Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Rebel HQ"
channel.
-
1
-
Of course the party of the Clintons will NOT change, the whole system is about the money (incl. the cushy positions for ex-politicians and the orders that result from massive campaign spending for consultants, and media ads).
Look at U.K. how the Neoliberal wing of Labour fought teeth and nail. The shenanigans of the neoliberal wing of Labour and the Clinton wing of the Democratic party are very similar - do handbooks exist "How to Neuter Progressives ?"
What saved Labor in the U.K. ? - after having lost the general elections in 2014 they gave the party members the possibility to vote directly for the party leadership. And they encouraged party membership (lowering the fee and promising they could vote the leader dirctly - BIG MISTAKE). The plebs jumped at the offer.
To be on the ballot for the internal leadership contest a candidate needed to have at least approx. 30 establishment party members as supporters.
Which Jermey Corby pulled off - just about and in the latest hour (literally: John McDonnell fervently begged some MPs for support like "We deserve a chance".)
Corbyn, the Progressive that had "survived" with the loyal grassroots support in his district for decades, like an U.S. Senator had been flying under the radar in Vermont for many years.
Little did the party, Tony Blair had molded into "New" Labour know what would follow. The members returned in droves to the party with the prospect of being able to vote FOR a Progressive, a representative of working people, the man that had lead the resistance against the Iraq War (and many other military adventures).
Plus he had the immediate support of major unions (being an authentic union guy himself).
The establishment was incredulous, shocked, plotted from the first day on when they had to accept him being elected as party leader (and with a convincing lead).
Media and party establishment colluded from then on to "misunderstand" him and to ridicule him.
MMT, the NHS, infrastructure investments, QE for the people - never mind - they discussed alleged mysoginy and antisemitism, and "did J.C. bow his head deep enough during the anthem (on Veteran's day) ?". Discuss everything, EVERYTHING, but the questions that the suffering plebs WORRY ABOUT.
They plotted against him after 1 year, tried underhanded tactics during that "chicken coup". They were challenging the sitting party leader and they did not want HIM to be on the ballot - the courts thought otherwise.
So they were restricted to purging the voter lists to the best of their ability (many of the very new members). For a short time closing down one of the oldest and strongest local organizations (Brighton) for allegedly misbehaving during a meeting (like the allegedly thrown chairs in Nevada).
Since the courts had decided that the sitting Party Leader - when challenged - MUST be given the opportunity to defend his position (and does not need any support to get on the ballot in the internal election) and since their rules already said that the membera could vote directly - Labour could not just overthrow the rules, they had in their books. Parties get public funding and are subject to the law - being organizations in the public interest, and all.
They would have needed to vote on any change of the rules. Well if 500,000 people recently have joined the party mostly because of Corbyn - that was a lost cause.
After the court decision they resigned themselves to losing again - which they did after a campaign during summer 2016.
(In hindsight: J.C. campaigned all summer in 2016 and got his message out, it might have been a blessing in disguise).
In late spring 2017 no doubt many well connected (and provided for) "Blairites" hoped the party under J.C. would go under in the snap election the governing party had surprisingly called. Then they could blame the debacle on him and get him to resign.
The regular Labour Members of Parliament however got desperate - THEY no matter if they liked J.C. or not - would have liked to keep their seats and it looked like Labour would be wiped out. The polling was very bad - but in desperation they for the first time unified behind the leader and came up with a progressive (and costed) manifesto (a party platform and they had made calculations about the costs of their proposals and how they would finance them).
The British TV networks are subject to "fairness" rules during general elections, so Corbyn could get the message and the new and costed manifesto out - which helped, now he was speaking about the message - before they were speaking about him (preferable him and not the issues).
Surprise, surprise Labour completely reversed the situation within 7 or 8 weeks, although they are in Parliamentary seats still behind the Conservatives - more than 50 seats less but in votes only 2 or 3 % less. It is like the popular vote versus won states in the U.S.
