Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Rebel HQ"
channel.
-
3
-
+johnburt1960 + look4lec The Dems had the committees working on it, Single Payer was immediatly thrown out of the window, next they abandoned the public option (which is an unsatisfying compromise anyway *) All these shady compromises of RomneyCare were required by Corporate Democrats (of course - donors !!!!!)
Now Mr. Charismatic Hope and Change could have rallied the unwashed masses (see Sanders, see FDR - the Dems BTW seriously considered to not put the sitting Prez in the 40s on the ballot, they did not do primaries then, - he was way too progressive for some of the lot, but FDR was a fighter).
The voters would have lectured their representatives in 2009/2010 about their duty. ACA (an incredibly complicated huge bill ) was passed after a lot of pro and contra. And after a lot of time had passed. Enough time to develop a good Bill and have it ready on the shelf, continue to sell it to the voters, and wait for your chance. That window of 59 days with the Supermajority.
The people would have danced on the streets and the midterms would have gone differently. - But then this would have been a completely different Democratic Party. Right now the Democratic (potential) base is much more progressive than the Democrats.
The Dems could not fire up their base with ACA . Much too weak, much too expensive. Much too complicated.
For Medicare For All the people would have taken it to the streets.
Obama did not want to WAKE THE SLEEPING GIANT - and his donors even less. Even his first run was financed with a lot of Wallstreet money (good investment Wallstreet !) he had a deal with them. After all he allowed Occupy to be brutally crushed as well. ANYTHING BUT A GRASSROOTS MOVEMENT.
* the moment you allow a 2 tier system (public option) it becomes more complicated, more expensive and much easier to defund for future governments.
If everyone - wealthy or poor - uses the same system, has the same coverage and pays according to income (not risk !! = age, gender, status of health, size of included family) - that keeps the system good and cost-efficient.
If you have 2 pools/systems then the wealthy and healthy ! will be the cherry picked clients for the for profit industry. The expensive patients will be stuck with the other pool. You bet the Reps would try to underfund it the moment they get a chance to do so. And you bet the Blue Dogs would not do anything against it.
Next thing they can claim the Public system it is too expensive - of course, the good cases, those who could pay higher contributions and produce lower costs are all in the other system. Easy to muddy the water and to confuse the voters with harebrained arguments.
And if you defund a system it becomes dysfunctional. At which point they can introduce as solution the private for-profit sector "who does everything always, always better"
The funding would of course not be improved instead the services would be reduced. Or more payments when you need treatment.
And the more influental part of the population that is near and dear to the heart of the Reps and Dems and who gets a voice in media - that part will not have a (major) problem.
Too high costs yes, but they can live with it.
The poor and sick with their underfunded system will be ignored - like the lead water is ignored in Flint. DIVIDE AND CONQUER !
The NHS of UK is a warning example. One of the most cost-efficient systems for a wealthy country in the world: per capita costs USD 3,900 vs. 9,000 in the US (and 5,000 - 5,500 for the non-profit single payer systems of Canada, and the wealthy European countries - see World Bank data 2014).
Since the NHS is tax-funded it is easy for a hostile gov. to defund it (the money is needed for wars and tax cuts).
Most European systems rely heavily on employer/employee funding (% of wage so it is always affordable, and NO MORE Bills for the treatment). Not so easy to cut that back permanently. As long as the economy does not tank for many years.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Assad is somewhere between authoritarian leader and brutal dictator. The MSM stories (including it seems Amnesty International) are not plausible or seem exagerated. His alleged "dictatorship" and "crimes" is NOT why "Assad has to go". When has THAT EVER kept the US and Europe from cooperating with a brutal regime ? His reign is certainly not as oppressive, backwards and brutal as that of the Saudis.
No, Assad and his government stand in the way of US, Saudi and Israeli interests, and Turkey, Britain and France are in the game as well. That is why they go after him, at the cost of literally hundreds of thousands of dead Syrian people and millions that are displaced.
