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