Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "CNBC"
channel.
-
33
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
11
-
@after1001 Charity - at a large scale (done or "needed") is deeply undemocratic. What wealthy democracies should aspire to is the RIGHT to have well funded PUBLIC non-profit SERVICES that are put in place by the ELECTED representatives..
Example: Denmark, Sweden, Germany, France, Japan, .....: there citizens are ENTITLED to get an affordable childcare spot for their child.
The units are often non-profits run by communities. Or by religious institutions running if FOR the community, they may be allowed to make a small profit even.
And no charity is needed for those services. They have a consistent quality, the caretakers are trained in PUBLIC institutions. Especially in the Nordic countries and in Japan they are really good. (Denmark: care takers are well paid and well trained, the units have nice equipment and materials. In Denmark and Norway the Forest Kindergardens become increasingly popular. Children spending most of their time outdoors, climbing trees, using swings, building something, sliding through the mud, rain, snow, using knives, .... happy, socially connected and rosy).
. the choice is not left to rich people and profitable companies whether they would rather fund that, something else or nothing at all. The tax is collected.
Either way: that is financed by federal and state taxes that are distributed throughout the country (so poorer regions do not have disadvantages regarding budgets for schools. The budget does not only depend on the finances of the state or the taxes they raise on property or other local taxes and fees).
If the general welfare needs "charity" that means rich persons can avoid paying taxes. And instead of the elected representatives deciding what to do with tax revenue - some overlords decide which projects, persons, religious affiliation !! THEY think are worth getting funding.
(That is my problem with too much religious charity).
Charity gives a small number of persons undue power, usually over people in need. But even in art or for schools and universities I am against it: they can support an artist by purchasing their work.
But what kind of theater, opera, library, university (or research AT a university) or museum a city is going to have should be decided by the community not by a rich person wanting to avoid paying taxes which would also much rather see their name on a building.
And all of that applies even IF the intentions are benign and it is not only a social duty of the rich and powerful (and an ego stroking exercise).
The Bill Gates Foundation skews the dynamics in an undemocratic way, and they are above critique (even if it would be necessary !) because they throw so much shade.
They may be well-intentioned - but they would need to get every detail right. No one is in that position. But the huge amounts of money they throw around shield them from feedback and they also skew the system and balance in the communities they engage in - whether they want that or not
Never mind that charity has never been ENOUGH and will never be enough.
Sanders fights for everyone having that much that not much charity is NEEDED. And he gives his time and platform. Which does more good than giving money.
That said: I think he has a frugal streak, which may be another reason he does not give much to charity.
He invests conservatively and may not part easily with money once he's got some (apart from spending in on real estate. Not on fancy cars, wine, wives and song. No mistresses and shady lawyers to pay either.
That frugality also showed in his work as mayor. He was looking for inefficiencies and holy cows of the former long term mayor to find the money for worthwhile projects (snow ploughing ALSO in the low income areas for instance, or fixing the roads, or a yough center). There was some raising of taxes as well.
10
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
French GPs seem ! to earn approx. half of U.S. doctors 112k versus 218,000 USD. - Which contradicts the claim that a country cannot have good quality care if doctors have "only" reasonable but good wages / income. (The French doctors could go to the French part of Switzerland where they pay good wages, lern German and practice everywhere in Switzerland, or they could go to the U.S. or the Emirates, or Saudi Arabia - but for the most part they seem to be content and they stay in France.
A doctor COULD do without the contract and offer the services only for privately insured patients or for paying out of pocket. BUT: the services available for everyone are good and comprehensive and waiting times are not long, so they really have to offers something special. Either they are a capacity in the field, or they have a speciality like accupuncture - usually a track record of happy patients.
I assume in France too the advertising for everything that is medically relevant is VERY restricted if not outright forbidden (I know the situation in Germany and Austria, there that it is the case and I suspect it is the same in all of the EU).
There is a culture of word of mouth recommendation among the patients, even for the very affordable services. And the more expenisive "private" services definitely need those content patients spreading the word, or they will not have enough patients.
