democratic establishment more than the peasants daring to disregard the lesser evilism blackmail ?
both parties and their common donors, but especially the Dems would rather have you vote for Republicans or not vote at all. Don't bother with their professed engagement to "turn out the vote" - not when it would benefit grassroots.
you might miss out on ballot measures if you do not vote. And in R states is is the pretext to kick you off the voter rolls if you miss one or two elections.
Also consider voting for D members of congress, even the shills. A mail telling them that they did not "earn" your vote, they are lucky to get it for your strategic consideration should help to keep them on their toes.
They are still better than the R's (especially if in their state a third party candidate did well in the general, they will smell the coffee they might consider working for the constituents occasionally).
Or imagine in a state the downballot Dems get elected, but many leave the president line blank or vote for the third party candidate. Would be even MORE impressive if a safely blue state is lost because of the third party candidate.
let the DNC and their media howl over the spoiler - and tell them it is going to continue. The Corporate Dems take the progressives for granted, it shows VERY clearly.
Biden (or his handlers) feel very safe when telling the serfs they are not going to get M4A, they tell stupid lies (Italy has single payer - so has Germany, austria, or South Korea, Yes THAT SK that handled the pandemic so well).
On the other hand they knot themselves into pretzels to court the mythical moderate conservatives (I understand - those voters go along with the big donor friendly neoliberal agenda).
But anyway: so far the progressives have always fallen in line when told:
Nice little country you have here, wouldn't it be a shame if Donald Trump happened to it ?
(or Mitt Romney, or Ted Cruz, ...... the Democrats can always rely on the other wing of the one and only big donor party to come up with an even more terrible tweedle dee, tweedle dum)
If you get a shill in congress it is not THAT bad, they can be replaced after 2 years and they are members of a body, so they do not have as much power.
of course if there is a progressive alternative for a Congress and Senate seat - support them unless you think you'll hand the victory to a Republican (and you still care about them not having the majority in congress and Senate. The Republicans are terrible - and Democrats hardly better).
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
In the Catholic church the "believes" are called "credo" (or credos). In economics and political discussions we have also a lot of thought stopping clichés (I borrowed that term from a speech about cult members and deprograming them). Economics is not a hard science, it belongs to the social studies, that does not mean you can't have insights. But it is a science like all social sciences that are abused for ideological reasons - and even if not there can be disagreement on major issues.
Back in the day the few on the top told the peasants that god had made society that way and that they had to fall in line (and church supported that message). It is much easier to control the masses (they are many more by definition) by propaganda and not by brute force (that costs much more). The goal is that they accept their poverty as INEVITABLE by circumstance even outside of control of the ruling class. It sucks but nothing else is possible. It can't be changed, there is not enough to go around for everyone. Apart from the occasional revolt and even rarer revolution that worked to control the peasants.
The narrative with god doesn't work anymore. Now economics is used to tell the voters how it is impossible to raise taxes on the rich, inconvenience big biz, have a green new deal, or to reject "free" "trade" deals.
As for propaganda
The "nobel prize" for economics isn't one of the original prizes created by Alfred Nobel around 1900 (physics, chemistry, medicine, peace and literature). In the 1970s the Swedish Central bank had an anniversary and they set a LOT of money aside to create this new prize in "memory of Nobel" (the Nobel family does not like it that they take a piggy ride on the brand).
The prize is high (as high as the real prizes) - you must put a lot of money aside so the eternal interest / capital revenue will be enough to pay out the money year after year.
Gee, I wonder who might have had an interest in such a PR gig. Hint: look who got awarded them first in order to prop up their credibility.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
In other news: AOC had EXCELLENT fundraising. No wine caves, or USD 2,000 per plate dinners, no dialling for dollars. But: She does not "pay her dues" to the DCCC (someone launched a story how she is a dead beat, even FOX News gave it some air, but AOC handled it beautifully on twitter. It is a norm that Democrats give the DCCC a cut of the money they raise. AOC would "owe them" 250,000 and gave 300,000 - but directly to candidates of her chosing. The DCCC got nothing - and she intends to keep it that way.
And now she started an alternative to the DCCC, that will support progressives ;)
The ploy of Cheri Bustos (current DCCC head) to kneecap progressive candidates may turn out to be a blessing in disguise.
These groups including the new PAC of AOC (there are also Justice Democrats which supported her primary, Our Revolution and other groups) create a reliable niche for creative talent (advertising, video producers) and stragists / consultants that would be good (or have potential to develop) but for some reason do not get at the troughs of the DCCC.
The DCCC does not want Democratic incumbents challenged (one example: long time incumbent Joe Crowly in a safely blue seat being challenged by an unknown, young Latina, a nobody in the party). That setup (usually) means a seat for life in safe blue districts.
Being allowed ! to run as candidate in such seats becomes a gift for party loyalists and people well connected to the Big donors of course. Or if the party establishment wants to prop up someone for a future presidential bid - like Hillary Clinton in New York.
It was no coincidence she was ushered into THAT Senate race (she had no connection to New York). The city also has major donors of the party. The otherwise logical successor was kept in the loop as long as the impeachment hearings of Bill Clinton were undecided. As soon as that was over the female had to give way to First Lady Hillary Clinton running for a Senate seat that was easy to win for a Corporate Democrat. (The presidency of Bill was not over when Hillary moved to New York).
Protection of incumbents means that they are safe from being punished by their constituents for selling them out (unless some candidate is found for the uphill battle against Big Donor money, colluding Corporate media and the party machine). For the constituents the only other choice would be a worse Republican. Joe Crowley was not Congressman in New York 14th for 19 or 20 years because the constituents liked him so much. Most of the time he did not even have to qualify in a primary, and the Republicans never had a shot in that district.
The DCCC cannot legally block challengers, but they can withhold money from them.
The DCCC implemented the rule (some time after the win of AOC) that a company or person that works for a challenger of a Democratic incumbent will be blacklisted, they will NOT be getting any DCCC funded campaign contracts. Or contracts of candidates that are running with the nod and help of the DCCC.
Most of the money spent by campaigns does not come from the DCCC - but the DCCC still excerts a lot of control how it is spent. For instance a certain percentage must be spent on TV ads in local races (so contracts for associated companies and a way to bribe media). Or they give candidates at the state level a list of consultants / strategists and they have to work with one of them. (That is a way to shove over contracts to loyalists, and to punish contractors that do not toe the line - even if they would be excellent professionally).
AOC's fundraising improved at the end of her primary race (thanks to the platform she got with the help of independent media - and of course the work on the ground startd to pay of, but I think she got money from out of state thanks to outlets like TYT, Humanist Report ....)
So she could afford an ad that went viral on the internet. Very well made (from a marketing standpoint) - I do not think she had the help of a company that is the darling of the DCCC.
Not all of the consultants, strategists and video producers, PR companies that are cozy with the DCCC are that good (see the tone deaf, badly run Clinton campaign) - so AOC setting up a source of funding for outsider candidates using outsider professional talent could really backfire on the DCCC.
At the moment the rule of the DCCC puts grassroots campaigns (that the party establishment does not like even if theyt challenge a Republican) at a disadvantage. Some strategists / consultants ARE good and their help would be needed for inexperienced campaigns. (Cyntha Nixon had a problem to find staff when she challenged Cuomo in the gubernatorial primary, the well established contractors did not dare to offend the party / Cuomo machine in New York).
But the grassroots supporting groups coordinate and there will be a STEEP learning curve - for candiates, campaigns and potential contractors alike. The DCCC might wish they had never unwittingly left that genie out of the bottle.
The Dems saw a Blue Wave coming in Nov. 2006 (and I think Wallstreet had an inkling the bubble would burst soon). So the DCCC headed then by Rahm Emanuel stacked the races with "conservative" or Wallstreet Democrats. They were showered with money. Blue-collar oriented candidates were neglected, IF they still prevailled against the Corporate friendly types the DCCC abandoned them in the GE (it is the Big Donor party with 2 wings, better to have a Republican winning than a progressive Democrat).
Ain't the two-party duopoly great ? (Interviewer: "Mr. Nader, does the U.S. need three parties ? "Ralph Nader": No. But two would be great".)
The voters had it with the Cheney / Bush admin and the midterms 2006 went very well for Democrats. (and the Wallstreet types in Congress proved their value for the donors a few years later). The voters found out these "Democrats" were useless so they lost their seats quickly (1000 seats lost on all levels under Obama), but these candidates could hope to move on to more lucrative jobs provided by the Big Donors. So no harm done (to them) when they lost to Republicans.
Of course having solid majorities is a problematic for the Democrats, when they have the White House, Congress and Senate (supermajority in California. Or: 2009, 60 filibuster proof days in spring 2010, then they could have passed anything - but they passed ACA).
With solid majorities the Dems would be running out of excuses why they cannot pass bills that would help the regular people (but these measures normally recude the profits of the Big Donors. The only exception is things like gun control, abortion, LGBT rigths, identity politics (racism or white supremacy is a form of that).
BOTH fractions of the Big Donor party use these issues to differentiate themselves, whatever the position is - it does not cost the Big Donors anything. And the hop is to rile up the base with these issues only and to get them to the ballot.
A good display of "bipartisanship" letting the Republicans "participate" (who in turn will STILL not vote for the healthcare reform) and dragging things out can take care of the problem of having too much power so they could change things.
Corporate Democrats and Republicans have the SAME donors: certainly industries, often even the same companies and individuals. Keeping the Big Donors happy and the money flowing is even more important than winning elections:
the big donors (and the party "leadership") will arrange for cushy jobs for ex politicians (at least the hot shots - all the more incentive for the smaller fish to fall in line and cozy up with the party establishment - so they too have the backup that they would get a golden parachute, will have their campaigns financed, and no one will shower a primary challenger with money).
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
It pains me to say that but Biden won because Sanders is mentally not prepared (scared of) really TAKING POWER. - Sanders invokes how much the oligarchs have screwed the country and how dangerous Trump is - but telling the truth about his "good friend Joe" ?
That would go too far.
He would rather keep the moral highground as HE defines it (not going negative in the ads or on the stage) than really getting power on behalf of the screwed masses.
The theory of Jimmy Dore: Nothing is more important to Sanders than NOT becoming the next Ralph Nader that is (incorrectly) blamed for the loss of feckless, inept, all too willing to-go- away-quietly Al Gore. (Cheney Bush wanted the presidency also more than Gore, and it showed).
So Sanders was beaten into submission and being timid when he should have been bold and asserive - and FIERCE (I mean look at the state of the country even before corona, the brazen bailout, the way 9/11 was seized to undermine constitutional rights).
The thing with self sabotaging. You can in good faith put in a lot of work and do well for quite some time. But when you get within 70 - 80 % of your goal you start acting in a confliced manner.
Sanders quickly, quickly glossed over "Do you think you would have won against Trump" questions in Nov. 2016 (after the loss). He SPARED the cheating DNC and Hillary Clinton the post mortem.
At that time I was very willing to find rational explanations how he was being diplomatic and smart and did not want to alienate the DNC. Or the Clinton base in case he would ever run again.
No good deed goes unpunished.
They still blame him because that is the CONVENIENT thing to do. they do not have to admit their ineptitude and do not have to admit how much of a failure neoliberal policies are (if you really want to win elections - as opposed to be the "opposition" that also ! keeps the Big Donors happy).
Everyone latched onto the Russia, Russia narrative (oddly enough still no one could be bothered to talk about easily hackable voting machines, voter roll purges by the millions by Republican states in 2016 (Operation crosscheck) or that there are states where the safety features on the machines have never been activated (Ohio). There are states and districts where you have to believe the results as published, there is no way to verify if the count was changed IN the machine or during transmission or after transmission when it has been tabulated (by R run states).
Another red flag regarding Sanders: he was informed by Greg Palast in 2016. It is clear why the Democratic establishment and Corporate media maintain deafening silence on that. It suits the interests of the ruling class that elections can be rigged (worst case, not only "accidentally" purging voters and closing polling stations and demanding ID's and shortening early voting times - but in an "emergency" also outright rigging the count.
On the other hand in an "progressive" emergency (in a PRIMARY) all those strategies to rig the election are also useful for Corporate Democrats.
They are not going to call out the Republicans, they sit in the glass house (and their common donors do not want the sheeple to get upset, they want quiet in their empire).
Greg Palast (Investigative reporter): Republicans steal general elections. Democrats steal primaries (then he refered to a primary in New Mexico with mass purges of poor latinos to help a Corporate Dem win the primary. In New York they preemptively purges the rolls in Brooklyn. By "accident". In a Sanders stronghold. It did not decide the primary, Clinton would have won N.Y. anyway. BUT they could not know that, and they were not taking chances. They did what they could (death by a thousand cuts) to undermine the 2016 Sanders campaign.
Literally intervening on day one: Sanders officially announced mid May 2015 in Burlington. Ed Schultz knew Sanders well, and would have given him friendly coverage. A godsend for a small campaign that planned a 30 million budget coming from small donations. Ed Schultz wanted to cover the announcment live, he had a prerecorded short interview to play after that.
The Clinton campaign intervened with top managment, Ed was ordered to stand down 5 minutes before start despite his protests. (and it was not because something important broke). 40 days later they ended his contract and his show.
No one at the time thought Sanders had a chance (incl. Sanders btw, even if they did not officially say so). but Clinton had an Iowa trauma when Obama did so well in 2008. They figured that IO would be good campaign ground for Sanders, and NH was a neighbour state of VT - so he could have a good start as outsider. They were not taking any chances. Hillary got glowing coverage from Corporate media but she could not allow the small outsider to have any consistent friendly FREE airtime on MSNBC (Ed Schultz knew him well, he would have continued to report, and he had some reach).
Nothing screams strong candidate like having to be so petty towards an alleged unimportant competitor right from day one.
Being an experienced politician he should have known better about the lame excuses and shenanigans of media and DNC, I am sure he watched closesly what was going on in 2000. He was a member of Congress then.
Or when they finished off Howard Dean a moderate but he was against the war (because of an excited scream).
These bad faith actors are NEVER afraid to play dirty. As Sanders should KNOW, better than anyone.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@emileconstance5851 Yes, but many say it without slimy intentions and NOT in deceptive ads. (Acting as if the plans of other candidates would not ALSO include free trade school etc.)
College IS not for everyone and frankly a lot of people go there because that is done in their families (if family is well connected it might even serve the purpose to be the gateway to a good job). Or they are going to college only to get office jobs, that they should be able to fill after highschool. - and companies should hire them after highschool.
Meanwhile if you apply to Starbucks (at least in New York) they'll ask you for a college degree, else you have no realistic chance to be hired - for being a barista, mind you (not a good office jobs with chanced to get ahead).
Prof. Richard Wolff (economics professor, see Economic Update and democracy@work) overheard such a conversation when a young woman came in and asked for the forms to apply. (may have been in 2017).
The manager immediately asked her if she had graduated from college, and when she said no (she had dropped out and it seemed to embarrass her) he kindly said: Here are the forms, and I will submit them - but I have to tell you that HR will not consider your application if you do not have a degree.
Dr. Wolff: "Pushing the buttons on a coffee machine does not require a degree, never has, never will. So why does Starbucks ask for it ? - Because they can !"
The U.S. has deindustrialized so other paths to well paying secure jobs are not open anymore. For some time the youth was kept busy in college, they did not flood the job market immediately, and no one had to admit that the American dream is dead.
Remember: AOC worked for the campaign of Sanders and before that for Senator Edward Kennedy (which were not high paying jobs either and did not lead to a lasting career) but most of the time she worked in restaurants and bars.
AFTER having graduated cum laude (economics and international relations), a 2nd place in a science fair project in a good high school (as reward they named a star after her).
And we know she does not lack ambition, determination, dilligence or the ability to present herself.
So how come she did not get a better job before her campaign ? - because a degree by no means secures you the good jobs anymore. It is a default condition and then you need luck, an ivy league degree certainly helps or your family has connections.
4
-
@michaelmcclure3383 what makes you think the "batshit crazy" identitarian lefties (that you think should be called lefties) are not a) a small but very vocal group and b) are anything else but part of the neoliberal party machine OR are groomed via some NGO's , and have no qualms of colluding.
Typically these people call themselves "liberals", not lefties and also no progressives.
I think this may be about feeling superior regarding moral issues - but no clue or interest in the economic issues (that are the issues that do have morale implications). I read a blog of a female that was pissed about Sanders in 2016, and a few commenters that agreed with her. Couldn't figure our why. these women (methinks part of academia OR part of the election consultant complex) could say nothing specific against Sanders apart from the fact that he had stolen HRC's thunder in the primary (that was before HRC lost the general) and I am sure if asked they would be vocal about all things gender, feminist, race related.
That people purport ! to care about MeToo, race, gays or whatever can also by a very clear, cynical, self serving calculation (Alyssa Milano comes to mind, and her husband who works for Hollywood. Rose Mc Gowan a rape victim had some interesting things to say about her engagement about MeToo when it came to Kavenaugh, as opposed how she was treated, as opposed to how she reacted to the Tara Reade case).
what does "identitarian left" even mean. The defintion of left is being left on economic issues. And then some.
Any decent person would care about gay rights, racism, discrimination against women, disabled persons, certain religions. That is supposed to be part of the package when economically left - sticking up for the underdgog not only the economic underdogs.
4
-
4
-
4
-
The RNC knew that Trump would run in the general as Indpedendent if they would cheat him. THAT gave him leverage. Sanders was willing to do the same in the late 1980s until the DNC made sure that no Democrat would run against him. (In 1988 the Democrat had been the spoiler with only 20 %, handing the Republican a Congress seat with approx. 35 %, closely followed by Sanders.
The Democratic machine in VT did not like Sanders to put it mildly, but then he travelled to D.C. and the arrangement was as follows: he would likely run again in 1990, could obviously win this, there would be no D candidate (at least not with the support or money of national or state party) and he would caucus with them.
The DNC likely thought the oddball could do no harm even if he did not play the games as it was usually played in D.C. They did not have to help him with money and he could win (and did win) and for them he was almost as good as a Democrat (when he dissented regarding war, trade deals, they usually found partners in the crime across the aisle. But he had his vote when it got tight). So they did not bother, the state is tiny and has no major industries (read big donors).
Did not endear Sanders to the VT Democratic party (now they get along well, and he fundraises for them).
BUT: being willing to run third party was the reason he got that agreement, it was the base for his political career (he did not want to stay mayor of Burlington, it was well known that he aspired for higher office, and they have term limits anyway - 4 terms I think = 8 years).
As for being the spoiler in the Presidential race
Of course Trump does not care to hand the victory to the other party, if he is on a revenge mission. - Sanders cared - so he supported HRC the ungrateful narcissist in the general.
No good deed remains unpunished.
On the other hand THAT prevented open war between him and the DNC. They made him outreach for the party (even though he immediately returned to being an Independent after the convention in July 2016). Sanders could not have been of use to progressives within the party hierarchy. After the shock of the Nov. election the party wanted to "signal" to the younger and progressive voters (signal as opposed to REAL concessions).
So he became "outreach" for the party. No formal power BUT the only position where he was able to leverage his strengths. AFTER the election he got more interviews and they were less hostile than when he was a candidate.
He put that opportunity to good use. In EVERY interview (whatever the issue was) he ALSO mentioned healthcare. Usually 2 - 3 other issues as well - but ALWAYS healthcare. In case someone had awoken from a coma and had not yet heard that the U.S. spends twice per person but with worse outcomes .....
The DNC might have intended that as a bone thrown to the progressive wing and as a way to get the support of the Sanders fans by proxy (and maybe he would share his maillist eventually ?) w/o giving him or the lefties any real influence.
Well that backfired, he used this opportunity in a very smart manner. (the interview situation changed once it became clear that he would very likely run. His status changed from "harmless, could be useful to placate the lefties" to "must be contained" again.
4
-
@rayrayandthem2995 those 600 USD will not help workers in the long run, on March 12 the Fed created 1,5 trillion USD (that was outside of the "stimulus" bill, happened before that was even discussed - and was only the beginning). For the speculators on Wallstreet .
Dodd Frank allows that, the crooks = lawmakers made sure under Obama they did not even have do ask Congress for permission in the NEXT bailout. No discussion = no public attention and they can move FAST.
No. Progressive. Calls. That. Out.
Trump NEEDED the bill. Democratic party needed to not be seen as the sellouts that they are.
Progressives HAD UNIQUE LEVERAGE. And the dropped the ball. In an epic manner.
Sanders should not have played the game to fight for crumbs - and having to fight hard for that little. He should have organized the progressives in Senate and Congress, used a unified message and called out the abomination of bills - as they were developed. not when they were up for the vote but as the insane provisions were discussed.
Pelosi asked for means testing right away. Someone needs to aks her publicly if she has lost it - of if she has ANY idea how normal people live. (she has become very rich while being in office).
means testing = delay of payout plus more civil servants staff needed to make it happen (when they should be home if possible). They could let the IRS means test via the tax code when the dust has settled. And that would not be a lot of red tape.
But then the idea is floating that the wealthy need to be taxed and Pelosi and her donors don't like to have that on the to-do list. NOW she asks for MORE tax cuts - for the rich / big biz. Of course !
1,5 trn (only of March 12th) divided by 330 millions = 4,500 per person or 18,000 for a family of four (you would divide it up differently, less for kids, some for smaller biz, etc).
Strong words should have been used: crumbs for the regular people, they are being held hostage, general strike, walk outs, civil disobedience, not even in an election year they bother to care for The People.
The GOP Senators look to me like a Kabuki theater performance: they play the bad cops and the Progressives are kept busy and can SHOW OFF their little success.
At least the Republicans WANT to win an election. VOTERS are scared.
they have ALL the SAME problem and many of them are unemployed already (so they have time).
In other words: MAXIMUM LEVERAGE. The package does not even include healthcare related to corona. Trump who wants to win and who has a better instinct for the moment talks about medicare-for-corona (for the uninsured).
LAME - too little and he'll probably not gonna do it - but that is better than what Democrats even suggested.
That package SHOWS what they think of the voters (unorganized, gaslighted, in desperate need of leadership), the U.S. media (millionaires shilling for billionairs, they will not call out the robbery in broad daylight).
And the complicit corporate Dems. Who also tried to figure out how little they could give the people - and get away with it.
Plus the feckless Progressives that cannot see the forest for the trees or do not have the guts to FIGHT when it is time to fight. not in the committees of bought and paid for politicians, and not in grandstanding speeches on the floor.
I saw a hysterical performance of one young Congresswoman (do not know her name). using her time on the floor = 1,5 minutes to laud medical workers. In a quite dramatic fashion and she even got a time extension for her little act.
Cute - obviously producing footage to be shown for reeelection on Social media. And the act of AOC on the floor was also quite dramatic - only she STILL does not call out the "democratic" leadership in their role that the bill turned out like it is. After a little token resistance of Pelosi.
She can thank medical staff and frontline workers on another occasion. If she does grandstanding speeches (1,5 minutes) on the floor - she can talk about something that CAN CHANGE things and can INFORM the voters beyond what they already know.
You would think ALL Democrats would riot on behalf of The People and thus create maximum PUBLIC ATTENTION. Or at least the Progressives - thus showing the other Dems for the sellouts and servants of big donors that they are.
"No fundamental change has ever come from the top down - it was always the grassroots that made it happen". Right, Senator Sanders - and this moment was tailor made for activist movement.
I cannot say it is 2009 all over again (and then later QE to the tune of trillions to further prop up the banks - then approval of Congress was needed, it was around 2010 / 2011).
The ruling class LEARNS - this assault happend much faster than the last one and they are much more brazen. It worked out for them in 2009 - and now they expect to get away with it and that no one will call a spade a spade.
Sanders should have rallied the masses (protests in cars, voters calling representatives, walk outs in companies that still work - also for protection, Amazon does not even clean the facilties properly).
Not even corona related healthcare ? Hell, no !
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@73151cb FDR had to twist some arms of elected "representatives" in the Democratic party. As today many of them were rich or wealthy and could have arranged themselves easily with the misery of the masses. (A united left gave him the leverage: left or far left parties, unions. Union drive to recruit 1 million new members in 1932, the U.S. had then just shy of 90 million people. Strikes and demonstrations, in 1932 the march of veterans on Washington for their promised bonuses had been brutally crushed, with help of the army. Under the republican president, FDR campaigned then.
Some of the oligarchs and politicians remembered Russia 1917, that was not so distant past - and FDR seemed to be the lesser evil, New Deal, higher taxes for them and all.
FDR was not so foolish as to alienate the army (the lower ranks) and the WW1 veterans, might have spared him a coup attempt. (interesting story about Smedley Butler and his testimony before Congress when some oligarchs tested the mood for that).
Of course once FDR got very popular bills passed, he got even more support by the population (the president makes good on his promises) and it was even harder to oppose him.
He also evaded the press leaning to the right (owned by rich people) and radio was partially right-wing as well. He did fireside chats (on the radiao) to inform the public about big projects.
FDR also strongarmed the Supreme court. Which was right wing, activist, the court that had "found" even before the crisis broke that it was unconsitutional to outlaw child labor.
The court overturned one (popular) bill of the New Deal, and it was clear they could dismantle it bill by bill.
FDR mused about court packing, the voters were furious - and the Supreme Court got the memo. One of the next decisions was about the minimum wage: it was found constitutional.
These hacks can reverse engineer their legal arguments from the desired outcomes (and that is still the case).
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
It is not "pragmatic" it is insane to prop up one-dimensional (untested !) technology fixes for proprietary technology - for a problem caused by the mindset of the very "invesotr class" and the economic system (profit and externalizing costs over everything). By propping up the very actors that got us into the mess. I can see them taking the subsidies for continued extraction of fossil fuels AND for "carbon capture".
There are humble, common sense methods of carbon capture, and energy efficiency - they work, they do not need "new tech". But they would "only" solve the problem, while providing a living for a lot of people (and having other benefits like restoring soil and water, and more nutrient dense food) - but no one would get rich of it.
So obviously THAT is not up for debate.
As the common sense solutions were not enacted the last 40 years - when it would have been much easier and cheaper.
The reason is the same - the ruling class would not stand to profit.
We are not only threatened by global warming and it is the mindset that is destructive and leads to unsustainable practices - not only with fossil fuel.
Propping up the destructors, confirming the idea that there is no major ideological problem (that now threatens our civilization and long term peace) and rewarding them for their insanity and greed ?
I don't think so.
It is also telling that the humble, low tech READY to USE solutions that would need human labor and allow people to make a decent living in the rural areas is not even discussed. - see my other posts - regarding Terra Preta, regenerative farming, water management, forestry.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@lisasimpson3832 ? Let's assume he did say something offensive (unintentionally or even intentionally). In a private conversation. That was in Dec. 2018. Warren wants to win in a crucial election. She has not given a hint that she is at odds with him for one year, she is perceived as ally to the progressive agenda, and positions herself as such. The meeting in which Sanders allegedly ! made the statement also sealed a deal that they would not attack each other. And so far they had both kept that.
Then - when she is behind in the polls - and days before the important Iowa debate and the important caucus THEN she brings that up ??
If it had bothered her - why didn't she settle that with him under four eyes and much earlier ?
And if you listen to the debate: he did not say she was a liar. He said: I did not say that (which would leave room for offended sensibilites, misunderstanding, expressing himself in a clumsy manner etc).
In the grand scheme of things: she is running for president. between 30 and 65,000 people die because of lack of healthcare, 500,000 are homeless, Climate change etc. etc.
What was it good for that she brought up that issue at all ? Let's assume he said it - why was the public supposed to know what had been said in a confidential conversation ?
To paint him as sexist ? That does not rhyme with what the public knows about him and about his RECORD for decases.
In the end it does not matte what HE believes about her prospects (or that of any woman in the race), that does not hinder her in the least to win the primary or the general.
Her open mic moment after the debate was seen as an attempt to bait him into saying something that she and media could use against him. Did not work, he is too smart for that.
If that wasn't a cynically planned move (my assumption) if she is really THAT sensitive - and childish - she too has no business running for office. Before that she would have to debate Donald Trump, remember.
When Sanders was asked: "Did you say that" - and she thereafter - she could have deflated the whole thing and said: "Maybe we had a misunderstanding, I guess Bernie and I will have to talk about that, right now we were both busy with campaigning. Let's put that to rest - let's talk about the issues."
But with such a mature stance, she would never have started the whole thing. And if her campaign started that w/o her knowing: she could have deflated the whole thing days earlier - before it snowballed. The media jumped at the controversy and she stoked the flames instead of putting them out.
Did not work out, it did not get her more votes, it just cost her sympathies with the Sanders base.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Chomsky in 2008 (he saw right through Obama) Vote blue ONLY in swing states, vote third party (Green Party) in safely blue or red states, - which are the majority of states). His reason: even small differences and being marginaly less evil adds up to big differences over time in a country as powerful as the U.S. And voting in masses for another party also signals to the cynical Dems that the voters have woken up to their plot.
with 16 % or so the Greens would be hard to exclude from the debates.
Jill Stein got 1 % of the vote, Gary Johnson got 3 % !
Chomsky referenced that advice in 2012 when he told people AGAIN to hold their nose firmly and to vote for Obama not Romney - in Swing States and Green Party everywhere else. (and down ballot the most left version, down ballot the D primaries are the most crucial elections).
I find it interesting that NC does not mention that NOW, maybe he has lost faith in the intelligence of the electorate (I would not be surprised).
a) a sufficient number of voters listen to NC - than the no win situation would not occur, The Greens would have gotten 20 % in the last election (Ross Perot got 18 or 19 % in 1992, allegedly w/o costing Bush Sr. the reelection, looks like Republican voters are smarter, or he activated a lot of non voters)
b) it does not matter, what NC says of has been saying for decades. Because voters are to effing stupid (in sufficient numbers) to play the "long" game. They gladly go along with the lesser evilism plot while the oligarchs folllow through with your moves for decades.
Chomsky has been getting it for decades. The voters have to catch up, and the people that listen to NC or The Hill count as "choire" that gets to hear the sermon. btw: the strategy of Chomsky is simple enough, but neither TYT nor Rising dare to mention it. Voters seem to be oblivious that the "How can you dare to not vote Biden given the "alternative" does not even apply in most states because they are safely red or blue.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@stephenpmurphy591 What protects a grassroots politician from being derailed by Corporate Dems, Republicans or Corporate media ? Name recognition, and also some experience. That comes with time. Some are political talents like AOC (that has its own pitfalls), but most need more time to get really established. Sanders had a suprise win in the early 1980s, that was an overnight wonder that was 10 years in the making. Campaigned 10 years for a small Independent left party in the 1970s.
And that suprise win was 10 or 18 votes more for mayor of a city with now approx. 40,000 people.
Mayor Sanders would not have been possible in a larger city.
8 years and 4 terms. (same problem, if higher office would not have worked out, his career was over, and he did not do favors for bigger biz in Vermont, so they would not coddle him. Which is why often business owners run for mayor. They set things up nicely for their biz, and then return to it.
And while being mayor 3 more ! runs for higher office.
In 1990 it finally worked out and he won the House seat. I think he was not that well established in the first 2 terms (he voted against gun regulations, in hindsight I think he feared that could cost him his seat come next election). Vermont knie him as mayor and I think he did good, but they did not necessarily see him in the big league.
Only then he beccame a household name and his seat pretty safe. And that is in tiny Vermont.
3
-
3
-
3
-
on VOX I read 2 articles about the NV caucus. good thing: there will be paper used (as backup, so in 2 - 3 weeks it should be settled). They have early voting and instead of 2nd round realignment they do ranked choice (people can give 3 - 5 choices).
They planned to use the Shadow app for reporting and to do the calculation (that contract was initiated by NV, at least I read that claim in the VOX piece, and the app was then recommended to the Iowa state party. If the party chair is the same as 4 years ago it is a shame that she did not fall onto her own sword. The IO chair has stepped down.
They wanted to use it also to report the early voting results to the precincts where the people are assembled on caucus day. To FACTOR them in there.
That gives me real clusterfuck vibes.
I would think all early votes could be handled as ONE precinct which would make things much easier, the whole box is kept safe somewhere and the ballots are counted before witnesses.
a) Nevada state party ? WHO keeps the early ballot safe ? Those crooks ?
b) that sound complicated and my B.S. meter goes off big time.
c) they will not work with the Shadow app (go figure).
They install a tool on iPads and every precinct gets one (so preinstalled which is better than the app that was not a fit for every smartphone.
The tool includes helps with calculation, usually one would call that a web app, but volunteers are told to NOT use the term app :) The reporting will done on a google worksheet, the calculation can be done with the tool, or on a sheet of paper.
(NV has done it on paper in the past, no app on a phone or online like this time. Iowa had the same Microsoft phone app like the Republicans in 2016, and that had worked).
So what became of the early voting reports ? Do they keep that procedure or are the early voting reports kept separate ?
The party is tight lipped (like Iowa when some people were critical before caucus day). The press gets information from volunteers that report from trainings.
If persones do the calculation (threshold, and then the delegate count) with the tool will there be a screenshot ?
It would depend on the other volunteers being like hawks observing what is done.
After the stunts they pulled in NV in 2016 in broad daylight.
Voice call which is a method to decide a vote when a clear minority shouts and then the majority. They save time, because if one group is 10 and the other 60, 70, or whatever ... no one cares, no need to count. They can move on quickly.
They claimed that the HRC side was louder, the Sanders people disagreed, I think the rules say count, they didn't. Even if the party chair could make the decision to ignore the people at the convention (I think it was the 2nd round of the caucus process so not on caucus day, but weeks later).
What kind of person ignores the volunteers and the base like that. It is always good form to have the appearance of fair play. if the people pro HRC would have been indeed in the majority (sound can be misleading, but on the other hand inexperienced attendees like many Sanders supporters might not have known they should have shouted at the top of their lungs).
Counting ! would have settled that controversy once and for all (I think the Harry Reid party machine represented by the party chair was in doubt if HRC had the majority so that was the reason NOT TO RISK a count. People hade smartphones they would have filmed, what could they have done if they would have a defnitive result pro Sanders ?
When the Sanders people protested, they threatened to call the police, and the lie was spread with help of the media that they had been rowdy, violent and that chairs had been thrown.
They shouted, but there was no footage to back up the claim of violence and chair throwing. But he party was afraid that could escalate and so the media propaganda machine was activated to make them in the wrong.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Edd1148. as a business man Yang knows the concept of bench marking. Most nations have their own kind of single payer - most expanded or installed it after WW2 - and they don't do PUBLIC OPTION (opt-in /opt-out / Medicare for those who want it etc).
On a superficial level "giving the choice" does not look like an unusual idea - so there must be a good reason why they don't do it.
Cherry picking of pools would be one of the most important reasons TO NOT HAVE A PUBLIC OPTION. In a single payer country the for-profit insurers only have a small portion of the healthcare "market". (Some countries do not include basic dental care in the public coverage, or think travel insurance).
So the private insurers never developed SYSTEMS to screw the insured / patients and they do not employ the bean counters to deny care or to purge people from the pool. It would not be worth the effort. Never mind they are much better regulated in that environment.
But in the U.S. the private insurers excell in the art to purge, they kicked out patients or did not accept them for coverage before ACA (resp. the offers for people with higher risks got were prohibitively high).
They continue to harrass patients and refuse to pay (fully) on a regular base. So doctors, patients, and nurses have to make many calls to get treatments approved. (a major inefficiency).
See a 2019 interview of Wendell Potter whistleblower on the industry: now they start to purge whole companies - if employees or their family members (if they are covered) have costly and ongoing treatments. (either premiums go up and make the company cancel the contract or they have to addecpt worse conditions for all - less coverage, higher deductibles. Or they fire the employee right in the beginning to avoid all of that.
The for-profit healthcare insurers screw the consumers every chance they get and have honed predatory practices. They have the systems, departments, skills and software already in place.
Are they going to kick the most costly / risky patient to the public pool and keep only the young and healthy ?
To answer that question you should know that 10 % of the patients cause 90 % of the spending. So if they do the purges right they can make lots of profits. For the young and healthy they can make offers that SEEM to be reasonably priced - but are still way too expensive considering the 10 : 90 rule. That also undermines solidarity between the insured, allows politicians to make hay by using divide and conquer tactics. The public pool is stuck with the high costs and will look bad - and it will be easy to villify it and to defund it.
Are their lobbyists going to make sure the law will allow them to make different offers according to risk / age / gender ? Will the Corporate media that gets so many ads from the industry gaslight the audience about the little details of the bill that will set up the overhaul of the system for failure.
Even if - IF - the insurers and to a degree the hospitals would not have unethical practices - Private insurers have costs that public non-profit agencies do not have: Sales staff, marketing. the administration and billing remains complex because there are so many different versions of "coverage", co-pay etc. Streamlined admin and billing is a major cost saver.
The costs to chase after unpaid bills. The people that do not have good coverage and therefore avoid going to the doctor until their conditions worsens or tehy show up in the ER (which is much more costly than going to the doctor in time).
The insurers have to process the applications and check them for risks.
Almost all wealthy single payer nations have HALF the spending per person compared to the U.S. (Thailand has less but you cannot compare teh wage levels, these are important for healthcare costs).
Most are in the range of 50 - 54 % of U.S. spending per person - and you should note that the average age is usually higher than in the U.S. (Europe, Japan - not so much in Australia and Canada which are traditional immigration countries). An older population is a major disadvantage, age is a huge driver of spending.
3
-
@Edd1148. So hundreds of millions of people in many nations, on several continents and for approx. 70 years - they all do MUCH better (not only regarding costs but most beat the U.S. regarding outcomes like infant mortality or life expectancy).
The MANDATORY contribution is paid by employees and employers (all of them) It is a percentage of the wage usually with a yearly cap.
That is part of the model and the MANDATE for a modest contribution is a NECESSARY condition for a cost-efficient healthcare system. No opt out. *
In practice there are minor exceptions. I know the system of Germany and Austria very well. For instance that certain professionals like self employed architects or lawyers have private insurance (full coverage).
In Germany they (and civil servants and some other groups and people with high income) are allowed to opt out. So 10 % of the population is fully privately covered. and in Austria archtects and lawyers cannot opt-in into the public pool (the total number of people with full private insurance is much lower). So Germany has public option for the well-off. But these are quirks of historically grown systems, it does not add to cost-efficiency - on the contrary. But it is not that much distortion that there would be enough pressure to change that.
Despite the cherry picked pools (people that are even allowed to chose - only a small segment of the population - will of course opt for the public pool if that is more favorable for them - there was a discussion in Germany in recent years to do away with that.
Even with all the favors for the industry (have a little bit of the market - and get a hand picked consumer base that is more affluent) or the doctors / hospitals (higher rates) and people with high income (it is tax deductible) - the costs for the older privately insured are rising steeply.
even though they are protected, the 90 % create a cost and inflation benchmark, the insurers cannot kick them out or not pay (if the public coverage includes it, they can offer more but not less). But once a person chose private insurance it is almost impossible return to the public pool.
That mandate also constitutes a RIGHT TO FULL COVERAGE (incl. for dependent family members). And there are little to no costs later when treatment is needed.
There are provisions for people w/o a job: either they have coverage for free or they "self-insure" for very low costs.
To make the mandate politically acceptable the contributions are modest, the insurance agencies get additional funding from the government (can be federal, state or local level), or there are subsidies for hospitals etc. Hospitals are usually non-profits run by cities and states.
One effect is that doctors and hospitals rarely have patients w/o coverage - and if they are covered they have FULL coverage. No chasing after unpaid bills, no hassle, no approval of the agency if and what the patient can get. The agency sets a framework (for instance that airlift with a doctor on board is "on the menu". The doctors use that option as they see fit. profit does not play a role, so the decision is purely according to medical considerations. If airlift gets you better results in severe cases (like survival or better / full recovery) it makes obviously sense to have that in the tool box - and either every patient can potentially have it or no one (for free of course).
So like in the U.S. there is a lot of government funding. But all the money goes into a cost-efficient STREAMLINED system in which all the large players are non-profits. (Exception pharma industry, but they have standardized internationally comparable products - that helps the agencies in the price negotiations).
With HALF the spending per person compared to the U.S. there is obviously plenty of room to pay less: The governments pay less in subsidies per person compared to the U.S. And companies and the citizens pay much, much less.
I call that a life experiment. To emulate it - no need to reinvent the wheel or to come up with tweaks like offering the possibility to opt out.
you would think that all the Democratic candidates that take a piggy ride on the brand of Medicare for All - which is a specific bill - try to understand the principles of genuine Single Payer Systems.
a) all the mechanisms of "free market" competition, consumer choice do not work for a service like healthcare (or natural monopolies).
For free market all actors in the market must have the same power. With healthcare the consumers are the weakest actor - and even well-intentioned regulation can protect them.
If for-profit is the first goal of a company and the consumers cannot avoid to buy / use the service they will be exploited because they can be exploited.
On top of that healthcare is complex - that always favors the profiteers and makes effective regulation impossible, the profiteers will always be 2 steps ahead of regulators and consumers.
Also: first world medicine costs a lot even if delivered in a cost-efficient manner (total spending per person roughly 5,500 USD - for every man, woman and child in a single payer nation - on average. Versus 10,260 in the U.S. - see Keiser Foundation, numbers for 2017 - or the numbers of World Bank).
b) the less for profit there is in the system the lower the costs and the less inefficiencies, unfairness and red tape
c) it is impossible to let the insurance companies or for-profit hospitals have a major role in the system and then try to mange and monitor them in all the complex situations. (medical diagnosis, treatment and billing). The only way not to lose this game is not to play it. The single payer nations did not let the private insurers or other large profiteers play a role. They took the ball away.
d) private insurers are glorified middle men - but with much higher adminstrative costs and a lot of toxic incentives to game the system. They bring nothing to the table, and there is no private system that can compete with the public non-profits (all conditions being equal. Age of the population, wage levels, no cherry picking allowed.
I know of Switzerland (only private insurerers 78 % of the U.S. spending. regulation works to delivery of care - the patients insured are not screwed - but it cannot contain the costs.
Taiwan: not comparable regarding wage levels and the population is much younger. Besides their spending has been rising steeply in recent years.
3
-
@somerealnews6312 Types like Krystal Ball were window dressing for the "liberal" networks, fitting the zeitgeist of the Obama campaign in 2008. And she did not fully realize the game until the 2015 / 2016 election. Usually the token progressives quickly switch to the dark side (money, career, healthcare plan).
But some resist or do not always toe the line. Kystall gave a "rant" in 2014 where she urged Hillary Clinton NOT to run. That got her an appointment with her superior and she had to submit anything she said about Clinton for approval from then on.
The show I think was cancelled - or only Krystall was let go. So she had her heart in the right place, but it was also luck that she made this one misstep, or that the show was cancelled. Rachel Maddow would have to resist 30,000 USD per day (which she gets if she sells her journalistic integrity) - and she did not rise to the occasion.
Maddow could start her podcast or youtube channel, be a firebrand attracting a lot of views, she has enough money to last her for life. Maybe run for office later and kick some behinds. To be sure she has a large support team, it is hard to finance that.
Chris Hayes remembers his former more progressive self from time to time.
Velshi and Ruhle: Velshi is Canadian and he asked Sanders some reasonable question in an interview. Being used to having single payer helps to not be idiotic about it. I think they let now the female Ruhle cover healthcare (expect the same biased and sometimes idiotic questions as by everybody else on the U.S. networks).
Cenk Uygur had his successful internet outlet TYT and then he was hired by MSNBC. THAT did not go well for long, the administration (meaning Obama) did not appreciate his critique and let management know - which let Cenk know. He had good ratings, in the end they offered him better pay for a slot on Saturday with much less visibility. Bribing him into oblivion and into being irrelevant. - He declined.
Gotta love the "free" media.
btw people that have shows on RT have full editorial freedom. To be sure they cannot slam Putin too much, but since most of them want to report on the U.S. or U.K. anyway the internal scandals or corruption of Russia are not a hindrance to maintain journalistic standards.
In the U.S. and U.K. you can have a career with the liberal networks if you do not challenge the neoliberal economic status quo, the insane U.S. healthcare system (or for the most part the warmongering and imperialism). The right wingers or conservatives find a home in Fox News (same with local news stations, they are bought up by large players and have an agenda).
But the lefties have nowhere to go. RT does not even have to recruit talent, they just have to pick up the good people after they were purged.
In a very weird twist RT has a lot of genuinely left progressive hosts. Chris Hedges, Thom Hartman (before he left, in good standing and he confirmed his editorial freedom). Afshin Rattansi in the U.K. (fired because he was against the Iraq war).
Firebrand Abby Martin that become know from being a part of and reporting on Occupy Wallstreet. No chance to get a job with TV - ever. (She switched to Telesur later), Lee Camp, ....
Ed Schultz after he was fired - he later commented on the reason he suspected for the termination: that he was friendly with Senator Sanders. He also said that he had more editorial freedom with RT than with the former network - NBC I think with the Ed Schultz show - most people thought they fired him because he was openly against TPP, that might have been another reason of course).
He wanted to cover live the announcement of Sanders to run in the primaries (end of April 2015 in Burlington). Some "observer" must have seen the camerateam and the respectable crowd on a fine day. Alarmed the Clinton campaign which intervened with management. He was called 5 minutes before starting (they had coordinated with the Sanders campaign) and ordered to stand down and repeat coverage of something else (from the day before). Ed was fired 40 days later.
Mind you: no one incl. Sanders and Jeff Weaver thought he had a shot to win the nomination. They planned a grassroots campaign with 30 million USD in small donations so Sanders could talk about the issues. But Clintons campaign thought he could do well in early states and that would diminish the momentum for Clinton. But they - media and Clinton campaign) tipped the scales from day one.
So Sanders knew from day one they were going to play dirty. Getting frequent and friendly coverage by Ed would have been a god send for such an outsider campaign.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The CITIZENS will be pleased about president Sanders. Not so sure about the politicians, sure they want Trump gone, but a type like Buttigieg, Bloomberg, Biden (run by his handlers) or Klobuchar would be more to their taste.
Taxing the rich, catching the tax dodgers, decisive action to get out of fossil fuels, jobs guarantee, strengthening unions, reigning in the banks and big tech ..... If that works (and if the U.S. means business it could work especially regarding taxing the rich and multinationals) ...... their citizens might be getting ideas.
In many wealthy nations they have much better welfare systems and public services but they are also experienced the neoliberal assault (not as brutal as the U.K. or the U.S.), defunding by tax dodging, and the ageing population increases spending (retirements, healthcare, ...)
while the rich and highly profitable businesses pay less and less tax
The citizens of Europe, Canada, Australia, ..... are not into war - but some of their governments are, especially the former colonial powers U.K. and France get the imperial itch from time to time. Also Canda, funny how "liberal" Trudeau is involved in Venezuela.
They can act upon that imperialistic desire in collusion with the U.S. war machine (and interests of U.S. oligarchs and the deep state). NATO gives them cover for wars they could not sell to the population on their own: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, ... Also covert missions in Africa (France has a lot of interests, mining, ...)
Their ruling class likes war as much as the ruling class of the U.S. and it is often also about advancing the interests of the national oligarchs (mining, water companies, big ag, ... Lithium see Bolivia).
One could hope Sanders would also stand up to the Military Industrial Complex (he mentions that in his announcement video of 2019). Of course that would be a huge and frankly dangerous position, so it remains to be seen if he would dare to stand up to the war machine.
Larry Wilkerson: President Obama said to me. This city (D.C.) really likes war, with SS Kerry right on his side, and a general present.
(I forgot the name of the general).
I think that might have been in 2013 when Obama (covertly) retracted from enforcing the red line in the sand - Obama blamed immediately the Syrian government for the Sarin gas attack in late August 2013 - more than 1000 people died.
It was a Sarin gas attack no doubt in that case. But after a few days the U.K. laboratory in Porton Down confirmed that the Sarin used in the attack did not match the stocks of the Syrian government. The jihadists would have had a good reason to get the U.S. involved, while the military advantage of the government to use the gas was not clear. At all. And both parties were fighting each other in the region so Obama was foolish - or got misleading intel - to put the blame on the government and army of Syria before there was ANY investigation.
Obama never took back his accusation or his expressed will to start a war about it, but with the help of Russia he worked behind the scenes to avoid war. The solution: letting Congress vote on it - that bought him time. (I think they were in recess at the end of August, and in September he did not get the votes - as was to be expected).
Russia negotiated with Syria that they would hand over all their poison gas stocks, they were destroyed on a specialized U.S. ship. Ray McGovern, fmr CIA analyst: Putin helped Obama out of the mouse trap the war mongers had set up.
Ray McGovern: The scoop into the Middle eEast and Israel. This is the title of the video, and despite the title - this is about Syria and the narrowly avoided _open_war against Syria in 2013.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The grift of Corporate Dems is to not give the voters anything, and scare them with lesser evilism. [Insert name of Terrible Republican of this election season]. All that Biden offers is: not-Trump
The donors finance Corporate Dems to beat Progressives in primaries. And Dems like to sheepdog their base in the general. (The donors also would not like it if the Greens would have 20, 25 % of the vote. The sheeple could be getting ideas, that there is something to build on.)
Corporate Dems like to win narrowly (the big whigs are usually placed in safely blue districts, states). Then they can blame the Republicans when they never get anything done. Some blue dogs will do the dirty work, if some citizen friendly bill could pass and they would have the votes. See Obama admin in 2009 / 2010, they had the White House, Congress, Senate, and in spring 2010 a filibuster proof majority for 60 days. Then they passed ACA, then they could have passed a LOT.
With good legislation and putting up a memorable fight, they would have WON midterms Nov. 2010.
(Blue wave 2006, sensational campaign of Obama in 2008, it is not like the voters have become too stupid to vote. People sensed that Hope and Change did not happen, not for them).
The legend has it that Obama could not get anything done because of R opposition. The racism of the birther movement, the hostility of FOX, and the rabid Republican obstruction really helped Obama.
The base rallied behind him, no questions asked. And he could pull off his neoliberal betrayal.
You can still hear that he could not anything done because of Republican obstructionism. Not true, he did not ever bother to fight against Democratic obstructionism.
Obama had promised the public option, Joe Lieberman the Senator with a D to his name and a few like him killed it (a weak second best to single payer anyway, but not even that did the insurance industry allow). Of course neither Obama nor Biden did anything about the "Democratic" defectors (it was an important campaign promise after all).
Those Senators (they have elections only all 6 years) that run and can win as Republican lite are very important, they are the defense to derail bills.
They are always allowed to "dissent" with D bills, no one complains when they vote more with Republicans than Democrats. But all hell breaks lose when progressives dissent.
When voters do not obey anymore OR have a choice the business model of lesser evilism (Good Cop / Bad Cop ploy) does not function well - for Dems. Sure in the short run the donors will take care of well connected shills that lose elections (all the more reason for the little fish to earn that status too.
Always voting the donor-friendly way. repeating the talking points of the lobbyists, and obedience and deference towards the party "leadership" that runs the party machine for the big donors.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@arnoldtrogman most states are either safely blue or red, please vote an alternative party cnaidate or Independent there. Will not make a difference in the EC - BUT makes a difference regarding opposition to the 2 party duoply.
And especially the Dems hate it if they cannot shame insubordinate voters into obedience.
It undermines their business model.
That the Republicans come up reliably with an even worse candidate. So that potential D voters that care * and stand to lose something (so UNLIKE the Dem destablishment) have nowhere to go.
* care about the country, the Supreme Court, Trump in office, winning the general, Dreamers, migrants, potential war with Iran and Venezuela, Climate change, ...
The big donors finance Corporate Dems to WIN PRIMARIES against PROGRESSIVES. The ballot will then offer the "choice"
A) neoliberal spineless D or
B) a fierce R
and both completely beholden to the Big Donors.
Most Democratic politicianshave to forgo winning popular and populist economic polixiwa that could give them electoral wins w/o having to suck up to Big Donors (see New Deal era).
They may even have to risk losing elections (barely pulling it off), not having a winning platform, being a weak Republican Lite is not very attractive.
Voters will often go for the real not the kinda Republican (that is for gay rights, gun regulation and for allowing abortions).
Losing elections does not matter: well connected shills will get a golden parachute.
All the more incentive for the little fish to suck up to party "leadership" and to fall in line, not only to avoid being primaried, to get campaign funding and to have the option for a future secure and lucrative job.
And then there is the professional resistance-to-Trump / Republicans / NGO / consultant class. They are getting contracts whether Dems win or lose.
The Greens at least deserve the vote, even if you do do not fully agree with their platform, does not matter. They are not going to rule after Nov. 2020. ;) -Maybe there is a surge for a better candidate / party next time, or a better Dem is running in the general. You can always switch back.
But it is important to have ORGANIZED and ACTIVE opposition, they have an uphill battle, so a respectable result that get's them federal funding (plus 5 % of the popular vote) boosts morale and improves their resources.
The Green party for instance is eager to get on the ballots for presidential races (which is not easy and it costs) - so a candidate with fighting spirit that runs in a D primary CAN get on their ballot and continue in the general if the establishment screws them.
Trump threatened to run as Independent if they would cheat him out of the nomination. He would have had the money - or so he said, his campaign was rescuied by billionair Mercer in late August. (I think he could have gotten small donations, and maybe even from some D affiliated big donors ;)
The Republican party establishment took him seriously because he COULD make that threat (and they knew he would not care almost certainly handing the presidency to Clinton).
The Green party offered Sanders the slot TWICE, 2016 and 2020. I understand why he did not take it in 2016, but in 2020 he should have considered it. Taking into account how cavalier and compacent the D party is, how sure they are that they do not have to give the voters ANYTHING. And then demand their vote on top.
If Sanders would muse about going third party if Biden does not make concessions, there would be a REAL discussions (well they would go nuts, which would be FREE AIRTIME when Sanders is on TV to make his point).
The D's are so sure they can blackmail voters that they confidently tell the voters what they will not get (Biden: I have no empathy for young people. or: I will veto M4A, ...)
They are determined on not giving voters anything.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Run as populist, make an arrangement with big biz, insurers and Wallstreet on the campaign trail already, get therefore greenlighted for friendly reporting by the owners of the media networks, put citbank in charge of the pool to pick appointments from *, govern as a corporatist, betray unions and Occupy Wallstreet, be a war hawk and regime changer, get the big bucks from big biz after you leave the White House - and oppose an actual populist.
- There I fixed it for you !
* citibank mail from October 2008 - so before Obama was even elected. See Podesta emails in the Wikileaks database.
you will note the the list had groups of minorities or qualities. Disabled, vet, African American, Native, LGBT ....
the author went the extra mile and even made a list of females, that obviously had not been requested.
- Every identity group - as long as citibank felt they were no threat to their industry or big biz in general. also on the list: Eric Holder who carefully avoided to prosecute (even when whistleblower provided evidence - see J.P. Morgan and Alayne Fleischman). But good thing he was an African American.
3
-
@cybrhunk333 Lucy Flores concentrated for her last appearance on stage. Joe Biden approached her from behind (which she did not notice, WHO does that during a hectic campaign event ?). He put his hands on her shoulders , and gave her a long kiss on the top of the head (and she had the impression he sniffed her hair).
Weird does not even begin to describe it.
That would not even be a good idea for a husband, seconds before going on stage is not a good time to "surprise" people with shows of affection, when she tried to CONCENTRATE.
Flores and Biden hardly knew each other - he and a few celebs helped out with her last campaign event.
Cultural norms:
The more senior / older person CAN touch someone that they do not know well, but there are "neutral" places for that. The hand, arm, shoulder.
And you approach them upfront where they can see you coming, not sneaking up on them from behind.
so Biden coming from she can see him and giving her a reassuring pat on the arm or shoulder, would be O.K. (But it would be weird if a staff member would do that to the CEO - the CEO on the other hand CAN take that liberty. It is "paternal" behavior which means the person dishing out assume the position of more power).
these are little power games he is playing, with an erotic note. And he plays them with girls / teenagers as well.
It is very telling that he never dropped this behavior, you would think his team and his wife would tell him. If only for political reason, the look is not good.
He was hands on with Obama (but coming from where Obama could see him, and Obama is above him on the food chain. Might have been his way to "reduce" the status of Obama. or they were completely confident. But he did NOT sneak up on Obama, when he prepared for a speech.).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@alexinapickle the racists were evenly distributed among the population voting D or R. The Democrats had a strong base in the South, and yes those Dixiecrats were racists. Only after the Civil Rights Legizlation the Republican Party figured they could turn racism into a Republican speciality, and the Dixiecrats run over to them (that happened spontanuously and gave the R's ideas, Nixon honed the Southern Strategy).
Now abortion, LGBTQ rights (to a degree) and gun control are the evergreen issues to rile up the base. The establishment of both parties would be deeply unhappy if that those issues would be ever settled for good (Supreme Court decision, constitutional amendment). They would find it hard to "differentiate" themselves from the other wing of the one and only big donor party.
Such issues have the advantage that it does not touch the financial interests of the big donors (who finance BOTH parties). The donors do not care much either way (They do not carry guns, their bodyguards do, or the people securing their gated communities. Their daughters and mistresses can fly to other countries to get an abortion. They will not be discriminated against for being gay if they are rich).
But economic policies that would help the masses (although they would be very popular with the voters ) ? Ain't gonna happen. Not when Schumer, Pelosi, Mitch McConnel can prevent that.
So guns, abortions, identity politics - or the other form of identity politics which is racism or white nationalism - is what both parties can offer to the voters to have some profile - while NOT annoying the big donors.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Other wealthy nations pay roughly HALF per person compared to the U.S. * It works as follows: Employees and companies pay much, much less. Very affordable mandatory payroll taxes, a percentage of wage, often the same or companies pay more, and I think caps are also common.
That is intentionally kept low so it is no burden on businesses or low-income people. The rest comes from government (= general tax revenue). But PER person those government still pay not as much as the U.S.
* all that is spent in the country (no matter who pays for it) divided by all people (sick, healthy, young, old - and in the U.S. uninsured or bankrupt because of medical bills).
In total ( = government + "private" = companies and citizens) it is half of the U.S. spending per person.
Well, between 48 - 54 % - you will find the overwhelming majority of wealthy nations in that range. The spending in the U.S. was 10,260 per person in 2017, the country where I currently live (Austria) had USD 5,650 (roughly) Germany more (they have 56 %).
I memorized the percentages.
Example payroll taxes: 3,8 % for a wage between 500 - 5000 USD per month, that is a payroll tax of 19 - 190 USD per month. Yearly maximum 2,280. The employer must match that (small and large ones, no exception). Companies announce to the agency at the end of the month what is due - the share of the staff and their contribution. They pay 45 days later, so that helps as well.
That madate constitutes a RIGHT. It guarantees FULL coverage (even in the theoretical case that a person would have only the 500 USD mini job and no coverage from another source: parent spouse, retirement, unemployment benefits, ...). Dependent family members are included (no extra costs), almost no payments later (co-pays for drugs, 6 - 7 USD but with exceptions for low income people).
Done.
It also means that doctors and hospitals hardly ever encounter people w/o coverage. So they can concentrate on treatment right away and they get the bill paid on time. By the public non-profit insurance agency.
If you multiply those USD 10,260 with 330 million people in the U.S. you will land at over 3,39 trillions in 2017 (Kaiser foundation), that is consistent with the numbers of the Mercatus study and the information that the U.S. spends plus 18 % of GDP on healthcare (18 % of roughly 20 trillion GDP) - that seems to be more but in the order of magnitude it is a match)
3
-
3
-
3
-
Dana William Public services CAN be made byzantine - or simple and straightforward and helpful. And if they are not FUNDED properly there will be lines, yes. I live currently in Austria. single payer healthcare. People go to HR on the first day in the job.
The company must announce them to the public non-profit agency. takes 5 minutes except when fathers don't know the full birth date of the children.
Mandatory contribution 3,8 % of wage, the deduction is between 19 and 190 USD per month, that means the mandate sets in for a monthly wage of 500 USD and the cap is at an average monthly wage of 5,000 USD.
All companies (small or large) must match that.
They announce what is due at the end of the month and pay 45 days later to the public agency.
That mandate constitutes a right. To full coverage - worthy of the medical system of a first world nation. Almost no payments later. Those costs (the 3,8 %) do not rise unless higher wages are paid. If a person does less hours (but is still over 500 USD per month) they pay of course less - but have the exact same coverage as before.
That means that the insured and the companies KNOW in advance what it can cost them. That is intentionally kept low so that the mandate is not a burden. It is not enough of course, so the the rest comes form general tax revenue.
dependent family members are included for free. If you know their birth date :) - or otherwise, of course they have coverage if you have to give that info later.
Peope do not wait for voting (10 minutes if it is long, the voter rolls are created from the central register, automatic registration and invitation to vote when a person is 18. Sent to the address where they are registered. people are obliged to give their new address - see long office days, but if they don't they will have to vote at their old place. The central register incl. birth, deaths, and naturalization.
The concept of "not being on the voter roll" - purges - is unknown here. paper ballot, hand count per polling station, the commission has to sign off on it, then it is reported, probably by internet these days but the numbers CAN be verified).
They show up to change their driving licence, get a pass port or whatever. It is usual to have one long workday (open till 5 or 6 pm so people have a chance to get things done).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"Empowering" the consumers to negotiate with big pharma. For a product which they do not understand, MUST have, against companies that are in it for the maximum profit and have hoardes of lawyers, PR folks, lobbyists, .... never mind they buy the goodwill of Corporate media with advertising budgets. - VA brought drug prices down by 40 % when they were allowed to negotiate them. They are the ONLY agency that can negotiate in the U.S.
One way to empower them: allow imports from Canada. Then the local pharamcists could import, all would do it and prices would drop immediately. The pharmacists could cut out the middle men of the middle men (which essentially means that only chains can survive - that is another crazy aspect of the U.S. system).
Iceland with 360,000 people for sure gets their drugs at much lower prices. And their agency _does the job it is supposed to do: negotiate with big pharma. The industry could try to take advantage of the tiny country, and they need to have mutations for Iceland (or all Nordic countries) with the mandatory information inside the packages.
But Iceland could buy with other nations (I am certain they could get around the consumer information in native language thing). I think the national single payer agencies have contracts with discounts on the list prices. I am under the impression that developing countries get better deals - fair enough. And that the national agencies are supposed to keep their agreements confidential.
But you can bet on it: if Iceland or Denmark (3 million people) or other smaller nations want to know what other wealthy nations are paying, they can find out (if only behind closed doors).
Iceland btw spends USD 5,000 per person per year on healthcare versus USD 10,260 in the U.S. (2017) - and on top they have of course higher life expectancy (between 2 and 3 years) and lower infant mortality.
Iceland has an average population age comparable to the U.S. (young for an European nation), their spending is on the lower end for a wealthy nation. Iceland is the 9th most expensive country globally (they have to import so much).
But with healthcare a national economy can provide a lot internally (staff, construction, laundry, food - they graduate 43 doctors per year in Reykjavik). They only have to import machines, and drugs - so here the exchange rate of the currency matters. And suppliers could try to squeeze them if they buy in smaller quantities. For machines and equipment there is usually such a thing as a free market (or more like it). And for drugs - these are luckily very standardized products and the prices are internationally comparable.
The private insurance companies in the U.S. are allowed to negotiate drug prices but they do not want to or they do not have the market power to do it. What does that mean regarding "consumer empowerment". And WHY should the consumers have to waste time on that - even if that was a realistic scheme.
It is a very uniform product which people MUST have. The rules of the free market function for nice-to-have products offered in many varieties and at many price points. As long as the consumers have the most important choice of all: to not buy at all. THAT empowers the consumers like nothing else.
It is well known and backed up by experience in ALL countries with public non-profit agencies (single payer or in the case of the U.K. the central NHS ) are adequate negotiating partners for big pharma. They have the power to contain even big pharma and even if they offer a product that is very much needed and they have a monopoly on it. (for many common illnesses there are several drugs, or patents have expired).
In a well set up single payer system there is no large and powerful for-profit actor (usually the pharmacies and doctor practices are small companies, hospitals are non-profits). Except for big pharma ! * And that the insurance agencies can contain because of the uniformity of the products.
* I would be all for having public non-profits working with the basic research funded by the tax payers and developing drugs - medical drugs are a bad fit for the profit motive anyway - but that is another story.
And why didn't Krystal not push back on that b.s. (it makes you wonder if the Republican shill believes what he says - it is possible, they are kept busy with dialing after dollars and need the help of the lobbyists to manage the voting on the bills. AOC said that they often do not get the bills until 48 hours earlier. And that is an improvment under Paul Ryan it was 24 hours often.
So 1000 or more pages in some cases - the lobbyists wouldn't slip in something on page 954, section 2, paragraph 3 that changes the whole thing and creates the loophole for big biz - would they ?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
If you would be into facts and nuance, you would know that the preparation of that trip was investigated, that Stein had a pro peace agenda (and the mails and letters that expressed that as she prepared to travel to that RT event). She paid for that trip herself.
She mentions the agents ( ? DOJ, I do not remember which agency) seemed to be embarrassed. She asked all their questions and handed them all her mails and correspondence related to the trip. Then she expected to hear back from them. Clearing her of all allegations, and confirming the end of the investigation. She never got that. They just silently dropped it.
They obviously had nothing against her, it was not untoward. let alone illegal that she had travelled to Russia, where she ALSO had a chance to meet somewhat influental people from NATO countries, that could have an interest in peace agreements between the U.S. and Russia.
Under Trump several important agreements of the REAGAN ERA expired. Jill Stein was correct to push for that agenda. (peace - how dare she).
She expected to meet British MPs and (fmr) German politicians. - She also mentioned that she had a very short conversation with Flynn at the beginning of the evening, but there was no common ground after she had told him her views (surprise, surprise), so after that the exchange stopped, they did not talk to each other for the rest of the evening despite sitting at the same table.
And unlike Flynn she did not act as an open or covert paid "lobbyist".
The "foreigners" were all placed together at a table (or tables) - I think none spoke Russian, and seating them among Russians would not make a lot of sense. That was a matter of common sense and politness towards the guests.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@bravecaucasian Congress raised the top marginal tax rate in 1944 to 92 % (for every dollar over 2,7 million income in todays ! value * 92 cents were deducted - only few loopholes so effective tax rate around 85 %.
* in the tax code back in the day 400,000 USD were often the important number for the threshold. (see Wikipedia, taxation in the U.S. and scroll down)
Those who had those incomes knew better than to complain about their tax burden. There was a good chance they were not soldiers, did not risk life and limb, and they also profited from the war economy).
The U.S. government kept the 90 % top marginal tax rate for incomes in that range in the books although the rich of course arranged for more loopholes over time.
In 1946 the U.S. had the highest FEDERAL debt ever, ratio of debt vs. GDP was 121 %. War is expensive, even more so a world war. Now the debt vs. GDP ratio is in the range of 103 - 104 % (2019) it is bound to grow with the extra debt and less revenue because of much more military spending and the tax cuts for the rich).
The GDP grew quickly after WW2 and with high tax revenue the debt also could be reduced - so 10 years later the rate of debt versus GDP was much better.
The record low (federal debt, not including the states or muncipalities) was in 1974 with 31,7 % - these were the years after WW2 when the New Deal with a lot of goverment spending (investment but unfortunaely also war and military spending) was in place. Plus finance well regulated, only somewhat free markets, lots of import tariffs, ...
In 1960 Nixon accused JFK in a presidential debate that he wanted to lower taxes for the rich (you read that right !).
Kennedy begged to differ.
His claim: an effective ! top marginal tax rate of 72 % would bring more than the 90 % in the books with all the loopholes. He intended to spend it on education. (bothagreed on the farm bill and more military spending, but not making more debt - well then you must tax more and preferably those who will not lower their spending when they have to contribute more. Businessed could avoid taxation with investemtn, and regular people were not hit, but profited from the capacity of the government to have bold investment / spending programs.
Even military spending creates some wealth - but ever other form of government spending is more beneficial.
anyway: the sky did not come tumbling down and the guy with the 72 % effective top marginal rate statement won the election.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@888strummer if your really think UBI would have been a winning campaign issue - starting with South Carolina (with super conservative older black voters who I assume watch TV to get the "news" - I have a bridge to sell. Yang has suspended his campaign btw, so what good is stumping for his issue now.
This country cannot even discuss HEALTHCARE rationally .
And THAT is not unchartered territory. Not at all. All other wealthy nations have done it for 70 years (or 50 in the case of Canada and Australia). Highly successful.
also electorally: UBI does not interest people who already get SS (if they have close to 1000, you also have to factor in sales tax. And no if you excempt "staples" you do not raise enough revenue. People do not only buy food, they also need garments, buy cable TV subscriptions, household appliances, shampoo, shaving cream, cosmetics, plants, furniture, phones, they go to the hair salon, etc.
Yang obviously did not want to tax the uber rich. Sales tax on yachts and jewelry will not be enough.
- but you can rely on Corporate media to scare the people shitless who traditionally do turn out to vote. They would get told how UBI would undermine the financing of SS. I do not think the math adds up for financing it - and there would be a new TAX !!!
I am not for VAT (the most regressive tax there is) to finance that, but never mind. If I would agree with all and be totally convinced of the plan and math - UBI still would be a losing issue.
Exhibit A: the Yang campaign. Even if it was an uphill battle, with unfair media treatment, etc - there was no enough spontaneous support among young voters to turn them out. Let's say consistently 5 % and the occasional 10 % of the vote. Just as a life sign.
Also there is no damage done if you want to have UBI and you get it 1 or 2 years later. That does not apply to healthcare or measures against Climate change. it gets MORE EXPENSIVE if that is delayed.
The GND would require LOTS or blue collar jobs. driverless trucks aren't a thing right now and will not for the next 4 years. In that time you can prepare for UBI (as a side issue).
A smart move would be to prepare the necessary database for UBI that DOUBLES as base for EASY voter registration for the whole nation. No more purges "gone wrong". UBI is not the most pressing issue and you cannot do healthcare reform or fighting climate change by half measures. But UBI can be tested in certain regions or for certain amounts.
UBI is a cake walk compared to the most urgent issue: you need the database (O.K. that is a huge undetaking, but a VIRTUAL one) and then you can transfer the money.
delivering medical care, streamlining the insurance system, installing panels happens in the physical world and it includes the need to train people. Much, much more complicated.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
@1massboy Sanders better win with a good margin and high turnout. If they can, they will cheat, especially with voting machines, the DNC CAN refuse a recount (they are a private org only in the general election laws apply). But if the win is decisive they will not dare.
Nevada ?? remember chair throwing and voice calls when they should have counted ??
The caucus states are still safer, they stole the media buzz from winning the first state from Sanders, but they cannot steal the votes - it took them one week but now they are counted. (they can forget about their recount or recanvassing, it is ridiculous anyway 3 % of the National delegates at the convention come from Iowa, in total 41, and Sanders and pete will get 11 each of those 41.
As for cooking the books with a caucus: Too many witnesses, the people that head the meeting have the lists. Photos were made, the Sanders campaign had their own app to report the numbers. (Nevada 2016: hold my beer).
I remember an anectode I read when the outsider unseated the Democratic mayor of Burlington in 1980. (a long time incumbent, and big whig in the VT party, and a Republican Lite).
Votes were counted, it looked surprisingly good for Sanders, the lead shifted back and forth throughout the night - and the civil servants (friends of the mayor) counted the votes behind closed doors. Until some of team Sanders threatened to kick down the door if they would not come out and vote in the open.
Sanders won that race with 18 votes. 10 after the recount.
One of his team from back in the day that was interviewed said: Funky stuff happened that night, no doubt about it.
So Sanders started his career experiencing the shenaigans of the "machine" right from the start. He does not talk about it - but I hope they take it into account.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
WHY got Lucy Flores so much backlash when she DID come out early against Biden not long after he announced to run - with lesser charges. WHY was Tara Reade who uncovered THAT kind of trangression and disregard for boundaries (or simple politeness) at that time subject to online abuse and no one got enraged about Biden bots that hounded her. The other women liklely also got abuse, but because there were so many it stopped soon, and the charges were not so terrible that the Biden campaign stonewalled.
They had to admit not-admit it - explaining it with "Joe is a hands on retail politician, but he means well. Most of media (the "liberal" networks) worked overtime to confirm that narrative. Yeah, Biden behaved "weirdly" but it was harmless, really.
The other women had not that much trauma - it hit home closer to hom for Reade, because she had been violated worse.
WHY was Lucy Flores really lucky that 7 other women (Tara Reade being ONE of them) confirmed inappropriate, entitled behavior of Biden (power trippy with erotic connotations, blatantly ignoring boundaries. Also boundaries of polite or normal behavior.
It had been on display what he does that with little girls and female teenagers, and Biden was not shy to display that behavior in front of their parents and the cameras. And even if he visibly creeped out the teenager - and she did her best to evade his touch leaning away - she just was too polite and overwhelmed to run away from the photo op.
Needless to say Biden did not register or more likely CARE that his advances and his touch was not liked (by a girls he did not know). What I find astonishing: that in all these years his wife or his team did not take him aside and tell him to NOT do that - if only for politicial reasons. That it is not a good look.
They must have given up on correcting him, did not dare to upset him, or knew it was useless because he would not take such advice just because someone said to thim: at best that looks inapprobriate and at worst the GOP could use that in negative ads. Stop it !
The parents in most cases did react correctly. (They did not expect THIS, THEY are polite, do not want to cause a stir, certainly not in the territory of a pwoerful man. They gave him a pass - if any neighbour at a BBQ had taken such liberties with their daughters they would have been rumours, no more invitations, or the man would have been directly confronted.
Joe Biden was saved by surprise, politeness and a certain power hierarchy in combination with brazenly doing suprising things in broad daylight.
Thinking of it: narcissists tests boundaries that way. And then they will tell you how it is all harmless and you are making a lot ado about nothing. One grandfather pulled the child away from Biden when he saw the antics. Did not call him out, but Biden could not do his touchy thing with her.
And it was ALWAYS the girls, or teenage girls that stood in front of Biden on such occasions. He arranged it that way. Seemed innocent enough - but if the family had little boys - it was always the girls that were chosen.
Joe Biden is so brazen in his disregard for norms, and they come or came on HIS territory - new sworn in members of Congress or Senate with their families to make a photo with the VP, or the high ranking long time Senator.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
the Hope and Change campaign worked really well. People lost enthusiasm because Democrats sold them out, see midterms 2010. 2006 Blue wave, 2008 excellent - Obama won with a high margin and I am sure that tide raised some other boats in the Senate and The House as well. After all they had control over all 3 branches of government in 2009 and 2010 and were able to pass ACA (watered down by Republicans and Democrats) in a filibuster proof window of 60 days.
. voters were not too stupid in 2010, they just did not know WHY they would vote for a D in congress or Senate.
2012: Obama won on personal popularity, and some voters kind of hoped he would come around and get into gear in his second term and Romney was not better. So he pulled it off again.
2014: weak midterms again. But the D establishment and the liberal media had a D president so they glossed over 1000 seats on all levels of government lost under Obama.
Many of them still think they can pull the same stunt again.
The parallels with Germany 1930s are unnerving. Not exactely the same, but the behavior of the "elites". Being cowards and opportunistics when they should be bold.
Obama lost his 8 years (the ability to get someithing done) in his pathetic first year. If he had dared (or bothered) to kick ass, the Republicans (and big donor serving Democrats) would not have known what had hit them.
Rallying his Rainbow coalition - he like FDR would have needed to twist some arms behind closed doors. The thing is: as soon as the voters realize the president FIGHTS FOR THEM, he gets a lot of leverage. Over his OWN party. Then the likes of Manchin do not dare to openly resist the president.
The more sane people that disregarded the ugly side of Trump liked / loved him because they perceived him as fighting for them. His erratic behavior (to put it mildly) was not detracting from that, on the contrary it confirmed their view, that he was different and not one of "them". Well that is true, as far as manners and sleek appearances and smooth talking goes - he was not one of "them". Many of "them" are intelligent and educated (if ideological) and w/o integrity - apart from lack of integrity Trump is not like them.
"I voted for Trump in 2016, I knew that he was not great on etiquette. I wanted a bull in the Chinashop. I plan to vote for him again in Nov. 2020".
A black voter in Georgia in January 2020. A Bloomberg feature (black voters in GA in the primaries).
2
-
ONLY on March 12, 2020 the Fed created ! 1,5 TRILLION USD for the speculators on Wallstreet. - an INVESTOR in stocks would be aware of the inevitable economic ups and downs. The downturns in the REAL ECONOMY are cyclic: on average every 8 years - some are mild, some are more severe, and then there is the odd black swan event: Corona virus, 9/11, earthquakes, Fukushima, unexpected war
That's the economy or at least economic expectations that are reflected in share prices.
Plus of course the price drops and corrections when the speculators and crooks overdid it:
Like 2008 - it was a real estate bubble and on top of that a derivate bubble. MANY BETS on the default risk of bundled subprime mortgages. So 100 million in loans defaulting could trigger the financial claims of those that had won their bets big time.
The volume of payments due when the risk manifested (= the loans have defaulted) could be MUCH MORE than only the amount of the loans. That loss was restricted to 100 million - but with the claims of the bets (derivates) it could be 20, 80, 100, 200 millions due for the won bets - additionally to the losses of the loans.
The risk in the SYSTEM multiplied because of derivates (thanks Bill Clinton, and Alan Greenspan, they very actively undermined the last stop and regulatory oversight to insane speculation. See the story of Brooksley Bourne and the agency she chaired).
you should also know that the big actors do not need to HAVE the money to buy shares or place their bets (it is worse with the bets = derivates. With shares there is at least SOME tie to the real economy). At most they need a deposit of 10 %, but large actors (buying derivates !) need ZERO downpayment. So when something unexpected happens (a major earthquake in Japan) they are completely leveraged and of course do not have the money to "honor" their obligations of the unexepected HIGH loss.
2
-
There is NO GOOD REASON for the ONGOING BAILOUTS - to the tune of TRILLIONS. With money CREATED by the Fed - thanks to Frank Dodd they can do that w/o even asking Congress for approval (the discussion could draw attention of the voters or one politician blows the whistle.
Note: Fed = chair appointed by presdient (usually financed by the big donors incl. big finance) and the board is staffed by the too big to fail banks.
They sure work for the common citizen ....
No one explains the public what is going on, the media personalites that have not fallen for neoliberal gibberish and are even among the few that understand - belong to the 20 % of U.S. citizens that do have stocks. along with their collegues that mindlessly regurgitate the talking points.
Their employers (the owners of the big networks) are the big fish in the market (the network is traded, and the owners are heavily invested in stocks). So they will not call a spade a spade even if they do not fall for the gibberish. Typical jargon: How the Fed used "QE" = Quantitative easing to provide "liquidity" for the "markets". They magicked up money with a few keystrokes to save the speculators would be the accurate description, but that might not go unnoticed by the citizens. Who at least formally have the vote in this "democracy".
How are we gonna pay for it ? - is the question that is never asked when it comes to war, military contracts. That kind of spending is typically funded by bonds = government debt. So at least it shows up, is TALKED about and is a budget Congress must approve.
Bonds are another way to finance governments (or companies, there are company bonds as well). It works for the U.S. government bonds as long as China and Saudi Arabia are willing to buy these bonds (and do not throw the large volumes they already have on the market).
But that kind of money creation / scheme is at least visible as debt.
If citizens would REALIZE that the Fed already ! creates the trillions for the speculators by another mechanism - and that they could create the TRILLIONS to deal with the corona crisis now (or for a GND, or a federal jobs program) - the arguments for austerity and the need to cut SS etc. would be debunked, once and for all.
The money issued for a national economy should be proportional what that economy PRODUCES. That tie has been severed in the last 40 years anyway. But the money creation does not result in hpyerinflation. Because the money lands on the accounts of a few very rich people that do not spend it. it just gives them undue power, they can easily buy up all interesting companies, patents, real estate.
Throw around 500 millions in a vanity run for president, Bloomberg did no honor his promise to staff that he would keep and pay them till Now. Nor does he NOW engage in charities. Or in an ad campaign to debunk what trump does (or neglects to do).
The goal was always to be the big donor friendly alternative to Biden and to prevent Sanders. Now that the party establishment seems to have resurrected Biden - bloomberg is good, no need to spend any of his millions, let alone billions. He got a good beating by Warren, so his ego may have suffered a little bit, but if Sanders does not become president it is: Mission accomplished, he does not care much if Trump of Biden becomes prez.
In theory there is another mechanism for money creation: printing banknotes and minting coins (but that is a tiny ! part of the money we use, even the part with the highest availabilaity (M1 money volume)
Plus of course FIAT money: commercial banks creating money every time they give out a loan. That's the standard way to finance the economy. But: banks are legally obliged to have a little bit of the volume of loans in form of capital. Either money from the large shareholders or the deposits (that in a weird way become the capital of the bank, meaning if the bank goes bankrupt that deposit is lost as well. As opposed when you use the facilities of the bank to store precious things - these valuables remain you property and if the banks goes under these things still belong to you. Same if you have an account to handle stocks, investment funds or shares. That remains the property of the client.
Only when you hand over money for safekeeping it is different.
2
-
It is not even hard to make the Corona crisis stress free for citizens and small and medium sized businesses. It is a political priority that the peasants do not understand the undeserved advantages (with a lot of moral hazard baked into the scheme) that the top predators in our economic system have.
Creating money for the citizens could also be done (to a degree and prudently) by creating jobs and VALUE IN the U.S.
If used for infrastructure, for a Green New Deal, for the transition costs to get to Medicare for All (the cost savings will not all manifest immediately and there are transition costs other countries with an already well established single payer system do not have. So spending per person will not drop to half right away. There is a backlog, like the Opiode crisis or the ill adjusted diabetes patients (people who ration insuline because of insane prices - which is a medical human and financial catastrophe).
Or underservedd prison population (the largest in the world, in absolute numbers and per capita).
JFK planned to have a solution for mentally ill persons. Never got around to it.
Companies who in the past launched a PART of their shares on the stock exchange got paid for it (back in the day). If NOW those shares go up or down - that does not affect them doing biz.
They may be hindered by circumstances (and that may show up in the share price) - but they are NOT hindred or promoted BY the share price. That is always secondary.
the famous investor André Kostolany: The economy is the man that goes from A to B in a purposeful and determined, and steady way. The stock exchange is the dog that runs around, sometimes ahead, sometimes lagging back, or in the bushes, but in the end man and dog arrive at B - and usually around the same time.
My take: the man is the main act, he does not need the dog to get from A to B. The dog on the other hand wouldn't make the journey from A to B - it would just aimlessly frolick around.
Share prices go even down for good companies during a sharp price correction / drop - and if the economic prospects are worse than in January 2020 of course share prices go down.
So what ? They'll recover.
But even if a company goes bust - and is doing so badly it is not rescued - that should be only a small sliver of a well diversified portfolio (shares, bonds, precious metals, real estate, art, ....) of a PRUDENT INVESTOR.
As opposed to speculators. Who do nothing to help with investments for the real economy and should not be encouraged, bailed out - on the contrary.
2
-
In theory the stock exchange and the possibilty to sell shares in an IPO should be another ! way to finance companies. - think: A lot of fundamentals and only a little hype.
The reality: the stock exchange has always been a casino for the rich to increase their fortunes. That is going on for more than 200 years (see 1815 battle of Waterloo, London which then was the most important stock exchange in the world).
Inevitably prudence (with a hint of speculation to make things more interesting - and lucrative and in the short term !) descended into pure specualtion. In REGULAR cycles followed by a crash.
Before 2008 the crash was in 2000, but the dot com bubble did not affect the public as much, the speculators and wanna be investors took a hit (a lot of harebrained schemes were hyped up, and the anylysts often knew that the start ups were not good but recommended them anyway. it was a frenzy).
So after that they licked their wounds - and jumped on "solid" real estate. Garnished with derivatives to make the real estate bubble (a major U.S. problem but manageable) toxic for a major part of the global financial system.
See the PBS documentary: The Crash from 1999 or so. In hindsight, in the 1990s the speculators did the rehearsals for 2008 / 2009 - and they already got bailouts then.
Since the 1990s there has been increasing government intervention to protect the speculators from the negative effects of their risk taking (and likely a lot of rigging).
That would ONLY play a role if they intended to sell them. They wouldn't do that now - also considering that the interest rates were slashed and they can get VERY cheap loans.
And make no mistake: companies that are large enough to be traded on the stock exchange, do their lobbying THEY get the loans guaranteed by the government, the subsidies, bailouts, extra tax cuts. Especially if a whole industry is in trouble !
The stock exchange was overdue for a course correction, and an economic downturn was expected. Everyone knew it, the stock market had been inflated by stock buybacks (Trump tax cut among other things).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Shotround Jane managing the college (reinventing itself as high end private insitution of learning) wasn't a succes. To be sure: many small colleges tried the same at that time (offering very nice facilites and attracting also foreign students) and failed as well.
That approach works for the colleges that already have a well established reputation, not so much for the smaller colleges that tried to position themselves in the high end niche.
Jane Sanders (and Bernie) are not good fundraisers when it comes to the big bucks. If Sanders had been a standard Democrat he might have been helpful to direct a lot of cash towards the college. For some favors of course. But they depended on real charity and that was not enough.
The Great Financial Crisis did not help either.
But the college went under years after she left. There is no there, there. Jane got cleared in the FBI investigation (in 2016 if I remember correctly). A Republican from Vermont triggered that: accusation that she misrerpesented the donation pledges to get the loan to buy some beautiful real estate that the Catholic Church wanted to sell (Jane, went to a Catholic school, it is possible that they have closer relations and that their wish to sell that property triggered the whole idea to use it as place to set up the Burlington college all shiny and new).
The plan was to establish a first class small private college there.
The Catholic church that sold the property missed out on some money for the deal and the bank (or credit union) did too. (the property was sold after the college closed, and I think at good terms).
But the loss wasn't too bad and they are not complaining. And if Jane exaggerated the donation pledges, they can't prove that, I am not sure if the (prospective) donors are even still alive, and if so they will not testify against Jane Sanders.
She got a salary and a severance that is typical (in my opinion she should not have taken the severance, but whatever). They will not get Jane Sanders on that (let alone Bernie HE runs for office). Jane did not have a no-show job, and it is small change compared to the corruption of the Biden and Trump family.
Biden's family made HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS and over MANY YEARS.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@geerowr.6666 John Lewis did not LIE, he said I can't remember seeing Bernie. Which was a stupid thing to say, but not a lie and he quickly backpaddeled once he was called out. Sanders never claimed that he was a big number, "I did my part in Chicago, the people in the south had the much more dangerous work...."
Of course Lewis did not know him, he WAS in the South doing the dangerous things.
And the March on Washington was a big event, lots of people he can't have seen all of them.
Maybe it was an offhand remark, that was amplified.
My theory John Lewis changed his endorsement to Obama (and so did many of the black caucus), as Civil Rights legend he was "forgiven" for that misstep by the Clinton machine but in 2015 / 2016 he had to deliver.
So a little jab against Sanders.
Or maybe Lewis thought Sanders used the CRM as token and it rubbed him the wrong way. If so he was not considering the context.
Sanders had to make his case.
Because he did surprisingly well in the early white states (and comes from a white state) and did not have much support with minorities (of course not he had no name recognition and
Clinton had a lot) he was presented as racially insensitive, only interested in the white working class.
Luckily for Sandes those old photos and articles existend. They would have painted him as "almost" a racist if they could have.
Never mind that in 2008 Clinton once talked about the White working class, they used dog whistles against the Obama campaign and she was a Goldwater girl - as teenager, but still.
Not to forget the dog whistley against "young predators, no conscience no empathy, ... we can talk about why they have become that way, but before we must get them to heel.
somehow neither the Biden's nor the Clintons used their platform EVER to talk about why they have become that way. Or why the Crime bill produced so devastating effects.
Biden told stories about his alleged fight against segregation when running in 1988, many lies and those too ended his presidential bid then. He kept silent on that for 20 years and only recently on the campaign trail started bringing up those anectodes. As if he had FORGOTTEN he had already admitted that these tales are not true (he did that when he dropped out in 1988 - I was not engaged in the Civil Rights fight. I supported them in spirit. In other words the stories he had told were not true).
If HRC would have had a record like Sanders regarding the good fight, she and media would have trodden it out. So there is a double standard and I think Lewis has arranged himself with the establishment.
Lewis knows these things of course, so there is some double standard and willingness to appease the party.
But he did not outright lie, and the jab was not too bad.
2
-
@havable Thanks, I also heard the "his is a civil rights icon" and took it at face value. So he was smart enough to CREATE THAT IMPRESSION, but never had to take any risks. Yep, sounds about right. - And with black history it is kind of hard to call him out on that. - Dude is old though, so one can hope a progressive is on standby to jump in the moment he has to retire or he passes away.
Frankly - it would be no loss. The job is routine, he made good money as representative, plus no doubt some indirect perks and kick backs (think lucrative real estate deals for instance. if that is handled around a few corners no one can prove that the too low purchase price or the too high sales price is a bribe. As long as they stay plausible. Some "renovations" can also provide cover. Then there are lucrative jobs for family members.
HE and his family get government subsidized healthcare and it is good.
Imagine being that old and still screwing your fellow citizens - same for Joe Biden, Pelosi, Schumer. I get the motive of Biden, he wants to make money - or his wife wants to. But Pelosi and Schumer are fairly old and rich, they might only have a few years and how do they spend them ?
2
-
2
-
@calibre00 Global death stats are going up for OTHER reasons for death ? Othere than CoVid-19 ?? Citation needed. You are making that up. Doctors in Germany, Israel, Peru, Canada, Russia .. are told to cook the statistics, really ?
.... Riiite ...
Rightwingers as so desperate to find "arguments" why the most obvious no-brainer solution during a pandemic (vaccination) is bad that no logical fallacy is inconsistent enough to make them pause.
How exactely does it work to force / nudge the doctors of Denmark, New Zealand, Japan, Russia, China, or Switzerland adopting ALL the same policy.The Russians and Chinese have a non-profit version of the vaccine. it is good to have one, but if a cheap patent free durg does the trick the Chinese government would not mind using that either.
The Cubans have developed their own vaccine, as well. They are desperate to get the raw materials despite the economic sanctions. One would think they would see to import Ivermectin and be done with it - IF that would be a solution.
The recent protests also had to do with Cubans WANTING to get vaccines.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
4:30 that confused / exasperated look of Emily ;) I give her credit for NOT yelling over him (as most rightwingers would have done). In a calm discussion, the facts speak for themselves, she did not have a lot to add (her ignorance was the talk in comment sections, science and facts are a left thing, the right has a very loose connection to them).
The U.S. oligarchs have never been a force for good.
ALSO not at home for the regular people.
Tthe only fit of wisdom grapsed them when they came up with the Marshall Plan. It was not absolutely necessary but certainly did help and bought them a lot of political goodwill and influence.
I also helped and more tha n the Marshall plan, that they lifted the restrictions on Germany, which was limited to 30 % of coal and steel production of the war times. THAT throttled their attempts to recover. First they had ideas to make Germany a poor agrarian society, without technology. However, they found out that Europe did not recover w/o Germany and the nations started to vote left.
Over the course of 10 - 20 years the Europeans and the Soviet Union would have gotten closer Europe needed fossil fuel and had technology and the SU was a logical fit and on the same continent.
Indeed after the death of Stalin in 1953 a thawing would have been possible - even earlier. Even ruthless dictators need to feed the population.
The price for being close to the U.S. (and getting economic help and US. companies did not flood the recovering European economies) ?
Taking sides in the Cold War that the U.S. elites were hellbound to have, and that continental Europe would be the site for a potential nuclear showdown. That never happened - but it was not all benign, there was a huge price tag attached to the U.S. help.
Although the Marshall plan was one of the smartest foreign policy moves of the U.S.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Cherry Bernie Sanders Holds Secret Campaign Meeting With 15,000 Working-Class Democratic Donors 10/29/19 - Text see below (I recommend going over to the site - link is in the next comment - just so that The Onion has the traffic):
DETROIT—Releasing bombshell evidence in the form of hundreds of cell phone videos taken during the gathering, numerous anonymous tipsters confirmed this week that Bernie Sanders recently attended a secret campaign meeting with 15,000 working-class donors from the Democratic Party.
“This damning footage shows Sen. Sanders clandestinely mingling with thousands of representatives from the nursing, food service, and public education sectors, many of whom were apparently chauffeured to the event aboard city buses and enjoyed fountain drinks upon arriving,”
said political strategist August Buckminster, adding that the event, which reportedly took place at a local vocational school, could prove problematic for the presidential candidate in his bid for the Democratic nomination.
“Sanders can be heard promising a highly underprivileged audience everything from a minimum-wage increase to healthcare access to educational opportunities—whatever it takes to get them on his side.
In one video, he explicitly offers a group of steel workers a quid pro quo of affordable housing in exchange for their votes.
If the senator wants to win the backing of the national party, he will certainly have to answer for hobnobbing with this room full of people at the absolute lowest levels of power.”
At press time, Sanders had received further criticism after documents were uncovered showing he has acted on behalf of a contingent of approximately 625,000 Vermont residents over a period of nearly 30 years.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@FrankJerkyRizzo It is like they had a brainstorm in their daily meetings: "The times call for some meaningless virtue signalling - of course we will not touch any issues that would improve the live of low-income people (many of them are minorities). ... So what story could we run and for cheap * and fast ?"
* (w/o the need to have journalists and a team on the ground covering protests, which costs money).
Or doing some deep dive into police misconduct (again costs money, doesn't produce a story right now, when the protest are "breaking news", so they cannot exploit the moment. And they need the cops, who inform them, so they would rather not offend them, except when the police brutality is so outrageous that they cannot help but cover the story.
But they want to come up with something and fast, so they are "caught acting" in the game of shallow virtue signalling.
......
easy target, has no power, the story writes itself.
2
-
2
-
It is a luxury problem / issue. The status quo works for 20 - 30 % of the population (upper class). And they like to feel enlightened - but it should not cost them anything (some policies that would actually be enlightened would cost the upper class, nothing extreme, but a little bit).
Humans like to feel smug and superior to other (groups), but people who struggle to put food on the table or if their company will move to China in 6 months or 2 years, do not have time and energy for those games.
The upper class people (or those who thanks for their education hope to make it into upper class) are certain that THEY will have a job, even if they get unemployed it will work for them in the long run. And of course they often have affluent relatives.
They were shocked in the GFC that it could hit them TOO, but if the parents have money they will not let the children get forclosed, they get an advance on the inheritance so to speak, to weather the storm.
I think there are a lot of working class people who do not value Trump as a human being, but they expect him to deliver for THEM, and they are not disturbed by his displays of racism, his business practices, the blatant corruption, and all the uncough things he does.
They also seem unfazed by the intentional, vicious, mean spirited family separation (Bush 2 and Obama stayed away from that clusterfuck, whatever else happened at the border then).
In other words: these voting class voters vote their self-interest / are selfish / do not apply moral standards.
Neither do the the wealthy pricks. They would be shocked if you tell them that they are more selfish than the morally / racially insensitive blue collars *, because those people have MORE FINANCIAL STRESS and may be one accident or disease away from bankrupcy.
maybe they also like to differentiate themselves a little bit compared to the (racially insensitive, somewhat uncough) working class people. They care about racial diversity.
* "I knew in 2016 that Trump was not great on etiquette, I WANTED a bull in the chinashop.I plan to vote for him in 2020 again."
A black man in Georgia. He must have a job with healthcare, separated families at the border, foolish foreign policy, repealing ACA (not a bad idea in itself) with no replacement plan ... all of that did not matter.
But it is not like the upper class party loyalists are BETTER informed, they just smugly assume that they are better informed.
That video was before the crisis broke, a WSJ video.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Good results on the state level in New Mexico (progressives replacing the establishment figures), and another primary race was also won in the last days in West Virginia. One of 4 the ladies in the documentary Knock Down The House won the primary for Senate and with 39 %. Richard Ojeda who is also to the left (kind of) got 34 % approx. - so the populist left killed it in WV in the primaries.
She lost her first race in 2018. Paula ? Swenegan, West Virginia "The coal miners daughter". So she would be a collegue of Republican Lite Joe Manchin if she wins in November. And then be in D.C for 6 years. Directly into a Senate seat !
Another one (the black nurse) is still in the primary race (also lost her first primary in 2018).
And I would hope the white lady that lost her daughter and is a dedicated advocate for single payer is also still active in politics (she lost in 2018 as well, only AOC made it in 2018).
The death of her daughter was totally preventable, an emboly - all hail the U.S. insurance system (that was still during the Obama era). They would not do imaging until the blood clot started moving from her leg and either got into her heart causing a heart attack or blocked her lungs).
I do not remember the details, I think the young lady was in between insurance coverage. May have worked after highschool and then she wanted to start an education in fall and then she would have had coverage (father is a veteran, mother either a nurse or a professional woman).
But because her insurance coverage status was at least dubious the ER ignored the increasing pain in her leg. THAT should have been the warning sign. Healthy 20 year old, no problems so far, and has a pain in the leg for no apparent reason, that gets worse and worse. - then you can always think of a blood clot, too.
Imaging would have found it, giving her blood thinner while monitoring her and help her laying down and not moving could have helped. That is all not high tech medicine.The bill would have been paid, imaging is not that expensive (it must not be, let's put it that way), and if they would have caught it earlier it would not have been intense care, or max. a few days.
In any country with single payer withholding those measures would not have happened for financial reasons. If the dcotor had suspected an emboly they would have rushed her to the next machine (fasttracking her and making other patients wait) to verify.
Maybe there are cases where the doctor would not connect the dots (not being good diagnostician - although even I as layperson know that) - but in that tragic case there was an additional obstacle additionally to the difficulties of medicine and diagnostics put between patient and doctors.
The ER staff is in an impossible position: supposed to provide care, while management orders them to cut corners with patients that may not pay. Even non-profit hospitals (that are not greedy) have to watch out for their budgets and can afford to have too many unpaid bills.
The thing is: in single payer countries people almost always have insurance coverage, doctors and hospitals know their bills will be paid (by the agency) and if the hospital (normally run by cities or states) do not have enough budet for one year they will get help. Typically they have realistic budgets, but there can be years with a plus or a minus. Think now with corona crisis.
It helps when doctors ONLY have to concentrate on the medical side - getting the diagnosis right. If they do not abstain from even dealing with her and hand her over to the nurses and she ends up with a painkiller prescription.
When you can go to a doctor even in a new town / city. Because there is no such thing as "out of network". An experienced general practicioner would also suspect this could be an emboly and would have started some fast action. A GP would be often the first to be contacted in case of severe pain.
The GP would make stress in the referal (and when ordering the ambulance) that this is urgent.
The mother was not in town to raise hell, she advised her daughter on the phone, and until she came her daughter was already in emergency care. She had left with the prescription but had to be brought in again. Then in really bad shape. She died the same night.
The mother grilled her newly elected Democratic neoliberal representative about single payer in a townhall. Got the usual nonsense - and then decided to run herself.
She does not strike me as someone who gives u after one attempt.
Over time we might end up seeing all 4 ladies of Knock Down The House being elected representatives.
2
-
Also consider voting for D members of congress, Senate even the shills. A mail telling them that they did not "earn" your vote, they are lucky to get it for your strategic consideration should help to keep them on their toes.
They are still better than the R's (especially if in their state a third party candidate did well in the general, they will smell the coffee they might consider working for the constituents occasionally). Or imagine in a state the downballot Dems get elected, but many voters leave the president blank, or vote for the third party candidate.
Would be even MORE impressive if a "safely blue" state is lost because of the third party candidate.
Let them howl over the spoiler - and tell them it is going to continue.
The Corporate Dems take the progressives for granted, it shows VERY clearly.
During an unprecedented pandemic: Dems - No you are not getting M4A - you crazy ? we just handed over trillions ! to Wallstreet (no one talks about the bailout that the Fed arranged for, they just create ! the money, 1,5 trillion for a start on March 12th.
that would be 4,500 USD for 330 million people. or 18k for a family of four. And the 1,5 trn were just the warm up act.
On the other hand they knot themselves into pretzels to court the mythical moderate conservatives (I understand - those voters go along with the big donor friendly neoliberal agenda). But anyway: so far the progressives have always fallen in line when told:
Nice little country you have here, wouldn't it be a shame if Donald Trump happened to it ?
(or Mitt Romney, or Ted Cruz, ...... the Democrats can always rely on the other wing of the one and only big donor party to come up with an even more terrible tweedle dee, tweedle dum)
If you get a shill in congress it is not THAT bad, they can be replaced after 2 years and they are members of a body, so they do not have as much power.
of course if there is a progressive alternative for a Congress and Senate seat - support them unless you think you'll hand the victory to a Republican (and you still care about them not having the majority in congress and Senate. The Republicans are terrible - and Democrats hardly better).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
5:40 another misinformation: natural immunity is by no means (consistently !) better than that of vaccines. It varies - much more than with vaccines (see factcheck org for a nuanced and detailled discussion). Natural immunity can be better - or not. It depends (When was the infection, it drops for both types of immunity. Was it an infection with the Delta variant ? 18 months ago or 12 months - both would be before Delta, but immunity will not be the same.
Important - for adults: Was the infection only with mild or hardly any symptoms ? As group they got an underwhelming antibody count out of that (and that count goes down more over time). Antibodies are the most effective and fastest defense our immune system has. It is also costly for our systems, so the protection goes down over time while in most cases some long time protection stays (for longer, sometimes decades). Long term protection is not as fast, not as efficient. But can prevent the worst.
During human evolution there could be surges of infections, but they did not travel that much. If the best (if costly) protection lasted for 6 months they were good. Some T cells just in case it ever hits again. That was a good evolutionary compromise between optimum protection level and what it costs the immune system to proved that and risk mitigation.
A person that had a mild case Dec. 2020, and a person having an uncomfortable week with Delta in July 2021 are not comparable. At all and for several reasons.
The recommendation in Europe is now for people to get ONE shot, if they have survived an infection. And to do so 4 weeks after the infection.
The Israeli study that is paraded around as backup for the claim that natural immunity is better than protection from vaccines (would apply only to Pfizer anyway) is kinda self selective (as is obvious by the gap that is too large to be plausible. Obviously the vaccines helped a lot in the begining, and we do not know such outcomes from other diseases, and the studies they did to get the approval did not show such a severe drop of efficacy).
The study is not (yet) peer reviewed. It likely is legit - but context and nuance is everything.
The anti vaxxers also omit the conclusion from that Israeli study that people that have natural immunity benefit from ONE booster shot.
I do not think the researchers had an agenda, and the flaws of the study that are now pointed out come with the territory. They cut off data at Feb. 2021 (got the vaccines until then OR had the infection until then.). So they compare:
1) the most vulnerable groups. Old / comorbidities (even when fully vaccinated) where immunity had the most time to wane (they got the shots first, and in Feb. even Israel had not fully vaccinated the population. By Feb. 2021 80 % of the over 60 year olds had been vaccinated, which was a world record).
That vulnerable group ALSO shows weaker results (antibody count) when they get ANY vaccine.
That said: Even if that group is more likely to get a breakthrough infection, and get more uncomfortable symptoms when they have them - they are still MUCH better off than without any vaccine. The virus is not completely new to their immune system. That is normally enough to avoid the worst outcomes. By and large the protection holds, also for them.
2) The other group are the SURVIVORS that are still unvaccinated - and from that group many of the most vulnerable have been removed by fate, because they have died - they got CoVid-19 before the vaccine was available. I guess survivors that did have risks were also more likely to take the shots in early 2021 - so they self selected to the other group.
Those two groups have a different risk to get ANY CoVid-19 infection (harmless or severe). And of course much more attention should be given to the severity of cases. Israel had a "lot" of cases (that peaked in August, dramatic and fast reduction the THIRD BOOSTER SHOTS work) considering their good situation (compare with number of cases before they had a vaccine and also compare the severity of cases !).
Bing nuanced is cruciial, and nuance and details (if they do not fit the agend) are always omitted by the people who argue ONLY to back up their bias.
Delta is MUCH more contagious and spreads globally since summer. That IS important, "spreads more easily" is a game changer in epidemiology and has huge ramifications for the number of people that need to be immunized to control an epidemic. The more cases, the more easily it is spread - the more the virus will "find" the vulnerable. Certainly among the unvaccinated - but also among the vaccinated.
Vaccinated persons with high risksare the RARE cases of breakthrough infections that land in the ICU. They are vastly ! outnumbered by the other Covid-19 patients fighting for their life. Persons with no obvious risks, and many age 40 - 50 now so younger than they used to be before. That majority that overwhelms ICUs in the U.S. (and are a worry in other nations) have one thing in common. They are NOT vaccinated.
"vulnerable" among the vaccinated with NO special risks means:
Vulnerable to get a - harmless - breakthrough infection. These infected / patients are still less contagious and the cases will be harmless, typically they sit it out at home.
That is not the ideal performance of a vaccine (we had better performance before Delta spread globally) - but good enough and still very helpful. Certainly during a pandemic.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sjue316 you are factually incorrect. Lockdowns DO prevent spread. If they are done in a coherent, coordinated manner, and it helps if the population and the companies are not left to fend for themselves. - Look at the numbers of Europe. First lockdown (desperate measure, they delayed it until they had to yield). Italy scared the shit out of European politicians beg. of March. Rightly so, mid March 60 % of the European Union was in lockdown. the peak was 1 month after lockdown, fast or slow drop of cases (depended on how hard they were hit. France, Italy and Spaind needed longer to bring down the numbers considerably, than Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, ....