Labour did BETTER than in the election before, the campaign had enthusiastic support (young voters came out), and the Conservatives gambled away their narrow absolute majority (so instead of an increased majority they had to accept a questionable coalition partner or they could not even have formed a government again).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
M4A would only push most healthcare insurers OUT of business over the course of 4 years (they would merge, a few would survive with very reduced staff to cover supplemental, travel insurance - Supplemental should not be necessary if M4A coverage is comprehensive and they have the budgets to pay reasonable rates.
So consumers better pay out of pocket if and only if they want extras.
But some customers feel better when they have insurance for that.
Most is either medically necessary (then covered) or not. That leaves the single room, and better food as relevant offers for supplemental (single room can get pricey in some countries, but apart from that it is better to pay out of pocket, for instance if you want a better hearing aide, accupuncture. tests that are not covered - vitamin D status. Or consulting once a doctor that has a reputation as capacity and has no contract with the agency. That will not break the bank).
The U.S. health insurers will end the contracts with employees, clear the office space, sell the computers and STOP MAKING PROFITS. Mind you, they do not have any more costs either. they just liquidate and are out.
And their shares will go down in value to almost zero (who cares). Most Americans do not even have shares, those who have retirement plans etc. should have their investments diversified, not only shares and not only one sector. So for the overwhelming majority of Americans it will not matter.
That's the problem for the for-profit health insurers. No one will miss them. The employees will move on to jobs that PROVIDE VALUE.
People like Bloomberg have so much money that a small part of his fortune invested in pharma or health insurance is already a large amount. Well, we might have to start a charity for the poor dear.
There will be a transition phase anyway but the insurers lose more and more of the insured.
That is why all the M4A copycat candidates switched to public option proposals (lobbyists have been busy). That would keep the predatory profiteers relevant, they would lose insured but could keep the most lucrative group: the young and healthy.
The cherrypicking would allow them to make seemingly reasonably priced offers for these people. But the plans will be of course still be completely overpriced. You have to consider that 90 % of spending is caused by 10 % of the insured, the costly patients do not vanish they are just shoved over to the public pool. The predators are really good with purges already, no problem. Medicare agency will be villified as "too expensive".
Expect Corporate media to help with the propaganda (I currently live in a single payer country, you need to have the outsider perspective to fully appreciate HOW TERRIBLE, USELESS and MISSLEADING the "reporting" and "information" about all things related to for-profit healthcare or single payer is.
A person that "grasps" single payer is disqualified from working for MSM.
The insurers could use public option to undermine solidarity among the insured and start the campaign to undermine the public pool and any meaningful reform (already while it is rolled out and of course still more vulnerable).
A little defunding goes a long way if Medicare has the most costly patients: Over 65, and all high risks form the other age groups. If Medicare does not get enough budgets they will not be able to pay enough to doctors and hospital, so that all users have a good experience. So that most doctors and all hospitals have a contract and are IN the network of Medicare (for services free at the point of delivery).
That is the beauty (or danger - depends on which side you are on) of a concept like public option: it leads to a 2 class system and can be well used to undermine the offer of the public non-profit agency (like Medicare) on behalf of the rich. (The rich must help fund Medicare. Overpriced individual private healthcare coverage, but with reduced income taxes is still better for THEM).
No wealthy country has the public option, and with good reason. Some developing or emerging countries may have it - Chile maybe (I read a comment but did not verify).
Even if the insurance companies would be honest players: you get always ! more bang for your buck from a single payer agency if budgets and pool of insured are the same. More negotiating power, no costs for sales, marketing, no profits. Also: if there are so many different plans that adds administrative costs on all sides (insurer and the doctors and hospitals, that means they must be compensated with higher rates. Plus incentives to milk good plans, do unnecessary surgery, testing that does not lead to better outcomes, ...).
Consider that no other country has that kind of PREDATORY health insurance sector. Switzerland also relies solely on private insurers (the only other wealthy nation I know of). BUT: the Swiss have very strong provisons for direct democracy, it is easy to start referendums, which are binding, and they vote every few months and whatever has come up in the meantime.
They pay a LOT (78 % of the U.S. spending per person as opposed to 49 - 55 % in almost all other wealthy nations). But the strong direct impact of voters at least makes sure that they get good care and no one plays games with insured / patients. So it is expensive but at least good. In a nation where citizens have exceptionally high influence to straighten out their politicians and powerful industries - that is what a well regulated health insurance (and hospital) sector gets you. They are in the middle between the other nations and the excessive spending per person of the U.S.
