Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Rebel HQ"
channel.
-
zizzy ??? Middleclass home in Burlington, which he likely has since he was mayor in the 80s. He is required to have resicidency in Vermont, and for practical reasons he has a semi in D.C. (he is there since 1991). Then the holiday home they got in 2016 (using the sold inherited home from Jane Sanders for the down payment).
He has the salary of a representative since 1991 - although many politicians are not conent with it and go for the revolving door (or do insider business like Rick Scott or Nancy Pelosi, the whole Trump family - or the son of Joe Biden with the help of his father) - it is not bad for a person with normal demands - it pays in the range of 170,000 (now before taxes). That I think is in the range of at least the upper 15 % income wise. They have some expenses, too (likely for the necessary travelling and of course staff).
Important: they have GOOD healthcare - so that elminates a potential major drain. Now Sanders has been fighting for decades for good healthcare for ALL. So with him it is not: I got mine
His wife held a job as well. The car is solid middle class, (or a little fancier, but nothing extravagant. He lives in a state with long winter an icy roads, so some safety features and comfort are essential).
he does not spend excessively on wardrobe or the hairdresser ;) - I cannot imagine him spending a lot (or anything !) on drugs, loose woman, booze and gambling. No private plane either. He simply does not have the time to spend the money.
So I would assume they could save up since 1991, 27 years with a good income should be enough to pay back 1 regular and a small home (bought before prices went insane). Add to that the income as mayor of Burlington for approx. 9 years.
And yes his books are selling well. He would not have announced his candidacy in 2015 if Elizabeth Warren had intended to run in the primaries (they had met to discuss it) - so his decision was not a "book promotion tour". (He is not Newt Gingrich).
1
-
1
-
1
-
+ Smart Trump Supporter "I have great insurance under the affordable care act - we need to get rid of the monstrosity that is obamacare." - ACA and OBAMACARE are the exact SAME thing - the official legal name is ACA - the Republicans when they smeared it, came up with the "folksy" name "Obamacare". - And if you have insurance under ACA (= "obamacare") than you accept a "subsidy" - not sure what you meant with the "personal responsibility" remark. Nothing wrong with getting healthcare subsidized.*
Especially with the way TOO HIGH per capita healthcare expenditures of 9,200 USD of the U.S. - that's per year.
* Of course the recent ACA repeal attempts (by Trump and the GOP !!! ) were about a tax cut for very rich people - Obama and the Dems had introduced that tax to fund the ACA . Trump and the GOP were willing to even take the weak ACA away (without ANY REPLACEMENT) and have some 20 million people without coverage in the next years and a few tenthousand avoidable deaths per year - so that the very rich would not have to pay the tax anymore.
ACA is not nearly good enough of course and does not work for cost control - but the repeal would have been a step in the completely wrong direction.
They had no plan at all for replacing it with something better - and were willing to do it anyway - for the well being of people who already have more money than they will ever be able to spend.
And yes ACA = Obamacare was a weak bill from the very beginning - Obama and (most of) the Dems did not want to step on the toes of the DONORS (and in 2009 they had the majority in Senate and Congress - and for 60 days even a filibuster proof majority. Obama had the enthusiasm of the election - so he COULD have FOUGHT for a GOOD solution - for the people not the donors. And in the window of 60 days they could have passed any law - they passed the weak ACA but the GOP could not have prevented any bill including a GOOD bill. - but then say goodbye to the donations).
And in 2009/2010 with all the bipartisan pro and contra in the committees the Republicans made the already weak thing even weaker. They demanded - and got - the elimination of provisions for price control (to protect the profits of the SAME DONORS). No idea if the provisions for price control would have worked or not - the Republicans made sure it would not even be attempted.
ACA ended up being only a little bit better than the situation before. - Credit to Senator Sanders and the nurses and the grassroots supporters for FORCING the Dems to disregard the interests of the donors and come up with something that goes in the right direction. Not yet there, but definitely an improvement.
Even the much more cost efficient European systems have yearly per capita costs of at least 4,200 USD - that seems to be the minimum to have a well functioning NON-PROFIT system that is worthy of a First World country.
U.K. has only 3,900 - but they started defunding their already very cost efficient public system, the NHS . The Conservative government did so under the pretext of "austerity" after the bank bailout, actually they want to ram through at least a partial privatization, and you can't sell that to the voters with a well functioning non-profit system. You have to make it dysfunctional to have a pretext for the privatization as "solution" - the press and the Neoliberal Labour party did not say much, but now Corbyn is calling them out on their bluff, and the voters are note buying it anymore. Especially since they REMEMBER having a good system with recordd cost efficiency. - Next time you hear someone tell bad things about the UK healthcare system - remember 3,900 vs. 9,200 in the U.S.. I guess with only half of the U.S. expenditures the NHS would work like a charm.