Better in May and June. July and August were good (open for tourism from travellers from countries deemed safe - so not the U.S. and also not Sweden and U.K.).
First worying signs end of August. Continued in September, but then one could have hope they still could turn it around.
October: Exponential curve of cases.
November: Lockdown Lite, Mid of Nov. emergency measures.
I am talking about Germany and Austria, but it is the same story take or leave 2 weeks in many other European nations.
Lockdown / travel restictions in Australia in spring / summer (their fall and winter). Then it looked good. Then they had another flare up (stupid mistake, people that returned, quarantine rules disregarded). Melbourne in lockdown again ! (in September). Now they are good - only recently there was a cluster in Sydney. I think they closed the mall and severe restrictions for a few days. Putting out the embers before they get a wildfire.
Australia has 30 million people I think (so 10 % of the U.S. population) they however mainly live in the densely populated areas, more so than in the U.S. their case numbers are in the double digits.
The lockdowns in Europe were the only thing that helped to stabilize the numbers and to break the exponential growth (stabilize them at high levels - much higher than in spring in some nations, especially in Germany and Austria). Lockdown was the only way to bring down R(eff) under 1, happened only slowly and is the condition for cases going down. You can see that development of R(eff) and case numbers in spring and again in late fall.
After the restrictions were loosened and the economy opened (still some restrictions) R(eff) went up again, over 1. If you have growth but based on low case numbers it is not that bad. Low numbers, some growth, it stabilized at the slightly higher level. A spike here and there. The numbers never went down (for that a lockdown would have been needed). Again stabilizing at a slightly higher level. That went on in June, July, August and then it got out of control.
I wonder if it could have been prevented with more strategic resp. mass testing since September. (it also costs money).
The problem is not that lockdowns do not work, it is what they cost. Money, companies going out of business, and also mental health / stress.
also interesting: this time and with help of strategic mass testing at the end of the lockdown (December) they could contain it faster: they let it escalate more than in spring before they accepted the reality that another lockdown was needed. They have a lot of hospital beds - many more per 1000 residents than the U.S. and also ICU beds - but 1 month after lockdown the use of those beds peaked. At 65 % in Austria.
If they had not put the lockdown in place 4 weeks earlier it would have been 100 % capacity at that point. or like Italy in spring: doctors have to do triage like in a field hospital in a war zone and decide who is left to die and whom they try to save. If the staff is overworked like that, mortality rates also go up, not only for CoVid-19 patients - for all patients that need intense care.
Intense care staff is highly trained they are the scarce resource (even more so than equipment). so that number cannot be increased.
Mask wearing was mandated all the time, but that did not help in September, October.
So if has only some (little) effect. To be sure I am still for mandating it, as long as no better tools are available. It impacts businesses less and is not expensive.
2
-
2
-
Sadly the aspiring (or so he said) organizer-in-chief dropped the ball when fate shoved an unprecedented challenge / opportunity in his face. - He did good in many respects, and maybe it is a litte much to ask from a 77 year old man, to save America from itself - but that was his call.
There was only HIM to answer to that challenge / chance to unite the masses and do so FAST. The oligarchs do unite, they use leverage, they move FAST, they are BRAZEN, they get the bailouts to the tune of trillions
And only bold and fast reaction of a trusted leader with a huge platform could have called their bluff. And the bluff of the Democrats and Republicans.
(the "stimulus" bill is a side show, someone should explain the masses about QE. The Fed creating TRILLIONS, with a snap of the finger. Well with a few key strokes and now backed up with the legal provisions of Frank-Dodd.
he had drafted himself to that task (or so he said, organizer-in-chief) and he had sucked up a lot of oxigen, and the ENGAGED among the young and many others paid attention, paid in time and donations and were ready to be lead by him.
And then he "retired" so to speak. When it would have been time to step up his game.
Many people were desperate for him to give the signal (they do not have his platform, so they can only play the smaller game) Others that just had given Biden the preference would have been in reach for his message NOW.
They no doubt also made marketing errors so they did not turn out the young vote as necessary (he has the engaged ! young = 18 - 40 locked down, and all that DARE to hope, but they could
If it had been clear, bold, calling out the crooks on both sides (incl. the Democrats, he gives them a pass, he criticizes Repubs but not the crooked Democrats).
To call a spade a spade - instead he hurried back into his safe corner and plays the mediocre game and returns to being the eternal underdog, that is correct on the issues, but never has any power. He does not WANT POWER. Not REALLY.
it is one thing to talk about being the president, it is another when that becames a possibility. Sanders showed self-sabotaging behavior especially after South Carolina and Super Tuesday did not go so well for him.
Maybe he lost his faith in his model (that he is able to turn out the young and non-voters). In my opinion he had a messaging, marketing problem - that could have been fixed. But again: maybe with his 77 - 78 years he is too fixed in his ways.
Now he is doing charities, before he did townhalls regarding corona - very necessary, but with reach only to the coverted. HE did the job of Biden (who went into hiding for 6 days). Sanders should have done one better, follow the Trump-media-baiting 101 and given the networks something to talk (huff and puff) about. that would have meant HE and his surrogates on TV, DRIVING the national conversation, which of course would have been the ideal opportunity to advertise the Sanders campaign townhall (which may be held by him or someone else - for instance his campaign manager.
Being SUPER prepared for TV interviews and killing it there, beats one townhall where he preaches to the choire. Corporate media did not mention the frantic activity (worthy of a frontrunner) and they very friendly glossed over Biden going into hiding OR the weird appearance he had when he resurfaced.
Even better: Sanders would have gotten the views for the townhalls and virtual corona related eventes - and more of them - and not all of the burden to conduct the townhalls would have been on his shoulders.
It would have elevated him to the status of leader in the crisis and champion for the people when it comes to pandemic response.
so now he is working at a platform with the Biden campaign, that is 101 of "DNC tiring out and derailing progressive movements). It isn't new - they were more brazen in the traumatic year 1968, they had the police brutally crush the protests outside the convention.
WTF - I guess this is his way to avoid feeling bad. Working hard and diligently (in the wrong arena) - fighting with the party establishment and the handlers of Biden for the promise crumbs. Crooked Nixon made concessions to the grassroots - but that needed mass civil disobedience and mass protests. Sanders leading THAT (there are things that can be done now) would instill fear in the hearts of Republicans and Democrats (the politicians) alike.
THAT would give them leverage. Not playing the game according to the rules. If the outsider play the game according to the rules of those who are dominant (and can flip the rules as they see fit, while enforcing them for the other party) they will LOSE. The way to win: refusing to play THEIR game and flipping the table on them.
2
-
2
-
Sanders should have played the big game, when the crisis manifested. - Incl. spelling out WHAT happens right now. - Handouts to the tune of TRILLIONS to the speculators on Wallstreet. The Fed created 1,5 trillion on March 12, 2020 for them. And that was only the start. Had nothing to do with the "stimulus" bill.
Dodd Frank (the huge complicated bill, complexity used to disguise the loopholes in favor of banks) allows the Fed NOW to do that FAST and w/o approval from Congress. In the first Obama years they had at least a debate about QE (even though it was never properly explained to the sheeple), and I think then Congress had to approve of it.
Then Fed chair Ben Bernake is on record: No, we do not rise DEBT for that, we enter some numbers in a computer.
With the right discussion that should have ended the "how are we going to pay for it" debate once and for all.
Programs that are reasonable and benefit the country (like infrastructure, education, childare, healthcare, going renewable) CAN be financed.
Of course the money creation must be matched by domestic production to avoid devaluing the dollar over time and potential ! inflationary tendencies.
The cure for that is of course domestic manufacturing.
2
-
Progressives (like Sanders, also AOC) could explain it to the voters:
"Quantitative Easing" is money creation to protect banks and speculators on the stock exchange from the consequences of their risk taking (for instance the fracking industry got a lot of cheap loans, many of the operations were not profitable, now they are not viable - and sure enough they ask for a bailout).
We could as well prop up the citizens and savers, let the crooks and their big shareholder pay the price for their reckless and criminal behavior - moral hazard, etc.
After they have gone under, we pick up the remainders of the bank, that are relevant for the real economy: Staff (their healthcare plans and pension plans as well), we restore savings accounts, keep the loan contracts, the buildings, equipment. And then we create a public fund and the communities, states, cities, staff own the banks.
Fed = board staffed by the too big to fail banks, chair appointed or left in charge by the sitting president). Can we expect THEM to use money creation (QE) to the advantage of the little guy and smaller businesses ?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@luvkayakn The cheap goods had be sold in the U.S. and other wealthy counties - For that the trade deals (making favorable IMPORT tariffs PERMANENT) were necessary. So that no future ! pro labor U.S. government could raise import tariffs and the multi million dollar investments would not pay off, or it would not be nearly as lucrative.
The U.S. has so much negotiation power that Trump could rattle the system (especially Mexico got a rotten deal, but no Mexican government could have changed what a former was willing to sign). The problem is of course that trade wars do not lead to more domestic investment. The companies will not invest the many millions, the trade war can last 3 weeks, 4 months or 2 years. No one knows. Next midterms a new Congress can push the president, in 4 years there can be a new admin.
A fair trade deal would INSIST that the country must be a real democracy, that there are a lot of co-ops, that unions are promoted. THEN the citizens of the developing countries will see to it that they get a fair share of their highly productive work (much more productive than the workers in the U.S. in the 1950s and 1960s - because of new technology).
That in turn means that the workers of already rich and still developing countries cannot be pitted against each other.
NAFTA negotiations started under Reagan, heads of states signed it under Bush1, but he could not get it through Congress. Bill Clinton was able to pull off what the Republicans couldn't. The big donors were pleased.
Then Clinton prepared the China agreement.
Bush2 inherited it, and signed it only a few months after 9/11. In Jan or Feb. 2002, you can bet there was not much discussion. Corporate media covers for the servants of big biz (politicians) and that was an ideal situation to blindside the public. Unlike the fierce and long debate over NAFTA fuelled also by the campaign of Ross Perot.
Outsourcing ticked up earlier than 2002 - I guess once the primaries for 2000 were over the oligarchs knew they were good, either Cheney / GWB or Al Gore / Joe Lieberman. So they did not have to wait for the result of the 2000 election.
Note: the most important elections in the U.S. are the Democratic primaries. (only legally they are not elections but a selection process of private organizations. Which means election law does not apply to them). ONLY in the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES the voters might have the option to choose a pro labor candidate. The oligarchs finance both parties. The job of Corporate Democrats (like Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Barack Obama, Joe Biden) is to take out candidates that would be for We, The People.
Winning the general election would be nice (some of them are more ambitious than others), but they will not run on economic populism (these policies would impact the bottom line of the big donors). O.K. Obama run on a vague version of Economic populism, but he certainly did not deliver. As soon as the unions and grassroots had gotten him into the White House, he sidelined them and it was the neoliberal status quo as usual. Bailing out the banks, carefully avoiding to prosecute the banksters - and letting 5.5 million homes be forclosed. After the bailout - 4.5 TRILLIONS in Quantitative Easing for banks (that was under Obama, the Trump admin was also generous, also with QE).
Keeping the big donors happy, getting their money and the cushy jobs for ex politicians is even more important than winning the general.
Al Gore went away quietly. And increased his fortune even more. The big shots in both parties get a Golden Parachute if they lose elections. So they can afford to run on a lame platform that is not attractive for voters (especially Dems run on Republican Lite and lose often. That does not harm their financial situation, if they were useful for the big donors they get compensated for their services).
The oligarchs prefer that the voters have the "choice" in the general between a spineless neoliberal D and a fierce ideological R - both beholden to the big donors.
In case you have wondered how those trade deals time and again (NAFTA, Chinese agreement, and THEN they let the lobbyists draft TPP) find high BIPARTISAN support.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@luvkayakn If they would have done the same for developing countries like Mexico and China (based on FAIR TRADE deals) these nations would have been catapulted into modern times - faster than the development was in Europe, Canada, U.S. after WW2.
To be sure we would have had earlier the discussion about GLOBAL SUSTAINABLE consumption, use of scarce resources (fossil fuels, minerals, settlements what used to be undisturbed eco systems) .... But with that level of technology a civilization can afford to recycle, to insulate, to extract resouces with as little pollution as possibe.
To have first class mass transportation (see China, or Switzerland), to have energy efficient machines, industrial processes and vehicles (and aircrafts).
Public housing to take off the pressure of families. They might or might not move to the suburbs later. But they had the bases covered (in Europe) when the kids were little, and they lived in densely populated areas if they had their jobs or ties there. They could save up for the house later.
people living in apartments also consume less resources. Space, the energy, also the energy that is needed to build the homes, streets, sewage systems, the longer commute ....
People in that situation can go on strike - and the oligarchs hated that about the post WW2 time. The oligarchs did well, they just could not have it all, and workers got too uppity and had too little stress in their opinion.
The technological advancements between 1947 and 1970 paid for double incomes (on average: minimum and higher wages, for blue collars = hourly wages). Of course the salaried white collars also did well.
THAT built the American middle class.
Most people lived modestly directly after WW2 - in the next 25 years they could increase consumers spending. Massively !
It was important that what was offered by companies (an ever growing output because of productivity wins, a lot due to automation) would also be consumed.
There was a good level of standard of living, with room for improvement (in the U.S. minorities had some catching up to do), but certainly much better than after WW2. That overal increase of wealth and income at the lower income levels had been financed by productivity wins.
There was some market saturation. Electronics and PC's just entered the scene, ongoing migration, and women entered the workforce.
2
-
@luvkayakn It would have been time to adjust in the 1970s. The 40 hour work week had become the standard for all in the U.S. in 1940. A lot had happened in 30 years, it is a societal agreement, not a law of physics. 40 hour (and one breadwinner was enough, certainly if it was a white male) was a good deal - in 1940 with that level of technology. Time to adjust that in 1970, and if 2 adults have to work fulltime to be part of the middle class in 2021 folks are getting a rotten deal.
Amercians had enjoyed the wealth building and good jobs market, but did not fully understand the economics behind it. Kitchen table economics. The government budgets treated like a household.
So when the oil price spikes triggered higher unemployment (the first time for longer since WW2) citizens were shocked and unprepared for the propaganda onslaught. The oligarchs had to bide their time since the 1930s in the U.S. (since the end of WW2 in Europe, Canada, Australia, ...) They seized their chance to change public perception from 1973/1974 on.
The Cold War and Red Scare had been a convenient pretext to go after the united left parties that had forced the hand of FDR in the 1930s and had given him leverage for the New Deal. To his credit - he and some reasonable oligarchs saw the pitchforks coming and saved capitalism from itself.
But after FDR had died they soon after struck a legal blow to unions (1947). But they were too mainstream so they dismantled the left parties first, and in the 1970s it was possible to start villifying the uppity striking workers (demanding inflation adjustment) and to launch the description of union leadership as "bosses". Not managers, owners and shareholders were bosses - it was the union bosses.
It got worse once Reagan was elected. Thatcher was willing to devastate a whole region in the U.K. to undermine unions and the voting base of the opposition party. The U.S. and U.K. promoted outsourcing of manufacturing and "financialization" (non productive activities of finance, today a LOT of it is speculation).
2
-
2
-
@luvkayakn In the Golden Era (post WW2 till 1970) wages and minimum wages were high they rose in lockstep with productivity, the product prices were also higher compared to now - but you have to view that compared to income ! People could afford to buy Made In America despite the higher labor costs - and that was at 1970s level of technology.
Now labor is 9 % of the costs of a restaurant (industry average). it is lower in retail and still lower in manufacturing.
So higher wages - as per the recent minimum wage discussion about 15 USD till 2025 - only partially raise the costs of products and services. But especially the lower income groups have also good spending power and the companies (typically service sector if they pay minimum wage) have a new customer segment they can tap into.
Even if a company would only pay the current 7.25 (federal minimum wage) which means that is a poor state and they double that till 2025. That means 9 % more labor costs and if they pass it on fully 9 % increase of prices over a few years.
At the same time the workers in the region get a MASSIVE raise, and some of the money will find its way to the very companies that also have to pay higher wages.
That is why the minimum wage raises in the past (there were many, and not only in the U.s. of course)
did not increase inflation (not much, if at all)
did not cost jobs, no uptick in unemployment
and did not harm businesses.
Only if the companies would be exposed to cheap labor from abroad they would have a problem. But not even the rotten trade deals make that possible for big or samll biz.
Service sector work that is consumed in the U.S. must be provided HERE, they can outsource manufacturing, but not the work of a waitress, drycleaner, stocking shelves in retail, gardener, cook, hair stylist, childcare worker, maid, .....
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@3thomasdm Public schools - ask Denmark, Japan, just for a start. Or Finland (they have outlawed private schools). you bet the affluent make sure the schools are well funded and teachers are competent, but also well paid and highly respected. Same approach for childare in Denmark which is excellent. - btw Sweden has had a lot of immigration. But there cildren are entitled to get help also with language, in the first years a major part of the little ones are in one or another supportive program so it is no shame (that is very important, children ARE VERY sensitive about that).
No child left behind is real - in Sweden. costs money, but it pays off.
It is not left to LUCK what happens in those important formative years.
the luck of being born healthy and with or without learning disability.
Mother can afford to stay home and invest a lot of time into learning with the children if they have difficulties. Not only time, she (or the father) also would need the pedagogic skills, patience and not panic if the child has trouble learning to read. And in later years being able to understand maths, languages, etc.
Never mind the motivation or if a parent does not have their ducks in a row. Or if a disabled sibling, a depression, an illness eats up all their time, or energy.
At least to some degrees such bad circumstances for the child (bad luck) are counterbalanced by the good public services.
private non-profit or for-profit NEVER will deliver that.
Exhibit a: the United States
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
And a weasel of candidate disrespects that more than usual civic effort by claiming victory, damned be the facts. He used an intentionally skewed partial release of 62 % of the precincts that were NOT representative as base for his premature victory claims.
Pete is a numbers cruncher, he like that at McKinnsey (working for a company that fixes bread prices, etc.)
Shame on the Democratic party, they released the info of the working class, minority precincts the latest. Especially the ones where they knew that Sanders had done extremely well. (They could have factored 2 of the 4 satellite caucuses in into a early release, plus some other urban precincts to get a more accurate representation of ALL of the state).
The selective early release allowed Pete-the-cheat his victory lap.
Way to go for the party of the "working people".
And I did not yet mention the efforts of the volunteers who run a caucus, for free. They get training, they have to show up early, someone must prepare the site, have the voter lists ready, do the same day registration (they can), so not everyone is entrusted with that, in other words TRAINING.
They sacrificed MORE than one long evening.
2
-
2
-
2
-
How to neutralize "Superdelegates "reform" so that the Big Donor interests are represented in the nomination process: if - IF - Sanders or someone like him runs in the primaries we can contain that with help of our big donors. They can finance MANY candidates - that should ensure that no one gets over 50 % in the first round.
So voters were treated to the media darling of the month, when people like Harris, Beto, .... and all other Me too didn't do as well as expected, they brought in Biden, even Delaney thought he had a chance (???). Some of it is the ego of these people, but the donors are also very keen to have a LOT of people in the field.
Pete was propped up. The "liberal" media gladly helped out (Harris, Booker, even Warren somewhat after she had signalled she wouldn't be that serious. In recent months they tried to make Klobuchar relevant and talk her up).
Media made pete a thing, that worked to a degree - and then the party "leadership" arranged access to the big donors.
How does a mayor of a not too large city get access to over 40 billionaires ?? The party hooked him up once the media operation had been successfully caried out - and it turned out that worked sufficiently well (with white affluent voters) for HIM (while Harris, Booker, Gilibrand, Beto .... disappointed).
2
-
Union negotiated healthcare insurance is STILL way overpriced (not only for the culinary sector, the healthcare plans of large companies like Boeing, GM, Microsoft - whatever the plans cover - they will be way too expensive for that. Not one of the companies or unions has the NEGOTIATING POWER of a national single payer agency !
In a single payer system these insurance agencies are set up to have almost a monopoly position.
for-profit monopoly = exploitation of consumers.
But as a public non-profit that works for the common good they are a very much needed counterweight for the disadvantages the consumers have - the insured / patients are by far the weakest participant in the healthcare system (which makes a "free market" "choice" competition etc. impossible).
Single payer agencies invariably get better rates from doctors and hospitals, and have enough power to get a good deal
from big pharma. And if almost all is billed to them (and all patients are entitled potentially to the same treatments) it makes billing very
easy. The doctors and hospital check your insurance card, if you have coverage - you are full in. the doctors can from then on concentrate on the medical side.
As long as there are also many private insurance plans with countless different provisions (who gets what covered or has what exclusions) - that cost savings potential of a streamlined admin is squandered.
In areas where many people would have private insurance (a large company like GM is nearby) or a lot of wealthy people are in the area - good luck with finding doctors that will accept those with "only" public insurance (private insurers cannot negotiate the rates as hard - even if they would bother, so the doctors would like to make do with "private" patients only).
In single payer nations most doctors and all hospitals must accept the contract of the single payer agency and the patients under that coverage - or they do not have enough patients. That also curbs discrimination.
There is a reason no other country does public option with an opt out (for those who are young and healthy or for company/union plans).
Also: the company can change conditions (if you have coverage under a company plan), and when you are fired you are out.
Nataline the girl that was the (last) reason for Wendell Potter to quit his position as senior PR executive of Cigna did not have a "Cadillac plan" - she was covered by a Mercedes plan - literally Mercedes (via her family employer insurance). it is safe to assume that was a good plan.
The insurance refused to cover the liver transplant (even though transplants were included in the plan), the doctors who were ready to go ahead with the surgery had to give a pass on two livers (which would have been a good match).
Finally Cigna gave in to public pressure - but then her organs had started to shut down, she died a few hours after the green light had been given by Cigna (that was in Dec. 2007 or 2008).
Wendell Potter mentioned in an interview in 2019 that the insurers now also purge COMPANIES (same tactics as with individuals: they drive up premiums OR the co-pays and deductibles).
btw: when in small to medium sized companies a staff member (or family of them) need costly and ongoing treatments that can
"jeopardize" the plan or the conditions for all of staff - Either conditions worsen - until the company gives up, or the comapny fires the
employee to avoid the trouble.
Does wondes for the employment of elderly people in non-unionized sectors (in the companies that still do have plans, that number is constantly going down).
Potter: the private insurers have no interest in cost control - the system will become unsustainable if we do not get Medicare For All.
What the for-profit insurance companies want is to drive up the deductibles so that they can pass on the costs to the insured.
A mayor from a town nearby where Wendell Potter grew up: we had to exclude family members of our employees from
coverage, we do not like to do it, but we can't afford it anymore.
2
-
2
-
Why do they "deserve" the economy to be in the toilet. Western companies were eager to outsource. Incl. Trump, and his daughter, they get their garments, caps, ties, shoes from there. I think Ivanka ended her clothing line in the U.S. but she got excluse brand rights in china (no nepotism at all - and that is a huge and growing market, not right now but wait until the vacine is there). The Chinese gov. will likely make mass testing happen, they do not say pretty please to self-interested for-profit companies.
(which by necessity cannot look out for the public good, they want to maximize profits, they look at their narrow interests. Our company and as has become the toxic culture only in the short run).
China is an system on to itself. They EU has 550 million people, the U.S. has 330 million and China 1,3 billion. They will likely do a better job to MANAGE the economy than comparable nations (GDP per person).
The dragged their feet,were in denial, but once they realized they could not control this outbreak (The Asian nations that were hit in 2003, and Canada just about pulled it off with SARS-CoV-1. Just. Likely is was not quite as contagious or people only are contagious once they have symptoms. So it is easier to FIND the carriers).
Anyway, they were in denial, but after that phase (that lasted too long) they THEN went big, then they did the right things.
Trump had the warning example of Italy (and China) - and STILL was in denial. BoJo wanted to implement "herd immunity".
In Taiwan, South Korea, Iceland they do MASS TESTING. And have routines and help (guidance, mandate) regarding isolating people. Plus tracking (in Iceland voluntary - but with a competent trustworthy government, people are cooperative).
In Europe (not sure about UK) the numbers are going down.
Long term economic outlook.
China will not let its people go under (the U.S. oligarchs gladly will if they can). China has to import fossil fuel so the price drop will help them.
The GFC: Europe and the U.S. did austerity for citizens (after bailout for banks and big biz).
China got bullet trains. They realized they had to increase domestic consumption and the only way to do this is to raise wages. Finally. The Chinese and Western oligarchs had agreed to exploit the work force, the dictatorship did not allow unions or environmental protests.
But during / after the GFC they applied the building of the middle class model of the U.S. of the 1950s and 1960s (partially, the U.S. workers had unions so ... they got the lion's share of productivity wins till the 1970s.
There is certainly a lot of corruption going on, but the dictatorship still has a vision and a plan for the country - that goes beyond grifting of the upper class and big biz. In the U.S. the oligarchs have no plan other than looting whenever they can, and enshrining their grift into law if they can.
Just on a side note:
Harvard has gotten money from the bailout (for universities). Yes THAT Harvard, with 1 or 2 billion in investments (I forgot how much), that does not pay any taxes. They were called out and now will pay it back.
The Western "elites" have become shameless. They should have known they would not get away with it, they did it anyway (what is the harm in trying).
Oh, it is a PR black eye ... O.K. .... we'll try the next thing whenever the occasion presents itself.
So where is the outrage about welfare queens. The help was announced as meant for "struggling" universities.
What part of struggling did those Ivy League administrators not understand ?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
let me inform you about the 1,5 TRILLION muffin. QE to bail out Wallstreet speculators. Fed * created that on March 12 and it was just the beginning, had nothing to do with the "stimulus" and was much earlier. - FED can do that NOW and FAST, and w/o oversight after Frank Dodd * had been passed.
The first wave of QE under Obama * (to the tune of 4 trillion in total) still needed Congress * and that triggered a little bit of public discussion (not enough, a lot of misinformation, glossing over - but some).
Now Fed can act swift and stealthily. They are shielded by the media * : "Fed injected liquidity into the "markets"."
Nope: speculators were bailed out. (actors that buy and sell shares with an investors approach can sit it out, think pension funds, or prudent well diversified investors). For a company like Ford and Amazon it does not matter at what price the shares are traded - the small volume they parted with on the day of the IPO (going public). THEN they got paid.
Ford and Amazon are not hindered to do biz,no matter what the share price is. (which may REFLECT worse outlooks. But the stock exchange is a mirage not the real thing).
* = captured by corporate interests.
Fed: chair is appointed or left in charge by the president (funded by the big donors). the board is staffed by the too-big-to-fail-banks.
So: will such an authority to create the trillions (or billions in late 2019 already ! REPO crisis) be used for the good of high finance ? or will it be used for the good of society.
It is not that government must be bad, it just should not be run by a king with absolute powers. Or bought up by big biz. Who know make it harder and harder to vote.
1,5 trillion divided by 330 million people = 4,500 USD each (so 18,000 for a family of four).
or 2000 per adult and 500 per child, to leave some budgets for small biz.
Next trillions created with a few keystrokes: help states, fund Medicare so all people get full coverage.
Maybe bail out big biz (in exchange for partial worker / public ownership. public means a rotating board of citizens staff it not any government. the voting rights are tied to non-profits or co-ops. No one can take that with them. So not like stock options. The voting right and ownership belongs to the collective not individuals).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Context: the whole UN and WHO etc. need money, these orgs can be bureaucratic - but I think the weapons inspectors, OPCW, and the WHO do a good job - from time to time, and even if very imperfect, they are needed. WHAT would have been the response to corona WITHOUT the WHO ?
Obama had installed a taskforce after Ebola, Trump dismantled it (cause: Obama), cut budgets for the CDC and planned MORE cuts (his budget proposal).
The WHO has the systems in place to coordinate a FAST response, to have the nations exchange informations. The nature of an epidemic, pandemic, of exponential growth is that you would need to nip it in the bud. When it still looks harmless ((w/o exponential growth you can contain it and it does not become a pandemic, or an epidemic)
So you need to have the international agency (with it's experts) already in place.
The WHO would have to be reinvented. It weren't the SYSTEMS that were not working, and they have experts. It was political pressure from a major financier - in THIS case CHINA. But maybe ALSO the U.S.
These agencies are often political footballs. And more often than not it is the U.S. that abuses them for political gains, can be related to regime change operations, etc.
Trump during a rally: We have only 50 cases in the U.S., do you know the flu numbers ?
Yes, and they now estimate the infection rate (R0 = R nought) is between 2 and 3, so 1 person infects 2 - 3 others, if it is allowed to runs it's course and no measures are taken).
The costs of timely and decisive action, the harm it does to the eocnomy always seem too be high. A correct response to a POTENTIAL epidemeic / pandemic always looks exaggerated. And if nothing bad happens, you have the costs without the reward to KNOW if it really was necessary, if you really avoided much more damage.
Politicians are not good in that kind of game.
Only when other nations are not as wise AND it really gets out of hand, those who err on the side of caution are vindicated - and Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea look really smart and competent in hindsight. They are not naturally wise, it came at a cost, they were at the receiving end before, and have learnt from those experiences. It is easier to sell the measures to the population, that has been hit once and then they too were too late in their response.
Taiwan had been burned (2003, SARS-CoV-1, China initially obfuscated and procrastinated then as well). So they started reacting immediately when China reported their first case to the WHO end of December 2019, they JUMPED into action, when neither China nor the WHO confirmed the severity then (WHO couldn't, their information cannot be better than what China amdits).
2 weeks later when Taiwan had their first confirmed case, they were ready to go, they have contained ! it VERY well. With mass testing and disciplined citizens (so that would not work in the U.S.) where they hold demonstrations with firearms for their "freedom".
Trump stopped flights from China. Correct measure, but stemming from the wrong motivation. Trump did not mind sticking it to China, trade war and all. But he should have also restricted other flights - from Europe, and he later still did not want to do it ignoring such advice.
Chinese workers and students and tourists came to Italy, many returned after they had spend the Chinese New Year in China.
So the virus was imported from European travellers and not from Chinese ones.
It does not even matter in a sense that China blew it. Italy also blew it, and most nations sort of learned from Italy. Still too late, but at some point they took decisive action. Meanwhile Trump was STILL in denial, downplayed it, did not want to face the economic damage, ignored the scientists....
Germany created their own test, Trump waited until his favorite company (Roche or Novartis, I forgot which one, but they had their lobbyists targeting the Trump admin even before) had a test developed, ignoring the already existing tests.
Did not use the potential of the war production act. He invoked it, but then he did not FORCE the companies (big donors !!) to step up, it was all voluntarily and "pretty please" (make me look good for my reelection).
The U.S. citizens did not know if they had to pay out of pocket for the test, meanwhile the Europeans did test (and for free).
The U.S. is like China, only ignoring the warning real life example of other nations, and even China reacted correctly once they "got" it. Then they went big. That is why they could reopen Wuhan now.
We can assume that the WHO tried to please China when they were late to declare it to be a pandemic etc. The U.S. government might have ALSO leaned on the WHO, after all Trump for a long time acted on: I do not want it, if I ignore it, it will go away. It would be bad for the economy and my reelection, so it can't be true. Likely he would have cut the funding of the WHO right away, and would have accused them of wanting to spoil his chances for reelection. Insert some George Soros conspiracies, and the idea that Democrats influene the WHO.
The Chinese had the same problem as Trump (but they were first, so they would have needed to be extra smart), they did not like the implications of a correct response to a POTENTIAL epidemic / pandemic. Erring on the side of caution harms the economy and it could of course be an exaggerated reaction.
So the world would benefit from the precautions of China, and China would shoulder the economic damage. Which does not make their reaction right, but more understandable. And the European nations WITH the information from China STILL dropped the ball (for some time).
The U.S. was even more inept in the response (De Blasio and Cuomo in New York were also not a shining example they also dropped the ball to a degree).
2
-
Funding nations (like China OR the U.S.) abusing their power: OPCW omitted important evidence from the final report on the alleged gas attacks in Syria in spring 2018 (see Ted Postol, Prof. M.I.T., his findings and objections "edited" because of pressure of the U.S.
No, it was not a gas attack by the government. But that was not the desired POLITICAL outcome.
The U.S. is guilty of pressuring international agencies (more than China), using their leverage as main funder to exert undue influence which has a lot to do with the interests of the U.S. (ruling class, corporations and government) and little with the stated purpose of the agency.
(while the other wealthy nations let it and are glad not having to contribute more).
The Trump admin hindered the WHO to start a campaign pro breastfeeding in developing countries. Absolutely reasonable from a health standpoint. it is better for a child to be breastfed in rich nations, in the poor nations you additionally have the problem of clean water, hygiene, so you may have increased infant mortality if they get diarrhea.
The mothers in those nations see it as status symbol and giving the child the best they can afford if they use their modest means to buy baby formula (like they do in the developed rich nations). Someone should educate them that breastfeeding is more valuable.
Insert Trump admin serving the interests of Nestlé (and some other company, I forgot the name, big donor of course). The WHO had to drop the plans (1 or 2 years ago).
Methinks the Chinese government might not have derailed that reasonable project.
the main actor in leveraging those institutions.
However, if the funding is not sufficient they will look for another state to fund them (and the U.S. kept them on their toes for much longer than the Trump presidency). So they turn to another ascending nation, that is large / powerful enought that they can pick up the tab:
TaDa ! CHINA.
And where is the EU ? Australia, Canada, Japan, ....
These nations could provide the funding for WHO, it is 40 bn so it is not much in the large scheme of things.
Then the WHO could afford to step on the toes of China and call them out - as they should - because they do not depend on them.
Now, the U.S. is not as generous as it might look at first glance, when picking up a major part of the tab (or doing so in the past).
She has the meanwhile undeserved privilege to have the world reserve currency, essentially she can just create the money, it must not be backed up by doestic production. The other side of the medal is that the U.S. takes a free ride on the output of other countries, much more is imported than exported, the U.S. gets more goods (in exchange for easily created
In most other countries the money they create correspondd with the output of the national economy (at least it should). After all we use money to exchange goods and services, more output = it is legitimate to insert more money into the system. And since all nations buy from other nations - it is important if they "inflate" the value of their currency.
Not the U.S. - the usual rules do not apply to the U.S.: creates money all the time, a lot of debt (that is a major mechanism of money creation). Plus a high trade deficit (more imports than exports).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
4:37 the assumption is of course that Nancy Pelosi or Schumer wanted the Democrats to win the toss up races come Nov. 2020. They did not behave like that and were also cavlier about the PRESIDENCY, that ALMOST BACKFIRED. Biden did not seem eager to emulate the highly successful 2008 campaign of Obama, and the candidates for Congress and Senate that lost did not run on a Bernie platform.
If those veterans of politics seem naive and clueless (also when they "try" to work with Republicans who will for sure stonewall) .... Maybe it is not self sabotage ??
Maybe they are not idiots, maybe they play a cozy game and can afford to gamble. They ONLY wanted to get rid of Trump, and they even took risks with that.
Biden limped over the finish line. 123,700 votes won him the 4 states that were too close to call for several days. he needed 2 out of the 4 and a few tenthousand votes in every state would have swung the election.
That was a VERY CLOSE result - in the EC - if interested see following comment.
In other words - had he gotten a decisive win in PA and WI with 3 - 5 % more as end result, that lead would have manifested much earlier in the ongoing count of the mail ballots and he would have been projected as winner by all networks on Nov. 4th already.
Nov. 5th at the latest, so the R grifters would not have had the chance to spin the narrative.
The later result of GA and AZ could have been the icing on the top. No one could build their electoral strategy on that, and indeed it was really, really close in both states.
High ranking Democrats have usually safe seats (if not they get a Golden Parachute), and meanwhile I wonder if they really want to win. I think they are the most content with SLIM majorities (a few in Congress and Senate are the jokers on behalf of big donor interests. They will always "defect" and side with Republicans if the Dems are in danger of having the majorities for something that is good for The People.
That way and the have an excuse why they never get anything done. "We did not have the vote." Or if they do not have all 3 branches of government it is even easier: "I only Republicans let us ..."
2
-
2
-
Donald Piniach Sanders has uncommon energy (obviously more than the average healthy 78 year old - he will be 79 in Sep. and Biden is 14 months yonger) After the blockage was removed and the 2 stents fixed the problem he bounced back within 2 weeks to the campaign trail with an intense schedule.
If he had gone earlier, there would have been no heart attack at all. He claims his heart did not suffer - His heart and system support that intense schedule - neither Biden nor Bloomberg have exerted themselves like this.
They are untested.
Sanders had a 7 day week during impeachment (he may have them anyway, but in January he was stuck 6 days in the Senate, so they used a private jet so that he could make the most of his time).
Biden has interviews where he is coherent - and speeches and appearance etc. where he isn't, where he is visibly at a loss for words (and no it isn't a stammer). he didn't have that in the past.
Especially the last days. - If he is in decline it is going to get worse under stress, and he hasn't campaigned hard.
And no, I do not trust the one assessment he got from his surgeon that saved his life after the 2 aneurysms (in 1988 I think). The surgeon confirms that he is sharp as ever: ahem, no obviously he isn't, at least not always, and I assume that he was in better shape in 2012, at least the footage I have seen from that time. Debate with Paul Ryan for instance.
there was major movement at the stock exchange after Biden unexpectedly came back into play. In other words: he is the candidate big biz and big finance prefers. And he was always considered to be ONE of the main competitors of Sanders (also in 2019 when he got the assessment . We are talking about trillions of dollars here. One doctor wouldn't do a politician that is so close to powerful interests favors, would he ?
2
-
Donald Piniach Sanders on the other has 3 assessments. His claim (heart is doing good, no damage done, great energy) is supported by his schedule and campaigning. heart rate 62 beats per minute is pretty good, as well.
Biden's claim (or that of his doctor) that he is unchanged on the other hand seems dubious.
Other older candidates also had a stressing schedule and apart from minor gaffes (Klobuchar) they coped well. Warren, Steyer, ... there is no footage like that we have from Biden (also from last year).
Biden did a light schedule, did not campaign in Super Tuesday states (he won some of them nontheless, which is an interesting lesson about the power of name recognition, being a household name and media narrative). His campaign shields him from interviews.
his campaign gave him a list with talking points (I think it was about his record on social Security or the Iraq war) to give to reporters when they asked him (at a smaller event). That is not a good look. Refer to a website for details, and either answer questions or not - but do not hand out lists.
It looked like his campaign wanted to prevent him from talking about tricky issues, in other words that they did not trust his mental agility to either deflect, filibuster, give a good answer, or whatever politicians do in these situations when they are pressed. It can't be lack of routine.
Several times when he was challenged in townhalls he insulted the people, told them to vote for Trump, etc. Now, some of the questions were tricky, either meant as set-up, to get incriminating footage, or people just strongly disagreed with his record.
But that comes with the territory and his reaction was not to solve it with an answer, fact based, with a joke or being charming, or a diplomatic evasion. He turned away, told them to vote for Trump etc. not so long ago he called a woman a pony faced liar, etc.
In other words, he may not have been able to counteract that, not with talking points and not with being quick witted or diplomatic. so he went a little rogue to not "lose" the argument.
Or he shoved an activist that asked him about his underwhelming plans regarding climate change.The man is know (cyled in an awareness campaign) and he politely asked a reasonable question. He admitted that he would support Sanders in the primary. Biden got hold of his lapels and got in his face. That man stood his ground, but Biden tried the alpha gig on him.
Now that could be typical Biden as soon as something doesn't go his way, or he does not have any other reaction (anymore) to navigate such challenging situations.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@lovesthebass if you listen to Yang and his ads you will notice that he ONLY talks about the threat / challenge of automation now and in the future - and that he also attributes the job losses (all of them) of the last 20 years to automation. Plus driverless cars are not yet there. It is not the problem of the next 4 years.
I give him credit for opening the discussion about UBI.
Automation is NOT the most pressing issue - and UBI is not the only solution. With the green New Deal and a jobs guarantee a lot of jobs will be created that cannot be automated: healthcare - nurses, doctors, installing solar panels, building streets, dams, bridges. Installing batteries, getting the power lines into the earth, planting trees (there could be use of some robots), childcare, .... organic farming, lots of scientific research. Firefighters ! cleaning up after floodings. Social workers / street workers. Reintegrating people from prison.
Of course there was automation in the past - but that does not mean it MUST cost jobs.
Automation was a major reason the hourly average wage in the U.S. rose by 97 % between 1947 and 1970 (REAL wages - that means adjusted for inflation).
That was with a real 40 hour workweek and often with only one breadwinner in the family. It meant that the purchasing power per hour doubled ! and that MOST of the productivity gains during that time (112 %) went to the employees in form of higher wages.
From then on the work week should have gotten SHORTER = the productivity wins are given in more TIME with a wage that stays constant - with inflation adjustments to have the same purchasing power.
So the same monthly income but for less hours. Costs for companies would have remained the same (the same number of people produce the same output but working fewer hours. In reality not all branches can improve productivity the same, not all are suited for automation, so there needed to be mechanisms to compensate for that. Working in the factory versus being a teacher or working in childcare).
Output of goods and services would have remained the same (not more and more / the same but with firing a part of the staff). That would counteract consumerism to a degree.
The 40 hour week for all was introduced in 1940 !! in the U.S.
Ongoing automation, other improvements in technology meant continued productivity gains (between 1970 and 2013 around 69 % - but wages rose only by 8 or 9 %). That would have allowed for more reduction of the hours.
Instead the haves used the economic crises of the 1970s (2 oil crises global problems, in the U.S. the debt of Vietnam on top) to hit back. Undermining negotiating power of labor because there was UNEMPLOYMENT.
First it was the highest unemployment rate since WW2. High interest rates under Carter (stiffling the real economy in order to accomodate big finance, the owners of fortunes). Then neoliberalism.
Then outsourcing of jobs (only possible because of technological improvements and only safe and economically viable because of free trade agreements !
It became easier from a technological standpoint. But they absolutely needed the low PERMANENT import tariffs. The workers that got peanuts could not afford to buy what they helped produce in Mexico or China. A 40 % default import tax if the goods are sent to Europe or the U.S. is a deterrent. And the corporate overlords had no intention to repeat the recipe from the Golden Era (after WW2 until the advent of neoliberalism - it did not hit all countries at the same time). They could not exploit the workers in first world countries - but they sure intended to do so in developing countries.
An ongoing smear campaign against unions. Glorifying "hard" work (which means both parents work more than 40 hours, no affordable childcare).
Now people are working MORE not less.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yes, but unions in Nevada can TURN OUT their base, likely have their email (or social media contact data), can send in the union organizers to activate people in the larger companies. Total primary voters in the U.S. maybe 6 million (if turnout is good), so they certainly can influence the outcomes in Nevada if they want to, relatively small numbers like a few thousand can make a large difference in Nevada.
I just checked: 80,000 people are said to have participated in the primary in 2016 (just got remembered of the shenanigans of Roberta Lange and the Nevada party machine. They decided that they were under the impression that the voice call for HRC on the floor was "louder" than for Sanders, the rules would have required a head count if there was any ambiguity (how hard can it be to count people !!) but as always the party machine was not bound by the rules if they were not favorable for them.
If people are deceived and underinformed (and duly scared to lose their maybe "good" but certainly overpriced union negotiated healthcare) they will vote for the guy whose name they recognize.
the situation is so bad that healthcare coverage that would be considered default in other wealthy countries is "good" in the U.S. context and something you can lose when you lose your job - or the company decides to.
So the unions will transport their members to the convention. The members get a strong suggestions whom they should vote for (often people that mainly spead Spanish and work hard to put food on the table - so no time to follow the political process).
They will by deafault (and with some nudging of union leadership) chose the guy that is presented by the media as uncle Joe, friend of the working class, elder statesman - and the media keeps silent on his REAL voting record, glosses over the signs for cognitive decline or the common sense assumption that he would lose against Trump in the GE.
So the unelected VP and the special interest guys and gals in the cabinet positions would run the country - like in the Reagan era. The oligarchs would not mind a Biden OR a Trump admin, they win either way.
The only thing that is good is that the Sanders campaign knows exactely how they were cheated in 2016, and they do better with Latinos on the ground this time.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ideally Sanders kills it with droves of young people and "unlikely" voters showing up (dragging along family, friends, grandma and the cat). The campaign also organizes car pools and offering rides. The intense volunteer activity now starts showing in the polls. The polls tend to include older, more affluent voters, "likely voters" that means they voted in the PAST, usually in the last 3 elections. So that automatically excludes young voters that come of age.
And on a practical level: it is easier for the pollstes to reach people on landlines.
So the polls might be fairly accurate for candidates with an older, more affluent base (Biden, Warren, Buttigieg). But Sanders, Gabbard, Yang are likely not realistically represented in the polls (even now), they might OUTPERFORM the polls.
Yang and Gabbard have appeal to voters that are not usual Democratic voters or caucus goers and that are also not in camp Sanders. THAT might turn out to be good. They have an affinity with the Sanders PLATFORM. If the Yang Gang does not make it over 15 % in a place in the first round - would they go to team Biden ? It is much more likely that they "realign" with team Sanders.
Same for team Gabbard.
And in the 2nd round they can only realign with successful teams. That will often be only Sanders / Biden. In many but not all places Warren.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
it benefits the U.S. and Mexican oligarchs. NAFTA is even worse for Mexico (the regular people). Companies like GM produce in Mexico or hae their supply chain there (over which they exert a lot of power). NAFTA was bad for the U.S. citizens and worse for Mexico.
U.S. companies (and from other countries because Mexico has trade deals with other nations) produce IN Mexico.
The wages are not that good, not even for Mexican costs of living.
On the other hand the U.S. could dump the big ag surplus on the Mexican market, so the small farmers went under. Not enough jobs for them in the cities - there are not that many new jobs. In some provinces the cartells are the last resort for "employment" - that or people migrate to the U.S.
They kept the industrial wages down in Mexcio *, the development did not go like in the U.S. in the Golden Era after WW2. Good industrial wages rising with productivity - the Mexican workers produce with modern technology so they start out at high level of productivity).
* that was the whole point of NAFTA apart from opening Mexico for U.S. agricultural imports - to pit the poor workers of Mexico against the U.S. workers.
The growing U.S. middle class spent the good wages in retail, vacations, construction, service industry.
Average hourly wages adjusted for inflation grew by 97 % between 1947 and 1970 - in other words DOUBLE purchasing power. And 9 % between 1970 and 2013 (I know these numbers by heart, it has not improved since then though).
Increase in productivity (a lot due to automation, new technology or better educated workforce) 112 % between 1947 and 1970 resp. 69 % 1970 - 2013. So until the 1970s wokers got the lions share of productivity wins in form of higher wages. The 1970s brought 2 major global crises (oil price spikes) and higher unemployment (high for that time) for the first time after WW2. The oligarchs used that to hit back.
The policy to let the workers participate in productivity wins has been abolished since the 1980s (by undermining unions). "free" "trade" deals were an important instrument for that as well. Now the workers cannot even ask for higher wages (compared to inflation rates which also increased in those times) when unemployment is low. Many manufacturers threaten to close shop and go to Mexico or Asia.
The manufacturers only turned their back on the workers at home - they still need the consumers ! When they pay peanuts to workers in developing countries those workers can't buy the stuff they help to produce.
Consumers have the spending power of course mostly from wages - or from benefits like SS - so that is the flaw in the scheme. consumer debt on the credit card helped to paper over the gap between output of goods and dwindling purchasing power in the U.S. - that started in the mid 1970s as well.
Back in the day a company that produced in China had a default import tariff of 40 % if they wanted to sell the stuff in the U.S.. The tariffs for Made in Mexico also dropped when NAFTA went into effect (not sure what they were before NAFTA) . And more importantly they dropped permanently - the trade deal provided the safe foundation to make investment decisions.
40 % import tariffs (China) is not helpful when you want to sell those foreign made products (in most cases designed / developed in a first world country) in the U.S. What if the corporations had invested lots of money and then an new government in the U.S. would increase tariffs to protect the workforce. There goes the profit.
Politicians colluded with big biz to create the conditons where manufacturers can undermine domestic manufacturing and the negotiating power of labor to demand good wages.
And it had to be "written in stone" so that new governments could not reverse those deals. (they are often valid 20 - 30 years after a country theoretically quits, and the companies can sue the governments for damages - in the After period as well. That was an important part of TPP Asia and TTIP - with Europe - that companies can sue governments if they pass regulations that decrease the future profits of companies (not compensation for stranded investments which could be justified in some cases - not forgone PROFITS).. And it would be a private court system (arbitration by for profit legal firms. Experiences so far: in 2 out of 3 cases they decide pro corporations. What cases: Canada passes a law to protect marine lifef from underwater explosions near senstitive coastal eco systems. Egypt raises the minimum wage from 48 - 72 USD - per month. Australia demands warnings on cigarette packages resp. plain packing. Big bad government harrassing the poor multinationals).
The U.S. can leverage its power as large importer so Trump demanded new negotiations - but Mexico and Canada could not renegotiate those deals if they wanted to work for THEIR citizens. They are stuck with what the sellouts in former governments agreed to.
40 % import tariff is a bummer
Then there is the hassle to deal with the foreign work force, set up manufacturing plant, learn to deal with their local mob, polticians to bribe, language, then there is transport costs, a creative legal system maybe, top executives that do not like to move, ... - it is just not worth it if you have to deal with 40 % tariff or if that is looming over your head as possibility.
By Executive Order Bill Clinton took the power from Congress to grant much lower tariffs to China on a yearly base. It had become a political football - but once that power rested with the State department the representatives went silent (by orders of their donors. They had wrangled not out of principle but for grandstanding or to make deals regarding other matters).
That was better for the oligarchs - but the oligarchs remembered the Ross Perot campaign, so there was a threat that a pro workers candidate could get into power later. So they still held back the large investments. Until Bush signed the Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China (PNTR) beginning 2002, then the dam broke.
Then the LOW import tariffs became permanent and no government could (easily) undo them - then it had become safe for big biz to invest the hundreds of millions.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Free market does not work for healthcare. Exhibit A: the U.S. - for profits have been around for a while, they had their chance to shine (since Nixon, before that it was not legal to make a profit, of course there were too many non-profits that also added unnecessary admin costs for the insurers and the providers)
Exhibit B: Switzerland. Cost control does not work well.
They are the other wealthy nation that relies on private insurance coverage only. the U.S. has 10,260 USD spending per person (2017 Kaiser), Switzerland 78 % of that, the overwhelming majority of other wealthy countries is in the range of 49 - 54 % of the U.S. spending per person.
4 continents, many countries, cultures, lifestyles and risks (diet, alcohol, cigarettes), age of population.
70 years (most countries implemented or adjusted after WW2).
No free market. Single payer ! There is no system relying on private insurers) that that could beat them, it is not even close.
The Swiss have at least good services, they pay staff well, insurers cannot play games, deny accepting a client * or treatment etc. - so that is what you get with "good" regulation and many for-profit players.
They MUST have a basic offer, the government determines "basic", and they must offert that a the same price for everyone in that age bracket.
"insurance" is admin and negotiations regarding healthcare, so how much can you innovate in that ? Especially with the basic packages (so that people with preexisting conditions have no disadvantage, they cannot cherrypick their pool). With that package they cannot even do product differentiation (not that it makes much sense for extras either to differentiate). So there are only costs but not more value for consumers to have so many different companies that make offers.
If that many companies make cars or garments or household applieances you also have the costs of diversity, but the reward is an interesting range of products. For consumer preferences. Which does not come into play with medical treatments.
Consumers can decide NOT to BUY consumer goods and even improvise around more essential things (living with the parents, car pool, starting college later. If they can't afford to rent or the car repair).
But they cannot avoid having healthcare services. And in most cases they cannot even WAIT (usually it gets worse if you wait).
If you are not really rich getting the necessary care - or not - depends on the insurance coverage. = being de facto forced to buy insurance. In the U.S. there is nothing but too expensive insurance.
Versus: mandated modest payroll tax that gives FULL coverage in a single payer system
With single payer, resp. M4A no worries about coverage or "what is covered" (Well, all that is worthy of a first world medical system and that changes all the time anyway).
No unexpected costs LATER.
And a LOT of co-fighters who have the exact SAME coverage (or lack therof) and who also have the vote. LOTS of political leverage because people are united in a very important issue.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Jinx Mim No one (with any knowldege not even informed lay persons) said the Novel Corona virus would wipe out humanity. The European infections savaged the natives but some survivied - can be only 5 or 10 %, but they were not "wiped out".
Mankind has gone through bottlenecks before (it shows in the humane genome, for instance 70,000 years ago - it must have been climate change likely caused by volcanic outbreaks. Sulphure high up in the atmosphere dims the sunlight. (see in the 19th century the year w/o summer that was caused when either Tambora or Krakatau happened). Had impact on the global weather, temperature and agriculture for a few years.
That may lasts only for 5 - 10 years - but that can be enough, if it is draughts and what not and the change comes FAST - so animals (prey) cannot adapt or people cannot continue with agriculture and do not have enough water so they have to give up settlements and cities. Farming is only around for 12,000 years so the hunter / gatherers were hit by lack of rain and the migration patterns of their prey changed, resp. the animals died.
The European population survived the different waves of The Plague, and the Spanish Flu in the last 1000 years. Diphteria and whooping cough killed a lot of children under 4 (bad for everyone but especially bad for children).
The spread of SARS-CoV-2 if left unchecked would cause a terrible death toll and at some point there would be enough immunity that it would fade away. Like the Spanish Flu. It does not matter if the mortality rate is only 0,1 % or whatever the realistic number is, when you count in the undetected mild or asymptomatic cases. If there are so many undetected cases it means the damn thing is also more contagious.
If it can spread like wildfire a lower death rate does not save you, the explosive growth in case numbers more than compensates for a lower realistic death and complication rate.
Have a few billion people infected and there will be plenty of dead and so many cases with (very severe) complications than even first world nations can handle in hospitals (see Italy, they have more hospital beds per 1000 people than the U.S.)
There would be economic damage anyway - people would avoid shopping and holidays even w/o official lockdown. Those who can would homeschool.
Novel coronavirus after globally 50 - 100 million people dead, and terrible scenes in hospitals and a lot of dead nurses and doctors. After 1 - 2 years it would have run its course - but there is a good chance it would come back in form of another mutation.
But like with the flu then there is some basic immunity that can help even if the strain has mutated, it can help to slow spread down even if the formerly aquired immunity does not fully work or that fades. And in 2 - 3 years it should be possible to have a vaccine as backup.
So whom of your parents or elderly relatives, friends would you see as disposeable.
And if you are over 50 do not feel to safe. It can kill you too (or you are left with lasting health damage).
I think the Spanish flue cost 50 milion lefes and lasted 2 years. It hit people under 40 harder, many children died of it too. Have you seen the film Awakenings ? (I think those patients were long term victims of the Spanish Flu). Did not happen often, but it did - and these are public health costs as well. People being like zombies for the rest of their life.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Union negotiated healthcare insurance is STILL overpriced, even companies like Microsoft pay way too much. No union, government employer or private employer can match the negotiating power of a single payer health insurance agency (in the U.S. Medicare). Medicare is good already (low administrative overhead) - if they would let them ! They can't even negotiate drug prices. And since funding is not enough (that is easily cured, tax the rich and DO fund them sufficiently), the eldery have to buy Medicare Advantage packages to have really good comprehensive coverage.
That is bad enough (disadvantage for the poor) - but to make things worse these upgrades are NOT handled by Medicare but the insured are forced to buy them from a private for profit insurance company (which have much higher administrative costs).
Medicare in its current form has the most expensive group of insured (over 65) - so the private insurers already have a cherrypicked pool.
healthcare spending for elderly persons is very disproportionate, the most spending happens in old age.
The unions would need to figure out a way to transfer those savings of the company into higher wages - I am sure they would rise to the occasion ;)
Companies would still profit, because it is much easier to administrate. Payroll deductions (they are mandatory), one monthly payment. Done.
Signing up of a new employee takes 5 minutes , of course no healthcare questions. And dependent family members are automatically included (one of the parents or spouses will give the the employer name and SS number and the secratary that makes the announcement to the insurance agency enters them as "included in coverage").
That's how it works where I currently live (Austria), 54 % of spending of the U.S. per person (in the U.S. it was USD 10,260 in 2017). Almost all wealthy nations are in the range of 49 - 54 % of the U.S. spending per person.
The costs for the U.S. employers are not double (because the most expenisve segment, the elderly are not covered by the private insurers), but they still pay too much.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The idealism and enthusiasm of the base were not squandered. Deflating it was a feature not a bug. - The job of Obama on behalf of the big donors (who ALSO finance the Republicans) was to DEFLATE the energy of the grassroots, and to distract. As soon as he was in power.
In a weird twist the tantrums and the ugly racism of Republicans helped him cover up his neoliberal actions (it became clear immediately when his cabinet choices - well the choices from the list of names citibank sent to the campaign on Oct. 2008).
The base rallied behind him no questions asked (especially those who were not evicted while he was busy bailing out the banksters).
A long drawn out, weak, industry friendly health insurance reform to deflate the base.
His reaction on police brutality was also weak - why would he bother, the big donors do not like the masses to be restless and the president confirming that they have good reason for their grief and anger would go against that..
2006: Midterms, Blue wave (and the Great Financial Cisis had not even manifested).
2008 sensational Obama campaign and win
2010 lost midterms, after 2 years in which Obama intentionally abstained from turning to the base for support to put pressure on Corporate Dems and Republicans. The most import obstacle was Obama, the resistance of elected representatives could have overcome. FDR made some Democrats fall in line. Stage one: threaten them behind closed doors that he would campaign against them, so they would lose their seats. he did not have to escalate further.
Many of his 2008 coalition returned to pre 2008 apathy
2012 Obama won, but it was not so certain, and Hurricane Sandy (and Mitt Romney's 47 % remark) may have helped him over the finish line
2014 midterms lost AGAIN
The big donors of Obama (he got a lot of money from Wallstreet in 2008, and it showed) do not like the grassroots. If the unwashed masses wake up, ORGANIZE and march, who knows what could happen. A president using the grassroots could put the fear into the shills in Congress and Senate - or get a Congress and Senate elected, that is cooperative.
People were not too dumb to vote AGAIN in the midterms, 2010 - they understood - at leas at the gut level - Hope and Change would not happen, not for them.
Many people liked Obama as person, they did not follow politics closely enough to realize to what extent he sold them out - but they sensed nothing would change. So they stayed home in 2010, or voted Republican.
Trump won 670 or 690 counties that had voted once or twice for Obama.
(on the other hand Clinton picked up less than 5 counties that Obama had never carried - but she lost the other 670 or 690).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Nope, she had a short appearance early on in the race of bloomberg (for the charity for which she got the money), and at least did not sell access for cheap (it is about voter registration, which IS a big issue in Georgia).
5,5 mill are not a lot for Bloomberg, but she got more than the DNC (at least then !).
She did not endorse Bloomberg.
I'll give her a pass on the Bloomberg donation, he did not get a lot for those 5,5 million.
She is at least a fighter, an uncommon feature for a Democrat.
If only Sanders had courted her to get her endorsement. This lady may have reduced the gap in South Carolina. She could have campaigned there while Sanders was stuck in the Senate in January, and busy in the early states in February.
I think she may not have declared allegience though, she knew she might be considered by Bloomberg, Biden or Sanders. The time to do this would have been January before it was clear how Sanders would fare in the early states.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
please go to info@berniesanders.com and beg the campaign so that Sanders does NOT play the surrogate FOR Biden. People like the ideas of Sanders, "but later, now it is time to beat Trump". * They vote for Biden over Sanders because they think
Joe is a) a nice guy and b) he is BETTER or well able to beat Trump.
Sanders CONFIRMS THAT he did so several times in recent days (Joe is my friend, and yes he can beat Trump, of course he can).
It is not even true. And Sanders goes OUT OF HIS WAY to "endorse" Biden. It is like he is self-sabotaging. Fear of being successful comes to mind.
Sanders has given several interviews recently where he decisively confirms that Biden CAN beat Trump. (Ari Melber or Jack Tapper)
* I come from an Ari Melber clip On the beat in Queens, that is what the nice older voters say. Bernie has good ideas but for now it must be Biden because he can beat Trump.
as if that would be the same: beating Trump is a point in time, and if the ideas of Sanders are good that should help with winning, especially since Biden has no policies.
Then AFTER having won, (some) of the good ideas are implemented.
That is not the same and it is not mutually exclusive.
I very much dispute that Biden can beat Trump unless the economy tanks completely. Biden is likely in cognitive decline, at the minimum he has much less stamina than Sanders, he does a light schedule, many "gaffes", not to mention how much BAGAGGE Biden has.
Sanders should say: I am better because I have proven myself in a rigorous LONG campaign, and there are many issues where I can drag Trump, but Biden can't go there or worse will be attacked by Trump - the most important issues bein - Iraq war, and trade deals.
Plus family corruption, the Biden family made hundreds of millions.
Biden is status quo regarding healthcare and NO cuts in pharma costs - issues that are important for voters.
(Obama / Biden could have reigned in pharma in 2009 / 2010 already, Sanders is not going to say THAT, Obama is taboo, but it will be the reason why Biden would not bring that up, but Sanders could kick Trump on it, with ads and on the debate stage.
Pharma prices are the low hanging fruit if an admin EVER would be willing to serve the citizens and not the donors.
In the end debates between Biden and Trump would be about petty stuff, how Trump is mean (not enough voters care), insults (and Trump is better at that). Trump's family has as much profited from nepotism as Biden's so either they avoid that, or it becomes a mud slinging contest that turns people off.
Sanders could kick Trump on that, what is Trump going to say in return to him: that he has 3 houses ? (1 nice in Burlington, one old fashioned vacation home at the lake, and a duplex in D.C.)
Trump didn't hold his promise regarding healthcare. THAT should sway some of his supporters (or keep them at home).
There are studies: People that lean to the right do not react well to appeals on empathy (so the separated children are not a reason for them to not vote for Trump, also no empathy for dreamers, at least not enough to overcome their perceived self interest).
But right wingers appreciate holding promises and LOYALTY.
Sanders CAN hit Trump on that, Biden can't
ALSO: Sanders IS the stronger debater.
2
-
2
-
Why would it matter NOW how much herd immunity is needed ? No one is going to ration production of vaccines whether he estimates that 65 or 85 % are needed. Krystal is wrong on that (and no it was NOT Dr. Fauci that ever said masks worn by the public could even be harmful. (there were considerations if people would be less attentive to not touching their faces or washing hands. That was not an unreasonable consideration. An aceademic anyway. If only a part of the population that can buy up the masks can wear them, while healthcare workers do not get them, the effect of mask wearing in the general population is lost. You have to have high compliance numbers to get even the modest effects we have now.
And no - the public was not going to be rational. At all.
Remember toilet paper craze ??
In what alternative reality would that be ?? Not in the U.S. with the Trump presidency. And Biden getting the nomination of the Democratic party.
Maybe voters were set up by decades of FOX New, the education system, and also the scare araound Ebola in 2013 (making money with fear mongering and disinformation)
Remember tobacco, the War on Drugs, being anti gun regulation, denying evolution, global warming and pushing abstinence as sex ed.
Yes, that America !
Rachel is correct that the public (riled up and sadly also by segments like this) will not trust. Because they have no nuance, are not factual and do not care about insights or fact checking. It is completely irrelevant if Fauci SAYS that 60 or 90 % herd immunity are needed. We can have mass rollout for all (first shot) in spring and still no one can know for sure. In one or two years (after scientists did the assessments AFTER the fact) we can know.
Important: he was one of the few people that could contradict Trump (ever so politely) and not get fired. He always maintained how important it was to get a vaccine. behind the scenes that may have translated to the admin directing budgets to developers and ordering vaccines (even though it is not clear that will be a good enough vaccine or even work at all). It means as soon as it is greenlighted they have the production ready to go.
One criteria for a full success story: a high participation of the population as soon as it is available for all. We still do not know how effective the vaccines (one of the 4 that are in the most advanced stages) will be. For the general population. Not the test subjects (still a cherry picked group - for ethical reasons they must start out with young and healthy persons, so the results for them can be expected to be better).
We would like to have 80 - 85 % herd immunity. Yeah, if we are lucky.
It works like that: one can hope for a vaccine (several vaccines) that achieve good results (over 90 % of those who get both shots are protected and it does not wear off soon) and governments must try to have as many people participate in the vaccination as possible - ideally well over 90 %. With some luck that could mean that the virus can be eradicted. if people do not get the vaccination in sufficient numbers or if the virus mutates like the flu virus (I do not think it does) or if the vaccines are less effective than the tests let us hope - then we will have to make do with fairly good protection. Which is still much better than the current situation.
It does not matter what the pharma companies SAY how effective their vaccines are. The studies and tests are an indicator, but since they start the tests with young and healthy persons, the response of the general population could be less positive.
One factor to influence the outcome is the messaging, encouraging the population to get the shots as soon as they can have them. Which Dr. Fauci tries to do.
Well, they badmouth him for his efforts, and pick on statements that have no influence on the research, the break through with the vaccines, do not hinder rollout or production.
Just being petty for the sake of it.
Of course with the public being positive * - he tried to ride that wave and to nudge the population to get the shots. As any good public health servant would do.
And instead people are petty, w/o nuance and hypercritical.
* or at least they should be - never mind pandemic fatigue - finally good news, with some luck it will get much better in spring already, in summer it is likely over.
Dr. Fauci never said masks could be even negative. The truth is they are not especially effective. They can't tell the public either. (Healthcare workers have more exposure to risk AND likely are more professional in wearing them correctly = with a tight fit). Even if the masks worn by the general population only prevent 5 % of infections * it is still worth the trouble to make the public wear them (as soon as healthcare workers have them). Good luck with explaining that to the riled up citizens. Riled up by this admin and cynical politicians.
Mask wearing has some, but little effect. It is the least disruptive of several inadequate measures. Lockdown is effective in controlling the spread, but there is the economic and social fallout. The best way to control a pandemic is to have a vaccine, the 2nd best is to have a highly effective treatment.
We had neither, so we had to make do wit the imperfect measures (and can't sneer at them because of their limited efficacy. Even measures that prevent "only" 5 or 10 % of infections are crucial if you have no good tools available.)
So as soon as the supply of masks for the people that needed them the most (medical staff) was secured, dr. Fauci advocated for all wearing masks. It is not the fault of Dr. Fauci that production was outsourced and that there were not sufficient stocks, and not even preparation in late winter when it became evident this was going to be bad.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I think Trump tries to create some unrest by casting doubt on the legitimacy of the elections, in order to have leverage over the incoming Biden admin, so they will NOT sue him. And his goons help him (mail voting becomeing more widespread following the precedence set in the pandemic) would be very bad news for the Republican party. - The IRS will be going after him (even if that only means he has to pay them money, he is broke !). The only hotel / club that made money is Mar-A-Lago, and he trippled fees after he became president. That is going to dry up. He is so incompetent that he loses money on his hotels, and real estate.
I also assume that his taxes will be published (with no repercussions on the leakers) as soon
He may have laundered money for Russian oligarchs. After his billion dollar (almost) bankrupcy, the banks did not give him any money. The U.S. or European banks !
A New York columnist says he raped her years ago. Then she was advised to not go against him, but she kept the garment with his semen on it. AND she told a few close friends immediately. And those friends are alive. She is wealthy and well established in New York, so the she-is-in-it-for-the-money will not hold. And the friends she told are alive.
I am sure that there are plenty of people who would finance her lawsuit.
Trump is broke. Oh, and Deutsche Bank is going after him seizing his assets.
DB and Trump had some shady stuff going on, so the Trump admin could investigate that. Now Biden is a servant of Big Finance, so likely he would not touch those banksters anymore than Obama touched them. (DB has a LOT of shady stuff going on, not only with Trump, and they are big donors. So neither party is likely to touch them. A Sanders admin might have gone after them).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Larry Wilkerson Chief of Staff to Colin Powell: Obama might have risked being assassinated if he had chosen an anti-war, anti deep state stance. source - scroll down
*
Wilkerson: ...If I call President Obama for anything, it was his
timidity, and his lack of courage. His lack of courage with respect to
politics, and his lack of courage with respect to particularly his last
three years in office. Where I know from talking with him personally,
talking with him in the Roosevelt Room, that he understood. He said [to
me] there was a bias in this town towards war, with his Secretary of
State sitting beside him. He said quote : "There's a bias in this town
towards war" unquote. Well, he went on for another 20 minutes to
elaborate on that.
Well, Mr. President if you knew that - why didn't you start doing
something about it ? I mean, he could have done a lot more, if he'd had
the political courage to do it ..... I think it's because, first you get
trapped in that environment, and you want to make lots of money, and
you wanna be very happy, and you wanna be very satisfied when you leave
that office, especially if you're as young as he is.
And you realize that if you start these fights, if you start these
battles, not only might you be assassinated, you're probably going to
leave without anything like the dignity, and the honor, and the
emoluments, and the fortune that he left with.
And I don't say that lightly, that's a very difficult decision to make,
when you stand up for principle, when you stand up for the country, when
you are a true patriot, you usually are punished, not rewarded.
* It is at 5 : 10 of the interview - I posted that part of the interview as full transcript (I shortened it here) in the youtube comment section under the video. The Real News always embed the youtube video on their site and they often offer a transcript on their site as well but not in this case.
I am always very interested what Wilkerson has to say on foreign policy. I found that statement remarkable. (So it is not just me with the tinfoil hat on ?....)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMO4o5nRGQs
Wilkerson: Practically Everyone Opposes Trump's Reversal of Obama's Cuba Opening, the video is from June 2017
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@davidcase1286 If all that migration, differences in age, levels of wages **, lifestyle (diet, alcohol, cigarettes) produce some difference in SPENDING, but in a relatively narrow range - and on the other hand the U.S. as much younger nation has DOUBLE the spending - what does that tell you ?
** Japan, Denmark, Sweden, .. have high cost of living. That translates to higher wages for qualified staff like nurses, doctors. And wages are an important factor for healthcare spending.
The explanations to spend a little more or less and for legitimate differences, are DWARFED by the dysfunction and waste if the private insurance companies (and also for-profit hospitals) are allowed to play a role in the system.
The less private insurance there is in a country the better, even too much supplemental is a sure sign there the public insurance agency is underfunded to pay sufficient rates for comprhensive and good care or to pay for ALL treaments. Or there would be no need for supplemental insurance in the first place.
Even then it leads to higher costs and unfairness (not as bad as in the U.S. though). A mild version of 2 class medical system develops.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Bluebelle51 the Freedom Caucus (Tea partiers) dragged the Republican party during the Obama years (one would wish the Squad would show 50 % of that fierceness with their party leadership). They cost Boehner (a normie Republican) the last nerve. Showing fierce boldness and not giving a damn is easier to pull off when you do not care about the wellbeing of the voters. (and being selfish is part of your ideology and you find it easy to be an a$$hole).
They had no qualms to force a government shutdown, to lie about ACA (it is bad, but not that bad) etc.
To be fair: they got some negative press, but it is NOTHING like the shitstorm that progessives would get if THEY ever would cause that. After all is said and done the Tea partiers are also financed by the big donors (the same that make sure also to bribe Democrats and normie Republicans). Corporate media is not going to have an ongoing crusade against them.
But they will have a looooong crusade against Progressives on much lesser charges. Let alone being ostructionist to extort concessions from a very unwilling "leadership". then they would go after them for real because then they would become a danger.
Obama put Social Security on the table as bargaining chip *, to get an infrastructure bill with 60 votes after he had won the reelection. The Tea partiers forced their party to forego the golden opportunity.
Republicans (with the notable exception of Eisenhower) had opposed the concept of Social Security since the 1930s. So here they had the opportunity to undermine it (abolishing it would not fly politcally) - and their rabid wing was so hellbent on not letting the Obama admin have successes that they could not take the neoliberarls on the offer.
Many Democrats had objections anyway (Sanders started organizing against it), it is not clear the D party could have kept the offer alive, but the Republican party could not even seriously consider it - because of the rabid resistance of the Tea Party wing.
The word being: rabid. That fierceness is harder to pull off if you care about constituents.
* I guess they would have weakened SS for the future which is not tangible for voters and young voters do not vote in sufficient numbers anyway. But the infrastructure bill would have had immediate and positive results. So also good for those up for election in the 2014 midterms.
After Republicans signalled no support for the infrastructure bill, Democrats tried to pass a rule change that would have allowed them to get a bill passed with a simple majority (they had the majority for that, at least in theory). In fall 2013. Joe Manchin (in Senate since 2010) and two other Senators posing as Democrats refused to go along.
Obama let Lieberman and a few other Senators with a D to their name kill the Public Option in 2009 (that was sold with help of media as: "We did not have the votes"- glossing over WHICH votes they missed, so the low information base could suffer from the impression, Republican votes would have been needed).
I think those defectors were gladly tolerated if not welcomed, Obama likely was glad they did not have to keep the campaign promise (big donors really did not want the public option) and Lieberman and a few like him took one for the D team. Likewise Biden was probably (secretly) happy to see the resistance of "conservative" Democrats against the 15 USD minimum wage till 2025.
But I am sure the Obama admin wanted the infrastructure bill. Likely a lot of favors for donors and kickbacks would have been possible. Usually Republicans are not opposed to that either.
Anyway: Obama and Biden, and Schumer are so feckless that they did not even drag Manchin and the 2 others for blocking something that they really wanted.
If Progressives had pulled such a stunt maybe to extract concessions or to force more green investment (likely it hurt the Democrats in the 2014, even 2016 election) - Corporate media and the party leadership would not have graciously glossed over it.
2
-
I saw an interview with Naomi Klein (Democracy Now Feb. 2021, they talked about the lies about the Texas blackouts, too). She said that Milton Friedman said: in a crisis it matters whose ideas are floating around. Klein: it is important that progessive ideas are floating around, so they cannot overwhelm the population when the next crisis hits. (paraphrased). The likes of AOC and Sanders have changed the discussion, even if they are too weak to drag the party, they still render an important service.
Usually the oligarchs act on: Never let a good crisis go to waste.
They learned in the 1930s, they had to bide their time but they pushed the idea of neoliberal economics, and worked on changing and framing the debate about economics. With thought stopping clichés.
That term is used for cults, but it applies also to terms used in economics. Free market, choice, competition, capitalism, freedom, these are words that are thrown around. People do not think it through (it does not hold up).
Economics as social "science" is soft science at best. But with economics we have a situation like in the movie groundhog day. No matter how many times they rise the minimum wage, invariably they will paint doom and gloom scenarios and invariably they will not come true.
Reality does not count and the claims are not impacted by facts or past experiences, and slogans are used to "settle the debate" in cults and in neoliberal economics.
Economics has been a tool of domination for a long time. In dictatorial monarchies (or republics) they could force certain economics on people. Brute force costs a lot of resources, so they prefered mind control even then, and people resigning themselves to the sitution. Organized religion helped with that: God had made the world like this, the monarch had his authority from god, and the peasants thad to obey.
That line of reasoning does not work anymore. Now it is the invisible hand of the market. Anonymous "market forces" have replaced the "will of god". As tool of propaganda.
Now the peasants have the vote. they could demand the minimum wage if they would be sure it does not cost jobs, ruin small businesses, or increase inflation substantially.
Sanders has changed the discussion on M4A - depite the resistance of mainstream media and the establishement of both parties. That is a huge ! accomplishment.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
In Germany there was a wealth tax even on NORMAL homeowners, it did not have to be a mansion, nor were these RICH people. Loans were offered for that - because people did not have money (which was devalued anyway) or other assets they could have used to pay the extra solidarity tax. (solidarity with those who had lost their home to bombs, or they were refugees, who had to leave a region and lost all property there (Czechia, Poland, also Romania which had a German speaking minority that was exposed to hostility).
After some years a part of these loans was forgiven, the economy had recovered enough to make that TAX unnecessary. That was the reason for offering the loan, you cannot bite off a house, if you live in it, you might not even be able to rent it out.
I remember Dirk Mueller saying that his grandmother sewed till late into the night, so she could pay the installments and could hold the house for the family. Now, they may have made concessions for families with smaller children, who lived in the home.
If they had space they were ordered to take in refugees, until the government created provisory and then permanent housing for them.
They did not invonvenience the STILL rich people too much (and still rich meant they had routinely, glady or enthusiastically cooperated with the Nazis), the Conservative government then leaned HEAVILY on the middle class, those had already their fortunes in gold, jewels had it transfered to another place already.
Those who had a shop, manufacturing shop or plant or inherited it (or a farm), were not bothered.
Now, they could not have paid any tax and were important elswhere.
As you can imagine having a farm then was a good thing, they always had enough food, they could make some money under the table (although that too profited more those who had larger farms.
If the loyalists to the Nazi regime had stocks of things (I do not means shares) or manufacturing equipment which was not seized - it often was in the Soviet occupied zone - they were ready to go in the new REAL economy. And were set up to be the winners againt. That much for "inequality".
Having a lot of money in form of German Mark was not important then (they had a reform and the money lost its value, AGAIN. The rich Nazi collaborators no doubt had ways to get money in form of another currency into countries like Switzerland.
One "entrepreneur" controlled the supply of garments, there were quotas, who much the population could buy. Then he hid the supplies towards the end of war in a cave, so he seized what was public property (they got these textiles with the help of the Nazi government and he was supposed to distribute them in a fair manner to the other citizens) - and then started over once the war had ended.
The Allied Forces usually did not lay a finger on those crooks, even if they had used forced labor from other countries (people kidnapped for instance from Poland, or worse from concentration camps).
Well the Soviets were known to shot Nazi collaborators, but not in the other areas, the capitalists from the sider of the winners, propped up the other capitalists).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
No opting out ! from the payroll tax - that would be the public option. It means that some choose * to have full coverage by private insurance and others have full Medicare coverage (or the single payer agency that they are assigned to).
* In reality the insurance companies make that choice in the way they make the offers, the patients they do not want get a prohibitively high offer.
btw no nation does that on a large scale - neighbour country Germany has the "public option with the opt-out of the privilged". The allowe the "choice" for affluent citizens (and certain professions that can be expecete to have a good, safe and rising income) to have full coverage by private insurers.
That results in cherrypicking of course. And some (minor) distortions and inefficiencies. That is more a historic relic (when the system was founded in 1884 a two-class society was taken for granted, after WW2 right governments doing favors for private insurance companies, doctors and affluent citizens. Private insurers playing more of a role in the system does not make the system better, more cost-efficient or fairer.
In Germany only 10 % of the population have full private coverage - so they enjoy the benchmark and the protection of the 90 % (what must be covered, inflation rate in medical services). When the population takes good healthcare for granted the private insurers cannot play games with the privately insured when it comes to coverage (never mind many lawyers are among the inusred).
Public option with the possibility to opt out allows the private insurance companies to cherrypick.
A point that is often overlooked: public option / opting out undermines solidarity among the population. That means less political leverage for sufficient funding. and less corrective forces if the agency does not put the budgets to good use.
Nothing like having the affluent citizens use the same system as the low(er) income people to make sure the system is cost-efficient AND good quality.
With the Sanders plan a person can go to a doctor that does not have a contract with Medicare and pay out of pocket (but no insurance coverage, duplicative coverage is outlawed).
If almost all providers (doctors, hospitals) accept the public contract and services are good (and that is a question of reasonable funding) patients will almost always use the services free at the point of delivery.
The mandate (another very important pillar of the reform) makes them pay in form of payroll taxes, the very wealthy additionally contribute with general (wealth or higher income) taxes - they can as well use what they pay for.
The rich will have their out of pocket private doctors of course - but in well run single payer systems the affluent and regular citizens meet in the ER or use the same hospitals where they get the exact same treatment (provided they have the same medical scenario).
The public non-profit insurance agency can keep it simple (no marketing, sales staff, profits - which even ethically acting for-profit insurers have).
The agency hase task to collect the contributions, negotiate rates and pay the bills, plus thinking about preventive care, software solutions - all public non-profit agencies on the planet have figured that out - the private insurers simply cannot compete.
If for-profit insurers have a role it is because governments were doing them favors (always with higher costs) or it is a developing countriy with minimal basic coverage and the affluent buy the upgrades. (Thailand has a universal system, but I assume there are differences and not all patients are "created equal").
If a service / treatment / drug is covered by Medicare For All the private insurers are not allowed to offer coverage for it (under the Sanders proposal). Private insurance is not outlawed - it is made obsolete. With a package of coverage that is good and comprehensive..
No duplicative coverage.
So only out of pocket paymments for doctors that do not have a contract with the agency (which is a deterrent for patients and also for doctors - they have to chase payments or always ask for upfront payment).
Almost all other candidates that are still in the debates have a fake Medicare for xx proposal that is a variety of public option. That is no coincidence: it is plan B of the insurers now. They know some change will come, and that is their best bet to keep a significant share of the "market". The public option (that allows some to opt out) offers them the best chances to undermine any meaningful reform. (and it is easy to deceive the public, giving more "choice" seems innocent, a little tweak of Medicare for all).
90 % of spending in healthcare is caused by 10 % of the insured. The insurance companies in other countries have healthcare more as a fringe issue (supplemental for the most part, especially if for some historic reason things like basic dental are not covered. Typically the private insurance covers the services of specialists, they are not interested in the expensive stuff like surgery in hospitals).
These insurance companies do not have the hordes of beancounters. It would not warrant the costs. Also: if they are fringe players the chance to maintain ! regulation is much better.
Not so in the U.S.: the for-profit insurance companies are predators, they have the Art Of The Purge perfectioned. And the lobbyists and professional gaslighers are already at work ! (Warren was the last to backtrack from genuine single payer)
With a public option the young and healthy would get offers that seem to be reasonably priced (but are anything but - considering the cherrypicked pool).
All the patients with higher risks or costs will land with Medicare. Which is stuck with much higher spending.
Currently the Medicare agency already has the most costly group over 65 years, so the private insurers in the U.S. already have a cherrypicked pool. Likewise Medicare is not allowed to negotiate drug prices - but private insurers could (they have no interest though).. They had the opportunity to shine with the advantage that was handed to them - and look hat they made of it.
2
-
Less efficient use of the funding by for profit insurers is systemic (even if they are honest). They always need higher budgets and on top there are incentives to game the system and they bring higher complexity into the admin.
As for wrong incentives because of profit: The range is from some tolerable distortions (Germany, ….) to considerably higher costs but at least good services (Switzerland) to predatory and ruthless behavior in the U.S.
If the opt out is possible the for-profit INSURERS WILL CHERRYPICK and the public agency has to deal with the most costly partients. It will be easy to badmouth it and to defund it (even though Medicare puts the budgets to much better use, less than 3 % overhead versus 20 %, much simpler admin and better negotiated rates).
ALL healthcare insurers (non-profit agenies or for-profit companies) are middlemen and with that service (healthcare) the public non-profits without exception beat the heck out of the private for-profit actors - everywhere on the globe.
The single payer agency has almost an monopoly and allows for a very streamlined admin and clarity (as opposed to countless insurance packages, no clarity who has what coverage and with or without co-payments). It covers ALL that is necessary from a medical point of view, so no deductibles, ideally basic dental is covered as well, etc.
Monopolies screw consumers if they are for profit, but as a non-profit they act for the benefit of the insured (which are the much weaker market participants in healthcare). That may seem "unfair" to doctors who more or less have to accept the contract even if they would prefer to work with private insurers which pay them higher rates.
- but the patients also do not have a choice - so there goes the "fairness" argument
With consumer products the citizens have the most important of all choices: to not buy at all - they do not have that power with healthcare.
U.S. doctors (at least a part of them especially specialists) have a higher income than doctors in most other wealthy. Sure first they have to pay back the high costs of medical school. - which is free in most other nations. But even so - over lifetime they make much more money. (Of course U.S. doctors with their own practice have to finance the staff for the insane red tape and billing, and spend 3 weeks per year on the phone with insurance companies).
On the other hand the doctors in other weatlhy countries are still doing fine (much less red tape and they hardly ever have to contact the agency to get clearance for a procedure. That is very rare).
It will be a political / societal decision if U.S. doctors (at least some of them, typically specialists with their own practice) continue to get those higher incomes (financed with the revenue from Medicare).
In that case Medicare will need higher budgets so they can pay the higher rates. And the spending per person will not get to the level of other wealthy nations - but at least it will not be as ridiculously overpriced as now
The American Medical Association has of course made sure that only a restricted number of doctors graduate and there are many hurdles to accept the certification of doctors from other countries. So they kept the "prices" high and competition down. (AMA was also fiercly opposed to Medicare in the 1960s, they almost prevented it)
The almost monopoly of a non-profit public healthcare insurance ageny means:
very streamlined admin, simple billing because there is only ONE insurer and one kind of coverage ("Single Payer"). The always achieve lower rates for doctors and hospitals compared to the many private insurers. But the doctors and hospitals save on administrative staff as well. Which is one of the downsides of public option as one of the many insurers (even if they are not predators like in the U.S.) it squanders the cost savings of a very streamlined admin.
Most of the doctors (if they are not capacities in their field or offer a speciality like accupuncture) must accept the contract of Medicare. Else they would not have enough patients. No duplicative coverage: if Medicare covers something then the private insurers are not allowed to offer insurance for it. That restricts the private insurers to the fringes where they belong (for healthcare !).
2
-
Healthcare is unusual - the mechanisms of "free market" do not apply. At. All ! (same with natural monopolies btw). - Single payer nations removed the profit motive from situations that are complex. (Complexity always helps the profiteers to sneak in profits, and to game the system - at least a little bit. And it even allows for predatory behavior: Regulators cannot help to contain that, they would have to monitor EVERY medical situation resp. decisicion, which would be very costly and intrusive).
Single payer nations removed the profit motive from situations that are complex. If the doctors have no pressure (to withhold treatments or to apply without necessity) and the system is set up with proper funding they will do the right thing to the best of their professional knowledge.
So doctors will tend the broken bone with the adequate care which might be simple if it is an uncomplicated break - and are free to ramp it up if there are complications. (And they never ask the public insurer for permission, the agency only sets the framework for the doctors to make the decisions and have the necessary tools).
One of the most important reasons why healthcare is a terrible fit for the free market:
In a free market all participants must have about the same power. - "Choice" is meaningless, the consumers cannot _choose to NOT have healthcare, _and the complexity is such that even doctors consult other experts if they need treatment. The consumers have a massive information disadvantage. Medicine is complex and billing and contracts can be MADE complex to put consumers at a disadvantage.
With healthcare all humans have the same needs, and healthcare (the admin incl. "insurance" and the delivery of medical services) is very standardized.
Product differentiation (be it in the insurance part which is ONLY admin ! or the delivery) does not make sense. So profit does nothing to make better healthcare available for the patients - and therefore it makes no sense to make for-profit insurers the gatekeepers. Rich people can always pay out of pocket, but for the overwhelming majority the insurer (non-profit, or for-profit) will be the gatekeeper to getting medical services.
Likewise non-profit hospitals will always beat for-profit hospitals. Certainly in 99,9 % of the cases regarding general care. There may be very ! rare exceptions, but I think many of the prestigious clinics (some of them in the U.S.) that are on the forefront of ground breaking surgery, cancer treatments, research are private non-profits anyway. When it is basic research there is a very good chance they get public funding.
For services that are a good fit for the free market (so not healthcare ! or natural monopolies) it makes sense to have very differentiated products. And profit is the reward for entrepreneurs to cater to those NICHES. There is the need for marketing and a sales staff etc. - but for THOSE products it is necessary so that the consumers "find" the product. These costs are necessary expenditures for the variety of offers.
.
Consumers have different needs, preferences and we accept that not all can afford the same.
What would be the basic version of a life saving surgery versus a gold-plated one ? What is the basic version of adequate care for a uncomplicated broken bone versus a luxury version ? Even a rich person would not want to have unnecessary X-rays and surgery (never mind what their insurer could be deceived to pay based on their platinum plan). On the other hand there could be cases where a seemingly harmless break needs more medical intervention than usual.
The incentive to sell more (typical for not necessary consumer products) would be toxic in healthcare. Marketing is not necessary. If people need surgery you do not have to convince them that they want it.
Profit does not help to make healthcare better, the less for-profit there is in a system the better. Theoretical condiserations and obersation confirm that - the U.K. has the lowest spending per person on healthcare for any wealthy ! nation. 42 % of the U.S. spending per person, versus 50 - 54 % for most (the range is 47 - 56 % and outlier Switzerland that relies on private insurers only with 78 %. The base is U.S. spending per person in 2017 of USD 10,260).
The U.S. does not have "single payer" they took it one step further. Germany was on the frontier in 1884 (but as often the case the early adopters have some quirks and live with them if they are not too bad). The U.K. did good in 1947, they learned from the experiences.
The NHS has been defunded for the last 10 years (and they had a lean but sufficient budget to begin with).
Plus post-war U.K. did not include basic dental, so needless to say that is expensive.
.
But if the NHS had sufficient funding (putting the UK still among the wealthy nations with the lowest spending per person) the NHS would run like a charm.
But then there would not be any pretext why there should be a (partial) privatization. The Tories have been hostile towards the NHS since its foundation in 1947. They just had to become more sneaky about it because all voters love it. Most wealthy nations spend 8 - 11 % of GDP on healthcare (19 % in the U.S.) the Tories always found it offensive that such a market should be off limits for the "investor and landlord class".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@greathingsaregold 2018 "exact match" laws used in an attempt to shelf 50,000 voter registrations in the race where Stacy Abrams gave Kemp a good run for his money (Kemp was in charge of elections as Secretary of State in a race where he also run). - For instance: One hyphen is different in birth certificate / driver's licence and/or Social Security data.
Forget about data like birth date that would strongly ! back up the plausiblity of the application
(Often people move between states and habits how to enter a name, or what the interface allows a civil servant to enter can differ. And it's been a while since the birth certificate was issued).
In GA: your voter registration is out if one blank or hyphen is not EXACTELY where it should be. If Republicans would get their way.
If you have to enter a user name or password you also have exact match, if there is a blank you must enter it, and if not you can't have one. If it is a hyphen, it must be that, not a blank, not 2 hyphens, not an underscore.
With "exact match" if you have one letter "different" you cannot get access. Whereas the documentation for a human being follows fuzzy logic and plausibility. Street or Str. means of course the same, the person is not someone else because Street is written in different manner in 2 different sets of data.
Those exact match laws were struck down before (when they were a rule), so they had to process the voter registrations. So the state legislature made it a LAW.
In 2018 "exact match" law became a reason for a court battle again. A court forced Kemp to allow those newly registered voters to vote, at least it was said that they could vote when bringing additional paperwork, the court battle came late, because first the NGOs had to detect that Kemp intended to not process these registrations. He had them "pending" for months, it is not like he advertised his intentions. He knew the grassroots would sue him - AS ALWAYS.
Not sure if voters that had been caught up in that measure (one of many) were given a provisional ballot. (Greg Palast calls them placebo ballots, they are almost never counted, but the voters are not upset, the public is widely ignorant of the fact that they are duped with them most of the time. Provisional ballots were invented under Bush 2).
Those tactics are typical - he was super motivated because this was HIS race - but he could have done that in every other year as well, it is very much in character with R voter suppression in Georgia. They could teach Florida some tricks by now.
Kemp would rather deny 50,000 people the vote than "risk" the very, very low probability that someone with almost the same name (and conincidentally the same birth date, and some other history that ties them to THIS county, district, state) would "impersonate" another person. (one with and the other w/o the hyphen).
Plus somehow the cheater would also need to know the SS number, and have a fitting driver's licence to back up the plot. That is almost impossible to fabricate.
- and WHY would someone go to such lengths. I would get it, if someone impersonated another person, and forged ID's, birth certificates, and tried to match them with existing documentation to attempt cleaning out a bank acccount, there is a potential reward for the risky effort.
But for ONE more vote ?
2
-
2
-
2
-
@b1bbscraz3y On the other hand I cannot fathom WHAT could be possibly that complicated. Even if they have to go back to the basics, pay a few data typists and urge all the precint captains to call in with all the results again. Would be a data base of maybe 30,000 - 40,000 lines (at most).
That can be done in 1 or 2 work days, and it must not cost that much, small change compared to TV ads. They can grant the approx. 1680 precinct captains (volunteers !) a bonus for their trouble while they are at it.
Then they can publish the whole finished dataset on a website (maybe aggregated per precinct so they do not have 30,000 lines or whatever, so it is easier to navigate for users). That must not be a complex operation, if the database is not interactive (finished result).
They can offers some filters (all results for a candidate, or a certain precinct, or areas, or all that got at least 15 % in the final round .... if they want to be fancy).
If they do not try to massage the numbers (and I can't see how they would think they could get away with it) - WHAT ARE THEY DOING ? Are there no coders around ? People that know how to work with a database and people who can mangage the collection of data for it ?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@trixiess364 Joe Biden might be nice in person. That is human nature, evolution made is behave in our group of peers, and politicians must try to appear "nice" in public anyway *. But politicians usually arrange themselves with the lobbyists, the party "leadership" (they too want the big donations) and the big donors.
* Klobuchar has one of the highest turnovers of her staff, a reputation as horrible boss, threw staplers at staff members and prosecuted an easy target (black teenager 16 years) on the flimsiest of "evidence".
To further her career and have a record of successful convictions. - one would not know that from mainstream media coverage or the way she presents herself to the public.
The DUTY of an elected REPRESENTATIVE would be to be able and WILLING to EXTEND his or her caring and empathy to the not so tangible constituents - and they would need to be content with a salary of approx. 174,000 USD before taxes plus benefits like good healthcare (pay for a senator)
The constituents (330 millions) are an ABSTRACTION.
65,000 preventable deaths in the U.S. per year because of the current healthcare system (recent Yale study) - that is ABSTRACT.
(an older study had that number at 30,000 people, that was under Obama, but several years after the introduction of ACA. Remember Biden was VP and claims credit for ACA, a reform that ignored 70 years of experince of all other wealthy countries that have HALF the spending per person that the U.S.). But the Yale study claims they may have underestimated the negative effects.
The first order of the "reform" was to protect the private insurance companies (and big pharma) and to KEEP them as dominant actors in the system.
The protection and needs of the insured were secondary. It shows. Cost control does not work. At. All.
High deductibles muddy the water, it helps them avoid cost transparency. Else there would be higher costs for all (but no high payments for the unfortunate later). Then half ot the country would riot because of the costs and half would drop coverage and be in despair because they can't afford good coverage. They can't afford the deductibles either, but that is a gamble that not all lose right away.
The U.S. as country pays double per person already ! compared to other first world nations. (per person means, healthy or sick. insured or not). In other countries the government pays somewhat less, and companies and insured pay much, much less.
As human you do not get brownie points for wanting to help a person that you SEE badly injured or suffering. Or your wish that a child that you know gets cancer treatment. That is instinct: hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution.
2
-
@trixiess364 Politicians have so much power and in theory they should serve many millions of people. Our human social INSTINCTS are not enough in the modern world to counteract greed and selfishness, complacency and the willingness to conform (to whatever the other politicians are doing, and it is always easier than doing the right thing).
That would require a moral core, a strong dedication, using your frontal lobes to expand the natural instincts to Empathy For All.
Sanders at a rally: Look around you. Can you imagine to stand up for someone you do not know.
Has become an informal campaign slogan.
So a typical politician like Biden might be shocked in individual cases of cruelty of the health"care" system. Usually the people that do not want to change the system (because it would upset the DONORS and conflict with their selfish complacency) avoid OBSERVING too much on the PERSONAL LEVEL.
They keep it abstract - or they couldn't sleep. But humans are also good in double think, remaining in their bubble and in suppressing what they prefer to not know.
The natural selfish impulses of humans are well controlled by our social empathic nature but that works only in groups in which people interact with each other and know and need each other (that was the setting in which humans evolved).
A politician would have to be content with the salary and benefits they get, do the uphill battle to fund their campaigns with grassroots support. Then they would be free to SERVE the somewhat abstract "millions of constituents".
There are many perks (bribes around 3 corners so it is not against the law. wink, wink) even for active politicians. Their pay and benefits would get them into upper middle class, but many have become very rich while holding office (if they are well established in the party hierarchy. That applies to BOTH parties).
The (no-show) jobs for family members, their books being bought up by the truckloads by think tanks. The lucrative investment deals or real estate development projects (their partner gets it so it is "legal"). The safe investments tips.
Last but not least: the cushy job for ex politicians.
They CAN afford to rather lose to Trump than winning with Sanders.
Not all are going to lose their seat in Congress or Senate, and the well established OBEDIENT servants of the big donors will be rewarded.
The big donors honor that "obligation" or the still active shills would get nervous and seriously consider if they would not be more secure if they started serving their constiuents instead of the big donors.
These days one CAN finance campaigns for reelection differently.
Less high profile "representatives" have less protection. All the more incentive to suck up to party "leadership" and big donors.
All of that appeals strongly to the selfish nature of humans. On top it is the much easier thing to do when you are in D.C.
2
-
2
-
@trixiess364 If the economy gets bad enough for many people ** the pendulum swings to the left (that was FDR, Occupy Wallstreet, or now Sanders) or to the FAR AUTHORITARIAN RIGHT.
Tea party, Trump and his cult following - it will get worse. And it is not only in the U.S.: Brazil, Bolivia, Philippines, India, Russia, many European nations, the "mainstream" right parties in Canada, U.K., Japan and Australia move more to the right.
The Iran deal would have streghtened the more moderate (relatively speaking) forces in Iran but the handlers of Trump were successful the hardliners are now stronger in Iran (out of sheer self interest the U.S. should lift the sanctions and help Iran, the virus can easily be "exported" to the U.S.)
** for instance the Great Financial Crisis. In future the next cyclic eocnomic downturn, maybe a pandemic, more trade wars, the many effects of climate change .....
Historically speaking more often the authoritarian far right PREVAILED.
If gets really bad economically: It ends with fascism. Andwar.
Regular citizens are not doing well in this allegedly "good" economy, and there is a cyclic downturn on average every 8 years. The last one started in 2008, the recovery was drawn out, that explaings some delay - Do the math.
It is only a question how bad it will get (from mild to really bad). With or w/o pandemic.
Biden (his cabinet) or Trump will "solve" that on the back of regular people and in favor of the Big donors. That is what Obama did for the big donors.
FDR was an aberration. In Europe the Social Democrats (types like Sanders, he is no radical in that context) got their chance - but only after World War II.
But that needed a World. War. (without nukes available for many nations).
Not only Germany went the fascist route after prolonged economic troubles (it was bad after WW1 in all of Europe, then a light recovery and they got hit again when the Great Depression spilled over from the U.S. in 1930).
They had democracies and elections (in many countries for the first time).
Because of Word War I.
The comfortable (upper) middle class and above (aristocracy) were highly irritated that the unwashed masses had a say after the end of WW1 (Nov. 1918).
The political climate was polarized (a lot had to do with the hostility of the right, and the "elites" - they did not want to give an inch) - and if in doubt the financially comfortable and the conservative pillars of society will rather side with the fascists than with even center left forces that stand up for low(er) income people.
2
-
@trixiess364 Many in the Democratic establishment NOW would rather lose to Trump than win with Sanders. No, Sanders' policies would not harm the country, if he gets single payer rolled out over 4 years, and GND investment (jobs) he is lucky.
But for that to work, the policies would need to be FOR The People - and the profiteers and big donors can go pound sand.
Which would end many of the cozy and highly lucrative schemes of the politcal elites, and consultant / D.C insider class.
In this critical situation - the Democratic establishment (many) would not mind having another term of Trump. They would of course never admit that.
You and many Democratic leaning voters may passionately want Trump gone - well the Democratic establishment (incl. the consultant class, the professional "resistance") can arrange themselves well with Trump (there ARE even advantages to Trump over Biden - for THEM).
"Trump must be defeated" is a stick to beat the base into submission once more for Vote Blue No Matter Who. That is why there were immediately retractions on that as soon as they feared Sanders had a good chance to win the nomination.
Beating Trump is not all that important after all.
The problem:
Climate change does not give us time for the games of the rotten party establishment. The health "care" system may become unviable, it is just too expensive. It will take some time until costs go down significantly after a reform and it must be bold reform, not some half-measures that leave the predators in place.
But 6 - 10 years later, the U.S. could reap the rewards of single payer big time (if rollout is 4 years).
That is certainly not possible, if they meddle around the fringes because the big donors will not tolerate more.
if the going gets rough, if the "elites" and the upper class have the perception that there is not enough to go around for everyone - they will retreat to the gated communities and play nice with the fascists. Mass surveillance, militarized police and all.
FDR was a lucky aberration. He could keep the far right in the U.S. in check because of his bold populist policies. - There was a NAZI rally in early 1939, 20,000 people in New York in Madison Garden, that stopped after WW2 started in Europe in Sep. 1939. The KKK was strong throughout the 1920 and 1930s.
It wasn't all that clear that the U.S. would not also go the authoritarian route.
President Hooverhad the police with help of the military crush the March of the Veterans in 1932 (after their earned bonuses were cancelled). In a year with a presidential election !
Some Republican industrial leaders had ideas of a coup against FDR later (see Smedley Butler) to stop the New Deal (minimum wage, higher taxes for them, unemployment benefits and SS) but for that you need the army or the veterans.
FDR was not as stupid as the former Republican to piss off army and veterans. Rank and file of the active army in 1932 could see what the cannon fodder of WW1 was worth to the Republican leadership. They did not like it, even if some of them were ordered to help crush he March of the Bonus army.
In Germany the Nazis could not have seized power w/o the "Conservatives" helping them dismantle the checks and balances of democracy all the way. Or w/o he silence of the pillars of society. It wasn't a violent coup, but it took them only a few months (end of 1932 till srping 1933).
The army and former officiers (WW1) had a lot of standing in society, they tended to be conservative but many did not root for the Nazis or Hitler. People like that (or rich people and the churches) could have prevented the power grab. (the presdient was on his deathbed in spring 1933)
They didn't. The political right and the industrial leaders thought Hitler would get rid of unions and the left parties - and then they could take it from there.
The Nazis had won an election with 35 % of the vote in fall 1932, at the same time FDR won the presidential race.
They had at least 5 vialble parties then in Germany, that split the vote - in an unfortunate manner. Not one party wanted to enter officially a coalition government with the Nazi party
But the conservative president gave them the chance to try and form a government, to find a coalition partner (he thought they would fail, he did not like the left parties, but also not the Nazis).
The election of summer 1932 had given the Nazis 45 % (afther the end of a center left and center right coalition) so just shy of the 50 % they needed to have a majority in parliament (else it is very difficult to govern, especially in an economic crisis).
So repetition of the election in late fall, and first a sigh of relief, this time the Nazis got "only" 35 %, but the vote split among the other parties in an unfortunate manner.
The Nazis surprised everyone by forming a minority government. Which would normally be unworkable if you only have 35 %. I guess the rich conservatives and industrial leaders had a backroom deal. The center-right party did not go into an official coalition (the base was better than that, the rhetoric was ugly already, even if no one knew how bad it would become).
Hitler as chair of the Nazi party became Chancellor of the minority government.
people in Germany after WW2 KNEW that, the industrial leaders were treated VERY nicely by the Allied forces that occupied Germany after WW2. But they and the conservatives pillars of society (incl. the churches) had to shut up for a while.
They did very well in the recovery after war (modelled afer the New Deal) but they had lost the moral authority, and the intense hostility towards the left (even center left) was gone. Likely because the country had to pull together after the catastrophe of WW2.
That dynamic - that the conservative forces had to put up with unions and left parties and it pissed them off to no end, had played out in all of Europe after WW1 and before WW2
The center left parties in all of Europe used their chance after WW2. And pushed for a strong welfare net, single payer healthcare etc. So good it withstood even the neoliberal assaults for the most part. It helps that these nations did not deindustrialize, they kept quality manufacturing (high technology, components etc.)
Germany had a center right government many years after the war (they were more often than not in charge or leading partner in a coalition government since 1945). Did not matter a strong Social Democratic opposition kept them in check, they could not stray from the Social Contract or they would have lost the next election.
But like I said all of these concessions to the little people were only possible in Europe (or Japan) AFTER a world war. In the U.S. an united Left (parties, unions) gave FDR the leverage to push for the New Deal. Enough of the oligarch were reasonable, they remebered the Russian Revolution in 1917. In the U.S. it "only" took a massive economic crisis.
And in WW2 they did not have nukes - only the U.S. and only at the end.
2
-
Progressives and New Dealers (and Labour UK) take notice: the establishment neoliberals are RUTHLESS. Democrats are not feckless and weak, the pretend to be against Republicans. Because that helps in the service for the common big donors. - No point in playing nice, that will not be replicated. Ever. On the contrary any concessions will be abused to give them more leverage.
Sanders unseated a Democratic mayor, the Republicans did not even bother to run a candidate in Burlington which is the largest city of Vermont, they were quite happy with him. Sanders had a "complicated" relationship with the D machine of Vermont for many years (now they are getting along just fine.)
I think 3 Indpendents and the long time incumbent (running for the last term he could have) were in the race. Sanders pulled it of with 18 more votes - or 10 votes more after the recount.
"Some funky stuff going on during election night". (quote from a Sanders ally from back in the day)
Sanders was ahead in the count, than lost his lead (in areas where they expected him to do well), his supporters threatened to kick in the door if the civil servants (of course associated with the mayor) would not come out and count in the open. Which they did ;) after they had been asked so nicely ;)
Rural scenes ....
but again: they will not shy away from ANYTHING to "win".