(in 2017: U.S. 10,260 USD per person).
The private health insurance industry is often a fringe industry in other countries, with a few domestic players. Those insurers are not so keen on expanding that biz, it is complex, so a few have specialized, and they usually also do not lobby politicians.
Some countries prop them up to a degree - right or center-right governments that create ! a market for them. Australia, Netherlands and Germany. There is no good reason for that, other than handing a small part of the pie to the profiteers. But nothing like in the U.S., these companies are much better behaved (and would not get away with taking advantage of the insured.
It is like the U.S. would still have lots and lots of carriage builders - but they would not only be financed for something that is obsolete and does not provide value, additionally they would have undue power, create a lot of additional red tape and costs. And be toxic in general.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, it was NOT Antifa, they would have worn masks (even before the pandemic), and they also would not wear MAGA hats, they just wouldn't. They want to be associated (as a group) with their actions (they would show up for instance at a Trump rally and have a peaceful or not peaceful protest against Trump and his supporters. But they would certainly not impersonate Trumpists.
The Anti fascists assume the police and the FBI are out to get them, so they always have been hiding their faces, even before the pandemic.
The people that were so clueless, and so entitled, so sure they would not get into trouble that they recorded themselves, wore clothes with badges that made it easy to identify them, live streamed .... they are not used to being monitored by the FBI.
The stupidity also has to do with the mass psychosis - and antifa types would not have been so carried away by feeling elated, that they forget about the most basic precautions to hide their identity.
Wearing masks
Wearing generic clothes
having a burner phone or packing your phone up in a lead case. or taking out the battery.
Antifa types are usually not as stupid as Trump cultists. Violating property laws maybe. I am not sure they would attack the police like Trumpists did. They are not an organized group and there could be hooligans among them that just enjoy riots and even violence - but normally they do not attack humans.
1
-
1
-
1
-
the 1,5 TRILLIONS the Fed created for the speculators on the stock exchange on March 12th alone, would equal 4,5000 USD for every of the 330 million people in the U.S. (that would be 18,000 for a family of four).
To give perspective: the U.S. GDP for 2019 was between 20 and 21 trillions.
In 2009 citizens lost homes and jobs - while the banks were bailed out and LATER they got some more: Quantitative Easing (fancy name, also advertised as "asset swaps") so that they would not have to call it bailout, or subsidiy or GIFT.
Dodd Frank now allows the Fed to use QE w/o even consulting Congress and they do not need a bill. So no embarassing discussion, so that voters have time to notice, or that Corporate media will have to cover it at least a little bit. The more discussion, the longer it last the more likely that the give aways for banksters, speculators will be called out. Or that a politicians will make political hay and pose as defender of the little people (if only to win the next election).
SWIFT acting is KEY.
Independent media will cover those coups (at least partially) but they do not reach the masses, so it is safe for the ruling elistes to ignore their warnings, and protests.
If Fed acts swiftly no one is the wiser except for the insiders that profit, or the people that get their news from independent sources.
Fed: chair appointed by potus and the board staffed by the large banks. The too-large-to-fail banks - remember ?
Corporate media will say that Fed injected money into the "markets" - and they will move on quickly.
Wouldn't do to expose the speculators (this time it was the speculators, not the banksters that were getting the handout. Might involve some banksters of course, who knows who got the money.
NOW some rich people that did not have the approach of investors (so they would hold the shares and sit it out) have 1,5 trn on their accounts. If they were speculators they may have bought the overpriced shares with borrowed money, then they and /or the lenders would be in trouble (and they should be in trouble). Then they MUST sell at the currently low prices. They are not required to have the deposit to come up with the full purchasing prices. They are "writing on" for the large actors.
If you buy a lottery ticket or play in the casino, you must pay, the full amount for the chips and in adavance.
Moral hazard anyone ?
Now you would split the money (the 1,5 trillion for Wallstreet) differently, not 4,500 for eveyone right now (less for children), some for smaller biz, etc.