Per capita expenditures means: everything that is spent in a country on healthcare no matter how it is paid for, divided by all people - no matter if they even needed treatment that year, if they are insured or not - in Europe they have of course coverage !
I know the GOOD systems of Germany and Austria well - expenditures of 5,600 resp. 5,400 (source World Bank, data 2014, health care expenditures of nations 2014).
And for that money you certainly can get a GOOD system (no need to spend 65 or 70 percent more like in the U.S. - and the population is older on average than in the immigration country U.S.A - so the U.S. should beat Germany costwise on demographics alone).
Most wealthy European countries are in the 5,000 - 5,500 USD range (like Canada). Well, take a family of four - that would still mean approx. 17,000 to 22,000 USD from the family budget.
Low income people don't have that money, of course they need the help of the wealthier citizens and profitable corporations to be able to have healthcare. It is good for all of society. you can't have people dying on the doorsteps of the hospitals. or going into bankrupcy. And miss out on the cost advantages of timely or preventive care.
The U.S. per capita expenditures are 9,200 - that means 36,800 per year for a family of four.
The reasons for the exorbitant costs ?
Part of it is the high profit ALL players are making (in Europe in most countries most of the familiy doctors, dentists and all of the pharmacies have a contract and price list with the NON-profit, public insurance agency (it is not "government" run). They are like small businesses. Hospitals are non-profit (public - run by a muncipality, or private - then usually run by a church or charity). The revenue of the doctors or pharmacies covers their costs, the profit is their income.
Their for profit motive (which could lead to the patienst being ripped off) is kept in check by the contracts. The insurance company and the hospitals do not need to make a profit. They must stay within their costs / budgets. They have no reason to deny care. Either you - and hundredthousand like you - get the expensive treatment (when the doctors say it makes sense) - or not.
The adminstration is very transparent and STREAMLINED. And it promotes solidarity. When a random person would not get the expensive life saving treatment - your family members and everyone you care about, would not get it either. Their is no ambiguity in the system. You have coverage - no need to check further for the administrators. You get the treatment your doctor thinks is necessary.
Not more procedures - and not less than is necessary in a medical sense.
The doctors - not the insurance agency or the "government" make the decisions - with the patients of course.
The institutions have no incentive to make patients jump through loops, to rip them off, to deny care. And there is no need for an extensive bureaucraZy to decide who gets what kind of coverage and what will be the co-payments and deductibles. Or to chase after unpaid bills later.
Citizens pay their contributions in advance (it is according to income NOT risk so it is affordable), when they need treatment NO MORE costs. It is bad enough if you are ill - no need for bad financial surprises on top of that. Or a fight to get treatment.
It is also very expensive to deny care - the number of doctors have roughly doubled in the U.S. since the 1970s but the number of administrators has exploded. The buraucracy does nothing to help deliver the care or for better medical outcomes - they are unnecessary and expensive middlemen who protect the profits of the shareholder in a dysfunctional system.
It is very expensive to not treat people in time but in the emergency room. Too little, too late at too high costs. And then the hospitals have to chase after the bills. (In Europe they KNOW they get the money - from the public agency and in time and without hassle about which treatment will be paid, and will all of it paid or only a part).
1
-
1
-
1
-
That is not a beauty contest. Sanders has continued to promote issues that are important for The People right AFTER the elections. While HRC vanished in the woods. Not being NEW on the scene means he can be judged on the intention, the way to raise money, the actions, the votes, the compromises. It is easy for newcomers to talk a good game The strategists paid for by the oligarchs will be pleased to help with the deception and the advertising.
Hillary Clinton for instance had a lot of strategists who tried to find out what to SAY to the voters so that they would BUY.
The two journalists/authors that were allowed to accompagny the campaign, provided they would publish the book after the elections, had interesting stories to tell about how they "manufactured" messaging. The book is "Shattered" (it was meant as a reference to the shattered glass ceiling. Well, the title still worked when Clinton lost unexpectedly).
When they promoted the book in the usual TV appearances (in spring 2017) they told how unaware / unresponsive the team was to what was going on in the country.
HRC: I do not understand the country anymore. - She never did - but in the past it did not matter. Control of media and spending a lot of money on campaigns could compensate for it.
Brainstorming and weekend retreats replaced having organic, authentic political convictions. HRC had been near the centers of power and politics for very long. She should have had a set of policies and deeply held convictions. AND the plans how to make them reality. (Not just nice words, and doing a 180 every few years, months). Sticking with her policies.
They thought they could fabricate a "persona" (adding some progressive flavor since that seemed to work well for Sanders). They expected that the voters would fall for it.
That marketing /advertising / throw-money-at-tailored-messaging approach had worked in the past, and a lot of people within the bubble had made good money of it. They were unable to read the signs on the wall.