Sanders was the mayor had the support of 2 - 3 alder persons - that was not even the veto power.
There were some Republicans, but mostly they were supporters of the former mayor who were not pleased about the outsider ousting their man.
So first thing they fired the secretary of the mayor. And Sanders could not hinder them, he did not have the veto power.
The first budget was made with volunteers at the kitchen table.
He did what he could, the voters saw the shenanigans and he stayed in communication (which is easier in a small town, Burlington has maybe 40,000 people now). So the next election of the aldermen/women not long after gave him more supporters and he had at least the veto power. And he started to work with the Republicans of Burlington on a case to case base to get things done.
The relationship with state Democrats stayed "complicated"
Well, he ran as Independent for higher office (Congress, Senate) and in the 1988 Congressional race the Democrat was the spoiler that handed victory to the Republican. He got in the mid 30 % range, closely followed by Sanders and the Democrat had over 20 % (plus the usual selection of Independents). The "left/liberal" vote could have easily won that Congress race.
So Sanders travelled to D.C. and made a deal with the national party. They would not support a D candidate (and lean on the state party) and if he would win the seat against a Republican (which he could easily do) he would caucus with them in the House.
In the years between 1981 and 1988 Sanders engaged in all the races that might have been of interest for any ambitious Democrats. he had done so already in the 1970s running for a litte Independent party but then with little success. Once they won close to 10 % in a race (not sure if it was Sanders) and de facto spoiled if for the Democrats. It was so close that the governor or state legislature picked the "winner" - handing over the win to a Republican.
But as mayor he had more clout and was on the rise. Slowly but steadily.
In 1990 it was Independent Sanders, a Republican and a few smaller Independents (that's a Vermont thing). Won that race and was sworn in in January 1991.
2
-
You also do not have a say with single payer healthcare (in the U.S. Medicare for All) - and you will not miss that one bit, single payer coverage is supposed to cover ALL that can be medically warranted in a first world nation - and all nations do it in a very cost-efficient manner. I live in a single payer country and people have a fish-in-water experience.
The mandated contributions (payroll tax, matched by companies) must be very affordable (for companies and staff) so no one resists them. The rest comes from general tax revenue. Signing up is very easy (5 minutes on your first day in a new job), no healthcare questions (risk does not matter, only the income), dependent family members are included for free.
The coverage is also not subject to the whims of the companies, no difference for the staff of smaller companies or start-ups (that is recruiting advantage).
There are provisions for people who do not work (jobless, disabled, retired, students, stay at home single parents, ...)
People are of course worried when they get seriously ill or injured - but not about having healthcare insurance, or bills later.
In all nations healthcare insurance is the de facto gate keeper to access to treatment unless you are rich.
(even in a cost-efficient system the costs can be very high)
Here people get that from a non-profit insurance agency and non-profit hospitals that are (also) funded by all levels of government, would react to public pressure, and have to serve the common good and make healthcare happen for everyone.
2
-
union negotiated healthcare insurance is STILL way overpriced (not only for the culinary sector, the healthcare plans of large companies like Boeing, GM, Microsoft - whatever the plans cover - they will be way too expensive for that. Not one of the companies or unions has the NEGOTIATING POWER of a national single payer agency !
In a single payer system these insurance agencies are set up to have almost a monopoly position.
for-profit monopoly = exploitation of consumers.
But as a public non-profit that works for the common good they are a very much needed counterweight for the disadvantages the consumers have - the insured / patients are by far the weakest participant in the healthcare system (which makes a "free market" "choice" competition etc. impossible).
Single payer agencies invariably get better rates from doctors and hospitals, and have enough power to get a good deal from big pharma. And if almost all is billed to them (and all patients are entitled potentially to the same treatments) it makes billing very easy. The doctors and hospital check your insurance card, if you have coverage - you are full in. the doctors can from then on concentrate on the medical side.
As long as there are also many private insurance plans with countless different provisions (who gets what covered or has what exclusions) - that cost savings potential of a streamlined admin is squandered.
In areas where many people would have private insurance (a large company like GM is nearby) or a lot of wealthy people are in the area - good luck with finding doctors that will accept those with "only" public insurance (private insurers cannot negotiate the rates as hard - even if they would bother, so the doctors would like to make to with "private" patients only. In single payer nations most doctors and all hospitals must accept the contract of the single payer agency and the patients under that coverage - or they do not have enough patients. That also curbs discrimination.
There is a reason no other country does public option with an opt out (for those who are young and healthy or for company/union plans). Also: the company can change conditions, and when you are fired you are out.
Nataline the girl that was the (last) reason for Wendell Potter to quit his position as senior PR executive of Cigna did not have a "Cadillac plan"- she was covered by a Mercedes plan - literally Mercedes (via her family employer insurance).
The insurance refused to cover the liver transplant (even though transplants were included in the plan), the doctors who were ready to go ahead with the surgery had to give a pass on two livers (which would have been a good match).
Finally Cigna gave in to public pressure - but then her organs had started to shut down, she died a few hours after the green light had been given by Cigna (that was in Dec. 2007 or 2008).
Wendell Potter mentioned in an interview in 2019 that the insurers now also purge COMPANIES (same tactics as with individuals: they drive up premiums OR the co-pays and deductibles).
btw: when in small to medium sized companies a staff member (or family of them) need costly and ongoing treatments that can "jeopardize" the plan or the conditions for all of staff. Either conditions worsen - until the company gives up, or they fire the employee to avoid the trouble.
Does wondes for the employment of elderly people in non-unionized sectors (in the companies that still have plans, that number is constantly going down).
Potter: the private insurers have no interest in cost control - it will become unsustainable if we do not get Medicare For All.
What they want is to drive up the deductibles so that they can pass on the costs to the insured. A mayor from a town nearby where Wendell Potter grew up: we had to exclude family members from our employees from coverage, we do not like to do it but we can't afford it anymore.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Sore losers does not even begin to cover it. Republicans have been pulling shady stuff for decades now in elections and THEY have the gall to cast doubt on the results ? Good thing: Biden idiotically talked of how he was going to integrate Republicans in his admin and reach across the aisle during his "campaign". Doesn't he remember the stonewalling of Obama ??? - If Repubs throw one fit after the next, his idiotic stance is exposed, he will have it harder to integrate Kasich in his cabinet.
Biden is a 1980s / 1990s style Republican with a D to his name, and has been serving the big donors for many years. The big donors had a normie Republican and a lunatic on the ballot (that caters to right wingers). One hell of a Republican ticket in 2020. Big donors do not care about abortion, gay marriage, and gun regulation. These are the wedge issues that do not cost the big donors anything, no matter what comes out of it. So the parties are "allowed" to use them to rile up the base, but not economic populism.
One reason they did not like Trump, he spoke the language of economic populism (plus in the far right version always combined with nationalism, othering, and xenophobia).
Dems should lawyer up and ignore the idiots (when they do not give some short but strong worded truth bombs). Biden was very lucky - w/o the pandemic Trump would have won. Trump won 3 states in the midwest with a total of 70,000 votes. Biden now is ahead 92,000 votes in 4 states that ARE CLOSE.
Michigan, and NV are not that close - in 2016 Trump got lucky, now it is the other way around. Dems were sore losers with blaming Russia (and the Bernie crowd, susan Sarandon, and Jill Stein), but they did NOT undermine the process per se.
Many of the battleground states have a Republican legislature, that means Repubs are in control of organizing the vote (GA, AZ, not sure about Michigan but that is a safe bet anyway, and Wisconsin. And the PA and Wisconsin difference is not that flimsy anymore. Repubs have won with 0.7 % advantage in the past and never complained about it.
And btw both candiates could have pulled off a decisivie win - if they had offered the masses economic populism. Trump is so idiotic, incompetent and narcissistic that he single handedly shot down his own reelection.
It is not all bad for stanard Repubs, if HE had won the next 4 years would be so bad that the Repubs would be blamed by their own base.
the 4 states with a close Biden lead are
Georgia (0.3 %)
Pennsylvania (0.7 % have improved since Sunday when it was 0.6 %, they are well over the threshold of 0.5 for a mandatory recount). Wisconsin 0.7 % and
Arizona 0.5 %.
The votes they are still counting (AP shows 99 % of precincts processed) are mail in and expats /military so if anything Biden might get one or the other zero-point-one advantage here or be put over the margin of a mandatory recount, making if from razor thin to closer to a one percent difference (WI and PA). Which is fairly normal in U.S. elections.
As for the popular vote: Trump poo-pooed the 3 millions of HRC and now Biden is 4.9 million votes ahead. To be fair a lot of that comes from 3 large / solidly blue states (NY, CA and WA, I guess the small east coast states were decisive as well). Not to forget Vermont ;)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@supremeheavenlydeity5742 Trump didn't mean to incite violence (wink, wink). Let's assume we believe that. The riot was on the news, did the president not know what was going on (while the world was watching) ? He let HOURS pass before bothering to send a tweet to his followers to tell them to go home.
Meaning the police was for hours in a combat situation and the legislators, their staff and families, Capitol staff were hiding or sheltering in an office - Governor Logan had to wait NINENTY minutes before someone gave him permission to deploy the National Guards across states lines. (The Army Secretary finally called - Logan did not expect it from him. Outside the normal chain of command - but whatever, he was glad he got that)
Since we have no information that the president was passed out, or the Secretary of Defense (and his deputy) were passed out - how come they did not bother to take the calls of Gov. Logan or to return his calls. And what happened to the rest of the cabinet, or down the chain of command.
Almost as if they WANTED that the riots to CONTINUE ....
Almost ...
Of course tribal people that put the cult over country and constitution will play dumb over that, too. Do we KNOW that Trump realized how serious this was. Do we KNOW for sure he even knew right away ? Maybe the president is an idiot and no one bothers to inform him about anything important that is going on, and he also just happened to not watch TV. Maybe he took a long nap ?
Now we only need to find also a lame excuse for the Secretary of Defense, his deputy, down the chain of command.
Also the Secretary of Interior.
At least when it comes to giving govenors the permission to sent the National Guard to help out police.sure Trump could have fired them in retaliation - but only after the fact. he would have actively needed to reverse their orders - but then he would be on record.
Biden was not going to keep them anyway, and no one in their right mind would expect that Trump really could hold on to power (he does not have the support of the military). They could as well have done their duty and looked good.
And yes we can KNOW INTENT for SURE because of what happened after the riots started (or better what did NOT happen), is an argument that the Democrats made.
They did not speak about the press conference of govenor Logan to my knowledge (they just had to play the pres conference he gave 1 - 2 days later - he was incensed. But how long it took Trump to find the will to send a half assed tweet to his followers. (We or I love you, you are special, go home in peace).
but he (or his team) sent a tweet CRITICAL of Mike Pence - 5 - 10 minutes after Pence had been evacuated. The president must have been told Pence was evacuated. Trump never commented upon
that, or modified his tweet (due to current circumstances, I want to clarify my tweet from 5 minute ago .....)
it was a continuation of the ongoing pressure campaign on Mike Pence (the last chance of Trump to manipulated procedures). Trump called it lack or courage and unwillingness to "do the right thing"
Trump wanted him to seize unconstitutional powers and to disrupt the session where they certified the vote. Pence had told Trump at least 12 times in the run up that he would not do that.
On Jan 6th, morning was the last time Pence made clear he would head the session for the certification of the vote as the constitution required him to do (respecting what the STATES had certified).
In a public letter.
Trump had a pressure campaign going on for weeks, and was not shy to tweet about it. And did so again AFTER Mike Pence had been evacuated. Because the sitting president would not be informed about such an unusual event ?? !!
So even if the give Trump every benefit of the doubt and then plenty - that he did not mean to incite violence against his VP or incite the mob to storm the Capitol - he certainly did not bother to tell THAT his loyal supporters.
2
-
@Jack-uy7ie (R) Gov. Logan called the White House to get URGENT permission to deploy the Maryland National Guard (he had received an urgent / frantic call from Steni Hoyer and Chuck Schumer). The Secretary of Defense did not take the call of Logan nor did he call back, nor did the deputy, or anyone down the chain of command.
He had to wait NINETY minutes. And then it was the Army Secretary. (Oh well, whatever he could get).
Logan gave a press conference 1 - 2 days later. he was obviously incensed !
After he had told them about the details of the situation - a journalist asked him:
Do you think president Trump should resign ?
Logan: Obviously it would be better for the country if Mike Pence would be in charge in the last days for the peaceful transfer of power. Yes, the president should step down - or be removed from office.
Of course all of them (Trump, OR one of his cabinet members) could also have gone on TV, radio (remote interview, can be with a phone), or TWEET, that the governors of Virgina and Maryland are allowed to deploy the National Guards and are called to coordinate with the Capitol Police and police of DC.
That they (and especially Logan who had already asked for permission) were allowed to deploy them across state's lines to go to D.C. While also IMPLORING * the rioters to go home, that they had MISUNDERSTOOD the president, he never MEANT them to do STORM the Capitol, enter the building etc.
(* if only to cover his ass).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@graywalkerjoin3rdparty74 if you are retired you will stay in Medicare (or soon get it) - the improved version. It is a question of funding - and with the SAME budgets per person you get more bang for your buck with a single payer agency (that is in every country the case, private insurance or union/company negotiated plans cannot compete, the agencies have more negotiating power and other cost advantages - no marketing, sales, streamlined admin is possible).
Sure government agencies can be wasteful and inefficient.
The reason the healthcare insurance agencies are doing a good job globally: healthcare - and the admin around it, like insurance - is (or can be) very standardized, they can follow a blueprint, creativity, marketing, sales skills are not needed. It is very clear what the consumers want (that is not the case with consumer products, you can have a solid good product - but the consumers are not interested. On the other hand Solid "boring" healthcare is a good thing.
The service is also very important to citizens, all ages and income groups use it.
It is usually a stressful time when they need treatments, so they pay attention to the experience.
On a systemic level - if they patients / insured have reason for discontent there are only 2 possible reasons : the management of resources is inept - but that has been weeded out over time due to public reaction to flaws (because the users are so likely to react - much more than with other public services). Or the system is not sufficiently funded - again the cure for that is public pressure.
Public healthcare insurers blow for-profit insurers out of the water everywhere - and luckily the U.S. already has a non-profit set up with (internationally) low administrative overhead: Medicare.
When everyone gets potentially the same treatments it creates a lot of political leverage (one of the reasons it would be political suicide in most countries to attack or underfund the system - I hope the Tories pay the bill on Dec. 12th for their 10 year defunding of the NHS in the U.K.)
On the other hand the U.S. system is ideal for Divide and Conquer tactics. Citzens are busy with their life and people are self-centered.
When I would learn that a neighbour or collegue would not get a treatment that should be standard for a first world country (I live in a country with single payer) - it would be time for the pitchforks.
My family or friends would not get it either. (everyone gets the same, so all are in the same boat. The wealthy are made to participate in the same system, at least they pay into it - so they can as well use it. And they will use it because it is good and reasonable funded (that means the country spends half what the U.S. is spending per person).
No one is "lucky" because they work in a large company that offers good benefits - and the others = majority would have to suck it up with inferior or hollowed out coverage.
The universality and that all citizens have skin in the game means also that no political party dares to touch the system (the Tories in the U.K.: Hold my beer).
Rollout for Medicare for All: more age groups will join every year and the young are just waiting for their turn. Those who come in later will strengthen the system, younger people cost much less (spending goes up very much with age) - but they provide the numbers in form of payroll taxes and political leveage (and are an online and activist army if necessary).
Over time the U.S. system should get to the point of efficiency of other countries. it will take some time - the obsolete administrative staff will need employment initiatives or retraining (testimony of how inefficient the current system is). There will be a backlog (untreated diabetes for instance - that causes more costs later) and no other country has the disadvantage of an opiode crisis or has to deal with for-profit hospital chains.
On the other hand prices for drugs can go down right away. The cost savings for a more streamlined admin should also manifest within a few years.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@SplotPublishing Then (a few days before Christmas 2016) it became safe to go there and to check out the situation, also Christian groups went to Aleppo and Syria. Gabbard had cleared her visit with the ethics committee (not her group meeting with Assad, that was arranged on short notice).
As far as I am concerned - it would be a good thing the next time they meet, Tulsi Gabbard represents the U.S. as Secretary of State.
The UN had negotiated an amnesty and the busing out of the various groups of jihadists in December. They had to give up their arms, they were driven to Idlib (then a stronghold of the moderate terrorists), so the Syrian government "concentrated" them there.
Each group had held a certain area of the occupied part of the city, those groups only loosely cooperated, the "financiers" (my guess Saudi Arabia) did not want them to unify under one leadership and rivalries would have prevented that anyway. Most took the amnesty (the government forces were spared the house to house battle so it helped them too) and the civilians were spared as well.
Only a hard core of 3000 fighters refused to take the amenesty (hard core Al Qaeda, even ISIS, their leadership did not LET the fighters go, and brutally punished defectors or even people they suspected to defect). That was the reason the citizens could not leave for the government controlled part of the city (not even if they needed medical help, the jihadists would rather amputate then let them leave for treatment in the hospitals that were open in the other side of the city). If they bribed the jihadists at one roadblock they didn't get far until they reached the next one. The jihadists could get out but not the citizens.
2
-
@SplotPublishing Gabbard cannot disclose all she would like tell us - a lot of it is classified (although the public would need to know it). The regime change against Syria was planned much longer, it had been decided in early 2002 (a dusted off plan of 1990, the same people were at large under Bush 1 and Bush 2).
It is interesting how the agenda is carried out no matter who represents the special interests in the White House.
7 countries in 5 years. The famous clip with Gen. Wesley Clark came up in a recent interview on Grayzone. They had Larry Wilkerson on (fmr. chief of staff to Colin Powell, also when he was Secretary of State from 2001 - 2005, I think Wilkerson left in 2003, but he was in the middle of the push of war against Iraq. - Recently he compared the situation with Iran to the former push for war. (the same kind of lies, but under Bush they lied better).
Aaron Maté of Grayzone played a clip of the interview with Democracy Now of 2007: Clark recanting what he had heard a few days after 9/11 as visitor in the Pentagon (We will go to war with Iraq. - are there any indications that Saddam had something to do with the attack ? No, but we have got a good military and they don't know what to do about terrorism. If you have only have a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail)
A few months later, so early 2002 Clark learned of the extended plan when he stopped by again by the same source: Are we still going to war with Iraa: we will take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan finishing off Iran.
Wilkerson: I have not seen that memo General Clark refers to, but unlike him I had security clearance, I was part of that admin and I saw the preparations against Syria.
Just to remember: in 2000 Assad had taken over after the death of his father, he did a charm tour to Europe (maybe also a visit to the U.S. not sure about that). There were hopes the secular government would become more moderate and open up to democracy, at least the political analysts had them (who knows what was plotted behind closed doors).
After 9/11 Syria (and even Libya) offered help in the fight against the Sunni (Saudi sponsored) jihadists. Which were also a threat to their secular authoritarian governments.
At that time Syria was humming along (the big draught had not yet hit them, and Syria or even Libya were certainly not as bad as all the theocratic extreme oil monarchies.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
6:00 Seth Siegel, author activist: Orangy County (a very wealthy area) built their own filter system. They did not wait for the EPA (well of course not - and screw the rest of the country) Having high quality filtered water costs only 60 cents per person per week, so 30 USD per year, the is the best system you can have, they have excellent water ..... so that would be 120 for a family of four per year.
The rich retreating once again into their gated communities instead of using their leverage to improve conditions for all.
Heck in Michigan Republicans forced water on the community in Flint that leaked lead out of the pipes. The water source they had before was better it wasn't as aggressive, and the lead stayed in the old pipes.
Then Republicans (who rule the community because the city is bankrupt, never mind elections) forced a new (cheaper) water source on them. And some profiteering and privatization played a role, it was not only ideology, the people doing that had connections to the govenor.
When the water got visibly polluted, stank and what not (all the old sediments and dirt being released - which should have been a red flag when it suddenly starts all over the community) and the consumers complained - we know best "authorities" that had taken over could have installed a filter that costs USD 500 a day (for the whole community) so likely costs would have been less than 60 cents per person per week.
Edit: 500 USD per day = 3,500 per week divided by 0,60 = approx. 58,000 residents. Flint has 97,000 people. And maybe switching back to the old good water source would have been cheaper anyway.
But THAT filter did not get installed. Not even when a pediatrician sounded the alarms. She had to organize the testing against the resistance of the govenor.
Moreover Orange County likely has an up to date pipe system, so the contanimation does not come from pipes but it is fertilizer, bacteria, medication that comes from urine (from animals and humans) etc. It might cost more when you have old infrastructure - and it needs to be changed anyway.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Only in the U.S. ! - In other countries when parties / candidates lose: we regret it, we did a good job as governing party /oppositionm ,had a strong message/ platform, etc. .... but we could not communicate it well enough. We must get better in communicating with the voters, better in understanding.
They do not even blame voters when they lose a lot to the far right.
They may not mean it but I have never, ever heard one of them "blaming" voters. Turnout in important elections is often 75, 80 even 85 % (the 2016 race of the U.S. would have gotten 85 % in every other democracy).
So blaming a lost election on low turnout does not work anyway. and there is no concept of "wasted" votes if you have popular vote in a parliamentary system (in the U.S. ranked choice voting could help, the Democratic party would be in for some surprises).
Also: voting is EASY, it is unheard of to not be on the voter rolls, when you show up, elections are on a Sunday or holiday, and everyone beyond 15 minutes (usually 5) waiting time would be highly ! unusual.
If they get lower turnout in some races (EU parliament elections for instance, or a race at the state level). they also do not dream of blaming the voters. We must bet getter in motivating voters.
In state / provincal races they might deflect that they got hit by proxy (the population is fed up with the top echelons of government and the discontent is expressed in another election. It can happen). But that is also stated as a form of explanation (and will have consequences or at least wild fighting within the party), there is no connotation of "the voters are wrong".
It is more like: our leadership let us down and the voters punished that - and we were on the receiving end, because this election happened to be the one on the schedule.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nickpeterson8659 It is probably a good thing when Sanders outperforms the polls - think HOW STUPID it will make the media look. (the recent poll in which he leads by 3 % (27) next is Biden with 24 % (I think in Iowa) was with 50 % mobile phones. That's more like it - but the people with landlines (older) are easier to reach so usually they have more of those.
And with candidates like Biden, Warren, Buttigieg (older supporters) asking landline participants is not going to skew the picture as much.
If the Sanders campaign wins with an eclat in Iowa (start beg. of Feburary) - while he was stuck in the Senate with impeachment and then in New Hampshire they will really start getting nervous.
It will give voters the "permission" to go for Sanders (he is not so unelectable after all).
Being stuck with impeachment in the Senate 6 days per week is not as much as an obstable when you have such a strong
groundgame. In the last weeks it is about turning people out, knocking doors, phonebanking. The volunteers (and the staff that leverages the power of the volunteeer army) do not need Sanders for that (on the contrary: many rallies in the state also bind resources.
As for Nevada; Sanders has a not so secret weapon: AOC.
And the teachers union. That is good: they know how to organize.
Polling problems
The last poll (one week before primary in summer 2018) showed AOC at least 16 points behind, likely more (I forgot the number). Joe Crowley had outspent her 10 : 1 (3 million USD versus 300,000). Crowley thought he had it wrapped up. That was a good thing, or he would have unleashed the full New York party machine.
One problem that pollsters have, is that they work with "normal" in the past (younger voters and low income people do not vote as much).
AOC: "We worked at changing WHO turns out." She increased turnout by 68 % and she won comfortably. The polls were wrong in her case, and they were wrong for Sanders in Iowa in 2016, and they were far off in Michigan (by 20 %, Sanders won that state in a surprise upset).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The ATLANTIC is not the government and unlike the president does not have the agencies and the best experts at their disposal. They do not get the behind the scenes info from the letter agencies (like the CIA). Nor can they put diplomatic pressure on China to come clean (if only behind the scenes !)
If Trump admin had abstained from making this a campaing issue ! - China might have been more forthcoming. Earlier.
Initially (before corona crisis broke) Trump planned to use China bashing in his campaign, he tried a little bit of that corona related but that did not help him, other issues became more important. China bashing might work with the dedicated base, but not for the other voters he would need to pull off a win in Nov.
Even w/o the corono crisis, seeing the relations with China under that self serving angle of using them as boogeyman for an election campaign is highly unpatriotic.
(Corporate Dems do the same with Russia !)
The relationship with China (or Russia to not let the Dems off the hook) is obviously highly relevant for the safety and economy of the U.S. So whatever goes on, government fights it out behind the scenes first, and should not abuse such important issues as political football.
with a COMPETENT U.S. government it would not matter, that the Dems specialized in Russia bashing since 2016. A competent government would not have let the important Reagan era military treaties and agreements expire.
If for the sake of public health you have to make concessions to another country (face saving) - as to encourage them to share the TRUTH, a reasonable U.S. admin would have done that.
Sure, China dropped the ball (again after 2002 / 2003, they should have learned their lesson). So what is the U.S. going to do about it. They will never officially admit it, they are not going to pay reparations, and the
The willingness to make cheap points with the help of important issues shows also in the half baked travel ban. Trump was right to have one, only it shold have been the one the experts recommended. For ALL travellers, the virus does not care if a person has an US passport.
so Trump started with an experts recommendation and turned it into something to stick it to China. And to avoid any economic inconveniences (which a real travel ban would inevintably cause).
For the same reason Trump later ignored the advice to have a travel ban for people coming from Europe. Again: the industries (donors) would not have liked it. And he wanted to project the image thateverything was fine. Using highly unusal and inconvenient measures (if only to be on the safe side) would have somewhat tainted that picture. It could have triggered the overdue correction on Wallstreet. He did not want that either.
Both decision (only half measures reg. travel ban China and none for Europe) were not driven by public safety concerns.
Big biz interests and the image of "The economy is good, all is normal" were more important - and it gave Trump an opportunity to annoy China.
2
-
2
-
I do not even think this is about identitiy. whatever works in their opinion to damage Sanders - and Warren plays along. The DNC / Clinton machine painted him as sexist, racially almost insensitive and his supporters as the mean Bernie Bros last time. That did work to a degree (at least in certain circles, not the majority of voters).
So they might be tempted to revive true and tested strategies.
It is true that these types gravitate to fabricate a sexism claim because that is really bad in these circles.
(Ignoring of course that Clinton was able to lose against President pussygrabber so the electorate incl. many women were not overly concerned with sexism.
On the other hand the Democratic leadership does not want Warren to win the general election either, that is not even necessary, she could be bought with a VP or cabinet position. (Nor would they worry if a Biden/ Warren ticket or any other combo loses. Although they will not admit that, at least they can keep the tax cuts and can clutch their pearls 4 more year. Backstabbing The People on every turn and of course they could wag their finger at progressives, that would be blamed for a lost election when Biden, Warren suppress turnout).
I guess: The DNC, their favorite media stenographers, and Warren's Hillary / Obama Staffers and maybe team Biden met in smoke filled rooms and made a ruthless calculation.
What could we throw at Bernie ?
Wine, wife and song - or corruption is not an option. Going after his fashion sense and hair is also not an option. Anti-semitic ? only the right tested the waters. This election season. One try was in 2016 by a "liberal" but it went nowhere.
Some rightwingers did so THE DAY AFTER Labour lost in the U.K. (if it had worked so well in the U.K. we should try it against Sanders as well).
DNC is not ready for that. Yet.
I assume they would try Russia, Russia before anti-semitism.
So they activated the narrative of the mean Bernie Bro. and rounded it off with a healthy dose of sexism.
Warren: "Sanders sends out his volunteers to trash me" - this is a quote and of course no evidence for that. She does not mind insulting the army of volunteers while she is at it. People that are instructed to not even compare platforms and to not even mention the names of other candidates. As she could have found out if she had checked out the website or the quiz for the training of the volunteers. Or she could have called Sanders.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Austria - your example: company with 200 employees, max. contribution per month 40,000 USD from the employer and the same amount from staff (if all 200 employees have 5,000 USD per month before taxes - which would be rare).
It is 3,8 % of the wage and the cap is for a yearly wage of 60,000 so that is max. 2,400 per year for each party
That contribution is a mandate (small and large companies) and for every staff member that has more than 500 USD per month. (so that would be monthly 19 USD for each party if you have only 500)
The mandate also constitutes the right to FULL coverage (like everybody else) incl. for dependent family members (at least till age 18, stay at home parents or spouses etc.).
Signing up when new in the job: 5 minutes. name, address, SS number, and the same for the dependent family members (if both parents hold a job one or the other includes the children. Does not matter, it is ONE pool).
If the main breadwinner pays the maximum and the wife has a side job and the teenager a summer job - they all pay according to wage. (Yes the wife would be covered via her husband, but if she has a wage she too must contribute - if only a little bit.
If you hold serveral (well paying) jobs you can ask for a refund if you come over the 60,000 per year salary threshold. The companies cannot check that, the insured must settle that with the insurance agency. One of the rare cases where you have to do with them.
They work quietly in the background, no one "loves" them, they are expected to do their job and help to make healthcare happen - and they deliver.
Now a person with only 500 USD per month will hardly make a living with that wage. But let's say a single mum takes a sabbatical (children are over 3 years so no coverage or benefit via maternity leave). She has savings and has an apartment that belongs to her so lower cost for housing. - So she can do that for one year or two - but she wants of course healthcare insurance.
If she is not covered by any other program - and then usually for free (maternity leave, or unemployment - but that does not rhyme with sabbatical, disability or because she pursues a recognized form of education) - she could look for a side job that pays more than 500 USD per month. Then she has automatically insurance with full coverage (for 19 bucks) and that includes the kids.
Kids would be covered under ALL circumstances.
2
-
the principle of single payer is to have everyone covered so the contributions must be modest. No resistance to the mandate and it is easier for companies to come up with the money.
Employees of small companies have the same coverage as those of large companies, or retired persons (it is one pool). So that is a recruiting advantage.
The mandated contribution is not nearly enough - the agency gets max. 4,800 USD per year per employee, less for many. Austria spent around 5,500 USD per person on healthcare in 2017 (54 % of the U.S. spending per person, which was USD 10,260 - most wealthy nations are in the range of 49 - 55 %).
Many persons have no wage / income so the agency gets no payroll taxes for them.
Think children, disabled persons, stay at home parents / spouses, students, ...
So there must be generous additional subsidies - like in the U.S. - coming from general tax revenue.
The Austrian government still pays less in subsidies per person compared to the U.S. government. And citizens and compnies pay much, much less.
Another angle of: if it costs double of what it should cost, there are many parties (gov., citizens, companies) that can save money while comprehensive services for all are offered.
The services are good. And (almost) free at the point of delivery. (co-pay for drugs, but all very modest).
The subsidies come from general tax revenue: like for instance income tax, or VAT (10 % for staples, else 20 %). Which is offset by many benefits and public services.
VAT is especially offset for families with children: till age 18 there is an universal child benefit of approx. USD 150 per child per month. It is like UBI per child. (After age 18 - 26 it is paid if the young adult pursues some form of education or professional training. No means testing but it is conditional. Persons that hold a regular job do not get it anymore).
General tax revenue:
it includes taxes paid by wealthy individuals (income tax) or profitable companies. So indirectly companies may pay more for healthcare than payroll tax of 2 x 3,8 % (although the larger companies are also good in tax dodging) - but if a company just started out or is barely hanging on - they are not burdened beyond the payroll tax.
The broader shoulders have to carry more of the weight.
All the money (payroll tax and subsidies) goes into a much more cost-efficient system, with no large ! for-profit players (except big pharma) and there is much less red tape (streamlined billing, no chasing after payments).
The doctors do not consult with the insurance agency regarding treatments. A framework is negotiated, and the doctors decide with the patients which medication, surgery etc. they will have.
Rates for doctor practices (they are like small businesses) and hospitals (non-profits) are sharp but the bills get paid reliably and on time.
Hospitals are non-profits. For-profits are not outlawed, but they cannot exist w/o the patients covered by the public insurance. The agency has contracts with the non-profit hospitals that are run by cities, states and in some cases churches. So there is no need for more hospitals and they would not get a contract.
Enough hospitals but not too many. (they have been established in the 1960s, 1970s at the latest).
Time for the U.S. to get M4A = genuine single payer. Not Public Option. (= medicare for some maybe sometime. Some can opt out to "keep their plan")
Let alone the plan that lobbyist Phillip Longman blabbers about.
From the experience I have with single payer and the necessary factors to make it a success (mandate, comprehensive ! coverage, covering everyone, incl. migrants especially if they work and are producitve, no duplicative coverage) - the plan of Senator Sanders is the only one that grants a successful refom.
In the US the predators and for profits are so well established, plus the influence of money in politics - so any deviation of single payer principles will undermine the reform. Would likely slowly undermine the well established systems in other countries as well (think Public option). In the U.S. it would not be a slow erosion, the reform would be undermined before the transformation has been achieved.
The M4A bill shows that the issue has been dear to his heart for decades AND he had never the lobbyists in his ear while he developed his stance. He could allow himself to UNDERSTAND.
It is not that complicated. Many nations have developed their national systems based the basic principles, most have single payer (with some variations) for at least 70 years and it is interesting that almost all wealthy countries end up in a certain range of spending. There is a blueprint that works on 4 continent and in very different cultures.
It is only complicated and hard to "get" if you have to protect the interests of big donors while pretending to serve the constituents. Then it becomes an elaborate exercise in double think.
2
-
2
-
2
-
comments like this prove why Dr. Fauci and other experts can't bother the public with too much information (it is especially bad in the U.S.) It does not matter at all for outcomes what his estimates on herd immunity are. (they were always in the plausible range, of course he is a renowed expert). It also did not result in harm that he changed his assessment on masks and mask mandates (like other Western epidemiologists !) in April.
it did not even matter that he had a different opinion in March, they would not have had the masks to pull it off anyway.
It was crucial to let the healthcare workers have the limited rescources.
Telling the public there would not be enough for them even though there could in theory be a small benefit (only with enough masks for ALL of the general popultion) - that was NOT an option. It would have caused a run with CATASTROPHIC results for the healthcare workers. it is disputable how much effect the mask mandates of regular people bring - but it is clear that we get much more protection and avoided infections from healthcare workers wearing them.
As for the insightful population (that voted for Trump in significant numbers !)
See Toilet paper craze. The sitting president and his admin downplaying the situation for political purposes. Or the hydroxychloroquine stunt of Trump and his cronies.
The general estimate for herd immunity (for many contagious diseases) is 60 - 90 %.
80ish sounds about right, considering it is fairly contagious but not as bad as measles.
If you have listened to the video. Some factors of how much herd immunity is needed can be influenced (government providing the vaccines and making it easy and free of charge to get the shots, and population using the offer).
The efficacy of the vaccines and how long the protection lasts - there is an element of luck. If the vaccineS (there are 4 about ready to be rolled out globally) do not trigger a strong immune response with almost all that get it - more people will need to participate to compensate for that.
Or the U.S. does an excellent job, but Mexico and Brazil not and new cases are imported from there. That too would require higher herd immunity in the U.S. to suppress ALL cases.
Taiwan, Singapore and China, or Australia and New Zealand do a good job to suppress the spread even now - they can get away with a lower herd immunity and will see the benefits already at much lower levels (although they should aim for a higher rate, just to have a margin). It is not only the infectious capacity of the virus, it is also the behavior of the humans, and the situation in the country or continent, that determines how easily it can spread. And that is one of the factors that influence how much herd immunity is needed.
I am only surprised that Dr. Fauci was even willing to give an estimate beyond the very generic 60 - 90 %, "we will see, and will aim at higher herd immunity anyway".
I assume he does a lot of modelling - he mentioned that he did calculations (there are a lot of factors so if you change the criteria you get other predictions) and his nerdy side got the better of him. Poor doctor thought if he said 70 - 75 % some months ago, and 80 - 85 % now (with some new insights, the damn thing is even more contagious than we thought) that the public would "get it".
Nope, there are lot's of people that want the population to work and die so their profits are not affected. There are limited resources of highly effective treatments (giving antibodies) and the likes of Trump and Giuliani get it. Politicians and rich people know they are not going to die or get severely sick, not even if they are in a high risk group. They do not mind a culling.
Dr. Fauci's recommendation are in the way of those ruthless actors, so he became a target of rightwingers and their media shills.
The same crowd that send out their mouthpieces (Republicans on FOX) to tell the elderly audience that the older and high risk persons should sacrifice themselves for the good of their children and the economy (read: we the rich, and some biz owners do not want to pay higher taxes and we do not accept lower profits. We want you to work and consume as always.
Your children should go to work and if you get infected indirectly we do not care. Actually it is an advantage because the person will not get SS and Medicare. Affluent older people can easily shelter at home, pay for delivery services, and their adult children do not work in retail they likely work from home, so less risk to catch the infection. AND: in case of an infection they can try to get the VIP cures. Low(er) income people do not get them, they cannot afford them and there would not be enough of them anyway.
Of course if lower herd immunity is enough to stop spread (the vaccines are ideally effective) then the positive effects will manifest earlier and return to normal will be possible faster.
If he had accounted for bad faith actors and clickbaiters (like The Rising) he just would not have given them anything to misrepresent them.
Rachel works for a rightwing think tank. She was always easy on lying stupid grifting Trump (no pearl clutching at all) and of course does some faux concern trolling about harmless inconsequential remarks (herd immunity) or actions that were perfectly justified, reflected the knowledge of the time, and saved a lot of lives (masks and change of assessment of Fauci and other scientists in other countries about mask wearing and mask mandates).
Not surprised about Rachel Bovarad's stance.
Shame on Krystall for playing the "Gotcha game" over nothing.
2
-
Andrew Yang in the New York Times interviews of 2020 candidates. What broke your heart: Yang paused a second and then said: Barrack Obama. - which was a remarkable and courageous thing to say. He qualified it then - downplaying the betrayal of Obama, and how it was not realistic he could have done what he promised. No, he could have, at least he could have given it a good try.
Pulling off an FDR (communicating with the masses. And: then some Democrats were the problem as well. FDR twisted some arms. He would campaign agains them if they would not vote for the bills of the New Deal.
Then the Democrats too had the White House, Congress and Senate.
Imagine Obama "being caught" by the U.S. voters - fighting for them (respectively he would have made a point to STAY in communication). They would have turned out for a March on Washington, for peaceful protests and in the midterms 2010 to give him a more cooperative Congress and Senate.
But he never had the intention, it was always the plan to serve the big donors.
Obama likely would not mind doing things to help the citizens - if that would be very easy and meet no resistance of the big donors. (the people that now make it possible for the Obamas to buy mansions in the Hamptons). But intelligent people like Barrack Obama or Michelle must have realized that the interests of big donors and the population hardly ever align.
That is why both were happy to latch onto the cause of gay marriage. The grassroots had done the heavy lifting. there was no political risk to being pro gay marriage (the potential Democratic voters were at least for giving that freedom, even those that they are not too all too positive about gay people).
Gay marriage signals "progress" and is his "legacy" and the big donors do not mind either way.
Republicans also latch onto such issues (LGBTQ rights, abortions, guns) they try to rile up their base and the Dems do the same on the other side of the issues.
These issues are cheap they do not cost the Democrats politically as soon as grassroots have changed public opinion, they do not cost the big donors (their common donors) anything.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@brian2440 Consumers were probably unaware of the highly unusual situation that Texas has a closed off grid (ERCOT handles 90 % of Tx load, that is the Stand Alone Grid). The free market gibberish certainly did not communicate that TX was the opposite, a closed off, small market, with unusual vulnerabilites. The race to the bottom (energy prices) was more important than being prepared for the catastrophic once in 10 year events. It was so important for politicians that they even accepted to not have access to the much larger market - to export in normal times and to import in an emergency.
Being on their own makes the state VERY vulnerable if they have major blackouts.
Consumers were also not told that the state had major blackout because of winterstorms and extreme (for Texas) cold in 1989 and 2011.
The hurricanes are a known, but then people do not die of the cold, if the house survives, their pipes are not bursting. At worst people have no power and no water, but some emergency supply of water (usually they shop in advance if they get warnings) and the tank full so they can leave if the situation lasts longer.
Of course consumers may have remembered the 2011 blackouts - especially if they lived in the state already. But they may have naively assumed the state, the companies may have learned from the experience.
A Tx govenor (Perry or Abbott) sued the EPA in order to NOT have to winterize the grid.
Tx has the Stand Alone Grid specifically to avoid federal regulation. The very thing that made them so exposed to the risks of a severe cold snap, als prevented them for getting help. There are no (major) power lines that connect Texas with other states. They can't export / import much - or they would be part of the grid. Never mind legalities (that could have been overcome with a federal emergency order) - but it was impossible to export energy.
El Paso region for geographical reasons is on the southwest grid (and that includes Canada). They too were hit hard in 2011. They learned.
They invested into winterizing. Being on ther larger grid means that they are subject to federal regulations - which also mandate to weatherize and to have reserves (after all no state should be a freeloader. All can have the other states as backup, but all must be reasonably well prepared to keep the number and extrent of emergencies down).
El Paso did NOT lose power production. And they met additional demand with importing electricity (via New Mexico from Arizona). These states all stayed functional despite the cold, are subject to federal regulations, were able to cope and had the reserves to help out.
One nuclear power plant in AZ increased output.
In Tx one of two nuclear power plants had to go from the grid (for a time) because their instruments froze.
If you have any idea about safety protocols in nuclear power plants - that is insane. How can an nuclear power plant NOT be winterized in a state that is known to be hit be extreme cold every 10 years.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Waste of money in the U.S. healthcare system: 1) incredibly complex billing (handling of the multitude of plans instead of ONE dominant streamlined, comprehensive, cost-efficient form of coverage for all).
2) doctors AND even nurses waste their valuable time on the phone arguing on behalf of their patients with the insurance companies. There are many plans where everything has to be pre-approved.
They don't do that nonsense in single payer countries. I live in one: helicopter transport or the new hepatitis c cures, or organ transplants - and the expensive medication for life (and all the other things that are part of a first world medical system) are "on the menu".
The DOCTORS DECIDE (together with the patients). They do not consult the agency for approval in individual cases. A framework has been set up, and the doctors use the tools. In those decisions for-profit does not play a role.
The middle man (insurer = the non-profit agency) also provides their services (to make healthcare happen in the country) w/o profit incentive.
3) The profits, marketing, sales costs of the for-profit players have to be paid.
4) incentive to "milk" better policies with tests and procedures that are not necessary, they do not harm the patient, but there are costs that do not lead to better outcomes.
Doctors and their families have less surgery done than the average of the population, it is as if they know that a surgery isn't going to fix anything in certain cases, or that there are other less invasive, less costly measures that can be tried before.
1
-
1
-
1
-
If a country pays only half of what the U.S. pays, all actors (government, insured, employers) will pay less. THERE you find the money in a cost-efficient system to pay the people well that actually add value and are necessary: medcial staff (and a small group of administrators) in hospitals. Or doctor practices..
No one needs private insurance when the public system is reasonably set up and properly funded. That is the problem for the insurance industry - they will become obsolete, will keep only a small sliver of the "market" - and no one will miss them. That is why "public option" (Medicare for xx) is their contingency plan, and they have worked the other candidates.
The NECESSARY tasks of an insurer (a non-profit that works for the public good OR a profiteer):
Collect the money pay the bills, get information about new treatments and drugs, and set up programs for preventive care. That is the overlap of for-profit or non-profit (of course the non-profits will have a different take on preventive, they can look at the good of all of society, the for-profits will have a much more narrow angle).
Profit seeking health insurance companies will always have higher costs due to other and additional acitvities: Marketing, sales staff, profit for shareholders. They add administrative complexity, so they have costs and their rates must compensate doctors and hospitals for the extra admin as well. Plus the toxic incentives to game the system (a little bit, or it can get as dysfunctional as in the U.S.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, all other nations figured it out and most at least after WW2:
With healthcare there is no "free market" possible, the insured / patients are by far the weakest actors in the system. Because they do not have to most important choice of all: The choice NOT TO BUY - that's the superpower of the consumers.
But with healthcare services (and that means realistically having coverage by insurance) the consumers must "buy".
If they are lucky a single payer agency gives them a good deal. All get the SAME treatment at the same facilities. Mandatory costs are LOW, known in advance, no payments later when treatments are needed. The universality and one-size-fits all gives them a lot of political leverage and ease of mind.
Medical care is costs a lot (even in a cost-efficient system, think USD 5,500 per person per year), it is a life and death issue and it is very COMPLICATED. If the profit motive plays a role AT ALL the consumers WILL be exploited because the CAN be EXPLOITED.
Medical decisions are complex (and billing and contracts can be intentionally made complex) - that favors the profiteers and not even well intentioned legislators or regulators can protect the insured or prevent that unnecessary procedures are used. They would have to monitor each and every decision.
The predators will be always a few steps ahead, they find ways to work around the laws (and if that causes red tape and even more costs, so what ? they just pass on these costs as well).
The single payer nations want their insured / patients to be safe from exploitation. They do not play the foolish game.
In my example: there is no value in having the wild animals in your house, and on top of that they WILL cause harm, it is only a matter of time. You do no let them into your living room and then "regulate" them.
You do not let them in. Period. They can roam in the wild, where they have their function in certain eco systems.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@goji059 Sanders tied him on the State Delegates Equivalent (well 1,5 behind if we can believe that the count is now complete). - Sanders corrected the narrative of premature pete and declared victory. Sanders clearly got more votes in the first round and after realignment 6000 / 2500. And the metric that counts (to a degree) are the National (not the State !) delegates. Each will get 11. So of the whopping 41 candidates Iowa sends to the convention (3 %), 11 to Sanders, 11 Pete, and 19 go to other candidates.
Iowa awards only 3 % of the National delegates so it is more the media buzz that is the PRIZE - and who "wins" it is taken as a sign how a campaign is run.
Well, Sanders had more votes, much more diverse voters (they don't have so many minorities in Iowa but the campaign activated them big time) and got that result without billionaire money. Depend on it, Sanders will continue to hit him on being the candidate that is obliged to the most billionaires.
The National candidates were never the prize, the narrative and the momentum is. Pete the cheat might have even gained in New Hampshire because of his stunt, but it will not carry him forward to NV, SC or California.
Pete the McKinsey guy likes to crunch numbers, the Iowa party must have known that the partial release was not representative (and so knew pete). That is why the "numbers" of Sanders improved decisively (if you care about SDE at all, which weigh rural votes higher and is relevant for the affairs of the STATE party after the reform (they were able to influence the national delegates process but not anymore).
In the metric of popular vote Sanders was always ahead.
SDE used to have some relevance even on the National ! level (like the convention and the nomination for a National race), but not after the reform following 2016 primary and election.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marduk2672 a FREE ID does not help you with hours of wait time and no car to get there (or a job that would allow the flexibility to take time off or the money to pay for a baby sitter). Old people may not have the stamina for the long and tiresome process. It is not like in Germany or Sweden where a friendly neighbour drives you over, you are in and out in 15 minutes if you would have to reapply for documents for some reason.
Never mind - in those countries a comission would come to your home so you can cast your vote if you are elderly and bed ridden, and people can vote with very old ID (expired passport, driver's licence issued decades ago). They are registered automatically so when they vote by mail, no ID is needed at all.
In the U.S.: a free ID does not help you if the birth certificate was issued in a sloppy manner - or none was ever issued (home birth black person in the South during segregation). Or if the birth certificate does not match your SS data _perfectly. _ other nations also want an exact match and consistency BUT they had the systems in place to guarantee that, in every state or province, and also when people moved.
Civil servants worked with the same computer software, were trained the same way, so the documents ARE consistent.
In the U.S. if a family ever lost documents that can cause major problems later, w/o birth certificate it gets difficult, it gets more complex if people have moved to another state.
A hyphen or abbreviated middle name (done decades ago by a civil servant) can mean you need a lawyer - maybe not in that state, but after moving to another state. There are NGO's (with lawyers !) that help people getting correctly issued birth certificates (that match their SS info) so they can get proper ID's.
In other first world nations the process to replace ID's are not so complex that one would need a lawyer, the rules how that works are the same everywhere and it does not happen that mistakes or liberties civil servants took with the documentation trip citizens up later.
Poor people that do not drive (anymore) and do not travel (passport) get by w/o an ID that their state would accept as valid for voting. Often voting is the only time when they would need an ID.
And if they make a fuss about the rules for the birth certificate (or none was ever issued) a free ID is as complicated to get as a driver's licence or passport.
And the more important cost is for the time.
Low income people also might not be so good or patient with adminstrative stuff especially when it gets really complicated and bureaucratic.
1
-
@HKZ P that was not a FAILURE, that was his job. Once in office deflate the energy of the base, the big donors want quiet in their empire. Riled up or enthusiastic people that organize in grassroots fashion ? Everything could happen !
Obama took a LOT of Wallstreet money in the 2008 campaign (people did not pay attention, media did not mention it, the talk was about the many small donations he got as well. They liked that, it showed support for the campaign).
Wallstreet likes for-profit healthcare, too.
Plus big healthcare is a donor for campaigns but also the party in general !
citibank sent the lists with names for appointments. and it was used. btw: Attorney General Eric Holder was also "vetted" by them - and sure enough he did not prosecute any banksters.
(wikileaks Podesta email leak: that mail was from Oct. ! 2008. check it out).
When Obama came into office in the Republicans swore they would stonewall. He was not "naiv". Start with a weak proposal, let the Republicans help with watering it down (to provide plausible deniability). Drag it out.
Deflating the base worked a little too well, in Nov. 2010 the base had realized there would not be hope and change. The racist attacks in a way helped Obama, it distracted from what he DID and there were excused made for the Repubs that stood in the way. But in spring 2010 they passed ACA (there were 60 days with a filibuster proof majority, they could as well have passed a good reform. And some other things).
In the end the both wings of the one and only big donor party - although sometimes hostile to each other - know what is expected from them. Indeed there was some bipartisan cooperation - for instance fasttracking TPP / TTIP.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think Sanders subconsciously self-sabotages. He worked HARD - and a part of him UNDERMINED his efforts: There are mistakes that can happen during a campaing, you just do not assess the situation correctly
And then there were own goals that are so glaring that it makes you wonder what possess the good Senator:
Example
A recent fundraising email (for charities) in which Sanders says NOW is not the time to push for M4A (was in the middle of the text). That must be
a) bribery, selling out, always just wanted to sheepdop the base [I do not believe that]
or b) Sanders got scared of the possibilty to win
or c) they threatened him or have dirt on him
But the logical explanation is either a), b) or c).
The current situation couldn't be more ideal for an aspiring organizer-in-chief and to push for M4A. someone else can do the charities (the little league, he can leave that to celebs).
The time calls for and is favorable of the Big Game.
Turns out Sanders is more comfortable with the role as eternal underdog and movement leader. Then why did he not throw all his weight behind Tulsi Gabbard and did not even run for president ? She has the courage, he could have relieved her from the hassle to fundraise.
He did good, he changed the discussion, you can't expect a 78 year old man to save America from itself, and I have no doubt that he wanted to SERVE - BUT he fell short.
It is an epic failure to "hide" now (doing virtual townhalls is hiding, he is preaching to the converted).
He should troll the media, be super prepared for the interviews (update his talking points) and educate the U.S. about the 99 things that are wrong with the "stimulus" bill. And why progressives voted for it (through gritted teeth).
Another failure (they ALL dropped the ball) it was early on clear where that was headed, they should have walked out and organized mass protests.
Walk outs, car convoys, rent strikes.
Floating the idea of a general strike (if not now, then later). Watch the establishment go nuts.
I do not think he sold out for personal gain. He is just standing in his own way and got scared of his own boldness.
Avoiding to be beaten down as Ralph Nader 2.0 is more important than the political revolution.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KC PMII The founding "fathers" were the 1 % of the colonies that wanted to sever ties with the 1 % of the British Empire. They found the ideas of the enlightenment interesting, even inspiring (so did kings in europe, did not mean they used the ideas ! or even allowed their subjects to read the books).
Some founders were on the receiving end of goverment tyranny of the British empire, when they started to dissent - so that shows in provisions of the constitution.
One reason why the Protestant migrants of the Empire beat the Catholic Spaniards (in the early days of the colony), they did not insisit to let only members of one religion come. So they grew the numbers faster.
The founders were pragmatic in that respect: So freedom of religion and even separation of state and religion.
Of course the empire was determined to not let them secede - the oligarchs of the colonies had a deal with the king of France (enemy of the British Empire), else they would not have dared to challenge the empire.
(drained the resources of France and might have helped to bring about the French Revolution).
Plus they needed to engage the unwashed masses to do the dying and fighting for them, in a sure to come war. But not give them anymore power than before.
The founders just needed a good narrative how the lower classes did not have to be obedient to the British king and the British parliament (also only representing the weatlhy and the aristocracy) anymore.
They were now going to be ruled by the upper class of the colonies. People that had some property were allowed to vote but the "representatives" were from the upper class for the most part, did not mean those voters had a lot of influence on policies.
So that needed a good motivational story, because the lower classes got nothing out of the deal - and the risks of war on top. Economic problems, injuries and possible death in the Independence war. Likely very poor provision for disabled veterans. Or widows.
40,000 white males had the vote in the early days of the Republic, not even all white men were allowed to vote. Of course not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
An INVESTOR in shares would be diversified anyway and sit it out - if need be for several years. And companies like GM, Ford, Nestlé, Tesla, Amazon, .... are not hindered to do biz because their shares are going up or down in value. They got their money when they entered the stock exchange = IPO (Initial public offering).
The ONLY reason for society to allow the trading of shares (of large companies, only those are listed) - that it can be a method to finance new companies which may or may not be viable. Mind you if the incubators have 20 maybe ONE of those do well enough to even be a potential candidate. Only when they are larger AND profitable (or with good prospects and or sufficiently hpyed up they will have an IPO). Another possibility is that the fund that finances such upstarts is already publicly traded on the stock exchange and that they try to convince potential investors what they have in the pipeline.
If you look at the Dow Jones and S & P 500, most of the traded companies are very OLD companies (when had Ford the IPO ? or GM or large steel manufacturers ?). New companies emerge with new technologies and business models (Amazon was not possible before the internet). But when a new technology becomes mainstream - only a FEW very large companies remain, some are bought up or they never make it to the stock exchange.
The stock exchange helps with mergers and aquisitions - so it favors monopolies (or oligopolies).
The owners always try to hold the majority of the shares (unless they must sell shares to get their hands on money which is when THEY are not doing well while competitors thrive. That makes them vulnverable for a hostile takeover though if they have more than 50 % of the shares out there).
In very large companies the owner / founder usually has less than 50 % (I doubt Bill Gates ever had 50 % of Microsoft, he got a lot of money of investors and they keep (most of) their shares if the company is doing well), but they aspire to have certain percentages of the total share volume that gives them certain (minority) rights when they vote in the shareholder meeting.
Plus the major shareholders of Amazon (incl. Jeff Bezos) will never throw all their shares on the market - that would result in a price drop even when the stock exchange does very well.
Jeff Bezos did not need or intend to sell them in January and does not need to sell them now. the high wins (or losses) are only "in the books" - it is virtual.
Now is not an ideal time to pay for aquisitions with a share package - but then: loans are VERY cheap (interests rates), so there is no need at all to sell NOW.
As for top managment with the stock options: they will have to wait, it is not like they have to cancel their vacation or sell the car or forgo medical treatment because they cannot use the option right now to full advantage.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The politcally motivated attacks on Obama and even Michelle cynically using racism were ugly - but they also offered protection for Obama: The base rallied behind him, "liberal" media could report on him but no on the substance, Fox cricticized him (but not in good faith or about ridiculous stuff, like the dijon mustard or his tan suit).
It HELPED by creating the myth that he could not do anything because of stonewalling Republicans. Not true - like under FDR the Democrats were the problem, but FDR twisted some arms to get the New Deal bills passed.
Obama had the mandate to be the next FDR - but he was a careerist that seized the historic chance the crisis offered to him.
How about NOT even trying to work with hostile Republicans, when they declare the war on day one, the had admin, Senate and Congress and they had 60 filibuster proof days in spring 2010.
Then they could have passed ANYTHING. Even GOOD healthcare reform, and bringing down drug prices, by letting Medicare negotiate drug prices and let them gross import drugs and distribute them to ALL pharmacies at the same price.
Thus CREATING the change the population had hoped for.
No one FORCED Obama to get the most neoliberal advisors. (Citibank sent the lists with names to pick appointments from - in Oct. 2008 already, and the Obama admin used it. So the policies and mindset that lead to the GFC, was then used to allegedly "solve" the problem.
To be fair it WAS solved - for the big donors.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Maybe Sanders got afraid of his own courage. Maybe being the leader of a movement suits him better than REALLY being the president. That hesistance would make him a nuanced, considerate person, not one of the narcissists that typically run for office. But sadly he also lets down his supporters. That lack of killer instinct could cost the country (and the world) dearly.
I understand: the old man at age 77 is supposed to save the U.S. from itself (and the world while he is at it). Against ruthless and powerful and many enemies.
And who could accuse him for not running at all, enjoying the pay and benefits of a Senator (he knows the job, he could take it easy).
On the other hand he campaigned on bringing a Political Revolution, he asked for the donations and the volunteer work - and people gave and their heart on top of it.
FIERCE if principled fighting would be necessary to have a chance. They made some strategic mistakes. Took Bloomberg as the major challenge, Biden was almost written off (it is testimony to the power of Corporate media to shape a narrative, the inertia of certain voting blocks. The young that remain detached, and the old that can't fathom that the status quo is not nearly enough. And the institutional power of the DNC and Obama to tilt the tables against Sanders and against The People.
I understand that Sanders is diplomatic to not alienate Biden voters. The party "leadership" and the corporate media will not reward him for being NICE - on the contrary: no good deed goes unpunished. See Clinton, he supporters and media that prop up the lies how he cost her the election. w/o Sanders the Republicans would have exposed her much earlier. Incl. Wallstreet speeches, and Trump would have gotten her on trade. Only healthcare would have not been an issue (how dare Sanders make that front and center and show her weakness on an issue that is crucialfor the voters).
I think there are people that voted for Trump that liked his "I don't give a shit" attitude. They WANT A FIGHTER. Mild mannered doesn't always cut it.
Not giving a shit served TRUMP and Boris Johnson very well. There is a happy middleground between the weak stance of Sanders and what rightwingers pull of.
FDR didn't do nice either. He had not only the rhetoric he actually twisted arms, and made ultimatums (to his fellow Democrats, they did not need Republicans to pass the bills. And also to the Supreme Court. He mused about court packing. The right wing activist court got the memo. They had struck down the first bill - very popular, so the voters were furious. One of the next decisions was about the minimum wage. That was "found" to be constitutional. They should be impartial but they are not. At. All. there are many decisions that were reverse engineered from the desired outcomes. By the evangelicals / right wing / coporporate frindly judges).
Trump threatened: if the RNC would cheat him out of the nomination he would run as Independent. They knew he would - and would not give a damn about the bad press for handing the victory to the other aprty. THAT made the RNC fall in line. Of course narcissist Trump would not hesistate to have his revenge and Sanders was worried about the country in 2016.
No good deed goes unpunished !
the ruthless, craven media and Democratic leadership would rather lose to Trump than with with Sanders.
Now they rig the debate formate for Biden: a sit down and only questions from the attendees.
As opposed to both candidates standing and having a DEBATE with EACH OTHER.
They know that Sanders would do good, and Biden not. he may not have outright dementia but he malfunctions a LOT when under stress and when he has to exert himself (in other words he could do fine in relaces retirement but not under the stress of being POTUS. And voters would see WHO is in much better mental shape to defeat Trump.
The debates are late and there is an effect in cognitive decline * that is called sundowning. Sure they can prop up Biden with caffeine (or medicate him), but obviously that effect does not last for the whole night. He just could hide among the many candidates, and it so happened that in the last debates someone else was attacked.
* it can be a general weakness. We only know that Biden most of the time took it easy on the campaign trail, and Sanders had a very intense schedule. Biden did exert himself in South Carolina, but the stress of that plus the victory speeches already produced some more major malfunctions. To be added to the reel.
he had long days from Saturday in South Carolina, the party establishment kicking into overdrive to make him the front runner and then Super Tuesday.
And sure enough Biden malfunctioned (three times).
It shows that he has no RESERVES. It is like a person that is not very fit. They can function in normal life but they cannot go on a exhausting expedition. They are not FIT for THAT. Now a younger person that is a couch potatoe could train for athletic efforts.
But Biden close to age 77 can't dto anything to ACHIEVE that extra mental and physical fitness.
Some people are still in great shape mentally and physically - like Sanders. There is an element of good luck (good genes) in that.
he is so fit that he could ignore a clogging up artery (symptoms were fatigue, slept badly - but he ploughed on), they caught that just in time, his heart did not suffer damage from lack of oxygen.
Because of his RESERVES he bounced back right after he got the stents (the 2 weeks are the only time he got off since beginning of 2019, almost 1 week in hospital and 1 week for recovery. No doubt already working from home).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ashkebora7262 Meanwhile the DNC pushes a man in cognitive decline as the alternative to Trump. And corporate media covers up for him. I am not joking, at the minimum Biden does not have the stamina to run a vigorous campaign * (after Super Tuesday his team had him on 7 minute speeches, he is lucky with the corona virus shutdown. So now no one expects Biden to campaign on the ground, which would mean exerting himself (he did not do that except in south Carolina, he had 1 year time for the early states IO, NH, NV and no other job, she he could spread that effort out and his team had him on a light schedule.
He does not even campaign in the virtual world which is much easier, less time consuming, less demanding, less stressing.
Biden is incapable NOW to respond and to process all the NEW information or to think outside the box.
I am convinced it is worse, that he needed some time to come down from whatever they gave him to prop him up for the Sunday debate. That his team decided he would harm his cause be doing public and LIVE appearances.
He won a lot of Super Tuesday States where he had no groundgame, did (almost) no rallies or townhalls. He aslo did not campaign in the other states (although he got more donor money for ads after Super Tuesday).
Biden and team run ads to encourage people in Florida and Arizona to GO vote. (Kudos to Ohio, they stopped the primary. Biden could have asked those states for a delay and to arrange for mail ballots to NOT PUT the population at risk. In poorer areas where they closed down many polling stations there WERE LINES. Way to spread the infection, just to secure the lead before someone calls "the emperor has no clothes".
Now if Biden can win primary states w/o ever having to do the hard work like any other candidate, good for him.
but that will not be enough for the general.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ashkebora7262 Tump (the current "leader" did not handle the crisis adequately. A REAL Democratic candidate / frontrunner would of course prove to the nation why he or she is the better choice come November. It is political malpractice to cede the field to Donald Trump. It would be different if there was a competent Republican president, but even then the D candidate would appear on the internet to encourage people to practice social distancing, and would give a DAILY assessment of what is going on with the relief measures.
The candidate would be eager to do interviews to remain VISIBLE in the CRISIS. If Trump is the only one visible (and there is a blackout on Sanders who responds and does the work that you would expect from a SERIOUS Democratic candidate) - then Biden WILL lose ground.
It shows btw: Trump gained 10 points within a week in polling (how does the president handle the crisis).
Biden is not fit to be shown for longer to the audience, and when they propped him up for a debate, he obviously needed a LOOOOONG time to recover from that. It is also telling that he had no messages for the public but had contact with his Big Donors, online of course.
I do not think that Biden was smartly calculating that he did not need to campaign (he had a half intense campaign in IO, NH and maybe NV, and he campaigned for real in South Carolina. It showed, he produced a lot of "gaffes" after he had won, long days, many speeches and interviews.
1
-
1
-
@ashkebora7262 Meanwhile the "safer, more electable choice" for Democratic voters, gives one address regarding corona virus, on a stage with flags for the "presidential optics". When it was over (reading from a tleeprompter of course), Jill Biden had to come on the stage give him a kiss, to MARK the end.
Biden didn't get the cue (she disguised her intervention cleverly, it was not too suspicious). Then she left the stage, obviously she thought, he would now follow her. He did not do that though, so she softly called him: "Joe".
As a caregiver would do with a patient that is still able to react and she does not want to lead him around and annoy him or embarrass him. Giving CUES.
Before that corona address, they attempted a virtual townhall, that was right after all campaigning on the ground had stopped: After a delay of 1 hour, the did it for a short time and then aborted the experiment.
Biden garbled up one sentence (3 corrections). and while answering the next question he simply stared on the screen of the smartphone (where the question appeared) answered in a lower voice, then he started to move sideways, wandering off the set so to speak and out of focus of the camera.
The campaign team then put on a still / logo - and then gave up, citing technical difficulties.
He held eye contact when answering the first question (and messed up the answer) and he forgot to hold eye contact and forgot he had to stay put for the camera for the second question. That was within a few minutes, and THEN they ended the LIVESTREAM.
They had technical difficulties (at least they said so), delay for 1 hour, then they had to improvise (he had to use a smartphone to read the live questions, might have been plants of course - but at least he had to answer w/o a telepromter and not with repeated takes and edits).
I assume he was irritated by the delay, and since these are NEW routines he cannot fall back on old memories of "how to do things". Maybe they gave him something lighter and the stimulating effect started to wear off because of the delay.
So they obviously NOW are telling him to STAY PUT on the stage, so they have to tell him VERY explicitely when it is over and he WHEN he CAN MOVE.
After the first Corona adrress he went missing for one week, but he held contact with the Big Donors. Yes that is reassuring - that THEY will dictate the conditions like they did in 2009 - and then the U.S. had an intelligent and healthy robust president (he just could not be bothered to fight for The People).
1
-
1
-
@ashkebora7262 Mistakes by the Sanders campaign: when things were normal, he only activated a PART of the young, the most engaged, and informed. Plus some perplexing results from EXIT POLLS. In elections they should not be off more than 2 %. 4 % would indicate election tampering. But the discrepancies between exit polls and results are often 6, 8, even 11 %.
I do hope there is a reasonable explanation for that, like bad sampling.
Or maybe that the typical Biden voter is less likely to be willing to stop for a pollster after they have just cast a vote (although the old people often have more time than the younger voters).
I would not assume that shame is an issue (people may not have admitted in exit polls to voting Trump in the 2016 primaries). The best way to do exit polls is to let people vote again and no one knows their choice. Except for the odd moron that plays a practical joke, the results should be accurate.
Plus: Representative samles. But if they know the turnout and the ZIP code, that should be no problem.
maybe enough affluent Republican voters (meanwhile embarrassed by Trump) just wanted to make sure that it is either Trump or Biden (and not Sanders). So that more Republican voting "Independents" came out to prop up Biden.
Maybe mail ballots skewed the picture as well.
One reason why I think that the exit polls might not be an indicator for criminal fraud, for changing the tabulation and the votes:
Many states that Biden won, are run by Republicans so they are responsible for the systems, the machines, and the tabulation of machines.
Especially in South Carolina (exit polls off there as well) and Super Tuesday and next Tuesday (Michigan polls were off as well) - I think MANY Republicans in charge ! saw Biden as the stronger competition for Trump - at that time.
Appeal to "conservative" leaning voters, VP status. He has baggage with trade deals, but many Republicans are so ideological that they think the "socialist" label of Sanders is an equally strong and major weakness (I disagree).
But if they saw Biden as the better man to beat Trump until 1 or 2 weeks ago (before his weakness became more apparent in the lack of response to corona virus) - then the Republicans RUNNING the election systems and the tabulation would cheat Biden - and Sanders (the allegedly weaker challenge for Trump) would get undeserved votes.
So that Trump would have Sanders (who many thought is the weaker candidate) as challenger in the general.
I think that the Republicans do not have any agreement WHO would be the stronger / weaker candidate.
Or they did not, I think meanwhile they factor in the cognitive decline of Biden.
So if Republicans did not agree whom to prefer - how could they pull off a highly coordinated effort to steal the primaries, either from Biden OR Sanders.
The Republican AND the Democratic elites know full well what is going on. A capable candidate would have acted differently in the last 2 weeks. Trump is also in cognitive decline (and not from a high level to begin with) - but he thrives doing rallies (they seem to exhaust Biden), he still has stage presence and instinct, and he did give a lot of press conferences.
Trump copes differently and he is not THAT different from 2016. Told a lot of nonsense and lies then, and he still does. He pulls if off with a lot of bragging and bravado, plus bullying - it works for him. even his inadequate response gave him a 10 point increase in the polls within one weak.
It is political malpractice by Democrats, that his inept response looks so good compared to the Democratici "official" leadership (and corporate media ignores Sanders who gives the presidential response).
I think whatever Biden has, makes him decline much FASTER than Trump
The easy ! wins of Biden (no effort needed on his part) prove the power of name recognition, the power of corporate media which did a lot of the campaigning for free for him, and the DNC and Obama swooped in in the right moment to seize the ONLY chance and to clear the path for him.
Jim Clyburn and Obama have a lot to answer for. Sanders could be the frontrunner now -and then he would be on TV and telling the nation WHAT measures should be passed. Calling out: holding citizens hostage to sneak in LOTS of corporate welfare.
Calling out tone deaf Democrats: Pelosi: Means testing, really ? tax breaks for citizens and businesses - is she for real ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
prov. RESULTS as just announced in a Bernie "press conference": please upvote this comment (and reward the source with a like as well, link see below)
Results based on 60 % of Iowa * - In % for round 1 resp. 2: Sanders 29,08 / 29,4 Buttigieg 21,63 / 24,87 Warren 19,51 / 20,65 Klobuchar 12,07 / 11,18 and Biden 12,04 / 12,92
Jeff Weaver at 2: 00 Numbers are based on self reported results by precinct captains and a representative sample of Iowa, with 60 % of the precints *
source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia1aRRcPmsk
* The volume is very low, they did the press conference on the plane: I checked the percentages and names (these are correct) but not completely sure about the full meaning of 60 % statement. I think I got it right, though.
Then Weaver reads the numbers - see above
Jeff Weaver: "These results were pretty consistent throughout the night ...."
So Buttigieg profited the most from realignment in the 2nd round. Not sure how his groundgame is in New Hampshire so that boost could help him.
It is important that Sanders takes a lot of momentum from Iowa and carries it over to South Carolina. Obama advised Biden to not run - Biden has done hardly better than Klobuchar. And BOTH are beyond the 15 % threshold.
Now I do hope that Biden's ego keeps him in the race for the next 2 states (New Hampshire and Nevada), if only to split the centrist vote !
Channel of source
Bernie Sanders Speaks After Iowa Caucus
Livestream
Rebel HQ
The presser is done at the plane at the Des Moines airport
1
-
1
-
Dennis Walker that's not true. Republicans like and have Big Government when it comes to military spending, war on drugs, meddling with the sexuality of people and abortion. Mass surveillance, warrantless searches, .... (GWB started that, remember ?)
They are all for subsidies for farmers, big time for sugar in Florida, for fossil fuel, coal, nuclear power, and they bail out big finance.
GWB started bailing out finance (after they had let them run amock) . Obama continued.
Repulican voters impose rules on school dress codes, they introduced "god" into the pledge of allegience (or at least they would lose it now if it was removed). They micromanage school books to get a certain depiciton of slavery, the Civil War or evolution - of course only in red states (why not let SCIENTISTS and historians decide about that ? and stay OUT). They also micromange the experts and scientists in agencies so they will not use the word "climate change".
1
-
Dennis Walker Republican politicians start wars and regime changes in other countries. That sounds pretty big government to me.
Bush 1 was the driving force in the Reagan admin (certainly more as Altzheimers of Reagan got worse, Bush1 was highly competent and knowledgeable, and Reagan was not, not even w/o decline). So the U.S. government ignored the mandate of Congress to leave Latin America alone.
Therefore VP and fmr CIA director arranged for black budgets, so the CIA could finance the death squads. The budgets came from the CIA securing drug imports into the U.S.
I would call that CIA support for drug trafficking pretty Big Government.
Iran 1953 (on behalf of British Petroleum), Chile 1973, Guatemala, Ecuador, Panama under Reagan, Vietnam (rubber plantation, synthetic rubber wasn't a thing then). Bolivia now (most likely), Haiti, Venezuela (Koch Brothers ! - so always under Republican presidents).
That is going on for more than 100 years and Republicans are even worse than Corporate Democrats.
Smedley Butler: I was a gangster for Capitalism check out the quote, it is longer. So the resources in poor countries, the special interest behind cash crops (fruits for instance) and so that the workforce can be exploited. usually that is done in collusion with local governments, but they need help in case the citizens are getting uppity and want democracy and the natural resources of the country benefitting ALL of the population.
Oil, copper (Chile AT & T), Bolivia (Lithium). Or the land that is concentrated in the hand of a few to produce cash crops. Land inherited from the robber barons 100 or 200 years ago.Republicans Republicans do that even more than Corporate Democrats.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dennis Walker Republican / "Conservative" mindset: forcing their rules about religion, sexuality, and abortion on others.
Abortion / sexuality / gay rights
The Supreme Court has settled that, and there is NO first world country that outlaws abortion. There is a reason for that. (Abortion is not formally outlawed, but in Republican states it becomes very hard, costly, time consuming for low income females to get an abortion.
6 weeks heart beat laws ? really ?
Mind you the affluent Republicans get their abortions. They often drive out of state or fly to another state or country (Hawaii is popular for such mother / daughter trips). The right wingers protest in front of the few clinics left in red states.
Republicans make sure abortions are not offered in normal ! hospitals. (A woman could go there for a lot of reasons, so the public shaming and social control aspect would fall sideways). And even if they force the women to show up several times and have unnecessary examinations - for not medical reason at all - if that would be done in hospitals LOW INCOME families could still handle that.
An affluent Republican woman is unlikely to use any of the services of Planned Parenthood - the 90 - 95 % that have nothing to do with abortion. She has a private gynecologist for that (who does not dare to offer abortions in that climate. Even though they are easy to carry out in a practice, it is not complicated and very safe. Much easier to arrange for that compared to small surgery for instance.
IF such a Republican woman would show up at PP she very likely wants an abortion, and she might be found out. So they have to travel to escape the siege of rightwingers on the very few remaining open abortion clinics. No problem with money.
No, a 3 - 4 month old fetus is not a "baby", Republicans are entitled to their opinion as long as they do do not make that the base for far reaching decisions for another family. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, forcing a family to add a family member in the future when they do not want to.
I know that conservatives (read: socially conservative = backwards - the old times were not good) usually argue that if she got pregnant she has the responsibility to carry to term, else she should keep her legs closed, or be more careful with contraception. I have yet to hear that he should keept his pants closed.
Anyway: No - that LINK (getting pregnant = obligation to carry the pregnancy to term) is the idea of Republican individuals. They can feel free to live by it - but not imposing that idea, moral or religious idea onto others: that conception, early stage of pregnancy equals "it is a human, counts as child" or "must carry to term".
Yes life starts with conception, no one doubts that the zygote / embryo / fetus is alive. Or the fertilized eggs in a clinic for couples that cannot procreate naturally. Those eggs are routinely destroyed.
A frog, a dog, a bacterium or a plant is also "alive". Egg meets sperm cell, no doubt it is alive, but there is no ** universal recognition that that is a human being with the legal rights of a human being. That would be protection from that life being ended. We use plants (that were alive), we kill animals ... Alive is not a good basis to base you stance on.
** All first world countries allow abortion, and in all first world nation the majority is for giving that access (even citizens that say they would not use that option).
btw: Republicans do not object to the destruction of fertilized eggs in fertility clinics. Those treatments are costly and outlawing them would hit the clinics and doctors that make money of it, and it would become harder for the wealthy to get those treatments.
These are typical voters of Republicans - so naturally there is not law against destroying those fertilized eggs. Or the mandate to implant them all.
I do not know why the "hearbeat" would make such a difference (6 weeks, that rule in practice bans abortions because many women do not even know they are pregnant).
Many creatures have a hearth (development started 500 million years ago - fishes, reptiles have hearts, even some insects like bees)
Most Republicans insist it must be carried to term - never mind the finances, work situation, overal health, family status (bad marriage) or if the child would be severly disabled or sick.
that has to do with turning backwards, they want to "conserve" the old status. The old status was not good. Also not regarding sexuality. plus the joy to micromanage other people and to stick the nose in the private affairs of other people.
Obsession with micromanaging sexuality of other people - or their appearance
A nice spaghetti strap sundress is inappropriate - for a 5 year old. And she is made to wear a T-shirt because "she needs something to cover her shoulders, it is wrong / uncomfortable to show them." Little girls had gotten the dress by her grandma and proudly wore in to kindergarden.
They micromanage hair styles in school (especially if it accomodates black hair. which IS different)
Typically it is Republican leaning voters who have ridiculous dress / hair rules for school. Which are enforced with gusto and pettyness (as we know when the videos go viral).
But they are now utterly unable to enforce wearing a mask in Georgia.
Show up there in a T-shirt that shows your collarbones (seriously: the teenager wore a modest shirt it was not like a deep neckline, but you could see a part of the collarbones).
Or a skirt that is a little bit too short
And see what happens. It just so happens that the unreasonable cases are almost always against girls. That rhymes with "conservative" conserving how it was in the past incl. double standards and misogyny.
1
-
1
-
Dennis Walker Some Republicans / "Conservatives" puport to be more principled but switch immediately in a crisis. If it concerns THEM. That is a typical Republican / conservative trait. They do not think in systems, or abstract. Nor are they concerned beyond THEIR circle (family, people like them, people they know and like).
They only bother to understand that something is negative (or someone deserves help) when it touches them.
So there was hysteria about crack babies, and the black users (that was cultivated ! in the 1980s and 1990s. Crack is the synthetic version of Cocain. But only that was villified and carried much longer sentences that cocain - because black people used crack. The Supreme court did away with the extreme disparity but it is still not treated the same.
Likewise the prohibition crusaders got busy with marijuana / cannabis, even and especially after alcohol became legal again. It was the cheap drug of choice for poor Mexcians that were less than. There was no industry or big farmers behind it (alcohol, tobacco). Poor people can use homegrown (especially in the warm regions with the farm workers, it is called weed for a reason.
So they started the villification. Under FDR the prohibition of alcohol was ended, but they started the propaganda against weed (which was legal until the 1920s). See the movie Reefer Madness, it would be almost comical if not for the lives that were destroyed over the witchhunt.
Versus NOW the empathetic stance towards opiode abuse (and heroin). The insight about diseases of despair (also alcoholism) and that it is an illness that needs treatment and not a crime - is now possible because it hits WHITE people.
if that would be a problem that could be attached to black and brown people Fox would be on a crusade to villify them, and Republicans would eat it up.
So the nice gay neighbours that help them out can influence the stance on openly gay persons and even gay marriage. After the fact !
There is no abstract view about gay marriage. It is personal and always under the point of view: does it harm me or someone I care about ? if not - not interest not their problem. They do not know anyone well that is gay and will tell you that it is a hype, there weren't that much gays back in the day. (they all hid in the closet, of course). Good news is, as soon as accepting gay becomes mainstream they finally get to interact with people that are in the "like me" category except that they are gay. And then it is O.K.
One cannot expect any PROGRESS from Conservatives. It is in the name they hold on to the old status and want to "conserve" that. And since things in general weren't idyllic or lovely or fair in the past ... certainly not for the majority ....
For the same reason women demonstrate and harrass people going into abortion clinics and then drive to another state to get their abortion. When asked why she did not use the clinic in her state which was much nearer she said: She had demonstrated against it and it obviously it would not do to be seen there (and she cannot be sure she can avoid being identified).
As soon as their financial or personal interests are touched, or their personal bias about religion, moral code, sexuality, drug use, ... or their gung ho patriotism is triggered .... they all become very pro Big Government. All the talk about free market and personal responsibility flies out of the window.
1
-
Dennis Walker Republicans do not have a monopoly on personal responsibility. But in a personal or national crisis you still can fail. Then ALL (incl. small or big biz) run to the government for help if available (or the family. If you are about to be forclosed you will ask family and if you have your act together and family can afford it they will help. It is not EARNED to have a family as backup. But that made all the difference in the last crisis for many people).
Parading around "personal responsibility" strokes the ego of people that usually started out under good conditions. And it helps them to deflect from the fact that so many others are not doing well, which is obviously a SYSTEMIC issue. Which they like to redefine as individual problem (one that does not affect them).
Personal responsibility is good individual advice - and even with good starting conditions you have to put in the work. But for a society that is not enough.
You can wish all you want it could be solved at the indvidual level. Did not happen in the 1960s, 1980s, ... now.
When you are doing wishing it would be otherwise, you can resign yourself to the fact that you and your children are going to pay for the dysfunction in society. Crime rate, people getting too little healthcare too long, too many drugs floating around, .....
What can save some persons, so they are able to overcome systemic disadvantages (good genes, the one engaged teacher, someone finds out they are using drugs and slaps them, hard, sot they never slip down the drain) does not work on the large scale.
If you start out middle class, with law abiding parents that have their act together, you just have to continue what was set up well. Which is much easier than to build from scratch under difficult conditions.
Systemic: some people can overcome the disadvantage and make it anyway, that is not the question. But on the large scale you have the bad outcomes. Exhibit A: the United States for decades
Intelligence is partially inherited, and the rest is the conditions in the formative years (parenting, how the family lives = class, good food and not pollution). Same is true for being determined, ambitious. A part of that is an inherited character trait.
Especially intelligence is NOT earned.
Being taught over the course of 10 years (think approx. 6 - 16) self discipline by caring and loving parents is a massive advantage. I think many people underestimate how much of an edge that gives them and how hard it is to make up for that if you have to "parent" yourself as adult.
There is an element of grace and luck.
It can be done. Some suceed. But almost all children that are brought up by decent parents will have enough self discipline to cope in life. Not all will be super achievers, but enought to stay on track.
That is not the case if you have to learn it on your own. As you can observe.
Example:
A person is of average intelligence at birth. Diligent learning later can only do so much. They had some pollutants in the water (or lead) mother drank alcohol, took drugs, or smoked during pregnancy, they were poor.
So more likely to have health problems and also to have less than ideal health care, no dental care (so not the nice smile when applying for a job). Also less likely to get help if there are school problems, learning disabilities.
Yes the parents should support the children. Always assuming they have the education, are not addicted, broke, overworked, mentally ill / depressed, or completely drained by care for a disabled child, a sick parent ...
What is the baby, toddler, child, teenager going to do - sue them over being less than ideal parents ?
Now our person with average intelligence (and some points deducted for lead in water and lack of being pampered in the formative years) had still a fair shot in the 1950s - 1970s. Easier (much easier if they were white). Working in manufacturing, making decent money.
That meant their children were better taken care of, they could pay for tutoring, the braces, the good childcare, the wife could stay home and pamper the little ones (reading to them, that helps with development of the brain).
These kind of jobs are disappearing. Jobs that made it possible for a person get up the ladder, even if they were NOT super gifted, highly ambitious, good looking, ...
Being average and showing up and doing you job was good enough. Even some juvenile offenses were within tolerance. (if white). Shoplifting, drunk driving, drugs, low level violence - as long as there were plenty of jobs even an ex felon could get a decent job if they got their act together. If companies had fewer choiced they took a risk, which was a chance that a person could use to turn it around.
Good enough is the key word, in our kind of society everyone is needed (if only as consumers) and naturally there will be a few excellent and subpar people, while most of the population will hover in the middle.
a) average person from good background, they are propelled into the good positions and have the advanatage of their parents (educated, not used to putting up with crap, watching out for safe neighbourhoods etc).
If such kids have learning disabilites - in our time they get help. If they are not good in school - parents will buy them tutoring or push them through highschool. Some learning to the test. one can buy college work and even a thesis. Money can fix that.
If they have manners they should land a white collar job. Women can marry if they are decent looking (money can help to improve that as well).
Even if they are mediocre in their career. They will inherit from their parents. If they lose the job - the parents will make sure they are not foreclosed.
Not saying every person that is well off needed that help. But on the SYSTEMIC level it plays out. young adults in the GFC had much better chances if their parents were wealthy enough to keep them afloat. Naturally parents would do that.
Some took out a loan on their home if they were not that affluent (they would get that if the house was in good shape, and mortgage free, and interest was low). That means that the wealth built in the 1970s came into play and benefitted the children during the GFC.
Those houses appreciated in wealth - there you go.
Now they had 10 years more to pay down the loan. Their parents still have the house, so either the backup in the next crisis, or the inheritance.
If they get sick it is crucial to have a good job with the insurance that comes with it OR a family that can help out, so you do not lose the home ...
It is self perpetuating and the gap widens during difficult times. (it was the opposite in the Godlen Era). The initial advantage is passed on and it increases.
That is not the problem, the issue is that the other groups do not have the chances to get ahead that many (white people and some minorities) had in the Golden Era after WW2. The good manufacturing jobs in the car industry were for white people. That advantage is STILL at work, even if the family moved away.
And now black people can't go to another state to get ahead. (many poor whites from the South went to Baltimore for instance. 1930s and 1940s. So naturally a lot of racism).
They had close to 1 million people in the 1950s. Now the city has 600,000 people. Hard to overcome to systemic disadvantages. Things started to change in the 1970s for black people and the fight agains informal segregation. But that was also towards the end of the Golden Era. When they were admitted to the party it was almost over.
b) average person low income - they get ONE chance in their life if they are lucky, if they screw up (often as teenagers) they are truly screwed
Trump likely had a learning disability. Was glossed over (so he learned to arrange himself with that and a lot of bluster to cover for it). His niece says they paid someone to take his SAT. bought his way into the college. (so the transcripts are secret).
GWB is not smart. Have you seen the daughter of John McCain ?
GWB could drink, go AWOL, likely take drugs.
The son of Biden. Hunter got a board position at Amtrac. Was accepted into the Navy, he was too old, but got a waiver. I think family "placed" him there in the hope it would help him to stay sober. And it was a "respectable" profession. (Needless to say he could afford therapy and rehab).
Was kicked out of the Navy because of drugs, but in his case NOT with a dishonorable discharge.
Then got the job in the Ukraine. Thanks to daddy VP, 60,000 USD per month
Now lets put all the 3 of them (GWB, Megan Me-Again, and Hunter Biden) into a low income home with ONE challenge (pollution, parents have little time to care for the children, bad school, drugs are easy to get in that neighbourhood, ....).
They would not fare well.
If you are mediocre - better be from a solid middle class family and above.
1
-
1
-
Dennis Walker I can confidently say that regulations that would force family (siblings, parents, adult children) to pay for a family member that has fallen on hard times (or mental illness or addiction) would be met with resistance. Major restistance. That's the mindset. And you can be sure that mindset is common everywhere, because people are used to having a solid welfare system.
That removes unusual burdens that a person / family cannot influence and spreads it out to the community.
The modern economy and jobs often prevent people from living in multigenerational households, and the care function has been outsourced to a degree. At least the financial obligations between parents and adult children. Which can be good to reduce tensions.
Most people here are lower / solid middle class so having to pay for the assistance a family member receives would be a burden.
The "normal" assistance and programs (the majority !)are not subject to family having to chip in. If a family member is the black sheep - why is family supposed to step in ?
What good would it do for society ?
If a person is off track (crime, drugs, mental illness) they are not going to react to the normal societal pressure to not be a leech and contribute to the best of their ability. Maybe they can't do better.
If a family has to chip in (by mandate, as opposed to what they volunteer to do, which will often be non-finanical help) the burden is on a few persons. it is likely that they are doing O.K. but are not necessarily wealthy.
If the burden (for the unusual case) is spread out to society - it is easier to carry. Every family could have their "black sheep" or the person that falls on hard times. That is nothing you can influence as sibling, parent, child, and has nothing to do with personal responsibilty - of those who have to pay.
The person that this is about either can't or won't pull their weight.
So it is not a deterrent - but it is a burden on the unlucky families, and others do not have it.
One of the reasons to have a welfare system is to reduce the influence of good or bad luck, and to level the playing field.
That is something that is widely accepted / understood - if only a the gut level.
For most families it would be a burden. And it could put some strain on family relationships (also reducting the willingness for help that is not in form of money, if folks are pissed that they are made to pay).
Voters automatically IDENTIFY with those who would have to pay, because they have the bad luck to have such a person in the family. No one would like to be mandated to pay for that. So they ALSO do not want to see that imposed on others.
I think that is a major difference to the American mindset. My family is lucky, everone is doing O.K. - and I would not want other families to have an unusual ! burden if they are not quite as lucky.
The political support for such measures is not high, and the cases of "welfare queens" are not common either - not high enough to justify the extra admin.
And if persons deserve to get help, why punish their family for it ?
So the cases where governments recoup money from families are rare, in all wealthy European nations.
In Germany the unification screwed the people of Eastern Germany. It would be bleak if there wasn't at least the welfare net. - no one that is having a decent job, is paying for family on welfare.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dennis Walker then there is paid sick leave, which is mandatory for employers (and when they fire the person, they have to continue paying until the person is confirmed fit to work by a doctor. The contract time can be long over (there are times of notice, that varies, from 1 week to several months, shorter for blu collars, but long time employees have longer time of notice. 80 % of the workforce work in an industry / company that is covered by collective bargaining and the rules are better than the legal provisions.
Anyway: the obligation to pay after the labor contract ended, remains when a person was fired during sick leave. This is of course to discourage companies from doing that. That mandate may have been introduced in the 1950s or 1960s ....
The doctor of the employee will confirm them fit to work (or now fit to leave quarantine). In cases of long sickness it can be a doctor that is employed by the single payer agency (they don't provide regular care). But it is never a doctor appointed by the company. For obvious reasons.
Let's assume the company did the right thing and kept the employee. Paying their wage until the legal obligation ends. Then the single payer agency will step in and pay sick leave. The person stays employed (the contract is intact) but the company does not have to pay the wage.
They have to organize for replacement to do the job. It is common that people will return after longer illness or accidents if they have recovered, especially medium sized and larger companies have societal pressure to accept people coming back. if they are larger there is a chance they can keep the replacement as well.
Smaller biz can opt for insurance, so that the agency will step in fairly soon, they get a good deal. That insurance is offered by the public inusrance agency.
That means that a person can be 6 or 12 months absent from the job (think cancer or recovery after accidents) and still will have an income. Companies owe 100 % of the wage as long as they are mandated to pay.
Sick leave (from the single payer agency) is also more than unemployment at least in the first months, 80 % it then goes down to 70 and 60 % (likely after several months). If sick leave is work related (illness or accident, and that includes accidents during direct commute to and from work) paid sick leave is granted longer.The company must pay longer and the agency pays longer.
Unemployment is also paid much longer than in the U.S.
Unemployment or sick leave (paid for by the public non-profit health insurance agency), or the cash assistance for elderly people (to help with independent living if they are not in good shape) is NOT considered welfare btw. Even upper middle class people get that.
If a mother does not get alimony from a father and cannot hold a job (if the child is smaller, at least in the first three years), the state where I live (which has a lot of industry and is in good shape financially) will step in and give her an advacen. She gets the money reliably. They will then try to recoup the money from the father, it is the state that handles that, not the mother. They get back around 50 %. Now I think that in some cases grandparents could be made to help out
On the father's side ! the mother and her family are off the hook because she does her part to take care of the child. Especially if the grandparents have some money or property. Certainly not if they are low income.
Apart from that no family will be bothered.
Then there is rent assistance. that is also not a welfare program where a family members would have to chip in. Very low cost tickets for public transportation.
Low income people also get a card so they do not even have to pay the co-pay for medical drugs (think 6 USD per package, than can add up). The elderly get telephone (landline) for free (it is a safety issue).
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dennis Walker Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Norway were never "Socialist" They have always been Social Democracies (like all other weatlhy European countries, never mind if the center-left or center-right was in government).
They traditionally have a strong welfare system. Maybe a little better than many other rich countries. But not a lot of difference. You can compare * them to Belgium, Netherlands, Austria, Germany, France, even Switzerland.... or Japan if you look outside of Europe.
* I mean the peace of mind that citizens can have, the basic net that is there for them. The level of assistance that low income persons still can live a modest but stable and secure life.
There are youtube channels that teach people to live out of their cars. The working homeless. That is not a thing, at least not in the weatlthy European nations. (which easily matcht the 330 million people that the U.S. has, the whole European Union with associated nations is around 530 millions.
Denmark is excellent regarding public affordable childcare (and I mean really good), and Finland excells regarding quality of public schools (private schools are not allowed and schools are banned from taking donations).
I assume their healthcare system is good, like everwhere else.
1
-
prov. RESULTS as just announced in a Bernie "press conference": please upvote this comment (and reward the source with a like as well, link see below)
Results based on 60 % of Iowa *. Not 40 % as Saagar mentioned, that may be different data
source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia1aRRcPmsk
In % for round 1 resp. 2:
Sanders 29,08 / 29,4 Buttigieg 21,63 / 24,87 Warren 19,51 / 20,65 Klobuchar 12,07 / 11,18 and Biden 12,04 / 12,92
Jeff Weaver at 2: 00 Numbers are based on self reported results by precinct captains and a representative sample of Iowa, with 60 % of the precints *
* The volume is very low, they did the press conference on the plane: I checked the percentages and names (these are as stated by Jeff Weaver on the plane) but not completely sure about the full meaning of 60 % statement. I think I got it right, though.
Then Weaver reads the numbers - see above
Jeff Weaver: "These results were pretty consistent throughout the night ...."
So Buttigieg profited the most from realignment in the 2nd round, he got 3 % more, Warren 1 %.
Sanders gained no more support, Biden slightly improved and Klobuchar lost in the 2nd round.
Channel / source
Bernie Sanders Speaks After Iowa Caucus
Livestream
Rebel HQ
The presser was done at the plane at the Des Moines airport
1
-
1
-
3:43 Krystal is not right: Rogan said (to Jimmy Dore) that he has almost always voted Democrat, and that he is for M4A, SS etc. - He is not very consistent or knowledgeable though (but I think a good reflection of the part of the Democratic base that are not blindly following, nor can they be shamed to vote Blue No Matter Who).
Recently he said: Remove Biden, let's get Cuoma.
If he is for populist economic policies, Cuomo is NOT your guy. At. All.
And just because Cuomo gives the appearance of managing the crisis competently - he is not a good candidate.
It is true that he is a good manager. For neoliberalism. New York state (or city) response was not good either. Oregon, Michigan, Washington and California did a better job, they reacted swifter. so they were better able to contain the cases.
See the interview on Democracy Now - defunding the hospitals, NOW in the crisis he still wants to cut Medicaid etc.
Never mind the hostility towards the Working Family Party (he now tries to use the crisis to make it harder for them to get on the ballot).
he gladly tolerated (likely secretely encouraged) that elected Democrats caucused with the Republicans thus denying the democrats the majority. 8 State Senators that run as D were the Independent Democratic Caucus (or Conferenece), they voted with the Republicans.
The WFP and Cynthia Nixon made that an issue. Nixon called him out in the debates. 7 of the 8 shills were voted out in Nov. 2018, but even before that Cuomo told them to cut it out. Luckily the voters were not fooled or placated, they got rid of these shills.
That meant even when the elections gave Democrats a majority the Republicans could still block all measures that would help the population and be inconvenient for the donors (the ones that also finance the Democrats). That gave the Democrats plausible deniability.
Defunding the subway, schools, public housing.
Even Bloomberg raised taxes on the rich after 9/11 - but Cuomo likes to do austerity and has no intention to change that because of the corona crisis.
.
Hospital beds were reduced from 78,000 - 58,000, that bites them now in the behind. The situation was already bad for low-icnome people BEFORE the pandemic.
Cynthia Nixon gave Cuoma a good run for his money, at least he had to pay lip service. I think that is why he did not join the race - he feared to be humiliated and to be called out very publicly on his REAL record.
1
-
3:00 There was no "list with talking points given to the volunteers". Faux News reporter does not know his facts - what else is new ? (and why doesn't Krystal push back ? ). Forum (not public), a contributor with 1 comment so far posted an opinion about electability and the appeal of Warren to affluent white educated voters which usually vote for Democrats (which is true). - it is weird but Warren and Buttigieg have an overlap in their support, not because of the platform but likely because that group likes the vibe of both.
(it is also unlogical that many Biden supporters have Sanders as 2nd choice and even the other way round).
The post was NOT vicious (the considerations had some merit - but they violated the rules for volunteers and while it may be true that any Democrat could take most of the Warren base for granted in the GE it is not a good strategy to announce that so openly.
(Black people also did not like to be considered the "firewall" of the HRC campaign or any other Democrat).
No, the Sanders campaign did not send out "volunteers to slam Warren" (she said that in an interview !) - that question and answer was obviously arranged for.
On the contrary the post was swiftly deleted by a moderator.
The volunteers are instructed and trained NOT to even mention other candidates and also not to make comparsions between the platforms. There is a quiz to train them, and instructions online of course. If you have 1 million volunteers you need a strategy to keep it orderly and civil (and beyond reproach) - and they DO have it.
That is what makes me think that Warren is either extremely gullible when her campaign "informs" her about something (I heard she has a lot of former Clinton staffers) - but I can hardly believe that, the info is on the internet and she could have easily verified that with the Sanders campaign or with Sanders personally.
Or she LIES to gain an advantage.
On top of that it is a really foolish strategy.
The regular voters will not care - but she did not shy away to smear the many, many volunteers (a very dedicated crowd) while she was at it. These are people that are supposed to run for her in case SHE would be the nominee.
Whether she was very stupid or she stoops to that level and plays dirty - she is not progressive presidential material and able / willing to bring about "big structural change". That would need spine, fierce determination, integrity. She would have formidable enemies - even as Secretary of the Treasury if she indeed intended to reign in big finance for instance.
Maybe team Warren colludes with the DNC (and Biden) to poison the well. Normal people do not take notice of these fights, but those engaged enough in politics to show up MIGHT be aware.
There was an attempt to paint Sanders as misogynist and even racially unsensitive during the 2015 / 2016 campaign. With his Civil Rights record (and Hillary being the Goldwater girl) the latter did not stick. The ardent (female) Clinton fans took it for granted he was a misogynist - after all their heroine looked bad by comparsion and again a dude stole her thunder.
Antisemitism is hard to pull off (he is Jewish and family members were killed by the Nazis (his father's relatives).
Warren supporters are being misinformed (with the help of colluding media and "reporters" like this one. So they can easily get the impression that Sanders uses shady volunteer tactics against Warren (with NO proof whatsoever) and that he treated her with condescension when she discussed running with him.
(Which is out of character for him - and HE encouraged her to run in 2015 - but she sat it out, she did not want to offend the Clinton machine).
I have seen her as good Secretary of the Treasury (provided a solidly progressive admin keeps the wolves from the doorsteps). But with starting such fights and staying on the sidelines whenever it was time to show some spine, and on top of the foolish / deceptive Medicare for All plans - I wonder if she would be the right person to breathe down the neck of big tech or big finance.
She talked a good game against the banksters - but when she was angling for VP or a cabinet position in a Hillary Clinton admin her team told team HRC that Warren was "flexible" regarding financial regulations. (Mail is published on Wikileaks)
WHAT ???
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Critical-Thinker895 Well the constitution can change - in the beginning of the Republic only 40,000 MALES had the vote - if they were WHITE AND had some money. So it was also never intended that non-whites, low income whites, Italian, Irish, ... or Jews could vote. Or Asians, or black people. or all females.
The Italians, Jews, Polish, and Irish - and Catholics in general - were later recognized as "white" people, after the second and third generation had clawed their way in. It was harder to discriminate permanently against them because they (maybe with exception of the Italians who often have a tan and darker hair and eyes) looked like the dominant class. White Anglo Saxon Protestants.
The Chinese (all Asians), Mexicans (if they were on the brown side) and black people were not so lucky, they kept the target on their back because they were easy to single out.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correction: The big donors ! - and all the shills that pose as elected representatives with them. Those who lose seats will get a golden parachute if they were obedient and worked hard to have the status of being well connected. All the more reason for rookies to always fall in line.
Some rabid tea partiers can win elections despite that (but they are also financed by the special interests and do not oppose the interests of the big donors, they are just crazy otherwise. The big donors do not really care).
Progressives like Sanders or AOC have been remarkably tame, aspiring organizer-in-chief Sanders dropped the ball, when fate presented him the opportunity on a silver tablet to lead a mass movement. (when the discussion about the first stimulus bill revealed it would be 2009 2.0 and on stereoides).
Progressives were kept busy fighting for things that are a given in other countries and were passed without bickering and fast.
They should have fliped the table on establishment Democrats then.
Either Sanders has more health problems than he cares to admit (fine as long as he does not excert himself too much - although the energy he showed in his campaing until early March does not suggest that)
Or he was disheartened because young voters and non-voters did not turn out as they had hoped (some voter suppression, but I think the campaing preached too much to the choire, and should have used other online strategies.
Or he does not have it in him and got scared of his own boldness - retreating into the safe corner of the eternal dissenter that points out things, what does not want to USE or HAVE power (rational, normal people have second thoughts about yielding a lot of power, as every considerate human has. That is why the narcissists, egomaniacs and careerists normally prevail, they do not secondguess their qualification, or that they CAN and SHOULD be that powerful.
It may be that Sanders is conflicted, kind of schizophrenic, and self-sabotaged when it was a realistic possibility that he could win. The likes of mayor pete, Biden, Obama, Hillary Clinton, GWB or Dick Cheney, or even Elizabeth Warren fight dirty to get what they want - but not Sanders.
After Supertuesday, when he still had a chance to beat Joe Biden he acted like a suggogate of Biden. Yes, I think Joe can win, he is a friend of mine ....
Older and middle aged voters had 2 impressions of Biden (if they watched TV): that he is a nice, folksy guy and concerned about the working class (Nope - and Sanders should know that * ).
And that he had the better chance to beat Trump. No, again.
Sanders confirmed those misconceptions created by massive Corporate media propagand.
I do not think that Sanders intentionally acted as sheepdog for the Democratic establishment but AFTER the tide turned in South Carolina and Supertuesday it sure looked like that. and he (arrogantly / naively / stubbornly) failed to attack Biden early on. Sure Biden looked like he was done and Bloomberg seemed to be like the danger. On the other hand Biden had a surprisingly good polling considering how lame his campaign was, and that he was one of the few candidates that did not work hard (I guess he can't, and I think he was always one to take it easy with the hard work and the details).
* Sanders switched from Congress to Senate in 2008, and was for some time the one vote that gave the Dems the majority. It looks like Biden was gracious to the new Senator, who likely was an outsider (Clair McCaskill remembers he made them sit through many "lectures". Maybe Biden helped him get some military contracts for Vermont, so Sanders got the only job programs that are available in this system for his state - well - there is also the work created by mass incarceration. The contracts, prison guards, whole towns live of having a prison.
Now with the coronacrisis and the inept handling of Trump, the Dems could run a poodle with a blue ribbon and win. Always assuming they can counteract Republican efforts to massively suppress the vote, the last primaries (in June but also before) were a testrun for that. 95 % of polling stations closed in Kentucky.
I do not see them call out Trump as wanting to steal the elections. considering what language and LIES he uses strong words would be in order. THAT would start a discussion.
but of course the Dems use the same tactics as Republicans - in PRIMARIES. The big donors (who finance BOTH) parties, pay Democratic politicians to win against progressives. The ballot then will offer the voters the "choice" between a spineless neoliberal versus a fierce ideologically blindsided Republican - both completey beholden to the donors. Some bickering about issues that the big donors do not care about either way: gay marriage, abortions, gun regulations.
And the big donors do not want any lively ongoing discussion about election integrity. They want quiet in their empire, voter suppression (young, low income) helps THEM (their horses in the race be it D or R) in the primaries and the general. Corporate media (owned by rich people, pundits are millionaires) also rarely touches these issues.
They did, when Stacy Abrams made a stink in 2018 in Georgia. She untypically was vocal (I note that my opponent will be govenor, but I do not concede), and it suited the anti Trump agenda to give her a platform. But typicically they gloss over it, IF they cover HOURS of waiting time at all, mass closures of polling stations (always in poor and minority areas).
That should be an ongoing complaint, and if they would fulfill their role as watchdogs they would do deep dives (well they are owned by rich people, so not gonna happen).
Al Gore was also told in late 2000 / early 2001 to not make a stink (by the Democratic leadership). Keeping the big donors happy (and the money rolling in) is even more important than winning the general. He was handsomely rewarded (CO2 certificate trade with a Wallstreet financier, go figure).
Some of the big donors and party establishment sense or they are smart enough to know (by conscious considerations):
IF the masses would have organized (the unions offered help, the black caucus was incensed, suppression of the black vote in Florida), if the sheeple allow themselves to question the myth of American democracy, if they experience their power as COLLECTIVE - who knows what ideas the "Sleeping Giant" would get next. (see yellow vest in France, see Hongkong. both were triggered by something, but they got a life on their own. Could be the same with the BLM protests against police brutality.
The recent outrageous KY voter suppression helped the neoliberal Amy McGrath, else Booker would have killed it. Half of the black population of KY lives in the area where one polling stations served 600,000 or 700,000 people (I forgot and the exact number does not really matter, this is Banana Republic style).
And they closed them at 6 pm and only extended that by 30 minutes. Unreal. A judge ruled against an extension to 10 pm, he or she was of the opinion that the voters were not hindered (by traffic jams),
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
However the base REALLY wants Trump gone and many of them would suffer. So the D establishment and Corporate media do not want the BLAME for strongly promoting the most electable candidate in 2020 / most qualified woman in 2016 .... etc. - and they do not want that their BLUFF is called.
