Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Rebel HQ"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The sobering effects on Corporate Dems set in long BEFORE Progressives become a majority. - The Republicans had the same scenario with the Tea Party, btw. - The grassroots continue to run progressive candidates - against Dems and Repubs. Those of the Dems whose seat is not YET threatened can decide what they want to do.
Continue to serve the Big Donors ? Yes, when they are well connected and aim for the lucrative contract for ex politicians (often more lucrative than the political office).
On the other hand those damn Progressives might over a few years vastly reduce Money in Politics and the Revolving door - there goes the whole business model. That path might not be so secure (as it used to be) over the course of 10 years.
Or they could side with the Progressives in order to avoid being primaried. And once a Pogressive has taken a foothold IN a district it might become hard to get rid of them. Even Donor money in campaigns might be ineffective.
Corrupting them could prove more effective - for the Big Donors, but that does not help the one Corporate Democrat that lost the seat, especially when they do not get a cushy job afterwards. -
That is the job of the voters, the Progressive representatives must know that they are closley monitored.
Some Democratic representatives that are not completely beyond redemption might start thinking about their alternatives:
1) Securing the reelection with a POPULIST message and the help of grassroots and maybe Sanders - and keep the seat (and then actually supporting the progressive agenda, or they will qualify for fierce efforts of being primaried) OR
2) remain a corporate shill, w/o much of a profile, continue to dial after the dollars (which they all hate - the plush fundraisers may be fun sometimes but not the callcenter work).
If someone is a footsoldier and not that witty, eloquent, and does not have tick any "idendity boxes" etc. AND not very well connected with the influencers, party leadership, donors - serving the VOTERS instead of the Big Donors might look much more attractive all of a sudden.
If that means that Justice Democrats (and similar groups) do not run a poplist to primary you.
People without an impressive public persona CAN be GOOD representatives nontheless.
They have a problem to get elected though: name recognition, building a brand, having a solid fan base among the voters.
In their case the brand is based on ISSUES, (not on their public image which airtime financed by donor money and strategists can create). It would be based on longtime work for the district, name recognition and solid (if maybe boring) performance.
The job is not that bad paid, good benefits, when one votes with the progressive caucus it is not that complicated to decide how to vote (the caucus not the lobbyists tell them what to do).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alwaysincentivestrumpethic6689 BOTH PARTIES use identity politics to gloss over the fact they the will not do anything for the citizens that would reduce PROFITS of the DONORS. - Tom Perez protests separation of children at the border, when cornered by a journalist doing her job (Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, of course not mainstraim media) he stammers about access to healthcare. She had asked him on his position on universal healthcare - he did not even use the dirty word.
Republicans run against abortion, Dems on protecting the right to have one - the masses are supposed to get excited about these questions. Either way it is not going to cost the Big donors.
Same with LGBT rights, gun regulation.
Identity politics is used to distract from the fact that the parties are not working for The People. Racism is a form of that - the Republicans specialize in that since the Civil Rights era.
Gay marriage was a progress. But they still are saddled with student debt, have medical bills to pay, die in wars ....
Reduction of student debt (at least lower interest), legalize weed, higher minimum wages, REALLY doing something about Climate Change, cost-efficient healthcare like in Europe, Canda, Australia, Japan .....?
Ain't gonna happen. Not if both parties can prevent it. (on the federal level).
Weed and heroin are the ONLY schedule 1 drugs. (cocain, crack etc. are for instance schedule 2, the higher numbers means classfied as less problematic).
The Clinton's and the rest of the corporate Dems had no problem with mass incarceration when it turned out the 3 strikes rule hit the minority communities much more and had a bad overal effect.
Clinton and Obama had consumed weed (Obama maybe tested even cocain). They KNOW marijuana is not as dangerous as heroin (heroin and weed are the only schedule 1 drugs - supposedly very dangerous, addictive, no medical value, research is forbidden)
it "justifies" harsh sentences for weed.
The president could of course have cannabis "downgraded" if not completley removed from the catalogue of "dangerous" substances. It does not need a vote of Congress. He can campaign for it and he can make sure to appoint the FDA head accordingly. (But usually Pharma lobbyists got the job, so ....)
Neither Bill Clinton nor Obama could not be bothered. Hillary Clinton had no intention to change that either. Let alone ending the counterproductive War on Drugs.