That is not manipulated by the doctors at all - it is a culture. The patients know that this is the only way you can hear about good doctors. So if you were happy with how the hospital treated you (or not at all) your family or friends will hear about it. If you announce that you will need eye surgey or a hip replacement or a dental implant - you will hear about experiences.
So those doctors who have a "private" practice tend to provide extra value. And can then of course make more money.
As for higher costs in the U.S. for medical school - those are paid back quickly when they earn double year after year. The average GP in France gets 112,000 per year versus 218,000 in the U.S. Not sure why the insurance costs for malpractice would play a role ?
Is that gross revenue of a practice before deducting costs ? That is almost impossible, there is rent, the wage of the assistent, equipment, heating, professional representation ("Chamber" of doctors).
And if it is income before taxation then the COST of doing business (like wages or insurance) were already deducted.
The French practice would save massively on adminstrative costs, because billing is so much more streamlined and the doctors does not lose time on the phone fighting with insurance companies. (It would be interesting to compare the work times - incl. the 5 weeks holiday that are standard in France.
doctors that are employed with a hospital do not have to pay that insurance out of pocket the institution covers the costs for insurance (and they would not be called GP)
3
-
2
-
Competition: you cannot compete in a meaningful manner with a standardized service like medical care or ADMINISTRAION AROUND medical care (insurance coverage is admin !), a service that leans heavily towards NATURAL MONOPOLY. All health insurers are paper shufflers and middle men, there is no creativity, sales genius, product diversification, innovation.... necessary or possible. 100 German non-profits for the mandatory single payer style coverage will not get a better deal than a small number of public non profit insurance agenciee ("single" payer). And of course they and the "private" insurance for the few affluent (roughly 10 %) all add to the red tape and the admin costs.
Compare that with 16 "single" payer agencies in Austria. The high number can be explained as the quirk of a historically grown system (like in Germany). The have agencies per state and than some for certain professions. They cooperate, coordinate, even help each other out with budgets, etc.
Sure a few more management posts (for former politicians), but it does not really matter compared to the full volume of spending (also 9 - 11 % of GDP, the few mangement salaries do not make a dent).
Austria spends 54 % of what the U.S. is spending per person, versus 56 % of Germany. So their system is more cost-efficient than the German - and both nations are on the higher end of the average for a rich nation. (Age structure is comparable). The U.S. spending = 100 % was 10,260 USD - data 2017.
Most wealthy countries spend roughly half per person compared to the U.S., and usually they have an older population (age is a major spending driver).
The neoliberal Bertelsmann Foundation has criticized that Germany has too many small hospitals and advocated for shutting them down. (the small communities are often run by conservatives so the conservatives in government = Merkel did not touch it, the mayors and their base would riot, even the states run by conservatives did not want to touch it, you could lose elections over that).
Austria has the inefficiency of having too many ICU beds.
Those points of criticism did not age well. Too many ICU beds is a good problem to have.
Competition and product diversification work for CONSUMER products, where the consumers have different needs, tastes, and we allow that not everyone can afford them. So very unlike like standardized, first-world medicine.
And the private for profit insurers that offer full coverage for the affluent - here abbreviated with PHI - have a cherrypicked pool. They can and will reject the higher risk patients. They burden the non-profits with the higher cost, higher risk patients. those non-profits miss out on the good contributions of the higher income earners (if they are young / healthy).
The best clients are resevered for the private for profits.
Competition is an illusion in healthcare, the free market does not work when the consumers have by far the weakest position of all actors.
Competition obviously does not do anything to improve a service that NEEDS so many government rules.
2
-
2
-
2
-
No, the threshhold is also not 60,000 USD it is 94,000 or 96,000 EURO * before taxes, that is roughly 100,000 USD. * Seriously ? WHO factchecks those "information" videos. And no, they cannot go to any doctor only those who have a contract and accept publicly insured patients (which are plenty so it is not the network circus like i the U.S.
* Edit: That is before taxes . Payroll tax or Insurance premiums (SHI or PHI) reduce the base for taxation. One reason why it can be interesting for healthy persons with good income to opt out and to switch to "private" insurance.