They already work on the excuses how someone else is to blame if Biden loses.
If the gullible low information voters would realize the cynical game of the D party establishment * - that would break the spell, and break the business model of the party. The Corporate Dems are only valuable for the big donors because they can sheepdog a subset of voters (Republican politicians are more openly for tax cuts, cuts to welfare, and deregulation)
However, the Dems do have their strenghts, too: Some voters are just out of reach for Republicans and they are not supposed to do their thing, organize on their own, etc. Would be a nightmare for big donors if grassroots start to organize.
See the united left parties, unions that pushed FDR (to his credit he was willing to be pushed). That mass movement gave FDR the political leverage to get the New Deal done - it would be that - or some oligarchs and politiicians saw the pitchforks coming. (this was 1932, 1933 - the Russian Revolution was in 1917).
If the bluff of the Corporate Dems is called, It would rob them of future opportunities to blackmail voters.
Nice little country you have here, wouldn't it be a shame if Donald Trump [insert R candiate of current election] happened to it.
It is a failure of epic dimensions that Sanders does not call them out, he should troll them on a daily basis, drive the conversation. Dropping out of the race ? For what concessions (and with very concrete plans how they would be implemented).
Fate shoved the opportunity and the call to be the Organzier-in-chief in his face - and Sanders meekly returned into his safe corner, and to the status of being the eternal underdog, dissenter, and occasional truth teller. It is O.K. to be right, as long as he does not seek power.
The only exuse I can find - if he or his family were not threatened - but frankly I think he was out of his comfort zone to really chase, get, and USE power. To get the Ralph Nader treatment. so he retreated and does the medium level charity projects - instead of stepping up and playing the big game.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Hanapetals Waste of money in the U.S. healthcare system: 1) incredibly complex billing (handling of the multitude of plans instead of ONE dominant streamlined, comprehensive, cost-efficient form of coverage for all).
2) doctors AND even nurses waste their valuable time on the phone arguing on behalf of their patients with the insurance companies. There are many plans where everything has to be pre-approved.
They don't do that nonsense in single payer countries. I live in one: helicopter transport or the new hepatitis c cures, or organ transplants - and the expensive medication for life (and all the other things that are part of a first world medical system) are "on the menu".
The DOCTORS DECIDE (together with the patients). They do not consult the agency. A framework has been set up, and the doctors use the tools. In that decisions for-profit does not play a role. The middle man (insurer - the non-profit agency) also provides the services (to make healthcare happen in the country) w/o profit incentive.
3) The profits, marketing, sales costs of the for-profit players have to be paid.
4) incentive to "milk" better policies with tests and procedures that are not necessary, they do not harm the patient, but there are costs that do not lead to better outcomes (doctors and their families tend to have less surgery than the average of the population, it is as if they know that a surgery isn't going to fix anything, or that there are other less invasive, less costly measures that can be tried before)
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Hanapetals If a country pays only half of what the U.S. pays, all actors (government, insured, employers) will pay less. THERE you find the money in a cost-efficient system to pay the people well that actually add value and are necessary: medcial staff (and a small group of administrators).
No one needs private insurance when the public system is reasonably set up and properly funded. That is the problem for the insurance industry - they will become obsolete, will keep only a small sliver of the "market" - and no one will miss them. That is why "public option" (Medicare for xx) is their contingency plan, and they have worked the other candidates.
The NECESSARY tasks of an insurer (a non-profit that works for the public good OR a profiteer):
Collect the money pay the bills, get information about new treatments and drugs, and set up programs for preventive care. That is the overlap of for-profit or non-profit (of course the non-profits will have a different take on preventive, they can look at the good of all of society, the for-profits will have a much more narrow angle).
Profit seeking health insurance companies will always have higher costs due to other and additional acitvities: Marketing, sales staff, profit for shareholders. They add administrative complexity, so they have costs and their rates must compensate doctors and hospitals for the extra admin as well. Plus the toxic incentives to game the system (a little bit, or it can get as dysfunctional as in the U.S.)
Plus: they do not have the negotiating power of a non-profit public agency (single payer). Wendell Potter whistleblower and fmr PR man for the insurance industry: they do not try to control costs, they just pass them on. What they want: as many contracts as possible with high deductibles.
My take: That muddies the water regarding cost transparency. From a statistical standpoint, they could just skip the deductibles they can calculate the average increase of premiums to get the deductibles for all to zero.
BUT: then they would have to come clean and be TRANSPARENT how ridiculously overpriced the contracts are.
AND: it would be abundantly clear and right away and for masses of people that these contracts are not AFFORDABLE for regular people.
They are also not affordable NOW when the KNOWN premium FOR ALL is high but not THAT high - and LATER some unfortunate souls are hit with UNEXPECTED high costs later.
The systems makes it a GAMBLE. But it hits not as many people, not all at the same time, the intransparency avoids the public backlash of full transparency.
The people that get into trouble tend to be lower income or lower middle class so their concerns are not represented in the media. So it is much easier to deflect from that way how the dysfunction is expressed and harms regular citizens.
DIVIDE and CONQUER.
Many people (and companies) would have to give up on having even a contract - so the dysfunction and utter failure of ACA would be on full display.
1
-
1
-
@Hanapetals ACA and other laws (Medicare can't even negotiate drug prices) have as first priority to PROTECT the insurance industry (and the other profiteers in the system, like the pharma industry). And then they have a lot of complicated rules intended to protect the insured, patients (and the government giving subsidies) from being exploited.
That is like putting a chimpanzee, a hyena and a racoon into your living room. you insist they must be allowed into your house, you pretend you can create safeguards, so that they don't tear it all apart (you just never can't turn your back on them for one second).
That is the assumption under ACA, the predators / profiteers must be kept in the system, we "regulate" them and then we'll do better.
Some of these rules may be well intentioned (but it is a foolish assumption), and some are likley only window dressing to give the appearance of protection of consumers.
Well, all other nations figured it out and most at least after WW2:
With healthcare there is no "free market" possible, the insured / patients are by far the weakest actors in the system. Because they do not have to most important choices of all: The choice NOT TO BUY - that's the superpower of the consumers.
But for healthcare services (and that means realistically having coverage by insurance) the consumers must "buy". If they are lucky a single payer agency gives them a good deal. All get the SAME treatment at the same facilities. Mandatory costs are LOW, known in advance, no payments later when treatments are needed. The universality and one-size-fits all gives them a lot of political leverage and ease of mind.
Medical care is costs a lot (even in a cost-efficient system, think USD 5,500 per person per year), it is a life and death issue and it is very COMPLICATED. If the profit motive plays a role AT ALL the consumers WILL be exploited because the CAN be EXPLOITED.
Medical decisions are complex (and billing and contracts can be intentionally made complex) - that favors the profiteers and not even well intentioned legislators or regulators can protect the insured or prevent that unnecessary procedures are used. They would have to monitor each and every decision.
The predators will be always a few steps ahead, they find ways to work around the laws (and if that causes red tape and even more costs, so what ? they just pass on these costs as well).
The single payer nations want their insured / patients to be safe from exploitation. They do not play the foolish game.
In my example: there is no value in having the wild animals in your house, and on top of that they WILL cause harm, it is only a matter of time. You do no let them into your living room and then "regulate" them.
You do not let them in. Period. They can roam in the wild, where they have their function in certain eco systems.
1
-
1
-
@Hanapetals People "consume" too much healthcare when it is free at the point of delivery ? Don't we wish ! - In what alternative universe do people go too often to the doctor on a large scale ? That claim is not backed up by data. It is not the case in any country and contradicts my experience.
It ALSO contradicts psychological insights how people deal with the issues of not being well, illness, death and the nagging fear they could be seriously ill. Or the casual manner in which people assmue that if they are fine NOW that is going to stay like that in the future.
Humans have it their DNA to "take it for granted" that things will continue to be O.K., for hundreds of thousands of years there was not much they could do about future dangers anyway and an unconcerened attitude helped with survival. (Even if catastrophy could strike at any time, accidents, draughts, wildfire, one bad hunting season, illnesses, women dying during pregnancy, or when giving birth).
But that evolutionary trait is not exactely helpful when you want citizens to use preventive care or to check it out "just in case". - Humans do not "get" statistics. They may intellectually understand the chances to have a severe accident or a cancer diagnosis. But what they feel (if things are going well or O.K. for them) is different: bad things happen - to other people - that has nothing to do with them.
People do not like to go to the doctor, they shy away form the whole issue of illness, and death. At best they are neutral, if we are lucky they dutyfully do their yearly check-up, go to the dentist and do not ignore it too long if they have unusual symptoms.
There is such a thing like ignoring worrysome, unusual, even intense symptoms (and secretly hoping it is harmless).
Sanders did that: ignoring the symptoms caused by the artery that clogged up. He is known as a hard worker with a lot of energy, he had an intense campaign schedule: He got tired more easily, did not sleep well - and blamed that on the campaign effort.
He was lucky that the crisis did not happen in his sleep (he got really unwell on the stage) and that his heart muscle was not damaged because of lack of oxygen. The 2 stents fixed the problem and he is whizzing around the country like before.
For one hypochondric person, there are at least three husbands that are dragged to the doctor because the symptom that worries the wife "is nothing, really." Or at least the manly man will pretend he is not worried. if the wife plays her cards well she will nag / beg him, he can reconcile it with his role that he goes to the doctor just to do her the favor and so that she will shut up.
Plus the other five that are not going when they should go. In a cost efficient system the check-ups are not THAT expensive, and doctors usually sense when a person isn't really in need.
that can backfire if a diagnosis is complicated and it is blamed on nerves and imagination. That a chronical or severe disease that is uncommon or manifests with atypical symptoms is not correctly diagnosed for a long time. We all know stories where a person suffered for a few years before it was found out that indeeed there was an explantion, they were not imagining it. And with luck with the diagnosis there is even a chance for treatment.
One early diagnosed cancer or other severe problem can compensate for the costs of a lot of routine check-ups. Even if the odd patient would lean on the side of caution, the typical case is that people don't go often and early enough.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yang was pressed by TYT or Humanist Report regarding his MfA a few months ago. He got a little flustered. he is dishonest - he still uses the term on his website. in interviews he admits it is NOT genuine single payer. The public option sets up the system for failure - at best he did not do his homework. There is a reason other countries don't have a public option.
Yes they have private insurance, not much though, these are fringes of the large pie - and the less private- for-profit there is in the system the better they are off (costs and fairness, no 2 class medicine, no one "gaming" the system).
That the for profit insurers are allowed a small role has often to do with historic reasons or a more recent neoliberal assault on the well liked system - see UK or to a degree Netherlands. It hasn't improved performance, prices or quality of services. On the contrary !
The U.S. insurers could live well with a public option. That is why all the shills (Booker, Harris, mayor Pete, Biden) promote it. Taking a piggy ride on the popular term Medicare for All (not Biden, he is at least honest).
I must say Sanders DOES understand that the private insurers must become obsolete (there is no need to outlaw them, just outlaw duplicative coverage. Then make M4A compehensive and fund it reasonably.
But he must get better in counteracting the latest wave of PR- now the industry has their shills push a public option - with the misleading argument that it is like Medicare, only better because there is choice
Nope, the predators are going to make offers to the young and healthy - those can look reasonably priced. Not when you know the 90 : 10 rule. 90 % of costs are caused by 10 % of the patients. Purge the right persons, drive them to the public pool (which is then stuck with high costs) - and the profits are protected.
It also allows for a game of divide and conquer and helps with gaslighting (see how "expensive" the public pool its. Every cut of funding will have the desired disproportional negative effect on Medicare. It will be easy to badmouth it (with eager help of Corporate media of course) and it means that people really MUST buy private insurance (upgrades most likely) if they want to get decent care.
Moreover one major cost cutting factor is squandered: to have a streamlined admin and billing. the multitude of contracts remains, billing stays as complex as ever and they have to keep most of the staff that does that unproductive work (it does nothing to make healthcare happen in a better manner).
The U.S. insurers are predators - so the quicker the glorified middle men vanish from the "market" the better - so that consumers experience how they are not needed at all.
before the profiteers find time and space to hit back. You bet, they find the billions for the PR.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It is a dire warning, that facts do not matter, only perception - and that is easily distorted by corporate media (that is also true for other countries, in Germany there is one tabloid paper that sells well and they are considered to be kingmakers. They belong to rich poeple so of course they would go on a crusade against any party that would not let them off the hook tax-wise).
Also how woefully uninformed voters are - and it is hard not to get impatient with them. I saw a video from Wales, people that have always voted Labour - admitted they were all elderly and the U.K. is underserved with broadband so they do not get the news from the internet, they get the tabloid trash at best the center-right BBC, that also jumped onto anti-semitism and did not talk about the economic policies of Labour. Like the PBS the BBC is scared of the Tories, that they will be defunded and they fall in line with the powers that be. And the publicly financed jobs are lucrative they do not want to lose those.
So it is neoliberal leaning Labour at best that will be covered by the BBC - and they are the best of the bunch. They are also known to stack their "townhalls" with people from the right (they have a regular format it is called Question Time). One such "citizen" has appeared 5 times within 2 years. He ran for office for the Tories. "The man in the white shirt" gets invited by the moderator to pose a question to one of the panel guests. Invariably the questions is confrontational, has a right wing leaning, some non-factual assumptions in it and is directed at the most left person on the table.
I noted the arguments or lack thereof of the voters that abandoned Labour in their core districts (the interviewer did not dig), but the reasons they gave, if they gave any were simply not fact based. I do not like Corbyn, well that is not necessary, and did he or she like "Blair" ? That is interesting, one lady said that she did not like BoJo but voted Tory for the first time anyway.
Perception (I do not like Corbyn, that I know, but I could not tell you why) can be shaped by a hostile media (that fears the left because they would have to pay more in taxes).
It is the perception, not the facts. Most likely disaffected voters in neglected areas just lash out - and deflecting justified anger onto the "stranger" or "other" is not a new strategy eiter for the rightwing populists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@carrion_man3700 I currently in a single payer country (Austria, and also know Germany) - no union, or private insureance company or even a powerful company like Apple, Amazon (getting a plan for their staff), can compete with the negotiating power of a single payer insurance agency. *
The government and the laws sets up the agency to have unique negotiating power. And the whole system to work for the good of society. A union, but even one well intentioned insurance company cannot do that.
One os several crucial conditions for cost-efficient single payer: do not have any powerful, large for profit players. Not healthcare insurerance companies and not for-profit hospitals.
The U.S. will have to make do with for-profit hospitals(for now), but he for-profit insurers must be restricted to the fringes.
The offer here:
* First world care, everyone with a monthly wage over 500 USD pays 3,8 % Companies must match that. So minimum 19 USD for both and upwards, but not more than USD 2,400 per year (200 per month on average) for the employee and the same for the company. - so there is a cap at a wage of 60,000 USD per year.
If the person has dependent family members (incl. stay at home partner) they are included. No extra fee for that. First day in a job, you give name address, SS number, and the same for all you want included (parents can chose who "covers" the kids, not that it matters). Healthcare risks and status do not matter.
Included: ambulance, airlift if necessary, long hospital stays, rehabilitation after accidents to get fit again, medical drugs (with small co-pasy), glasses and hearing aides for kids free, for adults with co-pays, basic dental, specialists like eye doctors, the newest drugs (the expenisve hepatitis C cure for instance, it is approved in the EU and it is covered). And so on.
The mandatory payroll tax must be modest to be affordable for all, and to be politically acceptable. The rest comes from general tax revenue, of course also from wealthy and rich people and profitable biz.
Example negotiating power:
Medicare cannot negotiate drug prices. Politicians shilling for the special interests knew exactely why they hinder that player). The only agency that can is VA, they brought costs down by 40 % (it is a start).
The private insurance companies could negotiate drug prices.
So how does that work out ?
They have no interest in cost control (Wendell Potter, whistleblower on the industry). They just pass on the high costs and they as many plans with high deductibles as possible (and the number has increased significantly).
Deductibles make costs intransparent. From a statistical standpoint: the insurance companies could and SHOULD arrange for plans w/o deductibles and only have low or no co-pay.
But then their excessive prices would be come transparent for everyone and immediately.
The deductibles make it a GAMBLE. Some unfortunate patients are hit to a varying degree, no one can plan for it. People that take plans with high dedcutibles cannot afford them, they are by definition the people that should not take a gamble. (It is a variation of: It is very expensive to be poor).
But those who are hit by the very high costs are a smaller number = less media and political impact, they are on their OWN, everyone has a different situation.
Divide and conquer.
If they would average out these costs on EVERYBODY THAT would be the insurance principle FULLY applied: Especially important for a crucial and expensive service wich they insure)
But then ALL insured would unite and start kicking their behinds.
Many more would lose their insurance, and it could be a yellow vest / pitchfork moment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
see Podesta emails, in the Wikileaks database: the mail that citibank sent to the Obama campaign in Oct. 2008, lists of names to chose appointees from. They were sorted according to ethnicity, I think also religion, veterans, disabled, LGBTQ, ....
The author of the mail went the extra mile and added the category females (that had not been required .... )
You couldn't make this stuff up.
As long as citibank "vets" the cabinet and other important appointments, and as long as they are good neoliberal shills .... they indulge in indentity politics.
(that does not work for Gabbard, being a veteran, and woman of color does not work for HER, or protect her from being smeared. Funny that).
btw Attorney general Eric Holder, a black male, was also on the list, he carefully avoided to prosecute the banksters.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Democratic establishment: "Nce little country you have here, wouldn't it be a shame if Trump / right wing Supreme court justice happened to it ?"
The solution short term: ADVOCATING for voting third party AT LEAST in the safely red or blue states.
Letting the D establishment know that "Vote Blue No Matter Who" is over. That maybe, maybe they can earn a hesistant vote if they make concessions.
Now many of the lot do not mind losing to Trump as long as they are not winning with Sanders.
Some Democrats that run for congress or Senate might care for winning the election (if they are not very well connected, they might not get the golden parachute). Maybe they can put a little bit of pressure on Biden (or whoever replaces him).
So that the servants of the big donors can be botrered to make a few concessions. The grassroots extracted a few from Nixon.
Organizing to mass protest when that is possible again against the neoliberal Democrat that with some "luck" wins the presidency. Or against Trump in is second term.
In the longer run:
You cannot win the war if NOT losing ANY battle is your most important goal. You have to be willing to lose a battle.
That should have been considered by voters 20 years ago. Admitted, NOW is a terrible time STARTING to adhere to it. On the other hand, there is not much left to lose.
Every election was presented under the narrow framing of "this and ONLY this CURRENT emergency".
The only candidate that did not campaign under "lesser evil" was Obama, and Hope and Change sold well.
Of course the other wing of the one and only big donor party can be relied on to always come up with an even worse candidate
"Bad" Republican candidates give the Democratic establishment the cover to never ever give the base anything that would cost the donors (of both parties !) profits. That applies to almost all policies that benefit regular people, their interests hardly ever align with those of the 1 or 0,001 %
It is a Good Cop / Bad Cop routine.
The oligarchs have pursued their interests strategically and for decades with the help of think tanks, they have captured politics. Supreme court, lower courts, media, even academia.
Meanwhile the peasants are expected to look at the situation every 2 years as if it would be an unique emergency, again, and again
Jill Stein in 2016: Voting based on fear and always for the lesser evil gave us everything we were afraid of.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
5:30 Sagaar can't help himself, from time to time he brings the mindless rightwing talking points which are incorrect as well). China has a lot of pollution but this is about CO2 - that conflation is typically made by rightwingers who want to deflect from the responsibility of the U.S. (... China and India are bad too, they should lead, THEN the U.S. could do something - maybe ...)
China 1,38 billion people, developing / emerging nation, workbench of the world
U.S. 330 million people, used fossil fuels to a large extent since more than 70 years, has deindustrialized (but uses a LOT of products made in China, which of course needs energy there), is a rich if very inequal country
Both countries use about the same volume of fossil fuels and emit roughly the same volume of CO2. In absolute numbers ! In other words on average a Chinese citizen uses 25 % of the energy that the average U.S. citizen uses.
The U.S. uses the most energy per person of any relevant nation (some small oil theocracies like Brunei might have more per person, but they do not make a dent). All first world nations use too much energy - but the U.S. is a class of its own when it comes to SAVINGS POTENTIAL.
Bonus for China: they drove the solar and wind industry. Provided a market for wind turbines for instance from Germany, Denmark, and starting to manufacture solar in China. At a time when the First world nations were occupied with the Great Financial Crisis, austerity the Chinese went big on solar and big on bullet trains.
They followed: Go big or go home. With the large numbers of unit manufactured, installed, and used economy of scale set it, more research became worthwhile. Battery producers got a market and an incentive. Not only for cars, also for solar roof production, surplus of wind and solar farms. Batteries / storage is another very important part of the switch, since the production of renewable energy fluctuates more, storage is very important to make it work. The companies working in the field also profited from the Chinese setting the stage with solar.
Dr. Eicke Weber (international renowed German expert on material research for solar). The first PV panels were used to power satellite - at the end of the 1970s or beginning of 1980s. The production costs for the kWh were high then - but with satellites the PAYLOAD matters.
Every time the globally installed PV area doubled the costs for electricity produced with the panels came down by 20 %. Economy of scale. That had nothing to do with "passing of time", whenever an effort was made (government programs, subsidies) considerable prograss was made, but it did not occur spontanuously.
The Chinese increased production and installation, to the degree that especially solar became more viable in rich countries or states with relatively high electricity costs and a lot of sunshine. Think California and Australia. Now these markets meant even MORE sales .... rinse and repeat.
POLLUTION is bad for the health of the Chinese, that is NOT a problem for the global population. It even contributes to global dimming which has a mild ! cooling effect (not much, but once they clean up their act regarding pollution CO2 and methane will even have more effect).
Air pollution can be cleaned up within 5 - 10 years, the technology was used in Europe, North America in the 1980s (acid rain crisis). Since it was invented an paid for it could have been used at lower costs in developing countries. BUT: The Western oligarchs (with help of Western politicians) just decided that they wanted manufacturing with less costs and the Chinese ruling class went willingly along.
Which btw is NOW a major motivator to clean up their coal act to produce renewable energy, to switch to electric vehicles and have the bullet trains instead of airtraffic. Their elites cannot escape the pollution, they can send the children abroad but some must stay in the country to oversee political rule and management of manufacturing.
Pollution of water and soil is more lasting and more expensive to clean up.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In Austria you would pay 3.8 % of gross wage and employer the same. For every job with a wage of more than 500 USD per month - that mandate also constitutes the right to full coverage. Yearly cap of employee contribution at 2,200 USD. (same for the company - so that is 190 USD per month on average for each side).
All dependent family members included for free, of course no healthcare questions, signing up takes 5 minutes (first day at the job, you give HR the data), that includes a stay at home spouse or committed partner (even after the children left the home - a nod to traditional family).
All kids till age 18, and till 26 if they have a full time professional training w/o pay or go to university.
Unemployed persons have automatic coverage (for free) if they either get benefits or do not yet have a claim (you need to have 6 months work) and it expires after some time. But as long as a person is registered in the database and shows up to appointments and looks - they have at least the coverage for free. (same as before they stay with the same public agency).
Healthcare free at the point of delivery and employee and company always know what the costs will be - 3.8 %. No higher wage - no higher contribution. Ambulance rides free, free airlift (in most cases a doctor will order the airlift, that is for emergencies obviously). Dental (except for most braces, and ceramic inlays etc. But root canal, fillings, surgery - wisdom teeth removal etc is covered).
Rehabilitation after accidents, In vitro fertilization (they have a few attempts, the woman must be healthy and in her early 30s).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jacobzindel987 Expensive cancer treatments are free in Germany, or Austria, France ... like any other surgery, or medication. Where do you get your talking points from ?? Have you had family members or friends treated in a European country that you could talk ? Because I have !
A doctor in Germany, Austria, France, Netherlands will tell you what he thinks is the best plan, and the bill they send to the non-profit agency does not matter at all.
Or maybe they discuss 2 options with the patients and their family. Not too many or they will be overwhelmed). The costs for certain forms of chemotherapy can be high, but if that is a good plan, and the patient agrees to get it, they can have that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
prov. RESULTS as announced in the Bernie/Weaver "press conference" Feb 4, 2020 on the flight from Iowa to New Hampshie.
Results based on 60 % of Iowa *
In % for round 1 resp. 2:
Sanders 29,08 / 29,4 Buttigieg 21,63 / 24,87 Warren 19,51 / 20,65 Klobuchar 12,07 / 11,18 and Biden 12,04 / 12,92
Jeff Weaver at 2: 00 of the source video
source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia1aRRcPmsk head over and give them a like please
* Numbers are based on self reported results by precinct captains and a representative sample of Iowa, with 60 % of the precints.
* The volume is very low, I checked the percentages and names (these are correct) but not completely sure about the full meaning of 60 % statement. I think I got it right, though (that the 60 % are also representative of all of Iowa).
Then Weaver reads the numbers - see above. Jeff Weaver: "These results were pretty consistent throughout the night ...."
So Buttigieg profited the most from realignment in the 2nd round. He gained 3 %, Warren 1 %, Sanders nothing.
The centrist that made it over the threshold got just shy of 25 %.
The more progressive candidates (Sanders Warren) made it both over 15 %, they hold together a little bit over 50 %.
The other 50 % is the share of the centrists that played a role, but 25 of that fell to candidates that did not get the minimum of 15 %. So they will not get delegates (or very few).
The delegates are awarded by location, but if for instance Biden did not get over 13 % in general, he will pick up only very few.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Insurance companies in the U.S.: Predators, their goal is to maximize profits for the shareholders, they bribe politicians (= donations).
They can easily spend 10 USD on red tape, hordes of lawyers, bean counters, departments for denial - to make 1 USD more profit. (That wouldn't fly for a consumer product but with healthcare they can act like that).
They pass on the costs, and the insured cannot avoid "buying". If a person is not very rich "insurance coverage" is what gives them medical treatment when they need it. (never mind how high the bills of the hospitals would be if they are on their own. Even billionaire Mark Cuban has a Cadillac insurance plan.)
People can forego consumer products and services but not getting medical care. It is often a matter of life and death or being healthy enough to take care of yourself, your job, your family in the future.
Doctors in single payer countries:
They rarely encounter patients w/o coverage, and if people have coverage they always have FULL coverage. They deal more with the agency (billing), but they do not ask the agency for approval for certain treatments in individual cases.
A framework has been set up. Everyone or no one can have organ transplants or expensive medication (so everyone, it gives the patients a lot of political leverage, all have skin in the game).
The doctors chose the treatments as they see fit. Airlift, or the new expensive hepatitis C cures (95,000 USD per cure, they are specific for certain variations of the virus. Within short time more cures have been launched, they are lower in costs than the initial one, but still in the order of 70 or 60k - at least the official prices, there are discounts).
Anyway: Airlifts, the hepatitis C cures, expensive chemotherapy, .... are approved for use.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SkatePhysics U.K. does not have a public option. Public option = private insurers AND a non-profit public insurance agency offer coverage to the population. a) cherrypicking the private insurers will only take the young and healthy and the rest is kicked over to the public pool (90 % of spending is caused by 10 % of insured - U.S. insurers are really, really good at purging pools. b) It squanders the chance to streamline admin and billing because there are so many varieties.
The public coverage will be straighforward and easy to handle admin-wise (for doctors and hospitals) - but not the countless private packages (which privately insured patient has what coverage at what rates).
Back to a theoretical "public option": Public or private insurance - it always means FULL coverage of all that is medically warranted (incl. surgery, hospital stays, chemotherarpy, ..... ).
So that is completely different from supplemental private insurance. (upgrades on top of the public offer, typically the more planable, less urgent, and less expensive stuff). Detail see below**
People can OPT out from paying into the public service (payroll taxes) while others chose the "public option" provided by the non-profit public insurance agency.
That will of course have 2 effects: the affluent typically have to contribute more, so if they are young and healthy the insurers can chose to accept them as clients (they steer that by the kind of offers they make). If the statistical calculation is short term the offers can look good for young and healthy (even if they are not high-income).
The public agency will miss out on the higher contributions of the affluent and will be stuck with all the costly and high(er) risk insured.
I can see why a government doing favors would chose to have a public option (in theory ! no wealthy country has it) - or a public option for the few privileged (Germany).
Favors: for affluent voters , doctors (they get higher rates) and insurance companies (they get at least a share of the pie, a cherrypicked pool, and consumers that are interesting also for other insurance products because they have a good income)
That does not make the system more cost-efficient or better ! It is more of a historic relic and now of couse those who profit from it defend it. On the other hand the distortions (in areas with many civil servants and affluent for instance Berlin it can get hard to find a specialist. They all refuse to have a public contract - because they can, they can get enough patients w/o the publicly insured (and with the higher income and milking the good contracts a little bit they also get along with fewer partients).
That forces those who can afford it to buy upgrade packages if they are publicly insured. Low income people will have to live with inferior services. Does not matter if you need medication or in the hospital. Long wait times can become crucial when a diagnosis is delayed.. It also means that doctors who take publicly and privately insured might discriminate when it comes to appointments or accepting them (for instance as GP). That lead to some discussion, when consumer protection did phone calls to get appointments it made a difference who called. Turns out that is legal ! (if not some test calls could jeopardize the doctors who also want and need the publicly insured, they could lose their public contract over it).
In Germany 10 % of the population have full private coverage (and additionally supplemental insurance is more widespread than in other countries). That is a sign that the system is not working as well as it could and it also means higher costs. For-profit always makes things more expensive in healthcare (insurance OR the services of providers).
The affluent with a certain income, some professions (self employed architects, civil engineers, ...) and groups that can be expected to have a steady, safe ! job with growing income (civil servants, teachers, ....) are allowed to chose (choice is not allowed for most of the population).
They started their system in 1884 (when a two class system was quite acceptable), they did not overhaul it after WW2, a conservative government did and cemented favors.
Citizens with more than 94.000 Euro income per year can "opt out" from paying the payroll taxes. 94,000 amounts to a six figure income in dollar and it is a "better wage" than in the U.S. because of the free or affordable public services. A family gets farther even with 31,200 USD per year - that is a 40 hour job with 15 USD per hour.
The private insurers can refuse to take patients with higher risks:
they can add a surcharge or if that surcharge would be too much they can exclude certain conditions from coverage. Some exclusions and surcharges are tolerable for persons with good income, the premiums are tax deductible.
It is very hard for patients to get back to public coverage. Once insurers accepted an insured they cannot get rid of them and they also cannot increase their premiums by a higher percentage than for other insured or add deductibles afterwards.
(That is a common way for the U.S. insurers to get rid of individuals OR companies that are considered a risk or unprofitable. A company that has a plan could get into trouble if they have employees (or their family members) that have higher risks or ongoing costly needs. The U.S. insurers do not openly fire such undesirables. They jack up prices until the customers quit (Wendell Potter in an interview in 2019 mentioned such practices). German insurance companies cannot play those games.
The privately insured Germans can require a reevaluation of risk after a number of years. So cancer in remission after 10 years or 15 years might get you restored to full coverage or the surcharge will be cancelled.
But the private insurers will not take patients with the high risks: think diabetes type 1 or a female that already had a very difficult pregnancy. Or high cancer risks (in the family). They will make an offer that is prohibitively high or outright refuse them, and the public pool has to take the high(er) risk / cost patients. Especially those who are most likely to be hit by the disease or most likely to cause high spending.
1
-
J Leicht 11 millions undocumented (some Republican sites give estimate up to 20 millions). The U.S. has approx. 330 million people in total. So 3,33 % to max. 6 % - and they are on average much younger * than the rest of the population = much less costs for healthcare. If the country as a whole pays a surcharge of almost 100 % of spending per person (compared with Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Austria, ....) or of MORE than 100 % (Japan, Australia, Canada, U.K., Belgium, France, Iceland, ... ) then the 3 - 6 % more of the population are NOT the most pressing problem.
The exortion by and dysfunction of the insurers (administrative middle men) is. And to a degree the for profit hospitals.
Undocumented migrants contribute. Someone profits form the houses they build, when they cook and serve meals in restaurants, work in retail or hotels, meat packing, on farms, or cleaning houses and caring for children or the elderly.
I would say that the affluent citizens (and businesses) profit the most - about time they start paying so that the immigrants can be integrated.
They are IN the country already, it is not possible to deport 11 (or 20) million people even if you would be willing to accept the societal harm and the economic disruption (they often have children or spouses that are legal residents, they are necessary staff, renters, contribute to community etc.).
The U.S. had almost 90 million people in the mid 1930s - after WW2 a LOT of immigration happened - it certainly cannot continue at that rate.
On the other hand immigration does not necessarily mean worse conditions for the residents that are longer in the country. If the economy benefits regular people, if there are public programs like after WW2 (jobs with infrastructure, public housing, ....) it can be made to work for everyone.
I saw a video uploaded by a man who does paint jobs (self-employed). He said the migrants undercut the wages in construction. He did not hate on immigrants, he said when he meets them (at the construction sites) they are almost always decent people and he can see that they work hard - but he hasn't seen a "pay rise" in many years. Fair enough. And there are ways to fix that.
* Age is a HUGE spending driver in healthcare. Over 15,000 USD per person per year in the age group over 60. USD 2,000 on average in the age group of 20 - 25 - something like that - just to give you an idea.
Use an online search if you want details and exact numbers. I found this site helpful: https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.2013.1224 US Health Spending Trends By Age And Gender: Selected Years 2002–10 | Health Affairs
1
-
J Leicht btw: Sweden, Germany, Austria, ... and to a slightly lesser degree the other European nations had mass migration in recent years (due to the wars and proxy wars started by the U.S. *), these people are not productive, they are not allowed to work until they are processed, and after that there are obstacles regarding qualification, language, cultural barriers.
They are not undocumented, but not (yet) productive, they get treatment as long as they are in the country (even if they have to return later because they are not accepted as refugees).
Now let's have alook at the spending per person: USD 10,260 in the U.S. versus approx. 5,700 in Sweden, Germany (and less in many other nations). Data: Keiser 2017, also see World Bank. it does not show a massive deviation from 2015, 2016, either. The migrants cause some costs - but the system can absorb it because it is much more cost-efficient than the U.S. systems. That is even true for relatively expensive Germany (they allow for-profit private more room than other nations and it shows).
As a young group the migrants / refugees do not cause that much costs (like the U.S. undocumented migrants) - but they are often not even productive for quite some time (unlike the migrants in the U.S. who are working and contributing to the economy). People that claim refugee status are not allowed to work, and they get either board in homes or later benefits and housing so they can live while they sort out their life in the new country.
* the U.S. set the region on fire: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria (proxy war, the "moderate" jihadists, Libya)
also see 7 countries in 5 years - Gen. Wesley Clark
1
-
J Leicht Refugee numbers for Germany see end of comment for 2013 - 2017. The numbers started to considerably increase in 2013 (2011 U.S. war against Libya and start f the proxy war against Syria), the peak of the crisis was in 2015 but numbers stayed high. Refugee status applications according to the gov. between 2013 and 2017: 1,714173 persons. In a country that started out with apporx. 83 millions. So that is 2 % of the population within 5 years.
PLUS normal migration from outside the EU (then likely well qualified persons) plus the people from other EU member states who do not need a visa or a work permit.
Add to that chain migration of family members (the latter for instance 60,000 applications in 2016, but that includes people with confirmed refugee status who can get their immediate family members in AND other legal migrants which can be highly qualified persons from wealthy countries of course).
Whatever the ramifications for Germany might be - the healthcare system could handle that well and spending PER person is STILL way below the U.S. levels of spending per person.
The number of deportations is relatively low (25,000 in 2016 and 22,000 in 2017) - so not all of the 1,7 millions will be still in the country. Nontheless they were entitled to medical services as long as they were in Germany and MOST of the 1,7 millions ARE STILL IN GERMANY.
I haven't checked out the 2018 numbers because the healthcare spending is for 2017: between 5,700 and 5,800 USD per person. (which is higher than in most other wealthy countries, except for the U.S. and Switzerland which also relies on private insurers).
New refugee applications per year
2013 118,853
2014 238,676
2015 890,000
2016 280,000
2017 186,644
Total 1,714 millions
1
-
@SkatePhysics In countries with a cost efficient * single payer system - or the U.K. with the NHS - introducing a public option would slowly undermine and corrupt fairness and cost-efficiency. In the U.S. (where the insurers and to a degree even the hospitals show predatory behavior) a public option would set up the reform for failure right away.
* think half the U.S. spending, almost all are in the range of 50 - 54 % of the U.S spending per person, the U.K. only 42 %.
European insurance companies that also offer healthcare are well regulated and it is a much smaller market within a country (that biz is national). So it would be too expensive to employ hordes of beancounters to "optimize" their profits, it is a lot of work to deny care while maintaining a facade of legality and decency).
Healthcare insurers in other countries are well behaved, the public non-profit agency is dominant or completely dominant and sets a benchmark and cultural expectations (everyone has coverage and insurers do not play games with the consumers). The insurance companies are not on principle more ethical, but they do not even try - and the toxic culture like in the U.S. has never developed.
In the U.S. in the 1960s and 1970s there were many insurers, but many of them were private non-profits. The insurance companies have bought them up - I think a lot of that happened under Clinton.
Public option is not done on a large scale in ANY wealthy country (in a developing country it would result from an underfunded public system, public option = opting out would be a way for the rich to buy their way into good services. Either out of pocket or having FULL coverage by a private insurers).
With the same budget per person, and comparable conditions (no cherrypicked pool, comparable age) a public non-profit insurance agency will ALWAYS get you more bang for your buck.
That is systemic and applies to every country (not only the U.S.but there the surcharge is especially high), you will not find one example to the contrary worldwide.
1) For profit insurers have costs that public agencies do not have: marketing, sales, more admin.
2) They make things more expensive for the providers (hospitals and doctors - billing) so that is reflected in the rates..
3) There are some negative incentives, they range from gaming the system a little bit ("milking" the contracts of the well insured) to the toxcitiy, dysfunction, cruelty and the denial industry in the U.S. (they make more profits by not providing coverage when it is needed the most. The ideal case for maximum profit is if they can delay paying for expensive treatments until the patient dies. That is not hyperbole).
4) A single payer is a strong negotiating power for the other powerful players: hospitals and doctors (unlike the glorified middlemen, the private insurers they ARE inevitable for the system). The services of doctors are a limited resource, hospitals can be set up by the public sector - but you need to staff them.
The American Medical Association makes sure to keep graduation numbers down and the costs of training hig. And also making sure that qualifications of other countries are not easily accepted. So that keeps "prices" = rates for doctors and hospitals high.
I heard the phrase "private insurers bid up the limited resource" in a video.
Either way the doctors can refuse to accept contracts with one private insurance company if they want higher rates - but they will have a hard time to refuse to work woth Medicare which holds almost a monopoly. They NEED the patients to run a practice or hospital efficiently (and of course they profit from streamlined admin - less costs there).
When the monopolist is a for profit entity the consumers will be taken advantage of. But the single payer agency can act on their behalf. The consumers are the weakest participant in the system, a "free market" is not possible (for that all members must have the same power).
Moreover the consumers do not have the most important choice of all: To abstain from buying if they find the service overpriced, unsufficient in quality or they cannot afford it.
For a person that would feel 1 million USD as strain on their finances the insurer (company or agency) is the facto the gate keeper to getting healthcare (staying alive, qualitfy of their future life). That is a LOT of power. In that case the pressure the doctors, hospitals and big pharma feel by the other powerfuly player is just enough to right things on their behalft.
(Doctors can take it to the court of public opinion if they think the agency squeezes them too much. As for big pharma: if they really need the extortion prices in the U.S. market so they can grant the favorable prices everywhere else in the world and to finance future research (not true anyway) - they would have to prove their case to the public agencies. But they also do investor road shows, and the large players are all on the stock market and must publish their numbers and balance sheets.
Modern medicine improves all the time but it is costly and the population is ageing. The public agencies are expected to stay within their budgets (if not they would have to make their case to the public) - so they are under some pressure to cut costs. So if Big Pharma wanted higher prices once the U.S. gets much better conditions - they better make an excellent case WHY they need to get more from the public agencies of other countries.
If they threaten to stop developing new drugs - it would be better to develop and produce them by publicly owned non-profits anyway.
A well set up system reasonably funded ! system leaves little room even for private upgrades (that would be expensive dental, specialities like accupuncture, maybe specialists that take only "private" patients.
If a country graduates enough specialists then there are enough that will need to accept the public contract, or they do not have enough patients. Treating "private patients" only will be restricted to doctors that are capacities or bring more to the table than competence and acceptable waiting times. That should be standard in a first world country anyway.
If the public non-profit agency (like all insurers they are an ADMINISTRATIVE MIDDLE MAN) has enough budgets they can pay the necessary rates and pay for ALL that is medically necessary, incl. basic dental.
That leaves very little room for upgrade packages - if citizens want something that is not essential like braces, expensive dental it is more economic to pay out of pocket for the accupunture saessions. The big and costly stuff is well taken care of by the public insurance agency. No need to chime in for the admin, marketing and sales costs of a private insurance company because it would maybe spare you the out of pocket expenses of 500 or 2000 dollar. The premiums are pricey so if you can afford that you can as well afford to pay when and only when you chose to have additional medical services. That way you pay at least only for the medical services and not for the uncessary middle man.
1
-
1
-
@darensweeney5925 The doctors and their time are the scarce resource not the for-profit paper shufflers or any "corporate structure". It is of course possible that politicians did favors and created some byzantine rules to help the profiteers. The U.S. also has middlemen for the middlemen that supply pharmaceuticals to the pharmacists (the result is that only chains survive).
If the SAME number of doctors is active - why would that mean longer wait times ? Who or what "forced" the doctors ?Was that an administrative need (to meet some complex admin together) or driven by the desire to make more profits (the doctors would not admit that they would likely blame some unspecified force "that made them do it")
In single payer nations doctor practices are small companies that are forbidden to incorporate into larger structures. There are quotas how many doctors get a contract per region or per population number. Enough but not too many. Choice for the population but every doctor can have enough patients to make a good income.
Hospitals could not stay open without the patients from the public agency. And they are run be cities and states (in some cases by religious groups). They need extra funding, so there is no question of have too many or not enough of them.
The compensation hospitals and doctors get from the agency is designed as mix: some is a flat rate and a part is per treatment or procedure. Both could give wrong incentive - s by mixing it "playing games" is discouraged. Theproviders do not have the software of the staff to "optimize" how much revenue they could get from the public insurer.
Yes even local non-profit hospitals would have an incentive to game the system - a little bit. I know staff from Austrian hospitals: it was well known that they would keep patients a day longer if they had free beds, and would send them home one day earlier if there was a shortage. Medicine gets more expensive, the population gets older so the public agency tackled that trick (which caused of course more admin, nurses use tablets and software now. They must classify how much care a patient needs, and will get only a flat rate for instance for a surgery, so if there are complications the hospital has to absorb it.
The staff is awarded according to a point system, the severity of the case / need the patients is classified. I knew a nurse who quit, in her station they were always streched thin because the head nurse constantly would categorize the patients as lower in need than they acually were. Maybe she was playing nice with managment, maybe she was pressured to manipulate it.
So they they could justify having a staff that was barely sufficient. If the points would show they were understaffed they could demand more staff, which means of course more costs - which is a point that is even considered in a non-profit. A hospital will not go bankrupt, they would have to justify when they do not stay in the budget and need a bailout.
In my opinion they are overdoing the McKinsey approach now.
Back to the U.S.
One example of byzantine rules: I know that Medicare is not sufficiently funded. Proof for that: Not all that is medically necessary will be covered. - There is no "good" or bad insurance, if they have the necessary reasonable budgets and they WANT to pay (so not necessarily the U.S. insurance companies) they can pay for all that a citizens of a first world country can expect. The public non-profits insurance agencies just blow the for-profit insurance companies out of the water. With the same budget per person and comparable risks and pool they will always (and with out exception on the globe) make the dollar (or euro or yen) go farther.
Back to not sufficiently funded Medicare. Their funding must be high. They take care of the most expensive age group:
In other words the private insurers in the U.S. had the stage set up for them so they could shine: cherrypicked pool (age is a huge spending driver) and they - but not Medicare - can negotiate drug prices.
What did the private insurers do with that competitive advantage ??
Because of not enough funding the over 65 year old will have to buy upgrades. There starts the two class medical system.
So extra funding directly by the elderly insured needed.
Now, the upgrades are not for the big stuff like hospital bills.(It still can add up of course).
The interesting thing about it: If they need to raise more money, and the insured are practically forced to buy extra insurance coverage if they want good care - wouldn't it make sense to let Medicare handle that ? They handle the large budgets already and have an administrative overhead of under 3 % and a lot of market power to get good rates.
the large non-profit public agencies always get better rates (not only in the U.S. that applies in all countries. But in the U.S.they do not even try. Wendell Potter: the insurers have no interest to bring costs down, they want to have more and higher deductibles to pass on the high costs to the insured).
But no, that slice of the pie is given to the predators of the private insurance industry who answer to the shareholders and have the goal of profit maximizing.
ACA was supposed to limit their overhead to 20 % - needless to say they found ways around that. To make things worse: Medicare is supposed to monitor the for-profit insurers that were given a slice of the pie (the age group that has the most spending). Cost-efficiency would be much better secured when that extra coverage would at least be handled within the agency (although still unfair to those who cannot pay extra even when costs are more reasonable).
Medicare CANNOT NEGOTIATE DRUG PRICES: I think the way the rules were arranged to make that possible (else big pharma would lose lots of profits in the U.S.) is as follows. Drugs are covered by one of the upgrade packages (Medicare Advantage D) that is offered by the private insurance companies.
In other words the public agency cannot squeeze big pharma and the private insurers have no interest to do so.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Facts also do not matter for Saagar, the U.K. has controlled ! immigration, they are an ISLAND - meaning the governing party that just won the election = Tories also did not change those numbers. The voters might have been brainwashed otherwise, but Labour certainly did not advocate for unlimited immigration. Or "open" borders.
The Tories do no really hinder immigration at all, but the hostile laws or hostile language is enough endorsement for some voters. The Tories use covert or open (Boris Johnson) xenophobia when it suits them. For instance to win elections (othering and scapegoating are popular deflection strategies of governments that do not invest in their population. And it is also popular for parties who want to increase their share of the vote. Works especially well when the economy has not worked for regular people for longer time).
Common decency would keep you from doing that - but many don't care if they tear the country apart or incite harrassment of the scapegoats. In the wake of Brexit Polish people were harrassed sometimes. They are white, long in the country, integrated, speak the language and often fill slots that the natives do not want to fill.
From then on some native Englanders felt emboldened to voice their hostility once Johnson had abandoned the conventions what a politician with a platform can say. Immigration from the EU has gone down, and many nurses and doctors leave the country as well (foreigners). Polish people did return to their home country.
If the U.K. (or England more like) crashes out of the EU the English that work or live in the EU might have to return to the country as well.
The Tories ! brought zero hour contracts (insecure and underpaid jobs where they can change hours and working times at a whim) and they impose austerity on the country. So the defunded muncipalities MUST stop local bus routes, other services, the government dumped the care for the elderly on them (costly ). So many councils MUST sell council housing, and the new private landlords (the real constituents of the Tories) jack up the rent.
Immigration economically must not be negative for the people that are longer in the country (the cultural issues are another matter, but it used to function or the xenophobia remained underground as long as the economy worked for everyone).
But of course if more people come then the government must PREPARE for MORE people. meaning they have to fund the public services. The Blairites did not do that, and the Tories actively even cut funding.
So whatever the strategy and the numbers for future immigration would be - the people that are legally IN the country must be taken care of. If the Brits do not like the nurses, doctors and Polish construction workers - they will have to do the jobs themselves. But those jobs will not be created in Wales where Labour had such a historic loss. A government would have to specifically invest THERE.
The Tories will not do that, and the Blairites will not do it either.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Epic Rant Krystal ! (I had some suspicions that Warren may be angling for VP, she is not polling well except with white affluent educated people, and was even dropping a little bit in the early states. So maybe she was preparing her exit (also preparing the "reason" why she would not be able to endorse Sanders later, or why she would side with Biden).
Warren may be very intelligent, but I think she is an intelligent fool. Good in her profession, no doubt.
I cannot subscribe that she is "data driven" though. The law is not a science, she dabbled in economics (current affairs did a good piece how she used to be a Republican and that there was a new form of teaching law and economics).
And she had me several times scratching my head: Like: What is she thinking, IF she is thinking. Of course then I assumed that she was well intentioned and her actions were meant to serve the long term progressive cause.
The walkout from the Amy Goodman interview in Nov. 2019, the waffling about M4A, then the weird plans (the financing plan looks as if the interns had devised it).
The obsession with "I am not raising taxes on the middle class when I implement my healthcare plan". She could have gone along with the Sanders explanation (double impact when both argue it) - but then she would give him some credit (rightfully so, he championed for the cause when she sat on the sidelines. Maybe she wanted to "differentiate" herself from Sanders, no matter if that helps with the issue.
Here I am doing it again, it puzzles me that this intelligent woman would make so stupid mistakes. Never mind ethics (like not giving an ally his due or now backstabbing him for politcal shortshighted gain). She wants to presents herself as progressive - but Sanders was the progressive trailblazer - and everyone is copycat compared to him (he nudged her to run, likely would have helped her, she had her chance to discern herself in 2015 / 2016)
She did not expect that she had to explain the details of her M4A plan and waffled when pressed for explanations (her team - many fmr Clinton and Obama staffers expressed surprise that details were demanded). Thinking is not their strong suit. "How are we ever going to pay for it - declare yourself" by the Corporate media came unexpected ? They did not realize the progressive base likes plans too - because having a detailled plan can show that you mean it and that you did your homework regarding the issue. Everyone can make lofty statements on websites and in speeches.
Going back and forth to have a bill ready like Sanders did is another thing. A bill is a political promise with the work boots on.
Still no good answer to her Native Ancestry (in a lifestyle interview the interviewer asked: when did you realize for the first time that you did not have native ancestry). She started a word salad.
WHY doesn't she have a good answer for that READY ? (some soundbites, even if her team writes them and she memorizes them). You would expect that kind of meticulous (not even !) preparation from a high-profile lawyer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, Pete didn't win, and even if - he got plenty of undeserved positive coverage in the last months, so even if HE missed out on the Iowa "thunder" as winner he already got his reward. - If the app was indeed financed by Pete and a SuperPac then they used the chaos to take away from the boost it would have given to Sanders. - Well, Sanders will kick them next debate.
It looks like Gabbard and Yang did not do well, Jeff Weaver did not even mention their numbers (Gabbard had no real operation in Iowa, but I think Yang tried).
Sanders 29,08, Buttigieg 24,87 and Warren 20,65. Biden 12,92 (after making good 0,88 %), Klobuchar was better in the first round and got 11,18 in the second.
the realignment of the 2nd round did not benefit Sanders, pete got the most out of it. 3 % more - see other comment with the numbers). so Sanders better win decisively.
Of course if Pete continues to win and gets the media attention as if he was the winner of Iowa then Obama could have the pretext to endorse him, which could help in South Carolina.
It does not matter if he wins the nomination, let alone the general.
If he just can be the spoiler for Sanders.
Warren also gained 1 % - so THAT is a weakness of team Sanders. Finding allies. I had hoped Warren would stay below the threshold and a lot of her people would realign with Sanders.
1
-
There are a lot of people that want the population to work and consume as normal, and do not mind a CULLING so their profits are not affected. The recommendations of Dr. Fauci were in the way of these ruthless actors (and also the Trump admin and his campaign) and the right wingers made him a target. - There are limited resources of highly effective treatments (giving antibodies) and the likes of Trump and Giuliani get it.
Politicians and rich people know they are not going to die or get severely sick, not even if they are in a high risk group. They do not mind a culling in the low(er) income groups (and it happens to affect brown and black people more. Extra bonus).
That are the people that send out their mouthpieces (Republicans on FOX) to test the waters.
To tell the elderly audience that the older and high risk persons should sacrifice themselves for the good of their children and the economy
Read: we the rich, and some biz owners, and sellout politicians do not want to pay higher taxes and we do not accept lower profits. We want you to work and consume as always.
Your children should go to work and if you get infected indirectly we do not care. Actually it is an advantage because they save on SS and Medicare for the person that died prematurely.
Affluent older people can easily shelter at home, pay for delivery services, and their adult children do not work in retail they likely work from home, so less risk to catch the infection. AND: in case of an infection they can try to get the VIP cures. Low(er) income people do not get them, they cannot afford them and there would not be enough of them anyway.
They have enough for the "special" people and those are not going to be sacrificed. of course not.
They had those morons on in summer. I think as more and more people got infected the FOX audience learned of people they KNEW that had died and it became more real for them. And I think FOX stopped doing those testing of the mood (for the most part).
Of course if lower herd immunity is enough to stop spread (the vaccines are ideally effective) then the positive effects will manifest earlier and return to normal will be possible faster. But the countries will aim for the higher vaccination rate. No one KNOWS how fast the protection will drop in the population, how good the immune response will be, it is unchartered territory. So better have a solid margin and high vaccination rates and if the vaccine protection is not quite as good as we can hope for judging from the trials - it will be still enough.
That could be enough to ERADICT the virus.
If he had accounted for bad faith actors and clickbaiters (like The Rising) he just would not have given them anything to misrepresent them.
Rachel works for a rightwing think tank. She was always easy on lying stupid grifting Trump (no pearl clutching at all) and of course does some faux concern trolling about harmless inconsequential remarks (herd immunity) or actions that were perfectly justified, reflected the knowledge of the time, and saved a lot of lives (masks and change of assessment of Fauci and other scientists in other countries about mask wearing and mask mandates).
Not surprised about Rachel Bovarad's stance.
Shame on Krystall for playing the "Gotcha game" over nothing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@klokoloko2114 The car is often away from a plug in and the regular car battery is expensive and sensitive - that is the disadvantage of less weight and fast loading capability . - residential batteries do not need to load fast and can be heavy. Price, safety and many loading cycles, plus more abundant raw materials are more important. And if a person does not have the space or money for a residential battery, they can send the surplus into the grid.
Loading the residential battery in order to load the car battery in the evening would be less than ideal, BUT still better than burning gas while using only 23 % of the fuel (the rest becomes heat).
Ideally EV's would offer the ability to add a generic smaller portable battery that is charged at home. That would be an industry standard, every car would work with it and it would be plugged in in the trunk.
If it is not too expensive, durable, not too heavy (because it has not that much capacity. That would be the emergency backup. Would also extend the range of vehicles. Most drives are quite predictable, and if you cannot load the (larger) Lithium car battery at home because you and the car are at work where you do not have a plug in, then you can have 2 smaller add-on batteries and one is alway plugged in at home to be fully charged (preferably with electricity from your panels, the other one powers the daily (predictable ride) if the car battery would not be charged enough.
Sometimes you have longer distances and then it will have to prepare for it by loading your add on batteires. Either from the grid or from the home battery.
I assume that the person cannotplug in the car when there is a surplus of electricity.
If the batteries is standardized and are interchangeable (all manufacurers have the same, a car that does not have that feature will not be subsidized for the end consumer) you can get help. Let's say you have a longer trip next day but forgot, that you have to load up the car battey and the mobile add-on batteries as well. The employer might help you out, a collegue or relative can help you out. There will be alot of folks that have the same kind of battery.
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
-
1
-
1
-
Biden in the best case scenario does not have the RESERVES. even if it is only a general feebleness of body and reduced agility of mind (that would not intefere with a relaxed retirement) - that takes away from his mental capacity - the job of POTUS is fast paced and stressful.
Biden avoids having stress and he slips up reliably when he cannot avoid having stress (challenging questions, or a normal ! campaign weekend, after 2 weeks of normal campaigning in a competitive state like South Carolina. He won a lot of Super Tuesday states without even campaigning there, and no presence there either. He won literally on being a houshold name, being propped up by media, associated with Obama and the confirmation that he was the safe and "comfortable" choice. No reason to even campaign).
It is a lot of hassle for attendees and the candidate to come to a campaign event. So why does he only do 7 minutes speeches since the weekend from S.C. to Super Tuesday ? (where he messed up several times).
Not everyone does 35 - 45 minute speeche like Sanders who is policy driven and can speek freely with the occasional look at his notes. But what about at least 15 - 20 minutes ? Biden does not SAVE time by cutting off the 13 minutes from his appearances, he can't do any more events because his speeches have the length of the warm up act in other campaigns.
I looks a lot like his campaign tries to shorten his appearances in the hope he will not malfunction in the short time.
When things comes to the desk of the president for decisions it is not easy and often also not pretty.
(The person that was in the team that briefed Trump - until he asked for someone else - was very polite about the different styles of presidents how they want to receive and how they process information. She mentioned that Obama was a ferocious reader. Needless to say Trump's style is different - you could read that between the lines. I also cannot see Biden being characterized like that, considering how few details he gives - and if he does he makes embarrassing mistakes).
Sanders cannot SAY that- he doesn't have to, his army on the internet is on standby, and FOX does not hold back either.
But Sanders can insinuate that - for whatever reason - Biden has a very light schedule and does not expose himself to situations that he and his campaign cannot control (as little and as short and as superficial exposure as possible).
So if the American people want to SEE proof that their president despite age has the stamina and can deliver w/o making mistakes: Biden did not prove that so far by his campaign and live speeches (unedited).
He should also mention that the next format is not suited to inform the audience. It should be both STANDING for 2 hours or more and battling in a substantive manner (but politely) over the POLICIES:
Biden can't compete with Sanders. He knows it, Sanders knows it.
1
-
Job of Sanders: to circumvent the hostility of traditional media. Using online ads reaching young people who are urged to inform parents and grandparents. It is a huge task !
Reality: many people do not follow politics and they are "informed" by headlines, the soundbites they happen to hear when they turn on TV and before they switch to something light and entertaining *
I do not blame them.
The rest of the U.S. population - the majority - is led around like a circusbear on the nosering by the millionaires shilling for the billionaires - aka the "free" media, especially on TV.
* * Rant * *
Politics is a drag - the way it is presented on mainstream TV: It is soundbites and they never connect the dots (like the U.S. military interventions that caused a certain situation in Latin America or the Middle East). A media person that is able to "grasp" single payer and understands how they do it in other countries is automatically disqualified to appear on the large networks.
Velshi is Canadian, so he can't help himself, he had a reasonable interview with Sanders (or a surrogate) about M4A. I think now his female partner Ruhle covers healthcare - from the angle of the industry / advertisers of course.
Self-important bullshitters utter their lines with the goal to misinform the audience. The moderators are equally clueless or can't be bothered to corrrect them. - You are not better informed when you watch Morning Joe, you are more confused.
Sadly that is also true for Rachel Maddow who could be a great educator. Likely she would be fired, but she could do her own thing on the internet (she switched to the dark side as well, her price is 30,000 USD per DAY).
There are people that are completely detached from the political process, they realize they do not gain from watching "political" news on TV and they never are offered the vision or insight HOW THAT IS IMPORTANT for their LIFE
(I bet there are still a lot of people who hardly have an idea who Sanders is - or Biden for that matter).
* * End of Rant * *
So most regular people (often non-voters, at least when it comes to primaries) get a vague impression of Joe Biden being an elder statesman, a friendly guy, an ally of the working class. And how HE is the much better choice to beat Trump.
Plus an equally vague impression of Sanders that is not positive. At best he has unrealistic if high minded ideas but cannot hold a candle to Biden. Plus he is a risk when it comes to beating Trump.
Many of them have never voted in the primaries (or even the general). Biden or another of the (hyped up) candidates "got this", Sanders will not make it anyway, so they neither turn out for Biden nor for Sanders.
Now the older viewers are completely brainwashed and if they are wealthy or under the illusion that their Medicare and SS is safe with an establishment candidate they WILL turn out and vote their selfish self-interest or based on perceived security - and that means they turn out against Sanders.
They were indoctrinated that Sanders will somehow rock the boat in a bad manner.
Rocking the boat is very necessary, you do incremental, finetuning and maintainance of existing arrangements when things are O.K., but if you have a big mess it is time for the big clean up.
In an idea world MSM would point out what is the matter with Biden (his abiliaty to be up to the demands of the office AND his terrible record on votes and policies).
In reality: Sanders would have to hammer that whenever he is on MSM AND he would need to flood the internet with messages. Also telling young people: Show this to your grandparents. Show this to your parents.
Rallies and preaching to the choire does not suffice.
1
-
a Civil War would be the nuclear option, they would hope they only lose to Trump (which they do not mind) and the donors keep financing them - and reward them for taking out Sanders. If the furious progressives walk out and try to form a party - that could mean Pence or another Republican after Trump in 2024.
I very much doubt Sanders would dare to run third party and it is risky - it would of course be glorious if he could pull off a win (on top of that he would need the Green Party ticket, time to register as candidate may has passed in many states. There was a timeline that is how they found out about Bloomberg before he announced officially, may have been about being a primary candidate though). Media would go nuts.
The Corporate Dems would be fine with that as well, the big shots in the party will keep their seats or at least they think that. If not Pelosi, Schumer, Feinstein can retire, they keep the tax cuts under a R president).
Joe Crowley made the sever error to lose the primary against AOC, that is almost dereliction of duty. The big donors finance the Dems to beat progressives IN PRIMARIES (the general is not so important). - still he was a major fundraiser (finance, reale estate) that qualified him as speaker of the house in waiting. And of course the got a job right afterwards.
The big donors would reward the Corporate Dems if they risk something. bloomberg can pay them off. I do not think bloomberg wants to be prez. He just wants to make sure Sanders (and also Warren) do not have a chance, they might
1
-
1
-
1
-
@battleelf6523 open border is a right wing trope. The immigrants that are IN the country would get a path to citizenship and they MUST be included in the healthcare system or it undermines the cost-efficiency.
The good news: it does not cost that much
if a nations pays DOUBLE (= 100 %) of what it should cost, the 3 - 5 % of the population that are undocumented migrants (most of them working age) are NOT the most pressing problem when it comes to expenditures.
And spending goes very much up with age. Migrants are much younger than the average population so they cost less in the system.
The old, sick and feeble do not come to the U.S. The young and healthy try to carve out a niche for themselves.
The healthcare they can get in the U.S. (when they are low income, and most migrant don't make the big bucks) they can also get at home, and with less hassle. Even poor Mexico has universal healthcare.
But looking at the big picture: you absolutely want to avoid to have a lot of non-citizens in the country that do not have coverage - see now Corona virus.
Even if you would not mind deporting them: 11 millions means that at least 50 million people are affected. Families, landlords, employers. And then there are the legal migrants. They are included in all single payer countries. They pay the mandatory payroll taxes, their employer pays as well (else it would be an advantage to hire them over the native population) and that gives the right to full coverage.
End of. Very simple to administrate (no red tape) very easy and planable for the hospitals and doctors.
In the U.S. if someone has an accident they will be taken to the hospital. The COSTS will manifest, the question is only if they have COVERAGE.
A woman could give birth at home, but if there are complications - do you let her die ? it is better for the hospitals and doctors if they hardly encounter persons w/o FULL coverage, then they can concentrate on diagnosis and treatment, they WILL get paid and on time (by the public non-profit insurance agency = single payer agency = Medicare)
1
-
@battleelf6523 Non-citizens at the mercy of the predators when it comes to HEALTHCARE ? ? - The for-profit insurers rob even U.S. citizens blind and add a lot of red tape (because of the toxic incentives that the profit incentive creates for a service like healthcare. Where the consumers are by far the weakest actors, so there is no "free market possible").
USD 10,260 was the average spending per person on healthcare in the U.S. in 2017 (Kaiser). Per person means young and old, healthy and sick, with or without COVERAGE.
Coverage and getting treatment and causing spending is not the same.
The occasional doctor visit does not cost that much (in a well set up single payer system) and can also help avoid much higher spending later - and when they get into major problems they will get the costly treatments. Easy access to services at a low level and "free at the point of delivery" helps to avoid costs later.
w/o coverage: They will also get the big bill, the question is if they can pay for it.
That spending will happen - if only because you often cannot verify the nationality in an emergency. It also does not look good for a first world nation to have people dying at the doorsteps of hopsitals. And it causes trauma for family and friends (who can be citizens).
They can as well have coverage, then you avoid at least the red tape and the unnecessary spending on admin.
Even cost efficient single payer meeans on average spending of USD 5,500 per person (take or leave a few hundred bucks per person). So the migrant family of four that CONTRIBUTES to the eonomy (2 working parents, consumers) would have to pay 22,000 per year in the best case scenario
(if we assume the U.S. would have a system as cost-efficient as all the other wealthy countries, that is a theoretical example).
That is a lot of money for citizens or non-citizens if they are lower income. In single payer countries they solve it as follows:
Mandatory MODEST payroll taxes and a mandatory contribution by the employer (often the same or they pay more than staff - and usually there is a cap for both parties).
That mandate also constitutes a RIGHT: full coverage incl. for dependent family members, almost no payments later.
That is of course not enough so extra funding by government, ideally that comes from the top income brackets that also benefit the most from migration (construction, landscaping, nannies, restaurant owners, ...)
people and companies can PLAN the costs, they will not rise unless higher wages are paid. Staff of small companies (maybe not yet profitable) have the same coverage (comprehensive !) than staff of large highly profitable companies.
People pay what they can and all contribute. it means the consumers have disposable income, there are no bankrupcies because of medical bills, landlords get the rent, children are spared the stess in the family etc.
The country also reaps the benefits of preventive care, that people go to the doctor when they should.
corona virus anyone ?
If you are low income and can't spare the 3,000 bucks and feel like you have a cold or are under the wind - will you get the testing ? Most likely it is harmless (so far one can assume that). And if not - you can be careful to not infect family and collegeus (no sick leave). But if it is corona - you are young so most likely you will survive it.
that way it is really hard to contain the pandemic.
1
-
@battleelf6523 As for future migration. it will need the Canadian "model" to slow that down significantly. Canadians do not come in droves to the U.S. - Why ? because they do well at home (or at least the U.S would not be an improvement) and because the U.S. (oligarchy class) has not meddled with them for more than 100 years (it helped that they were part of the British empire, or were associated with it).
The U.S. had lots of immigration after WW2 (1930 around 90 million people, now 330).
Now I do not suggest immigration can continue at that rate.
THEN was the building of the American middle class. While a lot of immigration went on. It MUST not be negative for those that are longer in the country. When politics takes care of the little people - ALL of them. Not pitting workers against each other.
Theere is the cultural question, too many migrants in a few states, and they may be used to suppress wages in same fields. Like construction.
BUT: someone profits fromt he lower costs to build, or the lower costs for food (farms, restaurants), or people willing to work in the service industry like care for the elderly.
The top 10 % profit the most, time that they start paying so that the current migrants can be well integrated into society.
The Trump admin tried to pull off a coup in Venezuela (likely on behalf of the Koch Brothers), Hillary Clinton supported the coup in Honduras, the U.S. has been meddling in Latin America for over 100 years.
To be precise: the U.S. oligarchs have always colluded with the local dictators, and predators and together they suppressed and exploited the population. They LEVERAGED the power of the U.S. government military, intel agencies or state department, funding right wing terrorists and coups, diplomatic pressure, the IMF, economic war in form of sanctions and even war.
The U.S. citizens had to defy the robber barons, and the long ! and brutal backlash against the labor movement, segregation, etc. In Latin America they have all of that - and the U.S. oligarchs and military on top. No wonder they never came on their feet.
The last coup in Bolivia. if you do not want these people to show up at the border you would want the revenue for oil in Venezuela used for the poor there, same in Brazil, and Mexico. or copper in Chile.
Chile's GDP stems 30 % from copper.
And in Bolivia the revenue for Lithium. (The international oligarchs preparing for more need for Lithium for batteries obviously. At cheaper prices and / or high profits for THEM ).
A nationalized mining industry would mean the revenue goes to the citizens (even if corrupt politicians get their cut, which is in theory illegal - else the oligarchs there and in the West line their pockets which then is legal).
As U.S. citizens you want the poor to stay in Bolivia and finance their own welfare programs with the natural resources of their country.
so what the hell where Cheney / Bush doing in 2002 when VZ did VERY WELL (high oil prices) or now the Trump admin.
follow the money .... or oil
VZ could do much better economically if the U.S. would not do all and everything to ruin their economy (and the U.S. can do a lot !) VZ could absorb people from other countries in the region - if they do well and GET their oil revenue.
When their people make it to Colombia, Brazil it creates tensions there, they are not that rich.
maduro is allegedly not elected in a legitimate election ? WHO CARES ? (not true, but even if - see Honduras, Bolivia, Haiti, Brazil * ..... not to forget the oil rich theocratic tyranic regimes in the Middle East.
* in Venezuela and in Brazil a popular or very popular polician was not allowed to run in the election. In VZ it could have been on grounds of corruption charges (not to sure about the fine details), in Brazil it was a sham for sure.
You will not hear that Bolsenaro must be ousted in a coup. Lula likely would have won that race, that was why they had that Kangaroo court trial.
1
-
1
-
2:28 it looks like Warren never informed herself how a single payer system works or thought things through. She used single payer as buzz word and could not even remember that she had recommended it before (good for the journalist to catch her on that).
There are very practical reasons why a single payer agency is good at bringing costs down and private insurers always have higher costs (or insanely high in the U.S.).
In the U.S. the stage has been set up for private insurers to shine:
Medicare takes the most costly group of over 65 years - so they have cherrypicked pools already.
The agencies are not allowed to negotiate drug prices (except for the VA, which brought prices down by 40 %).
ACA was passed to keep them in the market (propped up with lots of subsidies or the overpriced system would already have collapsed).
Private insurers could negotiate drug prices - but they don't do it.
So what did they make with the advantages over the public insurance agency Medicare that politicians created for them ??
Wendell Potter Snr. executive turned whistleblower (since 2008): the insurance companies have no interest in bringing costs down, the insurance companies want to have more and more contracts with high deductibles to pass on a lot of their expenditures to the insured.
Potter got some attention because he had been the PR head guy for Cigna (and before for other insurers), and he testified in 2009 before Congress and wrote books. So Warren should have heard of him ! In 2012 it was clear that the cost control did not work - (some said the insurers raised premiums before the bill went into effect. But even with that costs continued to rise and in 2012 that was very obvious - did wonders for the races that were not presidential races.
Why would anyone assume that letting the private insurers have most (now) or a considerable (public option) share of the market would work. They haven't shown ethical behavior or moderation in the past - so what would her make believe even in 2012 that private insurers bring anything to the table.
A public non-profit single payer insurance agency (Medicare in the U.S.) has almost a monopoly. When coverage is comprehensive and funding sufficient - lower than for private insurers of course but it must be enough - the private insurers become obsolete, they are not needed and there is nothing they could do better or more cost efficient, so they will be restricted to some fringe issues.
ALL insurers (non-profit agencies or for-profits companies) are middle men and this is about adminstration around healthcare, it is not rocket science, no creativity or marketing genius needed.
The agency already exists. Tthe data processing, software, and data bases would be a challenge if they had to be set up - but that is luckily not necessary. The system has been set up in the 1970s, runs like a clockwork, and can be relatively easy scaled up. (More computing power and likely a website where people can sign up, or they can import data bases).
The de facto monopoly makes the agency a POWERFUL NEGOTIATOR. There is no free market possible in healthcare: the insured / patients are by far the weakest participant in the system, so they will be taken advantage of if there is a profit motive.
The complexity means that regulators cannot protect them AS LONG AS THE PROFIT MOTIVE PLAYS A ROLE in the complex scenarios - the complexity sometimes even means that a public insurance agency that pays for services for the insures can be fraudulently exploited.
John Oliver about dialysis clinics that are for profit. Not only withheld they the information from the elderly patients that dialysis is only a crutch for the time until the patient can have a kidney transplant and that the patients should sign on the waiting list immediately.
That deception (so they could keep the patients) amounted to a death sentence for many, fatality rates are high if prolonged dialysis is necessary (or ruthlessly done): after 6 months to 1 year many have died.
They also used unnecessary drugs and split the packages to bill each portion at a very high price. Checking the bills before they are paid by Medicare is not done by doctors of medicine (and the agency cannot know if the patient is fit for a transplant or if a matching kidney is available - so the criminals got away with it for some time). The administrative staff did not catch on the malpractice and how the criminals stole money from Medicare.
That's the free market and for-profit in healthcare.
A non-profit monopolist (for a very uniform, standardized service = admin around healthcare) is best suited to represent the interest of the insured / patients. Medicare will be a strong negotiating partner because of the sheer volume - for instance for the pharmaceutical industry.
The U.S. has for profit hospital chains (that means higher costs and invariably there will be same "gaming of the system". Medicine is complex, some extrax can always be sneaked it. Most other countries have no or very few for-profit hopsitals (let alone chains).
Moreover the powerful American Medcial Association has made sure to keep the numbers of graduates down. (and to have many hurdles to accept the qualification from immigrant doctors).
(AMA was the most outspoken and a powerful opponent to implementing Medicare in the 1960s - they almost managed to prevent it).
I heard that an U.S. doctor with a practice spends 3 weeks per year on the phone with insurance companies, and that waste of time would of course disappear over time - but in the transition phase they do not yet reap the full benefit of a streamlined system and there might not be enough doctors even with some time saving - or just enough.
I also heard the statement: the for-profit insurers bid up the prices for the limited resource doctors. Non-profit insurance agencies always pay lower rates to doctors and hospitals than the private insurers (but doctors in other countries still do fine, France, Belgium, Australia, Japan, ... donot have a mass emigration of doctors).
If Medicare is (almost) the only game in town their market power makes it possible to get good rates even when the number of doctors is just enough. If the doctors think they are squeezed beyond what is reasonable they can turn to the court of public opinion and make their case (they will do that anyway and even with a good offer, see the resistance of AMA in the 1960s).
So that is another reason the monopolist has much better chances to get reasonable rates. U.S. doctors (at least the specialists) earn more money over life time (factoring in the costs of medical school which is free in most other nations. But even with the need to make more money to pay for the education / training they make more money than their peers in Europe, Australia, Canada, ...
In single payer nations the hospitals cannot afford to not have a contract. That contracts gives them the same rates like all other hospitals and they must accepti all insured who all have the same coverage. the wealthy will be incentivized to suport good funding (politically and with their taxes) else the poor people will show up at their doctors.
Without those patients from the public agency hospitals would not have enough patients.
And when the coverage is comprehensive and the insurance agency is properly funded and the country takes care to train enough specialists there is also litte "market" for doctors that do not accept the public insurance contract / publicly insured.
Which in turn means there is little need for insurance comapnies to offer upgrade packages. Why have an insurance contract when the basic public offer is good. It makes more sense to pay out of pocket for the rare cases when one wants to have non-essential extras.
People have either supplemental insurance or pay out of pocket (expensive dental, accupuncture, a doctor that is a capacity in the field).
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dr. Eicke Weber: Economy of scale. For solar panels it is 20 % - ever time installed capacity doubles, the price for electricity produced by the panels (latest technology) drops by 20 %. Better quality, more output per area, more durable, improved manufacturing methods, easier to install, etc.
* fmr head of the solar department of Fraunhofer Institut - think M.I.T in Germany
For wind turbines it is only 15 % - because it involves more "mature" technologies (construction, steel, and concrete production). When a technology is new you have the most dramatic improvements.
(When you already have a lot installed then doubling takes longer, think steel or concrete, sure there may be small improvements here and there).
For processors it continues to be high (also see Moore's Law).
Batteries / storage are the missing link to make renewables viable (when used at a large scale). Because production is fluctuating.
We are only at the beginning, economy of scale just starts to manifest.
The German government now already ceates deterrents for companies to produce their own electricity (without any subsidies mind you). And subsidies for homes are only for a very mediocre sized installment (for new ones).
If you have a larger installation (which makes sense considering that there will be a dramatic development soon with batteries so they can upgrade with storage later) you get no subsidies at all.
Roof of the company in the right direction, they need most of the electricty during daylight hours (so no night shift) - there you go. A competent electrician working in the company does not hurt - if there are technical problems.
And Germany is not even ideal for harvesting solar energy, on at least 70 % of the area of the U.S. there are better conditions for solar.
The abrupt exit from nuclear power to renewables was politically motivated (Fukushima). Merkel the turncoat is not behind renewables out of principle - and it shows. (Still some good came out of it, but that switch could have been done so much better).
Now the large providers are getting into trouble (after all the free market and competition talk) - so now they are protected from renewables (w/o subsidies). When batteries are getting cheaper, many households and companies will switch, and withholding subsidies will not help to deter them.
Some home owners (and companies) discuss going off the grid alltogether with micro power generators (that also produce heat for warm water or heating in winter). Power generators (gas or wood chips) only have an efficiency of 25 % because so much of the energy is transfered into heat (that is a physical limit for ALL steam engines, or combustion engines) - but if that heat (a waste product so to speak) can be used, efficiency goes up to over 60 %.
Economy of scale effects depend ONLY on manufactured = sold = installed technology. Not on the passing of time. So the timeline can be quite uneven - usually those new technologies need subsidies, so a lot can happen within a few years, if there is the political will to support the new technology.
They have to compete with mature technologies that do not have to pay for the external costs and damage. So that is why subsidies are needed.
The path will emerge as we walk it.
So it makes sense to go forward to have 10, 20, 30 % renewable. Problems will manifest and will be solved. Sure if we NOW envision to be on 80 % renewables, we can predict a lot of problems.
There is no need to worry about that now.
The use of so much of the new technology that we get at 10, 20, 30 % (ALL energy not only electricity, also fuel for cars / transportaion, heating) will produce technical solutions we cannot predict right now.
There will be unforeseeable developments that change the game anyway.
1
-
1
-
Why Biden could perform in the last debate - there are drugs for that, but then he had to go into hiding for 6 days. Read a speech reg. Corona from the teleprompter, stared into the off when it had ended. Jill had to come and get him, unfreeze him with a kiss and a hug, then she left the stage, he STILL did not follow her, she softly called him: Joe .... - right when the lockdown began, they tried a virtual townhall and he wandered out of camera focus (they had technical problems, he stumbled three times in one sentence, the next q they "lost" him so they broke off after 10 minutes - . so I guess for the speech they told him to stay put.
After that 6 days in hiding, this was when it dawned on the nation (and on Trump) what was going on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
She does not understand a thing about economics, must be the Republican ideology (the points she made before were more reasonable and the guy is a hack, he always is). - U.S. productivity growth between 1947 and 2013 358 %. Hourly average wages adjusted for inflation 214 %, but 197 % of that happened between 1947 and 1970.
So ONLY 17 % since 1970. But costs for healthcare, childcare, education, rent / housing have soared.
(I know these numbers by heart the trend has not changed since 2013, the wage growth in the U.S. in the last years was eaten up by higher inflation)
People did O.K. in the 1970s (although in the U.S. always an underclass existed, this is different compared to other wealthy countries, where people had the basics with help of public services and welfare).
even 17 real increase could be tolerable provided there would be cost-efficient healthcare, affordable housing etc.
After 1970 the lion's share of productivity wins went to the owners / shareholders. Their profits could at least have financed those public services (indirectly propping up disposable income of regular people).
Instead housing and healthcare plus education became another source of income for the profiteer class.
One advantage if the workers get the lion's share of productivity wins:
their disposable income can keep up with the output of goods.
Until 1970 the workers got the lion's share of productivity growth in form of better wages.
Stagnant wages means that people cannot build a nest egg (and that can be a home that they can live in rent- free, or sell later, or pass on to the children).
The productivity wins (turned profits, not wages) could easily pay for SS (purchasing power for retired people) even though people live longer and for longer education times - but of course the wage deductions come from NOW stagnant wages and are not as high as they should be.
The stagnant wages mean high profits elsewhere - and if those few would have to pay taxes there would be enough to GO AROUND.
1 billion parked on an account is useless.
the same billion ciruclating through the economy facilitates the exchange of goods / services worth much more than 1 billion. When the money comes back to governrment and is spend on expenditures that benefit regular people, it keeps circulating, between consumers, businesses, workers .... goverment (if taxation makes sure that not too much is parked away on accounts. Rinse and repeat.
Most people understand money as something static.
When government spending is sucked up to the few (subsidies for fossil fuels, big ag, military contracting,.. subsidies for a ridiculously overpriced healthcare system) it is NOT beneficial
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yang is phony about M4A - has it STILL on the website under that term. if pressed in interviews (only from the left who do not fall for the labels) he admits it is a public option / opting out. Which is completely different from single payer (M4A in the U.S. - see the BILLS) - it may seem like a little tweak to give "choice" *, but it can set up any reform for failure.
It would be the choice for the insurers whom they want to keep as client and who gets prohibitively high or unfavorable (deductibles !) offers.
In countries with well functioning single payer system it would slowly erode the cost-efficient and fair system - in the U.S. where the predators run amock and politicians assist them, it would take them only a few years to ruin it.
(in the transition phase the project naturally is the most vulnerable to sneaky and hostile attacks, the population cannot fall back on memories of a better functioning system, will of course be subject to a PR tsunamie, and the cost savings do not all manifest right away).
Now I will give Yang (and also Gabbard) the benefit of the doubt - but the lobbyists for sure were active, and they haven't done their homework or they would understand why public option is a BAD idea. (in 2009 public option was seen by activists as a very weak second best to single payer and then not even the public option survived the "negotiations" (of Democrats with the lobbyists, let's not forget that) and NOW after the predatory industry has shown how ruthless they are - now they want to revive the "public option" ??
Public option is NOW plan B for the insurance industry (they know some change will come). They would lose a part of the "market" - but they get to keep the most lucrative clients.
There is a reason NO OTHER COUNTRY does it (none that I am aware of, certainly no wealthy country. In a developing country it would mean a 2 class medical system).
90 % of costs are caused by 10 % of the insured. The U.S. insurers are already really good at doing the purges, they just have to kick out the right persons, the age group plus 65 (the most costly age group) is already covered by Medicare (in its current form).
Then they can make offers that seem to be reasonably priced, and the public pool will bear the burden of the high risk / high cost patients.
A little defunding will go a long way - and Medicare will indeed need high budgets (as long as they get only the low-income, the old and high risk patients). So it will be easy to badmouth it (even when they are cost efficient for the pool they have). Likewise they can parade around the "good" offers for the young and healthy (which are of course still overpriced if you know the 90 : 10 rule. It is like the Pareto rule only more extreme).
And of course billing and admin will remain as costly and inefficient (like today, doctors and hospitals have Medicare already - and the countless other varieties of contracts. Every patient has another kind of coverage. Doctors (and even nurses !) still will waste time on the telephone to get treatments approved etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
At the minimum inept Democrats threw a contract to a company, did not care if the app worked. If you do not want a more transparent and faster process it does not matter how the app performs.
Was maybe not even the fault of the software company, if the client does not give the specifications and outline the requirements and if they seem intent to spend money ..... I seem to remember a number of 100,000 USD, that might not be enough.
It depends if they wanted complex operations included. Not that I see the necessity for that. The first round is teams gathering in their corner, then hand count, then you report the numbers, by all means use an app for that if you want to be fancy. So the numbers are in a database.
The realignment in round 2 is fluid and it gets complex if there are more than 2 - 3 groups.
BUT there is human interaction included - making your sales pitch. I guess people just walk over to another group if they "realign". I do not see WHY you would use technology for that process.
At some point the 2nd round is officially done, they do another handcount and announce the results. If you make people stand in orderly groups of ten it is not hard to count them fast, even larger numbers.
The app has to handle WHO is allowed to enter results (1680 persons that head each of the events). maybe a link to a photo of the handcount lists would be part of the database, then you must store the photos somewhere. The captains of each team of caucus goers can go to the head and tell them the results so they can enter them.
Such an app should cost much less than 100k.
Sometimes contracts are given (even in the corporate world) because someone has a budget. (Doing favors to buddies can but must not be at play).
Then both parties know the product does not really matter, although that is of course never expressed.
Nor would the bother to make the budget large enough to allow for robust testing, or to start earlier with development.
1
-
1
-
Not in healthcare, there are many government agencies who do a decent job. Certainly better than any for profit as soon as it is about a natural monopoly or goes in that direction (housing, sewage systems, mining, even electricity, firefighters, schools, ....)
healrhcare is very tangible for citizens, when they need it big time (or a family member) they pay attention. If all are in the same system that created enormous politicla leverage for the insured / patients.
after WW2 all nations applied single payer principles (with very few exceptions), but they grandfathered in existing solutions and they did their own thing.
Fast forward 70 years, many differences - but on average a rich country will pull if off with USD 5,400 for every person in the country, take or leave 500 USD.
The surcharge in the U.S. for having dominant profiteers
USD 5,000 almost. (USD 10,260 per person in 2017 - instead of approx. 5,400).
And corporations see to it that they have a cherrypicked pool, because the most costly group over 65 is
covered by a single payer style public non-profit insurance agency = Medicare. It was introduced in the 1960s and the idea was to expand it, but that never happened.
Money in politics happened.
Nixon happened, until 1973 it was against the law to make a profit of healthcare. So there were many private non-profit insurers, hospitals. That adds inefficiency, but they did not have a toxic culture.
All these nations endup spending 49 - 56 % of what the U.S. is spending per person ("per person" in the U.S. includes uninsured, bankrupt because of medical bills, getting too little care to late because of lack of insurance coverage etc., it means ALL spending: by government, companies, citizens).
As for differences how the single payer nations started out and developed over 70 years:
some governments did favors to corporations and allow private insurers more role than is ideal, think Germany where 10 % are fully "privately" insured (the opt out is allowed ONLY for the affluent / privileged - they do it only if young / healthy)
Or Australia where the affluent are kicked out of the public pool. There is a tug of war between Labour strengthening the public non-profit pool - and the "conservatives" that are hellbent to CREATE a niche for the for-profits. By government intervention (because the wealthy would stay in the public pool without the hefty fines. And less fines would be sufficient if funneled into the public system, that tends to have very lean budgets, they are just about managing. Australia has 49 % of the U.S. spending per person
Also Netherlands where they did a neoliberal reform. Patients / insured liked the old system better btw).
the needs of the citiizens (and is costly even if delivered in efficient manner, first world medicine does cost money) - so there is enough oversight. It is Corporations who captured the political and election process to a degree that the voters cannot stand up and straighten that out.
I would be for well publicly funded TV, no ads. wages are published, if you work there you agree to that. Staff AND a board of citizens / society representatives have the vote (and the representatives rotate, that duy is paid but they do not have that gig forever). It is much harder to bribe people when it is a body of representatives that changes constantly. (people could apply for that duty and then there is a lottery).
Publicly funded TV has been captured by the political establishment (of course back in the day it was THE most important way to influence the way of voters).
That said: they are still way better than what the 6 dominant networks (owned by rich people) are doing in the U.S. millionaires doing propaganda for billionaires.
1
-
1
-
1
-
If her campaign could fool her (she is not a 13 year old for crying out loud) what would her advisors and the deep state do with her if in office.
But she was not pushed, she WANTED to do it. She attacked Sanders in an interview before the "Bernie is sexist" leak: He is my friend but now he sends out his volunteers to trash me (no kidding, these were her words - and obviously the interviewer knew to bring the "Sanders attacks on her campaign" up in the interview)
That nonsense (a version of the mean Bernie Bros) did not really stick because the Sanders campaign has guidelines in place for the volunteers and can prove that they instruct volunteers to not even mention the name of other candidates. If media had reported on it they would have needed to name something that looked like a coordinated attack (trashing me) - and they had of course nothing.
So 1 or 2 days later a new attack. This time the passing on of claims what happened at a private conversation was left to "sources" in contact with CNN.
If the campaign had gone forward without the knowledge of Warren - she could easily had stopped the media frenzy by saying: We are friends, we have talked it out, we both agreed that we and our campaigns are not commenting further (also not during the debate).
She wanted the appearance of taking the high road - but made sure the conflict stared and did not end - she just did not foresee it would backfire.
Same with her statement during versus end of the debate (I am not here to fight with Bernie) - later when she of course knew the mic was hot: I believe you called me a liar - she tried to frame him, maybe hoping he would say: yes you are a liar / a backstabber - that would have been the next round of manufactured outrage. Sanders was too smart for that.
Warren wanted to trash Sanders and to land a low blow and she did not mind badmouthing his volunteers while she was at it - the crowd that would be crucial to support any blue candidate against Trump. I heard the campaign manager of Trump brag about their war chest (TheHill Rising) - no doubt Trump will drown in money.
It is only that it did not hurt Sanders as intended (for now) they will attempt more "Bernie is sexist" attacks to alienate female voters from Sanders.
In a caucus location all groups that have 15 % minimum get delegates for their prefered candidate. And in a 2nd round they can court members of the groups that did not achieve the 15 %.
Sanders and Biden likely will get at least 15 % in most precincts, but Warren might not (more than Sanders hindered by impeachment, falling numbers). There would have been an affinity between Warren and Sanders supporters, likely it would have been easier for the Sanders groups to pick up these votes than for the Biden fans. And Buttigieg shares the same demographic with Warren, but he might not make it into the 2nd round, so fans of mayor Pete will not be in a position to court the Warren fans (his fans might be picked up by Biden supporters).
Maybe Warren (the DNC) wanted to poison the well - to alienate Warren supporters from Sanders (supporters who could help Sanders win Iowa with a large margin).
Winning with an eclat in the early states ? then South Carolina would be in reach. The DNC and the media would go nuts, he would kill it then on Supertuesday (with California).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jessicascoullar3737 Don't feel bad, she put up a good act. Wagging her finger at the banksters got her national name recognition. THEN it helped her. - Good for you to realize what is going on. It is a sobering reminder, that talk is cheap. That even good people can be corrupted (or they only put up a good act).
Howard Dean also seemed to be a progressive. Well, they found out his price (he sits on a board of a company, health or finance).
AOC said she expected some pressure to conform when she would come to Congress, but it was even more intense than expected. - It gave her appreciation for the fact that Sanders stood alone for so many years.
Now, he too made his less than desireable compromises, no one is in politics and keeps a totally white vest.
That said: it matters, what pressure is needed, under what circumstances they give in. If there is a higher purpose or if they are only cowards and self-serving.
It took suprisingly littel to compromise Warren, to show that ther personal ambition tops everything, and certainly furthering the progressive cause.
1
-
1
-
1
-
boring banking provides some benefits if they give out loans. It worked reasonably well after WW2, but might not be the best way to "allocate capital" and it certainly still prefers those who are already have money or assets, for them it is much easier to get loans and at good conditions. - More boring banking: Holding accounts of clients, money transfer.
However, not even prudent loans by commercial banks are necessary to finance an economy. The Soviet Union made massive strides in the 1920s and 1930s (the U.S. State Department was worried. It was brutal, famine in Ukraine while exporting wheat to finance the industrialization and building of a more modern army.
Lenin / Stalin expexted the other nations would at some point start a war against them, to punish them for the Revolution. And that expectation was realistic, the economc troubles after WW1 just hindered Euroean countries to mess with the Soviet Union, and directly after WW1 another war was a hard sell for potential aggressors. The U.S. was busy with imperialism in Latin Amercia, and Asia and also had no time to spare for Russia. The colonial powers faced increasin trouble in Africa and Asia.
That hostility had nothing to do with the fact that the democratic experiment had descended into authoritarian rule with a few months in 1917, and from there it became a brutal dictatorship. Winston Churchill had no problem with starving a population (Benghal) or brutal dictatorships, but toppling a monarch and disposessing the (few) rich in Russia went too far. So he hated the Soviet system with a passion.
Russian under the czar were for the most part bitterly poor and behind (literacy, not much of a middle class, industrialization) - there were certainly a lot of poor people in Europe or the U.S., but Russia was on another level. 100 years behind. And it was even worse in China.
in the 1950s that developing nation had eradicted illiteracy and challenged the U.S. with Sputnik - and inbetween there had been the fallout of 2 world wars. WW1 was bad - and WW2 was devastating for the Soviet Union.
Germany after WW2 did have a stock exchange, but it was a lame affair The growth even of larger companies was NOT financed by issuing shares. Here the banks created money (FIAT money = regular loans).
In the S.U. they created the money directly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
MfA for legal residents 2/2: ALL must have it - or single payer does not function and does not bring the desired cost savings. The question is if legal residents will have insurance coverage (= easy for hospitals and doctors). Because they would get treatment. - Or you let them die on the doorstep of the hospital.
The question then is if they can pay the bills if the nation is petty with granting access to insurance coverage (all other nations give the legal residents healthcare at the same conditions as the citizens).
Good luck with recovering the money from someone that returns to Mexico or even Canada or Europe.
The ambulance arrives at the scene of the accident, they get the people into the hospital. No one knows if they have coverage (not when they do not have ID on them, always assuming you got their bags out of the care. Yyou do not even know for sure if the driver is the holder of the licence plate.
Now it could turn out that some do not have coverage.
So what now ?
Kicking them out of intense care ? - The most costly cases are the ones that are also the most difficult to navigate, catastrophic events. Life threatening diseases. Human tragedies. Do you deny treament to an adult, to a pregnant woman, to teenagers, to children ?
Some will show up in the ER when they should have gone to the doctor months ago. So then they cause costs - if they do not have insurance there is a good chance they also cannot afford the bills easily. The system misses out on the cost-savings of preventive care and early diagnosis and treatments - and is stuck with an unpaid and avoidable ER bill.
It is much easier and ethically satisfying and in the end less costly to cover as many as you can AND to make them contribute in the same generic manner like the citizens.
Having to deny treatments takes a toll on doctors and nurses. you can't put a price tag on that, but it will cost them in energy, in having to harden themselves, in later burnouts .....
In a cost efficient public non-profit system healthcare spending per person is still 5,300 - 5,800 USD (most countries are in that range). That means over 22,000 USD per year for a family of four. The U.S. likely will not come down to those levels (from the current 10,260 USD), at least not quickly. Will the legal residents (or people with a path to citizenship) be able to afford that from their wages ?
Or you force them to buy private insurance that makes offers according to risk and age - because that works great for U.S. citizens, they would not exploit the migrants, would they ?
In other words private insurance would not work.
The MfA coverage is not age based - it will be one age and risk pool once it is fully implemented. The roughly USD 5,500 per person per year in other countries are the average from babies to seniors.
Medicare COULD make legal residents a honest non-profit offer based on age (not risk) so if they are younger they might be able to afford that even w/o or with less government subsidies. But for that the insurance agency would have either to do more elaborate statistics = more costs for admin (they do not need that for the citizens, they are all in one pool). Or they would have to estimate. And of course the paperwork for the self-insured (buy-ins). Most people and their families will be covered when the employer enters their data, that is very easy.
One more argument: with age the spending per person rises disproportionally ! That helps, migrants, people with green cards are young - much younger than the average population. Migrants also have more children (future contributors to society and to the medicare payroll taxes).
I read about current avearge U.S. spending levels: over 15,000 USD for over 60 (or 65) and in the range of 2,000 for a younger person (20 something). Did not memorize the exact details BUT it gives you a general idea how much spending increases with old age.
1
-
1
-
Despite the 7 million more votes of the popular vote - (60 % in NY and 65 % in CA help with that) - Biden could still have lost the Electoral College. EASILY !! He had a hard time to pull off the 2 states he absolutely needed to win: PA and WI. (80,000 resp. 20,700 votes more).
Even worse: only winning PA, but losing in WI, AZ, and GA .... and he would have gotten only 269 electors. (the red states would then pick the president). And in the 3 smaller states 15,000... or max. 25,000 votes (in WI) would have changed who won the state. Details see below
That is in election where over 160 million votes were cast !! After 4 years of Trump in the middle of a pandemic and major economic crisis.
Not even talking about MI and NV
MI was won with 2.78 - a PLUS 3 % win would have been in order (like Trump won in Florida).
NV also around plus 2.3 %
These two states were O.K. if a little underwhelming.
And sure enough they were indeeed called earlier, because Biden had at least a halfway decent plus 2 % result and that manifests earlier in an ongoing count.
PA and WI used to be solidly blue states.
Trump - if he won a state, won them with a solid margin. He improved in Florida from 1.2 (in 2016) to over 3 % and won Ohio twice with 8 or plus 8 %. Obama won both states TWICE. In 2012 many voters likely had still some Hope for Change, and he benefitted from personal popularity - but that was it.
Democrats are that pathetic and the voters had enough of them. In those crucial states.
Biden needed 2 out of 4 states that were nailbiters in 2020 (AZ, GA, WI and PA) - any combination would do, but 1 out of 4 was NOT enough not even the largest one (PA).
Lead of Biden over Trump (I rounded up or down, not much)
AZ 10,500 more
GA 12,000
Wisconsin 20,700 more votes, = 0,63 % - it should be a solidly blue state
Pennsylvania 80,500 votes more
If a few tenthousand people had voted differently or stayed home in 3 of the states - Biden would have lost the EC.
Losing all 3 (AZ, GA, WI) with 15,000 - 25,000 voters per state acting differently - and he would have had 269 electors (not the 270 to WIN the Electoral College). A nightmare scenario because the states would then PICK the president (there are more red than blue states).
The scenario of how FEW voters could have swung the outcome differs with the combinations, BUT Biden always needed at least 2 of the 4, even the two "smallest" states would have been enough - that would have gotten him just at 270 electors.
AZ has 11 electors and WI has 10.
(maybe some fun and action with faithless electors with getting ONLY the 270 absolutely needed)
So Biden could have afforded to lose the 2 states with the higher number of electors - 16 for GA resp. 20 for PA - but he had to win TWO out of the four states.
Not even the largest one PA with 20 would have been enough alone, it would have landed him at the 269.
The (also lame) win with 1.2 % or 1.3 % in Pennsylvania (80,000 votes more than Trump) would not have been enough.
And then there are the LIBERTARIAN VOTES (Memo for Hillary Clinton):
Votes which Libertarian Jo Jorgenson got - compared to the lead of Biden over Trump:
WI almost double (eyeballed 1.7 times more)
AZ between 4 and 5 - eyeballed 4.6 times more
GA 5 times more - she got 62,500 and Biden won with 12,000 votes more
Only in PA the lead of Biden was minimally higher than the total number of votes she got
Holy shit ! Some of those votes could have gone to Trump if Jorgensen had not been in the race. Numbers see below **
It is interesting that Libertarian voters were not concerned about helping Biden win. It was well known that PA and also Wisconsin were among the most important states of the election.
And still over 79,000 voters denied Trump their vote in PA and would rather vote Libertarian (while Biden got 80,500 more than Trump).
And over 38,500 in Wisconsin (where Biden beat Trump by only 20,700).
**
Biden got 80,500 votes more that Trump in PA, and Jorgensen got in total approx 1,000 less than that difference = 79,500. However in all other 3 crucial states the Libertarian got substantially more votes than the lead that Biden had over Trump
Votes for the Libertarian versus _Biden lead over Trump
WI 38,500 votes / 20,700
AZ 51,500 votes / 10,500
GA 62,000 votes / 12,000
PA 79,500 votes compared to the 80,500 lead of Biden - the only state where Bidens lead was (slightly) more than the votes she got
That is significant because at least some of her votes might have gone to Trump, if she had not been in the race. That could also easily have swung the election. Especially in the 3 smaller states.
**
Biden won 306 Electors - electors per state
16 GA: Biden got 12,000 more votes than Trump
11 AZ: 10,500 more votes = 0.3 % margin
10 WI: 20,700 more votes
20 PA: 80,500 more votes
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@crusherven If the companies treat the worker's board (or unions) like the mortal enemy (and that is a good American tradition, labor history is bitter and all attempts were met with fierce resistance, often violence) they will not get any good cooperation out of them.
1921 Battle of Blair Mountain, the miners had justified grievance (like a mayor that was sympathetic to their concerns being killed by the thugs of the coal barons. The gov. helped the coal barons with aerial bombardment. The land of the free.
I have worked in companies in Europe. Almost all medium to large scale manufacturing plants were organized. They have a worker's board (and workers pay a fee for that). In Austria they have a Chamber of Commerce and all comapnies (even self employed persons must be members and pay a contribution). And they also have a Chamber of Labor (that is also the Consumer Protection agency). All workers (but top managment) pay 1 % of their gross weight as payroll tax for that. (up to yearly income of 50,000 - so approx. 500 USD per year).
Union membership is voluntary, they do not have mandated unionship in certain companies. They do one better, ALL employees in the country are members of the Chamber of Labor.
Chamber of Labor and unions negotiate with Chamber of Commerce and representative of the industries (per industry). Around 80 % of the workforce are under a collective bargaining contract.
That is not the case in Germany. No Chamer of Labor there. In Germany the large companies must have a representative of the worker's board on the board of directors, which of course means that every large company must have a worker's board to begin with.
Else the situation is like in Austria, that every large and most medium sized companies are organized. The left and the Social Democrats and the unions had a good run for a while after WW2 and they used their time and got into all companies then. Many grew big over the decades.
Those countries STILL profit from what the left organized until the 1970s. The mindset (the "social contract") also spilled over into politics, into the safety net, the way they reshuffled universal healthcare, etc.
They kept quality manufacturing, and once a company is organized - the worker's board is here to stay. Some representatives are only figure heads and go along nicely with the boss. (they cannot be fired, unless a court agrees, sometimes workers complain that their representative is useless. I guess usually it is people that do not have the guts or nerves to fight with the boss.
On the other hand - a person can always challenge the incumbent and try to get themselves elected, if they think they can do better. There are elections every ? 5 years or so. As soon as a group of persons set up list to organize (in an unorganized company) they are protected from being fired, and usually if they get that far, they also push it through. From then on they only can be fired if a court of law agrees. That is automatic.
and the representative gets some free paid leave to do the work for their collegues and does not have to justify to the boss how they spend the time. A company of 500 - 1000 people has one or likely two full time representatives, that get paid by the company but work the whole time for their collegues.
(the board has deputies, who remain full time in their job, but the law requires there must be cashiers, they handle contributions of workers after all, and often the company gives them some budgets as well, and there must be stand ins).
And a challenger for the incumbent also enjoys protection from being fired. If the boss likes a defanged version of the worker's board reprsentative he could retaliate against a feisty challenger that could disturb a too cozy arrangment - if the challenger does not get elected. But people retire or step down or leave the company, so there is at least the chance for improvement. If not immediately than over time. And people peeing into bottles would not fly. Another solution would be found.
Theoretically the members of the worker's board must not be union, and often they are not even that close to the unions, so the deputies but often even the main character are more concentrated on their company and only that. They are not overly engaged union members, and they get education, legal help, etc.
But they certainly are close to unions and even politics in the leading companies. Big chemical industry, the German car manufacturers, etc.
1
-
1
-
@HighlanderNorth1 It does not matterat all if the Democrats made any medical / scientific comments on the novel corona virus. Or a travel ban. THEY are not the government and do not have the government agencies at their disposal and are also not supposed to be active in diplomacy (think pressuring China - behind the scenes - to come clean).
it was also the task of government to prepare for a possible ! Pandemic.
Like trying to get masks and PPE and to develop emergency plans to mandate DOMESTIC industry to produce them. (So a scenario where they would PLAN how to use the Defense prduction Act. Trump invoked it but did not step on the toes of big donors by using those powers).
Dems were not (completely) correct then to critcize the half-baked China travel ban.
NOT THAT IT MATTERS what the Democrats SAY.
Most nations dropped the ball to a degree (not Taiwan, South Korea). But most snapped out of it at some point and then did a 180 and did the right thing. (not the U.S. Brazil, and U.K. dragged their feet too. Sweden had a different strategy, which did not work out. There death toll in 8 - 10 times higher than necessary. Considering they got the virus later, and have better conditions than France, U.K. Spain, .... No large cities, and not nearly as many traveelers in late winter. Not in Central / Southern Europe that was hit earlier. So they had more time to react correctly and learn from other nations).
The Trump admin also did not get it right, that travel ban ONLY impacted a part of the travellers from China. For the virus it does not matter if a carrier has an U.S. passport or not !
Trump turned a reasonable recommendation (from experts) to restrict ALL travel from China or to have mandatory quarantines into an opportunity to stick it to China. He intended to run for reelection on bashing China. So that fit the agenda, but that half baked travel ban did not improve safety. Of course not, it was not intended to improve public safety.
So in a sense the Dems were right in their comments, although it was not "racism" it was a cynical political game.
The government = Trump should also have put travel restrictions from Europe in place (a little later than the China restrictions), but Trump did not want to follow those. recommendations.
We know that retail in Europe prepared for a pandemic. (in February, they got thaat that info from the gov.).
The governments in Europe also dropped the ball to a degree. They watched what went on in Italy (in Feb.) and got increasingly worried in late February, but did not tell citizens. Yet.
They were as much trying to avoid a strong unified response (even lockdown) as China, and then Italy. But the mood shifted considerably in the first week of March. On March 9, Italy - finally - declared a nation wide lockdown, and all important EU nations followed mid March. (Spain, France, Germany, ... Austria, Switzerland)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The D establishment: "Nice little country you have here, wouldn't it be a shame if Trump happened to it ?" - They do not REALLY care about losing to Trump (or Republicans), as long as they do not win with Sanders or progressives. Ideally a neoliberal beholden to the big donors narrowly pulls off a win while GIVING THE BASE nothing (that would cost the donors).