The proxy war was / is ruthlessly and criminally unleashed onto Syria (with foreign jihadist mercenaries ! and foreign funding !). Syria is a SECULAR country, before the proxy war it was a somewhat developed nation with moderate wealth, it was at least safe for unpolitical civilians (not sure about active opposition). It was safe for ALL RELIGIONS, lots of foreign Christian clergy were and are there - and what these (European, US, Argentinian, ...) nuns, priests and reverends report, completely contradict the common narrative about how horrible Assad is.
Tulsi Gabbard met with some of them (Christian leaders, not sure if they were Syrians or foreigners) and asked them what was and is going on from their point of view.
That would be the job of the Western media BTW, to get their facts from people living for a long time IN the country and not from an activist in London or a reporter stationed in Beirut or a former Syrian citzen who left decades ago - they all can tell only "heresay".
IFit is NOT about FACTS but about PROPAGANDA (to "justify" a military intervention of US / NATO) of course the folks in London Beirut, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and elsewhere can do a good job where they are, no need for microphones on the ground.
US / NATO were pissed off about the liberation of Aleppo. Not only because of the military implication, they also lost on the propaganda front. The "genocide in Aleppo" story did not really fly. Thanks to the internet there were enough people able to contradict that (incl. the videos of people celebrating on the streets, the UN monitoring the busing out of the rebels that had surrendered, the civilians who were hostages to the Islamists and who told stories how they were prevented to leave Aleppo to flee to the safe zones held by the Syrian government. They did not stay because they were afraid of the Syrian or Russian army or their government. They were misused as human shields. Like Mother Agnes Mariam (a nun) said: "The citizens of Syria (including Aleppo and Damascus) did not ask for war, they may have been in favour of change and more democracy in Syria but no one wanted war, death and destruction.
If these rebels (many of them being foreigners) want to fight against the government - Syria has a lot of desert where they can do their fighting. Why do they force there presence on the settlements of the civilians ? "(paraphrased)
If Assad is that bad or if that is grossly exagerated does not even matter now: What would come AFTER HIS FALL would be even worse for Syria. Millions of Alawites and Christians are likely to be killed, the country taken over by Islamists - the Western politicians BTW know that and just don't care. The country would be split up, each fragment fighting the other, endless suffering and economic despair.
Israel could strive for peace of course and then a strong Syria would not be a challenge to them. They have no intention to do so however, so they would be glad to see Syria become a failed state. A strong Syria would continue to allow Russia access to it's seaports.
Ultimately USA and Israel would really like to DISMANTLE IRAN, which is hard to do as long as Russia could start airstrikes from Syrian soil. There is an axis between Iran, Syria and Russia; even CHINA shows some interest and gave some help to the Syrians, that is a scenario where the bullies of US and NATO better retreat.
The Christians and Alawites seem to be the more educated and affluent segment of the population, so Syria - even if they "only" were driven out of the country, would suffer a major loss regarding entrepreneurship and capable and skilled workforce.
3
-
The Amnesty report might be exagerated (especially their extrapolation of the people who had died in that rather small prison). The report might even be issued to serve US/ NATO interests. I found interesting points here: http://www.syriasolidaritymovement.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/CaesarPhotoFraudReport_v6.compressed.pdf regarding former claims
and http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/02/amnesty-report-hearsay.html
I have two dogs in the race here: I would like to believe that Amnesty International indeed IS INDEPENDANT and trustworthy (I have given up on MSM, the UN, let alone national politicians). But then AI participated in the incubator lie Kuwait that was fabricated by an US PR company to justify the US war in Iraq in 1991 (the "International Community" and the UN were reluctant and wanted more negotiations). It seems AI gave the story credibility).
And: it would totally make sense for the CIA and other agencies to place their moles and stooges in such a respected NGO. They could steer the investigations to "harmless" causes, causes that do not embarrass the US and the West too much, give more attention to "regimes" the West wants gone or criticized and to not go too harshly on countries that the West favours.