Could be that much and more if the crisis lasts longer, Sanders proposed 2,000 USD per month.
But if gives you an idea what is possible and FAST and before everyone else get something.
Some shareholders now have those 1,5 trn, it limited their losses or helped them make profits.
only 20 % of the U.S. population even have shares and ownership is heavily concentrated in the hands of the 1 % (even more so 0,1 %).
With an INVESTOR approach the buyers (or owners of companies) would be holding shares, just keeping them when the overpriced market drops (a correction was overdue). You need to be diversified and have some cash, bonds, precious metals, real estate anyway. If not - you have no business dabbling in the stock exchange
So ina few months, or 1 - 2 years the solid shares will recover.
But that prudent ! approach does not work for speculators THEY WANT the bailouts. And they got them, FAST and no strings attached.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Vamphaery - one of the dangers once it is passed is that "the Dark Forces" will tirelessly work to undermine and defund it. The Conservative Party in the UK were against the NHS since it was introduced after WW2 - and they have never really given up, even thought he UK was known for decades to have one of the most cost efficient systems in the world (for a First World Country).
Her inner circle had to make a massive intervention to keep Thatcher from trying to privatize it (she had promised the voters otherwise, but wanted to privatize it anyway, her advisers thought it would amount to political suicide and she yieled - I think they were right).
One must not underestimate the HATE of some of every institution that helps the little people and requires some solidarity funding from the affluent. And they have time - decades - and money (lobbyists, media bribed with ads) to get it done.
In the U.S. there were severe complaints about the VA and I think a lot of it has to do with not enough funding. - In the UK the Conservatives (who secreteley detest the idea that such a major part of the economy is non-profit) started cutting the already lean budgets of the NHS. They acted on: Never let a good crisis go to waste.
After the bank bailout and the economic downturn they seized their chance with austerity to defund the NHS and other welfare systems. I was perplexed how the Brits put up with it. After all they had experienced a systems that worked fairly well - and with a lean budget. Well, most newspapers are Yellow Press and belong to very rich people, and "New" Labour follows mostly neoliberal principles, so they did not find much fault with the cuts (they were for cuts Lite).
The Tories actually have rammed through a partial privatization. Needless to say it is MORE expensive and creates extra hassle and drains a system already on breaking point even more. - Only with the rise of Jeremy Corbyn and the Progressives / traditional Labour who are taking back the party, Labour as opposition party now calls the Conservatives out on their B.S. and the rallies are getting bigger. So I hope having dared to attack the NHS will contribute to the defeat of the Conservatives.
All in all: whenever a country allows a 2 tier system, options, additional packages that can/must be bought, the system gets more unequal, more bureaucratic, there are more options to rig the system (for-profit). Middle class people will (grudgingly) buy the extra insurance, or pay out of pocket so that they are well covered. And will be quite complacent about the defunding of the basic system of the lower income people.
That is what happened to the VA. Despite all the patriotic rhetoric. Once the former soldiers are at home they are a financial burden if they need a lot of treatment, they have no lobby. They are easily forgotten. Talk is cheap. Soldiers with PTSD or protheses do not have the lobbyists working tierlessly for them. The only thing that saves them, is the high regard the military has in the population, so Congress was shamed into some better funding a few years ago (Jon Stewart trolling representatives why they would not pass a bill securing funding - a bill that was ready).
It is very advisable to NOT let the wealthier part of the population buy themselves out into a better system. They are the ones who will be asked to contribute more (in a solidarity based system where the premiums depend on income not on risk - where funding comes from payroll deductions and/or taxes).
So if there is only one system for all, and they already pay more - they will DEMAND that the system works well. They will guarantee the quality of the system, while the sheer numbers of patients and the very simple design (same coverage for everyone) takes care of the cost efficiency.
(That is pretty much how it works in my country. And as employers and employees have the same percentage of wage to pay into the system, and small and large businesses pay the same rate - the whole country has an interest that the system provices GOOD care - at reasonable ! costs. Only Big Pharma is not in the same boat).