They are quite willing to RISK losing - when the alternative would be to run on and win with policies that help regular poeple. (the interests of their constituents and the big donors hardly ever align).
So abortion, gun regulation, LGBTQ rights, identitiy politics (white nationalism, racism is a form of that) - the R's play the same game only the other side of the issues.
The Big donors do not care either way - in most cases. Unless they are ideologues. But upper class Republicans and big donors can get abortions for daughters and mistresses even if they are outlawed in the U.S., if need be the females fly to Mexico, Europe, Canada, ...
As long as the big donors - that finance both parties - are happy and the money keeps flowing in, and the politicians can get cushy posts if they leave politics, they will be fine. Even when losing races that could be easily won (with FDR style politics).
1
-
1
-
But they (Corporate Dems / Media, gullible party loyalists, older low-information voters) do not want to get the blame for elevating Mr. Most Electable when he loses to Trump. D Establishment and Corporate media have blasted since early 217 the message how NOTHING is more important than beating Trump in 2020- and many of the gullible (older) base BELIEVE that this is really the opinion of the D political establishment.
Imagine they get caught again with their pants down in Nov. 2020 (like in Nov. 2016).
Sure another Trump term is not bad for the D politicians (obedient shills that lose their seat are getting a golden parachute) and the fake resistant gig is easy to pull off. And no one can hold them accountable for doing nothing for voters, so serving the big donors is easy.
Another term of Trump is certainly not bad for the donors. in the short run corporate media might even profit from good ratings (pearl clutching over Trump).
But in the long run it completely undermines the authority of those who claim they "know best".
The younger generation is not as willing to be beaten into submission with "guilt tripping" and does not settle when offered nothing but "lesser evilism".
People that are 40 years old now were born around1980. They grew up when neoliberalism attacked the middle class, and manufacturing jobs (if they were lucky their family could profit from New Deal politics and they still did fine).
They were young adults in the dot com recession of 2000, and soon afterwards the election was stolen from feckless Al Gore (he and Bill Clinton were compensated for going away quietly, the big donors want quiet in their empire, if the peasants take it to the streets and organize, who knows what other ideas they might get).
9/11 the Cheney / Bush admin asleep at the wheel (the benign assumption).
2001 / 2003 Afghanistan and Iraq war - both based on lies (yes, also Afghanistan).
Surveillance state.
Followed by the Great Financial crisis.
A hope and change candidate sells out the voters.
he lets people go under and saves big biz and the banks. 5,5 million families lost their homes. Under president Hope and Change. No prosecution for the banksters.
An UnAffordable healthcare "reform".
Obama starting MANY more WARS.
Unconstitutional mass surveillance (Snowden 2013).
The podesta emails revealed not only how the DNC tipped the scales. There was also information about how Clinton pushed for the conflict in Syria, how citbank delivered the candidate list for cabinet appointments.
How craven media sucked up to the Clinton campaign apologizing for mildly critical coverage or handing in drafts for approval.
The "free" media and press.
INFORMED people know that - if they are on the internet and do not believe mainstream media. One bit. And they can't unKNOW.
Followed by corporate media and party establishment colluding to bring down a FDR style politician. TWICE.
(the policies, sadly Sanders does not have the fierceness, determination and spine of FDR).
Now they prop up a Republican Lite in cognitive decline that already promised the donors to not change anything fundamental and in an interview he said he would veto M4A (should it miraculously pass). Biden used right wing talking points (lies) to make his "argument" so his handlers have trained him on that.
Mr. Credit Card was instrumental to shackle the young to 1,5 trillion student loans (but also some recipients of SS get it seized if they had student loans and the career did not work out).
he was also instrumental and pro the trade deals that are one reason young people NEED a degree (or hope to get a job that way). The well paying manufacturing jobs with one breadwinner supporting a family are gone. Thanks to Reagan, Bush, Bill Clinton, Bush2 - with enthusiastic support of Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden.
The older generation, media and the party establishment want to use Red Scare ? Really ?
The narrative that a lost election is the fault of well informed pissed off progressive voters (when the DNC and media push for losing candidates that OFFER NOTHING) is propped up by Corporate media.
Problem: Many - and an increasing number of - younger voters do not believe them and they get their news more and more from the internet. And there corporate media (millionairs shilling for billionaires) cannot control the narrative as much.
It already shows: many young people (up to age 40) are not engaged in politics. But IF they are engaged. Sanders has locked them down. Same with independent left leaning media. They overwhelmingly are in the Sanders camp. The POLICIES, contrary to the propagand it is not a CULT, this is about policies.
D establishment and media are losing control over narrative and mind of voters and embarrassing losses to the orange clown are not helpful.
Take a step back and APPRECIATE the HISTORIC ACHIEVEMENT of Hillary Clinton to have lost the election with the huge advantages she had (nice media coverage, instiutional support, double the fundraising numbers of Trump, she IS intelligent, and knows the drill ...)
* The Dems COULD have won the SENATE in 2018:
Imagine ALL politicians unite behind Single payer, (healthcare does well even in "conservative" states) they craft a catchy message, they coordinate the use of resources in the vulnerable red seats. Republican Lite Clair McCaskill might have held her seat - with a genuine committement to single payer (and prepped with some good arguments).
They take back the Senate AND Congress.
But the sacrifice to give the voters enough to make that happen was too much.
So they took risks: If they wait long enough Republican mess up so much, that the voters give Democrats a chance. and the Dems do not have to give them anything but We are not Republicans.
Last time in 2006 (Blue Wave midterms). And 2018 (but to a lesser degree than 2006).
Enough voters were so fed up in 2018 that they managed to get Congress back, but not Senate. And Pelosi makes sure that right wing economic policies are enacted (they collude with Republicans on that). A litte impeachment drama on top of that.
It is also very telling that only a fraction of "Democrats" to the RIGHT of Pelosi (economically !) challenged her for Speaker of the House. Not one of the well established Civil Rights leaders stepped up and offered to run for the position - as a compromise between a right and a far right Speaker with a D to their name.
Then the progressive freshmen / women could have declared to refuse to vote for Pelosi. Forcing the rest of the D Congress to accomodate them. Either that or the Dems would lose the vote and the important position of Speaker of the House to Republicans.
Would be some poker style bluff - but the Tea party fraction pulled such stunts, they were not loved but they were TAKEN SERIOUSLY and they certainly had LEVERAGE.
The compromise would have been to the middle or slightly left of center, and the "economic right wingers" = most Democrats would have needed to compromise, not the left and center left.
(in theory black caucus should be center left - oh well ...)
1
-
Also consider how it reflects on Obama, when Clinton and then Biden lose. To f**g Trump.
Obama endorsed Clinton she ran as continuation of his presidency (and Clinton, Biden and Obama were all for TPP - after the destruction of NAFTA and the China deal. Bill Clinton might have believed his neoliberal advisors - but reality had shown HOW those trade deals work).
Obama and Bill and Hillary Clinton ARE intelligent and Biden beat Trump as well (at least in the past). There is no excuse for not SEEING what is the matter with those policies.
Or to ignore the realities of single payer (almost all other countries, 70 years, half the spending) versus private insurance (Switzerland: unique position of citizens, very ! strong direct democracy, good care, for everyone, but expensive. Not 49 - 54 % of U.S. spending per person but 78 %. That is what GOOD REGULATION can achieve.
it was a moronic idea to let the private insurers dominate the market - and ACA was window dressing: a "reform" that appeased the profiteers (= donors) and funneled a lot of government subsidies into the system to keep it afloat.
Obama arranged the clearing of the path for Biden in early March 2020. And just endorsed him. Biden losing reflects badly on HIM.
After Obama's presidency (when the economy sort of had recovered - Trump rode that wave) the country turned to a moron with a taste for white nationalism and authoritarianism, with no political experience and fake right economic policies.
Not even the liberal media on overdrive could convince the voters to turn out. (Hillary is proven to have suppressed voter turnout, people that had voted gladly for Obama and Hope and Change in 2008, and held their nose in 2012 - just had it with the neoliberal status quo (not what Obama had campaigned on) and did not bother to turn out for Clinton.
On the other hand Trump did activate non-voters.
Trump btw GETS that he has to offer the masses a little bit regarding healthcare (at least paying lip service, at least during the pandemic). As weak as that is (and as stupid as Trump is) his offer STILL beats what the Corporate Dems are willing to offer.
During the fallout of a global pandemic.
A few months before an election. Which they claim: Must. Be. Won.
They for sure do not ACT like beating Trump is important.
And if Trump gets another term, when the former VP of Obama is slammed for treade deals and corruption (both things implicating Obama even more than Biden) there goes the "legacy" of Obama.
as for corruption: He could have called upon Biden to remove his unemployable son from the board in the Ukraine. That was brazen corruption - Obama could have gotten Biden's son with addiction problems a less high profile more inconspicious no-show jobs in one of the many NGO's - in the U.S. not paid for by the energy rates of poor Ukrainian citizens.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brianw13 NO wealthy country has PUBLIC OPTION. * And with good reason. the extremely successful blueprint is single payer. There are MANY reasons not to allow a (wealthy, young, healthy) part of the population to opt out from paying into the public system AND they should be nudged to also USING the same providers as everybody else.
(Opring out - that is the "public option" / "you can keep your plan if you like it")
Advantages of single payer over P. O.
1) Political leverage when ALL have the same coverage. all get the new expensive drugs (if needed) or no one. The wealthy will support proper funding as well.
2) the wealthy (or employees of high paying companies) cannot retreat to the equivalent of gated communities.
the wealthy are a very valuable ally to have, they will pay more to fund the system (payroll tax AND general tax revenue) so it is a good idea to make them USE and appreciate the system, too.
3) That way no right wing / "conservative" party can make hay by villifying and defunding the system. Their voters incl. the affluent ones like the system as well - and they see their taxes put to good use.
4) If there are many ! different private plans with all sorts of conditions plus the streamlined public coverage - there will be still extremely complicated admin (and costs). Plus the incentive to "milk" good policies - with tests and procedures that do nothing for better outcomes and drive up costs.
5) 90 % of spending is caused by 10 % of the insured. It is easy to make offers that appear to be reasonably priced. They just have to get the purges right. In Germany * (see below) and Switzerland (another country that fully relies of private insurers) regulation prevents that.
It is safe to assume that the U.S. predators (with help of the colluding mainstream media) would get away with cherrypicking. Their politicians would pass the bills. Next thing they would have a propaganda battle against "too expensive Medicare for all" (no wonder if they are stuck with all the risky / costly patients).
Some defunding goes a long way to create troubles, and they can arrange for complicated rules and hurdles to hinder the agency to do their work or to enjoy the cost benefits of streamlined admin (example to hinder the agency to do its work: Medicare right now cannot negotiate drug prices).
SWITZERLAND: They pay a surcharge for "private". Services are good, all are covered (with help of subsidies for lower income people), they pay their staff well. They have higher costs of living / wage levels in general. The insurers can't play games with the insured.
That said that does not fully explain their much higher spending per person.
78 % of the U.S. spending per person - versus for instance 56 % in neighbour country Germany (which is already on the "expensive" side compared to most wealthy nations).
PUBLIC OPTION / OPTING OUT for the PRIVILEGED - a historic relic
* Germany has 90 % of the population under single payer: With several public non-profit agencies - never mind still typical "single" payer. Almost all countries have more than one agency (often per state or province), but these non-profit agencies cooperate, coordinate and share information. For practical purposes - as good as one agency.
In Germany 10 % of the population OPT OUT from public coverage - which amounts to a scenario comparable to public option:
Option 1) full coverage by an agency. Then people are assigned to a certain agency. Neither employer nor staff have a choice, the payroll taxes are the same in all of Germany, risks and number of family members do not alter the contributions - only the wage determines the costs (a percentage with a cap)
Option 2) full coverage by an insurance company (premiums according to risk).
But most Germans are not allowed the choice between the 2 options. so they can't opt out from the public coverage. There are income thresholds (over 94,000 EURO, just shy of 100,000 USD) Or certain professions like self employed architects can opt out. Or professions that have a secure job with steadily rising wages - civil servants and teachers.
That weird arrangement can be explained from the origin of the German system (1883 and 1884 Welfare and Healthcare Reforms). Groundbreaking but still a Two-Class-System.
After WW2 the German government (for many years center right) could have overhauled they system. Instead they did favors to affluent voters (buying into better care which in the early phase of rebuilding was certainly more of an issue, and the premiums reduced the tax base).
Doctors (getting better rates).
And of course favors for the insurance industry.
They got at least a part of the pie. Plus a cherrypicked pool of clients that were healthier and wealthier (marketing ! - remember that was in the 1950s and 1960s).
If they did not (do not) want a client they could always make them an offer that would drive them over to the public pool (so it is not so much the citizens that have "choice", the insurance companies decide whom they want as customer).
1
-
1
-
1
-
The purported goal and the "necessity" to appeal to "moderate" voters aligns nicely with the service for the big donors.
The Dems make up a profile of the mythical centrist voter .
Chasing them or pretending to chase them is the pretext why they cannot offer policies that help the masses, and most of their base. It does not really matter if they WIN those voters over (or if they win the general).
If moderate Repubs vote Trump again (despite being courted by the D politicians) it is not that bad. The big donors finance both parties and it does not matter who wins the general.
D politicians must not win the general in the big scheme of things. The donors finance them to eliminate progressives in primaries, THAT is their job.
but they would like to win the general, too. At least occasionally.
Individuals are ambitious of course for instance HRC. But she would not go as far as to serve the voters over the donors, and thus increase her chances for election.
Dems try to pull if off w/o giving the base anything, to win narrowly. Only Obama at least bothered to make promises in 2008. I guess a black neoliberal has to work harder .....
Well connected shills will be provided for if they lose their seat because they only offer lame neoliberal policies. Joe Crowley in dereliction of duty did not beat AOC in the primary in 2018, and in that district they could not stop her anymore once she won the primary. But Crowley got a job - of course the high profile fundraiser (speaker of the house in waiting) got a cushy job. The small fish are not as secure, they have all the more reason to be obedient towards party leadership and big donors.
For the desired (but not crucial) goal to win the general they need the peasants.
so they need an explanation why the peasants are getting nothing (the centrist voters would be scared off) and why the peasants should even bother to vote for Dems (lesser evilism. Note how it is the patriotic duty of the peasants to think of the country, CC, migrants, Dreamers, .... the reason whty THEY must be reasonable and make concessions is that the party estbalishment for sre will NOT make any concessions.
The most important thing is to NOT have policies that their real base likes and their donors strongly dislike.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ChalrieD you put that very well (brainiacs and desperation). I used to like Warren, but there were some red flags since 2016. After the DNA story or the MfA "plans" - I was perplexed. She is certainly intelligent, and a good lawyer. so she can't be dumb, can't she ? - But her behavior or plans were.
Or was there some 3D chess I was missing ?? (People had these considerations also when Obama started to disappoint them).
The "plan" to finance MfA looked like the interns wrote it - and what was the rational to accept the right wing framing of "the middle class will pay higher taxes" and to knot yourself into a pretzel with a plan with glaring loopholes. Mind you: not the lower income people, the "middle class".
Sanders leads with voters with a family income up to USD 60,000 and Warren leads with 100,000 and beyond. But even the people with 100k might still have a (slight) advantage over time. Plenty of savings possible when a service costs double of what it should cost.
But then I graciously assumed she was serious about MfA:
Nope, she adopted it to pander to the progressive wing of the party.
Another red flag, she didnt have a plan for that. Her team admitted they were surprised that they were expected to come up with details.
No kidding ! The neoliberal media clutches their pearls every time spending would benefit the citizens, but crickets on the cost of war and military contracts. Warren and team did not expect: "How are we ever ging to pay for that ?" and "Paying taxes is the worst thing EVER ?" - What are they even doing in politics ?
The rational thing would have been to back up the argument of Sanders: Yes there will be slightly raised taxes, but they will be offset be major savings on private insurance, co-pays, almost all citizens will be NET better off. And consumers / insured will be treated much better by that insurance (Medicare). If ONE patient would not get a certain treatment - it means none of the 330 millions in the U.S. would get it. That's some political leverage, and also benefits the affluent.
But that would have given Sanders some credit - and she is so petty and (cluelessly) calculating that she would craft an elaborate (stupid) plan that has 3 main benefits: being different than that of Sanders. Plus giving in to neoliberal talking points. Plus on the surface pandering to kneejerk reactions of HER base whenever they hear the word "taxes" - but there are not enough coastal, white, educated, affluent people to get her elected and she would have needed to EXPAND her base (to the people who confidently assume they would certainly profit from the reform, never mind the payroll tax, because they simply do not have a high enough income).
She and her foolish team likely thought her version of healthcare reform could be sold as "better" compared to the Sanders plan (his plan is bold but also plausible).
Yes she CAN be dumb - there is such a thing as an educated (or intelligent) fool. In a combo with being spineless, cluelessly calculating for political short term gains.
Plus being ethically challenged.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@williamryan7403 There is no free market if the product is not suited for it (natural monopolies). Bridges, streets (widely used), railway, healthcare, .... are pretty much at one side of the spectrum (terrible fit, consumers, drivers, patients are in a much weaker position and are therefore exploited).
Consumer goods that are not needed for survival on the other. end of the range.
Housing in densely populated areas (= where the jobs are, even more so after outsourcing and switch to a service economy) is pretty much on the natural monopoly side, not as much as healthcare or railway or sewage systems - but pretty far. And more and more people live in those areas (it has also influence on privately owned homes, but the affluent people that pay high prices for their homes can counteract that. And at some point middle age - if they handled finances well, do not get divorced, or they inherit money - they can join the ranks of the landlord class.
It shows that housing in urban areas is a bad fit for a "free market".
In Europe and also the U.S. there was a lot of investment into public non-profit housing in the New Deal ear and after WW2. In Europe they still have those houses - renovated of course. (like in Austria in certain cities, they benefit from the foundation laid by politiicans that served the voters in the late 1920s and in the 1960s.
That means that (lower) middle class people also live in these apartments it is not shameful to be in public / affordable housing (on the contrary people will think you got lucky. I think in Vienna about 50 % of the renters live in housing that belongs to the city). So no ghettos, a good mix of people in the houses, and the middle classy people (saving up for a prudently financed home) make sure "their" neighbourhood is kept safe and crime free, and there is order in the house.
Every time a bank gives out a loan they must only "have" 10 % and 90 % are "created out of thin air". So the private financiers and banks benefit from that arrangement that society allows regarding loans (FIAT money). which helps them to dominate the "market" in the booming regions and thus they can drive up prices for rent (and real estate in general also in the surrounding suburbs).
Even since FIAT money is legally allowed (the rich merchants and money lenders had that going on in the 17th century already but then inofficially) a lot of credit gave leverage to a small group of people. Banks did not need to "have" all the money that enabled the monopoly investments of a few they could borrow a lot.
Blackrock could a special deal in 2016 (they had bought up a lot of forclosed private homes, and that did not work out so well). One of the last things Obama signed before leaving office.
He could have given the 5,5 million families that had their homes foreclosed (that were bought up by the likes of Blackstone) a leg up (resp.push for it). but THAT did not happen. No longer loans, with deferred payments, not lower interest rates, .....
Society allows that "advance of purchasing power" (= loan magicked into existence in form of FIAT money). But those who are already wealthy or rich had and still have much better chances to get those loans and widen the gap even more.
From the standpoint of society and the best outcome for the most people: the communities or better renter controlled non-profit co-ops could as well have gotten loans and they could be with very little interest. (interest is not the "cost" of borrowing money. It is the fee and the steering instrument. Obviously when the banks only need to have 10 % of the money volume they have outstanding in form of loans.
Providing housing in urban areas is NOT rocket science, and it does not need creativity or sales or marketing skills to build solid quality housing in New York, they would have no problem at all finding the renters. When neither an elaborate sales process nor product development is needed - why should the scheme offer profit. Profit is the reward for entrepreneurial thinking and risk taking.
It takes some skills and experience to manage the building of a high rise in a city of New York. But there are plenty of people (teams) that are well capable of doing that, it is not such a unique task. The floor plans for functional apartments do not need burst o creativity and competitions of international architectsand what not. The floor plans can be quite generic. As long as the execution (materials, the construction work) is in solid quality.
Hous 10 must not be very different than house 25. The needs of the renters are the same and they have the stats on what kind of apartments are needed (more small and medium sized ones). A laundry room and a room for bikes would be a nice extra.
There need to be architects and managers that supervise the planning, the construction companies that get the contracts, and later the admin for the renters and cashing in rent.
Co-ops would hire people. The likes of Blackrock or Warren Buffet ALSO hire competentn people or they work with subcontractors. I guess the privilege to get one of such highly desired flats would have to be in form of a lottery. the people with higher needs get more tickets and then they roll the dice. After that the people that live IN the house have the voting right as long as they live in the house and own the house with a long term mortgage on it. As the money is created anyway it could be 30 years. Longer does not make sense, usually after 30 years some major maintainance is needed (even if built in solid quality). But the loan can of course be zero, 0.5 or 2 % or whatever.
When people move out they lose the voting right. There could be means testing (they can stay in the house if income improves you WANT those people in the project for a "good mix"). The higher earners pay more over time, but still get a good deal (so to keep them there at least for a time). And they wouldhave the duty to organize common activities a few times per year so that people know each other (that would take care of subletting affordable housing).
The "investors" are not needed to provide housing in the densely populated areas. They are promoted yes, but that has to do with bribing politicianas and keeping people ignorant about how money / currency is created. (in form of loans, in form of Fiat money). Since 2009 TRILLIONS in form of QE - but only for big finance and big biz no QE For The People.
A segment of the population has always had easy access to loans at good conditions (almost zero now !), especially in a crisis (when they can increase their advantage). There is a reason that the concept of FIAT money is not explained to the general public. They would figure out that the federal government or the states / communities could come up with the budgets for public programs. No more excuses.
But also no extraction schemes for the buddies of politicians.
1
-
1
-
Ted Freddy You know that the Clinton campaign had such a plan in 2015 / 2016. The liberal networks should cover fringe candidates like Ted Cruz or Trump a lot, if such a candidate would win the Republican nomination, the general would be a cake walk for HRC. - that strategy did not age well.
Likewise: the D primary is the hard thing to win for Sanders, not so much the general.
Trump can scream commie all he wants, Sanders can get him on the issues where he did not deliver.
Plus: Vermont used to be a VERY red state, Sanders is a major factor that it is now blue (except for govenor). He worked as mayor with Republican aldermen and the local business community. He had unseated a prominent Democrat that had been a longtime mayor in Burlington, the local Democrats did not like Sanders for many years.
Sanders does have appeal with blue collars, and rural voters (even smaller farmers).
So if R voters try to influence the D primary by voting Sanders - how very nice of you, your help is very much appreciated.
However: It might not work out as well as planned.
The solidly blue states will vote for the Democrat and not for Trump. Sanders needs to win a few Rustbelt states. He polls well and Trump did not deliver. And that is with the "booming" economy, never mind if the expected economic downturn manifests in 2020 already .....
Andrew Gillum has a voter registration drive in Florida, bless him. Did you know that many Puerto Ricans came to Florida ? They cannot vote for president in PR but they can if they live in Florida.
Guess who threw PR under the bus after the hurricane .... They have some scores to settle with Trump and will be highly motivated to show up. (Speaking of which: AOC has family connections with PR, she is an excellent surrogate for Florida).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Every use of natural resources is a strain on the environment. Building a home (even with green natural materials as much as that is possible - costs something). The trick is to do as little harm as possible (even if it costs slightly more) and to make durable goods or homes. And also to not push with multi billion dollar budgets for consumerism and throwaway products.
People should have the necessities, which eat up a lot of the budget of low(er) income people anyway:
Housing / rent, food, transportation (not necessarily a car !), education, childcare, healthcare, care for the elderly.
Plus the nice extras - and a lot of the little luxuries of life should be buying experiences that are provided by humans. That still needs some resources (and means a strain on nature) but not as much as throwaway products. Because a major part of the "product" is human labor.
So dining out instead of shopping, going to the gym, the kids are in a playgroup or a forest kindergarden. The family trip to the cinema instead of showering them with toys.
Hiring the personal stylist to make the most of your existing wardrobe instead of shopping new garments. The excesses of fast fashion can be seen on the second hand markets. Clothes that are hardly worn and are often attractive are given away.
No regular person could have afforded Fast Fashion in the 1960s and 1970s - clothes were produced in the U.S. and cost more so people wore them for some time.
Does not mean they were not interested in being well dressed.
Fast Fashion does not pay for the damage to grow cotton, the dying and other production processes.
I do not even think the consumers of Fast Fashion get that much out of it. people seem to enjoy the experience of trying on the garments and buying and being in the shops. But not WEARING them, or combining them into outfits.
And it means sweat shop conditions for those who produce the garments. and pollution. The textil industry moves now for instance from Vietnam (too expensive !) to Ethiopia.
1
-
Or she had planned what she would say. - but she was rude to a journalist in Nov. 2019 (amy Goodman, the question was legitimate and politely asked). Warren got all huffy and puffy - another overreaction.
The question was if the party should change the schedule for the early primary states given that they do not reflect the diversity of the party and have such an impact on the momentum of campaigns.
Then Warren polled better, but her base was and is white, affluent and educated, that isn't going to help beyond the early states. (think South Carolina, California, ...)
Seems like Amy Goodman inadvertedly touched a sore spot. I think she also refused to shake the hand of Goodman, which was really weird and made Warren look childish.
And it seems to eat her that she did not get a post in a Hillary cabinet (who knows if HRC would have hired her, maybe she would have sat the primary out, not endorsed Sanders, and ignored Standing Rock in vain).
And NOW she is not doing well and it looks like she is not going to become the nominee. She does not click with minorities and blue collars and cannot win with the base out of her comfort zone (white, affluent educated).
Had she stepped up to join the primary (and ignore the wrath of the Clinton machine) in order to SERVE (like Sanders did so he could talk about the issues) - she and Sanders together could have chased Clinton. Warren could now be Potus.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No other country * does public option / opt out on a large scale - there is a good reason for that ! I will give Yang and others like Gabbard the benefit of the doubt: they "only" did not do their homework and have fallen for the seemingly plausible arguments (Why not give choice, why "force" the population) of the lobbyists.
(* if anation does so to a small extent, it is a historic relic, see Germany, but only 10 % have full private insurance - only the high income people are even allowed a choice. And when they have higher risks, the insurers can charge more or reject them - so they have the cherrypicked pool and the public pool has ALL the high risk / high cost people of that segment, while missing out on the contributions of the affluent).
Opting out = I keep my overpriced !! company plan that covers at least what is default and taken for granted in other wealthy nations.
No union or large company (or private insurance) can match the negotiating power of a public non-profit insurance agency (like Medicare - there is a reason they CANNOT negotiate drug prices, VA is the only agency that is even allowed to do that, and they brought prices down by 40 %).
Now the insurance companies can make seemingly good offers to the young and healthy in a system where there is no MANDATE to pay into the public system. Plus you can have only private insurance for treatments that the public offer does not cover.
That is the meaning of: No duplicative coverage.
And Medicare for All offers comprehensive coverage for all that is medically warranted in a first world country.
So if people want to have services of a doctor that does not work with Medicare - then they can only pay out of pocket, they cannot hand in their private insurance plan card if it is an essential medical procedure (that would be covered by Medicare). That is a deterrent and restricts the niche that the profiteers can have.
Hospitals must have the Medicare patients - else they would not get enough patients (in hospitals almost exclusively medically NECESSARY services are provided AND they are usually expensive. So forget "out of pocket" patients and private insurance will not come into play because duplicative coverage is forbidden). Therefore they must accept the contract (and also accept the better negotaited rates).
They will benefit from much more streamlined admin of course and that ALL the bills are getting paid - full amount and on time. And doctors and nurses ! will not waste time with phone calls with the insurance companies.
- you have to consider that 90 % of spending is caused by 10 % of the insured. The private insurance companies just have to do the purges right. They woudl have a reduced market share - but could keep the most lucrative segment with the public option / opting out for private insurance.
But with the many varying offers that the insurers AND the providers (hospitals, doctor practices) have to handle admin remains complex and therefore a lot of the budgets is wasted. An opportunity to save costs with steamlined admin and billing is squandered.
Private insurerance companies (even if they would be honest players) always have costs that the public non-profit agencies do not have: marketing, sales, PROFIT. And the public agency is much better in negotiating prices (because of their market power) - especially if the private insurers do not bid up the prices for the scarce resource (time of doctors). Another reason to reduce private healthcare insurers to the fringes.
In a single payer system the agency has almost a monopoly (as buyer), that is a good thing ! The non-profit purchases on behalf of the insured, who are by far the weakest participants in the system (so "free market" does not work anyway). The agency can offset that disadvantage - that is why ALL wealthy nations have a dominant or completly dominant public non-profit insurance agency. The less room they created ! for private healthcare insurers the better they are off.
Profit does nothing to make the system better for the patients (that is different with typical consumer products where the profit incentive can provide better and differentiated ! products for the buyers). so WHY allow the gatekeepers to extract profit and why give them a niche, when profit does nothing to make THIS product better.
All insurers - Medicare OR private company - are the gatekeeper to getting first world medical care - unless you are really rich (then you can pay out of pocket and can get care in other countries).
Medicare is a non-profit that is set up to serve the insured and has very modest administrative costs.
Private insurance companies have to maximize profits, answer to shareholders and management and ACA was supposed to limit their admin to 20 %.
Whom would you like to be the inevitable gatekeeper ? Because the consumers do not have the most important of all CHOICES: TO ABSTAIN FROM BUYING. They MUST have healthcare if they want to stay alive or get well again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you live in a safely BLUE OR RED state you can vote Green party (president) w/o even changing the outcome (in THIS election). Plus the most progressive candidates down ticket. and ballot initiatives. Luckily the Congress members can be changed every 2 years. and there is a chance some of the shills get more constituents-oriented as they see collegues losing elections to progressives.
The well connected shills get of course cushy jobs if they lose elections (think Joe Crowley or Elliot Engel) but the deal is not quite as good for the generic foot soldiers. And if they get help with fundraising from grassroots, and establish themselves as fairly "progressive" they can save a lot of time (chasing donations, dialling after dollars, fundraising dinners).
That gets better over time, as they sharpen their profile and make themselves noticed by the voters as more populist.
I think Markey in MA did that. Not sure if so many people knew him although he is around for many years, and he has many votes that are not solidly "left" (voted for the Iraq war). BUT he was always good on Climate Change he stuck out his neck regarding the Green New Deal (gave AOC the Senate support for the Bill), and that really paid off. The debates against Kennedy brought him to the attention of the voters.
It looks like Markey would like to remain Senator, and he positioned himself to the left, he worked with the AOC endorsement and the Green New Deal that he sponsored - and won. (It did not look good in the beginning, the Kennedy name still has a ring to it in Massachusetts, but in the end he won decisively. Not to forget that Joe Kennedy III got lots of outside money (from big donors).
First time a Kennedy lost in MA ;) Ever.
And he lost his 2 time congressional seat as well, that plot to unseat a well established D Senator by a D congress member backfired.
It is still unclear if a decent centrist or a neoliberal has won the primary for the Congress seat that Kennedy had to give up,
Edit: the neoliberal won by 2,000 votes
34,971 22.4 % Jake Auchincloss
32,938 21.1 % Jesse Mermell
28,311 18.1 % Becky Grossman
The squad and Pressley were split in their endorsements (the next results were with 11.6, 11.1 and 9.2 %), so with a more unified strategie the split progressives or centrists would not have handed the win to the most neoliberal big money candidate. 22.4 is not much.
Anyway, he does not have the Kennedy name, so while he is from a rich and political family, he is likely easier to unseat.
On a side note there were 2 other condidates that were likely better than him and they split the vote (the endorsments were from Pressley, Ilhan Omar, and maybe AOC - so the squad and the like was also split on that).
The win of Markey should be a signal to his collegues, at least in rather blue districts or states. Markey is going to win in Nov., no doubt about that.
The Greens are good faith actors, fight the uphill battle to BE an opposition and deserve to get 5 % of the vote, at least that - so they get federal funding.
Bonus: it pisses off the Dems if they lose control over voters. (Remember the howling over Jill Stein, she had doubled her result from 2012 to whopping 1 % - or 1,5.
It does not really matter if you fully agree with all their positions or like their top people. Their platform is not going to be enacted anytime soon. It does not matter. Federal funding helps the party to get on the ballot in presidential races. Sanders let the DNC screw him, the Green party offered him to run - and he declined. BUT another politician might not shy away. it is not easy to get on the ballot in enough states, and the Greens hold the fort and offer that extra option. there is value in that (and value in a candidate being able to blackmail the DNC.
Likewise the federal money can help them improve the game on the state level. and local races. Last but not least it is good for morale.
Corporate Dems do not mind so much to lose "their" voters to Repubs - the pendulum swings back (so far). At some point the Repubs are so bad that the Dems stumble upon good midterms, or a presidential win. They really test the theory this time, if it is possible to stumble upon a win.
But the voters flipping the table, and leaving behind the "good cop / bad cop" routine and lesser evilism - THAT is scary.
There is a reason that Jill Stein and Ralph Nader infuriated the D machine and their media so much.
Funny, how no one (especially not Hillary Clinton) talks about the 18 % of the popular vote that Ross Perot (to the right) got in 1992. The claim is that Perot did not help Bill Clinton to win and did not take important votes from Bush Sr.
If that is the case - then the R voters were much smarter and more strategic in 1992 than the D voters in 2016 or likely now in 2020.
Perot was a billionaire doing the libertarian shtick (only he made his money with IT for SS and Medicare !). But he was correct on NAFTA. Which then Bush Sr.had signed with the other head of states, but he could not get it passed (it needed Clinton to dupe the unions and get D support in Congress / Senate for that).
Perot bought 15 or even 30 minutes time on TV to explain his stance on NAFTA to the voters. Tells you everything you need to know about the U.S. media, that it was even necessary.
He run as third party again in 1996 but did not do so well. (But still much better than the Greens ever scored).
but Perot was at least a ONE person machine. As billionaire it was outside his box and comfort zone to organize grassroots or find an agreement with the unions.
The Greens on the other hand (or the new People's Party - I guess they would merge if the PP gets traction) are here to stay.
THEY are not naturally adverse to mass organizing and grassroots and unions.
THEY could be a danger to the status quo.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Right wing talking point about "pollution" - which is a LOCAL Chinese problem. As opposed to CO2 emissions (which is not pollution bit has a global imapct. China did MUCH more than the U.S. to move things forward. Although they only use one third of energy per person and the U.S. is a rich nation and China an emerging country - it was China that went big on solar panels - and helped to trigger the price drop of the last 15 years. Same with wind, and they now have an agreement with Japan regarding hydrogen technology.
Then there is the regeneration of the Loess Plateau in the 1990s. And the Great Green Wall now, and the decades of efforts to stop the deserts from advancing.
Bullet trains instead of domestic flights ? China.
China might be open to regenerative forms of agriculture (see the Loess Plateau).
Turning sand into substrate to grow plants in it ? China came up with a cellulose fibre, if you mix it with water and sand you get a substrate. Norwegians came up with a way to use sand and nano clay, but they have a patent for it (might be even better).
Anyway: such substrates with some water storage capacity are a starting point to develop soil, plant hardy pioneer trees and shrubs, and reclaim land, at least some groundcover to catch the rain, for some soil, less evaporation and as fodder for wandering herds.
Soil can also store lots of carbon, so that cellulose, water sand mixture (that can hold some water) is a clean slate to park lots of carbon and other good things in it that make up excellent soil.
Sure China is a dictatorship - but one that thinks ahead, it is indeed embarrassing. Also for the other rich nations, but especially the U.S. that squanders energy like there is no tomorrows. Using also much more than Europeans - again per person. Would not make much sense to compare the use of over 530 million people with 330 million U.S.residents.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1) political propaganda by religious leaders, in a church = no tax exemption. see The Victory Channel. Biden is evil incarnate, he helps the agenda of the devil. Trump is chosen by god to have another term, and he is a wonderful leader. God will now intervene on his behalf (that was the video as commentary to the riots ! Jan 7th. Obviously it was antifa that had committed acts of violence and riled up the crowd. And some other nonsense.
Ban or severely restrict political ads on TV, radio - let them go viral organically on social media (if they are good) AND very limited spending on TV radio and online. Impose on the networks the regulations that were abolished in the Clinton era. News were NOT for profit, they were necessary to even get the broadcasting licence (public service). Maybe that would also limit their ability to do the breaking news nonsese.
There was a clip of one woman being arrested (or wanted) regarding the Capitol riots. a local news station tried to interview her neighbours, who would not speak to them. they devoted 5 minutes on that nonsense. the woman is not that notorious and there was not information value whatsoever.
It is not necessary to have reporters on the ground to have pics of their home, neighbours, inside the shop, or footage of the arrest. Sure the insane truck of another rioter (elevated, huge tires) was telling, they showed the arrest of a father and his son. The word overcompensating comes to mind.
but if we would have to live w/o that information, we would be fine.
it would be much harder to spread and promote inflammatory messages and lies over opponents or political projects w/o the leverage of politcal ad spending.
And NO dark money. so for instance scare ads about death panels under ACA, or scare tactics about gay marriage.
Now the buddies of politicians would not like it, if the networks are broken up their influence to elevate certain candidates w/o merit or to silence campaigngs - see Klobuchar, mayor pete versus Sanders, Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard.
Corporate media is among those who provide cushy jobs for obedient ex politicians (they get a lot of ad budgets so of course they help out).
If campaigns would have to be on the ground the donations would go to regular staff - and small campaigns can keep up with volunteers or an enthusiastic online support of young people (Sanders, also Yang).
It would also help PRINT media.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Obama paved the way for Trump with his betrayal and selling out to the donors. Biden will pave the way for the next terrible Republican fascist (the Jeb Bush crowd will not win, in times of ongoing economic stress the populists or fake populists prevail.
In 1932 in the U.S. a populist to the left, but to the far right in the late 1920s and in the 1930s in Europe, and also in Latin America (with a lot of help of the U.S. oligarchs of course).
Hitler and Mussolini also used the rhetoric of economic populism to gain suport - and Hitler even delivered on his promises - for most of the poplulation. Germany had a spectacular economic recovery under his dictatorship (1933 on) until he overdid it with the invasions of other countries.
That is the power and danger of a SMART dictator. In a way Hitler cared about the country - that it would recover to become a strong power again. The polished neoliberal sellouts, the Obamas, Bidens, Bushes, Trudeaus, Macrons, .. and even Merkel only care about their grift and helping big biz.
(Yes Merkel, too, don't be fooled by her gig).
1
-
For instance Obama (Biden, HRC) and most Democrats - and of course Republicans - pushed for TPP. After they could observe what NAFTA and Chinese trade agreement had done to the citizens (they only care what it does for their donors). It does not matter to them that it undermines America. Almost all of of their big donors are multinationals. These donors have no patriotism, and neither do the grifting political careerists and opportunists.
Hitler was different, he wanted the country to become powerful, he did not care for all in the country (some were the "others" and were excluded, sceapgoated and prosectued, which is typical for the authoritarian right).
He did not care about his supporters as indivuduals (they became disposable cannon fodder later).
But he would not have enacted things that weakened the economy just to please the richest in the country (he did them a lot of favors like outlawing unions and keeping wages stagnant. But it was clear that they could not have it all. They were so happy that he crushed the left parties and unions for them, that they gladly accepted that they had to share a little bit with the unwashed masses. And of course the old top down power dynamic stayed in place)
The European neoliberals also sell out gladly - and undermine their national economy (meaning the workforce) if that benefits the rich and big biz. See more trade deals. But there are limits to what they can do (at least what they can do FAST). Elections work better in other countries and they have more parties. So the voters CAN hit back on election day, and they do.
The upper class is now is INTERNATIONAL - they are not motivated by patriotism. The very rich in the U.S., France, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, .... have more in common with each other than with their fellow citizens.
So far the neoliberal sellouts in Europe and Canada or Australia have to fear the voters more, they can have up to 85 % turnout in consequential races. So while neoliberalism is creeping in, and slowly undermines the middle class - in a crisis like this that hits ALL of society, they have to deliver and they do. (Divide and conquer does not work, the corona crisis is too impactful on all).
1
-
1
-
FDR occupied the populist economic ground with the New Deal, no space there for the rightwingers the niche was already claimed. - So the fascists, the KKK, the admirers of the Nazis had no chance politically - or militarily. One reason for the Red Scare and the Cold War after WW2 was to have a pretext to go against left parties IN the U.S. as soon as the American establishment didn't have to deal with FDR anymore. The strong united left had given FDR the leverage for the New Deal.
In Feb. 1939 over 20,000 Nazi fans assembled in Madison Gardens in New York, they only became more quiet after the war had started in September 1939 in Europe.
Churchill initially liked what Hitler stood for and admired his economic success story (but they would not adopt a democratic version of that in the U.K. for their own poor, of course not) ....but then Hitler became unreasonable and wanted too much and became a competitor for power.
Hitler had a highly secret pact with the Soviets, that became public when they attacked Poland from both sides and divided it up. in fall 1939. Then U.K. and France declared war on Germany (not on the Soviet Union though). That was the start of WW2 in Europe. So the imagined ally against the Soviets wasn't a reality, and Hitler played the Machavallian game better than the ruling class of the other large European countries.
The dangers of a smart dictator (like Lenin and even more so Stalin. Or Mao. They were highly talented ruthless STRATEGIC leaders. Mussolini too although not on the same level as Hitler, Mao or Stalin).
The U.S., Japan, France, U.K. had invaded a part of Russia in 1917 (towards the end of WW2) - they wanted to punish the Revolutionaries for daring to overthrow the monarch and seizing property (and land !) from their aristocrats. They meddled in the civil war in Russia (enough to indirectly help the most violent group, the Bolshevics). At that time the Russian experiment could have remained a democracy.
But the Europeans could not sell more war to their population, it was hard to sell the danger of Russia / the Soviets to the impoverished population, Russia was far away. The economy was in bad shape even in the "winning" nations France, U.K. (and Italy that had switched sides before the war ended). The U.S. was busy in Asia (China ! and Latin America) in the 1920s, and the UK and France started getting trouble in their colonies. So no one had time and resources to punish the Soviets for having had a Revolution and disposing of their ruling class.
Lenin and Stalin knew they were on borrowed time, the Europeans would like to start a war against them if that would be convenient. Which may explain their ruthless push for idustrialization and building a modern army (exporting wheat to finance industrialization while they had a terrible famine in the Ukraine).
No one had a problem with Lenin and even more so Stalin being a (brutal) dictator, Churchill had no problem with starving humans (see the Benghal famine) - but they hated that the Soviets could give their poor citizens ideas. They would have hated the Soviets being a success story (and it was one, you have to consider where they started - although industrialization was enforced with brutal measures. Russia was 100 - 200 years behind the developed nations (and it was even worse in the case of China), and they caught up in decades. Despite TWO world wars which cost them a LOT.
Literacy and at least the bare minimum for all (which was more than they had in China, Mao campaigned ! on a daily bowl of rice for everyone. ONE bowl, no one talked about meat. American policians talked about a chicken in the pot. Most Russians and Chinese were desperately poor and illiterate. (Famines nonwithstanding. The Chinese Civil war had a terrible toll. But imagine one bowl of rice being a campaign promise. Imagine how poor these people were.)
The European and American ruling class never got around to punishing the Soviets for having had that Revolution. They saw the Soviets industrializing and trying to catch up. And left parties and movements worried the ruling class all over Europe - because the ruling classes didn't give a damn about their poor.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Imagine Trump would have insisted on single payer in 2017 and would now handle the corona crisis better. If he would now inist on stimulus bills For The People. He would win in a landslide. Trump berated generals and did not endear himself to veterans and military families (he managed to insult at least those who are not part of his cult).
Neither Churchill, nor Hitler, or FDR were that stupid. To alienate the military.
Hoover was crazy enough to brutally crush the Veteran's March in 1932 (they had cut the bonus for veterans, that was part of their payment for having served in WW1, they did not get all money right away when they were active. Which helped the national finances in 1917 and 1918.
Well the government cancelled that in 1932 to cope with the crisis caused by big finance which they did not bother to regulate.
It is not like raising taxes on the rich was considered to be an option to avoid failing that obligation.
They used the police AND U.S. military to crush that protest after they had arrived in D.C. Likely some or many of them were armed and they had combat experience. and were now organized. So those in power freaked out (instead of giving them what was owed to them, and there would not have been a problem).
FDR was not so stupid as to alienate veterans (and active soldiers who also had no illusions how the government thought about cannon fodder, and promises given to them). That Republican idiocy (in election year 1932 no less) backfired when FDR became a Change president.
You cannot prepare a coup against a well liked left populist if you do not even have the army or the vets on your side (the foot soldiers). The Republican establishment was in bad standing with the vets. - If interested check out Smedley Butler, (one of the few he was still in good standing with vets, he had supported their cause). He alerted the White House after he had gotten some vague offers to lead a "militia". he testified in hearings.
The rich industrial leaders of the U.S. had to endure FDR, the New Deal, the higher taxes for them. They only could look with envy to Europe where many far right dictators (friendlier towards the interests of the rich) seized power (not only in Germany !) - while they had no chance to get rid of FDR .....
1
-
1
-
1
-
Progressives (Sanders, AOC ...) should have mentioned the massive bailouts that had already happened, outside of and before the "stimulus" bill. And preferably make a VERY PUBLIC STINK long before there was a vote on the shit sandwich called stimulus bill.
March 12th, FED STARTED * to create money. First batch only: 1,5 TRILLION USD. For the speculators of Wallstreets.
* Fed already had to "intervene" in late 2019 already, then creating BILLIONS. See: Repo crisis. Like after the Lehman crash in 2008 - the banks all of a sudden in late 2019 AGAIN did not lend each other money over night to balance the books (or they did so only at very high rates, which is a sign how hard it was to find any bank willing to lend).
That kind of lending / borrowing is normal, they do so at very low interest rates. Usually !
Bailing out Wallstreet ? What GOOD reason exists to doing so ?
Rich people and investments funds with an INVESTOR approach just would sit the drop of share prices out.
Could take them a few years if they are very unlucky - so WHAT ?
A well diversified INVESTOR can deal with that. Diversified means they did not buy shares (or worse bet on them) on credit. They are NOT forced to sell now, they have other less volatile assets they can sell if they need to (like government bonds, savings accounts).
if banks or big funds were reckless they would of course go broke. Rich people would lose money (normal people not if they were prudent and have a diversified investment strategy, the would have mild losses). Of course there might be need for criminal investigations. Even more so if a bank goes under because they were exposed to a degree that they could not weather a sharp downturn of share prices (not the shares for THAT bank. If they had bought or had bets on other shares).
The trillions could easily bail out deposit insurance fund / savings accounts IF one or serveral of the too big to fail banks go under (I think the Wallstreet bailout of mid march was not intended to save banks - but more like well connected rich speculators reducing their losses. But you never know, there has not been any investigation WHAT went on and WHY).
The board of Fed is staffed by the too big to fail banks.
People that have a loan from a failing bank have no problem, they will be always allowed to pay off their loan, does not matter if it goes to the old corporate structure or a new transitory bank (in public hand).
A public bank could always pick up the remainders of a bankrupt commercial bank
All that is needed for the actual business model of banking, the staff, the equipment needed to do safe and boring banking for the REAL economy.
Such an new bank with the employees represented at the board could voluntarily ! honor provisions for the REGULAR employees like their pension funds - that is just a matter of funding - shouldn't be a problem with the Fed creating the trillions so easily **.
Would also deal elegantly with the legal demands of top managment for their golden parachute and bonus - those would of course be obsolete with the bankrupcy.
** as for money creation see MMT, QE For The People. Or: Fiat Money (they way money is typcially created when things are normal = commercial banks create money every time they give out a loan)
Companies that need money NOW will of course take advantage of the very LOW interest rates for loans. And if they are not doing well (or pretend so) they will come to the government hat in hand and arrange for their bailout.
The "free market" in action. Socialism for the rich (and big biz) and rugged individualism for everyone else.
The stock exchange is only a REFLECTION of the REAL ECONOMY. Lower share prices do not hinder the likes of GM, Nestlé or Amazon to sell their goods and follow through with their business model (maybe with some crisis adaptions).
Of course they might have problems now to sell their products or make revenue and profits (what about a nest egg from the Trump tax cuts ? - or the tax they also avoided paying in the years before ? the huge profits they paid out in form of dividends to shareholders in the years before ?)
But doing biz (more or less well under crisis conditions) is still not dependent on the price of their shares.
On how high or low the price for is the very limited ! volume of shares that is traded publicly in any given moement (before the crisis, during or after).
1
-
Progressives need to point out
a) 1,5 trillion divided by all U.S. residents (330 million) = 4,500 USD per person or 18,000 for a household of four (just to give an idea). First ! bailout money created by Fed on March 12th, 2020 outside and before "stimulus" bill = 1,5 trillions
To give more context: the GDP of the U.S. was around 21 trillion in 2019.
b) how FAST and w/o discussion that first round of bailout was done, even before the relief bill was being discussed.
Thanks to Frank Dodd (the bill psoing as financial "regulation" = window dressing) Fed does not need the approval of congress for throwing TRILLIONS around to save the speculators.
That is the change after the GFC, the Congressional discussions then were embarrasing for politicians trying to inconspicuously serve their paymasters. And they had to explain: No it is not more debt or coming from tax dollars. we just insert some numbers in a computer. Ben Bernake - they never again came so close to talking about Debt and Interest Free money.
They do not want the masses to understand Quantitative Easing. The unwashed masses might at some point figure out they could demand QE for The People.
c) No, FED was not injecting liquidity into the "market" or some other neoliberal Orwellian gibberish. Which was the only kind of explanation you could hear by complicit Corporate media.
Not even independent left leaning media outlets point that out well, they do not really connect the dots for far: while many covered interviews about money creation, MMT etc. in the past - now they do not see the forest for the trees.
By and large Corporate media QUICKLY glossed over it. Several rounds of QE under Obama (likely to the tune of 4 trillions) - and QE on stereoides NOW.
e) The Stock exchange is a lot of things but not a proper "market", and the speculators were saved from the consequences of risk taking. The corona virus pandemic was certainly a black swan event - but while those are not happening often, they are also not unheard of. And also need to be factored in and weighed against the chances to make effortlessly a quick buck.
(effortlessy compared to the hassle to design, develop, produce and distrubute a service or product in order to make a profit).
Savvy, insightful, long time thinking ! investors would have upgraded potential risks from a pandemic anyway: There were a lot of warning shots in the last 20 years (new virus epidemics or pandemics coming from animals. Some infected humans. Some infected livestock - with the potential to become dangerous for humans).
We just dodged a bullet several times - until late 2019.
In 2002 / 2003 SARS-CoV1, in 2012 MERS (high mortality rate but luckily not very contagious). New strains of swine flu and bird flu that did a lot of damage to big ag. They hardly ever cause disease in humans.
So far.
We might be a few mutations away from that.
But IF there was one of the rare cases of animals directly infecting humans AND they got sick the outcomes were bad (complications, mortality rate). could happen if a person had a weak immune system or bad luck. So far these infections were NOT contagious between humans. That is also the case with MERS. Humans contract it from dromedars (which got it from bats).
If hygiene standards are underwhelming in hospitals it can be passed on to other humans, it is really bad for these unlucky souls - but with modern medicine it was easy to contain because it is not very infectious (we were lucky - so far).
Scientists have warned for 20 - 25 years that it was only a question WHEN not IF a pandemic would hit. So that was a known risk.
The Stock exchange in theory - if well regulated - could be a market (not a casino like it is now) with a small element of speculation. Just enough to make it more interesting for people that finance start ups.
The giants of the industry have gone public decades (sometimes one century) ago - think steel, cars like Ford, ....
During an IPO (Initial Public Offering) the company and the investors behind it get their pay out. Outsiders can buy shares in small and large volumes at a public market (the stock exchange).
A large company (if they are listed at the stock exchange they are always large) can ALSO get money from banks. Or by direct large investment. It is not as if the Stock exchange is the only way to finance businesses. See Germany, they rebuilt the economy after WW2 - they did have a stock exchange (in name only it was a lame affair, until it got hyped up a little bit in the late 1990s when neoliberalism also became the fashion in Germany).
And if the banks do not give large companies loans because they are not in good shape or the economy is not doing well in general - well then they will not be able to raise money via the stock exchange either.
Large companies avoid the humiliation of having to sell off the shares they kept (among other things to have the voting rights that come with it) at very low prices. That can induce a panic sell off, and is very bad PR. If they have more than 50 % of their shares owned by outsiders (because they do an emergency sell of shares the company has held back so far from going "on the market") there could be a hostile takeover, for instance by a competitor.
Or some investment fund tries to seize the company (many of these funds are into getting their hands on companies which they think are worth more dead than alive).
Hostile takeover (attempt): Another company announces publicly that they will buy up all shares that are held outside of the company. At a (slightly) better price than the current price on the stock exchange. If things are looking good for a company and their shares are traded at good value a hostile takeover attempt is bound to fail. The people holding those shares will wait it out to see if there is a bidding frenzy (the initial offer can be improved).
There is no value for another company to buy up a company at ALL costs (overpriced).
If they are a competitor and could afford to pay way too much, they make a very drastic case for the intervention of regulators (bad PR - it is going to backfire), they obviously only want to force out a competitor that is doing well. (an amicable merger is another thing - although then regulators also have to look at the monopoly situation).
If the company or fund that is intent to pull off a hostile takeover can consolidate a major part of the shares they get voting rights. If they are able to buy up more than 50 % of the shares they now have CONTROL over the company.
So a large player that isn't doing well will avoid throwing the shares "onto the market". And if the banks do not borrow them money either - they ALWAYS run to the govenment and ask for a bailout.
AOC has an economics degree:
She should have pointed out that GM did not raise money via the stock exchange, nor did they find a bank that would lend them money in 2009 / 2010. Nor would any other car manufacturer have dared or been able to buy them up.
Car manufacturers of other coutnries got their national bailouts then as well (or stimulus packages, like wrecking cars that are O.K. if the consumers buy new ones. It is an ecological disaster to wreck functioning vehicles. They did that in Germany, too: sales numbers DROPPED the following year. It ONLY helped people that still had money and they bought one year earlier. but over 2 years it was a zero sum game with a LOT of government money thrown at them. And those old cars - often in reasonable shape - did not make it to the used care market (that is the ecological negative aspect).
Only the Chinese might have used the chance to buy their way into US car manufacturing. Well THAT was not going to happen.
Epic "market" failure.
d) The crooks and the shareholders and managment that NEVER build a nest egg for the "rainy day" of the company, will demand and get the bailouts.
e) As soon as they have recovered they will act as if nothing has happened. And continue to tell the little people about "free markets" how good they are in doing business, the wonders of capitalism and how regular people have to suck it up and pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
Plus: advocate for tax cuts, against welfare programs (welfare for the population. corporate welfare is totally fine).
Last but not least: hOW aRe WE goInG tO PaY fOr it ? EVER ! (M4A, SS in the future, Green New Deal)
Corporate welfare worked out great for the banksters. Or GM (they have not changed their business model one bit. Big cars that are not very energy efficient - so it is hard to sell them outside the U.S. There was already a subprime mortgage bubble building up for CAR LOANS in recent years.
e) Fed Chair appointed by the president. POTUS: in the last 50 years always beholden to the special interests. Jimmy Carter not in person - but he had economic advisors plus a Fed chair Volcker - that settled things for big finance, very much to the disadvantage of the actors in the real economy (citizens, homeowners businesses). The high interest rates were likely one reason why Carter lost to Reagan.
The board is staffed by the too-big-to-fail banks.
So .... is Fed going to use the power to create trillions w/o oversight and FAST to the advantage of regular people ?
f) On average there are downturns every 8 years, the hyped up stock exchange (in the last 2 years a lot of stock buybacks also with Trump tax cuts) was overdue for a course correction and one of the cyclic recessions was also lurking around the corner.
Plus the odd black swan events are part of the risk as well.
1
-
1
-
@emanimal728 What, Cenk excuses Warren ? (reading comments while ads playing). Her own sense of ethics should have protected her (even IF he made a tonedeaf remark, or she misunderstood something. She KNOWS his stance, she could have adressed it then, or could have talked it out later if he really rubbed her the wrong way.
But no, she chose to settle that - and publicly - when he lead in the early state polls for the first time and she had a small drop and underwhelming fundraising (the media gave her a boost a few months ago, but that is over, and her ground game and volunteer network is nothing like that of Sanders.
No one comes even close. Not only do they have so many volunteers (over 1 million) they have a strategy to integrate them into the campaign (2015 2016 was more conventional except for the small donations. Jeff Weaver did a good job in 2015/2016. They tested a few things and built on that - 2020 is a movement campaign (the campaign itself), with Bern app, peer to peer videos #MyBernieStory, etc.
Captains (local leaders of volunteers) that get extra training. strategies and protocols to sign up volunteers AT rallies, etc.
1
-
1
-
he and epidemiologists of other countries haven't been "lying". Their assessment was there was no benefit for everyone to wear masks (but they advocated for social distancing). They were right - in the situation THEN. The advantage of the general population wearing masks was seen as a fringe benfit (and that only if most wear it). the data was inconclusive and disputed.
Remember they did not have enough for ALLL of the general public, not even for the healthcare staff. So "Well there could be a small benefit and it is not going to hurt" did not apply in that situation.
Now - if health professionals wear masks you get much more avoided infections per mask (they have more exposure and they wear them in a professional manner, at least they are more likely to get that right, tight fit, no gaps).
In March a more contagious mutation took over (so that changed things too). In April they did not have to fear starting a run on scarce resources (that would have been catastriophic for healthcare staff).
Asian and Western scientists had a lively debate.
Truth is that even simple masks (or DIY fabric masks 2 layers of cotton T-shirt material for instance) show surprisingly good capacity to prevent spread when you test in the lab (the mask resp. the material). BUT: any gap undermines their efficacy. So this is about how they are worn by humans in their natural habitat.
The real prevention is not high, AND as we now have enough masks everyone should wear them anyway (when that makes sense, not when driving alone in a car of jogging outdoors alone).
The small benefit (added on other imperfect measures) is nothing we can afford to dismiss until with have better, more efficient measures (vaccines or an effective treatment drug). And even for that all must wear masks in shops, etc.
We work with many less than ideal measures, masks are cheap, and less disruptive for the economy than shutdowns. So even if they "only" prevent 5 or 10 % of infections within the general population (as opposed from an infection chain healthcare worker to patient) that is nothing to sneer at. Until we have herd immunity. A safe and efficient treatment durg would be a good second best.
1
-
Your comment (and many others) illustrate perfectly why Dr. Fauci cannot tell citizens ALL that he knows (and has to weigh). Many people have no nuance, no in depth information, and a lot of bias. Remember toilet paper craze ? Yes, that is the kind of citizens he has to bear in mind. Right wing media has made him a target. Trump sent his cronies and tried to discredit him indirectly. did not work, and Trump did not dare to fire him, he enjoys too much trust with the population.
Big biz and the politicians that serve them (in that case Republicans) want the economy open, they do not mind if a LOT of people die.
If THEY get infected, they are going to get the special treatments (like Trump of Giuliani did). It is not possible to produce enough of the antibody treatment cures for all that get infected. They did not wait whether Trump or Giuliani would have acceptable symptoms and be fine on their own - they got the special treatment right away - just in case they would have a severe case.
The special people are sure they will survive (and their eldery or those with preeexisting condtitions) They do not mind at all a culling of the lowly workers and their relatives.
Dr. Fauci and his recommendations stood in the way of those plans. So HE became a target. meanwhile Trump and his cronies lied, did insider trading, were incredibly stupid and misshandled the whole pandemic response.
It did not matter what Fauci recommended regarding masks in March. There were not enough and he could not have done any good for the general population but it could have created a lot of harm for healthcare workers.
It does not matter for the production of the vaccines, the research, the rollout what Fauci estimates as necessary herd immunity. Somewhere between 60 - 90 %. It was that in March 2020, and will be that in March 2021. 80ish sounds about plausible. No one CAN know. Scientists will do a deep dive in 2022 and 2023 and then we will learn what was the rate at which the pandemic was stopped by herd immunity (+/- a few percent)
Would a good epidemiolgist now - when vaccines are about to be mass produced and rolled out - try to convince the population to participate in the vaccination ?
OF COURSE he now goes to the higher end of the range. If you did not suspect that it would likely be more in the 75 - 85 % range then you might not be a good recipient for a honest and nuanced, longer, comprehensive information by Dr. Fauci.
The same people and media outlest that ignore every idiotic statement of Trump and can't be bothered to compare his comments and actions over time - keep score of statements of Fauci, made with benign intentions and also not untruthful. Maybe he held back information, but he did not lie.
A herd immunity of 65 % or 70 % could be enough. It was not necessary - well, adviseable ! - for the general public to wear masks in March. What point is it to tell people: It could help a little bit if we had masks for you - but we don't have them, there are hardly enough for the people who absolutely need them.
(would have directly implicated the Trump admin. Trump does not take kindly to any form of - indirect - accountability).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+ Liberty Matrix you live in a high technology society with international diversified mass production and consumption of goods. Where a lot of people have to live in close proximity to make society function and a lot of people have to coordinate, and they are organized in hierarchies. We are highly INTERDEPENDENT. and cooperate in education, research, production and distribution of goods, justice system, maintainance of sewage systems (public health), sharing streets, buildings public places with them .... and so on and so forth.
All schemes that require some top down rules and they are also enforced.
It is a HIGHLY COMPLEX system we are running here. Acting AS IF you could benefit from that w/o giving up individiual liberties in exchange for the greater good is ludicrous.
And the Amish also do not live that way - as a small scale pre industrial society. On the contrary: They do have a lot of rules, they are just not laws. People are stongly expected to "voluntarily" do whatever is expected from them and they comply. More than we complie with laws and rules in the workplace.
The enforcment strategy for small groups is different - but highly efficient and effective. More than in our system - there is no escape from the watchful eyes of their peers. Humans will react to getting the side eye and fall in line - hundreds of thousands of years of evolution made sure of that.
"I do my thing, the greater good of society / my group is no concern of mine .." that is against human nature. Does not happen in the setting we evolved for. Small groups where people need each other and that dependency is very tangible (we also need each other. Only think the sewage system stopped working or we would not get gas anymore). But it does not feel and we do not go into exchange with people we know so well.
During human evolution the welfare of the group came always first (and that even beat concerns for "familiy"), that was a survival of the species requirement - so it works very well. Individiual pursuit of happyness, individual ambition, creativity had a place - but were down on the list and restricted. These traits if correctly expressed could help to increase the chances of survival and thus serve the group. Ambition was channeld into formalized ! contests with rules, so group members could win status if they showed their usefulness in daily life and also in contests. (that were usually showing off useful skills, running fast, use of weapons and tools, skills to embellish and make garments, collect and cook food, ....Or skills to entertain, sing, tell stories that helped to unite the group and to keep people happy (so they would not be at each other's throats).
The rules of society (which could be lenient or rigid) were enforced with social pressure.
Only in the case of catastrophic events that were so bad that most of the group perished it was "Everyone is in for themselves and everybody is on their own". Just because the tribe suffered a famine or a natural disaster, the usual social contract (everyone pulls their weight, group welfare beats self interests, we are in this together) was not failing.
Humans have deep social instincts and care a lot what their peers think of them - in small groups where everyone knows the others and they need each other for survival.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Krystall Ball (Rising) is not worried. from her experience with campaigns (she ran for office): at that stage the candidate having rallies in the state also takes resources away in the state - which can be directed at other efforts. NOW it is about activating voters, knocking doors, phonebanking. The presence of the candidate on the ground is less important.
Sanders has an excellent groundgame, and CNN, Warren (and Clinton) made sure the supporters are super motivated, they will drag neighbours, relatives, grandma and the cat with them to the caucus location.
But if the Sanders campaign wants rallies - I think they plan to use a private jet so the Senator can make more in shorter time, and they have strong surrogates that can attract a crowd on their own.
The campaign manager of IO also said there are 1500 (or 1800) precints. They have one location per precinct where the supporters of the candidates meet, the campaings plans to have at least 1 - 2 TRAINED volunteers in every location. They also organize car pools and drives for people w/o vehicle, etc. Much better organized than in 2016.
Groups under 15 % do not get delegates awarded, and in a second round the successful groups can recruit more members. It does not hurt to have them trained in persuasion so they can pick up more volunteers in the 2nd round. (it is all done PER location).
(I wonder if Warren wanted to poison the well - I think Biden and Sander are likely to make it in most locations. Warren and Buttigieg - not so sure. Which means team Biden and Sanders would often court them for their support. If the Warren fans are pissed off at Sanders they might go to team Biden propping up his numbers.
So I hope the campaign overwhelms the locations with young voters. And the Warren fans have time to cool off.
Crystal Ball (she was on The Micheal Brooks Show, 1 hour, very good interview) is confident that he will outperform the polls (like he did in 2016) - so if the numbers stay as they are (which is very likely unless they get better, the trend was upwards) HE will do better.
But not his opponents: their support is older, they have more likely voters - and these voters are better reflected in the polls.
She also thinks since there are no more debates and now impeachment takes up all the oxygen in the media, it will be hard to start some media campaign against Sanders that could STICK (with the voters). Sure Hillary said "no one likes Bernie" (in the Senate). That's the last tempest in the teapot - Whatever - if anything it helps Sanders.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That sounds better than it is. the rule came (in Germany) after WW2 and it only applies to the largest companies that are traded on the stock exchange. (the large industrial leaders had helped Hitler, so they had to shut up for a while, they continued to make a pretty penny after WW2 (except if they were in the area that was occupied by the Russians and later became Eastern Germany), the allied forces did not harm them, but they had to keep a low profile and make concessions to the workers for a while).
HOWEVER: if you have a FEW people that "represent" the workers (even if they are elected - there are not that many that feel fit to run for that office with Daimler, VW etc - they will of course be bought off. The people that are on the board of directors are usually big shots in the unions / the Social Democratic Party and are also within reach of a political career.
(they get a parking spot next to the CEO, they get excellent wages, they are invited to the trips with the strippers - there had been a scandal I think with VW - or was it AUDI - never mind).
Meanwhile there is 2 class society for the workers in the large industries (and the same happens in the U.S. automobile industry).
The old guard (hired until the mid / late 1990s) has still the good contracts, new workers are hired via subcontractors, they can be fired at will, the wages are nothing like the wages for the lucky "insiders".
A Social Democratic / Green party coalition made it possible that the German industry can undermine the former good wages. Nothing like the fake left to screw the workers, the former conservative government would not have dared to go so far - and in THAT case the SPD would have bothered to stand up for the working class (as long as they were the opposition party.
There is another rule: that the workers can vote in a board of workers and their elected representative will deal with the owners (complaints, wages, the staff asking for improvements, schedules). That is also common in small to medium sized companies, the unions saw to it that the companies got an elected board - and once a company has it they do not get rid of it. I do not know the rules in Germany - but in Austria the boss needs to have the O.K. of a judge to fire the representative or deny them access to the premises. So if the rep does not insult or assault the boss or management or steal the silver spoons - it is almost impossible to get rid of them.
That protection already kicks in when a staff member or a group starts the efforts and lobbies the co-workers to get such a workers council in the company. That is supposed to protect them from retaliation.
The unions made sure to cover the smaller and medium sized companies decades ago - so that helps to a degree. However: these reps still have to deal with the fact that their company can hire via third party (in Germany, not so much in Austria).
The unions are myopic, they do not view the big picture and they are engaged in a battle of retreat.
1
-
The DNC can easily live with a 2nd Trump term. They would never admit it and they would prefer to win. But if Sanders is the candidate they would definitely like to lose. And they can easily afford to lose with Biden or Buttigieg or Warren.
Biden btw has problems when speaking, he cannot keep his train of thought. He rambles, he misspeaks.
Now if you see that with an elderly relative you know they are not quite what they used to be. But as POTUS (if Sanders would be that way it would be a bummer, luckily he is sharp, so I hope he is good in delegating, puts his team to work and has to oversight.
Rallying the masses, training his successor (Nina Turner) and having the oversight.
- but there are advantages to losing. Like sticking it to the progressives (who will get the blame).
Beating the potential voters into submission to vote for ANY subpar D candidate in 2024 (then the country will be ripe for a change, if there are still elections, but likely fascism will not to take over that quick. On the other hand there will be another cyclic economic downturn. The "booming" economy is a house of cards, so it could be bad.
they get to keep the tax cuts, also for their donors (the same that finance the Republicans).
The media gets the ratings, and there will be another war (wallstreet, contractors and media love war).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
2006 Blue Wave, 2007, 2008 crisis emerges, Bush / McCain / Republicans lose in the court of popular opinion. Sensational campaign of Obama (who sold out to donors during the campaign already). - good thing the 2010 were not going well for Democrats, so they could join the Republicans in austerity incl. the Grand Bargain (cutting SS was part of that), it only fell apart because the Tea Party fraction was so rabidly against Obama, that the normal Republicans could not seize that chance, which was a dream (almost) come true.
2 Senators were against it. Sanders might have tried to rally the people, but he did not have the name recognition so it might have been for naught.
Obama's job on behalf of the big donors was to deflate the energy of the movement once the sheeple had gotten him into office, the Big Donors that finance both parties want quiet in their empire.
If the masses are fired up, organize in grassroots - who know what ideas they might be getting. With or without an ally in the White House.
So Obama and mayors of large cities (most of them with a D before their name) crushed Occupy Wallstreet in a coordinated strike.
The dragged out healthcare "reform"
The ideal situation for Corporate Dems: the have just a tiny majority, if they would have clear majorities they would run out of excuses.
In 1933 FDR was sworn in, the Democrats had clear majorities in Congress and Senate, they did not need the Republicans. FDR had to strongarm some Democratic "representatives" so that they would vote for the New Deal bills. and the Dixiecrats made sure that black people got as little as possible out of it (domestic and I think farm workers did not get SS - in most cases these were black and brown people). I think black far,mers also got much less help then.
The theatrics of bipartisan work on healthcare "reform" (in 2009 when the Democrats had the president, Congress, Senate) was meant to let the Republicans participate in watering the weak proposal even more down. So the Democrats would not look as bad (we tried but the GOP didn't let us). Republicans with a D like Lieberman killed even the Public Option *. Crickets from Obama.
They had a filibuster proof majority for 60 days in spring 2010, then they passed ACA, they could have passed anything.
The Republicans did not throw their tantrums (incl. shutting down the government) because the bill was so good, but because they thought even that reform could be a small improvement and could prove that government can help people. That it would be a mild political success for Democrats.
ACA was modelled after a Heritage Foundation plan that was the GOP "alternative" (response) to the plan which First Lady Hillary Clinton in the 1990s campaigned for. Her version was also one that kept the private insurers relevant, so they ignored the blueprint of all other countries then as well. Obamacare = ACA was more or less the same as Romneycare. So the GOP rioted against a right wing plan.
1
-
* Now the Big Donors of the healthcare industry KNOW the masses are getting restless, some reform WILL have to come. All Democratic candidates have switched to a form of public option (aka allowing opting out: you can keep your plan if you like it).
Which they disingenuously call Medicare for XX.
And some even refuse that and stick with ACA (Biden, Klobuchar)
No other wealthy country has P. O. and for good reasons.
P.O. would mean the insurance compaies would lose some clients, but they get to keep the most lucrative clients, the young, healthy, and wealthy. It would keep them relevant, and be their best chance to undermine the reform. 90 % of spending is caused by 10 % of the patients. the insurers just have to do the purges right and drive the clients they do not want over to the public pool. They can make seemingly reasonably priced offers to the young and healhy.
Which muddies the water (no other nation has cherrypicked pools), there cannot be cost transparency. (the costly patients do not vanish magically, it is just that Medicare is stuck with all of them, so they will have the high spending - or the struggle to covere them with the budgets given to them).
It also completely undermines the political leverage when ALL of the population and all parties have skin in the game, that the system is GOOD (comprehensive coverage for ALL, enough budgets so that small hospitals can stay open, good services and reasonable waiting times EVERYWHERE) and cost-efficient.
Strategy of private for-profit insurers in this stage of the debate (10 years after even the Public Option was killed on behest of the Big Donors)
a) divide and conquer
b) the risky / costly patients and insured land with the public pool
c) a little defunding will go a long way to get the agency into trouble, if they do not have sufficient budgets for their much, much more costly insured, they cannot pay the necessary rates.
Small hospitals will have to close down. In rural and poor areas the hospitals do not have enough high-end patients with "good" plans which they can milk to compensate.
Many doctors will refuse to work with them, and the more patients there are around that can show up with a private insurance card the better their chance is to refuse outright to work under Medicare conditions and rates. (Sanders proposal: no duplicative coverage. If a doctor / hospital offers a procedure that would be covered by Medicare For All then the patients can only pay out of pocket for it. NO private insurance can include those treatments in a plan. That is a deterrent for the patients. They MUST pay into M4A, so they can as well use the services "free at the point of delivery".
When services are not good (and they can be good with reasonable budgets, they are in all other countries) than especially the affluent will be much more motivated to improve the system (which also helps the lower income people) compared to the Public Option where they can retreat to the equivalent of gated communities.
affluent people might pay out of pocket for appointments with an OBI-GYN, dentist, eye doctor ... but not for the stuff that gets really expensive.
Under a P.O. billing will stay so complicated. Doctors and nurses will continue to waste time with needen "preapprovals" or fighting with insurers to get necessary treatments. (it is also a waste of resources on the other side: the insurer). Providers will continue to MILK the good policies (unnecessary but not harmful procedures. They cost money and do not get better results. Unnesseary testing, doing surgery when other treatments could be tried, ....)
It would be easy to badmouth the "expensive" Medicare offer. Colluding mainstream media would help in the propaganda battle.
And there would be one, it is a HUGE market. 9 - 11 % of GDP in countries with cost efficient single payer. Almost 19 % of GDP in the U.S.
The insurance companies would like to got back to the days before ACA, but that is not realistic, Public Option NOW is their plan B / contingency plan. But that does not mean they would not put up a brutal fight - if only to discourage the peasants damanding more.
If after an epic battle P.O. would be passed, they would set to work to immediately undermine the reform. There are transition costs, not all cost advantages manifest fully and right away *, a part of the population seem to get a better deal (price) than now under private coverage. So in this stage the reform is the most vulnerable and they will come after it with help of R + D sellout politicians like a ton of bricks.
(backlog from lack of care now think poorly managed diabetes 1 out in 5 or 4 people ration insuline, 4 years rollout under the Sanders plan, so the billing stays complicated, the drug companies were allowed to create an opiode crisis, the mentally ill often land in prisons, which makes their condition WORSE, the benefits of preventive care will only start to show after after a few years, and costs for retraining a LOT of redundant staff of private insurers).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
2:30 Democracy Now had recently a segment "Meet the Texas doctor developing a People's vaccine". His name is Dr. Peter Hotez. - ill Gates is half right, but if he knows - why didn't he push for preparedness for manufacturing and qualifying people in the last 12 months ??. - Dr. Hotezr said while he is all for lifting patent protections in this case the bottle neck is also the limitation of factories that can SAFELY produce and the necessary qualified staff.
Howerver: they had ONE year to train people, to set up factories, there could have been an international cooperation with China and Russia (but foreign policy frictions were more important).
I assume there are enough medical staff, lab technicians in the developed nations, incl. China to make that happen. People that have the necessary precision and attitude to be trained to help produced vaccines.
I assume a factory would be set up differently depending on how they produce the vaccine. One needs electricity, installing the robots, water plumbing etc. Clean rooms. the injection devices must be produced, too. 1 year time and the first world countries were unable to organize it.
Dr. Hotze had to fundraise 4 - 5 million USD (not even small change, BionTec got 450 million USD from the German government, and was later snatched up by Pfizer).
He scrambled to get that money in Feb. / March 2020 for the development of a yeast produced vaccine (read: cheap, easy to handle at normal temps and once they get going high output).
But he lost time, no public funding, some rich Texan donors stepped up. They are in the middle of testing.
So he lost maybe 1 - 2 months.
He says he is positive about mRNA and got one - but with all the high tech they overlooked that it is also necessary to have a reliable, uncomplicated, cheap and FAST to produce vaccine. And yeast - although "old fashioned" tech is the candidate for a pandemic.
I guess the mRNA types saw a chance to seize lots of public funding and of course that will help them with NEW and other developments.
1
-
1
-
In all other countries they have a streamlined universal, national database for residency, the local authorities make the updates (birth, death, moving) and print the voter rolls 1 week before election - for the respective polling stations. And first time voters are automatically on that list.
People have an ID anyway, and in larger cities they show it (not that it would be necessary but the requirement does not hinder people it does not even start a discussion. See the stories on voteriders (a website) you would not believe the red tape that a person can get into in the U.S. The stastes in the U.S. act like they are independent countries regarding a lot of civil services, but citizens move around like it is one country. The result is a byzantine system. They can have hours of waiting times ad the DMV (Department of motor vehicles).
If you have to change your licence plate in Finland when you move - you do not have to take a holiday for that.
Where I currently live (Austria, also Germany) the ID can be the driver's licence that has been issued 50 years ago (and the person has moved all over the country).
In Europe a passport is much more of a necessity. if you drive 3 hours you can easily be in at least ! in 1 other country. Could be up 10 if you start in central Europe in a smaller nation.
Again: a passport that has expired 10 years ago will be fine as identification (for voting and frankly all other purposes. It might not work for air travel, but apart from that ....)
Almost everyone got a driver's licence (however old it might be) Or the one passport they got in their life. All retired or disabled persons get an ID - for reduced fares for public transporation, and other perks. The groups that are much more likely to NOT have ID in the U.S. - around 11 million people of voting age (at least not one that is STILL valid *) are good in Europe.
* In the U.S.driver's licenses expire AND they are not accepted in other states as proof of identity for the purpose of voting (at least not in the states that wount to suppress the vote). Not even if you come up with old school reports, vaccination card, birth certificate. The birth certificate of one man that intended to move back to the state where he had grown up had a minor deviation to how the driver's licence from the last state was issued and that started Kafkaesk levels of bureaucraZy.
Stories of the bureaucraZy are on the website of voterider
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
-
Saagar is getting delusional in his defense of Trump: a) Trump is in cognitive decline b) if he wasn't he still would be stupid, w/o knowledge so easy to manipulate. Never mind, he certainly would not be out to help The People. He had not problems stiffing contractors and being engaged in scams (not only Trump University, he and his sons posed for poorly set up real estate investment schemes. Legally he was in the clear, they were just advertising.
He was either utterly incompetent to give his good name to such projects. Which were NEVER in new York, there the local media would have reported and the New Yorkers KNOW him.
Or he is a grifter. Who did not care that the investors (affluent non-proffessionals !the national press had not slammed him for his bankrupcies so outside of New York, many people still believed in the myth or Trump the real estate mogul.
More likely it was a combination of being a grifter and only in it for the quick buck with having no clue. Of course those projects - for which he gave his "good" name" failed. Of course the Trump family had extracted lots of fees (which can make or break a licence project). So the airline, the magazine, ... such projects need time and the ability to manage OR to recognize good managment. And a real billionaire that would have such a pet project would not extract the licence fees soon - they can bide their time.
But Trump acted like a third rate desperate grifter. Likely he was that: desperate for ANY source of money, no matter how craven he had to be.
The ONLY real talent of Trump
He just knows to read a crowd and found out which messages resonate. You can wing that and there is no expertise needed. The thing he is good at is the PERFORMANCE part, he also did not do well over time in ANY business activities, only in SHOW biz (where he was the star act, the TV networks handled the mundane details. And he had the beauty pagants. I think that did not flop.
c) Trump is a textbook narcissist. All politicians have some ego, many abuse power, but Trump is an in your face pathological narcissist. In combination with his stupidity that makes for interesting (if drastic and dangerous) times.
Narcissists need praise all the time (that is the difference to other power hungry folks) and can't ever accept having to make corrections or admit a mistake. Politicians rarely every admit mistakes, but most make course corrections. They are smart enough to know when they need to course correct.
Almost no country got the first phase of corona virus right and it cost them the need to lockdown. BUT mid March most (not Brazil, and U.K. only with more delay) drastically changed course. Boris Johnson has also the traits of a narcissist, that does not like to do the hard work, and gets away with performing the entertainment part.
But he is not quite that stupid and because he ignored the social distancing rules he got CoVid-19 right away. So he had a warning shot, and his party is not as enabling.
BoJo the narcissist also set the bad example of shaking hands (when emidemiologists tried to educate the population. A real leader would of course support such efforts. Trump did not like to cope with the economic reality. But you cannot bullshit your way out of a pandemic, you can lie and obfuscate a lot, but overwhelmed hospitals, people that shie from going to restaurants, the funerals can't be redefined or glossed over.
Trump does not wear masks because it makes him look ridiculous (or so he says). Meanwhile the leaders of other countries (namely China) make a point of being seen with masks. Not sure about Putin, but he is rational engough to at least not undermine ! the work of the Russian epidemiologists.
d) Trump is unable to process complex information, I think he can't memorize (even in the usual extrent of his age group) and has never had interest in details. He is likely not able to read well, so how do you go through life and get better informed and with nuance, if you do not read.
With his cognitive decline NOW it is worse.
Someetimes I get the impression that he hears something and mixes it up. Yes, light can be used to disinfect (think A/C, and they do it with whole rooms, strong UV light pulses (no one in the room of course, so staff does not have to wipe down all the surfaces, and it takes care of all germs IN the air, too).
Trump understood that to mean you can use the light IN the human body.
Dr Deborah Birx sat in the background and cringed.
As for the ability to process DETAILS
A leader must be able to delegate, provided he or she could process the details - and the subordinates know that the leader can't be fooled.
.
Eisenhower became famous for the Eisenhower Raster, or his quote that: if a plan does not fit on one page it is not ripe for decision.
BUT: of course the stage of being well informed came before all of that. And no one tried to dupe Ike or manipulate him.
Likewise JFK: Bay of Pigs got Allen Dulles fired. Not because the ego of JFK was bruised. (That too maybe) But the CIA director or the underlings in the CIA either tried to embarrass the new president or had no clue. And Dulles had teams that didn't get it right, even if HE as also badly informed by his teams. The buck stops there.
When some of the generals suggested to have a first nuclear strike against the Soviet Union during the Cuba crisis - JFK not only did not follow that advice - he made sure the military leaders could not "create a situation of no return", could not escalate, they needed his explicit permission for certain actions. (Like entering a ship off the shores of Cuba by force to search it). No officer could escalate that "by mistake" only be directly violating the chain of command.
And JFK sent his brother, AG Robert Kennedy to the most secret meetings / negotiations with the Soviet ambassador to the U.S.
No one played games with FDR, either.
At best Trump - even if he would have good intentions - is at the mercy of his advisors. And at the mercy of those who tell him which advisors to chose. Bolton does not rhyme with getting the troops home. No finesse needed, Bolton is a well known war monger and hawk.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dr. Fauci (and the epidemiologists of other nations) never said: Masks don't work. (not even in spring when they had the toilet paper craze as warning example). Again: You are not factual, no nuance, no insight ! Masks used by the general population (as opposed to medical staff) may prevent only 5 % of the infections (it is hard to measure, and if you think things through you will figure that out as well). Could be 10 %, 15 % - we do not know. We likely will never know it is hard to separate that from the many other factors that influence spread.
The masks producers have lab tests (germs, dust, asbestos, gases) but the most important thing as long as the material is suited on principle is if the mask fits well and is worn with a tight fit.
Regarding CoVid-19 they even tested DIY materials (like cut up T shirts, cotton or mainly cotton, 2 layers provided 75 % protection if I remember correctly or even 80 %). That can beat every bought mask if the person gets a fitted mask and likes to wear it (there were projects of seamstresses with only one layer and lighter material (summer masks). Make that a good fit mask, and you have good enough disruption of the infection chains.
And yes, even as little as 5 % justifies making the population wear them. As anyone thinking things through would realize.
Now again: Dr. Fauci can't unleash that insight onto the general population, because people just have no intrests in facts or nuance (as long as we do not have the effective tools even "only" 5 % prevention is nothing to sneer at. Especially if the measure does not cost that much and is less disruptive than other measures. And of course only after we have the masks for medical staff).
To make things worse, Republican politicians incl. the president and Trump cultists have made mask wearing a hill to die on. Out of denial, cynical political calculations or in case of the voters fierce bias mixed with being anti fact checking and anti science.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
4:40 "Rallies are great but you need someone to implement the policies. I make this point all the time, Trump got elected, then got swallowed by the Republican party". - Nope, Trump is corrupt, likely needs money and always was in there to serve his ego and finances. He would of course be unable to appoint smart people that are ALSO FOR the people. (I think he is in cognitive decline).
Luckily that was not necessary. There are enough smart people that gladly serve the special interests. Or they are mediocre but are hired anyway, there is no need to be smart or well informed if your job is to run the agency into the ground. See Warren rip apart the current boss of the CFPB (she ended with: If you had any decency you would do the job you are hired for or resign).
Trump glady accepted help to get a certain kind of advisors. People like Mad Dog Mattis, or Bolton the war monger. One longs for the days of SS Rex Tillerson (certainly smart in HIS field = oil). Or now SS Mike Pompeo, can't be stupid, he was the CIA boss (but an ideologue and evangelical which severely impairs his judgement never mind likely as ruthless as all of them. all these people do not have good intentions. So if they are capable it is actually a disadvantage.
The president cannot know it all, but the kind of cabinet he or she choses (or GETS if they are weak towards the party establishment = Warren) decides about the priorities, and how policies will be implemented..
Sanders knows the shark tank, has a firm committment to the regular people. Enough experience to judge the character ! and qualification of people. Enough knowledge to not be fooled by the advisors. And he developed his own policies. Neither party nor donors gave him the talking points and influenced him to have a certain stance.
Donald Trump: I do not like to read - and he also had little interest to be briefed as president elect.
Sanders: When I came to college a whole new world opened to me. I did not spend so much time in class room, but I was a lot in the library and read and read. That is one way one can get information. Another is to travel with open eyes through the country.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Never mind 7 million more of the popular vote - it was way too close for Biden in the Electoral College even with all the luck he had. PA, WI, AZ, GA were the 4 nailbiters. - in total 43,200 votes in 3 states (GA, AZ, WI) determined the outcome - and Biden needed to win at least one of the 3 states, if we take PA as a saf(er) win.
In PA Biden had at least 1.2 % resp. 81,000 votes more than Trump and the results of libertarian Jo Jorgensen were not a multiple of Biden's lead over Trump. Another freak out moment if you look at WI, AZ and GA.
Biden needed to win 2 out of the 4 states that took days to call. PA was not a must win, 2 in any combination would have given Biden enough electors. Even the 2 smallest (WI and AZ = 11 + 10) would have landed Biden at 270. So except for maybe faithless electors he would have been good.
But PA alone (the most electors = 20) would have put Biden only at 269 = a tie with Trump.
Then in the House for each state ONE delegate would be chosen/elected/determined, and they pick the president.
Dems had a mjaority, but most representatives do not get to pick: that is like the EC reenacted in The House and would have given Republicans an advantage.
And the Senate picks the VP - there the Republicans had the majority anyway till the new Congress season started.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Republicans would not yet be done with the hearings if 9/11 (and the many errors ! that made it possible) had happened under Bill Clinton or Obama. Massive errors and negligence is the benign assumption. Neither airforce (the Pentagon is among the best guarded airspaces in the world .- it was attacked), nor CIA or FBI were punished for dropping the ball, or anyone responsible to give the warnings to the airports (tighter security).
Normally it would have meant heads rolling !
Democratic politicians fell politely in line (no wonder that Kerry lost in 2004, the Republicans glossed over the massive clusterfuck of the admin before ! 9/11. Also by Cheney who is usually competent, but got obsessed with going through raw intel and sidelined the work of the CIA.
It is the tedious, time consuming job of experts ! to process and vet raw intel, put it into context, to connect the dots. To eliminate the b.s, there is a lot of that in raw intel (Larry Wilkerson gave that behind the scenes info. He said: I have seen raw intel, it is bull, and Cheney spent hours per day digging into it.)
Cheney was a competent and very efficient manager (Wilkerson gave the inside scoop on the Bush admin, as long as he was part of it as chief of staff of Powell. I have that info from a longer interview. Wilkerson gives Cheney credit for being competent)
An efficient and effictive leader knows how to delegate. Going for hours through raw intel per day sounds like the opposite. The time of the VP should not be wasted on that, and as GWB was not really a leader or competent - it was all the more important that Cheney did not waste his time and stayed on top of all information.
Cheney was obviously hoping for other assessments than the professionals of the CIA provided, (in the briefings that included their assessment of the processed raw intel). He wanted a pretext for wars, and the CIA did not deliver.
So he started the time consuming daily ! search for a nugget he cold blow out of proportion, he reviewed raw intel himself, the CIA had to provide it to him every day (which was highly unusual).
It is my assumption that he searched for a pretext for war, Wilkerson did not explicitely (!) say that.
Another plausible theory is that Cheney and maybe even Bush knew a larger terror attack was likely to happen, and gladly let it happen. The larger, the better for their agenda.
1
-
1
-
@Ben Berzai One VERY POPULAR form of UBI that has been going on for 80 years is CHILDS BENEFITS in Europe. I know for sure in Austria and Germany. In Austria: approx. USD 150 * per child per month, but 13 times per year (double when school starts).
No means testing, everyone gets it for minors under the age of 18 (parents that are citizens, legal residents if they are EU citizens even if the children do not live in the country).
* it is a little more as the minors get older, and a family will get also more if they have more than 2 children.
It is also paid if the young adults go to university or another form of professional training / education.
Then they get it till the age of 26 years.
Still not means tested, but conditional (also that they do the courses, I think they can fail one semester or 2 but that's it. And change the field once - if that costs them time).
It is sort of means tested, if they have a job at the side there is a limit, but normally they cannot hold a full job and will not get over that threshold.
But it does not matter for instance if the family is wealthy or not, or whether they inherited money. So most university students get it, or if they have a paid internship to train for nurse (they can't start that before the age of 16). Or if they attend the schools to become physio or massage therapists, or lab technicians.
Cancelling that: the mellow Germans and Austrian will get their yellow vests - and the pitchforks.
That policy was started under Hitler around 1935 (and expanded to Austria after it had been annexed). It started with getting it for the third child, and a few years later for all children.
The Nazis went under but the countries that rebuilt after the war kept that idea and expanded on it. I assume they got it in many other European countries (at least the wealthy ones). Can't imagine that the Franch, and Dutch citizens saw the German families enjoy that benefit and not demand something like that from their governments in the 1960s and 1970s.
1
-
1
-
UBI and automation are NOT the most pressing problems. Climate change, and the dysfunctional healthcare system is. * You cannot do half measures and it matters if you delay for one year or two or four. - but UBI CAN be prepared and be partially implemented or tested when / if that seems to be a good option.
It needs a database (quite a project !) and that could do double duty as base for a simple and fool-proof voter registration database.
It would rob Republicans of all sorts of claims (double voting, voter impersonation, "illegals" voting, making registration extra hard). They - and also Democratic establishment in case of a "progressive emergency" could not do voter roll purges. people would just register on site, or check online and register again if necessary.
Citizens are entered at date of birth, resp. naturalization, at age 18 they show up as eligible. Done.
Dead people are removed with the death certificate. Every voters has unique code, so same day registration should not be a problem and many pretexts to kick eligible voters from the database (Operation Crosscheck) should vanish.
Including the claim that people double vote (that unique number deals with that). Or that people have moved (when they haven't - that's a speciality of Georgia).
But even if a person has moved (even to another state) - with same day registration and a data base that is valid for the whole country that is no problem.
The most robust solution would be to have an online registration (for voters who move) with a deadline. So the poll workers can work with printed out LISTS (paper) and not even cutting off electricity and the data base going down would hinder voting.
They do it like that in the U.K., they have no central register. Address changes (different pollings statiion are not mandatory, but if you want to vote elsewhere you must initiate that).
And people coming of age must do their registration. But it is VERY easy and can be done online. Apart from that it is unhackable technology: The elections are paper, pen and hand count. All partial results are known to the citizens, so while the results are reported and aggregated with modern technology, the citizen could do the math, and can verify every step. (So like the Iowa caucus but in a more consistent and orderly manner).
1
-
Automatic / easy voter registration ** is a project that is also important to Sanders, and the necessary FEDERAL database could do double duty for UBI, whenever THAT would be desired.
** Sanders mentioned it more often in 2015 / 2016. The messaging is different this time (keep it simple and streamlined for the voters, but I think he knows how important that is).
One CAN do test runs and "half measures" with UBI:
Testing it in a region or a state, or starting with a smaller amount. (or only for children - the parents get it. That would likely be easier to sell, Republican voters would like that, too. Family friendly and stuff).
UBI is mostly digital: the database and the money transfer on the accounts.
The other more urgent projects have to do with the physical world, or with the need to train people, which takes TIME.
Overhaul of the healthcare system: there are doctors, nurses, involved. Maybe more machines and hospitals or doctor practices needed. Redundant insurance staff that needs training.
Investments into the grid, research, installing LOTS of solar panels.
Former coal miners might not be able to become coders. Even if it is possible to automate ALL the truck transports in the next 10 years there will be a LOT of blue collar jobs when changing to renewable energy.
(I am sceptical it is one thing to drive the vehicle around at a fenced off property on well defined paths and there are only so many situations you can simulate. If it was me, I would get the goods on trains, and invest in that - an investment for the next 100 years - and not on self-driving trucks.)
Many former coal miners have DIY talents and experience and could work in construction or insulating buildings. Or be trained to become electrians or in installing the panels. Setting up the battery systems. Or work in companies manufacturing the panels IN the U.S. Or planning and selling them.
Working in youth clubs along side trained social workers. Become assistant teachers for trade schools (or even become regular teacher for more practical subjects like woodworking, welding, agriculture, ...)
Trump admin let the Reagan era treaties with Russia - nuclear and other ones - expire. THAT is a priority as well. ... UBI .... that comes later, if at all.
1
-
1
-
@Notecrusher I think Sanders subconsciously self-sabotages. He worked HARD - and a part of him UNDERMINED his efforts: My good friend Joe. No attack ads on Joe, just to make sure he does not do too well in South Carolina. He was lucky that Warren took out Bloomberg for him, I am not sure he would have done that so well on his own.
May not be his speciality. One can rehearse that. Instead of doing the little stuff.
There are mistakes that can happen during a campaing, you just do not assess the situation correctly (Biden won Southern states in a land slide where he did NOTHING. No groundgame, no rallies, no ad spending, Biden had no money).
so: Sanders had the ENGAGED voters 18 - 40 locked down. But there are MANY detached that he could not activate. That needs a change. And there is time to adapt.
Old voters: He could improve with them. Again: wrong strategy. And Joe is a decent guy and Yes I think he can win against Trump. That was an epic own goal. I think many voters like Sanders well enough, they think his ideas are good (maybe a little too radical).
Pre crisis they thought their SS and medicare is safe - and it was the job of Sanders to scare the shit out of them and to honestly tell them why not.
Also and especially not under a neoliberal like Joe Biden. That is not a dishonest tactic or going low, that was even true before the corona virus crisis broke out. Voters NEED and DESERVE to hear that.
These voters want a candidate that can beat Trump and they want a decent guy. Media and Sanders tell them that Biden is both (I strongly disagree).
Sanders acted as surrogate FOR Biden. Unwittingly encouraged naive gullible voters to pick Biden over him.
Ari Melber segment, Queens. Nice old black lady: "I like Sanders, many of his ideas are good. But NOW is not the time, Trump must be beaten and Biden is the man for it."
She is blissfully unaware about the historic nature of this election. Again: that was pre lockdown (I think after Super Tuesday).
It was the job of the Sanders campaign to spell it out to underinformed old party loyalists how things really are. If thes old voters haven't yet figured out that they should be scared on behalf of their children and grandchildren regarding climate change (Biden is completely useless) - the easiest (and still honest) way to turn them around, is to grab them at their selfish interests.
The voters can't connect the dots, and corporate media for sure does not tell them.
And then there are own goals that are so glaring that it makes you wonder what possess the good Senator - all of a sudden.
A recent fundraising email (for charities) in which Sanders says NOW is not the time to push for M4A (was in the middle of the text).
That must be
a) bribery, selling out, always just wanted to sheepdop the base
[I do not believe that]
or b) Sanders got scared of the possibilty to win
or c) they threatened him or have dirt on him
But the logical explanation is either a), b) or c).
He was asked if and when he would drop out and endorse. How about saying: "Joe Biden's stance regarding M4A is unsatisfactory to put it mildly. He is currently being correcte by the corona virus. He is at odds with the base (the whole population actually, even Republicans).
I am not going to help Joe Biden if he does not move on the issues that are so important for the base. and in this crisis."
Then let the srceeching and the pearl clutching begin. It HELPS to get the message out. Trump understands to use media and to troll them.
1933: FDR sworn in as president, Dems had Congress and Senate, solid majorities. FDR had to twist the arms of Democratic "representatives". Republicans were not standing in the way of the New Deal (they would have like to, but couldn't).
Supreme court struck down one of the first bills, voters were furious. FDR mused about court packing. Right wing activist Supreme Court got the memo ....
More bils were challenged. The "findings" were more sympathetic towards the New Deal agenda.
In the 1920s (same court): it is against the constitution to outlaw child labor. later (and with the threat of court packing) they found the minimum wage to be constitutional. Go figure.
The current situation couldn't be more ideal for an aspiring organizer-in-chief and to push for M4A.
someone else can do the charities (the little league, he can leave that to celebs). The time calls for and is favorable of the Big Game.
Turns out Sanders is more comfortable with the role as eternal underdog and movement leader. Then why did he not throw all his weight behind Tulsi Gabbard ? She has the courage, he could have relieved her from the hassle to fundraise.
He did good, he changed the discussion, you can't expect a 78 year old man to save America from itself, and I have no doubt that he wanted to SERVE - BUT he fell short.
it is an epic failure to "hide" now (doing virtual townhalls is hiding, he is preaching to the converted).
He should troll the media, be super prepared for the interviews (update his talking points) and educated the U.S. about the 99 things that are wrong with the "stimulus" bill. And why progressives voted for it (through gritted teeth).
- another failure it was early on clear where that was headed, they should have walked out and organized mass protests. Walk outs, car convoys, rent strikes.
Floating the idea of a general strike (if not now than later). Watch the establishment go nuts.
I do not think he sold out for personal gain. he is just standing in his own way and got scared of his own boldness.
Avoiding to be beaten down as Ralph Nader 2.0 is more important than the political revolution.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trump wanted conflict (and a regime change war) in Venezuela and crippled them with sanctions (And Biden continues that). Truman, Eisenhower, (JFK ?, LBJ ?) Reagan (and Nixon) supported murderous regimes and death squads.
Guess what: the economy of the afflicted countries has not recovered for decades. The criminal, vicious structures continue to exist way beyond the regime change wars, the death squads took to drug dealing full time and terrorize the local population and assassinate politicians and judges standing in their way.
If Trump TRULY wanted to get migration down that is the dumbest thing he could do.
Note how there is no problem of mass migration from Canada, because they are doing well at home. Now - plenty come and overstay their visas, but most of them do not want to stay forever, deporting them is no big deal (they return to a wealthy and safe country), and they do not stand out for the bigotted population because most of them are white.
When VZ is doing well (or O.K.) their citizens are staying home, and when oil prices were good they used the revenue to lift their poor out of poverty and ALSo helped other nations in Latin America.
Reagan also stirred up trouble in Latin America, to the point that the CIA illegally funded the death squads (Iran / Contra scandal). THEN he went on to push for war against Nicaragua.
Not one of the countries could be a danger to the U.S., not even if they wanted to. That includes tiny Cuba, that is under sanctions for over 50 years.
Chavez even helped low income Americans (they had a chain of gas stations and sold gas cheaper than U.S. chains when prices were the highest).
So what did Cheney / Bush do but support a coup against the very popular president, when the economy was doing good and no one could doubt Chavez had won the elections easily.
The plotters (the right wing of the country and the upper class were behind it) kidnapped him for 2 - 3 days. The army must have been divided, or the plotters were delusional. The masses took it to the streets and after 2 days or so Chavez was released. I guess against promises on clemency.
The plotters got VERY lenient treatment (every government to the left or the right must have the support of the army and I guess the upper ranks did not accept harsh treatment of the insurrectionists, likely there must have been some sympathy for the attempt to impose a military dictatorship on Venezuela or the idiots would not even have tried, they must have know how popular Chavez was and the ONLY chance they have then to end democracy is if they have the army fully on their side, incl. the lower ranks and are willing to have a bloodbath if necessary. See Myanmar sping 2021.
Chavez could not alienate top military brass by being too harsh on his enemies. And reneging on the promise to show clemency if they would release him unharmed would also set a prededent for the future. (nothing left to lose, even if a coup does not work out).
But one condition was that they had to unveal their financiers and those pulling the strings. Turns out the U.S. government was involved.
The idiots ! Well not if you consider whose interests they really serve. The KOCH BROTHERS have interests in Venezuela. The crude oil is complements the qualities that are extracted in the U.S. (mixing). There is a special refinery that can process the oil from Venezuela but the Koch Brothers could not dictate the price for the raw material. And they did not get the pipelines with crude oil from Canada to Texas so they had to make do with VZ conditions.
From the point of view of American citizens:
Good: they do not pay taxes in the U.S. but with good prices for VZ crude oil they financed lifting the poor of VZ out of poverty. Which means: whatever they do in VZ, their low income people STAY where they are. And under Chavez it was part of the package to help other nations in Latin America, that includes of course taking in people if there was trouble.
Whatever you think of that left leaning mixed economy (too dependent on oil, but that is also true for the theocraZies of the Middle East) - it was in the strategic interest of American citizens. (but certainly not in the strategic interest of Koch and other oligarchs. The extra costs are not that high, still good prices for consumers, the companies still would have made fabulous profits.
BUT: even cents (per gallon, barrel, kWh or any other unit) add up if you have large volumes and the gains go only to a very limited number of people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnmcque4813 Of course a party working for The People (in theory the DNC) would get the small donations to remain functional until they have the votes to pass laws. to change how parties are financed. Ideally there would be strict limits per person and for companies (say 2,000 USD per year).
Yang picked up a propsol from Washington. Democracy dollars. Every voter has a "use it or lose it budget", she or he can donate to parties and candidates. That way the Democratic party would have to court the SMALL donors and work for THEM.
Also rules regarding think tanks, unions and NGOs like Planned Parenthood (the unions should not need to have to bribe the DNC to be their ally !, same for PP).
If unions cannot give any money it might be easier to to have the legal arguments to undo Right to Work for Less Laws. Also: there are not that many unions left and in some large cities the police unions have a very bad influence on politicians. (New York, Baltimore, ...)
Or prison guard and police unions covertly fund anti weed legizlation lobbying operations like SAM (they are complete hacks, their CEO Kevin xx was advisor in 3 admins (Clinton, Bush, Obama). He has made a good living of the War on Drugs and he oozes slimy lobbyists (appeared on Rising recently).
Police unions as major donors undermine any accountability. The politians fear their activism and organizing power if they do not like a candidate, and they take their money for campaigns.
TheRealNews had a report about Baltimore for instance. Local politicians do not even dare to pass rules and exercise oversight after scandals. The unions tell them what goes and what not (regarding oversight and accountability for police brutality), and they and the politicians are quite open about that that tight ! cooperation.
Grassroots candidates do not need union money that much anymore (in the era of the internet one can fundraise differently) - the organizing power of unions is their most valuable asset. But that limits the power of union leadership, the BASE has to be excited for a cause and race.
Their manpower regarding activism is another reason why Republicans want to destroy them, unions were traditionally important to turn out the vote for Democrats and to get their members to volunteer..
If unions cannot spend money other than for the direct interests of working people it would rob their enemies of one talking point. (conservative employees claim that do not want to pay unions dues because they finance Democrats. And Republican politicians and Corporate interests glady pound away with that argument).
A refrom could give the parties federal funding according to the votes they get. Although I would limit that amount and work with democracy dollars more. That should lift some of the burden of having to suck up to big donors from the party. BUT: then the party isn't a private entity anymore that can bend its own rules as the leadership sees fit.
Lawsuit in 2016 / 2017 by Sanders supporters. The judge ruled: the DNC is a private entity and is not bound by any fairness rules (that was also the argument of the DNC lawyers: we could pick the nominee in smoke fill rooms, we don't do that (??) but we could).
They are even allowed to claim that the process is neutral towards all candidates and violate that (it was not, they tipped the scales against Sanders and the Podesta emails proved that in writing). They can make those claims and promises and can fundraise, and the donors STiLL cannot demand their donation back.
Anything goes so to speak - and they can do as they please within their appointments and decisions. Like a private COMPANY.
lawsuit of Labour party in 2016: The U.K. court ruled based on a premise: that the party is free to give itself rules and how they legitimize power and committees. BUT: they need to have a transparent process. And the rules they give themselves must also include rules if, when, how and who can change the rules.
They can't just make up or change the rules as they go. And "fairness" is a concept to consider.