And for the sake of the Syrian people I would hope that that report is not true, that Assad is more leaning towards an authoritarian ruler than a brutal dictator condoning torture. (Because it is likely he will stay in power)
I heard a quote that is attributed to Robert Baer, former CIA: If the US wanted someone "seriously" interrogated they sent him to Jordan (there are rumours of CIA torture sites in Jordan as well, so it may be worse than harsh interrogation), if they wanted someone tortured they deliverd the person to Syria and if they wanted someone disappeared the person was deliverd to Egypt.
I did not research that quote, which Egyptian government - the former or the current dictator ? Assad took over around 2000 from his father. BTW I think he helped the US in the Iraq war of 2003, so then he had a good press and maybe Baer refers to that time (or he talked about the regime of Assad the father).
I have to investigate that further, that quote seems to me more reliable and plausible than the AI report. Baers quote is older AND he did not say it to make the US (or it's allies) look good or help their agenda.
The Western agenda against Syria suffered a bad defeat end of last year and the timing of the AI report is suspicious to put it mildly.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
On the flip side these technocrats of elections are not really good anyway. As more progressives run and have some money to spend, it could be the base for NEW UNTAINTED marketing talent who "gets it". Those establishment strategists and consultants are often rewarded with jobs for being political loyalists - that is ONE way to reward politicians (when they run unsuccessfully in the GE but at least they beat the progressive in the primary).
That is why all the money and supposed expertise, and the "experience" of the politicians in the Clinton campaign did not help them to see the writing on the wall in 2016 - they are so entrenched in the "system" and so used to do double think (the ability not to "know" what the policies MEAN for regular people, like NAFTA, China tariffs, letting the banks run amock, Crime Bill and 3 strikes, the war on drugs, student loans, Biden championed a bill that made sure they cannot be discharged in a bankrupcy, of course he serves big finance).
AOC had a good VIDEO for instance, Sanders had a good video too (America the Beautiful 2016).
3
-
TRANSCRIPT part 2 of 3 5:06 I said: Well, look I'm willing to ride a unicycle and if that means if we lose out to the bicycles, I will lose this race on that alone. - As it turned out we ended up having more individual donations than any other candidate, more individual donations than all the other candidates put together.
99.9% of our contributions came from people. The other 0,1 (one tenth of one ) percent actually slightly less than that, came from trade unions and small businesses. Many of those small businesses were giving things in kind - like food to the campaign from Busboys And Poets.
We shocked people because we raised money faster than anybody else and we did it with the lowest average donation in the race. Almost half of that of the guy running on the public option.
Cenk: Ben's campaign winning three million dollars - which is an amazing total when it comes from individual donations, it wouldn't be an amazing total if it was corporate PAC money, then you could raise that fairly quickly.
But it was a bold and important and correct and progressive decision to not do that. By the way it was one of the reasons that Ben Jealous got the endorsement of the Justice Democrats. It was a huge night for that organization last night as Alexander Ocasio-Cortez who was a justice Democrat from day one, the first candidate ever, and Ben Jealous won.
So let's talk about your upcoming race now: Larry Hogan as things stand, is a popular governor of Maryland. The second reason why you race so important is because there is an idea out there that if you want to beat someone like Larry Hogan you have to go towards the right wing and you have to be in the centrist camp.
Now, you're also defying that, you're saying: "No, I'm gonna run as a progressive in the general election as well. I'm not gonna do any pivots etc". So if you win doing that strategy, it will be a really important test for the progressive movement.
That's why I think it's really important for all progressives watching this to make sure that you continue to support Ben. That campaign is a testing ground, it's important for all of us.
Talk to me about your strategy about how to win the general election.
7:33 Ben: You know, look I've said from the very beginning I can't zigzag because I have size 14 feet and I'll trip.
We're just gonna keep running in one direction and quite honestly it's not towards the left, it's not towards the right, it's towards the people.
I come into this as the former national president the NAACP. And I know that when I worked in states far more conservative than our state to shrink their prison system more rapidly, we did it with bipartisan support.