The Big Donors and influencers (pharma, law enforcment, private prison system, alcohol, in former times tobacco) do not want it.
Weed was one substance that got non-violent offender jailed - often for long time (some even for life !!!)
Clinton and Obama did not do anything about it (Obama issued some pardons at least).
Some of the states lead on the issue, but it is not like the Dems on the federal level coul be bothered.
Chelsea Clinton in 2016: we have to careful, there is not enough research.
Damn right if it is hard to do legal research (that might have improved in the very recent years, it was almost impossible for decades).
And decriminalizing cannabis and allowing it for medical use (with prescriptions) at least in severe cases (seizures, terminal illness, ... ) does not mean everyone gets it.
They were not so considerate with restricing the prescription of opiodes, were they ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
The DONORS (who finance BOTH parties) PAY the Dems for keeping Progressives away from power and to sheepdopg the more progressive voters into the corral of the neoliberal tent. - A certain segment of the population is out of reach for the Republicans - so for that the allegedly "liberal" Democrats are needed.
To quote Chenk: the donors like strong Republicans and weak Democrats. - that way they win, no matter what. - If progressives would come into power - they would HATE that. And do whatever they can to avoid that.
Dems would like to win of course - but not annoying the Big donors and the party leadership (that answers to the big donors) is even more important. Dems that lose will be taken care of - if they delivered for the special interests while in office (and that means voting in the way the party leadership orders them to vote).
Else a poltician will be sidelined, primaried, smeared with help of the media, their campaigns defunded. And forget about the donors providing cushy jobs and lucrative posts for ex-politicians. Forget about getting interesting job offers at all. Not in the large companies or major industries.
This is not only about politicians being greedy (although that often plays a role). The party establishment can destroy a political career. Such a "disobedient" politician has likely spent the years building their name recognition and political career when other people built their careers in the corporate world. And then they could lose their office for showing a spine or some integrity.
Tulsi Gabbard must be very sure that she has a good standing with her constituency and that she does not NEED the Dems to get reelected (or can even withstand their opposition - she is on a blacklist that's for sure).
Sanders is a rare case (stubborn and passionate activist. Small state - easier to gain name recognition, a special constituency - influx of liberals, and some luck. No success over the years with 4 or 5 races as Independent for higher office in/ for VT, he never got more than 4 % (Govenor, Congress, Senate).
And THEN at age 40 he started his career as mayor of Burlington unseating a very well established mayor - a corporate Democrat, with a majority of 14 votes resp. 8 = eight after the recount. His races for Congress (after approx 8 years as mayor) were not much challenged, the Dems did not bother, VT does not have major donors or industries, and he caucused with them.
So he was able to fly under the radar as this Independent "lefty" from a tiny state. A Congressman Sanders would not have been possible in Texas or California. They Dems and the Republicans would have thrown everything at him and tried to crush him right in the beginning.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I am honestly surprised, I live in Austria, know the rural areas and the cities and waiting times are fine - 1 week, maybe 2 weeks in some cases (if you feel you have a more urgent problem you tell them when they make the appointment so they will squeeze you in as "emergency". - Of course Germany has undercut somewhat the funding of the system, by replacing very well paying manufacturing jobs with subcontractor jobs, the automotive industry does it big time, and even many medium sized plants do not hire any workers directly - while these subcontracted jobs are still above minimum pay they are nearly as well paid or safe like in the good old days either.
So the funding for healthcare is impaired as well.
Although the way the population and economy and life style is structured is pretty much the same in Austria, the healthcare expenditures are below that of Germany (per capita expenditures 5,600 vs. 5,400 USD, source World Bank 2014, I do not have any newer data). The average age is about the same (important for healthcare costs !), I assume the additional private component in the German system makes it more expensive in total - it looks like that if you browse the World Bank data - the countries who "differentiate" or have a 2 tier system somehow end up paying somewhat more - although not one system is as inefficient as the U.S. system.
As for Germany - elections are coming up - time to demand better funding. And maybe also better funding for universities to have more graduates. That should take care of the waiting times.
I also know that the slots for students of medicine are limited in Germany, many that do not get a place, try their luck in Austria to study medicine (it is free and access to that field used to be w/o limitations. I think they changed that a few years ago, because there was an "invasion" of German students wanting to study medicine in Austria because they were rejected in Germany.