If the wealthy can and must ! buy an upgrade to get decent care, the whole system becomes more inefficient and expensive (see Australia, Germany where 10 % have private plans, vs. 90 % with public option, I think also theDutch have a 2 tier system, and the Swiss system with a high private component is even more expensive than the U.S. system)
The moment there is "differentiation" there must be more administration, there will be an additional incentive to apply treatments that are not necessary but will be covered by the better plans (an opportunity to make more money), the extra profits for more players must be covered etc.
So middle class and affluent people will end up with higher costs for 2 reasons - the solidarity contribution AND the additional inefficiency of the 2 tier system - and will resist their taxes that are necessary to keep the basic system for the "others".
DIVIDE AND CONQUER.
So there will be political pressure (especially in the U.S. with their me,me, mine and anti-tax culture) to cut funding (or to not raise it according to necessity) . After all they pay so much with the extra insurance packages, why should they help out the others on top of that....
When all have the SAME GOOD system, they know at least what they are paying for and are aware that the moment funding is cut, it ALSO undermines THEIR care.
The same game is also played in education. If solid middle class people in the U.S. have to make sacrifices so their kids must not go into the public schools (which objectively may be sub par), they will have little sympathy for the funding of the schools in poor neighbourhoods.
Of course in countries like Sweden ALL schools are well funded, so they are good enough even for upper middle class folks. So no extra spending needed for private schools. That helps with the consensus in society - from low to higher income people - that public schools MUST REMAIN WELL FUNDED.
1
-
@kekwayblaze3176 Socialism and the free ride works just fine for the rich. They got money thrown at them. When it is business as usual with help of the and the monetary system (World reserve currency/petro dollar helps the oligarchs much more than the citizens. The FIAT curreny also has been adapted to favor the upper class. Same with the "free" "Trade" deals and tax (evasion) polices.
In the Great Financial Crisis first they got the bank bailouts then QE for the banks. Plus the bailout for Big Auto.
But heaven forbid there would be QE for The People.
Or even cost-efficient !!! healthcare like in Europe (which would mean LESS profit for the industry but would be good for society at large).
Outside the U.S. they pay 55 - 65 % of the U.S. expenditures per person in the wealthy nations.
The per capita healthcare expenditures in the U.S. would be even higher if everyone had coverage and got timely care as is usual in all other wealthy countries. The term means ALL that is spent in the country divided by number of people).
65 % of the U.S. expentitures (of all that is spent in the U.S.) is paid for by government, anyway.
That is not as bad as it sounds (it would be O.K. if the prices in the system would be at a reasonable level !)
Medicare is a public system (the citizens pay into it with wage deductions, it is not just a "handout", at least a part comes from direct contributions).
People over 65 cause of course on average much higher healthcare expenditures, including medical drugs and treatments in hopsitals.
But Medicare is legally prevented from negotiating drug prices.
Other countries have only non-profit public hospitals (run by cities, the large ones by states), or they have at least plenty of them as benchmark / competition for strictly regulated "private" hospitals (which means usually church run coming form a charity tradition).
There is no private for-profit hospital industry (large corporations) like in the U.S.
Those properly funded ! good non-profit public hospitals were not set up in the U.S. because politicians could not be bothered to do it (and later they were bribed to prevent inconvenient GOOD competition for the profiteers).
55 - 65 %. Small or large nations, it does not matter. Only 44 % in the U.K. - but they have intentionally defunded their system.
Like in the U.S. the governments in countries with single payer systems must provide plenty of funding additionaly to the individual contributions . Most of the individual contributions come from wage and pension deductions, ALL employers must match them) Those job related contributions are very affordable to not burden the citizens and comapnies too much.
The extra and substantial (as share of the whole budget !) funding however goes into a streamlined, cost-efficient system with little overhead. And it does not fund much profits either - the only big and powerful for-profit player is Big Pharma. Medical drugs are very standardized, international comparable substances - so it is possible to contain Big Pharma in the price negotiations even though they are powerful.
A reasonable president / Congress working for The People would not just have bailed out Big Auto in 2009. They would have insisted on getting SHARES and ownership in exchange - like a private investor would have demanded. That or let them go bankrupt and pick the facilties up (a corporation is a legal constructions, what counts for job is plants, workforce, patents, brands, copyrights, distribution networks).