3
-
3
-
3
-
+Curry what has economically "weak" or "strong" have to do with getting hired or not ? Getting hired depends on if there is a job where they can earn a profit for someone else. (That has often but not always to do with qualification, it depends on what the jobs ask for, that can be menial)
Mc Donalds in weatlhy European countries or Australia MUST pay more and they MUST grant benfits. They sell enough and I think their products are not much more expensive than in countries with lower standards. Wages are only a part of the product price - and if everyone has fairly good wages they can afford to buy. meaning they might have a full shop at all times.
The workers get more and McDonalds less (still plenty though) - that means LESS inequality.
The alternative for companies like McDonalds is to forego the possible profits alltogether and to be NOT in business in such countries.
Which would be fine - another company would take their niche.
The jobs that CAN be outsourced - have been outsourced long ago. (Thanks to free trade deals). Automation is not an immediate challenge (I will not go into that, reduction of worktime with the same pay, UBI, etc.).
What remains are personal services (like restaurants, hairdressers) or higher qualified occupation. Airlines for instance can outsource part of their accounting to India (huge volume of transactions, standardized), but many companies can't, they need the office workers and accountants IN the country and IN the office.
The higher wages EAT into EXTREME profits, they make life easier for the mass of people while limiting the profits of the shareholders.
If they COULD they certainly would onyl pay 4 or 7 USD and no benefits whatsoever and no fixed schedule in advance either.
Well they can't. - and the claim that it is necessary is of course not true they sell their stuff just fine.
Our economy depends on standardized jobs and skills and processes . Almost everyone is replaceable - even if your job requires expertise, training and if you are good in it. And it must be like that (what if you quit or get sick).
The downside to this is that even qualified and good people CAN be easily replaced. And with increasing automation and a certain "residue" of unemployment that never goes away - there will be a strong incentive for employers to suppress wages.
if you have a job interview you are always in the slightly inferior position (EVEN if the economy is strong - most people are GLAD to get hired). The kind of economy we have means that almost no job and qualification is so unique that the employer and the employee have the same negotiation power.
That is where minimum wage and also collective bargaining (for higher paying professions) come into play - they also have ripple effects on other jobs that are slightly above minimum wage. and the more qualified positions.
Trickle up.
All of that means more people in the "middle class" - and the wealth of the upper 10, 1 or 0,1 a little bit reduced.
Other measures to reduce inequality (additionally to minimum wage, collective bargaining) are high taxation on rich and profitable companies and some redistribution of wealth - funding of childcare, healthcare etc.
As for taxation 60 - 70 % top marginal income tax in 1933, 94 % in 1944, it stayed high, and applied to 400.000 USD then (around 2,7 million USD in todays money). Nixon accused JFK of wanting to reduce the taxes for rich people, which JFK denied, they discussed an EFFECTIVE highest top marginal income tax of 72 % (presidential debate - so early 1960s).
From 1947 until 1970 wages rose (almost) in lockstep with productivity, purchasing power almost doubled (+ 97 %).
That meant LOW inequality (good wages, people could afford homes, the taxes put a cap on profit, so investing or benefits for workes was the only way a company could avoid taxation. Investing invariably created orders and jobs for other people, and benefits added to the wealth/wellbeing of workers).
High taxation, high minimum wages, public services REDUCE INEQUALITY
On the surface the minimum income in Sweden is not that impressive BUT it comes with a lot of basics that are covered. Good public schools, public transportation, childcare, healthcare,.... likely they also have housing assistance and some form of universal child allowance (most wealthy European countries have)
Being low-income in Sweden or Germany (which I know) is not the same experience as in the U.K. or worse in the U.S.
The people can hold on to lower middle class status and some respectability and it also does not limit the chances of their children. When they have good grades they can get a free qualified education (can be in the trades, nurses, or university).
Sweden has hardly any homeless people, and much less poverty, and also not that much excessively rich people (rich and wealthy people for sure) than the U.S. And also not nearly as many people in prison.