They get tax payer funding because having political parties serves a public interest - and IF they take that money (a party must no) they are bound by certain rules (and have to accept more restrictions, so unlike companies they cannot do as they please when it comes to leadership, appointments, etc).
The enemies of Corbyn had just waited for a pretext to start a coup: He had been elected as leader (and potential PM if Labour would win elections) directly by the base in Sep. 2015, The coup was started in summer 2016 (Brexit referendum had been arranged for and had been lost by the sitting government - and that was somehow the fault of the new leader of the opposition according to his enemies from within).
Corbyn did not step down (as they seem to have expected). He demanded to be on the ballot for the new election of party leader. As newcomer he would have needed the nod of the party hierarchy (according to the rules).
He only was allowed in the race in 2015 because no one of the big fish took him seriously. Now Corbyn defending his position was a problem because he had attracted a lot of new party members, and he was likely to win AGAIN. So a big donor of Labor started a lawsuit (membes of the party establishement did not dare to start the lawsuit, the base was already furious).
That big donors lost. The court decided that the party - since it serves the public good and gets tax money as a political party - also has to abide by certain rules. A PRIVATE company can fire the CEO or manager at wil. But IF in a party the PARTY RULES say that the base VOTES for the leader and he is challenged by the party hierarchy - then he MUST be allowed to defend his position. The rules for newcomers do not apply for the incumbent that is challenged.
So Corbyn won that race with an even higher margin (despite some shenanigans, purging new members, etc,)
it is interesting how the DNC and the neoliberal wing of Labor react in the same way and use similar strategies (death by a 1000 cuts), covert but also brazen and open rigging, help from their buddies from the media, ... when they have to deal with acitvated and subordinate voters, and a politician willing to work for the base and not big biz.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@njosborne6152 Contact the campaign of Shahid Buttar, maybe there is a chance that the homeless CAN register somewhere. They should know, his district has a lot of homeless.
I guess that would also be important for getting a bank account. Of course they do not want the homeless to vote.
Also check out the channel of Cheap RV Living. he has videos of how to set up residency (in a state). For the nomads. People that only live in a RV or even out of a passenger car. Some by necessity and some by choice. Some have a house or apartment as backup, or relatives, but others only have a home on wheels.
Do you have friends, charities, churches that could help you with a registration of residency ?
Maybe that info helps. California is not the typical choice for a nomad to be registered, but the points he speaks about in other states could still be relevant. medical care, gun rights, income tax (for those who do it by choice), ... if you need to be a certain time of the year there
1
-
Michael Moretti Dr. Ford had nothing to corroborate her story so a "positive" polygraph helped. If she had fluked, it would NOT be proof that she made the allegations up, though. If Kavanaugh had been willing to take one, and had fluked it, he likewise could have blamed the stress of the situation.
But coming out with NO stress while repeating your claims is some proof. Not absolute, but it is a major part of the puzzle. I gave Dr. Ford credit that she passed her test. It almost made sure, that she was NOT a political hack, cynically a and criminally making up allegations.
It meant that SHE believed it to be true.
There is always a chance that Dr. Ford or Tara Reade have a severe personality disorder (so that Reade made up the story and then told her mother, friend, brother about an assault that never happened).
Believing what you say and passing the polygraph test does not mean it IS true.
In the grande scheme of things: The most likely scenario (overwhelming likelyhood) is that both women said the truth. - And the offense of Biden is worse in my opinion. * (adult sober man who planned it, versus drunk teenage boys who improvised - and let Christine go after they could not undress her - the bathing suit saved the day - and toppled over in their drunk state).
It is possible, but needs training to overcome the machine (they train spies and military to pass polygraph tests).
But without careful longer (? ongoing) training a person will not be able to suppress the signs of stress that humans have when they (knowingly !) tell things that are not true. Not if an experienced team tests them.
* Kavanaugh should not have been appointed Supreme Court Justice anyway: He already lied to get the other lifetime appointment (Dems got the proof YEARS after the Bush admin got him appointed. Finally and after a lot of D resistance. then he was appointed for life to the 2nd most important court of appeal. I do not know why the feckless useless grandstanders did not grill him on THAT.
Plus he lied again in the hearings related to the accusations of Dr. Ford, and at least twice. It showed that he does not have the character for the position (how about some humility apologizing for - or more like ADMITTING what he obviously did wrong as a teenager and young adult.
Not lying about being black out drunk during week TOO - there are too many witnesses.
Also he ignored the legal drinking age rules in MD - and claiming otherwise in the hearings is dumb or brazen. he was asked about it, and lied about it under oath. Defying the law as not yet 18 year old is one thing - being too vain to admit it decades later under oath is another thing. I think no one would have held that against him, provided he would stop paininghimself as that exceptional yough. He wasn't, he was a brat, and a drunkyard - like many others and he grew out of some of that behavior (but maybe not out of the mindset of an entitled brat).
A hint of humility and having been on the wrong side of the law (in the past and on minor things) is not a bad thing in a judge - it rounds their personality - provided he or she matures after that.
As a judge he might have to deal with cases related to sexual assault.
His ego did not allow him to admit that he was a young fool (he did a non-apology apology in the beginning, nothing genuine). It is clear that he is not drinking now, and does not have wild party escapades, and female employees went on record that he was supportive and conducted himself correctly.
But preserving the image of the hard working teenager was more important than telling the truth and showing his character by admitting to former wrong doing. Admitting to black out drinking (and that it happened more often) does not prove the claims of Dr. Ford - it makes them a little more likley.
His vanity (about his PAST conduct - as a teenager) made him LIE under oath. Even Republicans that knew him during his school time and were initially proud that "one of our school will be on the Supreme court) were shocked.
That said: the most likely version is in both cases, that it happened as told.
And the assault of Biden is worse than the assault attempt of two completely drunk teenagers (who likely did not plan that - and let her go after trying to take of her clothes - the bathsuit she wore under her dress saved the day).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mark Ayers Example for reforms (Austria: hospitals, Germany: private insurance, Australia: favors for private insurers by the government - skip if you are not into details)
Austria: They merged stations, opened other stations like palliative instead, etc. They merged two birth stations in a large city (so it does not matter regarding driving distances).
Because a Catholic run hospital got the birth station / gynecology the city run hospital will now do the abortions. The agency and the local and state governments see to it that the hospitals complement each other, they do not compete.
The mayor and the citizens of a town with a smaller hospital protested, so I think they got to keep their birth station (driving distance in rural areas).
Or another reform
a new EU rule reduces the hours doctors can work in one setting. So they negotiated the contracts of doctors of state run hospitals regarding work time and pay (most hospitals are run by the states, I guess the staff of other hospitals - larger cities and a few run by churches - joined them).
The govenor of the state was at the table as well. They fought hard, the newspapers got the leaks ;), but they found an agreement. Shorter shifts and better pay for junior doctors.
All the other * first world countries (not Switzerland - see next comment) have single payer, and the U.K. took it one step further with the National Health Service. Their "insurance agency" also RUNS the hospitals and many of the doctor practices, they hire the doctors for the practices. There are private doctor practices as well. and maybe they have some small private hospitals for the international oligarchs - for ROUTINE cases only.
But for the big, costly stuff they invariably land in a NHS run hospital, which are equipped to handle the large medical interventions.
A private hospital would not have enough patients to handle the more severe cases in a cost-efficient manner. Not even close.
1
-
Mark Ayers * Private insurance: Switzerland, they have only private insurance too - it shows, they have 78 % of the U.S per capita spending versus roughly 50 %. The range of 49 - 54 % includes the overwhelming majority of all other first world nations. In Austria it is 54 %, same in Sweden, Germany is expensive with 56 %.
France, Belgium, Iceland, Australia, Candada, Japan less then HALF of the U.S.
The U.K. has only 42 % of the U.S. spending per person. But the Tories have defunded the NHS over 10 years, and they had a lean budget to begin with. So the NHS is hanging on but with difficulties. But with HALF of the U.S. spending per person (most of it going of course into the NHS - they deliver the most services) the NHS could run like a charm.
You get the idea. you can verfiy each nation on the site of World Bank, and Kaiser also has a lot of data.
The size of the country does not matter, not even the age of the population makes that much of a difference (Japan is the oldest nation, they do extremely well with 48 or 49 %, THAT is lifestyle = healthy eating, lots of fish etc. Versus Germany with the second oldest population on the globe with 56 %.
So there is a difference of a few hundred bucks per person per year.
The dysfunction in the U.S. costs almost 5,000 USD for every person in the country.
Switzerland sort of contains their private insurers (not good enough) - but they have never developed the predatory toxic culture like the U.S. insurers. With THAT they would not get away in Switzerland.
If the U.S. would have reformed their system let's say in the 1980s or 1990s following the SUCCESSFUL blueprint (first rule: keep out the profiteers) the U.S. as a nation would spend 1,5 TRILLION less every year (most of the savings would benefit citizens and companies, and some would be reduced government spending).
Now, I do not think that Sanders style healthcare would immediately bring down the U.S. costs dramatically. There are costs of transtion, a massive backlog:
Jus ONE example: poorly adjusted diabetes (people rationing insuline because of the extortion prices) and it is very telling that the single payer nations do not have an opiode crisis. The US.where the profiteers are allowed to prey on the insured and patients of course also have that kind of scandal.
There are estimates that more than 1 million of adminstrative staff (insurance, billing, also doctors and hospitals will become redundant. May be a high estimate (to scare voters). The plans include a few billions to help those employees (severance, costs to train them to do USEFUL work).
The insurers also employ lots of doctors and even more nurses to handle the DENIALS. The more they deny to pay for, the more profit they make. That is a TOXIC INCENTIVE. One (only one) of the major reasons "free market" and "for-profit" does not work at all if private insurance dominates.
In Switzerland they have good regulation regarding services, all are insured, but it fails when it comes to cost control. Like in the U.S. a scare campaign has prevented reform so far (insurers, doctors that get higher rates). The Swiss are REALLY a rich nation (I think GDP per person comparable to the U.S. but in that case it means all of the population are doing well). At least they are getting something for their high spending.
78 % of the U.S. spending per person - that is what letting the private insurers dominate and THEN you try to regulate them can get you
Versus paying HALF = 50 %.
Even cost-efficient healthcare in a first world country does cost a lot of money - think USD 5,000 and upwards ! for every person in the country every year. That would be 20,000 - 25,000 USD for a family of four, year after year. Even if they are healthy (it is the average, old people drive up the spending). Even that is too much for low(er) income people.
That's why there is a modest wage related MANDATORY contribution (and provisions for person w/o income). Like in the U.S. the governments help out with funding from general tax revenue. BUT: it helps that they spend only half of what is spent in the U.S. ( for every person in the country) that the systems are simple, streamlined and cost efficient.
If you pay only half per person what the U.S. pays (and all first world nations are in the range of 50 %, take or leave a few percent) ALL actors save money: the citizens, the companies (a LOT) and the government (some).
No one plays games with the insured or patients in single payer nations. The large powerful actors are non-profits (insurance agency and the hospitals). Big pharma is for-profit, they are well contained in price negotiations by the non-profit public insurance agencies (which have a LOT of negotiation power and they certainly need that with big pharma who have monopolies on critical products in many cases).
The U.S. already ! spent USD 10,260 for every person in the country (healthy or not, insured or not) in
2017 (Kaiser, also see World Bank).
A LOT of that comes from government, or the ridiculously expensive system (ruined by the
profiteers) would collapse. The single payer nations also must generously give additional funding - but not AS MUCH per person as the U.S. !
1
-
1
-
Mark Ayers Insurance versus taking a gamble. A high deductibe IS a gamble forced on the insured.Wendell Potter fmr. senior exec, turned whistleblower on the insurance companies: They have NO interest in cost control, they just pass on the costs. And they want to have lots of plans with deductibles (high ones - that muddies the water).
If you have a pool of 100,000 or 10,000 or 1 million people you can run the numbers if you have age and gender. How many broken limbs, heart attacks, cesarians, normal birth, broken limbs, diabetes .... - you can calculate the AVERAGE COSTS per person. slap on the adminstrative costs, sales, marketing, profits, lobbyying, .....
You can then calculate honestly their premiums and let them know in advance.
You know: cost transparency which would be a very necessary condition for any "free market" - which is however on principle not possibe for a service like healthcare.
In single payer countries they have cost transparency for the population, their employers AND the doctors and hospitals. They too know the rates (and how many patients they have on average), and they know they WILL be payed and on time. No chasing after unpaid medical bills.
Because the bar for getting comprehensive and good coverage (like ALL other citizens) is so low (very modest payroll tax, plus provisions for people w/o a job too) they hardly ever encounter uninsured people. EU citizens are covered if they have coverage in their home country (the national public non-profit agencies have contracts with each other).
Even uninsured would be treated (think tourists from outside the EU, sometimes homeless - there are not many, ....). But they would get a bill, the question is of course if providers (especially hospitals - they MUST provide help) can enforce payment. If the uninsured are the rare case, they can be generous, it is not that much of a problem if they miss out on a case.
Contributions in Austria:
3,8 % for a monthly wage between 500 - 5000 USD. That is 19 - 190 USD in mandated payroll tax per month. There is a cap for a yearly wage of 60,000 USD, so the maximum YEARLY contribution is USD 2,400. (I calculated the USD costs, they have EUR of course).
That is not only a mandate - it constitutes also a RIGHT. To FULL coverage (like everybody else). And it includes dependent family members. Not more costs for that, and healthcare risks do not matter. The contributions for company and employee only rise if they pay / get higher wages (3,8 %, cap at yearly wage of 60,000 USD).
The companies have to match what staff must pay. So ALL KNOW exactely what they are going to pay. In advance.
Almost no co-pays later for patients (a little for drugs, but not for low income poeple. Minors get glasses or hearing aides for free. But adults have a co-pay, etc.).
Signing up takes 5 minutes (first day in a new job, the company must announce the data to the agency: name, SS number and the same for the included family members. If both parents have a job over 500 USD per month, one of them names the kids, it does not matter. It is ONE pool.
End of month the company deducts the payroll tax before they pay out the wage. They have a few days to announce to the agency what is due for the month. But they pay that money 45 days later. (So wage for January, the company pays the share of staff member and their contribution mid of March. That is a help for companies).
In the U.S. if the private insurers would let you know your realistic AVERAGE costs in advance (= no deductibles, and very modest co-pays or none) that would mean half of he population would despair because they cannot afford the high premiums. (and Corporate Democrats would have to stop patting themselves on the shoulder how ACA helped to have more people insured. A lot of that is "fake" coverage because of the high deductibles).
In the U.S. costs are so ridiculously high, because the profiteers are allowed to mess up the system in order to MAXIMIZE PROFITS.
The other half of the population (under 65) could pay somehow the extortion prices (so they would at least get sufficient services) but they would riot because they are pissed.
Could be a PITCHFORK / YELLOW VEST MOMENT.
With high deductibles. SOME in that pool will be hit hard when they need treatments or services. It is like a bad kind of lottery:
If you are lucky it is someone else. In the pool of 10,000 or a million people some WILL get the cancer diagnosis, or have the accident, or have the child with asthma.
It is just the questions which INDIVIDUALS are lucky and which not.
That's not a way to organize healthcare in a first world country.
People know they pay an arm and a leg for useless insurance (the deductible is so high they almost always have to pay out of pocket). They have it for the extreme cases (500,000 or 1 million of cost or more) - but of course THEN the insurers are super motivated to screw them.
The more frequent costly cases are those with the "only" considerable costs, like a few ten thousand - and those the insured cannot afford either. Especially if you have an ongoing need for treatment, and the deductible is applicable year after year.
But it will hit each "insured" at different times to a varying degree, when they are already stressed out. Everyone is on their own. DIVIDE AND CONQUER.
Versus: all get the letter: with the realistic costs for ALL averaged out for everyone in the pool.
A pool of insured that is not cherrypicket for the benefit of the insurance companies.
THAT would be the INSURANCE PRINCIPLE ! and COST TRANSPARENCY.
They avoid to come clean about that (also the Democrats that pretend ACA only needs a few tweaks), they avoid the political consequences of being transparent.
1
-
1
-
Mark Ayers Your arguments regarding drugs falls flat as well
Population in millions (some are approx) EU plus 450, UK 65, Japan 130, Australia, Canada 30 each, plus the rich Gulf states, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, New Zealand….
Let's say 800 million people
Plus many not so wealthy, emerging or developing nations (they get better drug prices) Russia, Latin America, China, India, Philippines, Thailand, ….
So you really think the extortion of only 330 million people in the U.S. is necessary so the rest of the 7,8 billion can have reasonable drug prices ?
Even IF that would be true - why would an U.S. citizen be O.K. with that ? I assume you are an U.S. citizen.
The people that get the much lower drug prices vastly outnumber the U.S. population - that could be solved by slapping a small increase on the drug prices of the wealthy nations. IF NECESSARY: Of course their agencies PROTECT the INSURED and do not just jump because of the claim.
As for the negotiating power and results of the public non-profit insurance companies of all other nations: They are obviously doing their job.
The private insurers in the U.S. ? Not. At. All.
They have less negotiating power: And they do not even try.
The agencies in the U.S. cannot negotiate drug prices (exception VA, they brought prices down by 40 % - it is a start).
If the pharma industry claims that they do not have enough revenue / profits after the U.S. citizens also get a good deal - they better have solid evidence.
Drug prices are the low hanging fruit to control costs. (** see below why that is the case). Drug prices are internationally comparable because the products are very standardized).
Sure, there would be an incentive for big pharma to bribe top management of the public agenices. On the other hand the single payer agencies always need to pay attention to the budgets.
Drug prices are the low hanging fruit to control costs.
In that situation, demands of the pharma industry that they need better prices will get a lot of scrutiny. They make promises at investor roadshows what they have in the pipeline and what profit shareholders can expect.
Many of them are publicly traded, and they have a legal obligation to be truthful. So there is only so much whining they can do.
Moreover:
The costs for developing drugs have not risen (on the contrary in the U.S. they are fast tracked for approvements, less obligation to test etc.), they can EXTEND patents (under flimsy pretexts) etc.
But the markets have grown. China, Brazil, India, … even if they sell at lower prices than in first world nations, they still make more profits, the costs of development are the same, but sold volumes are higher (depends on the cost of approval - but they don't have to do it over in all nations. I also assume the emerging nations are not too picky. If a drug is approved in the U.S., U.K. Japan that will clear the path).
So the pretex that they need the U.S. racket to have enough funding for future investments does not hold up.
Also you have just to look at their MARKETING costs, or the profits they publicize.
Healthcare costs are rising everywhere, even in cost efficient systems. Modern medicine becomes more capable, but also more expensive. People are getting older (even in relatively young nations like Australia or the U.S.)
So the insurance agencies always are on the outlook to cut costs. a major cost factor are hospitals, and the costs for staff (or self employed doctors with their own practice).
That btw is one of the reason public non-profit health insurance agencies and non-proft hospitals are doing a good job worldwide. Also when it comes to COSTS and prudent use of resources. The correcting factor is built in, costs are rising anyway, and voters are highly sensitive of the quality of THAT service.
If they try to save labour costs, it will show in quality, burn out of doctors and nurses, etc. These professions have the sympathy and support of the population.
(Unlike the insurers - agencies AND companies - that are middle men. The public non-profits are well behaved middle men that help to make healthcare happen. They have low adminstrative overhead and work quietly in the background. No one "loves" them, but they do a good job, and do not give the population trouble).
But if they do not want to be in the biz - I am all for the governments to step up. After all they already finance a LOT of basic research. (that costs a LOT, there are naturally a lot of flops). So far the pharm industry scoops that up as soon as something looks promising, the flops are on the dime of tax payers (often the U.S. tax payers).
An U.S. agency CDC holds a patent for a drug Truvada that reduces HIV transmission
There is a public interest to have such a drug and the tax payer paid for development / testing. Gilead in California produces the drug (or they have it produced and market it).
It costs 1800 USD in the U.S. and 8 USD in Australia (looks like that price is a price for low -income persons and it costs more for other people (I read about 168 for a monthly supply. Which is still only 10 %..
see comment section in that article
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/aoc-hiv-drug-cost-us-australia-ceo-gilead-video-a8919316.html
Why ? because the patent laws in Australia protect the consumers and the laws in the U.S. protect the profits of big pharma.
The patent has not yet expired in the U.S. that's why it is so expensive (said the CEO of Gilead when grilled by AOC in a Congressional hearing in May 2019).
The CEO claims that CDC filed the patent too later. Well, they certainly invested a LOT of funding into developing it, and Gilead built on that foundation.
1
-
Mark Ayers cost effient healthcare costs a nation 9 - 11 % (which is plenty anyway). The rest (in the U.S. theoretically 1,5 trillion USD per year *) would land in the pocket of citizens, their employers (both parties would profit the most), and the government would spend somewhat less compared to now.
Citizens could spend the money for something else and create the jobs for those who get redundant when the system is streamlined. For products where they have choice (incl. the most important choice: Not to buy.
For services where a free market exists and if companies try to rip them off they can stop buying.
Plus all the other avoided costs or benefits, where it is hard to put a price tag on it.
Families that do not lose a family member, people remain in good health longer and can live independently, no bankrupcies, less stress for children if the parents are not struggling financially - that is often reflected in grades, people can DARE to start their own biz.
Add much better chances to stop infectuous diseases (or pandemics even).
The jobs in rural areas when the smaller hospitals have reliable funding.
Up to 1 million people would stop working for a predatory industry and earn their income with productive work. Plus the avoided trauma for those who have to screw over the insured on behalf of the shareholders and top management.
Plus the proof that private for-profit is not always better, that government agencies CAN do a good job. see the comment on drug prices regardin the correcting forced that ensure good quality and cost-efficiency.
* if the U.S. would have already a well established single payer system in place. I compared the 10,260 of 2017 with the typical 5,400 USD in other countries (most nations have that or LESS as spending per person). Difference 4,860 per person for 330 million people. In that scenario many people would get more care, on the other hand there would be the cost effects of early diagnos and preventive care. costs have risen since 2017, but the DIFFERENCE is likely the same.
The Yale study concludes that 450 billion savings are possible, which is less than the eyeballing I did - but there is plenty of savings possible and the citizens will profit the most. Better care, less stress and less spending.
The Sanders proposal is generous; it also includes care for the elderly at home. There are costs - on the other had it is a cost efficient solution compared to homes - if you want to take care of ALL of the population.
If you can keep an elderly person for a year or a few more in their home they will usually be happier AND it saves money. Plus it creates jobs outside of towns with hospitals.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Interesting analysis: With Hillary Clinton in 2016 the right did all the work for Sanders to hit her (with the well deserved criticism and all her baggage, additionally to the hostility they have for every politically active outspoken Democratic female). - He did not get into the trenches then and doesn't do it now. But this time the right did not hit Biden specifically, he was perceived as weak candidate with a lot of default support (also by the "liberal" networks) and there were so many other candidates. The crowded field allowed Biden to hide in the debates.
He did not use his full time ("My time is up" before it was - who does not try to get MORE time to make their case if they can ?) he blundered, and he seemed to be doing worse in the second half of the evening. (Sundowning, they may have given him something to prop him up, but that may wear off).
My take: Sanders seems to believe with media completely biased against him he can just politely make his case, people will go on the internet to find out the truth and the facts. Especially the people that are completely detached from the political process (I bet there are still a lot of people who hardly have an idea who Sanders is or Biden for that matter).
Now (when the internet is all about Cognitive Decline of Joe Biden) he gives long convoluted explanations when an audience question in the recent FOX townhall serves him the question of "Is Biden fit for office ?" on a silver platter:
Trump isn't fit for office and is not good for The People and the same is true for Biden. As for NOT GOOD: that applies to almost all candidates. But they WANT the job out of narcissim, to get the money - and are willing to fight for it. Dirty if need be.
Sanders ... after all is said and done does not really WANT the job. Not so much that he would hit Biden when necessary. He can hit Bloomberg and can be harsh on Trump. But not on his "collegues" - or maybe he shies away from hitting a Democrat.
He will be blamed for Biden (or any other stand in) loosing anyway, he can as well go the full mile.
In 2016 he should have hit Hillary Clinton harder on the email server and go on about her lack of judgement - at best, to ignore the rules for communication. It would not have made any difference. She lost the race anyway (because of arrogance, not giving his base anything, lazy campaigning and taking the Rustbelt states for granted).
But he dutifully campaigned for her, 39 rallies. No good deed goes unpunished. Now she does not miss a chance to lash out athim because it eats her that she didn't WIN (she wanted to
Sanders knows that Ed Schultz was ordered to stand down when he wanted to report live on the announcement of Sanders in spring 2015 to run for president. 5 minutes before start, Phil Griffin called Ed, he was ordered to cover something elses, it was not relevant or breaking news. They ended his contract 40 days later. That was the Clinton machine asking MSNBC for favors.
Ed was a friend of Sanders (a loose connection), he would have gotten plenty of coverage and in a friendly setting where he could explain his policies and no stupid questions with a right wing framing. That would have been a godsend for a campaign with a small budget and no name recognition.
No one incl. Sanders thought they had a shot at the nomination, they planned a 30 million campaign in small donations. But Clinton had an Iowa trauma (2008, Obama won with record turnout, and she was behind trying to catch up ever since).
They thought Sanders could do well in Iowa and New Hampshire and spoil her momentum. So they played dirty literally from the first day.
(Sandes KNOWS that - we know the story only because Ed Schultz told it later. So what is he thinking - that the OTHER SIDE is going to be fair or the media ?
I just saw a WSJ segment about Voters in Georgia. A black man that voted for Trump: "I did not vote for him because he was good in etiquette. I wanted a bull in the china shop". People LIKE a FIERCE FIGHTER, when they see the status quo is not working for them (and they make a lot of concessions for meanness, plain stupidity, bigotry, being uninformed)
If party and "liberal" media villify Sanders how he dare to point out that the campaing of Biden so far has not proved his fitness, because he hasn't campaigned particularily hard - well then many people for the first time HEAR there IS an issue.
Biden is sold on electability.
Obama would not have let HRC off the hook regarding the private illegal email server - and HE WON (the ambitious neoliberal sellout that talked a good game and also WANTED to win).
Sanders could have said (on FOX where he CAN say it): I cannot speak on behalf of Joe Biden and his physical and mental fitness to be president and his ability to exert himself. I know that I have been running a vigorous campaign and that includes the time when my artery clogged up and I ignored fatigue and sleeping badly and ploughed ahead anyway. Which was not a good idea.
I had 2 weeks off during which I got the stents and recovered, the stents fixed my problem and luckily my heart had not suffered damage by lack of oxygen. I am blessed with a lot of energy and I am in good shape overal - so I bounced back right away and returned to my intense schedule.
I know that Joe Biden had a comparatively light schedule in the first 3 early states compared to almost all other candidates (and I had of course also my job as Senator)
Especially now after S.C and Super Tuesday Biden has returned to a light schedule and he does events with 7 minutes speeches.
That is a warmup act on my events, and I speak normally 35 - 40 minutes because I would not know how to not mention all that is important for America in shorter time.
It is of course up to the Biden campaign how they run the race. But the American people can see ME on the treadmill, but they don't see Joe Biden exerting himself physically. Nor do they see him expressing his ideas in a longer unedited live format.
And as I see it, it is important to TAKE tHE TIME and TELL people what your policies and visions are when they made the effort to show up to one of your events.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
in total 43,200 votes in 3 states (GA, AZ, WI) determined the outcome - and Biden needed to win at least one of the 3 states, if we take PA as a saf(er)win. PA, WI, AZ, GA were the 4 nailbiters. But in PA Biden had at least 1.2 % resp. 81,000 votes more and Jo Jorgensen's results were not a multiple of his lead. Which was another freak out moment if you look at WI, AZ and GA.
Resp. Biden needed to win 2 out of the 4 states that took days to call. PA was not a must win, 2 states in any combination would have given Biden enough electors. Even the 2 smallest (WI and AZ = 11 + 10) would have landed Biden at 270. So except for maybe faithless electors he would have been good.
But PA alone (the most electors = 20) would have put Biden only at 269 = a tie with Trump.
Then in the House for each state ONE delegate would be chosen/elected/determined, and they pick the president.
Dems had a mjaority, but that is like the EC in The House and would have given Republicans an advantage.
And the Senate picks the VP - there the Republicans had the majority.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@quentinjaxon7309 in a VOTE in Iowa (if you want to draw conclusions for the prospects for the whole primary or the general for a white rural "conservative" state) it would be 29 or 28 % of the vote for Sanders in the FIRST round and 21 % for Pete - and I think 18 or 19 for Warren and 12 % for Biden.
But Pete has thrown all the big donor money into THAT state to woe the potential Iowa base. That includes Independents, people can register on site.
Sanders is doing well on the ground in many states.
The pete campaign has also worked with a feature of ONE metric: the State Delegate Equivalent - where rural votes count more. Well played from a strategic point for THAT state, but that will not help him in the general or in other primary states.
Sanders has a country wide and growing army of volunteers. Pete has money, and I guess after he did well in Iowa (he did, no doubt: a good 2nd place, and that was not reflected in the polls) the big donors will give him more money to buy ads, and staff for his groundgame.
pete is liked by white elderly people if they are doing well under the status quo (and white, coastal affluent people with a degree, that is a base he shares with Elizabeth Warren). That crowd likes him - and they would be also O.K. with Biden, Klobuchar, Bloomberg ... anyone that signals they will maintain the status quo.
Buttigieg has no appeal with the black community or Latinos, and they are needed to win the primary and the general.
That well-off complacent old(er) folks are not passionate volunteers, they will not work their tails off for free in a campaign. Sanders has these people, I think Yang and Gabbard have them, too - Pete gets a certain demographic and he will have to compete for these voters against Bloomberg who throws even more money around.
Iowa does not have many minorities - but the Sanders campaign reached out to Latinos, to black people to working class people of all walks of life. THAT worked really well, they killed it in the satellite caucuses (set up for people that have little time, work 2 jobs, work night shifts and could't particate in the caucus in the evening).
Sanders killed it there: over 80, 70, 56 % in the 3 of the 4 that the Democratic party could be bothered to finally release.
Funny how they held back the results for those precincts till the very end - or the premature victory lap of Buttigieg would not have been possible.
The missing 3 % includes the last satellite precinct and Sanders will do very well there. So he has a good chance to beat Pete even in the SDE metric - that was hyped by the media for whatever reason.
SDE used to be more influental for the state primary "result" (State delegates could change the national delegates). The convention is a national ! affair.
But State Delegates cannot do that anymore after the reform, SDE's are still important for the Iowa Democratic party affairs (the STATE party) but not for the presidential race that concerns ALL of the country.
1
-
@storbokki371 there never has been socialism in a country (the workers owning the means of production). Fascist Germany helped Franco to end the Spanish experiment. I think the Kurds had some experiments going on - until Trump removed the U.S. soldiers that prevented Erdogan from attacking them.
The U.S. regime-changed any government (or started a war) against any country the even leaned in that direction (like a mild land reform in Chile in the 1970s). They also propped up the dictators that brutally crushed such democratic attempts.
The Mondragon Cooperative in Spain shows how that can work, the largest in the world. But that is still only a large company not a nation.
The Soviets and the Chinese have / had State Capitalism (a term that Lenin coined). The state owned the means of production and determined what was produced where, sold how and what wages and conditions the workers would have. Also who was managing the company.
That is not the workers being in charge ! (Owning the means of production would include at least some say).
Top down orders - not by private owners but by bureaucrats.
In the Soviet Republics, the Warsaw Pact states and China with some considerations to the public welfare (partially, because the workers or the citizens were not allowed to demand changes or to organize.
For instance in Eastern Germany they had jobs for everyone and no one was homeless, it was also no problem to get sick leave if the person OR a child was sick. they would not be fired for that. (But if a person got into trouble with the party then it was possible to lose the job). It is not as if the fellow workers had a veto.
But they had a worse situation regarding pollution compared to Western Germany where people could protest and pressure for improvements. The Capitalists would not have done anything but it was possible to force them.
State capitalism usually also does not accept and use (very necessary) feedback from the base: consumers, workers, plant managers, retail. So of course the methods of production and the products are not nearly as good or innovative.
In Capitalsim most companies must please their customers. So they come up with a lot of innovation, and adjust if they are producing too expensive or the consumers do not like quality. Admitted a lot of "innovation" it is nonsense, for marketing, product differentiation (more to display innovation, than to really innovate) and to maximize profits,
But from time to time they come up with something good. (Basic research is always massively publicly funded - see the video Capitalism did not create the iPhone you iMbecile on the channel of Current Affairs).
After the Russian Revolution and putting the czar into house arrest in 1917 they had a few months a fumbling democracy (at least the attempt) incl. lots of cooperatives. People organized themselves, they stayed at the same places, many people worked in agriculture anyway. But they founded the "Soviets" (think Kibbuzim system).
But control over how people earn their livelyhood empowers them a lot. And if people organize onTHAT level, are confident and successful with it, and take control over their life (the work part of it) naturally that would spill over to them being organized in the political sphere.
Uppity nosy citizens making demands and holding government to account. So any dictatorial minded wanna be politicians would despise such grassroots solutions.
Like the U.S. ruling class goes beserk whenver a country in Latin America or Asia pulls even mildly in the left direction.
The U.S. government on behalf of the oligarchs only meddles covertly with Social Democratic (center left) governments in Australia, NZ, Europe if they were not completely aligned with U.S. oligarchy interests or the war agenda - for political and cultural reasons it is not possible to have an open war against European countries that are democracies.
So Europe got a Marshall Plan (only Spain didn't - fascist dictator Franco then has a firm grip on the country. So what was the point. there were not Social Democrats and parties more to the left that got plenty of votes because economic recovery after WW2 was sluggish (or worse). It was not necessary to help out.
So Germany and Italy (ally of Nazi Germany until they got rid of Mussolini and were about to lose the war, THEN they switched sides) did get the Marshall Plan - but not Spain. The rational: they were on the wrong side in WW2 ! True Franco only won the Spanish Civil War with help of Nazi Germany, they stayed neutral during WW2 - but were of course friendly with Germany. So Italy and Germany got it .. but not Spain ....
Of course the Civil war in Russia was not over. Needless to say the U.S. France, U.K. (and Japan) meddled and supported the troops of the former absolute monarch. A feudal system being toppled and rich people being dispossessed set a very bad example. (they had even troops on Russian soil). But France and U.K. could not sell ANOTHER war to their population and their colonies had seized the chance that the colonial masters were busy with WW1 and gave them trouble. Same with the irish. The U.S. powers also did not start an open prolonged war - so the Soviet Union got away with it. For a time, but they knew they were on borrowed time and it had nothing to do with being a democracy or a brutal dictatorship. (a benign reasonably well functioning democracy would have been an ever worse example).
A few months later in fall 1917 (October Revolution, but I think it is October only in the Russian calendar) the Bolshevics seized power and they expanded and consolidated that (they also went after striking railway workers for instance so no worker friendly government).
They were among the fiercest and successful fighters (so the meddling of the colonial powers U.S., U.K. France) helped to prop up the antidemocratic forces. They killed the czar and family (they had been held in house arrest so far). The supporters of the czar came close to where the monarch was held, they had a battle there. and the Bolshevics decided to kill him.
Those troops supporting the monarchy (the White Army) had foreign support, so in a weird way UK, France and U.S. CREATED the next enemy, the Russian empire now run by totalitarian Bolshevics - and as often in violent revolution the most violent Revolutionaries make it to the top. Not the moderate forces.
Lenin was not democratically minded - and on his deathbed he feared Stalin getting into power after him. Stalin was worse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
the app is a success (and it may also be a testrun how much the DNC can get away with). The chaos is a feature not a bug. The PRIZE in Iowa is the media attention the winner gets. Iowa sends only 40 delegates to the convention, that is not that much (California, south Carolina, New York, Texas are much more important).
That effect was diluted for the winner (Sanders) and it deflected unwanted attention from the loser, Biden. (Mr. Most Electable / Best Chance Against Trump did much worse than expected. He can't even get over the 15 % threshold in Iowa as fmr VP).
Impeachment final. State of the union address. Media also musing how the results are not that important after all. (the results are when it comes to delegate. The momentum for the early states is important).
They give Buttigieg his victory lap (based on no data) and seem to be very willing to move on. In order to protect the status quo candidates of the Democratic party: Biden and Buttigieg. To conjure up more momentum for Buttigieg for the upcoming next states.
It is not as positive for the Sanders campaign, and it helps with glossing over the terrible Biden result.
They also had "found" methodical errors with a very renowed poll that traditionally comes out immediately before the caucus.
Joe Scarborough and other media people had seen it under condtion of confidentiality. He hinted that the numbers were way off compared to the last poll they had availabe - and they spoke about the positive prospects for Sanders, so I assumed one day before the caucus that the Biden numbers were way off - and not in a good way.
methinks the FLAW (the pretext why they held back the last poll) was either exagerated or manufactured. If it had been positive for the establishment darlings they could have lived with a methodical error. Or they would have published it and retracted later (so de facto it is out there and gets attention).
Since they did not want to give a boost to the positive trend of Sanders, and bury Biden before he even started, they found a pretext to not release it (and had that loophole ready to use if they wanted to). And I think Morning Joe knew that.
Iowa sends only 40 delegates to the convention, so it is not about the delegates, it is about media attention and momentum when going forward to the next early states.
There are 2 more rounds, a few weeks later. The first round (where approx 11,000 delegates are awarded by approx. 1680 precincts) gets the MOST media attention, it is seen as test run how well a campaign can do and how well they are organized.
The final result can change in the later rounds (if the volunteer delegates do not stick around ar change allegiance). But the final composition of (a total of only 40) delegates gets little attention in March or even April.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
al luvial Chomsky in 2008 (he saw right through Obama) Vote blue ONLY in swing states, vote third party (Green Party) in safely blue or red states, - which are the majority of states). His reason: even small differences and being marginaly less evil adds up to big differences over time in a country as powerful as the U.S. And voting in masses for another party also signals to the cynical Dems that the voters have woken up to their plot.
with 16 % or so the Greens would be hard to exclude from the debates.
Jill Stein got 1 % of the vote, Gary Johnson got 3 % !
Chomsky referenced that advice in 2012 when he told people AGAIN to hold their nose firmly and to vote for Obama not Romney - in Swing States and Green Party everywhere else. (and down ballot the most left version, down ballot the D primaries are the most crucial elections).
I find it interesting that NC does not mention that NOW, maybe he has lost faith in the intelligence of the electorate (I would not be surprised).
a) a sufficient number of voters listen to NC - than the no win situation would not occur, The Greens would have gotten 20 % in the last election (Ross Perot got 18 or 19 % in 1992, allegedly w/o costing Bush Sr. the reelection, looks like Republican voters are smarter, or he activated a lot of non voters)
b) it does not matter, what NC says of has been saying for decades. Because voters are to effing stupid (in sufficient numbers) to play the "long" game. They gladly go along with the lesser evilism plot while the oligarchs folllow through with your moves for decades.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@richardalderman2752 I live in a single payer country. No other wealthy country has public option, most of them set up or overhauled the systems directly after WW2 - as single payer. If they set it up with comprehensive coverage (basic dental and ambulances and airlifts included) and have reasonable funding for that (= much less than in the U.S.) there is very little room left for private insurance.
For the nice to have extras it is cheaper to pay out of pocket if and only if you want them.
The single room with better food can get pricey in some countries: that would be the only reason to have supplemental ! coverage. If you want to spend that much. I do not see the advantage. If I am still able to complain about a snoring fellow patient in the other bed (or 3 in one room) then I do not really have a problem.
Single room and better food becomes irrelvant when you need intensive care.
There is a concept in the corporate world: benchmarking.
4 continents, 70 years, many countries with different average age, lifestyle and risks, cultures - and then you end up with HALF of of the U.S. spending per person, take or leave a few hundred bucks (48 - 54 % covers the overwhelming majority of all wealthy nations).
The U.S spent 10,260 USD per person in 2017, and a first world nation should be able to pull it off in the range of 4,900 - 5,800 USD.
Did I mention no one has the public option ? (developing or emerging nations may have - and then invariably a 2 class system. Chile maybe but I did not verify just read a comment).
Single payer nations do not allow the private insurers (or private hospitals for that matter, most do not have private for profit hospitals) a large role in the system. Only to have then the need to "regulate" them (which is a fool's errand).
it is like insisting ! that you let a wolverine, a racoon, and a chimpanzee into your house. There is no good reason why they should be there, they do not add value, but you insist on it. If you watch them ALL the time and be careful you might be able to "regulate" them. The problem: you can't turn your back on them, checking them will eat up a lot of your resources (time) and it is going to fail anyway. The fun begins when they start interacting - with each other or the furniture.
The other point of view: there is no reason to have them in the house, they have a space in their ecological niche, and you realize that it is impossible to control them in. So you do not try in the first place, but deny them entry.
Version 1 - ACA was the foolish attempt to insist that the private insurers MUST continue to play a role, that from now on they would not show predatory behavior and that it would possible to regulate them into behaving ethically. With very complex regulations. (= costs, and complexity always helps the large for-profit players)
Version 2 - all other countries.
Not Switzerland, they too rely fully on private healtcare insurers (all residents are mandated to buy that individually, the cantos = states subsidize low income people). Regulation works partially (and the Swiss are great in direct democracy, so they do not have to put up with nonsens, when their politiicans do not deliver).
Services are good, everyone is covered and they pay staff well. But cost control does not work. 78 % of the U.S. spending per person, but a much better system than the U.S. and for everyone. They arguably have one of the best in Europe, but it does cost.
Single payer very much reduce the role of large private for profit actors especially for the middle men (= healthcare insurer). (I should add that there a few nations where right governments have created a niche for the profiteers. usually the majority of the population has single payer, but 10 % get privileges (Germany higher income people are allowed to opt out, but they do that only if they are young / healthy) or are pushed out of the public pool with punitive taxes for affluent citizens (Australia). There is not godo reason to do that except for the desire to let the profiteers have more of the "market". In australia that even creates a market for private hospitals. it is possible because the population is very concentrated in certain areas.
healthcare is a terrible fit for free market, the consumers will be exploited because they can be exploited. And not even well intentioned law makers or regulators can help because of the complexity of modern medicine.
1
-
@richardalderman2752 For profit healthcare insurence brings nothing to the table:
with the same budget per person and comparable pools (not cherrypicked) the non-profits will ALWAYS get you more bang for your buck. (no costs for marketing, sales, profits, many different contracts add complexity on the side of the providers and the insurers have higher admin costs, as well.
Handling the many contracts, and checking the bills before they get paid for instance.
They do not have the negotiating power of a single payer agency.
And that is assuming they would be honest players. There are many incentives to game to system a little bit (hospitals "milking" good contracts) up the the toxicity in the U.S.
The problem: the toxic culture is now deeply ingrained in the U.S. insurance companies, it is even harder to reign them in than in other countries.
(the non-profit insurance agencies should be one or only a few entities, or you miss out on the cost savings of a very streamlined system. In reality most nations have more than one "single" payer agency, but they cooperate and coordinate, funnel budgets around and share information (for instance what rates are paid to doctors, it can make sense to have different rates in a rural state versus a region that is ecoomic powerhouse).
Or they are under one umbrella. Some of the solutions are historically grown, a typical solution seems to be that there is one agency per province, state.
Not that it is necessary, it can have small advantages either way.
Healthcare is uniquely well suited to be handled by public non-profits in a one-size fits all fashion.
Has to do with unique features of medicine which also affects admin around healthcare (one kind of admin is "insurance" coverage). It is standards, protocols, and there are blueprints how to set up hospitals or doctor practices, how many you need per 100,000 residents etc.
One size fits all:
There is no product variation for a gallbladder surgery. What are consumer preferences for chemotherapy ? And what would be the luxury versus the plain version of life saving ermergency surgery ?
The only ethical differences you could make is regarding single room, food, almost anything else has impacts on outcomes.
Either a test is necessary or not (with some room to err on the side of caution) . If not the rich person does not need it, and if there is a chance for better outcomes what would be the rational to deny a low-income person getting it ?
In single payer nations the patients know their costs. a mandatory modest payroll tax, and they are done. Almost no costs later (and no high costs, co-pays for drugs - 6 USD etc.).
1
-
@richardalderman2752 Single payer systems DRAFT the wealthy to use the same facilities and doctors as regular people. Wealthy people are a strong ally to ensure quality (they do not put up with crap and have a megaphone in society). They must help fund the system (payroll tax is not enough, it is modest, so there must be extra funding from government = taxes).
Now they can pay out of pocket but realistically that means: some doctor practices will offers "private only" services, but not when costs get high (hospitals).
Most doctors will have a contract with the public non-profit agency, and all hospitals.
the affluent will often use the public services - why not: they are made to pay into it.
No duplicative coverage is an important rule:
It means if the agency offers coverage no private insurer can include the service / treatment / procedure in a plan. So insuance companies can offer supplemental, or travel insurance.
No duplicative coverage means de facto only out of pocket payments for all that is medically necessary if delivered by a doctor that does not cooperate with the insurance agency.
It is important not to exclude necessary medical services from single payer coverage. Else there will be only the private offers of doctors and it will be more expensive. Or it drives the need to have supplemental insurance, also expensive.
Example: dental in the U.K. In many other countries basic dental is included.
Ambulances and airlifts should be included as well.
The decision to pay extra (for "private only") or not will be made on a case to case base. if people would have insurance (or their employer pays) they have an incentive to use it. (gated communities)
Otherwise there is always the incentive to use this time the public coverage "free at the point of service" provided by doctors cooperating with the public insurer.
It is a psychological deterrent for patients, and a practical for doctors. Chasing after money, or they do not have enough patients willing to pay out of pocket. If they do not offer extra value (capacity in the field, extra good with little children, ....), many must accept the public contract. (and acceptable wait times are not enough to justify private, that is a question of having enough doctors).
If most doctors and all hospitals have a contract with the single payer agency: That means a lot of choice for patients.
Of course the country must graduate enough doctors and nurses and the rates must be sufficient. = budgets of the public insurance agency.
Medical staff and hospitals can appeal to the court of public opinion if they think they are underpaid or the rates are not enough.
it should not be made easy for the wealthy to retreat to the medical equivalent of gated communities. And if the system is properly funded services will be good. That way that group HAS SKIN IN THE GAME.
Not only by being made to pay into it but also - and that is important - to USE it. (if they pay but de facto use a lot of private services or private insurance they will start resenting to pay)
it is much harder for right parties to attack the system. It would be lucrative: healthcare is a large part of the economy (9 - 11 % of GDP in wealthy nations versus plus 18 in the U.S.)
All profit from the cost efficiency. But the taxes from the higher incomes are needed, and of course right wing parties could promise tax cuts, defund the system ("not our voters that get subpar services and long wait times"). The wealthy would use private doctors and insurance plans. Those would be more expensive (private always is) but at some point they benefit more from the tax cuts.
The rich have the most to gain and they usually have the most influence on politicians. If insurance companies already play a larger role than is ideal they will try to get their hands on MORE - if single payer is well established and coverage is comprehensive the insurance companies are kept out of the market.
If they are only engaged at the fringes, they do not even try to lobby politicians. (Full coverage is more complex than supplemental, that is a different and tricky business model)
health insurance plans (supplemental) is typically offered by national companies, and if healthcare is only a fringe market for the local insurance companies they show little interest to expand that. it is a complex issue, and the voters are usually protective of the public system, so they do not even try.
A COALITION from low income to upper class prevents attacks.
1
-
@SteveM-gj2vy I think especially the specialists with their own practice are much better paid than their peers in other rich countries. The U.S. CAN maintain that - then they will have to pay more for having healthcare for all - but still not as much as now. Switzerland has higher costs of living and that means higher wages for medical staff. Howerver, one major cost driver is that they are one of the very few nations that also only rely on private insurance.
Mind you that they - like almost all countries in Europe - have a much older population. THAT is also a major cost driver. (The size of the country does not matter, most wealthy countries are in the range of 49 - 54 % of U.S. spending per person. Which was USD 10,260 in 2017 - Kaiser Foundation).
The Swiss operate at 78 % of the U.S. spending per person. Compared to 56 % in neighbour country Germany.
Free medical school helps - the doctors in other countries get their training for free. But even so (a part of) U.S. doctors earn more than their peers in other countries.
It should be noted that they are doing fine and there is no mass movement to immigrate to the U.S. (the rules for recognizing the training are restrictive, but if they would do badly at home they could invest into that. I think Canadian doctors have it easier to migrate to the U.S. but they don't do that either.
The American Medical Association intentionally kept graduation (and immigration) numbers down - so that the rates (and their negotiation position) can stay high.
A single payer agency has much more negotiating power than any insurance company (even large ones).
Because they cover the overwhelming majority of citizens.
And THEY can keep things very streamlined and admin costs down. even if a lot of (honest) non-profit private insurers would cover the population - they would add unproductive administrative complexity / costs - on both sides: insurers AND the doctors / hospitals. The contracts would be different, so the providers would have to navigate that.
Only capacities in their fields (beyond good standards of the regular doctors mind you) or doctors that have specialities (for instance accupuncture, expensive dental, ...) will be able to attract patients for their "private only" practice. Even those rates tend to be more reasonable, if they ask for too much people will not buy (the basics are always covered free at the point of delivery).
The rule to not allow duplicative coverage is also crucial in single payer systems. A doctor or hospital can of course not be forced to have a contract with the (well negotiated) rates of the single payer agency. But IF the procedure / treatment would be covered by the agency - then the patients can only pay out of pocket for that. Because no insurance company is allowed to offer coverage for THAT.
That is a deterrent for patients AND doctors.
So the private offers (care and insurance) usually only deals with bills that are not very high and services that CAN be provided by a doctor practice. Life saving surgery etc. the big bills in the hospitals, cancer reatment ... that is always handled via the public system, even for upper class people. So they see their higher taxes put to good use from time to time THAT is also a main feature: let the affluent use the same services and providers as everyone else. That will grant good quality and parties pandering to the affluent cannot undermine the public system - their voters like it too.
Typical examples for "private": expensive dental (basic dental should be covered and is in most countries). BETTER hearing aides, Accupuncture, weight loss clinics, plastic surgery.
Consumers fare better when they pay out of pocket (the rates for such insurance are high, and it covers the marketing, sales and admin cost of the insurance) - but if someone wants to have that kind of insurance, go ahead.
In a single payer country the hospitals are typically non-profits and 80 % of the doctors accept the rates of the non-profit public insurance agency. They MUST - or they would not have enough patients.
On the other hand: no chasing after money, doctors in the U.S. spend a lot of time on the phone to ask for permission of certain treatments or to justify demands (even nurses have to do that). That is a waste of their valuable work time. Billing is VERY streamlined (it is insanely complex in the U.S. that means needing staff and complex software.
Ask coders that work for the industry.
The providers get the money reliably and on time.
One of the important features of a single payer system is that the doctors and hospitals hardly ever encounter someone who does NOT have insurance coverage. And if the patients have it - they have 100 % coverage, so it is clear that the doctors can chose from the full "menu" of medical options for them. And the billing is very streamlined, no co-pays, exclusions etc.
So they will not lose 40 % or whatever it may be - because they also have LOWER costs.
The insurers are for the most part paper shufflers and beancounters, unproductive, profit extracting middle men. In other countries the single payer agencies are the middle men - but they serve the public good, stay in the background and have low adminstrative overhead, the consumers rarely have to do with them - and they certainyl do not annoy the insured / patients.
1
-
1
-
1
-
What do you mean threaten ? They renegotiated: the tariffs should have been contractually fixed (not tweeted !) at a level that makes it less attractive for U.S. companies to outsource, they need to sell at least a large share of the vehicles in the U.S.. so lower wage costs (it is only a few % of total costs, likely 4 % or even less, and other lower costs) - but then a hefty import tariff is added. if they do not want that, they have to leave the market to other producers. or stay in the U.S.
I heard that even restaurants have only 9 % of labor costs as share of total costs (I heard that related to the minimum wage debate, even if they now only pay federal minimum 7.25 and it doubles to 15 till 2025 - that means they would have to raise prices by 9 % if they pass it all on.
A little more if we assume that they purchawse services like laundy and half products that are also created with help of minimum wage workers. (or above, it trickles up).
So let's generously say it would be 15 % in total what they need to add to prices - but until 2025. Assuming that they do not have more biz to absorb a part of that: Minimum wage workers in that state or region now also make double.
From 15k to 30,000 annually before taxes is substantial, people slightly above also get more (it trickles up).
A state that still has 7.25 is poor,. A lot of that money would go into the service sector for little luxuries they can afford now - the very same industries that have the higher costs can hope to tap into a new consumer group.
The share of labor in the total costs is of course less than 9 % in manufacturing. (O.K. they also save regarding environmental protection, maybe local taxes, likely they extract some bribes from Mexico). But even if the cut down only 1 or 2 % - it is of a large pie, and it has to benefit only relatively few people ......
Having the low tariffs permanently secured for them in an international treaty was the reason to have NAFTA, they turned their back on the domestic workers, but still wanted and needed the domestic consumers.
In order to SELL the cars (or whatever) in the U.S. - they needed to have RELIABLE, permanent low import tariffs. Based on that they could plan the multimillion dollar investments (fully tax deductible of course) and their future profits.
One does not "threaten" tariffs, one FIXES them. Not with tweets.
Nafta 2.0 new and shiny was as much a sham as the "revised" version of Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Ross perot had won over 18 % running as Independent in the general in 1992.
Bill Clinton won. Bush1 had signed NAFTA with the other head of states in his single term as president, and he was the VP that ran the show under Reagan when they started negotiating it.
So Bush1 could not distance himself from NAFA in the 1992 debates. Perot slammed it and Bill Clinton promised the unions he would consider their concerns. Did not happen of course.
The Mexicans would then of course not allow the import of cheap U.S. agricultural products into Mexico, which was a disaster for their small farmers (one reason people are coming), it is not like they all get an industrial job in exchange. And they make a point of not paying them well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Saagar is delusional if he thinks that Obama was into "cultural wars", and white supremacy is form of indentity politics and one with much uglier results and motivations than only virtue signalling of some Democrats. As for Obama: on the contrary he did not even dare or bother to speak up against police brutality against black people.
The cultural war was waged by the Republicans from day one against a Republican Lite president * They could not claim he had not won (it was a landslide in 2008: Florida, Ohio, of course the other typical blue states in the North, even North Carolina. Virginia too), so they foolishly questioned if he was even born as U.S. citizen.
Clearly some were convinced that he did not belong in the White House before he even had time to enact any policies.
I wonder why that wase.
Republicans swore from day one they would make him a one term president. Gee, I wonder what was the motiviation behind that.
The right wingers were incensed about him wearing tan suits, eating Dijon mustard, or that Michelle was promoting healthy food and fresh produce or that she wore sleeveless dresses that showed her well toned arms.
Clearly the nudes of Melania are nothing compared to those transgressions of Michelle. (She is also guilty of being a successful lawyer, while having a family. Melania got herself a rich man when her middle of the road career as model faded out, and did not work in a job ever since. Nor could she be bothered to learn English well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I disagree with that, the country is a mess it took decades to get there, and would not be fixed anytime soon. and they could always remind voters of the glory days when they fought for minimum wage or M4A. As in: voters NOTICED they were putting up a spirited fight. E.Warren built her name recognition that way.
Someone will have a seat, and voters usually (if they trust a politician) just come out for them. The Civil Rights icons, the people with good name recogniton get/got voted for time and again.
I think that Sanders also gets the default vote. Chances are any D that comes along and talks progressive will not be better, but could be much worse. Let alone Republicans. There have been cases where politicans talked a good game. Some even had some track record Kyrsten Sinema. If Obama had been longer in DC voters could have seen his votes.
But he had a clean slate.
When the Republicans (and some Democrats) more or less refused to confirm her as chair of the Finance consumer protection agency she had created and fought for * - she did one better and became Senator. Sure in blue MA, but there are plenty of politicians interested to get a safely blue seat, so a lot of competition in the primaries. She had not problem winning that seat in her first run, that is quite an achievement.
And Senators are voted in for 6 years, so much better than the House. It has also a little more clout (there are only 100 of them).
* Corporate Dems then feared the voters and their anger a little more (they learned that the sheeple will put up with more than they thought). Many of course tried to defang the agency and the bill backing it up. But she always went public, so it was embarrassing for them. What GOOD reason could they have to object (the agency held big biz to account and backed up the regular consumers against finance).
They could not even clutch their pearls over small biz (nope: huge banks, run by criminals) or the debt, deficit, unemploymen or inflation rising or other nonsense.
In the end Warren signalled that she would rather let it fail (and of course signal to voters WHO and WHAT had caused the fail) than give cover to a defanged agency.
.... rather have blood and teeth on the Senate floor ....
Looks like Obama was behind the project (maybe only for some window dressing). The agency did good, it was of course immediately captured by a Trump appointee that was dressed down by Warren during a hearing. But in the end it is a bandaid. Not systemic change.
Not sure what Biden did about it now.
It is also safe to assume that Biden and others like him tried to organize discreet resistance.
There is a moment, later in the D primariy debates in 2020 where Biden tries to take credit for supporting her when she wanted to set up the agency. he was upset about something she said, denied that and added that he had even helped her with the agency.
It was Sanders, Warren and to the right Biden.
The head of Sanders turned suddenly (he may have been surprised, he didn't know that Biden was in any way supportive)
Warren: I am thankful ...... pause ..... to president Obama and everyone else that helped me to bring the agency about. (She got applause, I think many women recognized that moment: where a man takes credit for an accomplishment of a female, when it is with luck that he did not try to derail it
Biden and Warren knew each other, they had been fighting regarding Bankrupcy Bill for years. Eventually Biden could get that passed, but she did put up a fight.
Solicited the help of Hillary Clinton when she was First Lady.
Some provisions would have been terrible for families and single parents. (I assume garnishing child support and stuff like that).
So she did give Biden some trouble, Ryan Grim commented on that, and that moment on the debate stage. He followed the developement of the agency closely and was in DC and at the Hill already. He also did not remember that Biden was involved.
They had not been allies before (later she endorsed him of course).
1
-
Thom Hartman had an author on in 2019 or 2020 that claimed that already the Soviets had groomed Trump. He is the very type - vain, foolish, a colorful character / well known public figure / fraud / grifter - and massive money problems - so that sounded plausible, I have not read the book to see how compelling the evidence is. Trump had some good foreign policy ideas, and he had them much longer - and they could have been Soviet / Russian plants. Of course he did not follow through when in the White House, the MIC had easy play with him - so if the Russians had dirt on him they got nothing out of it, because he was just too foolish to be of use to them. The Russians would be smart enough to play their hand lightly.
I just can't see how ignorant know-nothing Trump would come up with reasonable ideas himself. also not in the past.
After his campaign rhetoric Trump chose Bolton or got him chosen for his cabinet, so that is in direct contradiction to every vague if reasonable foreign policy statements he had made on the campaign trail.
On the other hand Trump had chosen to be anti Obama and to undo everything he got done, so he was by default against the Iran deal (and vocal about it then) and the Russian opinion on the Iran deal had no bearing on that.
Back in the day Trump paid for frontside ads in the NYT advocating for reducing nuclear armament and agreements etc. - He had untypically SOUND and unorthodox ideas, so even when he did not follow through, because those ideas had no base of real understanding or passion - whatever good ideas he had may well have stemmed from Russian / Soviet influence.
That things are desireable for Russia or the Soviet Union does not mean they are bad for the American _citizens_.
It is a funny thought.
Putin seems to have kept Trump from trying to start a war against Venezuela. If the president is an idiot and surrounds himself with no-nothing, ideological grifters - listening to Putin is a decent second best.
so it is possible that the Soviets and then the Russians had dirt on him and everything that is sensible about his (half baked, not followed through) foreign policy ideas stems from that.
Now he is in cognitive decline, but he sticks with ideas that they planted with him in the past.
Of course his cabinet could easily derail that, he has no real understanding, and he sucks up to the army ánd the letter agencies (despite the occasinal rhetoric) in the hopes they would support him. That would also explain why the spooks were alarmed when he won the R primaries.
that they KNEW that he had gotten money from Russian oligarchs and was compromised because Putin must have the dirt on him after he he laundered money for Russian oligarchs (after no Western bank would give him money anyore). It is possible that the Russian government initiated such things, or they just knew about it.
The Dems that run New York had looked the other way regarding money laundering, so bringing that up when he ran for office would not look good for them. (He had some feeble attempts before to run for president, long ago, it just did not go anywhere back in the day). All of that and his suspicious money flow after the banks would not give him anymore loans was completely ignored, or some people knew but chose to let him do it anyway.
Trump used to be a Democratic donor ..... in New York.
Which would explain why the letter agencies illegally spied on his campaign and got the warrants by lying to the judge.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
let me help you. In the very beginning it was Flatten The Curve. In January a new mutation emerged, until March it had taken over (it is more contagious). Scientists found out later, so the whole flatten the curve discussion was while that more contagious strain conquered the world.
In Europe it looked good after the spring lockdown (June, July, August) but then the numbers got worse. Somewhat in September - and the growth of cases increased fast in late fall. Second lockdown in many countries. No, the governments do not want to. Actually I think they waited too long, they tried to avoid it.
Since now they have testing in place they have another tool, they got more cases than in spring (maybe 3 - 4 times the cases in Germany and Austria, eyeballing it from hospital and ICU numbers). On the other hand after lockdown and with mass testing (which they did not have in sufficient capacity in March, not even close) they were able to get it under control. Stopped the growth of cases and stabilized the (now high) case numbers. Slowly going down.
Almost all first world nations have many more hospital and ICU beds than the U.S. (per 1000 residents). And Germany and Austria have a lot even among European countries. Austria was at 65 % capacity of their high number of ICU beds (3 - 4 weeks after the second lockdown).
Lockdown started on Nov. 1st after an October with explosive growth of case numbers.
Imagine no lockdown then - and with 3 - 4 weeks delay it would have been Italy spring 2020 all over again. With doctors crying on the wards and having to make decisions who gets treatmens and whom they let die w/o even trying. Overwhelmed staff and consequently higher mortality rate.
In February there was the news of China using the military to isolate a large city. but that is China, is far away and who knows what they are doing there.
But Italy ? The most affluent region in Italy ? That hit home.
Btw after it was clear in spring (end of March) that their intense care units would not be overwhelmed, that they could control further spread, that case numbers grew for a few weeks (but they peaked 1 month after lockdwon) that the cases numbers were manageable - Germany and Austria took in patients from Italy (military transports). Germany also got patients from a French border region (they had relatively low case numbers while parts of France were hit hard). The French equipped trains for quarantine and sent trains with patients from Paris to other regions in France that were not hit as hard and had free capacities in hospitals
So a lot of unusual stuff going on and they had to learn. Fast. Trial and error.
Moving goal posts ? You bet. When you deal with a NOVEL virus that causes the worst pandemic in 100 years you are bound to find out a lot of things.
2009 was also ! a pandemic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andrewdwyer2456 Blind spot with taxing the rich. Blames it all on automation and leaves out the role of trade deals and outsourcing. Which is STILL going on, STILL undermining the ability of workes to negotiate even during times of highy employment like 2018 and 2019. In the service sector they do not automate. (it is harder, if we have AI and robots that are that good, we have a major challenge anyway. Talking war robots, surveillance, policing). UBI will be the least of our problem.
a database that is fit to handle UBI (it may or may not come or for a partial UBI), could double as central register of residency to be the BASE of all DMV entries and all voter rolls. Or pass ports. Or a voter ID. That is how they handle it in the rest of the first world nations. Elections are organized locally (that makes sense ! and is a safeguard against central meddling).
They print out the voter lists 1 week before the election per polling station (so if you want mail ballot you have to ask for it earlier, so that the lists will be up to date).
He never figured out that this could be ONE major IT project, it would deal with voter suppression, allow for automatic voter registration, would make it much easier for citizens to move and update their data. (and thus the voter registration).
The process (once implemented) is so simple that not even Republicans can use it to make voters jump through hoops.
PLENTY of automation after WW2, it PAID for good wages. Also not for 15 USD minimum wage (not as presidential candidate).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The big donors would like your idea - that way they would get even MORE influence. They do the beauty contest, shower their guy or gal with money, buy them name recognition, the shill leaves office and is of course rewarded for the services with a cushy post.
(the big donors honor their obligation, else the shills that still hold office and have the power of the vote would get nervous, they could even doubt if it would be better to be in the good books of the voters !)
If the representatives are members of a large body the problem of abuse of power cannot be solved by switching the person. - here the ELECTION should be the term limit (so there is no country I know of that has term limits for representatives, not at higher office like parliament).
Imagine term limits for Sanders - he was an outlier - it was a LONG uphill battle to get in because he did not take the legal bribes (donations), with term limits the Democratic party would have been lucky - time not the will of the voter would have eliminated him for them.
A politician that votes for The people will step on powerful toes. Good luck with building yourself a career in the corporate world or with your own biz. The sellouts on the other hand have no problem when they leave. The move on to another often more lucrative post.
If AOC stays in Congress the Democratic party cannot get rid of her, good luck with primaring her. She will win next time in a landslide.
I know of such a case in the Conservative party in germany - he said: I'll stay in the party, and will continue to criticize them, I am not going anywhere. he was well known, many times reelected, the party could not replace him and he would not be silenced.
These examples are rare - but those dissenters are important.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HaveYouTriedGuillotines As the public usually does not have individually fitted masks * and laypersons are likely to wear them in a sloppy manner - mask wearing may prevent only 10, 20 or maybe 30 % of infections. If all (or almost all) are wearing them, mind you.
Do we have any other better measures ? so that we can sneer on that ?
* see internet channel of Patch Of Fabric, they have patterns and instructions, one of the best I have detected so far.
Vaccines would be the only real prevention (always assuming it is safe and effective).
The 2nd best thing would be treatments and medication that helps with the symptoms. so people would not end up in intensive care for weeks in some cases. And most of those that die now would survive and we could also prevent the longtime damage (scarred lung tissue, blood clots, organ damage, diabetes, ...)
One treatment method (plasma) helps around 30 % of the cases, and for them it helps well. Trump did a victory lap recently, there was a public information before the RNC convention. Well - it is not new - per se. it helps 30 % of patients. It is the best we have so far.
So it was good news - but it is still a major intervention, patients needing the hospital. And 70 % do not benefit. It is not like they can give the infusion and send people home to recover there. I also assume it is expensive. Not sure until when they can deploy it at a mass scale.
1
-
@HaveYouTriedGuillotines In absence of anything better I'll take handwashing, social distancing, and yes masks even if they "only" shave off 10 - 30 % of the cases. When European countries had the shutdown in spring they dropped to a reproduction factor of 1 within maybe 3 weeks (the nations that did better, like Germany, Austria, Denmark, ..). Then 0.9 then 0.8 - and stalled there. Despite most businesses closed, people working from home if they could, or furloughed, most kids and teenagers at home, only essential shops open, ....
So the numbers shot up fast and continued to shoot up for 2 - 3 weeks after lockdown.
Despite UNPRECEDENTED MEASURES !
Only then they started to go down. But that took much longer than case numbers going up.
R(eff) 0.8 means that 10 infected persons infect 8 new ones.
Now they have relatively low case numbers - then it is not that important if you have R(eff) of 0.8 or 1.4. Since they reopened most businesses they hover always around R(eff) 1.0 - they only had the lower numbers only with the stricter lockdown (in other words the damn' virus has a pretty good method to be spread).
The governments watch any flare ups like hawks (they do not want to go back to where they were in spring) and 1.4 is certainly something to watch closely.
Could be a cluster (which is the more harmless case, because you can follow the chain of infections if need be with mass testing. Think 6,000 or 9,000 test to find 150 cases - example from Austria from May).
With a low overal case number such spikes make a bigger statistical impact. If 1.4 comes from all over the country it is time to get nervous and VERY active. FAST. (like in Australia in Melbourne, it was not only the absolute number of cases a few hundred when they jumped into action. It was where the cases came from. From all over the place).
It is like a wildfire you have to catch it as embers or max as small fires - or it is going to be a full fire. There is no slowly developing acceptable middle ground. See the experiences from spring and how fast a few cases (known cases) blew up.
With such a precarious balance even 10 % more or fewer cases can be important. btw: tourism season showed its effect. the nations wanted to have it, to avoid more economic damage. But there were flare ups all over the continent. Especially in August. Hungary, Spain, France, Germany .... taking more liberties during summer resulted in more cases. Numbers creeping up.
One could see the flare ups her and there and how they adjusted. It was a fragile balance, but so far it worked. No reason to get complacent. See Melbourne in Australia. Or the U.S. in summer.
Tourism is over (main season, still Indian summer and people w/o kids or retired people like to travel now), and school started. (Hungary for instance closed their borders beginning of September. Again. Except for people that migrate to and from Hungary for work.
The next problem is now to handle the time of common colds.
In summer it was easier to find corona cases with only light symptoms. Hardly anyone has a common cold during summer. In fall more cases may be conflated with a normal cold so it will be trickier to find the cases before a chain of infections happens.
But the U.S. with a lot of cases must get the reproduction rate under 1 and for quite some time. 10 or 20 % fewer infection cases (because ALL of the population are willing to wear the masks despite not too good protection effect) can make or break containement.
Handwashing helps. Masks are a low cost measure with little economic impact (I think the beauty industry should be allowed to open). But bars and also gyms are more problematic. Sucks for the owners of course.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brian2440 Deregulation directly caused the losses of power and the increase of demand. The part of Texas that had winterized after 2011 and accepted federal regulations had no problems. Many Texas producers of electricity had problems, all were NOT WINTERIZED (windmills, coal, gas, nuclear power plants) because in deregulated grid it was not mandated.
And natural gas pipelines that were also not winterized also failed, so loss of natural gas for heating as well. And even if the instruments in a gas power plant did not freeze - they might not have gotten fuel.
So even MORE demand than the to expected increase of demand of electricity during a cold snap.
The very condition that lead to the failure to produce reliably- also meant Texas could not even import electricity from the large grid. Which had meant good prices.
When they performed the worst, they lost 40 % of the electricity, also missed out on lots of natural gas for heating, and could not import from out of state to have at least some power for all a few hours per day.
There is no rational reason to give private, small consumers wholesale auction prices, or tie their rates to it. That nonsense is just expression of the ideology that lead to the mess.
No federal regulation in a stand alone grid = race to the bottom with prices is possible (even lower than in other states that have a least some costs for preparedness). Luring energy intense industries to Texas. = more jobs and big donors for the Republicans.
1
-
@MrBentalton777 Chauvin had a LOT of complaints against him. Included in 3 shootings with one lethal outcome. the other 3 officers did not hinder him. Watch the video of the nurse in Utah that was arrested by an idiot (on duty defending politely the rights of her patients, doctors and other staff nearby). That officer was also not hindered by his collegue when he "lost it". She was unharmed, released after an hour, video went viral and he was fired.
She was polite and had good and reasonable arguments. On top she was a white, nicelooking lady.
I saw a harmless case of a 14 year old being handcuffed he advertised a dirt bike on his facebook page that had been reported as stolen (he said he had a receipt and had bought it from a person that he had met at church).
The arrest happened nearby the paren'ts home, at some point the officer asked him for his age. 14. They are supposed to get his parents especially if they are nearby.
Instead officer told neighbours that asked if the boy needed help to not get the parents, police would come over later.
Father came anyway, boy said get the receipt (he was not sure where it was, had a few guesses). Police showed interest in the receipt but did not let him go. They could all have gone over to he house, boy helping father searching.
And the cop had tapped the boy down and ordered him to open his mouth (I assume he was fishing for drugs, it was weird that he asked that).
So 14, no arms, parents at home, nearby.
At some point the other cop told his collegue very carefully that he would let the boy go. And take off the handcuffs.
At that point they still were at the same spot, father had returned to the house to search the receipt.
His points
Minor.
even IF he had known it was stolen because of the young age he would NOT be detained. could have happened to him when over 18. And if they have a receipt ....
Do you think that is enough for xx (I do not remember the legal term, they can put him into jail).
Arresting cop: No ...
Intervening cop: If it was me ... It this was my case .....
They are trained to let the other do their thing. Even if it is wrong or unprofessional.
(the second cop interjected himself, but after 15 minutes or so, it was getting ridiculous and this looked like a normal neighbourhood, small but nice houses, church going black folks, no reason to mess with them).
Or it is some other culture / standard.
The boy says 14, and mentions father is at home - the other cop could have gotten the father right away. Does not even have to embarrass his overreaching / inexperienced collegue.
I noticed how carefully the other officer proceeded - that was good adivce, he obviously knew what he was talking about, more than the dude that did the handcuffing.
From a lay perspective there was NO danger at all, so why have him handcuffed ?
And from a legal standpoint he should have asked his age right away. Arresting officer said they saw the dirt bike on facebook where the boy had offered it for sale. And that it was reported stolen.
Well, then they should have seen that he is a teenager, even if he did not give his age on facebook. There is a chance the content was a giveaway how young he was (he was tall and looked older, but it was clear that he likely was not 18).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dalentces2492 He was low income (and obviously not very bothered by it, he had political work do do) he only made a decent income after he won the race for mayor in Burlington in 1980 or 81, he was close to 40 years then. Before that he worked gigs and had many (unsuccessful) races with a small independent left leaning party. Campaigning against the Vietnam war in the early 1970s. Attending meetings with his son Levy at his lap. At that time those races seemed to be a waste of time.
I do not think so, he came around, people knew him (VT has maybe 400,000 people, in that range), they did not see him as member of Congress, Senate, governor then, so he did not get the votes - but he still built his name recogniton. Also talked a lot with farmers, he "gets" the state. (He grew up in New York, not in VT so I think that was important).
The Sanders brothers as children / teenagers liked to go to the tourism stand that VT (businesses or a tourism org) had in New York, they liked the brochures of VT nature.
His job as mayor (4 terms x 2 years) was the first time he had a well paying job with benefits, and he worked hard to makes sure he kept it. And also continued to run more races in the big league (I think 3). That still took him a while in 1990 he finally won a congress seat. (2 years before the Democrat had been the spoiler in a 3 candidate race, and Sanders had come relatively close to the Republican. W/o the Democrat, Sanders would have won the seat. So Sanders struck a deal with the DNC, they would lean on the state party to not run candidates in races he was in, and he would caucus with Democrats. 2 years later he won against the Republican.
He won the first race for mayor (uphill race with 18 votes more after the recount, some shady dealings going on in election night his supporters demanded that the doors would be opened or the would kick them in, the civil servants counted behind closed doors).
He was stonewalled by the aldermen (he had only a few supporters, not even the veto majority, the Democratic aldermen were (miffed) supporters of the former Democrat he had unseated, and the others were Republicans.
So they fired the secretary of the mayor and he could not hinder them. first budget was made at the kitchen table with some volunteers. The voters of Burlington did not appreciate the shenanigans, the next election soon after gave him at least enough support among aldermen to have the veto power and he started working with Republicans. Visited all business owners, etc. He won the next election with much improved turnout, a solid margin and against 2 other major candidates (a Republican, a Democrat plus 1 or 2 Independents)..
When he celebrated his victory he also met his wife. I think she influenced also his view on support of women and children. She was single mum of three. Childcare, after school programs, youth club, ....
1
-
1
-
@dalentces2492 the people that know him always remark on his energy at his age. He works hard and long hours and expects the same from his staff (he has that reputation, too). he obviously worked hard at age 40 to establish himself under difficult circumstances in Burlington. That was very successful.
He continued to run for higher office while being mayor. Uphill battle again. They have term limits for mayors, and it was clear he would not get a cushy job in a company for doing them favors as mayor. I also think he was never good cubicle material.
It is not plausible that he just started being diligent at age 40, he was alway busy, and active, although a lot of that was unpaid or not highly paid.
He worked in paid jobs in childcare, tax office, carpenter, author, radio contributor, made documentaries and sold them and educated students about American history (Eugene Debs, Labor history of the U.S.).
Plus the unpaid work in activism as student for Civil Rights.
or in the early 1970s against the Vietnam war (as part of his races for the small party. They did not expect to win they wanted to get the message out
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I currently live in a European single payer country (Austria, also know the German system). Sanders has the correct position. He did not advocate for abolishing private healthcare, they just would become obsolete. With the same budgets per person and the same pool (so no cherrypicking for the private insurers) you get ALWAYS and without expection (globally) a better deal from the public insurance.
But the MANDATE and not allowing a 2 tier system is CRUCIAL.
One provision to achieve that: no duplicative coverage.
That means that if a medical service = all that is medically warranted WOULD be covered by the non-profit insurance agency (in the U.S. Medicare)
- but a doctor or hospital choses not to have a contract with them (at the rates offered)
- then their patients need to pay out of pocket. They will not be able to wave an insurance card around, no insurance company is allowed to offer coverage for that.
Affluent people cannot buy their way easily out of the pulbic services, there is an excellent chance tht they will in most cases use the same doctors and hospitals like everybody else. In the absence of the usual market forces, that guarantees cost-efficiency, good quality and sufficient funding (parties catering to the wealthy cannot mayke hay by defunding the public services)
Paying out of Pocket on a case to case base (or using free services) is a deterrent. The big (expensive stuff will be done in public hospitals and under public coverage. Free at the point of service).
Doctors may have to chase the money. It is harder to find patients. it is almost impossible to run a hospital with out the patients under public coverage. Taht means a large "network" for the publicly insured.
I services free at the point of delivery are good why would anyone pay extra.
And if a doctor has a contract then they cannot discriminate against patients from the public pool.
It does not make sense to have insurance for the once in a lifetime costly dental procedures. Or accupuncture sessions. If you can afford the premiums for the supplemental insurance, then you can also save up and pay only if you want that. It will be cheaper that way.
Where I live the single rooms in hospital are expensive, but I would not pay the premiums for supplemental for that.
One of the principles of cost efficient single payer: low mandatory contributions by citizens and employers, like in the U.S. plenty of help (even cost efficient healthcare costs), but not as much as the U.S. government must subsidize per person.
So everyone is covered and coverage is COMPREHENSIVE. (incl. ambulance, airlift, basic dental - so not braces in most cases, and also not implants, but check-up, fillings, root canals, necessary surgery, ...)
So WHY would anyone need the private middlemen on top of that. Who have less negotiating power than the single payer agency.
private insurers are middle men - just like a public non-profit insurance agency.
For profit insurers in healthcare always ! cause higher costs. (plus there are political downsides, undermining solidarity. incentive for parties that cater to the right or center right to defund the public pool. cherry picking, ... if there is a public pool)
On top the culture in the U.S. healthcare insurance industry is toxic. They have only private insurance in Switzerland (the only country I know of). The Swiss pay a considerable surcharge for that, but are still below the U.S. spending (78 % % versus 49 - 54 % in most other first wold nations, data 2017)
Swiss coverage gets you excellent services, the insurers do not play games, in the strong direct democracy the citizens can at least partially regulate the insurers, - their culture is not toxic like in the U.S. Once you have that in an industry it is impossible to get rid of it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The ruling class (incl. politicians) HATE the very IDEA to give the peasants something. - As opposed to the way they shower the rich, big biz, the donors, military contractors with money. or grant themselves a payrise. - Becoming eligible (if they cannot avoid giving some something in a major crisis) must be complicated, petty, if possible with some shaming included, conditional. If that becomes overly bureaucratic and punitve, rollout delayed and they look incompetent in handling a crisis, that is a small price to pay to remind the unwashed masses that these concessions are the absolute exception.
The process of passing it must be dragged out. it was like that with help for homeowners in 2009, with small biz and the checks in 2020. They fear if it is seamless and just gets done without a LOT of pearl clutching the peasants might be getting ideas.
some are cynically aware of that, others have their knee jerk reaction.
In the end they must justify before themselves why they do so much better, so they must have firm pre conceptions in place what others "deserve". And the others certainly do not deserve to get anything EASILY.
the same people will wave through tax cuts, wars based on lies and insane military budgets. That does NOT trigger the "keep the peasants down" kneejerk reaction.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thank god they do not carry modern arms - because of the agreement. - Under Bush2 Colin Powell had to travel to the region to settle tensions between India and Pakistan (in 2001 or 2002). - but of course he was at least COMPETENT in his job, although in the end he wanted more to belong to the club * than doing right by his country.
If China and India want to start problems, they might expect that the U.S. is busy with its own problems, and the admin too incompetent to deal with domestic problems, let alone to be a relevant player internationally.
* The "club" were the chicken hawkish neocons were at large - and the figurehead was a fool that had a competent war criminal father as role model - for the presidency. Bush1 had a lot of influence already as VP from 1981 - 1984, and also run the show at least in the 2nd term of Reagan because then the Alzheimers of Reagan became more evident.
So he is also responsible for the Iran Contra affair, the Panama war, very likely helped to arrange for the secret arrangement with the Mullahs of Iran (to hold back the American hostages until after the election in Nov. 1980, it may have contributed to the loss of Carter).
Cheney pushed for war in Iraq, Powell knew that of course, held against it for some time, but it was Cheney who had the ear of GWB. In the end Powell was willing to play the stooge, no way he believed the "intelligence" and what he presented at the UN.
Powell must have ALSO known that the Cheney / Bush refused to negotiate a peace deal with the Taliban after a few months (the U.S. invaded end of October 2001, beg. of Nov. 2001, the Iraq war was started in spring 2003) - they were ready to give up.
No, the war mongers doubled down and threw money around in this poor society if people would hand over "Taliban" to them (who were dragged to secret sites and then to Guantanamo). A lot of scores were settlled, the country had been at war or oppression since 1979, the people that were ratted out were by no means all terrorists or Taliban (or a danger - imagine you can get rid of a family member to be the next in line to inherit, or they do not accept you to marry your daughter. Or fought on the other side in one of the many wars, and civil war situations that Afghanistan had for decades).
That said, right now it would be good to have someone of the competence of Powell in a relevant position.
I have to look what his fmr chief of staff Larry Wilkerson has to say about the situation now (he too is very competent and knowledgeable)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GeorgePiazza NOTHING is more important than keeping the money coming in, and the big donors happy. Not even winning the general. The donors finance both parties, the job of Corporate Dems is to WIN PRIMARIES exactely against people like AOC or Sanders. The voters have then the "choice" between a spineless Democrat or a fierce Republican - both completely beholden to the donors.
Obedient shills will be rewarded when they leave office (voluntarily or voted out). And there are rewards for the big fish even while they are in office.
Tthe smaller fish have to fend for themselves if they lose elections, all the more reason to get into the good graces of the party leadership that will help them out. Could be even a job in media (they get a lot of campaign budgets for ads so they gladly help out - it is one circle jerk).
Or the lower charges get contracts as strategists, consultants, analysts in the election/media complex.
They CAN lose elections they get paid anyway ! These people fail upwards. (see the completely tone deaf Clinton staffers that now ruin the Warren campaign. Warren should know better, but it is not like she is getting good advice).
That is one of the reason D.C. insiders freak out (the lower charges that are not THAT influental, but make a good livelihood with the insider games). Also see the "resistance": these loyalists get also jobs in NGO's that got some donations with help of establishment politicians. The lucky ones land in the Clinton foundation. Another Trump term would be even good for that business model.
Now, I think most of the self-serving, self-important underlings would prefer a Corporate Democrat to win - but under a Sanders admin they would be cut off from access to power (and information). Krystal and Saagar both know the circus from the inside, I think Krystal said something about it in the video about the "stages of Bernie grief".
Sanders always kept his staff small - he had little regard for the typical D.C. crowd - thinking that too many staffers distract you from the base, from the cause, that they influence you and not in a good way. Corporate lobbyists knew better than to approach Sanders, but they could of course have tried to influence his staff. Sanders liked to keep it small and personal.
1
-
@GeorgePiazza Many superdelegates ARE rich and their donors (and the owners of the networks, and the pundits) are certainly rich. They all would keep the tax cuts, no one steps on the toes of big donors (who finance BOTH parties, and many are big advertisers) - fossil fuel, the healthcare profiteers, big finance, pharma industry, military contractors.
likely there would be war with Iran in the second term, not only the military contractors love war, big finance loves war (and predatory healthcare,...) as well.
Trump would cut SS and Medicare another favorit of many big donors (finance - they would like to see a privatization).
the party could blame insubordinate voters / the Sanders supporters of the second term of Trump. If their corporate candidate wins - that's even better. They would reduce the tax cuts for the rich a little bit and cut medicare and SS (that more for 10 years into the future) to "balance the budget".
As always the Republicans go on a debt / deficit spree with war or extreme military spending and tax cuts for the rich.
The donors that finance both parties then task their Democrats to fix that on the back of the lower income groups (which ironically hurts the Dems chances to get reelected.
But that is no problem. Al Gore added a lot to his millions after the "lost" election. Members of Congress / Senate get golden parachutes if they are well connected to donors and party "leadership".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We can enjoy the irony of the arrogant billionaire buying his way on the debate stage - to be used by Warren as punching bag to revive her campaign, while Sanders adds the occasional jab and is happy with how things work out. Bloomberg recruits staff from other campaigns. But obviously even when he pays double the wage he cannot get committment - of good people that are in for more than the money and who dare to stand up to him, to tell him honestly what to expect, and to do test runs with fierce attacks.
I assume Bloomberg's team chose to be Yes Men. He is used to Yes Men for decades !
Switched to being a Democrat. Did not win the primary for mayor of New York. So he swtiched to being an Independent and threw money around and won. Then he bought the extension from 2 to 3 terms. Before he left he bought the votes to return to the old term limits (2 terms).
He is used to getting his way by throwing his money around, and his current team likely do not want to bruise his ego by telling him how it works in the real world outside the billionaire bubble.
Even before he was mayor reporters stayed clear of him, they never knew if he might buy up their outlet next month or year.
That man is not used to being criticized. He is used to people that think TWICE before they inconvenience him. He is used to buying his way in and out of trouble.
But for becoming president (or even spoiling it for Sanders) he needs the votes of those uppity unwashed plebs. The Corporate media fawned over him, but with the internet his opponents do not even need to do oppo research. he is so arrogant that he never bothered to conceal his opinions (reporters would not be critical, at least not often, not harshly and consistently). Doesn't work like that on the internet.
The only way to deal with his record would be the route of humility and selling us a Saulus to Paulus story. But humility and Bloomberg do not rhyme.
Bloomberg is the talk in the circles that know about campaign business, he buys up the resources in many states (qualified staff, ad time, ...)
This is a major problem for down ballot races, for campaigns with smaller budgets. They cannot compete with him, he buys up staff and resources in ALL states and drives up prices. Chuck Rocha sr. advisor / contractor for the Sanders campaign said that a staffer contacted him, Bloomberg pays double (100k instead of 50k and he already committed to employing people until Nov.).
I will vote for Sanders but I can't pass on such an opportunity. Rocha: You bring your parents, too to the polls, and if you have bills to pay .... no hard feelings.
He displayed an upbeat attitude, said the people are lining up to work for the campaign. They have money so they are not in trouble (but as Krystal or Saagar remarked: they still lose people with a lot of know how on the campaign and their strategy. That has to be replaced AND that knowledge potentially helps Bloomberg. Even if the person switching campaings is not a sellout, they cannot "unknow").
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jamesricker3997 in total 43,200 votes in 3 states (GA, AZ, WI) determined the outcome - and Biden needed to win at least one of the 3 states, if we take PA as a saf(er) win. - PA, WI, AZ, GA were the 4 nailbiters. But in PA Biden had at least 1.2 % resp. 81,000 votes more and Jo Jorgensen's results were not a multiple of his lead. Which was another freak out moment if you look at WI, AZ and GA under that angle.
Respectively Biden needed to win 2 out of the 4 states that took days to call. PA was not a must win, 2 in any combination would have given Biden enough electors. Even the 2 smallest (WI and AZ = 11 + 10) would have landed Biden at 270. So except for maybe faithless electors he would have had the bare minimum.
But PA alone (the most electors = 20) would have put Biden only at 269 = a tie with Trump.
Then in The House for each state ONE delegate would be chosen/elected/determined, and they pick the president.
Dems had a mjaority, but that is like the EC in The House and would have given Republicans an advantage.
And the Senate picks the VP in case of a tie - there the Republicans had the majority anyway until the new Congress season started.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Eve Cole Yes you can get 150,000 votes in 4 hours (more ? in total ?) Do you have any verified NUMBERS or are you just making up stuff, or repeating what you heard) in 4 hours. Do you have the CONTEXT of the procedures in place when these votes were reported. I'll assume the number is correct, and you mean 150,000 votes in favor of Biden. That can be very Meh depending of how many votes they reported in total in those 4 hours and if that was from a district that is heavily leaning towards Democrats.
In Georgia the district of John Lewis delivered big time. Duh !
These "leaps" are normal if you report it in BULK, as is the way for HAND COUNT. Especially several days AFTER the election when they likely do not have full staff anymore.
With machine count the votes come in continuously, but not when humans report the equivalent of a one or a few hours work. I guess they had shorter intervalls in election night and 1 - 2 days after. But then they might have reduced staff.
There are procedures they have to follow, paper work, so they will do that every 1 or 2 or more hours (after election night) and not every 15 minutes.
You would expect the remaining votes to favor Biden. The development that Biden started to look better and better on Wednesday, Thursday was expected.
IF you are into logic, statistics and know the landscape of the districts and have been following the anti mail vote
rhetoric of the Republicans. They KNEW that Trump was in bad shape - so
instead of trying to win they tried to preemptively pee on a likely D
victory.
a) they later counted votes come for the cities (that are blue) and from mail vote - and Repubs made a point to discourage vote by mail.
Vote by mail is EASIER so it increases turnout. If you have long waiting lines (by default) and a pandemic on top, making voting easier and no hassle could be the thing that cost the Republicans votes. Especially in Georgia (only 11,000 votes ahead).
all other CLOSE states have 0.7 % differenece (PA, and WI) resp. 0.5 in AZ.
As for the result changing as the vote continues - that is normal.
HRC thought she had Florida in 2016, the early vote looked good for her. Well that changed.
Cori Bush and a progressive in Seattle had the same going on. it looked like they were losing narrowly.
But Bush won with the in person vote in the cities (primary) and Kshawma Savant (not sure if I got the name right), could hope that the outstanding vote that came in per mail would favor her. She had dominated the vote from that constituency and area the last time and it put her over the finish line again (despite Amazon and police campaigning against her).
Same for Truman in 1948. Everyone expected his R opponent to win, the polling was not representative (I think everyone took the Midwest to go Republican), and indeed it looked like a close defeat on election night. But Truman's opponent had foolishly run on an anti New Deal platform and the voters of the rural Midwest remembered the help they had gotten under FDR.
So as those votes came in (with some delay) Truman got a solid win instead of a narrow defeat. And the polls were discredited (they made basic mistakes like not having a large enough and representative sample and just did not ask enough or the right kind of people in the Midwest).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JoHeLightning In the U.S. the predators have well established systems and know-how to purge the pools (so they would of course drive all patients they do not want to the public pool), money in politics gives them much more power - the system is so dysfunctional and the players so vile that the public option would give them enough time to hit back and to undermine any meaningful reform while it is in the process of being implemented (when the system is the most vulnerable).
Public option has become plan B for the industry, they know that Sanders changed the conversation and something WILL change, the population still has the vote and seems increasingly unwilling to put up with the extortion. Not even the help of Corporate media to deceive them can stem the tide.
Public option is their best shot to protect their profits, keep a part of the insured stay relevant - and be in an excellent position to hit back - in 1, 5, 10 years, does not matter, they can bide their time.
In 4 years you have a single payer system installed in 10 years you really start reaping the rewards (the transition is a hassle and there are transition costs, and backlog, for instance badly managed diabetes when people cannot afford insuline, THAT can lead to higher costs of treatment when the U.S. finally gets a system worthy of a first world country).
with a public option the insurance companies wil purge their pools, they will lose a share of the market but can keep the most lucrative segment, the young and healthy.
1
-
@JoHeLightning You have to know the 10 : 90 rule in healthcare, 10 % of insured cause 90 % of the spending. the insurance companies just have to get the purges right - and they already have the know how and the people and software in place to do that.
Because the 10 : 90 ratio is so extreme, a little defunding goes a long way to undermine the public system, just wait for the next Republican admin (or a bipartisan Corporate Democrat). And it is easy to badmouth Medicare as expensive (of course when they get all the costly patients. that is already the case, they have the most costly group people over 65).
On the other hand with such a cherrypicked pool (young, healthy) they can make seemingly reasonably priced offers. Not really, the plans will still cost way too much, and the costs for the patients they do not want to cover ** do not vanish in the country - they are just elsewhere.
But it will be sufficient to undermine soldiarity in the population. Some will indeed pay less that they did before (if they are young and healthy).
Divide and Conquer
** the insurers - not the insured - choose. They can determine by the offers they make whom they want as client, they already do that with companies (Wendell Potter in an interview), if the company is not profitable for them.
Could be that a few employees (or their family members) cause high costs. They just drive up prices and worsen conditions (deductibles) until the company quits. Is also an incentive for companies to fire people (even if a family member needs the treatments, and the staff member is healthy. It is also an extra deterrent to employ older people if the company offers plans).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It satisfies the knee jerk reaction of the ruling class. They are irritated or annoyed even worried about the idea to give anything to the peasants. And IF they can't help to give them a a little bit it can't be an easy seamless process. it has to be complicated, conditional, lengthy, with a LOT of concern trolling before. Some shaming if that is possible. - else the peasants would get ideas.
The he same people will wavie through the subsidied, handouts and bailouts to big biz, tax cuts for the rich and insane increases of an already bloated military budget.
humans are honed by evolution to have empathy But that instinct can be overruled. Our society amakes it really easy to follow selfish impulses and humans can insulate themselves from seeing the effects of their selfish actions (or even only to having to watch the misery of others. That is hard on any normal human even if they did not contribute to the situation.)
Distance can mean: avoiding to see the others, to meet them
and mental distance. Not thinking about them, blocking the thoughts and to have a good self serving theory why it is O.K. to pass laws that continue to allow healthcare double as expensive as it should be. Or helping biz biz (big donors) to outsource jobs, undermining the base of the party.
Obama and HRC (both intelligent) were all for TPP. One could assume they have never heard of NAFTA or the Chines agreement.
Evolution made sure humans cooperate well and take care of each other in small groups. That was a survival of the species issue. Humans have one major advantage over other species, they cooperate exceptionally well. Part of why our brain is so large - language helped us cooperate even better.
One side effect is that we are very senstivie to the judgement of our peers and to social control, the ruling class still are - it has only change who is a tribe members.
Amazon stole tips from drivers. Bezos would not be caught not tipping in a fine restaurant, that would be uncough and expose him to the criticism o f his peers. The managers that oversaw the stealing of the tips would not want to be caught stealing from their uppe class neighbours or in the country club. (A lot of people knew of that - after all they needed to change the software for that and lie to the drivers that they still got the tips of customers when they suspected a change would lead to that. Amazon used a part of that as revenue to cover their costs).
Social control and peer pressure.
and treating those within the tribe well.
For those outside the tribe that are left in the cold - they need to have a good theory. Either being riled up against them as the "other". Or just as someone not deserving of help.
And a side effect of being so social creatures that crave for recognition by peers is that humans also want to have a good self image and want to see themselves as good persons (or at least having understandable reasons if selfish, so they can be excused. It is internalized peer pressure and ensured that humans behaved very well within the tribe).
So there are a lots of theories that rationalize, justify or glorify greed and selfish behavior. Literally in economics, and personal "theories" that help a human to reap the rewards of being selfish w/o feeling bad about it. But of course humans cannot exercise double think w/o losing contact to a part of reality. They usually cannot be fully factual and rational about the areas that touch upon the issue they like to deceive themselves about.
2016 was the year of populists and non establishment politicians. The intelligent and highly paid, well educated experienced people that ran the campaign of HRC were unable to SEE that. Every politcally interested amateur with no strong incentive to deceive themselves (over their role in undermining the wellbeing of voters with certain policies) had no problem to see and process the obvious. but the people that make good money in that self serfing circle jerk of the U.S. Industrial Election complex were oblivious what was going on in the country. Trump won Ohio two times with over 8 % - and Obama had won the state twice before.
Establishment Democrats cannot process what lead to that, it would be damning for them. Most humans do not allow themselves to be cynically aware of their own corruption, being opportunists or cowards. Our evolutionary heritage is opposed to that (unless the person has psychopathic tendendcies - then they can overcome the social nature of humans).
The posh people, big donor serving politicians that are on a blast of self seving and self-congratulory double think are REALLY TRIGGERED when the peasants would be spoilt in the same way that big donors are showered with favors. Politcians have to conceal from themselves how corrupt and craven they act, the top 30 % do not want to hear about the misery of the lower classes, the 1 % do not want to own up to greed
They might be very nice and generous people towards TRIBE members. Members of the country club, beltway insiders, the Martha's Vineyard crowd).
The big donors do not like the peasants getting something, they suspect correctly it could lead to higher taxes for them. Some are smart and cognisant enough that they also fear if help is granted fast and w/o hassle the peasants will make more demands. The lower classes could get the idea that government could work. For them.
The ruling class almost by reflext gets triggered by the idea of help for the masses. It is just not "right" it is the opposite of how it usually works, and it touches upon the core of the corruption and self-deception about it.
they are quite touchy about it, and the go-to move is to concern troll about those "rich" that do not really need the help, too. Publily funded higher education. The children of rich people could want to get it too. The horrors.
Or to denigrate those who need help. That is harder to pull off in a major crisis, the divide and conquer strategy does not work, too many are involved to insult all of them. Then the more affluent (that are sometimes a little bit courted for votes) become the "others" and the props for divide and conquer.
Heaven forbid the 70k families that are not destitute also get something. That would not be relief that would be almost like a tax cut for the middle class.
Those are always invoked to justify and sell the tax cuts for the rich and big biz (those cuts are the high volume and are permanent).
But in case they cannot help giving some relief to the lower income brackets the formerly courted 70 k families are utilized in another role .
1
-
1
-
1
-
The women's group hope to get funding from people that want to see Biden (or any neoliberal, just NOT Sanders) elected. "Abortion" or breaking the "glass ceiling" are issues that both wings of the one and only big donor party are allowed to work. Either pro or contra. R + D use them to get out the vote. Also guns, LGBTQ rights, identity politics. It does not cost the Big donors profits, they do not care either way:
They may have preferences, but in the end they would gladly take the Trump tax cuts and their daughters, wives and mistresses will fly to Europe, Canada, Mexico ... to get a safe, legal, discreet abortion if they need one.
Hawaii also seems to attract a lot of the "conservative" folks. (I read a comment of a woman that used to work as nurse in Hawaii, she noticed the abortion tourism, heard the Southern accents).
Maybe they can do abortions in general hospitals in Hawaii so it is inconspiciuous if a young lady during a mother / daughter vacation needs to go to the hospital for a few hours. Could be anything, food poisoning, a rash, a fever, a sprain ankle ....
Taking it easy the next few days, ... and they will be fine, the female that got an abortion even can enjoy Hawaii.
In the U.S. the hospitals do not dare to have abortions in house, and the evangelicals hang out in front of Planned Parenthood and other clinincs that have specialized.
They might take photos or recognize the prominent faces that are officially against abortion.
If hospitals would do abortions the whole circus would be over, because the professionally outraged would not know whom to target. Also: it would be easier for egular income Republican women to get an abortion thus the silent acceptance would grow.
Many Republicans were for safe abortions in the 1970s, not because it was something THEY would do, but because they saw the casualties among young females that had back alley abortions. Some only got infertile, while others died slowly and painfully (they could do that much back in the day). And it happened also to good girls from nice neighbourhoods.
You could see that silent cultural shift in Ireland. The referndum a few years ago to change the constitution (so they can pass a law to have legal early abortions without medical indications in the first 3 months) was projected to win narrowly. The Catholic church had just to deal with another ! scandal and had to shut up. *
Plus the case when a desired pregnancy went wrong and the doctors did not dare to do the medically necessary abortion, despite her begging for one (she was in a lot of pain). She died. In the U.K. or in Europe and I think even in the U.S. they would have removed the fetus. The pregnancy could not continue anyway.
The doctors in Ireland felt compelled to wait "long enough" that the situation was desperate enough, so they could "justify" the abortion (then the constitution still protected the "unborn life" - which also meant in theory that the live of the mother and the fetus - the pregnancy was not very advanced - should have been at least equally important. But no one dared to face the legal battle. That gamble cost the life of the young woman.
The polls were off the referendum won with over 60 %. So some people said one thing when asked by pollsters, but decided differently when alone in the voting booth. or the anti abortion crowd was not motivated enough in that climate to turn out (there was a cultural shift).
* a home for unmarried women - the females were often forced to go there, it was not voluntarily - and they had a very high death rate among the babies and toddlers. Way higher than even for the children of poor families. Those children were secretly buried on the property of the home.
The children did not get a burial at the graveyard (where the community would have noticed how MANY children died in that home). The home was closed down in the 1960s, but they started to dig after a New York Times article a few years ago - and they found the many tiny skeletons).
So the Church could not preach about the sanctitiy of life. They had other scandals before because it was common that these women with the out of wedlock children were villified, abused and exploited for unpaid labor in the homes for the "fallen women".
Obviously there was either a death regime going on in that home, or they were so underfunded, and the nuns did not raise the alarms but helped to cover up with the secret burials.
Or hygienic troubles. Or too many people at one spot, so if one child had an infectious disease, all got it (the cases were likely before the 1960s).
If a child is breastfed it props up the immune system (antibodies passed on by the mohter), but that means you have to allow the mothers some breaks in their work schedule. Forced labor more or less. And if they did not have good formula and prepared the bottles observing hygiene rules, they caused deaths by diarrhea, which is more dangerous for little children.
During war time and after the war it was much safer and cheaper to give the mothers enough to eat and let them breastfeed the child for 2 or even 3 years.
This is what the WHO recommends. And it makes sense, even more so in developing or poor countries. Ireland was very poor then.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
On the contrary he did the only correct, ethical and possible thing (it was not HIS fault there were not enough masks stocked, it is not his fault that many citizens are idiots and media outlets and politicians will try to make hay of the situation). Remember the toilet paper craze ? Remember the way the Trump admin "invoked " the Defense production act ? (but of course did not USE those powes).
States were left to fend for themselves and found themselves bidding prices up for PPE and ventilators against other states.
Yep, that America was supposed to deal with facts and be rational and abstain from buying up masks so that the healthcare workers could have them first.
Sure, sure ... And I have a prime swamp real estate to sell.
Dr. Fauci would have been highly unethical to advocate for (limited) use of masks by the general public as long as the essential workers did not have enough. Even "mentioning" that there could be some value could have started a run.
It was crucial to give the healthcare workers the protection. Fact is : masks worn by the general public are not very effective (He can't tell the public that truth either, but if you are informed you should have figured that out by now).
Mind you I am all for making the public wear them. In the absence of better, more efficient tools (until now), we have to utilize whatever we can.
They help a little bit - maybe 5, 10, 15 % of infections prevented.
The only EFFECTIVE way to battle a pandemic ?
1) vaccine
2) or at least having an effective treatment drug
We had neither, and only some imperfect tools.
Mask wearing 1) people with more exposure and 2) general public is one of them. Especially 2) is not very effective. We can't measure how effective, too many variables. We can test the materials in the lab and even simulate "gaps" - but the only insight we get from that is that fairly simple masks, even DIY can in theory prevent 75 - 85 % of infections (spread !) - under ideal conditions. and even small gaps considerably drop that number.
naturally people with more exposure that are professionals (= medical staff) get more protection out of mask wearing. And staff getting sick or quarantined during a spike of cases is the worst case scenario.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Highway-Hobo The Clyburn endorsement was VERY important in South Carolina. Exit polling - people were often still unsure and that fixed it for many. If Biden had only narrowly won S.C. DNC, and corpporate media could not have hyped up Biden like they did, it would have been much harder for the party luminaries (and obama) to pressure pete and Klobuchar to drop out of the race.
That would have cost Biden some votes on Super Tuesday.
I think Clyburn (the former Civil Rights "legend") has sold out in the meantime - but if the Sanders campaign and Sanders in person had courted him he might have abstained form endorsing.
Endorsements are usually not that important, but the old black voters listen to Clyburn, it changed the race.
Plus Sanders hand a LOT to work with to poison the well so to speak. To make it impossible for Clyburn to endorse Biden. he was not likely to endorse Sanders, but him abstaining would have helped already.
Biden ran on 1) he is a nice guy and 2) he can win against Trump and is more electable than Sanders.
Sanders: my good friend Joe Biden (covered 1), and when he was already behind Biden he said with a lot of conviction on cable TV (Seth Meyers, ...): Yes of course Biden can win against Trump. So that was 2).
Sanders encouraged voters who had known the image of Biden (as created by corporate media) and who like him to see him as the better choice (over Sanders).
Sanders didn't see the same man in cognitive decline that we observed. There were subtle ways to point out that Sanders has more STAMINA than Biden, and has run a much more vigorous campaign and for longer than Biden. Sanders weathered a heart attack and was back after 2 weeks. Full intense schedule. Not to forget the dayjob in the Senate !
It was political malpractice. As if he wanted to covertly ENCORSE Biden already.
Itis all well to be the eternal under dog. I think Sanders subconsciously self sabotaged when he came into REACH of real power. he just does not SEE himselves as having that power.