Sanders does not need that. - HE (not highly paid strategists) has developed a set of convictions, ideas and policies - it has not changed a lot over the DECADES.
You can watch the clips with him as active mayor in the 1980s (obviously preparing for higher office), or when he cast the dissenting vote from 1991 on in Congress. He argued it on the floor (the old C-span clips are on youtube).
Often there were hardly any "representatives" in the room (likely busy meeting with lobbyists and dialling after dollars. They have to leave the House for that). It looked like a waste of time then that he would even hold the speeches, when it was clear that the majority had already made up their mind, and it was clear how the vote would go. They could not even be bothered to give the appearance of listening to other arguments.
But he wanted his arguments to be on record. This was often some bi-partisan agreement - and in most cases it was NOT good for the people. He caucused with the Democrats - but when they wanted to sell out the citizens, the Dems did not need his vote. They usually found enough partners in the crime on the other side of the isle. That functions well - even during the time when Republicans in general obstructeded during the Obama era. Same with the "opposition" of the Dems now. There are some votes with overwhelming support - and they are not good.
High bi-partisan support in Congress and Senate ? Voters beware !
What did Sanders object to in the past ? Some examples: "Trade" agreements with Panama, that made it an even better tax haven. "Free" "trade" deal with Colombia. Long before that: NAFTA. it was ready under Bush1 - who could not get it through Congress. Bill Clinton won the elections with the help of the unions. He COULD sideline and dupe them and get it passed.
Sanders voiced servere objectionsto the Crime bill - even though he voted with the Democrats on that (a part was good - protection against domestic violence). His objections were correct btw. - Unintended consquences do happen - and good government will COURSE CORRECT. Both Clinton's never even spoke about it.
Bailing out some U.S. banks when they had gone crazy in Mexico shortly after NAFTA had been implemented. The wars (also 1991), the increase of military spending - for instance the vote in August 2017. Ramping up the sanctions against Iran (summer 2017) - that was before Trump threw out the Iran deal alltogether.
Resistance also of Sanders when Obama was willing to offer Social Security as pawn to negotiate with Republicans. That is a tradition with Democratic presidents. Bill Clinton had a secrete group that worked at the project to privatize SS - hand it over to Wallstreet. The Lewinsky affair got in the way - he did not dare to open another can of worms. So that was dropped.
Little did Sanders know that many people would watch the recordings on a platform like youtube DECADES later. That they could JUGDE his REAL convictions, his ability to understand the consequences of bills and decisions, his intentions and leadership quality based on that.
It is possible for voters to connect the dots now. Unexpectedly it pays off to have been on the right side of many issues.
1
-
SANDERS supported First Lady Hillary Clinton in the attempt to change healthcare - back in the 1990s.HE
HE teamed up with another politician(forgot the name) to persuade retailers to raise the sales prices for tomatoes by 50 ct per pound. That made it possible to pay better wages to the farm workes. Many of them women with children. Some companies went along with the initiative - Walmart didn't - but it was an REAL improvment in the lives of many poor people. Not just flowery talk
He is called the amendment king and got through the VA Bill (a major project - together with McCain).
He was recently involved in the struggle of Disney and Amazon workers - which got them better wages.
He continued to tour the country AFTER the 2016 electio. Especially to promote better healthcare solutions.
He started an initiative in Jan 2017 to import drugs from Canada (that would bring drug prices down - they DO negotiate their drug prices, in the U.S. the public non-profit agencies like Medicare are legally FORBIDDEN to do that.). That was a bill to explore the issue I think - anyway: even some Republicans voted for it like Ted Cruz (free market, competition). Had ALL Democrats voted for it as well, it would have passed. Corey Booker was one of the approx. 13 defectors. Sanders was mild in expressing his regret (Social media did not show restraint) - but he "mentioned" Booker by name. Ooops. There goes the 2020 ambition. Booker came up with some lame excuse why he did not vote for the bill this time, yada, yada .....
Even if such bills go nowhere - it forces the other Big donations chasing "representatives" to show their colors.
Sanders (not some newcomers) did a lot to change the discussion about healthcare in the country. For decades mainstream media had colluded with BOTH parties (Big Donors !) to avoid having a meaningful debate.
Sanders used the platform of the campaign, indpendent media on the internet supported the effort - that made it possible to circumvent the gatekeepers.
When the fresh faces have such a record they can come back. Of course they will not be "fresh" at that time.
Nina Turner and Tulsi Gabbard showed some spine. Good leadership material. For the future. I hope Sanders would use a campaign / the presidency to help them raise their profile. He would need to make sure that are many potential future presidential candidates and cabinet members lined up - he would realistically only have one term, so he must pass on the torch.
And there is safety in numbers. (See the assassination series in the 1960s, early 70s - it only hit people who wanted to shake up the status quo. It is possible that JFK wanted to change the Cold War, reduce military spending, .....)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1