That makes a country safe (Middle East refugees and migrants nonwithstanding - the Swedish can and do pay the expenditures for that mass immigration. It remains to be seen if they can integrate these people. If the U.S. could abstain from starting more wars, many of them could go back.
Trade deals, outsourcing, stagnantwages =reduced disposable income
the multinationals CAN outsource and pay slave wages elsewhere. And they were enabled to NOT pay taxes.
So when they keep a lot of what they used to pay out in form of good wages - they get much richer and someone else gets the bare minimum.
Meaning the workers in Asia or Mexico CANNOT consume enough, they cannot keep up with the output.
That is why the trade deals are so important. The sweatshop products MUST be exported to the wealthier countries - without prohibitive tariffs ! - so that they can sell it there.and Big Biz wants to limit the power of any FUTURE government to change the rules of the game that is so profitable for them.
There opened a gap of course between ever growin output and stagnant wages, which was bridged by consumer debt for some time.
3
-
3
-
+TheTechnocrat the U.S. may have 28 times the AREA of Germany - but not in people. 325 millions vs. 82 millions. Montana most certainly does not beat Germany in GDP or productiviy (nothing against Montana, it would be an unfair competition to such a rural area). There is a reason Germany exports SO MUCH MORE to the U.S. than the other way round. The U.S. GDP is propped up by the money shufflers and speculators (well the fees for the "services"). Without the Petro dollar, the Military Industrial Complex, the casino of Wallstreet, there is not THAT much left. Film industry, Silicon Valley, Pharma, some Agriculture - but considering the size of the country and population. Destroying manufacturing for "financialization" has taken it's toll.
The U.S. has these vast plains which are NOT densely populated. So people need a car to get to the doctor. - The densely populated areas is where the action is. - and healthcare is delivered to people so the area does not matter. And besides, Canada is huge (area), has less people than the U.S. or Germany, and even less per capita costs.
Germany has become an immigration country so the argument of "less or more" divesity does not work either.
Most wealthy European countries have per capita healthcare costs in the 5,000 to 5,500 USD costs. Same with Canada. The U.S. has 9,200.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Yes BIG donors mean 1) campaign finance - in the U.S.. And more important: 2) it means Big Biz (the Big Donors) will take care of you when you leave politics. Campaign finance = 1) CAN be fixed easily and transparently with laws (they have it in Europe) but 2) is a real problem and there are much more "grey areas". That is the reason why the European politicians are not much better in serving the regular people. They also sell out to Big Biz. Overall the situation is better, for instance when it comes to pollution or to workers rights or welfare. But Big Biz has way too much political influence in Europe as well, even though the campaigns are publicly funded and there are much more restrictions (for instance "fairness rules" for airtime in TV or restrictions how much money can be spent on TV ads).
Politicians - usually - cannot be completely dumb, so they could have other halfway decent jobs as well. They have to build their political career while other people build their professional career elsewhere. If you get fired in the private sector you hopefully have the skills that will make you useful for another company. But what special skills does a politician have if he or she wants to get hired in the private sector at the age of 40 or 50 ? They might have lost an election, or they had a falling out with the party leadership (possibly by standing up for the people !!) or by burning out, or simply it is not a good fit anymore.
What do they bring to the table to get themselves hired ? - only the networks (Party establishment ! and Big Biz). Sure they know to speak, will be organized, know to organize/hold a meeting, they often have a background in law - but that is not special, many people have those GENERAL skills and softskills.
In the U.S. they often become lobbyists, "consultants" or they are getting nice jobs at the board of some companies. In Europe they often land a job in a public company (think utility provider owned by a city or in public administration). Or by private corporations who do a lot of business with the state. But only if the did not ruffle feathers, usually the party establsihment has some influence who can get such jobs. Only if they were good Yes men/women when active in politics. Else the jobs will be withheld and they have to fend for themselves.
Sometimes they were working in the public adminstration or as teachers before the political position. As long as they are in politics they take a "sabbatical". When they leave politics they can return to that job. While that is not a glamorous or highly lucrative career it is a reliable plan B) to fall on, and these are jobs where you usually cannot be fired unless you commit a crime or do something really outrageous.