I have that number from an official site, but maybe the 60k number is wage minus max. insurance ?
you also have to know that the Germans typically have more than 12 wages per year. They get "holiday bonus". It is not a legal provision but a part of all collective bargaining contracts between unions and that sector of employment / industry - but most Germans (and Austrians) do not even know that not everyone has the 13 or 14 salaries.
In Austria they have the summer and winter salary (vacation and Christmas money). Domestic workers miss out on that. Bank staff get 16 wages per year (they end up where the other profession are with their 14, they just get it every quarter).
Maybe they took the monthly salaries and only multiplied with 12 ? Still does not add up, 60,000 USD is less in Euro !
All hospitals are open for all patients (de facto they all need to accept the contracts of public agencies or they would not have enough patients. and if they have acontract they cannot discriminate).
But many doctors and specialists with a practice try to not have the publicly insured. If they get away with it, because they can get enough private insured patients.
Think urban areas, or areas where there are many affluent citizens or many civil servants and teachers (capital Berlin for instance). Their employer pays a better rate, and they can by default opt out and switch to "private" even if they do not earn 94,000 Euro.
it is not the "self-employed" that also are allowed to opt out (or stay with "public" if they want to), I seem to remember it is certain groups of self-employed that are expected to make good money over the course of their career. Lawyers, architects, civil engineers, ...
So the self-employed garden landscaper rather not (I am not 100 % sure on that point).
They also allow students (university) to opt out of public insurance.
Might make sense if they come from an affluent background and their family is also privately insured, ....
No income limit for the student in that case. - That is a nod to the insurers to get younger people into the pool before the even make good money.
A degree does not guarantee the well paying job, but if they come from the right background they are going to land a good job, and if not, the parents can help to pay the premiums if they find the cushy job.
2
-
U.S. cars do not have the reputation of being high quality or being energy efficient. so the only thing that was left was price (and Opel the German brand they bought neglected to find its profitable niche, so they were already a problem child, that was the reason GM could buy them in the first place, but of course GM could not add to their value).
The gas suzzlers that can be sold in the U.S. would not fly in Europe.
Moreover the conditions for borrowing money to finance cars are much more restrictive / protective. The U.S. has 1,5 trillion student debt, 1 trillion credit card debt, plenty of mortgages - and a car loan bubble.
I also read a comment of an U.S. citizen saying that he has a SMALL old FORD truck for the landscaping business. They hold the price well - they do not SELL them anymorre in the U.S.
Of course Europeans and Japanese would be eager to sell them, but the U.S. producers do not offer them at all, so if you need a pick up truck in the U.S. you are stuck with what the "market" offers. (protected by tariffs etc.).
The U.s. car manufacturers never had the competition that is normal in Europe so they are not challenged to come up with innovation.
Energy efficiency is valued (even by buyers of high end cars). That takes engineering know-how. The high end market is dominated by the Germans, there are plenty of passenger car producers.
The Japanese could enter the market with QUALITY and good price - the U.S. cars cannot compete.
Opel used to be a solid (but not sophisticated) brand in the past (think the 1970s). VW does well in the niche of the reasonable family car - and Opel lost out (not sure how they are faring now - likely they will do better with the French know-how).
Because there are so many countries in Europe there were many native brands (Spain with Seat), France had five (Peugeout, Renault and Citroen - and then there were SIMCA and Bugatti) - btw the reporter could not even be bothered to pronounce the names correctly).
Germany had several (BMW, Mercedes, Ford, Opel). Then we have Italy with the luxury sports car brands and FIAT. The UK had brands, and the Swedes had two companies as well (Saab, Volvo - and even a company called Koenigsegg - the two companies Saab and Volvo were the known brands they had a good reputation btw, but pricey)
I am sure I forgot some, never mind the Eastern European manufacturers (Skoda for instance).
I think in the seventies the Japanese entered the European market - very successfully - and ever since there has been a concentration process going on.