Ownership and the vote could have been handed over to a trust of the workers - the vote being tied to having a job in the company (so not like usual shares). So when a person leaves the company they pass on the ownership and the VOTE.
Then they would not be able to close down shop in the U.S. and outsource. Like they recently decided to do in the U.S. and Canada.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robotron17 You conveniently forget the severe long term damage (it is not only deaths), the average 50,000 USD per hospital stay (many would be avoidable, and 4 days and some oxygen in a normal bed does not cost that much). You ignore the risk that the light cases pose for others (the infected pass it on to more vulnerable persons even IF they recover well and have no major symptoms.
There is a group of people that are high risk, and they also tend to not get good immunity out of the shots, not even vaccination can protect them from getting severe cases, even needing intensive care.
That is what we see no in the ICU's: high risk vaccinated (they tried to protect themselves) and low risk unvaccinated that could have avoided to be there.
for THEM the vaccine would have been a good protection, for high risk persons it can fail. Delta is much more contagious, it FINDS the vulnerable among the unvaccinated and vaccinated.
And a breakthrough infection is not the same as a severe case for unvaccinated. The breakthrough infections for all but the most vulnerable (over 80 and other risks) are harmless, usually they do not even require a hospital stay, certainly not intensive or longer care.
And if the vaccination protection was imperfect (but good enough to ward off the worst) - the breakthrough acts as booster. For immune systems that are slow learners.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Unknown record of Sanders: He was also one of the very few with some profile that endorsed the Jesse Jackson presidential campaign - Jackson WON Vermont in the primary (which was big, because that is a very white state) and then he continued to have surprising wins in the South.
He did not win the primary, but he was more than a footnote (compare that with for instance Martin O'Malley in the 2016 primary, most people spontanuously only remember Clinton and Sanders being in the race).
Independent mayor Sanders arranged for an appearance at a convention / event of the Vermont Democratic party and made the case (as non Democrat) that the Democratic party of Vermont should decide to endorse outsider Jackson. In a very white state.
That event was hostile / unfriendly territory for Sanders, the party machine despised him for decades (now they are cool).
He had ousted a mayor that was a big number in the VT party (hierarchy) in 1980 and then he ran as third major (and increasingly competitive) candidate in several races for higher office (while being a popular mayor).
In the last race that Sanders ever lost in Vermont - in 1988 for Congress - the Democratic candidate was the spoiler who handed the victory to the Republican. the D candidate had plus 20 %, R had over 35 % but closely followed by Sanders.
The national DNC then gave in: they would not help or finance a Democratic candidate anymore in a race in Vermont in which Sanders run against a Republican - provided he would caucus with them after winning the seat.
For the DNC he was almost as good as a Democrat: he obviously COULD win against Republicans in a 2 candidate race and needed no or little money from them. And sure enough: he won the Nov. 1990 election for Congress and every race in Vermont since then.
(They have a tradition in Vermont to have Independent outsiders running in many of the races. But usually it comes down to 2 or 3 candidates with a realistic chance to win a significant share of the vote = at least in the lower double digits).
But that arrangement on the national level did not endear Sanders to the Vermont Democratic party and people with ambitions for Congress or other higher office. (He had run for govenor, Congress and Senate, always against a Democrat and a Republican - so he had annoyed them for a long time).
Now they get along well and he fundraises for them etc. - but back in the day Sanders had to achieve to get the permission to speak at that event, he had to muster determination and had to persuade the state party (the base) at that event to make such an unusual endorsement. For an outsider candidate like Jackson.
The mood was tense and there were boos against Sanders (I am not sure: I seem to remember he was hit by an elderly lady after he left the stage. That had nothing to do with Jackson, and all to do with deep rooted dislike of Sanders. The old guard has left Vermont politics, and the younger people in the Vermont D party have not all scores to settle with Sanders, so now they get along fine).
In the end his arguments convinced (the base), the state party decided to endorse Jackson, and Jackson won Vermont in the primary.
This was national news - the black outsider had won in a very white state.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1