So if a politician comes from such a position and is content with the salary as politian and/or the salary of the public sector job - then he/she is free to represent the people to the best of their ability. - Or they are really good in connecting with the voters and build their own brand - then they will manage to get themselves elected even if they are critical of the Special Interests and/or their own party. There are some examples, but the party loyalists are the majority. The party is more important in Europe to get and hold an office in Europe. Many politicians do not have a distinct profile, they run under the party.
Some ex politican end up in a "honorary" CEO position (they don't do anything, they are the paid middlemen to get favors from the political class). But again - only if they did not offend Big Biz or the party establishment who also needs/wants the goodwill of Big Biz.
In order to serve the PEOPLE you often have to ruffle their feathers, their interests are often in conflict with the interests of the majority of the population (workers rights, good pay for workers, fair competition in the market place, protection from fraud, pollution, and malfeasance).
You cannot serve two masters.
So politicians are alway on their toes to play nice with Big Biz.
A politician needs name recognition to get elected (or must campaign for a long time and build it like Sanders did in Vermont since the 1970s). Usually that is done with TV ads, and campaign staff and the Big Donors finanace that for obedient candidates.
OR: in Europe they need the party to get elected because the party establishment can unleash or withhold the support of volunteers and the party organization and their funds.
In that scenario the party LEADERS are being "bribed" and worked by the Special Interests. They will guard the party so that really populist people are weeded out and just do not get the necessary support to make themselves a name. and a safe seat.
The U.S. system is very efficient, in the European system dissenters can slip through sometimes. It also helps that the U.S. system very efficeintly shields the 2 dominant parties (whatever they may be) from ANY COMPETITION - when the Republic was founded, the founders (rich white men) put provisions in place to limit the input the unwashed masses could have on the political system. More and new parties give the voters more influence on politics. Those limiting, antidemocratic provisions have been working excellently for over 200 years !
There is hardly an European country where there are not at least 5 relevant parties. And the small parties can become the hinge that swings large doors - when they enter a coalition government they can help a large party (w/o the necessary absolute majority) to come into or stay in power and thus shape policy.
So the European parties cannot be as complacent as the U.S. - the scene can be shaken up - and it is right now.
Whereas the Republicans will always provide the Corporate Democratswith a boogeyman. The Dems - unwilling to get Money out of politics and adopt populist and popular ! policies - can scare their base (and the unions !! which are very afraid of Republicans in power) to fall in line. That game worked really well, mainstream media helped the Dems to get away with it - and Sanders has really spoilt if tor them.
Because in the past they would give the plebs a few crumbs, or make promises and than walk away from them - or throw them a bone if they felt really generous and if the base was becoming restless.
The European politicians (Left or Right) have to somewhat do a little better for their constituency. Else there COULD be a political upheaval and they are kicked out of power.
But by and large neoliberal ideology has very successfully hijacked the political process everywhere, the narrative in mainstream media and even mainstream academia.
The unorthodox economists have been sidelined, they are more vocal since the Great Financial Crisis and they circumvent the mainstream channels by using the internet - Richard Wolff, Mark Blyth, Michael Hudson, Heiner Flassbeck, and Heinz Josef Bontrup in Germany, to just name a few.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
TRANSCRIPT part 3 of 3 Because we listened to people and we pulled folks together. We got fiscal conservatives who were just concerned the prison system was growing too rapidly. We got libertarians who agree with us on a bunch of criminal justice issues.
We got Christian conservatives to join with progressives to join with the civil rights community because they're in the prisons doing prison ministry. And they understand what few folks do, which is that we don't just have the most incarcerated black and brown people on the planet, we also have the most incarcarated white people on the planet. It's destroying their families, too.
What they tend to have in common is that those families were too poor to afford their own lawyer.
That taught me a real lesson when I was running the NAACP is that when you run towards the people you can create a new center, a center founded on courage and common sense.