The morons, sellouts, careerists, fools, and psychopaths have no qualms, even Biden in cognitive decline wants more to become POTUS than Sanders. Judging from what he is willing to do. Lying during debates.
Sanders can't even be bothered to tell the truth about a man that a) obviously will have a hard time winning against Trump and b) objectively has served big biz and big finance all his political career. Very much to the damage of regular people.
The blind sport of Sanders is so glaring - I do not think he sold out - he got scared of his own courage. he is more comfortable with being and educator and eternal (underdog) movement leader.
I assume he was disappointed about low turnout of young voters and non-voters. Maybe he had second thoughts if he could really activate the electorate in the general. possibly with obama sabotaging him (another servant of big biz and big finance).
I call WRONG strategy. Inflexibility of Sanders to change the messaging (he is 78 years old, and I assume he must be stubborn or he could not have survived in D.C. as the oddball outsider).
But THAT could have been fixed. Better marketing to reach the detached young voters (Sanders has or had the engaged and informed young ones, but that is not the majority of young voters).
he could have turned this around:
By seizing the historic chance this unprecented crisis offered. The ruling class is really good at "never let a good crisis go to waste" : 9/11, GFC first bailout 2009 / 2010, later more QE to the tune of trillions.
Now they do the trilliions (QE) right in the beginning (the ruling class has made sure that is legally possible now, Frank Dodd, 1,5 trn on March 12th, just for a start).
Then the "stimulus" bill. Sanders and the progressives should not have fought for crumbs while the sellouts wrote versions of the bills (shit sandwiches). They should have screamed bloody murder, right from the beginning. people are desperate for leadership, scared and many are at home. They would have listened.
The robbery in broad daylight is only possible because no one challenges the narrative. Tells the voters: "Crumbs for you and small biz and you have to jump through hoops. Trillions for big biz (even if they don't need it) and no strings attached."
Petty calls for means testing by Pelosi. Every party inserting their big donor whishlist or a dose of indentity politics into relief bills.
The emperor has no clothes (QE !)
There is no GOOD reason to combine the relief for regular people and smaller biz with the package for big biz. If there is even one.
But then the lawmakers cannot hold the population hostage to do quick favors for their COMMON donors.
With some grandstanding (Good cop / bad cop gig).
Sanders talked about becoming the Organizer-in-chief. That was the chance shoved into his face.
ALl progressives could have - but instead they played the "secure-one-more-crumb" game. No wonder the oligarchs and the politicians beholden to them are getting more and more brazen at every turn, it is not like anybody is calling them out.
1
-
Things to make it impossible for Clyburn to endorse Biden - and to make black and older voters to second guess their sympathy for Biden: Sanders could have HIT Biden HARD. SS record, shackling young people to debt with the bankrupcy bill. Bringing up his nick name Mr. Credit card (I forgot the name of the company, and one of his sons sat at the board. During that time. No conflict of interest).
When his surrogate zephyr Teachout used the word corrupt and Biden in one sentence (and she was not mean or inaccurate in the facts) - Sandes APOLOGIZED.
In hindsight: lots of red flags - for the self sabotage of Sanders.
In fall 1987 Biden who was perceived to be a strong candidate had to drop out of a presidential race (primaries) - mainly plagiarism - but there was also Stolen Valor regarding Civil Rights Movement.
it is one thing to make up anectodes to make yourself look good, but with the CRM where people have DIED when they couragesly fought ....
clyburn KNOWS that history of Biden of course, but he banked on it that the voters don't remember. It was the job of Sanders to remind him and voters that Biden likes to LIE when he thinks it will help him (even stupid lies, he is not lying his way out of a hassle, which is common, he just does if for grandstanding).
Biden had made up stories how he as a young man had helped people that were discriminated against, or how he had fought against segregation.
That was all invented. He also brazenly recycled speeches of U.K. labor leader Kinnock and Bobby Kennedy. (and had almost been kicked out of law school because of plagiarism).
Biden had to admit that he was never involved formally with the CRM nor did he informally fight segregation. "He supported them in spirit." In other words all the anectodes were made up.
That is why he did not mention them in his book and of course Obama also did not mention those tales when he introduced his VP pick. (Because Biden had to admit that in the 1980s already, and it was better to not even touch that issue).
Corporate media always covered for Biden the Senator of the tax haven Delaware. In 1987 he got some scrutiny as a STRONG contender - but then they had other neoliberals in the race against VP Bush. So in this situation (and ONLY in this situation) Biden got some scrutiny. As soon as that was over they continued to paint the picture of folksy Joe the friend of the working class (later also VP Biden the stateseman supporting Obama).
Biden had life threatening aneurysms in Feb.1988 (he had to drop out in Sep. 1987).
Interestingly Biden - who kept silent about his "civil Rights adventures" for 30 years, started to tell those anectodes AGAIN in fall / winter 2019. Now that may not even be a lie, the memory of what he had told in the past is there, and he may not always be able to tell the difference between: I lived through that versus I told that story as if ...
Then there was the Crime Bill
(Biden on C-span footage calling himself the Grim Reaper, proudly announcing that he advocated for the death penalty for more kind of crimes. I think drug trafficking was one of them).
Because no black or brown man has every been framed by police (planted drugs). And they sure would go after the big guys. Like they went after the banks helping the cartells to launder drug money. Several times !
With a SETTLEMENT. (a financial slap on the wrist, and no one criminally prosectued).
In the Obama / Biden admin.
Good thing citibank had vetted the candidates for appointments, Incl. future Attorney General Eric Holder. (Podesta emails, citibank mail Oct. 2008 - before Obama had even won the election - check it out).
Eric Holder (or then Lorreta Lynch) both did not prosecute. They ALWAYS settled - when it was about the the banksters.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Beavereaver what do you KNOW about Communism / Socialism / Marxism ? Maybe your friend has realized something you do not kow ? check out Dr. Richard Wolff on economics. Or Smedley Butler on the regime change war and imperialism side (he knew it first hand, one of the most decorated Marines).
War Is A Racket is online as pdf, or check out his quotes for instance: I was a gangster for capitalism ... I could have taught Al Capone a few lessons. he operated in 3 districts I operated on 3 continents.
Karl Marx was brilliant and his analysis of the inherent problems of Capitalism still stands, his solutions may need some adaptations, that is O.K. he wrote his books around 1850 - 1870, all the more remarkable that his problem analysis is spot on. He did not promote totalitarianism. He was an economist and philosopher.
Have you heard the phrase: the revolution eats its own children.
If you have revolutions in desperately poor countries like France in the 18th century, Russia (1917) or China AND the foreign oligarchs meddle on behalf of the feudal overlords and monarchs - only the most ruthless, smart leaders with good military expertise and fighting experience will prevail.
It often ends with another form of tyranny, with other also ruthless leaders. usually the pendulum swings wild around over 100 - 200 years the promise of the revoltuion may manifest. France was an absolute monarchy, the revolution, the Republic, emperor Napoleon, then again a monarch from the old family, finally they became and stayed a Republic. Likely after the war with Germany in 1870. (Except for the time when the Germans occupied a part of France during WW2.
It means that people that did not have power so far but have a talent for power see their chance. Violent Revolution very often lead to another dictatorship. (Marx assumed that his economic theories would be put into practice in Germany one of the most developed nations then technologically and it would be a struggle (unions etc) but not a violent Revolution or war.
He did not expect that Revolutionaries in Russia or China would claim to emulate his ideas (they didn't, they had state capitalism. Economics is about power and dictators do not give the workers control (think co-ops) the state bureaucrats ruled the economy top down. That is not what Marx suggested.
But there you have his first mistake: he underestimated the inertia of the status quo and the powers that be in developed nations (like Germany and France). In Spain the Nazis helped crush the left grassroots. - Only very desperate people overcame that. In the other countries it needed 2 World Wars. Spain remained a dictatorship until the 1970s.
The American Revoluton was the 1 % of the colonies having a spat with the 1 % of the British Empire. That was a Revolution of rich people with help of the authoritarian French king. In the new Republic only around 40,000 white males with at least some property had the right to vote. That was not a democracy. The talk about freedom and independence was only to get the unwashed masses on board. That had the king as overlord and then the rich Colonists aspired to become the rulers. The new Rpblic was an oligarchy and those that had a little property had a little influence on what happened.
But the unwashed masses were needed in the upcoming war against the empire so there had to be some good PR (with help of the language and ideas of the enlightenment).
The constitution had some potential (and already the built in provision to be amended) and since some of the rich founders had been on the receiving end of government tyranny some things like due process or free speech (and also for pragmatic reasons freedom of religion and separation of church and government) were added. But slavery was protected as well.
The moderate, mild mannered, democratically minded actors will be sidelined in a violent Revolution or when outsiders fuel a civil war.
See Russia there was an experiment going on for a few months and the intervention of the U.S. France, UK on behalf of the totalitarian feudal regime indiirectly helped the most fierce group - the Bolshevics. Which seized pwoer in 1917 - and expanded that in the next years.
Similar effects in China and also in Korea and Vietnam. The U.S. was so hellbent on destroying mildly left populist movements that they helped the most extreme groups to get support.
Lenin, Stalin and Mao were very capable (military) leaders. And they correctly assumed that the Western nations and monarchies would crush them if they did not industrialize and build a modern military. FAST.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Junebug89 Sagaar is not consistent and not intellectually honest. he comes across as likeable - often (and Krystal has a good influence and does not let him get away with his talking points).
He certainly cultivates a Republican persecution complex. (I wouldn't be surprised to hear him complain about the war on Christmas or Thanksgiving).
Krystal can argue her points. He utters often talking points which are strangely inconsistent with other opinions he voiced. Like flirting with being a libertarian and then being against legalization of weed. Does not compute.
Also: Sagaar has not informed himself WHAT the situation of Portugal was and WHAT they changed. Not even on a basic level. Small country, (1 think 10 million people) very long coastline, small fisheries, entry port for heroin for Europe.
At some point 1 % of the population used heroin ! (not all addicted and in trouble with law enforcement, but incredibly high numbers). They saw the light out of sheer desperation. Their justice, medical and prison system was overwhelmed. Locking all up wasn't an option, they had to come up with REAL solutions. And they did.
So no one who KNOWS what they are talking about would claim "they had it easier because they do not share a border with Mexico". The situation was easily as bad as in the U.S. (when you take drugs smuggled in plus the opiode crisis) if not worse.
Who needs "Mexican" drug cartels when you have big pharma running amock with opiodes and an admin and regulators that do nothing (Obama / Trump admin, not sure if it started under GWB).
It would be much easier to regulate pharma. all other industrial nations do it, they have some problems with organized crime and drug trafficking - but not with big pharma hooking people up.
The drugs came into Portugal, does not matter if by boat or by vehicles, trucks etc. If you consider total size and finances of the country versus border and coastline they need to patrol - they have no advantage compared to the U.S.
Saagar also uses thought stopping clichés, takling points.
Also a staple: How the poor Republicans or "conservatives" have had it so hard with the "liberal" media and now the progressives find out.
Nope, the genuine lefties were NEVER treated fairly by Corporate media.
How free speech is under attack by those "woke" people. Now, that crowd can be annoying and the powers that be cynically abuse identity politics - but the "believers" are not a threat to the Republic, they are gullible stooges.
And those who weaponize it, will play dirty with whatever tool they find convenient. No need to get yourself into a rant about cultural wars.
On the level that counts it is not about culture or even a holier than thou games by some unimportant players. It it is about power and about shutting up people that the big fish find a threat to financial and other interests - by all means necessary.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jebstuart1323 Bezoes and the other oligarchs have their "money" - so not the part of their fortune that is tied up in bonds or stocks, direct invements in companies, precious metals, real estate or art, patents...... either in USD, EUR, a part in Yen (but that cannot absorb that much), and the Swiss Franc even less so.
The Renminbi (Yuan) could absorb a lot but China is not interested in having the currency appreciate, they want it "under value" because it helps with exports (means their citizens get less for their money if they import or travel).
And then the Yuan is a legal construct that is under the control of the government of China, and they could put the strategic interests of the country over the intrests of their oligarchs, or Western oligarchs.
I wonder if Bezoes would feel comfortable holding his "money" under the legal provisions of China in a Chinese bank in Chinese currency .... It they tax him or dispossess, what but is he gonna do, ask the U.S. government to start a nuclear war with China ?
Even if oligarchs would hold a part of their fortunes in Renminbi Yuan in a bank of another bank (not sure if the is even possible for those amounts - the Chinese gov. could derail that. Another bank let's say in Vietnam or Thailand can only "have" that much Yuan if the Chinese gov. LET them exchange it for their currency)
"Money" / currency is a completely virtual thing
Whether USD, or in Euros - they are based on laws, international agreements and societal acceptance).
The oligarchs cannot move their fortunes out of the dollar and into the EUR or any other currency (it makes exporting harder because the currencies might appreciate. and the governments could react with NEGATIVE interest, and they could limit that also to large fortunes).
Little Switzerland got a problem when a lot of money "went" into (= was exchanged into) Swiss Francs. That does not mean bank notes an coins, nothing moves but zeros and Ones in comuputers.
"Money" makes only sense if you can do something with that and for that you need an "economy" producers and consumers.
The governments can also limit how much the rich are allowed to "invest" into real estate. For instance that in certain areas only people that hae main residency can buy real estate (and how much). One home to live it. Or who is allowed to buy farm land. (allegedly Bill Gates buys it up, no idea what he is up to).
High property taxes on luxury real estate. Using eminent domain to force them to sell. In many countries access to beaches and lakes is public land. No one can buy that.
Likewise the rich could also be hindered to monopolize property of mines etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
dandagod official It is like they had a brainstorm in their daily meetings: "The times call for some meaningless virtue signalling - of course we will not touch any issues that would improve the live of low-income people (many of them are minorities). ... So what story could we run and for cheap * and fast ?"
* (w/o the need to have journalists and a team on the ground covering protests, which costs money).
Or doing some deep dive into police misconduct (again costs money, doesn't produce a story right now, when the protest are "breaking news", so they cannot exploit the moment. And they need the cops, who inform them, so they would rather not offend them, except when the police brutality is so outrageous that they cannot help but cover the story.
But they want to come up with something and fast, so they will be "caught participating" in the game of shallow virtue signalling.
......
easy target, has no power, the story writes itself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It wasn't that risky for Warren to bark against the banksters, it made her very popular. She had some fighting spirit when she founded the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. Corporate dems sneakily tried to defang the legislation, and she always went public and communicated that to the voters.
The crisis then was unchartered territory, they were a little afraid of the voters back in the day (not as brazen and confident as they are now, THEY have learned from the then).
So they did not dare to undermine her too openly. Ryan Grim followed that development closely. In the end she was determined to rather give up on the agency alltogether and have blood and teeth on the Senate floor than to stand for a agency that was only window dressing.
That was the spirit, she was not even a politician then. She should have been the head of the agency, but Obama did not think he could get her passed in the Senate (which by then had fallen back to Republicans, needless to say they threw a tantrum, and they threw one also against the other appointee).
obama had to appoint the chair during recess, which was a highly controversial move.
And Warren went on to win a Senate seat (ousting a Republican). At least she is good in that, in 2018 with 60 % in a 3 candidate race.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JJ8KK PHARMA industry: the reform of the healthcare system is not easy and bought and paid for Congress can throw a tantrum. But cutting pharma prieces should be a cake walk. The president could declare it a national emergency and start importing drugs from other countries.
That would be a media spectacle the citizens would be for it. There are enough people on the left and the right that currently have to endure the racket. TEN TIMES THE PRICE for insuline. That is a catastrophe on the human, medical, individual financial, and national economic level.
Rationing insuline means worse outcomes and higher costs LATER. too much blood sugur damages the fine blood vessels: kidney failures, people going blind, wounds that will not heal, amputations even. Poeple becoming disabled and unfit to care for themselves much earlier than in other countries.
The risk for strokes and heart attacks is higher anyway with diabetes and badly managed diabetes makes it worse.
On the issue of insuline alone Sanders could organize mass rallies and the racketeers - and their bribed helpers in Congress and Senate know it.
The SIMPLE SOLUTION for pharma drugs:
Have ONE gross importer. Medicare, all "retailers" (and the hospitals) get the same price. Done.
They have to pay the transport costs but that is the only difference. Pharmacists will have stocks, but they do not have everything, so occasionally you have to come back on the afternoon or next day and fetch it after UPS or whoever brought it.
There are models how they do it in other countries and the U.S. just has to use the blue print.
I think developing countries get better prices (which is O.K.) and the national contracts between agencies and the pharma companies forbid to export or import drugs from other countries or to disclose the prices (the rational being the price difference between wealthy and non-wealthy countries). So the price information would have to be exchanged behind closed doors and between equally rich nations.
It is a shame that Jeremy corbyn did not become PM - he and the NHS in the U.K. would certainly have been helpful.
Covert price negotiations are certainyl normal between all other nations who put citizens before the interests of the industry. Of course the smaller nations have a good idea what the larger ones are paying. Tiny Iceland with 300,000 people certainly has much better prices than the U.S. with 330 million people.
They do not have more negotiationg power - but they enjoy the protection of the larger nations when it comes to information about pharmaceuticals.
so there would be a massive cut of profits for pharma, and PBM's * would become obsolete right away.
* Pharma Benefits Manager
The problem is: no VOTER (but very few individuals) would miss them, no chance to weasel their way back into the system and into the racketeering.
1
-
1) HEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANIES have never gotten that big, powerful and profitable in reasonably run COST-EFFICIENT NON-PROFIT systems. 2) Elsewhere PBM's simply do not exist.
Healthcare insurers do exist, but if the system is ideally set up - they play VERY little role. No one needs them (I currently live in a single payer system).
There are historically grown differences how much of a small or tiny role they are allowed to have. The most pronounced differences come from right governments doing favors and CREATING a larger niche for private insurers (Germany and Australia. Also Netherlands. The U.S. does not want to imitate that.
Mind you the MAJORITY in these countries are under single payer the governments do not dare to touch that. But they incentivize and reward (Germany) or push - Australia - the more affluent into private insurance and private providers like doctors or even hospitals.
Mind you: to sell that to the affluent - especially the Australian PRIVATE hospitals - you would have to sneakily defund the public non-profit hospitals. But that is tricky. In Australia it is possible to have private hospitals because more than 80 or 90 % of the population live very concentrated in certain areas. In Germany the hospitals are non-profits. So the only difference for people with "private" is that they can demand a single room.
When the public insurance agency has the funding to pay the necessary rates to keep hospitals and doctor practices afloat (enough but not too many of them and spread out over the country ALSO in rural in remote communities) coverage is comprehensive, includes all that is medically necessary and desireable for good outcomes, and services are good and wait times are reasonable.
In a single payer system a MODEST MANDATED payroll tax gives the RIGHT to FULL coverage and services "free at the point of delivery". Duplicative insurance is forbidden. So if a doctor or hospital does not accept the contract of Medicare and the procedure would be covered by M4A - then the patients can only present cash, not a private insurance plan. Their employer cannot offer it. That means that it is very prohibitive for hospitals (big bills) to have for the most part such patients. They MUST accept the M4A contract. which of course must pay the necessary rates.
If ALL the patients have the same coverage they cannot discriminate.
It will also not be easy for doctors to offer out of pocket payment only. so most doctors will accept M4A contracts which meanst a lot of CHOICE for ALL patients. It also means affluent voters should be super motivated to have the system reasonably funded or the lower income people will flood their nice neighbourhoods with their nice doctor practices.
With the same budgets and comparable pools (no cherrypicked pools for insurance companies which is the likely outcome with public option) - the non-profit public insurance agencies ALWAYS beat the for-profit insurers.
A whole industry will vanish it will be an eclat on the stock market - and regular people will be pleased and not miss the predators. (Hospitals and doctors also will not miss them. The Sanders reform does not allow duplicative insurance:
But now that the glorified PREDATORY middle men exist in the U.S. and are VERY profitable for some and the source of income for a few well paid managers - they will put up a fierce fight.
Currently the U.S. has Pharma Benefits Manager - these companies are middle men that are completely useless, they just add costs and complexity.
They will go out of business. They should never have existed in the first place, bring no value. The pharmacies especially the small ones will be glad as hell.
VA is allowed to negotiate drug prices (the only agency that can) and they brought prices down by 40 %. Medicare can have a discussion with with Canada or European countries (their agencies).
It is the list prices the discounts, and I guess they get better prices in the first year or two when a patent is new (really new not the very generous renewals that help big pharma in the U.S.). they have that kind of rules in Gemany.
It is a data base. Pharmaceuticals are VERY standardized, even if the brand names are different, they always have to declare the active substance and dosage. So a few smart people and some coders can set up the comparsions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Krystall Ball (Rising) is not worried. from her experience with campaigns (she ran for office): at that stage the candidate having rallies in the state also takes resources away in the state - which can be directed at other efforts. NOW it is about activating voters, knocking doors, phonebanking. The presence of the candidate on the ground is less important.
Sanders has an excellent groundgame, and CNN, Warren (and Clinton) made sure the supporters are super motivated, they will drag neighbours, relatives, grandma and the cat with them to the caucus location.
But if the Sanders campaign wants rallies - I think they plan to use a private jet so the Senator can make more in shorter time, and they have strong surrogates that can attract a crowd on their own.
The campaign manager of IO also said there are 1500 (or 1800) precints. They have one location per precinct where the supporters of the candidates meet, the campaings plans to have at least 1 - 2 TRAINED volunteers in every location. They also organize car pools and drives for people w/o vehicle, etc. Much better organized than in 2016.
Groups under 15 % do not get delegates awarded, and in a second round the successful groups can recruit more members. It does not hurt to have them trained in persuasion so they can pick up more volunteers in the 2nd round. (it is all done PER location).
(I wonder if Warren wanted to poison the well - I think Biden and Sander are likely to make it in most locations. Warren and Buttigieg - not so sure. Which means team Biden and Sanders would often court them for their support. If the Warren fans are pissed off at Sanders they might go to team Biden propping up his numbers.
So I hope the campaign overwhelms the locations with young voters. And the Warren fans have time to cool off.
Crystal Ball (she was on The Micheal Brooks Show, 1 hour, very good interview) is confident that he will outperform the polls (like he did in 2016) - so if the numbers stay as they are (which is very likely unless they get better, the trend was upwards) HE will do better.
But not his opponents: their support is older, they have more likely voters - and these voters are better reflected in the polls. She also thinks since there are no more debates and now impeachment takes up all the oxygen in the media, it will be hard to start some media campaign against Sanders that could STICK (with the voters). Sure Hillary said "no one likes Bernie" (in the Senate). That's the last tempest in the teapot - Whatever - if anything it helps Sanders.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Moore is right - if big biz takes over the transition (at the moment a lot of smaller companies are active) it will not be done right. externalizing costs (a feature of capitalism) created the problem. Fox is right that Capitalims created the problem. the highest profit in the shortest amount of time, and externalizing costs. And no long term outlook (for 20, 30, 50 years).
China plans longterm. Under FDR and Truman there was longterm investment (that was beneficial for decades).
The Swiss built these expensive tunnels (one more than 100 years ago and still used). These are investments for 50 if not 100 years. No capitalist will finance that - but it is valuable for the national economy and quality of life (and helps reduce consumption of energy) The Swiss have an excellent well integrated system of public transportation (and the tunnels help with it being fast).
Comfortable fast, reliable, safe, and not expensive. Swiss residents can buy an annual pass that is valid for ALL mass transportation (includes even some touristic privately owned offers, boats on lakes or cable cars - or they get a rebate). Tourists get weekly offers - and like those as well.
No one drives by car into Zurich, even affluent citizens use the railway.
By law they transport a lot of their goods by rail (again the tunnels pay off - over the decades). Less trucks on the road.
In the valleys the pollution would linger longer (the wind cannot blow it away) - that would mean more asthma, worse air quality (that has an impact on already sick persons).
More trucks on the road mean more costs to maintain the streets, and much more traffic and noise.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Voters are uninformed, gullible, have little interest in nuance and have prejudices. The elites are all of that. And on top of it they love war, are VERY greedy, have no spine, most are not as educated and insightful as one would expect them to be (but beware of the exceptions. Bush 1, Cheney or Kissinger certainly were/are smart and knowledgeable.
Kissinger could have been a force for good. The devil must keep him alive.
Maybe many of the ruling class are not gullible.
Rather: highly idiologically biased and falling for their own propaganda - but they are highly deceptive. Add arrogance, entitlement, vanity and cowardice
By and large the common people have the better track record. IF a right wing despote got into power - almost always some elites (from other countries or from within the country) propped them up. (often big time).
If a left wing dictator took over - the Western ruling class typically forced a right wing dictator on the population, then when the population would not put up with ti escalated the situation, usually a civil war. Under such circumstances the mild mannered, democratically minded actors do not prevail. Only those that are ruthless, fierce, have excellent military and leadership capabilities, and are charismatic enough to motivate the masses for a bloody liberation war.
See Vietnam, Korea, China, Russia (the Bolshevics).
1
-
They did it in 1944. FDR had major health issues (untreatable high blood pressure, I wonder ...) he wasn't that old (but he had polio, he was a strong smoker). Churchill said he looked like a man on his deathbed in Yalta.
In 1940 the party did not want to nominate him (3rd term, that was unusual then but not yet unconstitutional). He had a clash with the party and he got his VP Wallace confirmed who was very progressive (pro black people, wanted to end the regime change wars. Trying to get along with the soviets. that could have worked out especially after the death of Stalin. and Stalin desperately needed economic help, so that carrot could have worked.
Wallace was the 2nd most popular politician after FDR. In 1944 the party let FDR campaign for president (I think he did not invest a lot, that was a foregone conclusion) but they made sure to block Wallace from being the VP pick. Which then was done by the party (insiders).
with all shenanigans of course.
they picked Truman (the war monger) who started the Cold War and immediate hostility.
then there was 1968 (Dr. King was killed in spring, Robert Kennedy in summer, he run for the nomination. The party decided who was going to be the nominee, and riots broke out (they were anit war). They nominated him anyway (I think a pro war type) and of course he lost. I do not know if a halfway decent person would have been available, but since there was a riot (with casualties and police brutality) one can safely assume it was a status quo defender and war monger that got the nomination.
That paved the way for Nixon.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
steven Kombolis well the court battles would be under the eye of 330 million pissed off citizens / residents and at least 260 millions of them have the vote. FDR had to deal with a right wing activist Supreme court, which struck down a popular relief bill. So it was clear they would collude the the Republican industrial leaders etc and try to dismantle the New Deal that way.
Bill after bill.
The population paid attention. FDR did fireside chats to evade the press owned by rich people and radio which was partially also right wing.
His first fireside chat as president had an audience of 60 millions (total population then just shy of 90 millions ! but more minors then !).
It was late Sunday evening when the whole nation (all that were capable to get it) listened to the president (on a format of his own choosing - a radio transmission that was not very long, but he set the time, the duration and no one interrupted him).
This fireside chat was the announcement of the results and bills passed after a few days of federally mandated bank holiday. The federal government had mandated that holiday to sort out the banking system (which had been on the brink of a nation wide bank run).
1933 was the last year when the president was sworn in in March (after that the lame duck amendment kicked in which had been passed already). So the first thing FDR had to deal with was saving the banks and the saving accounts.
They passed deposit insurance then (no doubt FDR had already prepared the legislation after he had won in Nov. and they knew who was in Congress and Senate).
Democrats did not need Republicans then, they had solid majorities in Congress and Senate.
Not for deposit insurance and bank refor (I think) but later FDR had to twist some arms. Some Democratic "representatives" were standing in the way of relief, not Republicans (they would have liked to stand in the way, but they could only complain).
Glass Steagal made THEN sure that banks that got deposit insurance were restricted to "boring / prudent" banking activities and services. That kept the system safe and clean for 50 years. Until the "deregulation" started under Reagan and the project was finetuned and finished by Bill Clinton.
Back to the Supreme Court going after one of the first New Deal bills.
The electorate was furious, FDR mused about court packing = appointing more Justices additionally to the 9, which would have shifted the balance of the majority of course. FDR could have done that provided D controlled Senate went along, they had the majorities.
A president NOW could make that a midterm election issue, he or she just would need to explain in detail what that MEANS for the life of citizens and why they should come out to vote for a D candidate, after having made them pledge what they will do once they are in office.
The court "got the memo", they "found" the next challenged bills constitutional (that included the minimum wage, which was also challenged).
Mind you the same court had "found" in the 1920s before the depression hit, that it was "unconstitutional" to outlaw child labor, it violated some "freedoms" to forbid child labor. Like today: some "justices" are good in reverse engineering their legal interpretations starting from a desired outcome.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@august3259 Not sure, the left that supported her may have already switched. I think she was also attractive for Hillary fans (we are lucky if they vote for Sanders to get Trump out of the White House) and white affluent academics. She shared a base with pete. These voters are financially secure (or so they think) and I guess many of them find the talk about bold reforms and a political revolution a little uncough.
THEY have healthcare insurance that provides good services (even if it is completely overpriced). And let's keep it real, do they really want to have everybody he same treatment in hospitals and at the doctor as they have ?
Like most people in the U.S. they are indoctrinated to see healthcare as a scarce resource, not everyone is lucky enough to have it, which is sad.
In theory they would like that to change (if the weather is fair and it does not cost them anything, not even a little bit of bold hope that change could mean change for the better). But so far THEY have been the lucky ones in the system .....
I hope of course that you are right - that the base that Warren has now would lean towards Sanders, and that I am wrong.
If Warren endorses Biden, she is history for the more progressive voters, and she does not score with blue collars (even if politically indifferent). , her next Senate race is in 2024, she does well with academics but not so well with the lower income bracket in her state.
1
-
MfA for legal residents 1/2: Saagar also does not get that no country that has cost-efficient single payer EXCLUDES LEGAL residents. and for that there are excellent reasons, if he would think things through. It is a knee jerk reaction that the subsidized healthcare shouldbe for citizens only. You mean like the firefighters, the bridges, the police, the justice system, the streets, .... Will migrants (legal residents) also have to pay for public schools (that costs a lot of money as well).
must be a cultural thing: Good healthcare FREE AT THE POINT OF DELIVERY is taken for granted in other wealthy countries so the idea not to include people THAT CONTRIBUTE to society and the economy does not even cross the mind of citizens in other countries. it has been long established, they have gotten more immigrants and it still works - so no one would even question that.
In the U.S. you are lucky to have good healthcare coverage that will really ! pay when you need them - so it is treated as a privilege - and automatically people conclude that that precious priviliege cannot be for everyone. A lot of that is going on in the U.S. anyway: Being so scared that someone gets something that is perceived as "undeserved". That nurtures a culture of Divide and Conquer - in the end neither the citizens nor the legal residents have good services in a country where the fear of the undeserving leech is part of the culture.
Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, ... do not see themselves as immigration countries the way the U.S. Canada or Australia do - but fact is they HAD a lot of immigration as well. If you compare native and naturalized vs. migrants (legal or udocumented) these countries might be comparable with the U.S..
Now the undocumented migrants will have problems: they cannot hold a job (only under the table) and when they need healthcare they would have to resort to private insurance, which would also be very expensive. So that means they pay out of pocket for the smaller stuff and will not be able to pay the large bills if they need more costly services.
it is in the interest of the system and every participant of the system to have as few people as possible that show up at the doctor and hospital and have NO coverage.
Remember they likely do get treatment - this is about WHO pays the bills resp. if the bills are paid at all.
"Almost everyone is in" It makes the admin easy and the doctors have to concentrate only on the medical side. They do not have to chase the money (would not get it in most cases anyway).
The employers are mandated to pay a payroll tax. that would not be necessary - so for them the migrant workers would be cheaper than citizens. That would especially play a role in better paid professions.
1
-
1
-
Many people do not work right now - and we are fine when it comes to having the necessary things. the restrictions comes from social distancing, not from not consuming enough (products). We NEED: housing, food, education, childcare, healthcare, care for the eldery and disabled, transportation (not necessarily by a car), heating, electricity, sewage systems, .... some consumer goods - but we probably could go for 5 years w/o new pots, dishes, garments, shoes, furniture, toys, books.
Only by way of buying second hand, and repairing things (incl. household appliances and cars) most people could abstain for the most part from spending on purchases.
We could all go one year w/o buying new shampoo, detergent, soap, .... just check out the content of the cabinets in bathrooms. Most people could finally use up the old stuff (it is usually O.K.). also some bater (or buying new but not loading up - the filled to the brim bathroom cabinet is everywhere, the things in it are often years old).
Empty the pantry with canned food, durable goods, etc.
We could spend on services ! provided by other humans.
And we all could work much less. While having the essentials for sure. Then we could figure out how to make sure we can earn enough for the nice luxuries, travel, the TV we do not need.
Cars and many products are status symbols. Humans are social animals they WILL have status symbols. We could replace those with OTHER status symbols. Like things that are MADE by humans. (Humans that get a good wage, not exploiting labor in developing countries to have hand embroidered garments etc. / think restaurated vintage furniture, oldtimers, homes. or new exclusive Swiss watches. Very little material, human labor makes them expensive).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
MidScream1 If ALL of the population pays into MfA (with an income) resp. are covered by it most doctors and all hospitals will have to accept the contract of Medicare. Else they would not get enough patients. They profit from the much easier admin and billing. and doctors get lower rates. - btw it would not help them to emigrate (even if they are accepted in other countries) - all other countries are doing it that way.
Doctors will not "leave" the profession, but would they do ? become lawyers ?
Some countries made the mistake (for the insured - but it is good for for profit insurers and a subsegment of doctors) to not make the coverage comprehensive. The mandated wage deductions must be affordable, so the wealthy and rich and profitable businesses have to chime in. Additionally to payroll taxes general tax revenue will finance the budget.
If the budgets are not high enough (that means of course much less in total than now once the system is sorted out) they will not include things like basic dental, or other things that are medically necessary - that opens a space for "upgrades". Or makes it almost necessary to have the upgrades (supplemental). Now typically these upgrades are left to the private insurers, and it is often for services of specialists. The insurers are not interested in the expensive stuff like surgery in hospitals, that burden is left to the public agency.
The for profit insurers get a part of the pie. Not because they do it better, though.
All insurers (public agencies or for profit companies) are adminstrative middlemen.
The for-profits have many costs that the public insurance agencies do not have (marketing, sales, profits).. And as soon as for-profit incentives are present in the system there will be distortions. For instance milking of "good" policies. There is also more complex admin (billing) if there are so many different insurance contracts. so the chance to streamline admin is squandered. Admin is a considerable cost (think processing healthcare questions of applicants). For a single payer coverage sign-up is done in 5 minutes (dependent family members are included).
A public option would mean full coverage either by private or public insurance - some could buy their way out of the system everyone else is using. No country has that btw (not on a large scale, Germany has the public option for the few privileged - think quirks of a historically grown system and traces of a 2 class system which started in 1884).
With public option the for profit insurers could make attractive offers to the young and healthy the sick and old land with the public pool. And the wealthy and big biz can easily press for cuts to the system - they are not stuck with the inferior services because of defunding.
Single payer is also good regarding LEVERAGE of the insured - if the whole country is in one boat, it WILL be well funded. Should there be flaws stemming from inept managment, that will be sorted out as well. (Medicare does well with overhead among public agencies of other countries - and they all leave the private insurers is the dust. Below 4 % and the U.S. companies have plus 20%.
Healthcare is costly even under the best circumstances and it is a very tangible service, that can be delivered with systems and blueprints. That is why public agencies do a good job, it is standardized and they are not getting away with not making good use of the resources.
No country has a public option (for the majority), but many have some form of upgrade on top of the public coverage. Which means: a political party (right) did favors: to affluent citzens (taxes), insurers (they get a slice of the pie) and doctors (they can get higher rates, the public agency is a stronger negotiating partner than the private insurers).
It is possible to not fully fund the public services - but then there will be need to have supplemental. Which adds an element of two class service and on top of that the private insurers add costs and inefficiencies.
if the coverage of the public non-profit agency is comprehensive and they have sufficient funding, services will be good for the insured and the doctors earn enough. (in the U.S. at least some doctors make a much higher income than their counterparts in Europe - even if you consider that they have to pay for medical school, which is free in most wealthy countries.
So either that privilege has to be stripped from them (while lowering education costs) - or Americans have to pay more than other nations to enable that higher income for doctors.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@maxsmart645 I can see that Biden and Sanders groups will get over the 15 % (that means delegates) in most of the 1500 - 1800 precincts in Iowa. But team Warren might just fall short in many locations. Then the teams that were successful can recruit members from those unsuccessful teams and thus boost their nubers.
It is all per location.
Now there would be a natural affinity (policy wise !)between team Sanders and team Warren - and until now they had been polite and amical. Sure: she shares her base more with Buttigieg - white, coastal, educated and affluent.
Many people feared that Warren would take votes away from Sanders. well, not really. She appeals to people that also like Pete Buttigieg, or even Amy Klobuchar. Even Bloomberg might make a dent into her base.
Many Sanders supporters like Biden and the other way round. So it can't be about policies (not at this stage), it is the vibe the voters are getting from a certain candidate. And of course perceptions shaped by the Corporate media.
Sandes volunteers at caucus locations could make their case to Waren fans to join them on grounds of similar policies.
This time the Sanders campaign plans to have at least 1 - 2 trained volunteers in every precinct, also to do these 2nd round negotiations and to hold the group of supporters together. They were not as well prepared last time (it was a small campaign they only planned with 30 million USD - they have learned from that, Clinton "won" Iowa with the help of some very lucky (and improbable) coin tosses.
One can assume that the polls report the support of candidates with an older and more affluent base of likely voters correctly. While Sanders, Yang, Gabbard might outperform the polls.
Well, Sanders better crush it in Iowa. Also to gain momentum.
Warren has tried to give the impression that she is a progressive even though she avoids to give Sanders any credit that the "cleared the path" - for instance for MfA.
1
-
1
-
The countries with the most population growth have a lot of people that live off 2, 5, 10 USD per day. They can impossibly consume a lot of resources or energy with that budget. They are lucky if they are well fed (not with a lot of meat though). I saw a film of rural population in India, they are all skinny while doing hard manual labor. An egg or the rare chicken is a treat.
Low income people in India do not eat a lot of meat, if they do not have a fridge it is too dangerous. If they slaughter an animal they have to cook and eat it right away.
The high population numbers will result in human tragedies - but THEY do not cause climate change. They live so modestly, that even solar lamps are a big improvment.
In Africa rainforests are partially under pressure by the growing, poor population. But also for mining, logging, cash crops - and they are exported. Extracting of rescoures by Western companies and for Western countries. Now increasingly for China.
In Latin America the deforestation is done for crops that are sold to the rich nations. The soy crops make cheap meat production in the rich nations possible. When the pigs and cows and chickens had to be fed with what the country could produce (not the fodder that grows on former rainforest) meat cost more. There is a reason they immediately rations meat in wartimes.
Deforestation in Brazil has nothing to do with population growth in Brazil.
Plus gold, other mining, oil .... this does not serve the poor population of Brazil.
In Asia they cut down the rain forests for cheap palm oil which goes to - you guessed it - the rich nations. For the food industry, detergents. Sure they could use oil grown in the rich countries, but it would cost slightly more. Plus palm oil is used for "bio fuel" (which is an insanity - but it is profitable for some companies so the EU continues with that scam).
Bio fuel contributes to deforestation in Asia and in Latin Amercia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Robert Miller Trump depends on the older voters. "Yeah, but you are old and have diabetes (another "pandemic" in the U.S. that's another discussion) so it does not matter if YOU die" - does not strike me as a good strategy to win over a very important group of voters.
Of course someone like Trump would not count either. Not a spring chicken, and overweight, and I do not think he exercises. Not like Obama.
Forget about decency. What became of cunning self interest and of good old pandering to the voters you need to win ?
That is the problem when you cannot defend your position with good, logical, consistent arguments. In the attempt to deflect as reality challenges the bubling admin with the NUMBERS of dead people - deflecing somehow, no matter how - they screw up the messaging to the core constituency.
you can bullshit your way out of a lot of politically thigh spots. But not on the casualties that happen in a country, you cannot bullshit your way out of a pandemica. you also cannot declare bankrupcy, stiff the contractors, order a think tank to clean up the mess on TV and move on ....
Not even Hillary Clinton was that stupid.
She spole of "access" to healthcare. Not that most that suffer from the current system, tend to be old and to have preexisting conditions.
Another example. It would be the equivalent of:
Yeah, I am on board with feminism, but let's get real: Most of the women that had an abortion did not really "need" one.
The number of abortions to deal with the victims of rape, minors being abused, or the child would have VERY severe, life threatening, genetic health problems is not that high.
The other cases (and motivations to have an abortion) do not REALLY count.
Even if Clinton would think like that (she doesn't) - she would never be so stupid to say that.
1
-
1
-
Congress raised the top marginal tax rate in 1944 to 92 % (for every dollar over 2,7 million income in todays ! value * 92 cents were deducted - only few loopholes so effective tax rate around 85 %.
* in the tax code back in the day 400,000 USD were often the important number for the threshold. (see Wikipedia, taxation in the U.S. and scroll down)
Those who had those incomes knew better than to complain about their tax burden. There was a good chance they were not soldiers, did not risk life and limb, and they also profited from the war economy).
The U.S. government kept the 90 % top marginal tax rate for incomes in that range in the books although the rich of course arranged for more loopholes over time.
In 1946 the U.S. had the highest FEDERAL debt ever, ratio of debt vs. GDP was 121 %. War is expensive, even more so a world war. Now the debt vs. GDP ratio is in the range of 103 - 104 % (2019) it is bound to grow with the extra debt and less revenue because of much more military spending and the tax cuts for the rich).
The GDP grew quickly after WW2 and with high tax revenue the debt also could be reduced - so 10 years later the rate of debt versus GDP was much better.
The record low (federal debt, not including the states or muncipalities) was in 1974 with 31,7 % - these were the years after WW2 when the New Deal with a lot of goverment spending (investment but unfortunaely also war and military spending) was in place. Plus finance well regulated, only somewhat free markets, lots of import tariffs, ...
In 1960 Nixon accused JFK in a presidential debate that he wanted to lower taxes for the rich (you read that right !).
Kennedy begged to differ.
His claim: an effective ! top marginal tax rate of 72 % would bring more than the 90 % in the books with all the loopholes. He intended to spend it on education. (bothagreed on the farm bill and more military spending, but not making more debt - well then you must tax more and preferably those who will not lower their spending when they have to contribute more. Businessed could avoid taxation with investemtn, and regular people were not hit, but profited from the capacity of the government to have bold investment / spending programs.
Even military spending creates some wealth - but ever other form of government spending is more beneficial.
anyway: the sky did not come tumbling down and the guy with the 72 % effective top marginal rate statement won the election.
1
-
The Republican party politicians (like the Corporate Democrats) were in search for issues to rile up the masses and to distinguish themselves from the other party (while serving the common donors). Think gun regulations, abortions, LGBTQ rights, and anything identity politics - that can also be white nationalism. Both parties do it.
The Corporate Dems latched onto the issue of gay marriage (Obama was glad to do it) after the grassroots had done the heavy lifting, and it would'nt cost them with the potential Democratic voters anymore. And they double down on it ever since.
Of course the shills don't chose issues that would improve the economic situation of most Americans. The financial interests of the big donors and of the marjority Americans almost never align (see NAFTA, TPP, environmental stanards, for profit exploitative healthcare, military spending, war, ....)
So it had to be something "cultural", that would not cost the big donors anything (either way).
Big donors have preferences on cultural issues but they are not affected by the outcomes and their financial intererests by far surpass any cultural issues (or human decency in a candidate, or competence).
The likes of Mark Zuckerberg would prefer Biden or Hillary Clinton or as a fresh face like propped up mayor pete over Trump - but they sure would rather have Trump in the White House than Bernie Sanders (or somone who is serious about the main issues of his platform).
The big donors have armed bodyguards, will not be bothered if they buy and consume drugs and their wives, daughters and mistresses can fly to other countries to have abortions. Plus they think the millions and billions will help them to navigate the effects of climate change, when the shit hits the fan, and the economic consequences of it become very apparent.
They are sue that they can make so that THEIR politicians let them profit of the measures and programs that will be necessary then. The ruling class / the fiancial elites won after the GFC and they are profiting of this crisis as well.
1
-
1
-
@kstewart199375 Fast forward 70 years where the single payer systems of many nations had time to develop apart. The overwhelming majority of rich nations pull it off for USD 5,400 per person, take or leave 400 USD (2017). All single payer systems.
Now that is some range - but it is NOTHING compared to the deviation you get, if you allow the for profits a large role in the system.
The U.S. already spent 10,260 per person in 2017 (that includes the persons that are uninsured, underinsured, do not get timely and / or enough care, or go broke over medical bills. It is the AVERAGE).
it is interesting to see the Swiss system which also relies only on private insurance. They pay a steep surcharge for that. 78 % of what the U.S. spends per person. Close to 8,000 USD on average.
Now the Swiss at least get an excellent system for all - that works thanks to regulation. Insurance companies are NOT allowed to play games or deny coverage or later refuse to pay for treatments.. But it does not work regarding COST CONTROL.
Private insurance always needs higher budgets compared to public non-profit agencies for the same outcomes, the public agencies have more negoatioting power (and more incentive to drive a hard bargain, private insureres like to pass on the costs and avoid a battle of the giants).
Additionally there are incentives to game the system that add costs. That can be mild inefficiencies or the insanity of the U.S. system. A private insurer has costs for marketing, sales, the profits for shareholders, and they CAUSE more red tape, so the rates must cover that as well.
If the Swiss do not succeed (in that aspect *) with their many ballot measures and culture of direct democracy - the U.S. can forget about having cost control if they let for profit players dominate.
* there have been attempts in Switzerland - ballot initiatives - to go towards single payer or at least public option and the astro turfing of the industry and doctors (they get higher rates) was ramped up.
If something annoys the Swiss citizens a ballot measure is easy to start, would have a lot of support, ballot measures can be binding (not all are). They can pressure / force polticians. On the other hand the special interests can also use the process, especially if there is no immediate or tangible need for changing the system. A healthcare system that has developed over 70 years (often longer) has a lot of inertia, if there is not a lot of pressure by dissatisfaction chances are no one is motivated enough to fix the inefficiencies. Especially those that serve powerful actors.
Now, the Swiss get the ballots and the brochures describing the initiatives into the mail every few months and many of the ballot measures only get 25 - 30 % support (because there are so many, and most of the time the voters do not bother).
So far the fearmongering has prevented any change in the system. That provides very good - if expensive - services for all.
The Swiss like the affluent U.S. citizens know that they probably pay too much, but they appreciate the good services, and fears it could get worse are stoked. So they operate from the position: the devil you know ....
It is a rich country, they can afford it. Plus they pay their staff well: Not only doctors, all, so a lot of the money is funneled back into the economy. It does not all land with the profiteers.
The many private contracts cause more red tape. Citizens / residents have plans (that is mandatory), the employers are not mandated to pay payroll tax or to offer a private plan although many do.
It means more admin (and having to pay staff for that), but more of their spending goes to the people that actually provide medical care ("insurance coverage" is admin around healthcare, it is not the real thing).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jarueb right - Republican president CLAIMS he didn't mean to incite violence (wink, wink). But he and his cabinet just could not be bothered to do ANYTHING for hours when the riot was covered live on TV and they got frantic calls. R Senators aquit Trump, VP Pence and House minority leader McCarthy are now too cowardly to testify about the calls they had with the president were they asked him to HELP
- and YOU think Democrats should be ashamed of themselves.
We can play dumb about his intentions before the Storm of the Capitol happened. But the lack of action is proof of intent. The president has the best intel, has staff, has a cabinet, and the rest of the world knew what was going on.
Even IF Trump is mentally deranged and therefore UNFIT for office - the Secretary of defense and interior were also Missing In Action, with no rational explanation whatsoever.
They (president, SoD his deputy, or down the chain of command) Made (R) Govenor of Maryland wait for NINENTY minutes to deploy the National Gurd - to help police that was hanging on for dear life.
For someone that gets triggered by journalists, fresh woman in congress, comediens to publish tweets during the night - he and his cabinet were oddly SILENT.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shillgates6664 Unions had the leverage to demand increasing wages, and that is only possible if there are no longer downturns with high unemployment (without full and fast recovery). - The purchasing power of average hourly wages doubled between 1947 and 1970. (almost - it was 93 % plus, while productivity was plus 112 %)
Wages were good even in the non-unionized sectore. It spills over from unionized sectors, mainly manufacturing.
Wage increases were DEMANDED and given in lockstep with growing productivity, so it was steady throughtout the 1950s and 1960s. Unions demanded it. Which they could because they had a lot of support. If the companies wanted to make good profits at all, they had to give the workers plenty. There were many jobs openings and people found work easily.
Wages going up WITH productivity increases is important - then the good wages can be financed with the productivity wins, most of it stems from automation, new technolgies and materials etc.
But as the times after 1970 prove, the wise policy to increase wages WITH productivity was abolished by the corporate sector as soon as they got a chance.
Productivity wins 1970 - 2013 plus 69 % that is less although in a much longer time 43 years, not 23.
But still there was some to go around for all.
Nope.
Average hourly wages adjusted for inflation went up only by 9 % in those 43 years. (they had doubled in the 23 years before). To be clear we are talking PURCHASING POWER.
from the 1970s on negotiation power had been undermined. First the cultural shock about higher lasting ! unemployment. A propaganda war against uppity workers that striked in the 1970s to get at least inflation adjustment.
The oligarchs seizing the chance to change the narrative to their liking.
Ill advised high interest policy by Volcker in the late 1970s.
That strangled the economy. The cure for energy being a too high share in the costs of living (transportation, heating, cooling, electricity) and the costs of production of goods / services would be:
Investment - research - replacing the use of fossil fuel with technology, engineering, construction and other work.
And for that you would need low interest rates (for investment, not consumption). They did the opposite.
Reagan could shape the 1980s with folksy and wrong narratives (on supply side economics).
Telling the voters that what was good for the richest in the country was also the best for them.
With the advent of outsourcing with help of trade deals it became even easier to erode the bargaining power of labor. They would have recovered even from the 1980s - but then came outsourcing. Even during low unemployment of 2018, 2019 wage increases were less than inflation increases (and that is only official rate, never mind the real inflation with rent, healthcare costs).
Supposedly in such a situation labor has bargaining power in the "market". Well, not anymore. Culturally unions have been eroded. Legally it became easier to go after all organized forms of restistance. There is safety in numbers. As long as there were many unions members management could not pick them off one by one.
Important: Now the owners can threaten to leave the country and politicians helped them with trade deals so they can blackmail the workers = voters.
In the 1970s an adjustment would have been needed. Cheap money (interest) to improve energy efficiency to reduce the dependency on cheap oil - and the incentive to have wars over oil (lots of jobs, insulation, engineering, solar power). And reducing the work time from 40 to 39, ... 37 ... 35 hours.
Giving the additional productivity wins in form of more free time and not in form of more purchasing power. But keeping the monthly purchasing power STEADY.
all would have had a job, no displacements as women entered the workforce, ongoing migration and ongoing automation and other productivity wins.
Instead labor / unions lost negotiation power and the corporations could not restrict their desire to earn more (lower costs with lower wages, outsourcing later, and lowering taxes overal).
Because the oil price spikes in the 1970s caused longer times of unemployment, and the oligarchs used that to hit back. Finally ! They had to bide their time since the 1930s.
1
-
1
-
@shillgates6664 The other very important part of the formula of the Golden Ear (1945 - 1970): High taxes for the rich and highly profitable biz (the latter had to invest, pay good wages, etc to avoid paying taxes). See Wikipedia Income Tax in the United States, scroll down to the table, you well see that there was no change between 1954 and 1964 (when JFK was already dead).
That built the middle class, but the oligarchs do not like that recipe, they did well - but the workers got the lion's share (all considerations of fairness aside it is the only way an economy with mass consumption of mass production can work).
So they started the propaganda about how lower taxes for them are good for the economy and the population overal.
After all the population has the vote and the notion, that god had created society so there were a few rich and many poor did not fly anymore. They had to sell the ideology that helped them under the ntotion that is was also good (the best / the only way to go) for the many that outnumbered them at the balot box.
Nope, letting the rich have MORE of the national income does nothing for the economy. "Capital" is a shy deer it is spooked by perceived risks, they do not create.
If they have more money than they can ever spend, it sits idly on accounts.
and / or they start speculating.
If workers get more - they spend it.
If the money comes back to government (it is called taxation), they will spend it too. For the most part for things that benefit the average citizens, infrastructure, schools, research, police, ...
Even if they give a company a deal (military contract for instance) and le's assume it is not necessary too expensive, and corruption is involved.
Still:
Staff makes wages (good, that goes into the economy, even if the middle class engineer saves up, at that income level the money is spent at least when the kids inherit).
Owner makes a profit. Thanks to taxation the damage is limited here. Sure, there is always some government spending that could be allocated in a more efficient manner, there is corruption for sure - but having to pay a profit to shareholders is also an inefficiency. As long as the inefficient spending / corruption does not get too bad, it will not cause harm.
Especially if the top income bracket is taxed.
Every large system has some inefficiencies. As they are inevitable the question is: who gets the spoils and what damage does it in the large scheme of things.
btw government injects money into the economy, and it comes eventually back in form of taxation. Not the other way round.
if government has civil servants that are not put to very efficient use - that is not as expensive as paying a solider, or house a prisoner for one year. People might be jealous about some having an (allegedly) cushy job - the damage to the national economy is limited because these persons will spend the money, it is kept in circulation.
Whereas if the rich get the money they hoard it. Whether it is ill gotten or not (if a person is rich, if a company gets very larege they always rig the system one way or the other, or benefit from rigged rules).
It is always better for an economy that needs mass consumption of mass produced goods that the regular people have the most share of the national income. They keep the money in ciculation. The money will facilitate many more transactions and a larger volume when it moves between employers, wage recipients, companies, other companies, government getting taxes, government spending, .....
And only taxation (incl. estate tax as the last corrective) can prevent that the money is permanently funneled to the top.
100 billion owned by a rich person do nothing if they sit on an account or if they bought government debt (government could create the money directly, the already do in form of QE). 100 billion moving throught the economy to government and injected again facilitate transaction volume that is much higher than 100 billion.
If the people with high incomes "invest" with the untaxed "surplus", they drive up prices at the stock exchange (more hype and short term win, a company must be already big to go public, it is not really a good way to finance new companies. the hpye is a way to short term wins. see the history of stock exchange bubbles).
Or they drive up the prices for real estate.
If they invest into a real biz that means the money is tied up for longer, there are risks - but they do not pay taxes on expenditures (which reduce profits).
1
-
1
-
@garycooper9408 Bill Clinton and Obama or Hillary did not deny it either, they just could not be bothered. Clinton as SS restructured the State Department to promote fracking all over the world, a) also fossil fuel b) it releases a lot of methane (unburnt natural gas is mainly methane).
It is stronger regarding the effect on warming (28 times) it does not stay as long as CO2 (which may remaine in the atomsphere for 1000 years, methane in the range of 30 - 100 years).
Scientists discuss the methane bomb (released from thawing tundra / swamps, thawing ice, from the oceans. CO2 beats all greenhouse gases, because it is so stable, but it is not the strongest.
Methane is the accelerator. The whitewashing of fracked gas was the claim that it has a better CO2 footprint than coal.
Well - that only works if not much methane escapes in the process (I think they calculated with 2 % or 5 %) it is more in reality and since the gas has 28 times the effect of CO2 ....
Never mind poisoning of water, poisoning of residents and wildlife and soil and earthquakes.
I know all of that and do not have the experts at my disposal. Well I do not take money from lobbyists so I am free to know what Hillary Clinton ignored.
The methane problem is also important for big ag, for farting cows, growing rice (under water), and if the pipelines leak gas or directly at the extractio site. The methane is not poisonous if the volume is not that large. and it is clean at the place where you BURN it. But it is a potent greenhouse gas and also fairy stable.
Leaking pipelines can be a huge problem as well (that is more for extracting it from fields (no fracking) like in Russia or Iran and then it is pumped to Europe. If the natural gas (from fracking or a normal extraction site) is burnt it is another fossil fuel that emits CO2.
If it escapes unburnt or from bacteria decomposing organic matter w/o oxygen (like in the stomach of a cow, garbage rotting, swamps, that is why rice is an issue as well, if it grow on flooded fields) Methane contributes much more than its normal CO2 footprint.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
First let's count ALL the votes. Including the much higher (this time) mail ballots. it is a pandemic you know and it would have been REASONABLE to vote by mail. It is also cheaper. And a first world country should be able to set that up. Never mind that the swing states (actually 20 counties in the Swing states decide the election) are often run by a R state legislature. So the Republicans can make sure that the processes are reliable.
If they say that can't be made secure, what they really claim is that they are unable to govern and administrate. (Truth is mail ballot removes a lot of the obstacles for low income people to vote. Hours to wait, on a workday no less. Third world country standards. if it is that convenient even luke warm citizens might be bothered to give an input. and Republicans know that they cannot win if the abyssmally low turnout of the U.S. is higher. In 2016 only 60 % of eligible voters ! That was a high profile race that got global attention. In any other first world country that would be 80 - 85 % turnout (80 % would be normal, and 85 % if it is a contested race).
Lots of other nations have the mail vote.
Just ask Switzerland. They have ballot measures several times a year. Which they handle by mail. The normal occasional elections are more in person (but that is very easy, and accessible).
The eligible voters get it into the mail. It is easy to start a ballot measure (for grassroots) the movements will campaign, media will weigh in (usually on the side of big biz), the arguments pro (and I think also against it) are on a flyer that comes with the mail ballot - the government has to prepare the material, no doubt there are rules how they have to present the issues and how they must give space to the movement that started the ballot measure. The sitting government (usually a center righ government) gives a recommendation. But it is clear to see what is gov. recommendation and comment.
Some measures only have 30 % participation. If those who chose to vote on it get it through, even if they win it narrowly - it has passed and the government is obliged ! to act on the will of the people (that voted).
If the 70 % then have second thoughts they can of course start their own ballot measure.
Despite the quite conservative character of politics there is also a strong populist element because of direct democracy that is added onto a representative democracy. And if something really bugs the population, they will set politicians straight (and those ballot measures get 70 or evne 80 % return). Voters do not have to wait for elections and they do not have to hope that a candidate will make good on any promises.
That said: While media is aligned with big biz and neoliberalism, the elections are not financed by big biz. Big big and finance have the ear of the government (after all they provide the cushy posts for ex politicians and can afford to lobby them). But if politicians mess up they get their warning shots. Which means that the politicians to a degree do not even poke the bear.
It showed in the corona relief pacakge. No easy handouts with no strings attached for big biz, and the small businesses did not get a bad deal. Like in many other countries, especially in the U.S.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+ Kehlan That is why you work 63 hours per week. - the U.S. introduced the 40 hour week for all in 1940 (some industries and companies had it before). 40 hours were a good fit for the state of technology, automation and research then. Manufacturing jobs for males (in industry like car manufacturing) paid best, but it trickled also down to lower paying jobs.
The minimum wage was the highest in the late 1960s, had it only be raised by the official inflation rate (not even productivity) the federal minimum wage would be now between 11 and 12 USD, not 7,25 for the federal minimum wage (some states have higher minimum wages, but they also tend to have high costs of living).
The minimum wage also influences to jobs that pay slightly better, they go up as well. It trickles up.
In the late 1960s a lot more was produced IN the U.S. (or in other countries with good wages) and consumer somehow could afford to buy the stuff - thoses prices also included costs of labor. (but the consumers also had money, most of their purchasing power comes from wages).
Between 1947 and 1970 productivity rose by 112 % and workers got the lion's share, the purchasing power of the wage for one hour almost doubled ( plus 97 % for hourly averave wages adjusted for inflation).
Then came the turbulent 1970s (2 oil crises, higher unemployment for the first time since WW2, global economic problems).
Which the oligarchs used to finally - FINALLY - hit back against workers, unions and the New Deal economic paradigm. Good wages, a lot of government investment - that also helps with employment, and high taxes for the rich and profitable biz.
the metrics from 1970 till 2013 (so 20 years longer than phase 1).
Productivity gains + 69 % (so much less than in the first 23 year period) but real hourly wages only plus 9 %. Looks like companies either paying taxes - or paying good wages and investing into research - actually helps with innovation.
If they did not invest Uncle Sam got a lot of good profits. That is simple logic, but since neoliberal propaganda took over you will hear that higher taxes would stiffle innovation. Or good wages.The companies try to replace "expensive" labor with machines, that is an increase of productivity.
The way to deal with some human labor becoming obsolete, would of course have been to give the lion's share of productivity wins (a lot of that stems from automatin) in form of more free time after 1970 (not in form of higher wages, higher purchasing power as in the past 23 years).
Since the population had improved a lot since WW2 financially and unemployment increased substantially in the 1970s, it would have been time to pay in more time not in more money. Then all would have a job (low unemployment = good wages in that system, if the jobs cannot be outsourced with help of trade deals). People woudl work over time 39, 38 .... 30, ... hours per week and still have a living wage - technical progress pays for it (and keeps costs for production and disposable income of consumers stable).
Unemployment would have gone up anyway if the 40 hour week would have been kept (real 40 hours not with unpaid overtime, or 2 jobs):
More comupter use, automation, more women entering the workforce, and more migration. The oil crises just sped up the process, and created a shock - which the ruling class used very cleverly to their advantage. They had been biding their time since 1933, ....
For low income people the inflation tends to be higher than the official rate. Rent, healthcare, education, childcare all went up faster than inflation rate. Dropping prices for travel, or gadget etc. do not really compensate for that If spend most on essential and not on "luxury goods".
If you cannot build your real estate, you also pay back a mortgage, but for someone else.
And you cannot evade the price pressure, the increase in prices only helps owners.
People with good jobs (typically white collar, the well paying blue collar jobs have been outsourced) have better healthcare coverage by the employer, lower income people lose intergenerational wealth if they get high medical bills, or they have to pay (too much) for the policies and the out of pocket expenses - and that has increased way above inflation rate.
So the people with the lower hourly wages (hourly usually means blue collar) may have gotten even less than 9 % increase of real wages over 43 years, for them purchasing power may even have falling when factoring in the cost of living for basics. Low income people spend the most on basics.
I give the numbers till 2013 (I know them by heart), but the trend has not changed. Wages have gone up in the last years (till end of 2019) but inflation has eaten a lot of it. Real wages means adjusted for inflation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It is pointless to lecture China on how their growing middle class will have to be prudent with the use of resources and energy, and should not imitate Western consumerism - when the First world countries haven't done that since WW2 (under better conditions) and continue to refuse to shoulder their share - let alone to lead the effort.
China went big on solar while the rich nations werre busy with austerity afte the GFC caused by THEIR banksters. China during that time realized they had to prop up domestic consumption (they follow the model of the U.S. after WW2) by paying better wages. They built a lot (not always in solid quality and prudently) and they got bullet trains. Even Taiwan got one route.
As for India, Bangladesh, Egypt, Pakistan .... the rich nations will have to offer help to develop these countries combined with programs to bring population growth down. (If only for selfish reasons, two of these nations have nukes).
Reducing population growth. Education, jobs, strengthening the position of females (if they go to school longer they do not marry so soon, and have fewer children).
By incentives and supporting a shift in public opinion (daughters can also provide for the elderly parents, typically that is the task of the sons, one more reason why they have more value for parents, who aim to have as many sons as possible.
Plus good healthcare, so parents with "only" 2 or 3 children know they will survive.
The government could allocate benefits to adult children, but MORE to daughers for that purpose. That would make having daugthers more valuable in those patriarchal societies. Then they do not need to have 3 sons (and some daughters until they reach the number of sons).
Plus easy and free access to birth control.
Two children will be enough. One or two sons - they will be happy for cultural reason, if it is a daughter that will improve their financial security in old age.
And rules that daughters can carry on the family name. So it does not matter if they have only 2 or 3 daughters.
1
-
Joe Biden is in cognitive decline. Not sure if it is dementia, but his capacities overall (mental and physical) are not sufficient to prop him up in the evening (that effect is called sundowning with elderly people) and he is not able to have a rigorous campaign. And If he has to exert himself and the days are longer - I think the only state where he did campaign a lot was South Carolina, * he starts to malfunction, it shows in his language. These are not only "gaffes" and he does not only mix up words.
It is too frequent and the malfunctions are not harmless (forgetting a specific term or saying billions instead of millions, which is permissible if it happens here and there).
Biden will be a figurehead and the lobbyists will run the White House.
* he also campaigned more in Iowa, and New Hampshire, but for that he had more time, it is not like he had an intense schedule, unlike many other candidates (Booker, Harris, Sanders, Warren,....) he did not have a office.
so he had all week time to do an event here and an event there.
The presidency is stressful. For now his campaign hides Biden, he does 7 minute speeches so he cannot produce more footage for the "Has Joe Biden dementia"
The power of media is still impressive, they can prop up a candidate in cognitive decline.
Never mind the baggage he has from being a faithful servant of Wallstreet and big biz,
Trump will eat him on his vote on Iraq and ON the trade deals (NAFTA, China, and he was for TPP of course he was).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Productivity wins (most from automation, new technology) 1970 - 2013 * plus 69 % (so less in 43 instead of 23 years), average real wages (adjusted for inflation) + 9 % - someone else got the spoils this time, this was a change in culture, negotiating power, and policies.
Problem (aside from "fairness" which is subjective):
Mass production needs mass consumption, and that needs spending power.
(Consumerism and natural limits of the ecosphere are another issue, but productivity wins could pay for the more costly cautious and prudent use of resources).
* trend unbroken but I do not know the numbers by heart. It has not gotten better, the nominally higher wages
have been eaten up by inflation. In areas where the minimum wage is already 15 or at least well over the federal 7.25 there was a lot of growth, densely populated areas and rents have exploded.
Inflation has eaten up most or all of the gains. The metric is increase adjusted for inflation.
If in an economy there is ever increasing output (or producing the same with increasing efficiency with fewer people) there is a mismatch between what companies want to sell and must sell (to cover their costs) and what consumers (workers) can afford.
There was of course consumer debt on the credit card, but that has been maxed out.
In the 1970s it would have been time to switch the way in which the major share of productivity wins were given.
Not in more purchasing power but in more free time (but not a measly few percent like they did since the 1970s !) That way the companies would have paid for it.
My beef with Yang: he wants to finance it with a sales tax. That is a regressive tax and he is oddly silent on taxing the rich and the estate tax on fortunes. He also talks about automation. Sure - but in the past there was a LOT of outsourcing going on. The companies now do not threaten to install the robots and fire everybody if they dare to unionize. The threaten to move to a state that helps them suppress voters OR they threaten to leave for Asia.
Automation might become more important in the future, not quite there, but the spoils of the post have gone somewhere and he has a huge blind spot.
Now, some areas are a good fit for automation and others not, so the reshuffling of national income / work time / automation gains can be steered in several ways:
over higher wages (the highly productive workers = work in industries that can automate well) and those who work in high paying jobs are mandated to pay more for services and goods (because good minimum wages are implemented). So it spills over to professions that cannot automate as well, often service sector or where human interaction is important.
And / or a (partial) UBI.
Other forms to redistribute wealth, like
Medicare for all,
public low cost childcare, higher education, care for the elderly,
affordable good public housing (for up to lower middle class or middle class to get a good population mix).
Good mass transportation (so people can make do w/o car or only one care).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden represents the tax haven Delaware. He has been a faithful servant of big finance, big biz all his career. btw: That constituency of Biden (and other Corporate Democrats) also likes war, insane military spending and for-profit healthcare. And you will notice that influence (healthcare industry, MIC) in the votes of Biden and in the Bills he wrote or which he pushed. Big Finance is his main concern but there are many crossovers.
No wonder Biden gets along well with Cheney, he shored up the votes for the Iraq War in 2002 / 2003 Washington was buzzing with rumours, the insiders knew of course that the Cheney / Bush admin was hellbent on having war and leaned heavily on the CIA so they would provide "fitting" "evidence" - and suppress evidence to the contrary.
Bill Clinton had security clearance, Biden could get information behind closed doors if he wanted to.
But - WHY NOT start another war ? if it would turn out to be a mistake, they could always hide behind the majority opinion, and mainstream media would not hold them accountable. Their children are not in combat, the donors like war, they can evade to pay any price (not in taxes, not in political or legal accountability) - so why not push for war in an BIPARTISAN EFFORT ?
Biden did the folksy gig and seemed to be able to find the right TONE with blue collars in the past. Talk is cheap ! Mainstream media propped up the nice image of the friend of the working class - after all he was popular with their advertisers and the rich owners of the networks, so advertising people like Biden to the voters made sense.
Before the internet it was hard for the voters to stay on top information-wise, to connect the dots over the years.
Almost impossible for people who do not process information for a living (journalists, academics, politicians, media persons)
Today you can go on a webpage and see how they vote (and voted in the past) and how their opinions changed. Back in the day that would have required serious research by individuals in libraries and reading all the newspapers and keeping the clippings (and filing /indexing them for later searches. Doing academic research as hobby)
And if you had that information (for instance an author on a certain issue or person) it would have been difficult to SPREAD that information or for potentially interested persons to access it. Sure occasionally a book was published - it did not make a dent on the masses and their votes - so that could be gladly ignored by the oligarchs and their politicians.
It was very easy for the legacy media to SHAPE impressions to manipulate the narrative and to suppress information.
See Noam Chomsky: Manufacturing Consent. Has been going on for more than 100 years in the U.S. and it has become worse since Chomsky wrote that book (in the 1960s or 1970s).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
From a business view of point the owner let down the stylist who rented a chair (Pelosi is HIS client). She also violated a rule about high profile customers: Discretion. If he knew that the owner made derogatory comments about Pelosi when he booked the place - he likely is not getting a pass by Pelosi for bringing her into that embarassing situation. That salon owner is likely a Trump voter.
I understand that she may be highly frustrated about her business situation - but Pelosi did not create the rules, the govenor did.
Pelos should know the rules for beauty salons in her state and city (which are however new as per Tuesday), on the other hand the stylist should know them for sure. and being ignorant about the details is somehow permissible. (I mean there are rules for hospitals, mass transportation, schools, meals on wheels, army ......)
The stylist likely told her it was safe enough with him wearing the mask.
And he is right, and the place could be open IF the stylists wear well fitting masks.
If the sitting admin would have reacted better the U.S. would be in the state of Germany, France, ITALY, Belgium, Greece, Canada ... hair salons are open, schools are open, they had tourism and maintained the fragile balance.
I am not sure the rules regarding the beauty industry must be that harsh. Don't know how bad it is in San Francisco. Likely schools are much more problematic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@elaineteut1249 Democrats were not against a PUSH for an early vaccine (many nations and companied PUSHED for that and since spring 2020). They were sceptical when Trump (for obvious political gain) announced a vaccine would be available very soon - well being sceptical about what Trump says is a no brainer.
Remember hydroxychloroquine and using light and bleach inside the body ??
Cringe. it was embarrassing to watch him say those things.
However, Democratic policitians accetped it the moment, the good news came from reliable sources - the CDC, Dr. Fauci AND the authorities that test and monitor vaccine development in OTHER nations.
The last big pandemic (with a lot of deaths) was in 1918 - 1920, and medical science not nearly as advanced, so we have no idea how fast a vaccine can be developed when it is globally: all hands on deck.
There were vaccination campaigns against polio or measles that had some urgency - but it was nothing like the death toll now and like this economic crisis. So they did not unleash the full war like effort, and developing and testing the measles and polio or whopping cough vaccines took longer.
There was an intense effort to develop antibiotics. That took long (to mass produce them in stable form). But that was the U.K.with some funding from the U.S. Considering how they changed medicine - they likely still did not invest enough.
Goes to show you: IF humans are really intent to solve a technology problem, and they throw money and resources at the problem - they are gonna solve it. Same with nuclear fission (they did not even know IF that was an option) or with the Race To the Moon.
The last pandemic (= global epidemic) was in 2009 - but swine flu was not nearly as deadly or contagious. They had some treatment drugs. IFpeople died of it they did so within short time. If a person had survived one week, chances were good they would live. With CoVid-19 after 1 week is when many get into real trouble. And they may need the ICU for WEEKS.
No one bothered to even impose light restrictions for a limited time to reduce spread during the last PANDEMIC in 2009 (think testing for travellers, a few days quarantine, mask wearing). Not as many died or had severe complication if they survived, it was not as contagious and if people died they did not need the hospital (long) before passing.
Epidemic / pandemic refers to the fast, easy spread, into other nations or even globally - and that the disease is somewhat severe (at least for some people). That could also be measles or the "normal" flu (that are not as threatening and therefore never triggered a shutdown of businesses or closing of borders, travel restrictions, ...). And common cold also is a "pandemic" as it spreads easily and globally but it is not counted, because it is so harmless.
There were also measles or polio epdemics (or maybe even pandemics) in the 1950s and 1960s but they never had to shut down the economy like that (in 1918 they also didn't - well that was after WW1, the economic situation not good either, and they had not chance to come up with a vaccine: science was not advanced enough. I think the U.S. president then also downplayed how easily it could spread. - They had to let it run its course, and after 2 years and 50 million dead people it was over).
This time a LOT of resources - money and scientific research (manpower, equipment) - were thrown at a global, severe and immediate problem.
It is the first time such an intense GLOBAL effort was made to get a grip on an infectious disease (polio scared the hell out of parents back in the day, but it was not such an urgent problem so less resources were invested to solve it FAST).
This is an unusully short development time for the FOUR vaccines (and they work differently) that are in rollout right now.
It was also a completely new scenario regarding the efforts that were made. Unprecedented short development with unprecedented efforts.
The vaccines have been tested on large groups of people. (but thanks to the high budgets they are as well tested as the polio and measles vaccines were back in the day when they were rolled out. Or whooping cough, the "Angel of Death for the babies".)
Were there some unknown risks, side effects ? Yes, you can't guarantee that the only way to "test" it is to do a mass roll out for 10 or 20 % of the population and then wait 10 years. We do not have time for that.
The parents rushed to get their kids vaccinated against measles and even more so whopping cough and polio. They had seen what the disease did - the vaccine couldn't be nearly as bad even if it had been flawed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@elaineteut1249 Not only Bill Gates talks about a WORSE virus - scientists do. And a lot of top actors made an effort with the 2011 movie: Contagion (check it out, there are clips on youtube, it got a lot of attention again in 2020 and was inspired by the SARS-CoV-1 outbreak in 2002 / 2003 that epidemic stayed in Asia and was just stopped before it became a pandemic).
Or compare with MERS:
Imagine a virus as contagious as SARS CoV-19 but with a much higher mortality rate. There is a corona virus which causes MERS with a 30 % mortality rate (with treatment in a modern hospital, mind you) - but luckily for us it is not very contagious.
So far.
As there are not many cases among humans mutation does not happen at the fast rates like with SARS-CoV2. That does not mean an unfortunate mutation is not possible or even inevitable. It is just going to happen with a much higher likelyhood if millions of people are infected.
Case in point: NOW we have mutations that make the virus AGAIN even more contagious.
MERS can be spread among humans. The virus jumped from bats to camels / dromedars, and then a new mutation meant it could infect humans. The unfortunate patients often got it directly from nimals or if they had contact with their fodder or stable.
.
With first world medical care and hygiene spread can be stopped. No lockdowns, masks for the public etc. needed.
But the chances of the individuals are not so good, survival rate around 60 - 70 % and often lasting damage even if they survive. But from a public health standpoint authorities can deal with the few cases and the occasional flare ups easily.
As long as there is no mutation that makes it MORE CONTAGIOUS. I do not think it harms the camels much - but it kills humans. Heaven help us if that gets more contagious while remaining as lethal !
That is what scientists and some people with a public platform (like Gates) talk about.
Because of their work with the Gates foundation in developing countries (where they do not even have the vaccines rolled out that have been standard in the wealthy nations since the 1960s / 1970s) - Bill and Melinda Gates are more aware than most lay persons about research regarding vaccination, and also the looming danger with new infectious diseases. And they use their platform to speak about it.
Good for them.
The questions is: why are the Murdochs, Kochs, Bushes, Sheldon Adelson, Warren Buffet and others (celebs) are not talking more about it. To awaken and shape public awarness.
The correct response to a threat (epidemic or pandemic) is to nip it in the bud. That however disguises the seriousness. When it was successful a correct, swift and decisive reaction will look like an overkill.
There is no political reward in doing the necessary prevention. The catastrophe may not come in this term, or the next one, or the next after that. On the Eisenhower Raster it would be a very important but not urgent task (those tend to get neglected in many affairs not only public health).
The restrictions to curb it (and the economic fallout of restrictions, or the necessary budgets) are real and certain. However, no one knows what costs they were spared. No one can know in advance how bad it could get "if we wait and see". Wait and see, and then jumping into action when it becomes obvious "This is really bad" could work.
There is an incentive in politics to roll the dice and to test their luck.
China did that also in 2002 / 2003. that SARS-CoV-1 epidemic was bad in Asia, an infected person was quarantined in Canada afte arrival. And then they could reign it in.
The Western countries were lucky, their epidemiologists were worried (they have a more realistic idea of how the dice is rolled here, how close we got several times). It was bad in Taiwan, Hongkong - there is a reason the Asian nations were well prepared this time. China told the world in the last days of Dec. 2019: "Nothing to see here".
Taiwan did not believe them (they had suffered a lot in 2002/2003 and blamed China for it) - beginning of January they prepared like this could become a severe epidemic, and did not even ignore the Chinese statements. If the virus would have been contained, their investements would have looked like an exaggerated reaction. But then - politicians in Taiwan CAN justify a stranded investment for precaution, the population still remembers 2002 / 2003. And the economic fallout from that.
China in Dec. 2019 - the local authorities were in denial. Some reactions, but alway trailing the events, trying to catch up. Nothing that would disrupt the economy or daily life too much. And certainly they did not call of the New Year Festivities in January. (that is like Christmas and Thanksgivings combined in China). Republicans were not willing in 2020 to restrict family contacts - and neither were the Chinese authorities (The Repubs are just worse, because then there was so much more insight, The Chinese deluded themselves in Dec. and January, but not anymore from February / March on. Republicans on the other hand stayed in denial /downplying / not wanting to react decisively mode for all of 2020).
They - like Trump and R govenors later (and when the severity was much more obvious compared to the beginnings in China !) - did not want to restrict businesses and travel, let alone impose a shutdown.
So the Chinese (local / provincial) government dropped the ball. The central government dropped the ball as well, going along with that way too long. And giving out placating statements to the world.
Until the central government intervened. Then the reaction was swift, decisive and they put a lot of consistent ! and coherent ! effort into it.
China NOW does much better than any Western nation, they did well in early summer already and could avoid the second surge in winter.
Unfortunatley the novel corona virus also had a mutation that made it more contagious in January 2020, until March it replaced the former version (scientists found that out in April 2020). Symptoms and mortality rate likely the same but it spreads even better. Most people that got it globally have that version. W/o that mutation it might have been possible to contain it before it became a pandemic.
NOW Dec. 2020, January 2021 there are new mutations (in the U.K. In South Africa and maybe also an independent one in the U.S.) that could be much more contagious and unfortunately also not more harmless regarding symptoms, hospitalization and mortality rate. the UK mutatin is estimated to be 1.5 times more contagious. As if the dominant version would not be bad enough already. And not more harmless either.
We are lucky we have the vaccines and the new mutations mean we must aim at higher vaccination rates. The more contagious the damn thing is, the better herd immunity we need to stop it.
We dodged some bullets in the last 25 years, and epidemiologists knew that. Bill Gates was one of the few non-scientists with an international platform that took his cues from the scientists and warned.
2011 movie: Contagion. Inspired by the 2002 / 2003 SARS-CoV-1 epidemic (that was stopped before taking over globally).
A realistic scenario if you compare to what happened in 2020. The script was not just hyped up to capture the audience, they got scientific advice and made an effort to get that right.
Some top actors (U.S., U.K. France) also tried to warn.
Production budget 60 million USD. Global gross revenue 136 millions so O.K. but by no means a blockbuster. And that with all the stars.
They have an unusually high number of A-listers in supporting roles in that film, the stars did not ask for a high compensation, Gwyneth Paltrow worked more or less for free and did her scenes in 3 days.
They were willing to participate to help get the message out.
It was noted - in 2020. The film then became one of the most streamed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
U.S. productivity growth between 1947 and 2013 358 %. Hourly average wages adjusted for inflation 214 %, but 197 % of that happened between 1947 and 1970, so it was ONLY 17 % since then. But costs for healthcare, childcare, education, rent / housing have soared.
People did O.K. in the 1970s (although in the U.S. always an underclass existed, this is different compared to other wealthy countries, where people had the basics with help of public services and welfacr).
even 17 real increase could be tolerable provided there would be cost-efficient healthcare, affordable housing etc.
After 1970 the lion's share of productivity wins went to the owners / shareholders. Their profits could at least have financed those public services (indirectly propping up disposable income of regular people).
Instead housing and healthcare plus education became another source of income for the profiteer class.
One advantage if the workers get the lion's share of productivity wins:
their purchasing power can keep up with the output of goods.
Until 1970 the workers got the lion's share of productivity growth in form of better wages.
Stagnant wages meant that people cannot build a nest egg (and that can be a home that they can live in rent- free, or sell later, or pass on to the children).
The productivity wins (turned profits, not wages) could easily pay for SS (purchasing power for retired people) even though people live longer and for longer education times - but of course the wage deductions come from NOW stagnant wages and are not as high as they should be.
The stagnant wages mean high profits elsewhere - and if those few would have to pay taxes there would be enough to GO AROUND.
1 billion parked on an account is useless.
the same billion ciruclating through the economy facilitates the exchange of goods / services worth much more than 1 billion. When the money comes back to governrment and is spend on expenditures that benefit regular people, it keeps circulating, between consumers, businesses, workers .... goverment (if taxation makes sure that not too much is parked away on accounts. Rinse and repeat.
Most people understand money as something static.
When government spending is sucked up to the few (subsidies for fossil fuels, big ag, military contracting,.. subsidies for a ridiculously overpriced healthcare system) it is NOT beneficial
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think Sanders subconsciously self-sabotages. He worked HARD - and a part of him UNDERMINED his efforts: There are mistakes that can happen during a campaing, you just do not assess the situation correctly
Joe is a decent guy and Yes I think he can win against Trump. That was an epic own goal, he did that several times and that is not a normal mistke
I think many voters like Sanders well enough, they think his ideas are good (maybe a little too radical). Pre crisis they thought their SS and medicare is safe - and it was the job of Sanders to scare the shit out of them and to honestly tell them why that is not the case.
These voters want a candidate that can beat Trump and they want a decent guy. Media and Sanders tell them that Biden is both (I strongly disagree).
Sanders acted as surrogate FOR Biden. Unwittingly encouraged naive gullible voters to pick Biden over him.
The voters can't connect the dots, and corporate media for sure does not tell them.
More own goals that are so glaring that it makes you wonder what possess the good Senator:
A recent fundraising email (for charities) in which Sanders says NOW is not the time to push for M4A (was in the middle of the text). That must be
a) bribery, selling out, always just wanted to sheepdop the base [I do not believe that]
or b) Sanders got scared of the possibilty to win
or c) they threatened him or have dirt on him
But the logical explanation is either a), b) or c).
The current situation couldn't be more ideal for an aspiring organizer-in-chief and to push for M4A. someone else can do the charities (the little league, he can leave that to celebs).
The time calls for and is favorable of the Big Game.
Turns out Sanders is more comfortable with the role as eternal underdog and movement leader. Then why did he not throw all his weight behind Tulsi Gabbard and did not even run for president ? She has the courage, he could have relieved her from the hassle to fundraise.
He did good, he changed the discussion, you can't expect a 78 year old man to save America from itself, and I have no doubt that he wanted to SERVE - BUT he fell short.
It is an epic failure to "hide" now (doing virtual townhalls is hiding, he is preaching to the converted).
He should troll the media, be super prepared for the interviews (update his talking points) and educate the U.S. about the 99 things that are wrong with the "stimulus" bill. And why progressives voted for it (through gritted teeth).
Another failure (they ALL dropped the ball) it was early on clear where that was headed, they should have walked out and organized mass protests.
Walk outs, car convoys, rent strikes.
Floating the idea of a general strike (if not now, then later). Watch the establishment go nuts.
I do not think he sold out for personal gain. He is just standing in his own way and got scared of his own boldness.
Avoiding to be beaten down as Ralph Nader 2.0 is more important than the political revolution.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tomwyllie8027 He also did NOT LIE regarding the MARKS in early March. His assessment then was correct. In THAT situation (March) wearing could not be expected to bring but a minimal advantage Among other things because even if they would have had enough for medical staff - what little advantage they bring when worn by the general population, almost all must wear them to get those benefits. They did not have enough for the general population then, but would have done great harm to the healthcare workers.
Damn right he did not recommend that if they did not even have enough for healthcare workers. You get the most prevention out of THEM having masks.
The truth is that masks are not especially effective if worn by Joe and Jane Normal. it was disputed among scientists then (Feb. March) if there was any value in having the general population wearing masks. Of course it was also a fact that the Asian countries had that tradition even for people with harmless infections like the common cold - and the Asian countries could afford to err on the side of generosity - they also had the production in the countries.
Since their citizens are expected to be polite and to wear a mask if they have a cold - of course the population took for granted that the government would provide them with masks during the pandemic. The Western scientists certainly factored that in as reason why China or Taiwan had the masks.
Western scientists did not build on that culture of mask wearing, the science was mixed at best. It IS hard to measure. Which indicates that the effect can't be that big.
Even simple masks and DIY fabric masks hold back virus particles, surprisingly well in lab situations. The manufacturers of safety relevant PPE have standardized tests. But that does not translate to real world success. Even small gaps reduce the protection (against being a spreader) significantly. It is had to measure how much effect they have when used.
But it did not matter anyway if they saw a little advantage in that or not - many nations and also the U.S. had insufficient stocks of masks and PPE.
Not reserving the masks for healthcare staff was out of the question.
Telling the population: It wouldn't hurt to have one, in Asia they have them - but btw we need them more for healthcare workers .... and there are not really enough for all ... " Ever heard of scarcity being used in marketing to make a product more desireable ?
As for the U.S. citizens being rational and making concessions for those who need something more than them - Remember toilet paper craze ?? The U.S. has enough wood, Canada would export, and there are production sites IN the country. so the product is not nearly as relevant (if toilet paper distribution does not function anymore, we can safely assume everybody would be stuck at home, in that case it is possible to "ration" TP and people can find ways to keep themselves clean).
The U.S. has control of raw material and production.
So completly different situation compared to masks. But the U.S. did TP hoarding. More than other nations btw.
Fauci also knew that this admin was useless they would have been unwiling or not able to intervene forcefully if there had been a mask craze.
Risking to involuntarily trigger a run on maks when that was in the assessment of many epidemiologists a fringe benefit at best - of course they did not do that. Not only Fauci also epidemiologists in Europe. For instance in Germany. The change of recommendation came in April.
Was there any way to communicate that with citizens ?
Judging from this comment section, the elections in 2016 and 2020, and lots of other incidents (also the Ebola scare, a total shit show from media and the viewers laping it up) - NOOOO !
It was not possible to outline his position then (that was not positive about mask wearing anyway). In. That. Situation.
In April it was already known that a more contagious version of SARS-CoV-2 had replaced the former strain (it spread gobally in Feb and March).
And now there were more masks available. Asian scientists weighed in. Western scientists changed their mind about the recommendation. And a slight upgrade regarding the assumed performance of masks when worn by the general population. Well they may have viewed the data of Asian countries. That does not work for the U.S.
Fauci KNOWS of course that mask wearing by the general population is not very effective (but if it should bring at least the little advantage almost all people must do it). It is one of the less than ideal measures we can use until we have the effective tools: Vaccination or at least an effective treatment drug.
Is Dr. Fauci going to tell that the citizens ? Of course not. Those who haven't figured out by now that 1) masks might prevent as little as 5 or 10 % of infections if worn by the real existing citizens in their natural habitat
AND 2) it is still worth the effort now that we have ENOUGH masks and it should be 100 % supported
- would not react well if he would burden them with some nuanced explanation.
I can do it - but he would be misrepresented, quoted out of context. etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Secure carbon storage for millenia (under Amazonian rainforest conditions !) with huge benefits for farming: Terra Preta what works even there, works anywhere on the globe. Aside from that: regenerating the humus content of soils (humus = stable carbon), and sustainable forestry (in the temperate climate zone, the rainforests - be it boreal and tropical - must be replanted and then be left alone.
Regenerative agriculture. food forests, alley cropping, using timber for housing (particle boards save on timber and add lots of questionable chemicals as binding agent, because more wood "costs more")
Full wood boards (or at least OSB) would be the much more valuable material AND they would be reused, some DIY enthusiast would be glad to get them for free after an renovation, or if people do not like the furniture anymore, the more solid the material the more it is worth the trouble to transform it. At worst they can be burned.
That could store away a LOT of carbon and could also become a source of income for many farmers. (some trees grow fast, of course no monoculture to have all the other benefits of a natural tree system - and modern robots can glue the boards together from smaller pieces so one does not need to cut down the ancient large trees from Canada or Siberia, the same large trees in the U.S. are long gone, those resources have been plundered).
1
-
1
-
@simsimmaa8343 costs of gas are not so relevant when you have cost efficient cars. If you work for years 60 hours per week you would get ahead in the European countries as well if you work in a profession that pays halfway decent wages. Blue collar or IT ??
I guess no family, no kids for quite some time ? - kids cost money.
large property ? It depends if you mean land or with buildings on it ? Two cars ? it depends. new car and model. [edit: large piece of land with house no problem if it is in a rural area, of course not in the touristic destination or in the cities or nearby, there real estate is more expensive. But large property sounds like rural anyway. Here people usually take out the mortgages for 20 years. Why not if interest rates are low. Typically they put some money aside and build the nest egg while they pay down the mortgage slowly.
btw during the Great Financial Crisis there were hardly any forclosures. Also not people having to sell. They all could hold on, until the dust had settled.
You can certainly have a large property where land is cheap - else it will cost more.
The advantage is that healthcare spending in most wealthy nations is approx. HALF of that in the U.S. (54 % in Austria, 56 % in Germany so they are slightly on the expensive side).
because they have non-profit systems that are meant to serve the population and are streamlined. so much lower costs.
You could get a problem with income if you are sick for longer time especially if you have high obligations - but never with medical bills.
(even though there is mandatory sick leave and when the employer must not pay anymore - 100 % - the single payer agency kicks in with 80 % ... that goes down to 70 or 60 % over the course of one year.
But with some savings not even a servere accident and 1 year w/o income will derail you. No you will not have to return to 1 meal per day. Getting 100, 80, 70 % of the former income helps.
There are provisions for start ups and solopreneurs, the single payer agency offes them insurance for sick leave. These are costs, but you will get a deal that no private insurance can match. (and they have no incentive to screw you, that is a provision to help small biz, they are not in it for profits).
Healthcare ? payroll tax 3,8 % of the wage, but max 2,200 USD per year. All dependent family would be included in that amount, it does not cost more (stay at home spoise, college students till 26, ...)
Employer must match that. Self employed and business owners or farmers have other costs, but it is all very affordable.
Treatment free at the point of delivery.
If you land in the hospital, no bills. Not for 4 (or more) weeks intense care and not for rehab.
That's for Austria, and conditions are like that in all wealthy European countries.
1
-
@simsimmaa8343 This is not about the money, if you have no right to go on vacations, having the savings does not help you. The U.S. has many more employees than self employed. Othere nations mandate 4 - 5 weeks vacation per year (all also McDonalds worker or other service sector staff). People are better rested, it is a boost for (domestic) tourism. The companies include the costs into the price calculations - and kill it with export. Ask Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Netherlands Sweden. ..... They all kept quality manufacturing.
Shoes, garments that is gone, but not machine building, technology, components, ....
1
-
@simsimmaa8343 Neither Nikes nor Hulu make really a dent when you compare it to the costs of childcare, education, health insurace costs and housing. Rent / house prices in cities and areas with a lot of jobs. People come and rent shoots up.
I would argue that these things could be the little luxuries that entertain you and enjoy you when other things are out of reach for the moment (like vacations, a nice car, having a family, dining out, going to the movies).
It depends on your profession, but if you must work in the densely populatied areas it is hard to save up for you own real estate. I know that people live out of cars, or RV's (there are youtube channels how to cope with that). That stealth parking is somewhat stressful, not always safe, not legal, so it could get you fined, or the police knocks on your vehicle door.
A single lifestyle.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@simsimmaa8343 The 40 hour week was introduced in 1940 in the U.S. and was a good fit for the technology / state of innovation THEN. - No, working 2 jobs (60, 70 and more hours in total) is NOT normal. Not for the majority. Not in a first world country in 2020.
What is the point of being part of the most technologically advanced civilization if people work MORE than they did in the 1940s, 1950s, 1970s.
Then in many cases only ONE adult in the household worked (outside the house in a paid job).
You have to factor in that many households provide 80 work hours per week (one couple, 2 adults working full time, assuming there is no overtime, no side hustle)
Where does the wealth go ?
A LOT of automation happened since the 1970s.
Between 1947 and 1970 productivity rose by 112 % - a lot came from automation - and the hourly average wages adjusted for inflation rose by 97 %.
So purchasing power per worked hour almost doubled (just shy of 3 %).
Most of the productivity gains went to the workers. Then in form of moer money, not more free time (the 1940 provision was pretty good for that, most nations got the 40 hour week later. I guess many jobs still worked some overtime - but that was paid !).
The rest of productivity wins was not as small as it would seem: it was a large ever growing pie and went to relatively few people, company owners, shareholders.
They just could not have it all.
That was also a good time for entrepreneurs. Consumes had disposable income, moved into their first home, .....
1970s two global economic crises (oil price spikes) and the ruling class saw their chance to dismantle the New Deal economics that had continued ! after WW2.
From the 1980s on neoliberalism.
1970 - 2013 (I know the numbers by heart but the trend is the same, wage gains of the recent years - till 2019 when they finally came, have been eaten by inflation).
Productivity rose by 69 % - and the hourly average wages adjusted for inflation rose by only ! 9 %.
43 instead of 23 years - and it was also not good for innnovation, did not match the progress after WW2. Not even close.
Companies do not invest if they cannot sell. In order to sell consumers must have income - from wages.They did mergers and laid off people and outsourced, so that did not innovate, it cut their costs - and it reduced income of the consumers.
It sounds like your life is nice and financially stable NOW, but that is not extraordinary. You could have that in all other first world countries (with 3 meals a day and a 50 hour workweek if you are ambitious, but plenty of free days with paid holidays even if you do not take any vacations (no 5 weeks like most people), you still get approx. 10 days. And even self employed people can't do much on these days, shops are closed. Going to church, some outdoor fun, family time.
Speaking of divorces ... or time and LEISURE for sex ...
Maybe you could have shortened the one day a meal phase, marry earlier and the kids would see you more in another country.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nope - Ryan is usually well informed, but that was nonsense: 78 % N, 23 % O. CO2 is a trace gas with 0.04 % (up from 0.028 % ). But it is still the most import gas (with a greenhouse effect) for CHANGE of the global climate.
ater vapor has massive greenhouse gas effects because it exists in much higher volumes BUT it is self restricting. When it is warmer, more water evaporates but it will rain down within days.
Water vapor is important to makes the planet cozy, but it does not DRIVE change of climate. It follows temperature changes and might help to support them then for a time, but does not trigger them, and once the temperature changes back (because of other forces), water vapor follows.
That is another point that right wingers seem to be unable to understand. That it is CO2 that wins the race as the most important GG in the climate history of the planet, although many gasses exist in higher volumes and / or are stronger.
Like methane the next important one, that has 28 times the effect of CO2 - but stays only up to 100 years in the atmosphere, while CO2 can stay up to 1000 years.
Methane often acted like a booster of the effects of CO2.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Congress raised the top marginal tax rate in 1944 to 92 % (for every dollar over 2,7 million income in todays ! value * 92 cents were deducted - only few loopholes so effective tax rate around 85 %. After 1946 debt vs. GDP ratio was 121 %, in 1974 31,7 % - 2019 will be between 103 and 104 % - it needs consideration and wise use of the budgets (no wars, or tax cuts for the rich) - but no reason to panic.
* in the tax code back in the day 400,000 USD were often the important number for the threshold. (see Wikipedia, taxation in the U.S. and scroll down)
Those who had those incomes in 1944 in the U.S. knew better than to complain about their tax burden. There was a good chance they were not soldiers, did not risk life and limb, and they also profited from the war economy).
The U.S. government kept the 90 % top marginal tax rate for incomes in that range in the books although the rich of course arranged for more loopholes over time.
In 1946 the U.S. had the highest FEDERAL debt ever, ratio of debt vs. GDP was 121 %. War is expensive, even more so a world war. Now the debt vs. GDP ratio is in the range of 103 - 104 % (2019) it is bound to grow with the extra debt and less revenue because of much more military spending and the tax cuts for the rich).
The GDP grew quickly after WW2 and with high tax revenue the debt also could be reduced - so 10 years later the rate of debt versus GDP was much better.
The record low (federal debt, not including the states or muncipalities) was in 1974 with 31,7 % - these were the years after WW2 when the New Deal with a lot of goverment spending (investment but unfortunaely also war and military spending) was in place. Plus finance well regulated, only somewhat free markets, lots of import tariffs, ...
In 1960 Nixon accused JFK in a presidential debate that he wanted to lower taxes for the rich (you read that right !).
Kennedy begged to differ.
His claim: an effective ! top marginal tax rate of 72 % would bring more than the 90 % in the books with all the loopholes. He intended to spend it on education. (bothagreed on the farm bill and more military spending, but not making more debt - well then you must tax more and preferably those who will not lower their spending when they have to contribute more. Businessed could avoid taxation with investemtn, and regular people were not hit, but profited from the capacity of the government to have bold investment / spending programs.
Even military spending creates some wealth - but ever other form of government spending is more beneficial.
anyway: the sky did not come tumbling down and the guy with the 72 % effective top marginal rate statement won the election.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
the hospitals get donations, they fear public backlash, the administrave and medical leaders may be staunch evangelicals. Or they fear that the local evangelical leaders will rile up the base and harrass them - the hospital AND the persons. Plus donors might be hesistant to be on record giving them money (not because they care about abortion, but because they do not want the bad PR).
I wonder about the "terrible bleeding" and "needing a hyserectomy". If it would be easier to run a clinic there would be good services - IF that even was negligence (after all even a low income woman could find a lawyer that sues on her behalf if a case is clear cut, sure they would not get a lot of the settlement, but it would not cost her anything if the case is lost. At least not in money. And Republicans govenors would SHUT down clinics on THAT (medical malpractice, negligence) IF they could, they would not have to stoop to tacitics like laws that order admitting privileges. Which statistically speaking are hardly ever needed, abortions are very safe procedures, so there was no rational, pragmatic reason.
They had nothing against certain abortion clinics with the rare complications - so they had to resort to other tactics.
I assume these were some high risk cases, and the same would have happened in a hospital. Note: the women did not die and may not have wanted to have any more children anyway. As opposed to the HIGH ration of women dying of pregnancy and birth related causes. High compared to other developed nations. That and infant mortality is shameful for the U.S. Technically speaking: for a low income woman it is riskier to continue even a pregnancy that seems to be normal, than to have an abortion. Her risk of dying is higher in case 1
I am almost sure that was not at Planned Parenthood Clinic - if the complication was an avoidable risk. Births and ongoing pregnancy have a higher risk (statistically speaking).
Also: if abortions are delayed because women have to jump through 3 hoops to get them (so the costs to arrange for staying away from home, childcare, missing out at work, driving for a long time, they may delay the procedure, it is of course easier to do in the early stages. And then there are the cases where the pregnant mother aborts because her health is not good, even w/o the drain of a pregnancy - which also might lead to complications.
Overall the death rates for getting a colonoscopy or plastic surgery are higher, so there is no reason to force the doctors to have admitting privileges.
In single payer countries the rare complications are transported to a public hospital (whatever is nearest and well equipped and the women get services free at the point of delivery. Abortions have usually to be paid, unless there is a medical indication.
When hospital stations were merged a non-profit run be the Catholic Church got the gynecology / birth station. Which raised the question what was going to happen with abortion. So the abortions stayed with one of the other hospital in the city that is run by the city.
Many hospitalsare the responsibilty of the states (some are run by large cities). That arrangement to make sure that women would still have the opportunity to have an abortion in that city (and the region at large) was made under a conservative govenor, who oversaw the negotiations about shifting stations, merging stations, or giving tem up (most hospitals got a larger station in another field, or they got something new like palliative care).
The center-right party would not openly be very supportive of abortions - but they know better than to openly oppose it.
Interesting fact: in a small rural state (all of that is in Austria) where the center-right wins elections on all levels of government, and the Catholic church is stronger than in other areas, the women also covertly use abortions, they will not talk about it, but they do.
It shows in the low number of down syndrome children that are born. Statiscially they should have a certain number of births (it is the most common genetic defect, worldwide at the same rate, 1 in 800). They have been way well below that number and for many years (also compared to other states in Austria, where also some abortions because of that genetic defect are carried out).
Obviously they test routinely (and more than in other states) and there seems to be a lot of pressure to not have a disabled child. True to "conservative" form the state is negligent to allocate a lot of budgets to help such families.
So the families know they would be on their own - the state is fairly affluent, so that is not the problem.
Some machine building industry and lots of winter and summer tourism, plus many farmers who often have a bed and breakfast as one income stream or make an extra income when they work in winter in tourism. Susidized dairy farms.
Farms are tiny compared to the U.S. and farmers are treated much better than in the U.S. they get a very sweet deal on goverenment retirement and public healthinsurance coverage. If their parents were diligent (the after WW2 generations when conditions were favorable for farmers) and halfway knew what they were doing, the farms are in good shape, debt free, they have solid savings in the bank, so they can easily weather a bad year, better than employees that have to pay down a mortgage or have to pay rent.
The center-right politicians know better than to upset all voters. Their base silently might be somewhat against abortions but they are not riled up about it, and all other voters would make a stink. (And their own base would not strongly support them either, many couples and maybe the parents and trusted friends KNOW a woman had to make a hard decision. the risk is one in 800 - so throughout your life you can stumble upon knowing at least one woman that did an abortion because of it. The insider knowledge usually includes a few persons and over years it can accumulate.
Right politicians know they cannot make that a wedge issue - so it is handled in a rational and pragmatic manner.
Would be a gift to the various opposition parties, even a serious (and of course unsuccessful attempt) would haunt them for a long time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
With solid majorities the Dems would be running out of excuses why they cannot help the regular people (but such measures normally reduce the profits of the Big Donors). So they - and the Republicans ! - can only concentrate on things like gun control, abortion, LGBT rigths, identity politics (racism or white supremacy is a form of identity politics).
BOTH fractions (Republicans and Democrats) of the one and only Big Donor party use these issues to "differentiate" themselves, whatever the position is (the right wing or the "liberal" one) - it does not cost the Big Donors anything.
And they hope to rile up the base about ONLY these issues so they will vote for them - and they do not have to give the base ANYTHING. (Sure it is great gay people can marry, but many of them and their heterosexual peers still have overpriced unreliable healthcare, drown in student debt, work in the gig economy, and rent is going up and up).
A good display of "bipartisanship" letting the Republicans "participate" (who in turn will STILL not vote for a Corporate friendly healthcare reform in 2009) and dragging things - takes care of the problem of the Democrats of having too much power (power they could use to change things for the better for regular people).
Corporate Democrats and Republicans have the SAME donors: certainly industries, often even the same companies and individuals. Keeping the Big Donors happy and the money flowing is even more important than winning elections:
the big donors (and the party "leadership") will arrange for cushy jobs for ex politicians (at least the big fish - all the more incentive for the smaller fish to fall in line and cozy up with the party establishment - so they too have the security that they would get a golden parachute, meaning they can risk the anger of the constituents because of corporate friendly votes and can even risk to lose the seat. They will have their campaigns financed, and no one will shower a primary challenger with money.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The D elites and lesser evilism - their motto is: "Nice little country you have here - wouldn't it be a shame if Donald Trump happened to it ? " But that is ONLY a threat meant to reign in the left wing of the party. There is a reason the Democratic elites (and their friends in the media) get so upset about THIRD party voters.
THAT has the potential to undermine their game. Imagine the Green Party would have gotten 10 or 15 % of the vote nationally but the outcome of the 2016 election would have been the same (won / lost states for Democrats and Republicans).
Everyone would take for granted that the Greens cost HRC the victory. And both parties ! and their donors (they have the same donors) would be worried, really worried.
They like people NOT voting or voting Republican (or Democrat) much more than the VOTERS starting TO DO THEIR OWN THING. It get's scary when the voters do not listen anymore to the parties / media shilling for the Big donors.
It would be a sign that the voters start to hit back, that "the powers that be" lose the control over the mind and opinion of the voters. (and therefore especially the Corporate Democrats start becoming useless for the Big Donors !)
It would mean that there is a restless and fluid crowd of citizens - that is not PASSIVE, that is searching for ALTERNATIVES. THAT could turn into majorities and start to shake up things.