Switzerland likes to hire well trained German medical staff (nurses, doctors) and they pay very well, Germany "steals" doctors from Bulgaria (they send recruiters over, Bulgaria is so poor, they pay so little that it is easy to lure Bulgarian doctors to Germany) - which of course brings the Bulgarian system to breaking point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Obama was behind at that time by 300 delegates in 2008. Sanders CAN turn this around, but he MUST start to take off the gloves. Joe is not OUR friend he is LESS electable than Sanders, he might be in cognitive decline (there are polite and fair ways to contrast the one year intense campaign of Sanders - weathering stunt surgery after hearth attack in 2 weeks - and long issue spiked speeches (35 - 40 minutes) with the light schedule of Biden (for the whole 12 months) and now his 7 minute speeches.
never mind the BAGGAGE Biden has (Iraq war and trade deals for a start), and that Trump would drag him. Trump is good on the stage as long as it is not about facts and issues.
there are many issues that Biden better not mention - and if he does it will be "pot calling the kettle".
That put offs voters that do not see anything in it for them (100 million people that were eligible to vote didn't do that in 2016, you have to give them something to vote FOR).
Sanders could kick Trump on corruption, family nepotism (Biden better not go there) and healthcare promises. And the student debt loans that are now 1,5 trillion USD (more than subprime mortgages in 2008). Biden pushed for the bankrupcy bill that was instrumental for that situation and Trump did nothing about it.
Sanders can and MUST criticize Biden hard on it (mentioning the bankrupcy bill is not enough, he must SAY what the outcome was of it). And later he can kick Trump for not having done anything about it.
Biden will not do anything about healthcare and pharma prices, and the stock prices (healthcare, pharma related) went UP after he became the frontrunner. Looks like the "markets" are very confident that Biden will be good for their profits.
What does that mean for voters ?
Sanders needs to tell voters that their SS is not safe under Trump or Biden (his history over decades - and Trump already said he will cut it).
Medicare in its current form is not safe either - at some time the system will collapse under its own weight and dysfunction. (and that is w/o the corono virus).
Under cost efficient single payer a nation needs 5,300 USD per person per year (take or leave 400 USD - Kaiser 2017). Almost ALL wealthy nations are in that range. So even under the best of circumstances it costs plenty.
Modest mandatory payroll taxes (no burden for citizens or companies), streamlined admin, because every one is covered (so no hassle for doctors and hospitals). The rest for the budget (so that the non-profit insurance agency can pay sufficient rates) - like in the U.S. - comes from general tax revenue. But the subsdies per person are not quite as high as in the U.S. (All save if it costs half: government somewhat, and citizens and companies a lot).
For the U.S ? add 5,000 USD !
10,260 for every person in 2017
That is what is already spent on in all of the U.S., no matter who pays
divided by ALL people - whether or not they have insurance, go bankrupt etc.
healthcare speding is always MUCH higher for old people, that is everywhere the case.
It is not exactely helpful when healthcare spending in general in the U.S. is double of what it should be.
The U.S. system will collapse under it's own weight if there is no BOLD reform. Just using the blueprint that all other nations have used for the last 70 years (the crucial principles).
Obama tried the establishment approach: let's not rock the boat too much. In 2009 the PREDATORY for-profit insurers were ALLOWED to REMAIN the DOMINANT actors in the system. (all other wealthy ! countries have limited or strongly limited for-profit, especially the insurers, have done so for 55 - 70 years. That's why they spend approx. HALF per person).
The premise of Obamacare: the predators stay in charge but there will be regulations so they will behave themselves.
How did that turn out ?
The insurance companies had 10 years time to prove themselves.
Same for the pharma industry that got concessions under Bush, under Obama and under Trump.
Still: 10 times the costs for insuline compared to Canada.
No cost control.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There is another aspect. The shots should be given to adults !! globally. It would be much more important for most adults in the U.S. to get their shots plus to the few vulnerable kids. And older teeangers that tend to spread it with partying. That would reduce spread significantly. Healthy kids have very low risks (and get good natural, and up to date - for Delta ! - immunity out of even mild infections - but they would not even get infected if herd immunity is sufficient. Which would need the cooperatiion of at least 80 % of all adults.
But we can only dream of all adults doing their duty.