That's what we're doing in this race. Because having loved ones who are addicted to heroin or to pills that's not a partisan issue, it's a people issue. Struggling to pay student debt ? Not a partisan issue, it's a people issue.
Worried that your kids are not getting a great education at public schools ? Not a partisan issue, but a people issue.
Worried that the tax system isn't fair ? Let's hedge fund managers pay a lower tax rate than their secretary ? While we have senior citizens on fixed incomes or having their houses foreclosed on in Baltimore because they can't afford their property taxes ? That's a people issue, too.
So we're just gonna run straight towards the people and we're gonna have courage to speak common sense, put real solutions on the table.
Cenk, one of the gifts I had in my life is that a 101 year old Maryland social worker who helped train Barbara Mikulski also helped train me: she's my grandmother and she told me again and again: "Baby, don't try to half solve a problem because you still got a problem". So my ideal with the people of Maryland is simple: When I bring you a solution it'll be for the whole problem.
We will talk honestly about what it will take, and then we'll fight hard and we'll get it done.
What I'm known for in the state, the reason I was named Marylander of the year in 2013 by the Baltimore Sun - I've been endorsed by them again - it's because I've succeeded again, and again and getting big things done in our state. And that's what I'll do as governor.
Cenk: I wish your grandmother had talked to Barack Obama.
…. the donation and the volunteer links description box https://benjealous(dot)com
He is sticking with those positions: Medicare-For-All, Criminal Justice Reform and actually funding the schools of Maryland and get them back up to where they belong.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@H1TMANactual I know the Austrian and German system well (and currently live in Austria). Both have single payer. * Germany got their system in 1883/1884 they have some historic quirks. They had the public option at that time. which always leads to a two class medical system (which back in the day was still an improvement for the low-income citizens). - You can still find traces of that historic system in the current setup:
* in Germany and Austria there is not ONE but several public non-profit insurance agencies. Never mind, it is still "single" payer (even the National Heath System of the U.K., that takes it one step further than single payer, has several "wings".
The U.K. has only 42 % of the U.S. spending per person. Most of medical care is delivered by the NHS which is seriously (and intentionally underfunded). But in Scotland they have better funding (local additional budgets with oil revenue). In other words there are at least two divisions (likely more, the Welsh, Northern Ireland).
Single payer characteristics:
The payroll tax is mandated (90 % of employed and their employers have no choice, for them it is the public system. period), there is no discrimination (age, gender, risks, need to cover dependent family members).
Everyone pays the same payroll tax as percentage of wage (and I think in Germany the employers must pay as well, in Austria it is around 3,8 % each with a cap of 2,400 for employee and company. Per year.)
Only a small part of the Germans are allowed to OPT OUT from "public mandated insurance". Wealthy over approx. 90,000 Euro income, that is a low 6 figure USD wage. Or professions that have a good, secure job with steadily rising wages like teachers and civil servants. Or self employed architects, civil engineers,
Only they can CHOSE between public coverage OR not pay the deductions from the wage and opt for full private insurance. Which they will only do if they are young, healthy wealthy (once they switch to "private" it is very hard to get back to "public", and the insurance cannot kick them out, and they cannot start going crazy with the increases of an existing client either. So the insurers must calculate premiums that cover the coming decades because in all likelyhood they will have that insured for life. The German government in recent years passed laws to improve to situation. Easy to lure young people with seemingly low premiums, the costs rise VERY much with age.
Conservative governments doing favors:
The private insurers get a cherrypicked customer base, wealther and healthier than the average of the population (also interesting for other marketing purposes). Payroll tax OR costs for private insurance reduce the tax base. So higher costs of private insurance are to a degree compensated by tax cuts.
The system was not overhauled after WW2. Most other countries got single payer.
The conservative governments of Germany (more often than not the center-right CDU / CSU were in power or in a coalition) did favors:
Forthe insurance industry (they got a small part of the pie. Handpicked base of wealthy customers - in the 1950s and 1960s)
The doctors get better rates and they tend to vote the center-right. The wealthy insured (with tax deductions they hardly paid more. When the country was rebuilt after WW2 it was possible to buy better care than the other citizens, which at that time likely played more role).