They kept the names of the brands but they were bought up.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@niconois The French government and UK and Hillary Clinton lobbied the Obama admin to regime change Libya in 2011. As usual with a humanitarian pretext that turned out to be a lie. (see Iraq war 1991 incubator lie, see the lies about imminent threat of genocide in Yugoslavia, or the lie about mass rapes with the help of viagra in Libya, or false flags in Syria. The UN report for 2017 came out recently. No the government didn't do it).
Libya was a stable relatively wealthy secular dictatorship. Now it is a failed state, with open borders, slave markets (literally), and the U.S. approved government controls the capital -if they are lucky.
Libya being destroyedopened the routes from Africa to Europe. The French water companies like the huge aquifer, they have gone, the huge gold reserves have vanished. The very modern irrigation system was the first thing NATO bombed.
Especially France did not like the idea that Libya would create a Gold backed currency for Africa, a dinar. France (well the ruling class) still gets the colonial itch.
France is also on board with the regime change attempt of Syria (another humanitarian and refugee crisis). U.S. UK Saudia Arabia, Qatar, France Turkey, Israel planned the proxy war against Syria.
This was NOT a civil war. Jihadists were sent to infiltrate the country, many are not Syrians.
See the interview of Roland Dumas Foreign Minister under Sarkozy when he was asked if the French wanted to join the British in a regime change effort. (the clip is on youtube that was 2009, 2 years before the Arab spring and before the troubles started in Syria. They have had a major draught, and under the secular surface there were undercurrents anyway (contained by the regime). The regime changers just had to bide their time when disgruntled farmers (usually Sunnis and much more religious and conservative) streamed into the cities, and when the economy got more difficult.
But the plan goes back much longer. A few weeks after 9/11 (a dusted off plan from the 1990s when the same neocons were at large under Bush 1 as later under Bush2).
See General Wesley Clark: 7 countries in 5 years. "We will take out 7 countries in 5 years: starting with Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, finishing off Iran." That was in autumn 2001, in 2002 / and 2003 the Bush admin started beating the war drums against Iraq with the lie about Weapons of Mass Destruction (that is one thing that Sarkozy and Schroeder got right, they knew it was b.s.)
The neoliberal EU was not good for the Eastern European countries. They were not given time and somewhat sheltered conditions (like Western Europe after WW2) to catch up. They were used as competition against the workers in the richer countries.
The EU also strongarms the African countries to accept "free" trade deals. They need the possibiltiy to sell their products (like flowers, fruits, cotton,... ) in Europe of they will never get on their feet. In exchange they are practically forced to allow heavily subsidized agricultural products from Europe on the African markets.
Guess where the ruined small African farmers show up .....
That would be something that Germany, France and U.K. should fix. But no foresight, only greed and serving the special interests.
if we pay so much for subsidized agriculture it could as well be for good food, not destroying the soil, practices that use less energy (climate change: for instance fertilizers use, binding CO2 to the soil) and do not create the migrant waves.
2
-
It is crucial to leave the vulnerable ecosystems of the tropical rainforest (lots of rain depletes them off nutrients and the rain washes out the soil if the trees vanish) and the boreal rain forests of Canada, Sweden, Finland, Siberia, ... alone.
In the cold regions the ecosystem is vulnerable because the growing season is short. (At least the problem of nutrients being washed out is not as big. The bulldozers that "harvest" the trees are very destructive for the soil, they compress it.
It is not like a wildfire or if a snow storm or the weight of lots of wet snow / freezing rain takes out a part of the trees. There the nutrients (ash, rotting wood) stays in the system and supports other vegetation and animals, the soil is NOT compressed by heavy machines so new seedlings can shoot up fast. Decaying wood also supports a lot of animals, and the nutrients are not lost.
A wildfire, or storms also regenerates the forest, humans logging it down are destructive. Logging can be done when it is selective, and preferably when the regrowing process is helpend with planting trees. (there are projects to drop seedlings from planes). But some forests should not see any logging at all.
Only in the temperate climate zone (typically first world nations) we have the conditions to harvest wood on an ongoing base, not that much rain, long enough growing season, more nutrients in the system (and could be replenished).