Currently the rich nations gobble up most of the resources so they "ration" the vaccines for the adults in developing countries. Delta developed in INDIA, and it has to do with the lack of vaccines, they were ravaged and did not have the shots to stop that (although vaccines were already rolled out in the rich nations).
The Indian population does not play stupid games, they could not help offering the virus the chance of many, many cases which resulted in that mutation. (Researchers that did genome sequencing could deduct a fast series of mutations that lead to that much more contagious variante).
So the Pfizer should not be administered to children in first world countries (unless they are in a high or higher risk group, which is luckily a smaller group so no drain on the resources. Small input gives you a lot of positive effects). Instead we should push to get the rest of the world (the adults) vaccinated like yesterday. Or we will never get a grip on the pandemic, because the virus can continue to mutate a LOT outside of the U.S., Europe, ... - and it WILL come back with international travel.
And Iwould be for harsher mandates to make the adult CoVidiots in rich nations fall in line (talk about first world problems to protest masks and vaccines). In many wealthy nations they already have vaccination passports and if you do not have one, you are excluded from a LOT of places and activities. It is not impossible to cope w/o a vaccine (unless the employer demands it and home office is not an option) - but a hassle.
In the U.S.: I hope they cannot fly. That is going to be interesting for Thanksgiving and Christmas. No in person attendance of churches (if they can pull that off legally and impose it also onto the red states).
Testing TWICE per week (not once, they will miss some infections in the early stages) OR mandatory vaccines (if the company has more than 100 employees). No evasion if companies "split" to evade the 100 persons treshold. I would also lower the number to 50 persons. No access to restaurants and any shops. Unless they sell groceries - a state Supreme Court already drew a line with essentials, the government can limit access to businesses but not if they sell essentials. #
Get your groceries delivered OR ask vaccinated persons for help.
But private companies can limit access to people with proof of vaccination or with proof of having had the infection AND still a good antibody count. Mild infections of adults often resulted in low antibody count and antibody numbers go down over the months. (Children on the other hand got a good response out of even very mild cases).
But if a person had the infection in Decemember (and had some noticable discomfort like fever, or like a bad cold) and got a good reaction out of it (that can be proven with an anti body test) they are as well protected from infection OR from becoming a spreader like a fully vaccinated person. In Europe they have vaccination passports - or apps. And part of those countries accept or accepted also former infections (doctor's note) or a recent antibody test.
Of course there would have to be private companies that vdo not issue the certificates about a good count w/o verifying who gets the certificate. Or people with a good antibody count would start getting the certificates and pass them on.
Massive pressure on the likes of Walmart to impose a vaccine mandate for employees BUT ALSO consumers if they want to enter premises. A private company can do that (unlike the government that is restricted in some cases). You show an app or a printed card, or the confirmation that you had CoVid or a recent antibody test - and some reasonable ID - does not have to be the high treshhold for voting, that excludes reasonably safe IDs like student IDs or expired driver's licences or passports. - Or you can't enter.
Massive pressure of the White House on insurance companies (healthcare and liability) so THEY will demand mask and vaccine procedures or the biz will not be accepted for coverage.
Willfully ignoring the recommendation to vaccinate should be a preexisting condition and the ONE where insurers are allowed to discriminate (during a national crisis). And also less coverage by Medicare.
Considering this is a national crisis.
At least the White House should launch that idea for debate - the people that were willing to take one for the team will support them.
One CoVid-19 case in the hospital costs on average 50,000 USD AND worse they monopolize all the resources (staff, intesive care beds, monoclonal antibodies). Hospital have to send people with other emergencies away and delay people with very necessary but planable surgeries. Planable means: it can be delayed for a few hours, days, weeks- the person will not die immediately because of the delay but it can get worse or rob them of their chances of (full) recovery if the delay is too long.
But a CoVidiot gasping for air cannot wait even hours, and often they are first accepted in the normal (overworke but not at breaking point) stations, so if they then get worse IN the hospital they are in a convenient lane to be seamlessly transitionted into the ICU. Taking up AlL the scarce and highly expensive resources. - so it is never the turn of the patients with planable surgeries and treatments (especially if they would need more intense care after the surgey or there might be complications where they could became an ICU case.