The American Republic never had more than 2 relevant parties - but sometimes one party was taken over / replaced by another. (The Whigs were replaced by the Republicans for instance).
Voters can cross parties by the hundreds of thousands (see Florida, or Pennsylvania, or Reagan election) or not vote at all - no one gets upset about that (despite the numbers being much, much higher compared to third party voters).
So why the obsession with the "dangers" of third party voting ?
Because the cross voters do not challenge the idea of the party duopoly - and in the party duopoly the Corporate Democrats are a necessary ingredient and USEFUL FOR the BIG DONORS.
The duopoly guarantees the Democratic establishment their privileges, good incomes, safe careers - even if they lose elections. Eventually the tide will turn, voters will get fed up, the pendulum will swing in the other direction. And on a personal level these politicians * do not lose, their careers, incomes and healthcare plans will be fine. While holding a seat or after leaving politics.
* Joe Crowley may be pissed that he lost to AOC, and I cannot see him coming back into politics. So what ? He has been doing fine as politician and is still doing very well financially.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Having a narrow majority or not all branches of government suits the Democratic establishment just fine. Else they would run out of excuses why they cannot get things done on behalf of the little people which they claim to represent. If need be they can volutarily bind their hands to the back.
- with "budget constraints" and "fiscal conservatism".
The Democrats never call out the Republicans who ALWAYS go on a spending spree when they rule (wars, excessive military spending, tax cuts for the rich. See Reagan, Bush1, Bush2, Trump).
They (R + D) only get "fiscally conservative" (in action, as opposed to rhetoric) when Democrats have power. In theory the Dems are supposed to tax the broad shoulders and to help out the little people with benefits and to INVEST (infrastructure, non-military research, education).
That government spending also stabilizes the jobs market and those helps to keep wages up (that was done under FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK).
If a government spends / invests a lot (injecting money into the economy so that companies and consumers / wage earners SPEND it) they better make sure that money returns to them.
How does money return to them ? By taxation.
Which kind of taxation ? They let the money circulate through the economy. Every economic exchange money facilitates ! means investments, reveue for businesses, or the citizens EXPERIENCE wealth and satisfy their needs and desires. ONLY when the money is HOARDED by rich people, tax dodging businesses it is IDLE it does nothing for the economy or the exchange of goods and services.
So the smart thing (if you care about the majority of voters) is to TAX THOSE who would not spend the money anyway and are doing very well even with high taxes.
Under a top marginal tax rate of 92 % for incomes over 2,7 million USD (in TODAYS purchasing power) and a corporate tax code that was also high (not quite as high) - Individuals had to pay, but they spent as much as always (living the high life).
Companies could only escape that by INVESTING (or paying good wages). It also encouraged longterm thinking and to a degree ethical practices (if you pay 90, 80, 70 % on the ill gotten gains - what is the point of being criminal).
The behavior of top Democrats since the 1980s does not make sense unless you understand the "Good cop / bad cop" charade. In the late 1970s the first Supreme Court decisions declared money to be free speech. Eections spending grew and big donors got very involved - the Democrats did not push for that development / court decision - but they immediately saw the possibilites. The Republicans had been the party of big biz - but now they too could get a place at the trough.
No doubt all establishment / top level Democrats would love to see Trump defeated be someone like Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar (even Warren, she has been signalling a lot, she will roll over).
But if the choice is president Sanders versus president Trump (or Pence eventually) - many would prefer Trump. Not that they would ever admit it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@silenciothequiet3471 The racist attacks made the base rally behind Obama - so he escaped justified criticism. Media on the internet was not yet as important. The base that pays attention is disillusioned about the D party, they see Biden as a very weak lesser evil.
That is the only thing that is better than in 2009.
On the other hand Obama paved the way for somone like Trump - the scary thing is: if Trump would have a little more competent and smart he could have won this election easily. The D party leadership and the country were lucky. To be fair - the Dems would not have minded that much, although they would never admit that.
They fundraise well on Trump, not all lose their seats inCongress and Senate.
Likewise the rational Republicans (the lot that support the Lincoln Project) would have prefered Trump to lose. Luckily now the Democrats inherit the mess and they will immediately start blaming them for the economic fallout. Only left economic populism as practiced under FDR could help, but Biden has made it clear he does not want that (see his cabinet choices). Maybe he can be pushed to do some things like Nixon could be pushed.
but Nixon also did a lot of damage (war on drugs, weed classified like heroin *, Southern strategy, systematically going after the black panthers - executiom by cop, and his Supreme Court justice that was instrumental in the first "Money Equals Free Speech" decision in 1976.
* the only other substance that is classified like heroin is weed. The president could easily reverse that and does not need Congress for it - but neither Carter, nor Bill Clinton or Obama could be bothered. Weed is the pretext to search cars w/o warrant. Defining it as "dangerous" (or that dangerous, highly addictive, high death rate, no medical value) laid the base for mass incarceration.
I'll give Carter a pass because he likely did not know better, but Obama and Clinton know from personal experience that weed is not that dangerous. But the police state likes to have that tool of oppression (that is why the Nixon admin classified it that way, the war opposing hippies used it while blacks used crack cocaine. So crack also carried 100 times the punishment compared to cocaine which is the drug of rich people. Although chemically they are the same).
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sandpiperr The "sexism" attack came the next day and got much more oxygen than the first attack. The Sanders campaign could easily prove how ridiculous the first claim * was, they have very restrictive guidelines for their volunteers: Not even naming other candidates, no comparing of platforms even - talk positively about Sanders and his proposals and that's it. Among other things they use a quiz to instruct the volunteers.
Of course you will find to odd overzealous (or even misbehaving) person when you have a volunteer army of more than 1 million people. In case of real stepping out of line there would be names, a time, locations and specific things that were said at a doorstep - or screenshots of posts. Team Warren could send the info to team Sanders, so the local orgs can deal with that person (or the national or state org when it is a whole group that is "straying" - which still does not mean that the volunteers would be mean, just that they did not abide by narrow ! guidelines).
If you have an army of people untrained in communication, unexperienced in campaigns, or in how to persuade other people you better give them narrow guidelines - among other things to make it harder for other campaigns to make wrong allegations about your volunteers and how they are integrated into the campning !
(In 2016 they did not want to debate Sanders on the issues: so it was:Bernie is a sexist, racially insensitive. The narrative of the mean Bernie Bro's was constantly mentioned - and the campaign this time intended to work much more with volunteers. So they wisely ! made sure they had a framework in place, and they certainly expected some bad faith attacks on their volunteers (which must be the envy of all other campaigns if they know what they are doing).
I guess no one expected it coming from Warren though - not even from her campaign. SHE casually badmouths the volunteers - that are supposed to be the core of the army (working for ANY D candidate) to counteract the cash in which the Trump campaign will be drowning in the general election.
I saw an instruction video on peer to peer persuasion campaign: posting MyBernieStory clips and sending them to your social contacts. (Make it about your story and motivations, make it short, be authentic, vulnerable. Do not argue with other people or "attack" their arguments. There is proof that people react much stronger to such messages and are more willing to consider your points. and in any case there will not be any ill will even if their opinion is unchanged. That has proven to be the most effective strategy to persuade people in conversations - the campaign to get such personal clips out (to persons who know the uploader) follows that insight.
Claim: Sanders volunteers are "sent out by HIM" to "trash" Warren and misrepresent / insult her base
Warren had only the incident where a neccomer in an online volunteer group (1 comment so far) then had posted a list about the electability of Warren and suggested that other volunteers could use that list. That post was swiftly taken down by the moderator because it did not abide by the guidelines for volunteers (and that group).
However even that was no mean message - it was about the fact that her base is white, educated and affluent. Her supporters tend to vote in primaires and in the GE, and likely would vote for ANY D nominee. So also for Sanders if he would be the presidential candidate. Sanders on the other hand has also appeal to non-voters.
The recommendation of that commenter was to use those arguments to appeal to primary voters to chose Sanders in the primary over Warren, because Sanders would be the better candidate to beat Donald Trump in the GE.
I think these calculations (behind closed doors) have some merit - I CAN say that I am not a volunteer. It does NOT equal "trashing Warren" or being dismissive of her base. The campaign did NOT have such a script, ONE volunteer in a group thought it would be helpful to use such a script (and was quickly corrected by the moderator).
However the Sanders campaign would not argue with such a script (no group of voter likes being officially told that they are taken for granted even if such realistic calculations are made behind closed doors). If - IF - their much more experienced surrogates would use those arguments at a later stage of the primaries the argument would be carefully worded (and it would not be a script used by many thousand people). Along the lines of - we all know that Senator Sanders has cross over appeal to Trump voters and is very good in activating non-voters and young voters. That strategy worked well for Obama in 2008 and we should take it into account when we assess WHO is best suited to beat Donald Trump.
That commenter in the group was a newbie carried away - or worse it was a saboteur trying to give the media and the Warren campaign something to be "outraged" about. Did nor really work because the moderator caught it. At the minimum there must be diligent "observers" in such groups, the post was not online for long, and the Sanders volunteers would not run with such information to the Warren campaign OR the media.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No. Biden won landslides in primary states where he had no ground game and ran no adds. Why would the local Republicans that are in charge of elections prefer Biden to be the nominee ? For them likely Sanders is a raving left lunatic (falling for their own ideological bias) and Biden had a better shot at beating Trump. I think if they had wanted to rig the primary for one conadidate in order to help Trump - they would have had a hard time to determine which one to pick.
Smart strategists likely would have a healthy respect of the kind of name recognition that Biden built (except for his ageing, he was in much better shape in 2008). If anything they would have recommended to elevate Sanders. Now that may have been a colossal misunderstanding, but you cannot lie about politics and economics all your adult life and it does not affect your own judgement.
Kind of like the Hillary Clinton campaign misread the sitution.
Sure the local party machine was gearing up for Biden in the Southern states, and Sanders could not be everywhere. But he got over 60 or even 70 % in Alabama. - Biden is in the Senate since 1973. He always served the big donors well and knew how to do the folksy shtick, so he got the occasional friendly coverage on TV. Plus his brand was massively reinforced when he failed upwards to becoming Obama's VP.
In the South Obama is still beloved. Latino voters are not that beholden to him - or the D party. and the (fomer) Democratic base in the North is also not nearly as loyal. MI, PA and WI went to Trump with a razor sharp margin in 2016. And he won Ohio twice and each time with OVER 8 %. Obama had won all these states. Twice. These voters wisened up - even if they fell for Trump then or were willing to pick him as alternative.
To be fair: Sanders did well in 2016 there.
DECADES of NAME RECOGNITION (and almost always friendly coverage). And he had a talent to appear personable, Recordings from campaign events or town halls when he was rude did not surface then. On TV he had his shit together.
THAT is powerful. He was important already in the Bill Clinton era. That must be the reason he does well in the South w/o even lifting a finger.
Mainstream media very friendly forgot about Stolen Valor regarding his alleged active stance against racis and being pro Civil Rights movement. In his 1987 presidential campaign, he was forced to drop out of the D primary a few months in. Plagiarism, and also inventing stories of how much he had supported the Cvil Rights Movement and shown that in personal encounters (folksy stories at campaign events in the South, for instance about how he as a young adult or older teenager had defended a black man in a restaurant that was discriminated against. There was an incident in Delaware, but Biden was not seated close, and there were plenty of witnesses that knew he had made the story up how he had stood up for the man and told off the owner, or other patrons. It was one of his stupid lies).
One could say older black voters in the South are sheeple. OR they are from a generation where the lesser evil was something you had to seize and be grateful to get as much. These were people that were teenagers or young adults in the 1960s. They never expected a good candidate, they are used to be used by the Democratic party.
I heard one commentator say that his mother chose Michael Blooomberg eyes wide open. (that was earlier when he still was a potential front runner, the excessive ad spending showed some effect).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I live in a single payer country - you are exactely right. - add to that the MISSED chance to streamline admin costs and billing. NO wealthy country has the public option (= some can OPT OUT from paying into it and they retreat to private providers and better if way too expensive coverage).
In single payer systems the wealthy are nudged into USING it like the less affluent people. The whole population (and all political parties that pander to them) have SKIN IN THE GAME. That the system is well managed, resources are put to good use AND that is is SUFFICIENTLY FUNDED.
They are DRAFTED as allies, which means that right wing ("conservative") parties that would have a strong incentive to attack single payer can't do that. A part of their base (wealthy but not rich, smaller well-off entrepreneurs etc.) ALSO like the system.
These folks are asked to pay more into the system - higher payroll / income related taxes and a part of funding comes from general tax revenue. also more coming from the business community and wealthy and rich people.
Even the affluent profit from the cost-efficiency of the system, but at some point * THEY would do better with a (too expensive) private solutions. With OPTING OUT an underfunded "public option" that can't pay the necessary rates for good services by hospitals /doctor would be of no concern for them.
* This is the point where you want them using the hospitals anyway, having a benevolent view in general towards the system (because it helped them too in the past). They see their tax dollars put to good (cost-efficient) use.
If people are used to being able to OPT OUT private insurance and out of pocket would of course be overpriced (private insurers do not have the negotiating power of the Medicare agency so they ALWAYS and in all countries pay higher rates) - but these affluent / rich people could save even more in taxes.
If they have highers risks or need costly treatment they could chose the underfunded public pool, which gives them a base, and add money out of pocket to get good services. An option that the lower-income people in the public pool do not have, they are stuck with the underfunded system.
From a comment I got the impression that Chile has a system like that - I do not know if it really is a Public Option (people are often not precise with the definitions). Private insurers a play big role in Chile, and as always that ends in a 2 class medical system, where the "private" part is too expensive and the public part is underfunded and therefor not good.
But it could be that everyone has the "basic" public coverage, and those who are healthy or wealthy buy the SUPPLEMENTAL private insurance as upgrades in order to have really good services. Which then would not be "public option" because no one opts fully out.
Either way IF there is a significant market for private insurance it is alway a sign that the public system is not sufficiently funded and that the low-income people are getting inferior services (the hospitals and doctors that accept the rates of the public insurer do not get enough revenue, they have not enough staff, good staff / doctors will try to work in the better funded private practices and hospitals that at not stretched to breaking point.
The wealthy and the young have "private" insurance, but that becomes too expensive as people in Chile get older. Many edlerly or sick people are stuck with the public coverage. Which is - of course - underfunded.
Chile is not a wealthy country, and they do not use their mining revenue for the good of all. The local and international oligarchs stuff their pockets.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sometimes Saagar seems to "get" it (economic populism, disgusted with the Republican establishment, not only the Dems) - and then he starts to defend Trump. That is a more harmless variety of: If only the Leader Hitler had know what bad things went on...
Many Germans after end of WW2 had to admit that horrible things have happened.
Hitler had catastrophically lost the war and only took his life at the peak of the catastrophe, and on top of the lost wars (which he had started and forced the drafted soldiers to fight in them) - he and his inner circle had brought the disgrace and shame of genocide on the German people.
And many Hitler fans were like: "if only the Leader had known ...."
They were emotionally invested in Mein Fuehrer Hitler (My Leader Hitler - in North Korea it is Dear Leader), so they could make the concession that the people around him must have had evil plans and / or were too incompetent to win the wars.
But the idol had to remain intact, contrary to the obvious.
If a nations loses a World War that they started, with so many men killed or wounded as soldiers, and so many civilian casulaties, too
4 foreign countries occupy the country and force dparts of the local population into the death camps, so they could not claim that it was all slander and made up
- the cultists could not deny ALL of reality.
So some moved on to a PARTIAL denial.
As for the "cooperation" not all liked the government: the men were drafted into the army, they were executed if they fled or refused to serve, many were executed in the very last days, with foreign troops already controlling part of the country. When military brass tried to surrender a city (4 officiers were hanged by the SS at a public place, while the Soviets were already IN the city.
Civilians were executed too in the very last days because they dared to criticize the war mongering regime and they finally dared to speak up.
Followed by the silence of all, in the late 1940s, early 1950s times were hard, they scrambled to rebuild. It was harmless comedy in the cinemas, and upbeat songs in the radio. No soul searching, and those who tried were silenced. The silence was kind of broken from the outside (forced onto the losers of the war), and from the 1970s on by the younger generation, that was not as much hindered by shame or by their part in it: willing or hesistant cooperation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trump is an idiot, but maybe he had heard the allegations about McCain, that he cooperated with the Vietkong (and was said to be a reckless pilot before, endangering other soldiers, that had no consequences, grandfather was an admiral, father a big animal in the navy too.).
Not to blame a man that needed medical help (broken leg) - but his fellow POW's were bitter that audios with his voice were used in the camps, with the Vietkong messaging to them.
I read that the audios were "misfiled" by the CIA and only came out soon before his death. I have not searched for them or listened to them, they should be online.
If that was true, he could be blackmailed. By the CIA.
After his return he could not have run for office if that had been known. And the young heiress that he divorced his first wife for, might not have been quite as smitten with the hero.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
2:47 Mitt Romney born with a silver spoon in his mouth. At one point lit a cigarette with money (college times, it was a group photo of rich young pricks), spent time in Paris as Mormon missionary which freed him from the draft to Vietnam, and made more money based on his inheritance and family gifts, by nonproductive ! activities. Like speculation and doing mergers and aquisitions. Aka undermining competition by creating monopolies and making a fortune by outsourcing jobs and firing workers in the merged companies.
What a fine example of self-reliance and creating value for society.
(having a 7 - 7 job, working diligently and wearing a suit does not make you PRODUCTIVE regarding the real economy. Speculators on Wall street (or worse those who deal in bets = derivates), the insurance industry bureaucracy that works hard a screwing their insured, the banksters in the build up to the Great Financial Crisis - they were busy all day.
Same applies to the lobbyists, and marketers that want to sell useless products or lawyers that are eager to get lawsuits, ANY lawsuits.
I think at some level these very rich people would feel bad when they realize how many are poor. Humans are a very social species. It MUST be the fault of the 47 %. Humans are also tribal and bias and self-interest, in most cases beats intelligence, education and observeable facts.
Romney can't be completely stupid, but he is glaringly oblivious with what advantages HE entered the race. Be it a decent home with loving parents (let's hope) that gave him stability were role models. Being healthy and never missing out on healthcare as a child, not him, not his siblings. Getting college paid, the contacts, knowledge etc. his father could help him with, never mind money, ....
Protection from the police IF he messed up.
Not being drafted to Vietnam. Or he would have had to lie (see Trump) or be honest about it and refuse. In which case he would have hardly had a political career in the Republican party and likely openly refusing to join the military would not fly. Trump also prefered NOT to be a conscientous objecter, he would rather find a doctor covering for him.
Compare that to the families where the man went to Vietnam, did not return or came home broken.
1
-
2:20 the condescension of Warren ! "a Senator [she does not even call Sanders by name] who has good ideas but whose 30 years track record shows he consistently calls for things that fail to get done and consistenty opposes things that nevertheless he fails to stop". Of course Sanders was never the ONE vote the made or broke the vote - until he got into the Senate in 2007 and was the one vote that gave the Democrats THE MAJORITY.
It is almost as if ONE person that is NOT beholden to the donors and is NOT an opportunist (* cough * Warren * cough *) playing along with the powers that be, cannot single handedly change the system, not even in 30 years.
Sanders still couldn't shape things w/o the internet. That and the fact that SMALL donations are so much easier now online.
On the other hand: SANDERS drafted himself to a small donor campaign with a planned budget of 30 million USD. Not because he thought he could win the nomination, but to drag Clinton to the left and to have issues discussed that 1) were important and 2) media and parties colluded to NOT have them discussed.
he changed the national discussion on healthcare
he changed the perception that a small donor only campaign can impossibly compete
he already inspired the next generation of elected grassroots officials
he made "liberal" media lose their minds after he became the clear frontrunner (after Iowa, after Nevada they really exposed themselves).
No one is clutching their pearls over Warren - it is almost as if the special interests would see her as harmless but Sanders as FORMIDABLE ENEMY to their interests.
As for preventing things:
On the other hand everyone hoped Susan Collins would be the one dissenting vote (on ACA and on Kavanaugh). John McCain was the one dissenting vote to prevent ACA from being abolished.
I start to think it would have been a blessing in disguise and the Democrats kept the Republicans and Trump from making a fatal mistake. The voters lead by Sanders would have revolted. and Trump could not brag about his successful term.
Talking about an opportunist. 30 or 40 years back. She was a registered Republican and later a Democrat in her late 40s (might have been to get tenure when being registered with the fitting party). She was a Corporate lawyer, helping big biz to NOT pay pensions to coal miners (some strategic bankrupcy of a subsidiary most likely) or to pay less in damages for breast implants that were flawed.
She got things done, but not even a Republican would brag with that record.
Sanders waited for her be drafted by the Run Liz, Run campaign in late 2014, early 2015. he nudged her to run and would have stood down, but that was a THANKLESS job. She had the better name recognition nationally - but the Clinton machine would have been furious (they only accepted Sanders running in the party because they could not prevent him from running as Independent. They would have been even more incensed about Warren challenging Hillary Clinton because she was a woman and well liked for her Robin hoold shtick. Voters saw her as feisty outsider and defender of the regular people.
What did Warren get done ?
She did good with the agency - which showed the limits of a technocratic solution in a rotten system. Was not hard for the Trump admin to neuter it.
Warren sat it out in 2015 and 2016. She angled for a VP position. In fall 2019 her campaign "planted" the story how she tried to be the gray eminence behind the scenes as soon as 2014 or 2013.
Allegedly her price for not running in the primary was that Clinton would not appoint special interests to her cabinet.
Riiite ! Clinton would honor such promises after being elected. She would also not be in the least annoyed to be pushed by a nobody (in insider circles). So Warren gave up REAL leverage for the hope of future influence, if powerful president Clinton and very rich donors wanted to hold promises.
The story likely was a curated leak by Warren's campaign.
It was weird:
Was that supposed to be a long overdue explanation / lame justification why she had sat at the sidelines in 2016 ? Instead of boldly endorsing Sanders right away, the story suggests she played indirect 3 D chess ?
If she had run in 2015 Sanders likely would have enthusiastically supported her. He is not nduly worried about the anger of the party machine. SHE could be president now. She did not have the baggage of Clinton, and with the help of Sanders the working class in the Rust Belt would have turned out.
Trump won 3 Rusbelt States with a total of 78,000 MORE votes. They could have pulled it off. Mr. Healthcare bringing the blue collars, and ideally she would have had a running mate of color and Sanders as bulldog for healthcare (either in the Senate) or in the cabinet.
But I think he might not even have insised on a cabinet position.
Well, if Warren thought Clinton would hold such a promise she is a fool and has no business running for president, she would be duped by advisors all the time.
Or it was a lame attempt to get into better graces with disappointed progressives (who started to coalesce around Sanders at that time). That the curated leaks overstated her efforts to influence the Clinton campaign. That she was just timidly waiting in the shadow and the Clinton campaign dangled the carrot of a potential VP nomination in front of her.
It is cheap and easy to neuter her, to make Warren give up REAL influence. Of course Clinton would not have a woman in her team that could outshine her. Bad enough that the guy in 2008 and again in 2016 stole her thunder, she would not appoint her competition for popularity.
It was bland Tim Kainefor the VP pick. The special interests would have determined cabinet posts. Warren was not on that list either.
Most likely: Warren did not dare to upset the party machine and humbly hoped a bone would be thrown her way.
Again: if SHE would care for the progressive movement, she would have RUN in 2015 and STAYED OUT in 2019. She would campaign her heart out, would take a stance and the only question would be - WHICH job in the Sanders admin ?
If Sanders does not win the presidency she would not be VP or Secretary of Treasury. So what ? Fundraising would never be a problem for her - she won her Senate seat in 2018, she has that and the Sanders movement would help her out in 2024 if the party machine would "blacklist" her. Same with Aryana Pressley.
AOC had been contacted by both campaigns for her endorsment. When Sanders was in the hospital: "I got a gut punch". She decided to endorse him when he was down (as soon as it was clear the surgery had went well and he was likely to make a good recovery).
Boy, AOC will be glad she listened to her instinct. to go with who aligned bestwith her values.
Then it was not even clear what an opportunist Warren really was.
it is more about WINNING that it is about the cause. Scolding banksters good her good name recognition. It was rewarded by the voters. He barking never had any consequences (not her fault).
On the other hand team Warren wrote the Clinton campaign that she was "flexible" regarding financial regulation.
WTF ??
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Democratic establishment: "Nce little country you have here, wouldn't it be a shame if Trump / right wing Supreme court justice happened to it ?"
The solution short term: ADVOCATING for voting third party AT LEAST in the safely red or blue states.
Letting the D establishment know that "Vote Blue No Matter Who" is over. That maybe, maybe they can earn a hesistant vote if they make concessions.
Now many of the lot do not mind losing to Trump as long as they are not winning with Sanders.
Some democrats that run for congress or Senate might care for winning the election (if they are not very well connected, they might not get te golden parachute). Maybe they can put a little bit of pressure on Biden (or whoever replaces him).
So that the servants of the big donors can be bothrered to make a few concessions. The grassroots extracted a few from Nicon.
Organizing to mass protest when that is possible again against the neoliberal Democrat that with some "luck" wins the presidency. Or against Trump in is second term.
In the longer run:
You cannot win the war if not losing ANY battle is your most important goal. You have to be willing to lose a battle.
That should have been considered by voters 20 years ago. Admitted, NOW is a terrible time STARTING to adhere to it. On the other hand, there is not much left to lose.
Every election was presented under the narrow framing of "this and ONLY this CURRENT emergency".
The only candidate that did not campaign under "lesser evil" was Obama, and Hope and Change sold well.
Of course the other wing of the one and only big donor party can be relied on to always come up with an even worse candidate
"Bad" Republican candidates give the Democratic establishment the cover to never ever give the base anything that would cost the donors (of both parties !) profits. That applies to almost all policies that benefit regular people, their interests hardly ever align with those of the 1 or 0,001 %
It is a Good Cop / Bad Cop routine.
The oligarchs have pursued their interests strategically and for decades with the help of think tanks, they have captured politics. Supreme court, lower courts, media, even academia.
Meanwhile the peasants are expected to look at the situation every 2 years as if it would be an unique emergency, again, and again
Jill Stein: Voting based on fear and always for the lesser evil gave us everything we were afraid of.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
NOW the virus SHOVES an unprecedented HUGE opportunity in the face of Sanders. And what does he do ? Folding w/o asking for any concessions, and he sidelines the base that WAITS for someone to lead the troops.
Logical action of Sanders now:
Want me to drop out, to endorse Biden to tell my base to vote for Biden ?
I demand concession. You can't have that w/o giving sth in return. I want a FIRM, believeable, concrete pledge that Biden will do all he can to get M4A passed *. No lip service, Biden must come up with plans, with names of persons he will appoint to promote the cause.
After the second Tuesday Sanders and Biden were tied in delegates (they still counted CA then). Biden felt VERY safe to say in an interview with Lawrence O'Donnell that he would veto M4A. Using right wing and wrong talking points (no pushback on that, of course not).
The question was: the bill makes it miraculously through Congress and Senate, there are compromises, or it is the Warren plan. Would you veto it ?
please note: the Warren plan is to pass the public option FIRST. Same P.O. that Obama promised in his campaing in 2008. The P.O. that some Republicans with a D to their name cut out of the bill in 2009, Lieberman for instance.
So now Biden says THAT would just be too expensive and it would be his duty as president to veto it. How could Obama ever be so dumb to promise it in the first place !
I know he was equally worried about the costs for the iraq war, or Afghanistan, he howled about the Trump tax cuts for the rich (reduced revenue = Trump had to massively increase debt and deficit), the insane increase of an already insane miliatry budget under Trump.
Or the bank bailouts, QE to the tune of TRILLIONS later to help them "recover" (4,5 trn under Obama.
hOW ArE wE goiNg tO PAy foR iT ??
QE for Wallstreet NOW: I think the Fed already did more than that in March, they STARTED with 1,5 trillion on march 12th - and before the "stimulus bill" was passed. (that is apart from that, Fed does not even need Congress to create the trillions for the speculators or big finance.
Dodd Frank made sure of that. Under Obama they had embarrassing discussions about bailouts and QE, now Fed can act swiftly and w/o debates thanks to the bill that was passed under Obama, a bill that poses as "financial regulation").
Then I thought Biden was really stupid to openly admit he would undermine M4A.
But no: He (his handlers) are very CERTAIN that they will get away with it. That Sanders will fold.
Biden might not realize that the base of Sanders will not vote "blue no matter who" when he already "promises" them to screw them. They are not in it for the personality (no it is not a cult) it is about the POLICIES.
1
-
1
-
The virus is very democratic, the rich can catch it too because they get services from the peasants. As soon as there is a vaccine they do not have a problem anymore. The time to squeeze concesssions out of them is when they have a problem, that media, power, and money cannot solve for them.
the leverage Sanders has (and he VERY obviously shies away from using it)
ONLY with a firm commitment Biden will get the endorsement. And if he waits to long Sanders will take that as hostility towards the cause and start mass action right now.
And Sanders calling him out if he REALLY wants to win agains Trump, because he sure does not act like it when he ignores the base on M4A (exit polls in primaries, more people were positive about it than voted for Sanders).
And that it costs too much is plain nonsense and it starts sounding like a lame excuse. Does Biden not have the Yale and the Mercatus study (the later financed by the Koch brothers). Does he not know that EVERY other rich country spends roughly half.
i would like to hear from Sander: I am done with the b.s. arguments, they are lame attempts to talk down the most cost efficient solution. Which the big donors do not like. THAT is the real problem. (Sanders could still win the nomination with talking straight and not putting up with the b.s. anymore).
Screw the pledge that the DNC demands of everyone running in their primaries, the promise that they will support the nominee. That promose is not even nullified when the party does not keep THEIR part, changes rules midway, tips the scales, ..... btw. Of course the pledge is also not legally binding. Since Sanders will not run again, and since this is a historic crisis - he could as well go torched earth.
The primary would be STILL going on (as long as Sanders does not suspend). So technically Sanders would not even violate that pledge.
And there is no moral right to hold him to his pledge when the party brazenly ignores the base.
I would like to hear from Sanders: "you are not screwing the people - Not on my watch"
Media, HRC, DNC going nuts. PLENTY of coverage. Slamming Sanders of course.
So what ?
Many CITIZENS would cheer on Sanders (remember: negative media coverage did not damage Trump, because he struck a cord. Some had been waiting all these years for a bull in the chinashop. a good dose of that would be in order now, especially when used for a good cause).
Media would need to give Sanders and surrogates airtime, and they would need to be well prepared for that. (so no virtual events and preaching to the choire. No time spent on charities - he can leave that to the lower level people, like celebrities. he has more leverage and he needs to use it).
1
-
There was never a better time to PUSH for M4A. BUT: Sanders sent out a mail asking for donations for charities, in the middle of that mail a sentence: Now is not the time to fight for M4A, that will be later. (Jimmy Dore got that mail). - W.T.F. ?? (Did the aliens kidnap Sanders and swap one of their own into his body ? Who are you and what have you done to Senator Sanders ?)
Doing charities (instead of rocking the boat !) and giving the establishment ALL they want in exchange for NOTHING.
Hoping that being NICE and COMPLIANT will be rewarded LATER. That they will make concessions when there is much less pressure. When it is much harder for a grassroots movement to build pressure.
Now Trump, Republicans (they REALLY want to won in Nov. 2019), the Dems, the companies AND a lot of people sitting unemployed at home have a massive problem. This is the moment of maximum pressure, and the progressives incl. Sanders completely drop the ball. Cowards ! )
Maybe they fear Trump would pressure Republicans into passing M4A - I do not think so - and IF it is still an achievement of Sanders.
Has Sanders lost his mind ? (No: he self sabotages, he got scared of his own courage, afraid to WIN).
D establishment (Biden, Obama, most politicians, their donors) have no problem with the fact that the U.S. pays double what it should cost per person.
That includes ALL citizens and residents - "per person" includes people w/o coverage, those who get too little care too late, go bankrupt. It is an average
They are very complacent about 30,000 - 65,000 preventable deaths per year. They are also complacent about mass incarceration (many entrapped because of b.s laws on the books that equate weed with heroin, neither Bill Clinton nor Obama could be bothered to change the Schedule 1 status of marijuana. Both have used it, both KNOW it is not that addictive or dangerous).
Shackling the youth to 1,5 trillion student loan debt, starting wars on b.s. claims,....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
t is one thing to be the eternal underdog and dissenting - in the safe knowledge you will never have power (and can never run the risk of losing an important election). It is another thing to seize and USE power and to meet the moment. I seem to remember that Sanders said in 2015: "I was never one of these people that looked in the mirror and said: One day I will be president."
Many people have that kind of hubris. Reagan, Trump, Obama (he WANTED that and he SEIZED the chance the GFC offered, he had just been elected to the Senate). Old Kennedy wanted one of his sons to become POTUS (JFK and Bobby worked strategically on it). Same with FDR. HRC for sure WANTED it (and she was PISSED when Obama rained on her parade). Mike Pence and Mitt Romney allegedly also talked as young adults about becoming president one day.
Any nuanced intelligent person would have second thought the power and responsibility of the office. Plus: they are locked up in the White House. Security everywhere. They cannot even open a window.
Sanders does not SEE himself in that role, being that powerful.
So it is the morons, fools, narcissists, careerists, psychopaths that chase and GET power.
Even Biden in cognitive decline wants the office more than Sanders. Biden LIES for it. Calls Sanders a socialist on the debate stage.
How about Sanders calling him out on having served big finance for decades. Which IS true. That he was willing to push ! for a lot of bills and votes that caused massive damage for citizens.
Zephyr Teachout, a Sanders surrogate used the word corruption in an OpEd about Biden (and she was not even harsh). Her assessment is objectively correct. Biden's action (Ukraine) deserves that label.
Sanders instead apologized to Biden (another red flag, that Sanders took himself out of the race).
Gov. toppled in Ukraine, Russia annexes Crimea, Obama puts Biden in charge of Ukraine - why not the Secretary of State ?? - either Hillary Clinton or Kerry, not sure if Clinton had already left - to cash in on the office before she prepared her next run for president??
Right away Joe Biden installrf his unemployable son with addiction problems at the board of an energy company. Son has no expertise in the field, does not speak the language, does not know the country or the energy market THERE. Gets a higher wage than people with experience at the board of Exxon or Chevron (60k per month).
Mind you in a poor country where wage levels are much lower than in first world countries (that would normally also translate to lower salaries in top positions).
If THAT is not corrupt / brazen nepotism - I do not know what is (the consumers of Ukraine pay for it that Burisma bribed a high ranking member of the U.S. government. Ukraine is a very poor country, the costs for that no-show job are of course included in their energy prices).
If guess no one would huff and puff if Biden would have arranged for a lower key (lower paid) spot in a NGO with ties to the Democratic machine to "provide" for his son.
Just not THAT gig - and it was very poor judgement of Obama to let him do it.
1
-
1
-
@Get Real Plus scaring the shit out of the older voters that suffer from the delusion that their SS * and Medicare ** is safe (and Biden has always promoted an economic approach that is at odds with defending those programs). SS and Medicare weren't even safe before the corona crisis.
It is political malpractice that Sanders did not point that out. Much earlier. He could have hit Wallstreet Bloomberg and Biden at the same time.
* Healthcare spending is disproportionally more for older people. That is the case in every first world country. It is NOT helpful at all when on top of that healthcare in the U.S. costs double of what it should cost in the U.S.
Every country needs to subsidize healthcare.
But the U.S. subsidizes MORE ALREADY than any other nation. Per person.
And does not even get good services for everyone.
In other countries government also has to help out (to keep the contributions of citizens and companies modest). But not as much as the U.S. government.
And ALL the money (from government, citizens, companies) goes into a streamlined cost-efficient system.
Medicare for the elderly safe ? Think again.
** The Democratic party became the party of the big donors, and of neoliberalism. Undermining SS (in one form or the other) just comes with the territory.
Wallstreet / big finance became very important (big time in the 1990s) - before that large corporations and Wallstreet was associated with the Republican party, the Democrats were the party of the working class and unions.
What comes with the territory ?
Trade deals that make it safe and lucrative to outsoure jobs.
Cutting welfare
Cutting, freezing or privatizing SS.
Financial deregulation (that led to the GFC)
And yes Wallstreet also loves predatory, completely overpriced healthcare and medical drugs. It is not only the insurance industry, big pharma
That school of thought was all the fashion in the 1990s, and Joe Biden is very much a politician of that economic approach. Has been for decades.
(And Bloomberg has made his money on Wallstreet).
Most politicians went along with neoliberalism - the theory conveniently aligned with what was easy, lucrative and pleased the big donors. And that is not even talking about the Republican Party that has been hostile towards SS since it was introduced in the 1930s.
Or Trump that says even before elections that he will cut it.
(Exception: Republican President Eisenhower: it is unpatriotic to be against SS. Well, there is a reason he used that strong language - to reign in his own party).
Sanders always pointed out all these neoliberal policies were and held on to the principles of the New Deal. And was right.
Being against SS just comes with the territory if you take a lot of donations from big finance.
It shows (Grand Bargain offered under Obama. In a weird twist the Tea party helped to undermine a dream come true for Republicans, they were hell bent on not giving Obama an budget for instrastructure plans.
and of course resistance from many Democratic politicians - and Sanders.
Bill Clinton had a secret working group to explore privatization of SS - when the Lewinsky scandal broke they dropped it. Bill Clinton did not want to fight on 2 fronts.
Can anyone imagine privatized SS during the GFC ? Or NOW ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Emily mindlessly spouts the usual right wing talking points. The U.S. was the INFLUENTAL actor that hindered progress the most, and no one forced the U.S. (or Europe) to wait what China or India is doing. Never mind: the U.S. spends on the military as much as the next 10 - 13 nations combined (and some are close allies, typically China a country with 3 times the population is a DISTANT second, followed by Russia or Saudi Arabia).
I have yet to hear a right winger say that the U.S. has to wait until China doubles their budget or else they cannot spend so much (They U.S. would still spend much more than China even if they would double the budgets)
Stop imports or slap an tariff on developing countries that do not go along (at all they would need some concession as the much weaker economies, but then THEY did not create the problem, use much less energy per person, and have been plundered in many ways by the first world countries). and lead the way.
After all the U.S. has a high per capita GDP and is supposedly a rich nation (much richer than China or India), so it would behoove the U.S. to do better than hinder all progress for DECADES, being put to shame by emerging nations (like China) and THEN stammer: but, but China & India ...
That is the strategy of children that want to weasel out from doing a chore
China plus India have together6 times more people than the U.S , and also do not enjoy the meanwhile undeserved privilege of having the world reserve currency.
China promoted ! solar and wind, and was INSTRUMENTAL for the price drop.
Needless to say they invest big time into battery tech. They have also become the workbench for the world and need energy. Would they use renewables if it was a LEVEL playing field - at least that the industrialized nations also produce with less fossil fuel ? You bet - and they would go big, as they have done so in the past.
1
-
Holy Shit: Does he believe the spin he tells here. Was he in the HRC campaign in 2015 / 2016 ? He would fit right there. If Warren would be reasonable she would have gone along with the Sanders M4A plan, and would have differentiated herself on financial regulations. (and on being a woman and younger).
Sanders M4A would get not get passed - but it would be just smooth sailing for her Public Option ??
He is a glaring example of the consultant / strategist / analyst class that messed up HRC's campaign and hangs out in D.C. to leech of campaign funds. As such he must be dismissive of Sanders, if Sanders wins there will be much less need for propagandists like him.
He does not analyze - he puts a spin on things and hopes people are falling for it.
Sanders was consistent for 30 years ... and a loser ?? a) easily disproven b) the political process is bought and paid for and one honest outsider cannot change that all alone and to a large extent ? Go figure
c) Warren was effective as coroporate lawyer defending companies from having to pay damages or pensions to workers, medical laws suits (breast implants) ....
I wouldn't go there.
Warren was a Republican 30 years ago. she supported the politicians that started to do the New Deal, which is the root cause for the current state of affairs.
d) The CFPB was a success and a hard won battle. BUT: a technocratic (in the best sense) solution does not help if you do not change the system. It took one admin and less than 8 years to neuter the agency.
The truth is that many Democrats were hostile as well but so soon after the crisis they did not dare to sabotage quite as much, so she pulled off the CFPB. That hostility comes from the influence of money in politics.
She promised to not take big donations, and backpaddeled (she might in the general). Now what did sanders for Big Structural Change which includes getting money out of politics in the longer run and big donors out of the campaigns in the short run.
e) Now who, WHO, started an unlikely experiment, did not mind to offend the party / Clinton machine (wasn't very concerned with that for the last 30 years) and stunned the political scene in the U.S. ? And CHANGED IT.
And who sat quietly on the sideline and did not dare to rock the boat by entering the primary.
f) As for optics: you do not want to get too clever for your own good. Voters may not follow you with your 3 D chess arguments. - for the casual observer: She lost. Twice. Hard to spin that as "effective". If challanged (often with a right wing framing) she descends into a word salad. Even when asked in a lifestyle interview (Charlemagne, a black host): when did you realize for the first time that you did not have native ancestry. Word salad (she STILL had no concise, well formulated answer prepared). The host was nice he did not press her for evading his question (she filibustered and did not anwer it).
Same when asked about "raising taxes for the middle class". Sanders challenges the right wing framing. She doesn't and knots herself into a pretzel. rhetorically and later with her plans (which looked to me like the interns had written them).
That is not the same as being "efficient" in legislation, but it does not convey that vibe to the voters either.
g) Sanders shaped how campaigns are run (grassroots, small donations), and changed the discussion on healthcare. People remember that HE changed the healthcare discussion and got the debate going.
That is a monumental achievement considering the hostile media environment (it would not have been possilbe w/o internet and w/o independent media on the internet. Which explains why he wasn't successful earlier.
h) Sanders has a movement that might turn out to be bigger than that of Obama. And he says he intends to use it. Historic change comes from the bottom up (plus he gives the examples). Sounds convincing to me.
1
-
1
-
@fortusvictus8297 MeToo is about a real offence, misbehavior or crime. The claim in MeToo cases: That it was NOT consensual. If a man cannot deny that it happened at all, he will always ! claim it was harmless, not as bad as she says (she exaggerates) or it was consensual. IF there is proof of sexual misbehavior or crime it is devastatng for the reputation, career, freedom, finance, marriage and future relationships.
Of course men will always say, it didn't happen at all - or "I had an encounter, I had sex, ... but it was consensual."
Consensual ? - No: The woman did not want you to touch her butt, or yell certain words after her, or did not want to be targeted with sexually charged jokes and remarks at the work place (there is a difference between the rare inapproprate / racy joke - or being targetted for such language. That btw can also happend to men. that their collegues bring that up all the time. either he is assumed to be gay or it is a subtle power play.
She did not want to get hit on by her boss, and him asking her very private details (but only when there are no witnesses) - for instance about her relationship with her fiancé (as happened to a friend). Then she told him she is in a relationshp and not interested - but that did not stop him. The young woman left the company after a few months.
Before he had targetted another female (in the work place too). I happen to know her, we talked about it. The two women talked over it while they both were still employed and working under the same abusive manager.
She was not as young, longer in the company, had worked her way into a male dominated job, and established herself. She did not want to quit.
In a way she was relieved - the younger woman (he could have been her father) was his perfect match, so then he left her alone (for the most part).
Both women did not even consider to go to HR (this was a large company with an elected worker's board btw). I learned of it only later. That manager had a falling out with top management later, and left the company (or they cut costs. But he had been in middle management for many years and both subordinates assumed that top management would take his side, and that worker representation would not be able to help them. Likely they were right.
I guess that man continued to harrass women that were not in his league (too young, too attractive) abusing his power. Well, if they had met in the gym, at an event, or they are neighbours they would have rejected him (likely politely if he wasn't too gross) and he would have to live with the fact that they are not interested.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Fortus Victus A male sex predator can have a VERY long run and many victims. But not a ruthless female that lies about sexual assault. (Most men are not like that - but those who are, tend to have several or a LOT of victims. Chances are they are never held accountable or only after years).
A woman that accuses several men over time about sexual assault will not be believed. A woman can be assaulted more than once in her life - but if she makes such claims again and again you know something is off.
Predators are usually smart, so it could indicate mental illness. (A man that is falsely accused because of that still has a lot of trouble and does not deserve that - but it would not be with malignent intent and she is not really responsible for her wrongdoing, if she is psychotic. Which however usually shows up in other behavior and is a giveaway.
On the other hand predators seek out mentally or bodily disabled, or otherwise "weak" targets to sexually abuse him. So a woman can be psychotic, but her claims about assault can still be true. There is still the possibility that a man choses her as victim. Because she is so obviously off the track (or had an episode in the past) - so no one will believe her.
I know of one case (news) - the woman must have been malignant, the police did shoddy investigative work. Her description of the alleged assault and the details did not make sense.
Even that is tricky because the shock and trauma can lead to giving details - time, distance - that are not correct. But in that case it was beyond reasonable doubt that she had invented that story. The police had a bias.
Well groomed popular lady, versus a men that was a little bit of an excentric and not popular with his collegues. So they did not apply common sense to her narrative (in that case, not only did she say how long it lasted - a victim could get that wrong - trauma, the way the brain works in high stress situations. But in that case there was evidence that he would have needed to time travel to be able to rape her. Like I said, shoddy police work.
The same shoddy police work can also work against a victim. And help a predator to go free.
There are other cases where a young woman or teenager makes up a story (normally they are young). Usually to evade consequences and shaming from a prudish family or a partner that is angry and suspects she cheated on him. If she comes home long after normal hours and in a disshevelled state, if it turns out she is pregnant - she sees no other way out than to invent a story.
Normally she does not accuse a specific person (she has no intention to create trouble for another person, she needs an alibi) It was a "stranger". If police do their job they pick such stories apart quickly. The lying accusers are not that craven, that lost to all morality, they feel bad about lying, and are usually not consistent.
If they would be able to think straight they would not even try that stunt. So the stories are usually half baked.
That is wong of course - but it does not cause lasting harm 1) she does not accuse an individual 2) she is easily found out. - it only harms the cause of real victims, because that is often conflated with the wild stories of scared / cowardly teenagers trying to lie their way out of a tight spot.
BUT - most cases in which the accusation survives reasonable questioning - are NOT like that. Men do overstep boundaries, and a few committ crimes (but those predators tend to do it often - I think that explains the disbelief, not many men RAPE women. But quite a few misbehave (or did it when they were younger - so they tend to downplay).
If they misbehave they are encouraged by society to dismiss that. But it is not so harmless that they would proudly stand by that. So in a way they enjoy to overstep boundaries and they know it is not right.
And in most cases (harmless and severe) they get away with it. In most cases of sexual crime the victims do not go public, they do not seek prosecution - a normal woman will not do that easily when she has been sexually assaulted, raped - or harrassed in the workplace.
For a normal woman there is a heavy price to pay. On the other hand male or female malignant narcissists and psychopaths do not care about social stigma - that does not affect them and they cope with it differently. I real victim FEARS the attention - a psychopath or narcissist LOVES it (or is unfazed by it).
I would include anyone that lies about it for career advantages or political reasons - for that you must have psychopathic tendencies. (as opposed to the teenagers making up stories about a gneric stranger to cover their ass).
Their is playing a hard game - and then there is accusing someone of a crime that carries so much stigma (if it can be proven). Weinstein cannot show his face in polite society. he is done.
but the social stigma ON VICTIMS is a major deterent on regular people. And a REAL victim is often retraumatized when they testify. Police and trial. Another reason to spare herself the ordeal - especially considering that the chances of a conviction are not high, so it is not even that she can protect other potential victims.
1
-
@fortusvictus8297 I read in the newspaper a warning of the head doctor (neurology, a male btw). warning women of rape drugs. In a city of 200,000 residents and with low crime rates. They get cases usually at the weekend: the women is disoriented but not from alcohol.
There are predators out there that do not have the guts to rape a woman with force (or it would be hard to kidnap her and they shy away from the hassle).
So they do it with the help of drugs. Likely they made up their mind that it isn't a vile crime if the victim does not cry and resist (because she can't). - of they do not care, as long as it is easy and they think they get away with it.
Rape drugs mess with memory so it is even harder to get a conviction.
His message:
Never accept a drink from someone you do not know. Only from person you trust (and know longer !) or the bar tender. Watch your glass all the time, have a friend watch it if you go to the bathroom.
If you notice that a person (a woman in most cases) changes her behavior fast (within 30 minutes or so) if she gets incoherent, step in. Help her, search for her friends, get her a cab. It may look like she had been voluntarily drinking more alcohol than is good for her - but it may not be alcohol and not voluntary at all.
He also mentions that if the predator does not get the dosis right and uses too much it can lead to death.
The drug is hard to prove if the woman comes in after some hours (a lab test can't find the drug after some time).
A common mistake is that a woman knows a man in passing, by name or she knows the people he is with, or where he lives or works. And derives from that the assumption that he would not rape her, or spike her drink.
They do not know each other well, but it would be easy enough to find out his full name, he would not DARE to rape her, would he ?
Wrong !
A normal person with no criminal intent would indeed assume that no one
would be that brazen or vile. The error: They project from themselves (no malicious intent and also somewhat scared to get into trouble with the law) to criminals.
The chance that a man gets away with that are pretty good. Which emboldens them.
If you have 100 claims and the woman publicly stands behind it - you can be sure that most of the men are guilty. And for the 100 claims there are at least 400 more victims that do not report.
I know of a case (news) where the man was convicted (drugging apprentices, raping them and filming them). The footage was found, there were several victims. Some still underage, some had left that workplace and were adults at the time when the scandal broke.
It was a case like Weinstein (only more rapes) and the perpetrator was only the popular mayor of a nice little town. And it was very obvious he had been a predator for many years.
His wife divorced him fairly soon .... but a number of citizens of his town shockingly still blamed the victims or insisted that he was innocent (did I mention he was their boss, that there was footage, and they were underage 15 - 16, and he used rape drugs ?)
That man gave a kind of press converence before his trial or after the first sentence (no idea why he was not held in prison). I think even major TV stations covered that event, at least they reported on it with an edited shorter version.
On camera he whined and talked about how he was almost driven to suiced. And of course he was innocent, it was all a plot to ruin him.
Journalists that were there commented on it: Off camera / behind the stage he joked with people. His demeanour changed off / on camera. He didn't appear to be suicidal or in a bleak mood off camera.
He had been able to dupe his community, the parents of the teenagers that trusted him with being the boss in a master / apprentice relationship. He duped his wife ....
He still lied against overwhelming evidence. (the video footage, it would have been criminal even IF the girls would have gone along without resistance. The testimony of his victims, the way he had planned this.
They were supposed to learn about office work as interns (apprentices), and he was supposed to work in his office or visit the constituents and businsses. So it was not that easy to be alone with the victim. And since they were minors their parents would have expected them to come home after work, or known what they did at the weekend.
He had to plan that carefully. Finding a pretext to be with them alone in a community center (then closed for the public of course) where he could be fairly certain not to be suprised. it is possible that the town was so small that they only had a part time regular civil servant - because that would have been fishy if he disappeared with the teenager in tow.
A man saying that he didn't do it, insisting he never did anything wrong - does not mean anything.
The predators will STILL lie in the face of overwhelming evidence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The current system funnels the workforce into the large cities. Costs & societal problems. Exploding rent, the need for more infrastructure, higher crime rates etc.
They have the infrastructure in the rural areas, and the country is less vulnerable if people are spread out. Think draughts, hurricanes, earthquakes, ...
They could have well insulated homes (good during a heat wave OR a cold snap) - another area where government could have a long time effect on SUSTAINABILITY.
If Texas had changed building code around 2000 they would have been set up much better in 2011 and in 2021. Plus the savings every hot summer. But they chose to have the closed off grid and they need a lot of consumption in summer, some providers only then make a profit. (And that - as always - trumps every other consideration).
Real estate and land is not that expensive so people can have the emergency pantry, the diesel generator, the camping equipment, the wood stove for cooler spring and fall (that would have helped in Texas during the recent cold snap, along with insulation that also reduces A/C costs during hot summer).
Typically the rural folks are more resourceful (DIY - you need space to do more of that or gardening). and they help each other out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mwfmtnman a PART of the boomers were the Civil Rights and anti war generation. After the war was over and the Clean Air and Water act was passed they settled. The 1970s were a time of economic reshuffling - followed by the neoliberal onslaught.
1970s: 2 major global crises, which the elites used to hit back against the New Deal, scaring the masses with higher unemployment and stagflation.
Plus the major economic mistake of Carter to let Paul Volcker (which he appointed as Fed chair) run amock with interest rates. to solve inflation (stagflation) that had nothing to do with monetary policy or an overheated economy (which would be a good problem to have) and everything to do with the costs of oil - driving up cost of living and costs for producing goods.
The cure for that is INVESTMENT, research to replace use of fossil fuel with technology and human labor.
Better construction codes and up to date heating, cooling, producing electricity and insulation of homes. All project to create well paying JOBS. Some in enegineering, and some for blue collars.
Also reducing the future vulnerability of the U.S. for future price shocks, the need for wars and regime changes in the Middle East, and ending the addiction ! to cheap fossil fuel.
But you cannot do that with interest rates for business and aspiring home owners of 15 % and above. it was crazy ! I think the only time (that I know of) where a government (agency) very intentionally created a severe economic downturn (or accepted that as side effect of a policy meant to get a grip on inflation)
So voters did not complain about higher costs of living while having a job and things were basically O.K. - THEN they lost their jobs in masses, and businesses went under, home owners with flexible interest rates were screwed, and forget about taking out a loan for a home or business .... - all other nations got a grip on staglation w/o the drastic measures of the U.S..
"capital" fled the U.S. (drop of the USD value, so they went for other currencies) - the high interest rates were meant to counteract that (even though that was not talked about). The interest rates were not only high for LOANS (in normal times that can bring down an overheating economy a little bit, if loans get more expensive less investments happens).
The interest rates also impact the interest given on money on accounts ....on fortunes in money (bonds ...) denominated in USD so that appeased the rich to stay IN DOLLAR. Interest rates for normal people (on savings) do not really matter. For them it is crucial to have a job, to have job security (which creates the pressure to increase wages if productivity goes up. That happens with investment = interst rates of loans.
Normal people need loans for housing (either they are renters or they get a home) Either way they pay the interest rate.
Or the loan to finance a car.....
Only rich people benefit much more from interest rates ON savings (bonds). For them unearned income (capital gains, interest) are the main sourche of income. Regular people have their income from job (or a biz which they run) not from the interst they get on their savings. That is small change comparatively.
(the dollar depreciated during that time and they chose to strangle the economy to counteract what was essentially only a disadvantage for the owners of fortunes in money. Not if the fortune was in manufacturing capacity. Which of course brings product costs down and creates inevitably jobs, for instance for the machine builders. the blue collars that build the halls or install the assembly line. the researchers and engineers .....).
Rich people that were not invested in manufacturing but in money (cash, bonds, life insurance, ... oney on accoutns)
Well Carters hould have waved them a friendly good bye, explained to voters that money" is easily created and that we do not need "capital" and rich investors for our economy. (see Fiat money / MMT direct money creation positive money (dot) U.K. can help you).
We need patents, machines, workforce, infrastructure, peace, a justice system, .... money is easy to come by. Interest rates are the tool to finetune the economy to boost it when sluggish and to dampen it so it does not overheat (and to spread out the good times).
Paul volkcer must have been brilliant and charismatic and he gets lauded by the neoliberal crowd (still) for doubling down on his strategy which was of course opposed by workers and unions. Carter may have had a not too good relationship with theunions so - he did not listen when he should have.
There was the silent (reactionary) majority that voted for Nixon after the 1968 convention. And were opposed to the war protesters and too much equality for the blacks. And not many years later the same crowd voted for dog whistling Reagan after Carter.
I think the riots at the 1968 D convention played a major part. because the Democratic machine propped up war candidates. (in the traumatic year when Dr. King was killed in spring, he was an early opponent of the war before that became an easy and mainstream position. and Bobby Kennedy in June who I think was also opposed to the war, or at least said so).
LBJ knew that Nixon had undermined his "efforts" to get a peace deal before the election. the team of Humphrey and parts of the party machine were worried about the electon and a success in Paris would have helped since within monthts opposition to the war grew a lot.
But I think LBJ was paying lip service to end the war sooner than later - and he would rather have Nixon win (who would carry on his pret project).
LBJ could have exposed Nixon for what amounted to treason. The parents of the soldiers meanwhile killed in Vietnam would have been furious, no way Nixon's campaign would have survived that.
LBJ chose not to expose him, and did not share the information - or there would have been leaks. (They had bugged the office of the South Vietnamese president, that is how they learned that they were encouraged by Nixon to boycot the talks in Paris, and the U.S. had also bugged the embassy. If Nixon would not have stepped down from his candidacy for "health reasons"
- then the U.S. would of course have lost that intel advantage, the South Vietnamese would have figured out the source of the information. Well, all the more damning for Nixon, for undermining the intel community. Likely he would have taken the face saving offer to resign under a pretext.
The Democrat (Humphrey) lost with 2 % in the popular vote, it was not THAT decisive for Nixon.
That's the margin Clinton had over Trump.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A president that really cares about unions (Biden had one message but that was it) would mention how Amazon was caught stealing tips from drivers recently. Peeing into bottles, massive CoVid safety violations. (the settlement regarding the stolen tips was beginning of 2021). Drivers (not employees) that helped to deliver goods, fresh food delivery, normal delivery, occasionally helping out with Amazon Prime.
If the recipient gave a tip - but not in cash - it used to be that Amazon passed it on to the drivers. They had a change in procedures / stats / billing, drivers were suspicious but were assured that nothing would change for them, they would continue to get the tips.
Turns out drivers were right to suspect foul play, Amazon used a part of the tips to fund the program. That in a year when Amazon had a blast. If the delivery needs to cost more (either as fee, or covered by the cost of the product) to cover their REAL costs - well then their stuff isn't that cheap after all, and consumers could as well buy from another online shop or get it from retail. or order food from a local source to be delivered.
The tip stealing must have involved several managers, accountants, PR people and coders. It is not like one person can pull that off in a clockwork like Amazon
The drivers got 16 - 18 USD per hour but that likley includes the costs for the vehicle (gas, and wear and depreciations, they probably also need a commercial vehicle not just a car). So the wage is not even that good, never mind the higher risk for infections because of the many contacts.
Or reminding the public that their workers had to pee into bottles.
That they violated CoVid safety. Big time.
That they are propped up to ruin retail that does pay taxes (if they are profitable) and usually treat their employees better. At least they can go to the bathroom.
Consumers should be aware of all of that when they shop at Amazon - they could as well buy from other sources.
Such messaging of a fierce president (not only trying to placate the unions after he posed as their friend) would equate to what they call that a PR black eye in the corporate world.
1
-
It is not only billionaires or the U.S. See VW Germany vs. U.S. / Employers (of all sizes) also have union busting courses and specialists in Germany and Austria (where the right to unionize is much better proteced). It is being eroded, but they cannot completely undo the progress made after WW2 and not even the right dares to openly change the laws. In Germany the larger companies are mandated to have a Board of Workers (elected by employees) and they must have a seat at the board of directors. Smaller companies often have a board, but large companies must have it.
That is not the case In Austria (they did not have as many large companies = typically industrial producers after WW2 when that became a law). In Austria they have mandatory membership of all companies with the Chamber of Commerce. And they have mandatory membership of all employees with the Chamber of Labour. (and there are mandatory fees in both cases). Union membership is voluntary and on top of that (and it is tax deductible). But workers will be represented even if they are not unionized - and it will be by people affiliated with unions ;)
By some weird coincidence Chamber of Labour is 100 % close to unions and Social Democrats which were the major center left maintstream party after WW2. (there are Chamber of Labour or Commerc elections. So you have the situation that there are delegates from the Conservatives, the nationalist right, the Green party, liberterians .... competing for seats in the Chamber of Labour. Traditionally the left leaning parties dominate.
Chamber of Labour & the unions are engaged in collective bargaining (with the Chamber of Commerce and Chamber of Industry representing the different industries. Typically the contribution of the unions for the negotiation results is more highlighted ;) - after all they have to prove their value as membership is voluntary.
Chamber of Labour gets 1 % of all gross wages from employees (it is a payroll tax, their is a cap at 500 USD per year I think), but they are also in charge of consumer protection. They represet consumers and workers in individual lawsuits. They also have standing to sue preemtively (before an individual seeks damages). When banks or landlords that have a lot of apartments (for consumers, not office space) get creative with the fine print in their contracts / terms of use. Or they go after social media platforms regarding privacy and their terms of use.
if in a company the workers decide to vote for their own representation (board of workers, that is not unions, although the unions support such efforts of course) those that run for the position and campaign for it are immune to be fired for the duration of the campaign.
IF they can form the board (usually they can, once they get started) they cannot be fired. In small companies the worker's representative does the work for free (well during their work day, like seeking a discussion with the boss, or discussing things, in a smaller company that should be informal. Maybe a sales representative for hearing protecting or protective gear contacts them. Or companies that offer vending machines for coffee or have offers for a kind of canteen. An oven and they get frozen meals).
Depending on the size of the company they must grant paid leave of absence for 1 hour, or a few hours, or one day per week. If the company has a lot of employees, let's say 500 - 1000 they are going to have 1 - 2 fulltime board of worker's representatives. They are getting paid by the company (legal requirment), they get what they had before, when they worked in a normal manner, but of course they will not be promoted into higher positions. But they also cannot be downgraded in their pay. They work ONLY for the worker's agendas, they do not have to justify how they spend their time to management.
Now - if they abuse that, their fellow workers (that elected them) will notice. Coming late and going early may be justified (had something to do for the common cause and leaves early to attend a union training on labor rights). But they better not be seen as slackers. Typically they will have open office hours, will help out if a worker is slightly injured and needs a ride to the doctor. they will meet with the management or owners, Management will delegate a lot of the work to them to organize a company summer party or Christmas party. if the warehouse is flooded it is good form for the worker representative (of a large company) to show up on Sunday along with the plant manager to inspect the damage. Etc.
maybe they organize a little treat for workers (like some chocolates for the females on Valentine's day). Elections are every few years, they want to make sure every staff member knows the representative and their role.
If something is unclear regarding wages, if a person thinks their overtime payments are not correct, help with filing taxes, when there is mobbing going on. If a person does not dare to settle something directly with supervisor or boss ... a good representative can smoothe out things.
if the company hangs in the ropes the board representatives of large companies (they are usually politcally connected, think German car industry) will push their party to support a bailout, loan, etc. Then there can be great unity between board of workers and management resp. the owners.
In larger companies such a board has several people. In a small company it is a more thankless task of a volunteer, but if the company has more employees at least one person is getting the salary but they have (some or full) leave of absence to take care of their fellow workers.
So if a company has 500 - 1000 people they for sure have to pay at least for 2 full time employees that work full time for the agenda of the employees. There are deputy members of the board, maybe they have a cashier etc. (usually these are folks that intend to stay in their normal job, and help with the formal requirements, the board must have replacements etc.. But if the elected representative would get sick, or leave the company, until the next election of board of workers someone would have to step into the role.
And I think ALL of them have high protection from being fired.
The main (in large companies fulltime) board of worker representative cannot be fired without the approval of a court. And they must be allowed access to the premises.
Now, if he or she was stealing silver spoons or molesting co-workers a court would allow to fire them, but else the company is stuck with them. There was one case in Austria where an Aluminium producing company fired the representative but of course the courts revised that. It is plain stupid and not good form by management to be confrontational.
Usually they get along - sometimes better, sometimes not so well, but they rarely seek pointless confrontation. Not the board of workers and not the companies. It also sends a message to the employeees when they elected a person and management disrespects them or is so openly hostile. They may have a disagreement. Well, they gotta settle that. I heard of one case where a paper / pulp producer closed down over the Christmas holidays. Company wanted to continue production, board of workers wanted more holiday work compensation than management was willing to pay. O.K. - then not.
One worker told me that the representative told them of the result: it is as well - money is not everything.
That worker was O.K. with that result, he did not have to work. (Plus that is an idustry that pays well so employees do not miss the money so much, the legal holidays are paid for anyway and for the days inbetween they had to use up a few of their 5 weeks paid vacation. No big deal). Managment may not have been pleased that worker's representation did not accomodate them - but that is not a reason to throw a tantrum or let relations detoriate (and they didn't). Interests diverged and this time they did not find middle ground.
On the other hand if there is a natural disaster, if they get a lot of work and work at full capacity - or the company is in financial trouble everyone pulls together.
1
-
Thanks for the laugh. - The Feldman spin would have been interesting. - Voters deserve it, they wouldn't turn out and fight for Sanders in the primaries and now no one in power fights for them. Nominee Sanders would have run on a platform of economic populism, would have polled really well in summer (Biden overperformed in the polls by 3 - 5 %, shy Trump voters are a thing) and likely they would have won MORE Senate and Congressional seats.
Republican grifters would have had time to come to terms with the fact that they would lose. (on the other hand the big donors that finance both parties would have lost their shit. And: the Republicans would not have shown HOW LOW they are willing to stoop.
The Repubs would be even more pissed. Same with the big donors that finance both parties.
Sanders would have won MI, NV, WI, PA in a more decisive manner. FASTER A win of 3 - 5 % also shows in an ongoing early count of mail ballots, so he would have been announced as winner by the networks incl. FOX on Nov 4th.
Since Biden only won by 1 % or 1.5 % (or less) in the nailbiter states WI and PA (AZ, GA even less, MI and NV also could have been better although they were called earlier) Biden LIMPED over the finish line instead of swooping in. That allowed Trump and his cultists and cynical R grifters to spin a narrative.
could have been a blessing in disguise as they showed their nastiness openly. With a clear win, the rational cynical actors like Josh Hawley or Mitch McConnell or Ted Cruz would not have spoken about a stolen election.
1
-
In Austria and Germany they * talk about the latest game changer: giving heparin jabs immediately when a person has been tested positive. And if a person gets symtoms (even light ones) - then ALSO using an asthma spray. It is cortisol. There is also a pill, some persons do not tolerate the spray well.
(* public health speakers of the German gov. Karl Lauterbach, and the
equivalent of the AMA in Austria, Chamber of Doctors ofMedicine):
There has been a small study, 165 persons, I think, published not yet peer reviewed. But there are also 2 family doctors who had made that experience (one with the spary, the other used heparin and spray). They are not researchers, this is anectodal, but they also got very good results. Tried to communicate that with the researchers since last late fall and were ignored. Feel validated now ;)
And these medications are patent free, and usually well suited for all patients (I guess there may be contra indications for both, but they are not problematic. In Africa they suspect that the malaria prophylaxis or medications that many take also suppresses the worst CoVid-19 symptoms. But I think those medications - while worth the side effects if there is a considerable malaria risk - have more severe side effects.
1
-
1
-
Nope. Sanders has a heart that performs very well, he has unusual stamina for his age. So good he did not suffer damage when the artery clogged up and he ignored the symptoms (fatigue, slept badly, once he lifted the arm to the podium and it hurt - he should have given that more attention). When he really got into trouble, they rushed him into the hospital and the 2 stents FIXED the problem.
His engine is just doing fine, he was back to full schedule within 2 weeks (stents restored full blood flow so he was feeling well again immediately).
His published records (3 assessments, with details) include a treadmill testing by one of the doctors. But you can watch him on the treadmill in real live when he campaigns.
Biden's team has him on a very easy schedule, I think he did some work in Iowa and New Hampshire and the only state he worked a lot is South Carolina. Good for him to win so far on name recognition and with VERY friendly media coverage. But now he does 7 minute speeches (that's a warm up gig, I think they calculate that greeting the crowd and saying goodbye should be routine enough, they must train him better on the "donate" messages, there he produced gaffe footage. The less time he has the less chance to talk nonsense, freeze or be lost for words or names).
And as little interviews as possible.
The weekend after he won S.C. and till Super Tuesday he already produced a few major new brainfog incidents. I think he exerted himself: when the days are long and it get's late he invariably malfunctions.
Sanders on the other hand has maintained an intense schedule (incl. his Senate seat). All of 2019, when he was not doing so well anymore while the artery clogged up late summer / September and ever since. The only time off were the one week when he was in the hospital and the week after.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
IF ONLY Sanders would FORCE MEDIA to discuss the DECLINE of BIDEN - or REJECT the COZY sit down townhall style event with curated "audience" questions that is planned instead of a rigorous battle of ideas between 2 candidates STANDING. Mentally: Biden's worrying frequent malfunctions.
I think whenever he has to campaign harder and the days are longer he slips up *.and also that he is not fit enough to campaign rigorously. Either that - or he can't be bothered.
(Michael Bloomberg did not campaign hard, he let the money do the work. We do not know how fit he is, - maybe it was the insight that appearing in person did nothing for him).
Biden's campaign HIDES him also from unedited interviews. After Super Tuesday he messed up on FOX, calling Chris Wallace "Chuck", and he did NOT catch himself. FOX did NOT edit this out.
7 minute speeches. That is a warm up act. Not every candidate does 40 minutes like Sanders, but it is such a hassle for campaign AND audience to get at the location. (So it is not like he can do MORE events per day, by "saving" 15 - 30 minutes of speaking time.
Considering the effort to even be at the location and gather the audience I think at least 15 - 20 minutes talk by the candidate would be in order. Which would of course require to talk about policies ! (oops !). I gues they hope that he has the Hello and goodby routine down, they can drag it out with wive and family appearing (but don't let him introduce them, he messes that up as well).
and that leaves only a few minutes for CONTENT. - They do not dare to expose Biden for that long, the more time, the more chance to provide MORE content for the "Joe Biden in cognitive Decline" compilations.
1
-
* Language takes up a LOT of the capacity of the human brain. So naturally dementia, Alzheimer's or even "only" general feebleness WILL show up in speech. Some people are in good physical shape but have dementia. But we do not see Biden running around in a show of physical fitness either (there are examples of Sanders) and NOW they want to stage a SIT DOWN "debate".
And what does Sanders do ? ? Holy shit he should point it out that the voters DESERVE to see the candidates exert themselves, especially in their age group.
If Biden is not physically fit enough to cope with 2 hours of standing, it will of course impair his cognitive performance -and the vibe of energy (or lack thereof). If he does not have the PSYSICAL and MENTAL RESERVES to compensate for the fact that the event is in the evening, that he has some stress, long days, that he MIGHT be in decline - then the extra physical exertion of standing will take it's toll.
Biden could hide in a crowded field so far and in the last two debates they let him alone (bloomberg, Buttigieg and Klobuchar)
When challenged in townhalls, even politely and with very legitimate questions, he often got RUDE. that might be the real Biden (behind the folksy facade). Or the only strategy left to him to not "lose" the argument. These days it is filmed, so he would have to perform in these situations.
He does not have the wits and mental power to deflect, filibuster - or give a good answer, or deflect with a joke - or whatever politicians are usually doing when pressed on a point that is uncomfortable for them.
1
-
if Sanders WERE IN IT to WIN he would bring up the many vulnerabilites of Biden that Trump will exploit (Iraq war, but especially the TRADE DEALS and also the corruption of the Biden family) - even if media trashes Sanders for bringing it up - THEN the voters would at least hear there is an issue with folksy Joe, alleged fried of workers and the middle class and portrayed as elder statesman.
Politely mentioning the SS history of Biden or his stance on trade deals will not cut it. Too polite, too late.
It is almost as if Sanders got scared of his own courage, talking about the political revolution is all fun and games - but what if HE would really would get the POWER. Every normal person would have second thoughts (but not the narcissists, sell outs and even sociopaths who feel drawn to the office. What made Reagan or Bush 2 fathom they had any business being president. Major cases of the DUnning Kruger effect, and both were run by their capable if unethical / evil VP's - Bush1 resp. Dick Cheney )
Yes Trump has no leg to stand on when it comes to intellectual performance, family corruption, and doing the bidding of the big donors - but he will have the hypocrisy to bring it on, and he WILL be able to hit Biden hard. Convincingly enough for many voters.
And there are things that Trump did not mess up: TWO !! devastating trade deals and Biden cheered on the third (TPP has not been signed so far, but Biden WILL sign it no doubt about it).
Plus the war votes.
Unless the economy tanks - and the Trump admin can do something about it to DELAY (interest rates) and unless the pandemic gets really bad - Trump will WIN if Biden is the nominee.
Bad economy or not: before that Trump will mop the floor with Biden.
No cozy debates with Trump, that's for sure. Sanders SHOULD vet Biden now. He does not do the country or even Biden any favors for taking it easy to stay "nice" and polite.
And if Biden avoids the debates, Trump will hammer Coward Joe in ads. The Republicans have the money to flood the airwaves and they have the voter targetting down.
Tump will call him Sundowning Joe and will call him out on corruption. (the pot calling the kettle) The one thing that is important in the Rustbelt states - trade deals - will be hammered in. They have the war chest to flood the states with TV ads.
Trump knows to work the stage, and he will not roll over to allow cozy sit down Townhall events with curated questions to accomodate the feebleness of Biden. It will be standing debates. Trump never was good on the details, on intellect or knowledge to begin with and HE too has declined (watch interviews of 15 years ago) - but he CAN cover that with bravado and stage presence.
After all the orange baffoon took out all of the Republican field in 2016 (with heavyweights like Jeb Bush, not to forget a lot of negative press).
Trump has been exposed for his stupidity (never mind the meanness)- and a lot of voters do not care.
His approval ratings went up after impeachment ! Were the best he ever had !
The better educated Republican voters WILL vote for him (well for the tax cuts, plus: No. Democrat). And the R governed states will rig the elections for Trump. Now, that is a problem any D candidate would face, voter suppression and even changing of the vote count, only massive turnout could change that. I do not see how Biden would energize the base. I guess more Biden fans would dutifully vote for Sanders than the other way round. I also do not see how Biden would activate disaffected voters. They haven't done well under Obama, Bush2, now Trump. They do not care enough about Trumps meanness. But a well run campaign of Sanders could convince them to dare to voter FOR something.
Trump is the same clown as in 2016 (at least in public), voters know should have known better, but did not shy away in 2016, and they will vote TRIBAL again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LD-tn6ff Of course most people knew and expected that sellout Congress willl sabotage whatever is good For The People (it is almost always against big donor interests). Also. because Sanders told them it would need a fight. The only chance to get meaningful reform: to force them.
With normal D candidates it is impossible to get what is standard in other countreis and since 70 years. With Sanders it would be an uphill battle.
Hard choice, isn't it ?
It took a massive effort to force the hand of Nixon to end the Vietnam war ....
The president twisting arms using the bully pulpit (like FDR did). Sanders talked about calling in the masses to Washington. He talked about being organizer-in-chief. * to even hold rallies IN the states of defecting Democrats, states that are often poor and would benefit form the policies.
Sanders mentioned Senator Manchin of WV - he did not go as far as to say he would campaign to unseat Machin. (FDR also used that threat behind closed doors,of course there was gossip, but FDR did not use the nuclear option of calling them out and by name. Not in the first round).
Manchin got the meaning of course and returned the favor by saying he likely would not vote for Sanders if he would become nominee.
Sanders talked about the correct strategies
* I think he got carried away by his activist self. When fate offered him the chance to be organizer-in-chief to TAKE leadership in March 2020 - screw the official legitimation of the party ... he quietly went back into his corner and decided to be a team player and to play in the little league.
I do not think Sanders lied, that he counsciously misled voters - he is conflicted. Likely also about HAVING POWER. Maybe his heart attack impaired his health and stamina more than he cares to admit. (as Senator he has the routine, being POTUS would be another stress level).
Maybe he got frightened. Maybe it got to him that the hoped for a surge of young voters and non-voters did not manifest, that a do-nothing campaign of Biden could be that successful.
Maybe he then had second thoughts about his chance to beat Trump (when the economy had not yet tanked).
If Biden would drop dead now - I am not at all sure that Sanders would even fight to become the nominee. The establishment and Obama would rush to sideline him, that's for sure. And voters cannot back up a candidate or draft him if he has lost his nerve - or never really wanted it. Never wanted it that much.
The likes of Biden, Obama, Bush, Trump, Cheney really want power. - Of course those how have second thoughts about "deserving" to be in the highest office or if they really would be able to handle that would be much better leaders. But typically the simpletons with a bloated ego, the careerists, the psychopaths, the narcicissts prevail.
Congress is voted for every 2 years. Sanders would not have needed to get a completely overturned Congress to make an impact.
Not all politicians have the status that they will get a golden parachute if they lose their seat because a progressive (heavily supported by the sitting president) runs against them. So some could get ideas that the safest course of action (for them) was to Serve The People for a change.
So progressives and standard D politicians (that are not those who are the best connected with the big donors) that would like to keep their seat. On the one side Versus the rich that have businesses at the side, or well connected neoliberals that can hope for lucrative jobs if they get voted out and try to derail a populist president.
Plus the masses pestering them in townhalls, and a march on Washington.
Now that is an uphill battle. So was the push to end the war against Vietnam. The last time the masses forced the powers that be.
Civil Rights in the South did not cost the oligarchs in the North so for them that was a cheap issue (MLK was sidelined once he spoke out agains the Vietnam war and then he wanted to have another March on Washington uniting POOR people of all races. Now THAT was dangerous. Consider how MLK is whitewashed and talked about now. The "I have a dream speech" does not reflect badly on the status quo. Reporting that he got disillusioned with the white liberals, that the vote did not tanslate to better economic conditions (not then, not now never mind the race), and that he stood up against the war machine BEFORE the war became unpopular. You will not hear about that.)
1
-
@SecondLifeDesigner it is not like guns, abortions are surprise issues. Candidates and voters have an opinion on that, are elected because of or with that attitude. - These issues have been exploited for decades (by the Republicans, who weren't always as rabid about them. Needless to say the Corporate Dems are glad that the other wing of the one and only big donor party gives them something to work with. Both have no intention to give the voters anything that would improve their economic situation, their financial stability).
These issues that have been made a controversy for decades think 1980s / 1990s), or rather they becae a political football, (like corona virus, and masks were made a political football). The politicians should follow public opinion or the view of their voters. After all they campaign making all sorts of statements in order to get the votes in the first place. They are supposed to be representatives.
At least Trump was honest about wanting to make abortion illegal, and outside the rightwing cult everyone knew this was cheap pandering to evangelicals. No one but the evangelical (base, not the cynical leadership) thought that Trump had a Christian epiphany (in interviews such delusional cult members state that Trump is a flawed but efficient tool of the Lord - so that takes care of the cognitive dissonance that Trumps conduct and knowledge of the bible is not at all up to Evangelical standards).
A part of the country at least did not care. Let's not forget that only 60 % of the eligible voters even bothered to vote. The lesser of two evils did not seem to attract the voters. In every other country it would have been at least ! 80 % turnout - considering how different the candidates were rather 85 %.
Given the sure prospect to have TPP shoved down their throat, and losing their manufacturing jobs many voters did not care (also an issue where public opinion is very clear and they are right) was more important than the Trump was a lousy choice in 2016.
By and large public opinion gets it much more often right than big donor serving politicians. It needs all of voter suppression tricks and the propaganda of Corporate media to manipulate voters and to exclude certain income brackets from the discussion.
The Democratic primary in Kentucky was a testrun for November. but stealing the opportunity to vote for black people will not be screamed about by Corporate media OR the Democratic politicians. They could have included mail votes, budgets a bipartisan commission that oversees how the arrangements are made in the first stimulus bill.
Trump needed that bill too, his big donors absolutely waited for it.
They would rather hand the election to Trump (never mind how horrible he is) than end voter suppression. The situation in KY also is good for the Corporate Democrat Amy McGrath who may win the primary because of it.
The big donors pay the Corporate Dems to win primaries against progressives by all means necessary. Good ole Republican voter suppression helps in a progressive emergency. Sure they would like to also win the general. But keeping the donors happy by winning the primary is even more important.
If Charles Booker can catch up to her and she loses the primary Amy McGrath will be provided for. She was a good little shill. The big fish (and excellent fundraiser) like Joe Crowley for sure will get a golden parachute.
Joe Crowley (unknown to voters outside NYC but number 4 in the party machine) in a act of derilictionof duty lost N.Y 14th to AOC in the primary 2018 - not even Republicans could help out then, the district is safely blue.
Being on excellent footing with big donors was the reason while this Corporate Democrat was rewarded by being propped up as a candidate in that seat in the first place. Same with Elliot Engel - he just lost his primary in another "safely blue" district.
As soon as a candidate dare to defy the party machine and challenge such an insider, the voters get a chance to vote for someone that "represents" them. Often the name recognition in the first race is not sufficient to overcome the money and the Corporate media propaganda, thos candidates have a chance. Shahir Buttar has a harder time to unseat Nancy Pelosi.
Personally the big donor serving "representatives" do not suffer that much, when Republican voter suppression in the general costs them the election. Especially if they established themselves in the good graces of the party leadership, who hand out the cushy posts and access to big donors - which is the job the big donors pay them for. With money and later career chances for ex politicians they rule the party appartus to the advantage of the big donors.
The same tactics help them win the primaries so politicians and their buddies in corporate ("liberal") media gloss over the outrage (one pollings station serving 600,000 voters or 700,000 I forgot the number - in a district where 50 % of the black population of KY lives).
I expect the same to happen in California, polling stations being closed down in a strategic manner to help Pelosi win in Nov. against Shahir Buttar (they have jungle primaries in California, so 2 Democrats often end up competing in the general.
What was intended to curb Republicans in the general in most of California, might turn out to bite Corporate Dems in the behind. Progressives have longer to campaign. Usually it is easier to unseat the Corporate Dems in the primary, because the absolute number of voters is lower, so an enthusiastic base can make more of a dent for the outsider.
But: the outsiders gain name recognition, and not even Corp. media can completely ignore the race. The outsiders can build on the name recognition EARNED in the first attempt and expand on it.
Many high profile Democratic politicans are OLD, they could drop dead anytime or get seriously ill, and then there would be special elections.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AQuietNight The other way to save up for your pension would include bonds, normally government bonds = government DEBT. Which makes you a hostage to high finance who likes to cash in on interest.
Other options: money on savings accounts.
Life insurance is investment in bonds (or a part in stocks, but more is in bonds).
People who work for a living (as opposed to an income from capital gains, which means rent, dividends, profits from selling shares at higher prices or interest) do not profit from interest.
The little they can save up does not yield them a lot of interest. If they can save at all after they pay down their mortgage (if they at least build real estate which IS a form to save up for your old age or your children. A retirement account to live in, which can make sense if you do not go crazy with the size and do not buy at inflated prices).
Interest costs them more (it shows up in the prices of all products, and they have to pay it when they finance the one home they live in).
Interest is also a cost for start-ups, so it can prevent jobs from being created (when interest rates are high, Jimmy Carter did not get good advice, Volcker saw the world from the perspective of big finance. The high interest rates harmed construction and the real economy. But the people owning fortunes demanded it to be compensated for the high inflation which was then caused by the oil price spikes - which was a temporary effect).
Rich people that invest a lot in bonds to profit from interest do not spend all their income on goods and services (which reflect the costs of interests, throughout all companies that made the product possible *).
And they have fortunes in form of money (or denominated in a currency that is devalued by inflation). Inflation is not the enemy of companies that have invested, that have a loan open, and people that get a pension, benefits or wages can get compensated for the loss of purchasing power. But people that have money sitting on accounts or in form of bonds lose a part of their fortunes.
there is only so much investment possible in the stock market. The only chance to become a landlord (but government could offer enough public housing AND restrict outside "investment" so that only the locals can OWN real estate, the people living, working there and those who have a company. New Zealand and Berlin in Germany and parts of Austria (smaller touristic destinations) do it.
the other chance would be entrepreneurial efforts - but that is risky ! and a hassle. Or to spend the money (good for the economy).
Hidden interest in goods and services:
The machine producer, the company that sells cement and sand, the company that sells trucks, the company that offers transport and finances the trucks with loans that carry interest. Construction companies, windows, landscaping. The company that develops furnaces, the retailers for these furnaces. The farmers that have taken out loans (tractors, halls, ...) and provide the food for all these people, .....
Some estimates are that 30 % of product costs are interest.
Regular people would profit from Debt and Interest Free Money (as opposed to Fiat Money). - but the investor class would not like it. At. All.
and of course you can't rely on interest to have a pension later.
And then there are company pensions. Ask the coalminers how that worked out.
If a company goes bankrupt (sometimes strategically only a subsidiary, for instance if they would be held accountable for pollution) - there goes the pension. for which the workers gave up a part of their wage.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So the NSA disagrees with the assessment of the CIA about the bounty ? the NSA ALSO was only "confident" that Russia had hacked the DNC server in 2016 (that was the deflection from the embarassing Podesta emails). The other agencies (more relevant ones like CIA or FBI and mony other less relevant ones * ) were "very confident".
It was also weird how media run with the narrative that all 17 or 19 agencies agreed with that assessment. There are are lot of agencies that double with cybersecurity, but DHS or DEA or fishery / wildlife have not really much impact when it comes to Russia maybe or maybe not hacking important U.S. targets. I mean of course they try, like the U.S. China, Isreal, other NATO countries .... But these domestic agencies are not competent regarding the big game of spooks.
It just so happens that the NSA is the agency with the most expertise on hacking.
Bill Binney fmr. technical NSA director: the CIA gets the help of the NSA if they need expertise on hacking.
Well, no one except the private company with ties to Ukraine ever investigated the server. so that expertise was never asked for.
Normally the FBI should have investigated the server, it was a suspected domestic crime (or it was a DNC insider copying data). Binney says the copying speed was typical for internally downloading data (from a server to a device, for instance a thumbdrive), but the copying speed (which is contained in the file) was too fast for any internet connection availabe then. And in practice the theoretically possible speed is not reached.
In other words there is forensic evidence IN the files that it wasn't a hack - at least not as far as the Podesta emails are concerned.
Binney: the NSA would not have needed to be more or less confident: IF this would have been a hack, the data would have been transfered via the internet - and then the NSA would HAVE the EVIDENCE (and they could present it, we have to protect sources and methods would not be an argument). They have EVERYTHING thanks to mass surveillance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I heard Colin Powell go public recently, and his arguments WHY Trump can't have a second term are very telling. It was about "American exceptionalism" and dominance, and the military role of the U.S. (Powell formulated it not exactely like that, but it screamed Deep state, we care about that he puts an ugly face on ugly things, and we not like that he is erratic and inconsisten with OUR agenda).
Powell did NOT mention the damage to the citizens.
Of course: he gladly served Reagan, never mind his treason (Iran is under severe sanctions and the U.S. governent sells them weapons with help of Iran. Really ? And they use that too for black budgets for the death squads in Latin America (when Congress that has the power of the purse had the CIA forbidden to fund such terrorists. Plus the drugs the CIA helped to import into the U.S. to have more of the black budgets.
It is entirely possible the same thing is now going on with the CIA, the Taliban for religious reasons had curbed the growing of poppies. The farmers feared them - but they also paid better prices for normal crops to give the farmers an incentive and to remove the argument that he farmers were in bitter need of the money.
When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan that changed. Dramatically.
(they hired Powell for the cleanup and for public image, when the Iran / Contra affair broke).
The MIC had a field day during the Bush/Reagan admin, Powell must have known about Reagan's Alzheimers, and that VP Bush and Nancy called the shots.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Healthcare is unusual - the mechanisms of "free market" do not apply. At. All ! (same with natural monopolies btw). - Single payer nations removed the profit motive from situations that are complex. Complexity always helps the profiteers to sneak in profits, and to game the system - at least a little bit. And it even allows for predatory behavior: Regulators cannot prevent that, they would have to monitor EVERY medical situation resp. decisicion, which would be very costly and intrusive.
Single payer nations removed the profit motive from situations that are complex. If the doctors have no pressure (to withhold treatments or to apply without necessity) and the system is set up with proper funding they will do the right thing to the best of their professional knowledge.
So doctors will tend the broken bone with the adequate care which might be simple if it is an uncomplicated break - and are free to ramp it up if there are complications. (And they never ask the public insurer for permission, the agency only sets the framework for the doctors to make the decisions and have the necessary tools).
One of the most important reasons why healthcare is a terrible fit for the free market:
In a free market all participants must have about the same power. - "Choice" is meaningless, the consumers cannot _choose to NOT have healthcare, _and the complexity is such that even doctors consult other experts if they need treatment.
The consumers have a massive information disadvantage. Medicine is complex and billing and contracts can be MADE complex to put consumers at a disadvantage.
With healthcare all humans have the same needs, and healthcare (the admin incl. "insurance" AND the delivery of medical services) is very standardized.
Product differentiation (be it in the insurance part which is ONLY admin ! or the delivery) does not make sense. The profit does nothing to make better healthcare available for the patients - and therefore it makes no sense to make for-profit insurers the gatekeepers.
Rich people can always pay out of pocket, but for the overwhelming majority the insurer (non-profit, or for-profit) will be the gatekeeper to getting medical services.
Likewise non-profit hospitals will always beat for-profit hospitals. Certainly in 99,9 % of the cases regarding general care. There may be very ! rare exceptions, but I think many of the prestigious clinics (some of them in the U.S.) that are on the forefront of ground breaking surgery, cancer treatments, research, ... are private non-profits anyway. When it is basic research there is a very good chance they get public funding.
For services that are a good fit for the free market (so not healthcare ! or natural monopolies) it makes sense to have very differentiated products. And profit is the reward for entrepreneurs to cater to those NICHES. There is the need for marketing and a sales staff etc. - but for THOSE products it is necessary so that the consumers "find" the product. These costs are necessary expenditures for the variety of offers.
Consumers have different needs, preferences and we accept that not all can afford the same.
What would be the basic version of a life saving surgery versus a gold-plated one ? What is the basic version of adequate care for a uncomplicated broken bone versus a luxury version ?
Even a rich person would not want to have unnecessary X-rays and surgery (never mind what their private insurer could be deceived to pay based on their platinum plan). On the other hand there could be cases where a seemingly harmless break needs more medical intervention than usual.
The incentive to sell more (typical for not necessary consumer products) would be toxic in healthcare. Marketing is not necessary. If people need surgery or treatments you do not have to convince them that they want it.
Profit does not help to make healthcare better, the less for-profit there is in a healthcare system the better. - Single payer nations do not have LARGE for-profit players in the system, only pharma companies (but they have very standardized, internationally comparable products, so the national public agencies can contain them in price negotiations - the information what is paid by other nations ripples through the scene).
Theoretical considerations AND observation confirm that - the U.K. has the lowest spending per person on healthcare for any wealthy ! nation. 42 % of the U.S. spending per person, versus 50 - 54 % for most (the range is 47 - 56 % and outlier Switzerland that relies on private insurers only with 78 %. The base is U.S. spending per person in 2017 of USD 10,260).
The U.K. does not have "single payer" they took NON-PROFIT one step further. The NHS is "insurer" and "provider" (hospitals and doctor practices) in one entitiy. That allows for unmatched cost-efficiency.
Germany was on the frontier in 1884 - but as is often the case the early adopters have some quirks and factor in older solutions (and live with the inefficiencies if it is not too bad). The U.K. did good in 1948, they learned from the experiences of the earlier adopters.
The NHS has been defunded for the last 10 years (and they had a lean but sufficient budget to begin with).
Plus post-war U.K. did not include basic dental, so needless to say that is expensive and creates ! a niche for more private insurance.
But if the NHS would have sufficient funding (putting the UK still among the wealthy nations with the lowest spending per person) the NHS would run like a charm.
But then there would not be any pretext why there should be a (partial) privatization. The Tories have been hostile towards the NHS since its foundation in 1948. They just had to become more sneaky about it because ALL voters love the NHS (only the super rich do not care). Most wealthy nations spend 9 - 11 % of GDP on healthcare (19 % in the U.S.) the Tories always found it offensive that such a market should be off limits for the "investor and landlord class" and that it should be "only" for the common good.
1
-
1
-
1
-
If Warren would rather serve the little people than her ego she would have entered the primaries in 2015 * (and could be POTUS now). O.K., so she stayed out 'cause political games - but at least as a (sometimes weak but genuine !) ally of the progressive movement she would NOT have entered THIS race as to not undermine Sanders.
He calculation for political conveniance - and in recent time she was outright disingenuous - backfired big time.
I wonder if she will be able to hold on to her Senate seat. She does very well in the pockets where the educated, affluent crowd is concentrated but polls poorly in the rest of her state. Being an enthusiastic surrogate for Sanders in 2019 / 2020 would pay off. At least support for the Senate seat, and likely a cabinet position in the Sanders admin if she wins.
The affluent Democrats would not have minded in 2019, and the lower income base of Massachusetts would value her higher. Never mind, she could count on an army of out of state volunteers on the ground if she would be in trouble. Those affluent, COMPLACENT folks that either vote for her, or pete or Klobuchar (and Bloomberg is an option as well) are not going to come to her state to knock on doors for her.
These people are comfortable and do not need policies or help by the government (or so they think), so for them one centrist is pretty much the same as the next one. The supporters of Sanders do not have mild preferences and many candidates that are good enough for them. They are fighting for their life and their future.
The white, affluent people with a degree sniff it out that pete and Warren are like them, so Warren shared a base with pete for a long time (in theory an educated support base should have figured out that they are VERY different when you take their policy proposals at face value).
These voters do not care about policies, they want a polished figurehead in the White House. Manners, well-spoken, and an academic background. They don't care about policies. That is how the country got where it is, with an upper class like that, who does not use their privilege for the good of all, but they got their's. Republicans are openly selfish, Democrats are do-gooders if it is easy, does not cost them and the weather is fair.
* I think Warren could have beaten Hillary in the primaries in 2016, I assume with a strong single payer platform Sanders would have enthusiastically campaigned for her and right from the beginning. Tht would have driven HRC nuts.
Warren could be Madame President now and M4A being rolled out. - But she played nice with party / Clinton machine and wasn't even rewarded with being the VP pick in 2016.
Now she gambled it away. AGAIN.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Supreme Court has never been really "neutral". And in the end they did not dare to completely ignore public opinion - when that was strong. They killed one of the New Deal bills, the first one that was toppled. The voters fumed. FDR mused about court packing ... The Justices got the memo. these were the same persons that had found before the Depression that it was unconstitutional to outlaw child labour.
Eugene Debs went to prison for speaking out against WW2, I am pretty sure he called upon the Surpreme Court. The decision to detain people of Japanese descent was challenged and SOTUS decided it was constitutional. I have no idea how they could come to that conclusion (People of German, Italian, Spanish descent were NOT detained. German Americans had a Nazi rally in early 1939).
The McCarthy witchhunt was signed off by them, too.
in recent years: It is constitutional to force a woman to have serveral appointments (separated by several days) to finally get her abortion. It is also constitutional to force her doctor and the woman to have 2 different medically unnecessary procedures (an exam and an ultrasound. the doctor must show her the fetus. But the woman is not forced to look, so that is really gracious of them.
The "reason": women allegedly have trauma and later regret the abortion and must be protected from that. There was no study to back up the claim but activist justices still used that argument to back up their claim. That is also "constitutional. That the government can be intrusive in that way and it must not be backed up by any logic, the greater good of society.
The big donors of the parties do not care about gay rights, so the Dems got that. When it is about serving big biz, parties and Justices always agree.
Abortion has been hyped up to be a wedge issue by Republicans, they are running out of issues and like corporate Dems they do not touch the economic issues, their donors do not like it (the same donors that finance the Dems).
In the 1970s many Republcians were for the right to chose, not because they saw it as option personally, but because they saw the terrible outcomes of backalley abortions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden made inappropriate remarks * at young well developed girls: 7:000 Joe Biden is running an explicitly like morale campaign like Soul Of The Nation …There was another allegation that emerged of a young woman who at the time back in 2008 was 14 years old.
* watch his interactions with cute little girs, pretty teenagers and attractive young women (photo ops - in broad daylight and in front of their families often - for the family photo with the VP or Senator he always made sure the females stood before him, not the boys, if there was a girl or teenager around).
It is also a display of power. He suprises the female and family, and he takes the liberty to violate social norms, while being often the highest ranking person present. He suprises everyone, and people instinctively do not want to make a scene, they automatically explain it (also to themselves) that he is a hands on politician, he always does it, if he meant harm, he would not do in in plain sight - well that is his trick in this little power display).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trevor Noah should look at Jimmy Carter. the last to win the presidency with a publicly funded campaign. When he left D.C. (after only one term *) he did not even get a pension because for that you need 6 years in federal office. He had put the farm in a trust or something (no conflict of interest) when he became president.
Not sure if he gets a pension for his service as govenor.
Then he started to do charities. He finances them by writing a book from time to time.
REAL charities: Eradicting guineaworm infections (filters for drinking water, must be a nasty infection, when the eggs hatch in humans and come to the surface, skin, eyes - right out of a horror movie).
And Habitat For Humanity. (building homes, looks like he has a knack for construction work)
I saw a video of a few years ago. The home is quite normal and modest, it is remote (I think they live on a farm again, no suburban setting).
The only thing noteworthy is the presence of Secret Service - like all former presidents he has protection for life.
* Carter was not taken seriously or liked by the D.C. insiders (the peanut farmer from Georgia). Sanders was expected to win with a Carter or Trump strategy.
Carter the belittled outsider had reliably approx 30 % in every primary state in a busy field. He took the lead before the party establishment and a condescending press knew what had hit them.
He got bad economic advice from an economist with a very good reputation (driving up interest rates up to 21 % to contain high inflation, caused by a dropping dollar and the second spike of oil prices in the late 1970s).
I do not know if Carter had agreed with Volcker on the details of how to tackle inflation before he appointed him as Fed chairman (Volcker applied a brutal and unprecedented shock cure on the back of the workers and the real economy).
Eventually inflation got better, but that was the same in other first world countries (that did not strangle their real economy and worsen or trigger a recession).
Volcker applied a shock cure for rather high inflation rates - protecting the people that owned fortunes denominated in USD (savings accounts bonds, they all lost value).
If someone is invested in equipment, production plants, patents, research departments inflation is not their enemy (unless an intelligent Fed chair stubbornly invested on a certain ideology insist they have to pay 18 - 20 % on loans).
The few that already had loans with fixed interest rates, were lucky but new investment was cut off. Homeowners and businesses with variable interest rates cursed - if they were lucky. Or they went under.
In times of high inflation it makes sense to produce and buy something, the products are only going to get more expensive and the products (and real estate) HOLD value.
Provided consumer and businesses are confident - and a president and Fed Chair can do a lot to boost confidence:
Stimulus/investment packages, every investment that reduces fossil fuel use gets cheaper loans, a crisis benefit for low to regular income families to compensate THEM for loss of purchasing power, that would also keep the unions quiet so that they hold back with the demands for wage increases.
Plus not allowing oil exports (I think that was the law anyway) and setting a price cap for fossil fuel. The U.S. producers of oil could demand the high prices because they went up internationally. But their production costs did not go up like that (wages are not an important factor for oil prices), so the government could have intervened at that end as well.
The high interest strategy that Volcker had invented, cost Carter the reelection, Reagan could then earn the rewards of brutally tackled inflation. Needless to say when Reagan (who kept Volcker as Fed chair) told him to lower interest rates for his reelection, he complied.
Despite being lauded for allegedly being such an independent spirit, who decisively did what was necessary even if it hurt.
(It did not hurt him or the rich peole whose interest he had in mind, and that strategy was not the only one available, it was one of the worst to tackle inflation).
Carter gave an ideologue free reign who tried out very unconventional never tested strategies. And neither were aware of other strategies like alternative currencies, nor did they grasp the role of money creation (whenever commercial banks give out loans they create money, the term is FIAT money).
That and the hostage crisis (secret agreement between the mullahs and the Reagan campaign to hold them back until after the election ) cost Carter the second term.
Paul Volcker died last Dec. 2019 you should read the fawning comments in the New York Times under the obituary article - mixed with the critical voices what his high interest policy meant for WORKERS and businesses. Especially smaller ones and startups (big biz is more likeley to have cash on hand, they can weather those times better).
10,8 % unemployment. Well established companied in trouble or going bankrupt.
1
-
1
-
@robertzastrow4648 5,5 million families lost their homes under Obama. - one of the last things he signed ? help for a company that had bought up forclosed homes either to rent them out and later to sell them at a profit. I think it was Blackstone - if so that is a HUGE finanical actor, they of course could easily deal with any less profitable biz (Jimmy Dore did a show on it Dec. 2016).
Turns out it is easier to rent our / sell for local, smaller companies. the gig was notas profitable as expected or even going badly - it think they got a federal guarantee for their loans.
The encompasses what a president Obama was. The beginning (people losing homes, jobs, big biz and banks bein rescued, no prosecution, crushing Occupy Wallstreet - it were the neoliberal Democratic mayors of large cities that crushed them, and crickets from the White House.
I saw an interview with Colin Powell. He is usually a Republican but he endorsed Obama in 2008. On election night they have a tradition of coming together in his house and watch coverage on TV. He says when Obama was declared winner, all cried. Including him.
THAT was what Obama could utilize (weaponize almost). If you look at the footage on election night - in 2008 and even 2012 - there is so much JOY, enthusiasm
he could have been a great president, FDR 2.0.
He is intelligent and he can create the connection. Good comedic talent too in relaxed settings. Not in his official speeches, then he was always VERY cautious to not say anything untoward - but in informal settings he came across as cool, very likeable. Hell, I am falling for it - I have to tell myself I do not like that neoliberal sellout / careerist that took the 30 pieces of silver.
1
-
1
-
3:30 There was no "list with talking points given to the volunteers". Faux News reporter does not know his facts - what else is new ? (and why doesn't Krystal push back ? ). Forum (not public), a contributor with 1 comment so far posted an opinion about electability and the appeal of Warren to affluent white educated voters (which is true). The post was NOT vicious (the considerations had some merit - but they violated the rules for volunteers and while it may be true that any democrat could take most of the Warren base for granted in the GE it is not a good strategy to announce that so openly. (Black people also did not like to be considered the "firewall" of the HRC campaign or any other Democrat).
No, the Sanders campaign did not send out "volunteers to slam Warren" (she said that in an interview !) - which was obviously arranged for (she knew that question was coming !)
On the contrary the post was swiftly by a moderator.
The volunteers are instructed and trained NOT to even mention other candidates and also not to make comparsions between the platforms. There is a quiz to train them, and instructions online of course.
If you have 1 million volunteers you need a strategy to keep it orderly and civil (and beyond reproach) - and they DO have it.
That is what makes me think that Warren is either extremely gullible when her campaign "informs" her about something (I heard she has a lot of former Clinton staffers) - but I can hardly believe that, the info is on the internet and she could have easily verified that with the Sanders campaign or with Sanders personally.
Or she LIES to gain an advantage.
On top of that it is a really foolish strategy. The regular voters will not care - but she did not shy away to smear the many, many volunteers (a very dedicated crowd) while she was at it. These are people that are supposed to run for her in case SHE would be the nominee.
Whether she was very stupid or she stoops to that level and pays dirty - she is not progressive presidential material and able / willing to bring about "big structural change". That would need spine, fierce determination, integrity. There are formidable enemies - and she folded when Trump baited her into having a DNA test, she did not support the DAPL protests (organized by the tribes !) because of political calculations. She complains about the corruption and waste in the Pentagon - and votes to give Trump even more money than he demanded.
She has lots of military contrators in her state. So she would need to get Green New Deal jobs into her state and fight to get money out of politics so that she is not caught between a rock and a hard place.
But she just goes along with the corrupt system.
And then she wants to pose as reformer, makes corruption an issue in her campaig and talks about big structural change. When Emma Vigeland from TYT (a fan) asked her about the contradiction (pentagon loses the billions and her vote for the budgets - so she gives the crooks even more money) she deflected and started a word salad.
Nope - she is not a new FDR. Not only is she too weak and does not hold on to her (alleged) principles - she now even stoops to unethical tactis to smear the true progressive in the race.
If in a caucus location in Iowa a group does not have 15 % in the first round the other teams can go over to them and they can try to convince them to join THEIR group and caucus for THEIR candidate. Maybe team Warren colludes with the DNC (and Biden) to poison the well. Normal people do not take notice of these fights, but those engaged enough in politics to show up MIGHT be aware.
There was an attempt to paint Sanders as misogynist and even racially unsensitive during the 2015 / 2016 campaign. With his civil rights record (and Hillary being the Goldwater girl) the latter did not stick. The Clinton fans took it for granted he was a misogynist - after all their heroine looked bad by comparsion and again a man stole her thunder. Antisemitism is hard to pull off (he is Jewish and family members were killed by the Nazis (his father's relatives).
Warren supporters are misinformed and can easily get the impression that Sanders uses shady volunteer tactics against Warren (with NO proof whtsoever) and that he treated her with condescension when she discussed running with him. (Which is out of character for him - and HE encouraged her to run in 2015 - but she sat it out, she did not want to offend the Clinton machine).
. I have seen her as good Secretary of the Treasury (provided a solidly progressive admin keeps the wolves from the doorsteps). But with starting such fights and staying on the sidelines whenever it mattered, and on top of the foolish / deceptive Medicare for All plans - I wonder if she would be the right person to breathe down the neck of big tech or big finance.
She talked a good game against the banksters - but when she was angling for VP or a cabinet position in a Hillary Clinton admin her team told team HRC that she was "flexible" regarding financial regulations.
WHAT ???
1
-
1
-
1