Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "C-SPAN"
channel.
-
So in the U.S. they have aggressive hearings about cost shifting and the cost models of ACA (which admittedly is hardly better than the former mess). - European countries after WW2 ALL adopted (or expanded existing) healthcare systems leaning heavily in the direction of non-profit, for public welfare - and of course for everyone. (Even the nations of the Warsaw pact which were poorer had public healthcare for everyone).
Even nations that just stopped being mortal enemies (Germany, France, UK for instance) agreed on one thing: healthcare is on principle a terrible fit for the free market (complete imbalance of power between consumers and providers, natural monopolies) AND the usual incentives in a capitalistic system are toxic in the area of healthcare and produce inefficiency - and a hassle for the patients.
Fast forward 70 years: per capita healthcare expenditures in those wealthy nations in USD: starting with 4,200 to 6,000, with some outliers * - the U.S. has 9,200 (World Bank 2014).
* USD 3,900 for the UK but their main player the NHS got their already lean budget cut over 10 years by the conservative Tories - the system is clearyl underfunded now - but I think with 50 % of the U.S. per capita expenditures it would work like a charm. And Norway and Switzerland have costs like the U.S. (but with high living costs which of course mean also higher wages - a major factor for healthcare costs. That said: they are rich nations with excellent healthcare and everyone has it. Especially the Swiss have a reputation of paying their healthcare staff, incl. nurses, therapists very well, for that reason they attract a lot of staff from Germany).
On top of that most of these nations have an older population on average (so the U.S. should beat them on demographics).
AND their life expectancy and infant mortality is lower. (Child mortality is an indicator of how the system works for low income people.)
P.S.: I am lucky enough to live in one of those wealthy nations. Healthcare insurance is just not an issue. No one even thinks about it.
Everyone has it, when you get sick or need an appointment you expect - and get - treatment or a date. Same as everyone else - meaning if they want to cut that, the whole country would get the pitchforks.
No "divide and conquer" between those with good and not so good policies, the old or young, those who work full or part time. (Also provisions for people that have no job, for instance stay at home parents, people who take a sabbatical, etc.)
The insurance agency (or agencies) is public and non-profit - so they have no incentive to deny treatment. Their role is to facilitate the functioning of the whole system, collect the money and take care of the payments to those who deliver the services.
They negoatiate: with non-profits (almost all hospitals) and with for-profit actors (doctors are like small entrepreneurs, the 70 - 80 % that have a public contract have many regulations and a negotiated price list. The powerful multinationals - the pharmaindustry - have an equally powerful counterpart to deal with. The patients do not get an invoice.
You pay your mandatory affordable contribution (wage deduction, it is matched by the employer). It is affordable (as % of the wage). it covers dependent family members and it covers everything (even very costly procedures).
No one cares about pre existing conditions or current illnesses. It does not matter. And these insurance costs are known in advance - no costs when you need treatment, no unpleasant financial surprises when you already have a health problem.
15
-
5
-
2
-
Cheney / Bush could only start the war because the Democratic machine supported them. Biden shored up the votes for the Iraq war, no wonder he and Cheney get along well. It was not even discussed if the Afghanistan war could be avoided.
The Taliban had granted the foreigner (from a rich Saudi family) Osama bin Laden residency in Afghanistan.
He was an U. S. asset in Afghanistan in the proxy war against the Soviets, his family knows te Bushes well.
The Taliban asked for proof that ObL really was involved in the planning. I think they would have considered extraditing him. He was not worth the trouble, but of course they needed safe facing proof (for the other Muslim countries), that he was behind the terror attack. The U.S. was not interested at all, and wanted the war. The Taliban knew of course this wasn't about 9/11.
The Taliban were soon ready to surrender and asked for a peace deal in 2002. But the Cheney admin wanted to stay in Afghanistan, they continued kidnapping alleged Taliban (people got a lot of money from the Americans if they ratted each other out, you can imagine how that ended. The country has had a lot of war and civil war since the 1980s. Plenty of scores to settle, and if the Americans paid for a "Taliban" all the better.
So the Taliban (the real ones) returned to fighting. Going home to their town, city tribe, ..... did nothing for them, the Americans did not end ging after them, they could as well stay in fighting mode all the time.
Dems immediately glossed over the fact that the Cheney / Bush admin was asleep at the wheel in summer and September 2001 (that is the benign assumption).
Benghazi ??
Try ignoring warnings foreign countries, for instance Russian and Israeli intel.
The CIA and FBI dropping the ball (the flight school warned they had astudent that was not good and was not very much interested in learning to land, only how to start and fly- but the letter agencies somehow failed to investigate that in more detail).
One of the best guarded airspaces in the world was not kept safe (I happen to believe that was intentional).
Either way: The effing Pentagon was attacked.
The hijackers allegedly had only box cutters. I do not believe that, they had guns, and slipped through security. Which was not ramped up at the airports. despite many warnings, and indicators that something was brewing.
If that would have happened under a D admin ... the Republicans would not yet be done with the investigative committee hearings. The outrage campaigns.
Instead Democratic politicians politely glossed over all the historic failings and backed the Cheney / Bush admin. Either too cowardly to risk that some would call them "unpatriotic". Or they got their marching orders (the big donors love war).
Cleaning up ground zero did not interfere with calling a spade a spade.
Trump got something right on the debate stage in 2016, he said to Jeb Bush: "George Bush kept us safe ? You mean AFTER the attacks happened !"
So Kerry lost in 2004 AGAIN.
The Afghanistan war was prepared in summer ! 2001 already. No, this was not about the alleged participation of Osama bin Laden in the attacks. (Planning).
I assume the agenda of war, imperialism would have been seemlessly continued by Al Gore. So he too might have gone to war with Iraq, we do not know (there are remarks that he wanted to finish the business of Bush Sr.).
Obama seamlessly took over from GWB (and expanded the wars considerably). Now it is or was Trump's turn.
The agenda continues no matter who is in the White House.
See 7 countries in 5 years. General Wesley Clark
search for the interview with Democracy Now, there are clips.
Gore would have pushed for some big donor friendly Climate Change policies. I very much doubt he would have reigned in the banks. Under the Clinton admin big finance had become a very important donor for the party. The Great Financial Crisis is on the Cheney / Bush admin, but I have little hope a Gore admin (with effing VP Lieberman) would have stepped on the toes of the banksters.
2
-
1
-
1