One man with ongoing and worsening heart problems was not accepted by 43 hospitals (the hospital that had been forced to send him home a few days, betting on it that they could do that and because they were so squeezed for rescoures) called for him when he showed up again. This time with worse symptoms. There was no ICU bed to be had in that region, they didn't have one, and 43 other hospitals didn't have one either.. It needed a 200 mile ride and he died a few days later. . After accidents and with heart attacks and strokes time is of the essence. That delay may have well killed him, it certainly robbed him of a fighting chance (delay of the phone calls and the 200 mile drive).
The Covidiots now have figured out that monoclonal antibodies help in most cases IF given right after the positive testing or first mild symptoms. So if they are handed out like aspirin they can prevent that the Covidiots have to suffer the consequence of their obstinate refusal. But: that fairly effective (and approved !) treatment is a limited resource, they do not have that many for large scale preventive use. And they are expensive.
Which does not faze the anti vaxxers at all - as long as THEY do not suffer the (financial) or other consequences they do not care.
The grifters and Covidiots get enraged even over the "soft" mandate. Biden the terrible dictator could as well give them really something to complain about. The emotional investment of the Covidiots and the grifters that egg them on would be the same. They WANT to be enraged and indignant, it does not matter if it is a nudge they get from the White House, or a kick in the behind.
1
-
nope - with a functioning admin both should work, in a pandemic the default option should be mail, and since the U.S. - unlike other nations - still votes on a workday it would be in general a good option to increase turnout. Plus it costs less. Only 60 % of eligible voters in 2016 ! In a high profile race that would see 80 % for sure in other nations, more like 85 %. -
Switzerland sends their quartely or halfyearly referendum mail out and can handle it just fine (I think the regular election are more in person, but no doubt they could organize for it by mail, too if need be).
In the U.S:
Many states are safely blue or red anyway (someone has to explain to me WHY anyone would risk anything in California for instance, the state is blue. Or in Texas, when it is going to be the Republican anyway). The purple states often have a Republican governor / admin - so how come they have to functioning way to remove all dead reliably from the list and give any citizen a unique life long Voter ID number - that would have to be on the FEDERAL level, because now citizens move around much more in ALL the states. Problem solved.
If Repubs would once invest the money to have a CENTRAL register of all persons that could make things so much easier in the future (think SS, Medicare, DMV). And I cannot see the Democrats voting against that (but of course the Repubs will not do it because higher turnout means they lose the elections. To be sure it would bite the Dems also in the behind if that also applies to primaries. There the Dems like to suppress the same voters as the Republicans in the general.
In both cases it is to have candidates win that are liked by the big donors.
Changes would be registered locally (birth, moves away, changes name, dies, moves out of the country, changes nationality. To avoid big government and costs, all prisoners also have the vote (by mail), they have the vote at the last place they were registered as residency, so the place where they came from not where they are incarcerated. VT lets them vote and it avoids all the hassle to remove them from the voter rolls and the crazy hassle to get back on (which is different but complicated in almost all states.
there are 2 states that have always let prisoners vote and no problem - why would there be, they can only vote for the same candidates as the millions of non-felons.
(I know VT for sure - which used to be a solidly red state until the 1970s btw, but alway with a freedom loving down-to earth streak. They also never had slavery)
All work with the exact same software (lower costs !), which in the long term helps cut a lot of red tape and admin costs.
If peope can move around in the 50 states it is time to give up the registration methods of the 18th century. DMV is often cited as example for inefficiency of agencies: Nope, they have an impossible task, because hostile (clueless) politicians (and even more so hostile Republicans) make the job so hard. All other nations handle it just fine, because they do not let ideology (and states rights - not on vehicle registratiion, and birth registers !) imagine the hassle regarding vehicle registration.
All other nations have a central register, not the bureaucratic, fragmented island solutions of the U.S. That would also mean automatic voter registration. if your address is up do date you are on the rolls. End of.
that is how they do it in all the other nations, even emerging nations like Bolivia, Ecuador etc. manage to get that done.
In other nations the 18 year old do not need to register, they get the invitation to vote (at the address of the parent or guardian that is repsonsible for them as minors). of course students are often sloppy with changing their address. Well then it is a reason to come home (at the weekend, elections are on sunday or a holiday) and to vote.
people often forget to give the address on the outer envelope (so they can be ticked off the list of "has voted". That is the only pitfall. But I guess if people get used to that (gov. and the parties could do some awareness campaigns, and print that in red on the invitation to vote with the mail ballot) the mistake rate would go down.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1