The German insurance companies can demand higher premiums for existing risks (that is how they "reject" clients they do not want), they can exclude risks, and include deductibles (although it is limited how far they can go). The insured can ask for reclassification of risks (for instance 5 or 10 year remission after cancer treatment, the clients are entitled to a risk evaluation and the insurer MUST give them a lower premium if the doctors give the green light).
In other words in a country where 90 % single payer are well covered the insurance companied cannot play games with the insured, there is much better consumer AND cost protection (some benchmarking when comparing with the 90 %).
There is also pressure to have supplemental private insurance for publicly insured in areas where many civil servants and wealthy people live (Berlin, or wealthy areas in general). That causes of course higher admin costs (more contracts to handle, billing by doctors and hospitals). Doctors in such ares (specialists ! think eye doctor, dentists) have a chance to make do w/o the publicly insured, so either you can pay extra or you will have longer waiting times in some areas.
It is of course much better than in the U.S. - but there are traces of the 2 class system of the past.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The US and Qatar Saudia Arabia (+ UK, likely F, Turkey, and Israel) "allow" the many, many dead in Syria. They fund, ARM and train the moderate "terrorists".Without the ongoing effort for regime change and the mercenaries these people would not have died. This is NOT a CIVIL WAR. War is brought from the outside, the foreign mercenaries play a huge role.
Of the 400,000 dead (no one really knows), 100k are soldiers of the government army. Many ten thousands are jihadists that died. - If Assad falls the country is going to hell, it will break to pieces, the US and Saudi supported jihadists will take over. Likely there will be massacres (Shia, Jews, Christians, Alawites, non-cooperating moderate Sunni Muslin).
Feinstein will find THAT very acceptable - and so will the lamestream media. In the last days evacuations were going on. Rebels and/or their families could leave certain areas under siege, the same for a gov. held villiage that is surrounded by rebels.
There were busses, it seems someone laid food on the street. When the hungry children assembled there to pick it up (it seems civilians went hungry in that village) the bomb went off.
baited to their death. - one U.S. reporter ... the evacuation was resumed, this was a hiccup. - 186 dead - many of them small children. - These families were going to be evacuated to government held areas and are Shia Muslim (which are detested by the rebels/terrorists who are Sunni Muslim). - So this was even more unlikely to be the doing of the Syrian government - so it did not get much coverage, not useful for the propaganda.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Chris Hedges (Journalist very progressive) said Nixon was the last liberal president the US had ??? His explanation, an anecdote (from Kissingers memoires If i remember correctly). Kissinger and Nixon on the window in the White House. They look at the mass anti-Vietnam-war-demonstration outside the fence. On the inside there are empty school buses parked for safety reasons. Nixon to Kissinger: "Herny, When they come for us they are going to kill us."**
He hated the left, the Hippies, the Civil Rights Movement. And he feared The People. I heard (maybe from Hedges maybe from Noam Chomsky) a quote: Political leaders are mediocre - at best. Or self-serving, spineless, corrupt, dishonest, and with ideological blindfolds. It is never about electing the BEST leader - there is little chance there will be GOOD people to vote for. It is about keeping the person in power from doing bad things. Or even make them do good things. The government should fear the citizens. Not the other way round.
Richard Nixon HAD TO GIVE the population something. And a little fear of the masses is a good thing. Worked like a charm in the New Deal era. The Russian Revolution was in 1917. In the US after 1929 millions ! joined the unions, people were on the street. Unions, Co-ops, Communist and all sort of Socialist parties were alive and kicking.
After FDR became president Congress and Senate did not pass HIGH taxes on wealthy and rich people out of the goodness of their heart. In the middle of the crisis Social Security and unemployment benefits were introduced. FDR was a centrist not a leftie. But he understood that it would be voluntary help for the masses by the government or much more left leaning forces would come to power (or uprisings). And enough of the establishment were scared enough to follow along.
2