But there labor is more expensive, and typically they do not have the huge trees (those have been harvested centuries ago).
So they go for the easy and cheap harvest in the ancient tropical and boreal rainforests.
2
-
2
-
2
-
GROWING forests also take out a lot of carbon from the air (in mature ! forests there is a balance). Remember the pictures of burning Notre Dame ? the French called the wooden roof underconstruction "the "forest": represented a forest of 13,000 oak trees nearby Paris. Some trees date from 1200 or even earlier - so they started growin around 800 - 900 (A.D. !) So that carbon had been stored for more than 850 years - and if they had installed sprinkler system it would be still in place.
There are still existing ! timber frame houses in Europe that were built around 1300 / 1400. They have been restaurated and are still used.
These days they have developed technologies to build 5 - 6 storeys high buildings from wood (likely with a lot of particle boards in the walls and flooring).
Some years ago an olden wooden oak bridge from ? 1300 went up in flames in Switzerland.
particle boards contain shreddered wood, OSB contains MORE wood and is more expensive.
Furniture could be built with wooden boards (it must consist of small stripes glued together in alternating order - to counteract warping). Such furniture would be much more robust, it is easier to restaurate by laypersons. and the solid material would make it worth your while to maintain or build something new from it.
Solid wood is easier to handle by persons that have not have a garage or a lot of equipment (for instance if you make a cut you will have a nice even border. If you cut particle board you have to add a border - which is not that easy if you do not have the equipment. You have more "meat" to screw things together (some dowels glued in after setting up a cabinet in a provisory manner with screws will considerably add to stability - no need to .
Wooden floors have only a thin veneer on the surface - because the wood is too expensive.
How about we would use more REAL wood in construction and for furniture. Worst case scenario: it is thrown out and now one wants to pick up the good boards and use them for a project. In this case they would be BURNT (in a specialized plant at high temperatures - that takes care of the coating, and paint and other chemicals - with good filters. Such plants are common ! in Germany and Austria. Furniture and construction materials do no land at the landfills, the citizens have to SORT them (only then the costs for disposal will be reasonable, it costs an arm and a leg if you do not sort, that is even true if they tear down a building).
Those power plants do not only generate electricity but also heat - warm water and for heating. That way they can use over 60 % of the fuel - an efficiency a smaller furnce or a wooden stove cannot achieve.
Those new forests should be grown in the TEMPERATE climate zone. and be taken care of by farmers and in SMALL units. No harvesters (they are a desaster).
The boreal forests and the rain forests that are currently plundered (or burnt down for the insanity of palm oil plantation or "bio fuel") must be left alone. They are too vulnerable (in the cold the trees grow only slowly and the harvesters are a disaster for the ecosystem and soil.
In the rainforest the downpours wash away the nutrients. Moreover the strategy of nature to deal with the lack of nutrients is extreme diversification (that is why the Amazon is the most complex ecosystem in the world. The African and Asian rainforest got some injection of volcanic ash - but with the Amazon that strategy was take to the extreme.
There a countless species (plants animals) - but often only in a certain area AND each species shows up only in small numbers. so there may be only a few trees of a certain kind in an area. If those areas are cut down - there go the species (many of them are not even known to scientist yet, let alone that they have been researched).
So we lose that treasure trove of nature and all options it would offer (a certain poison of a frog, a substance in a plant - that may be of medical interest). Or the "design" of an insect or of a surcace that could inspire engineers (like they did research on the lotus effect or were interested in the skin of sharks and dolphins and how that helped them to swim fast with as little energy as possible).
If they brutally cut down the trees in the temperate climate zone and even compress the soil by using harvesters - these forests will recover. Natural forests in the temperate climate zone are also diverse, stable and beautiful - but it is nothing compared to the diversity of the rainforests. (that is because they get more nutrients and there IS soil that builds up. In the Amazon soil is washed out.
After a cut-down or a wildfire (which does not even revmove the nutrients - nettles and grass will keep most of the ash in the soil) - they will bounce back without help of humans. That can of course be speeded up considerably.
There is enough rain, so the trees will prevail, there are enough nutrients, and it is warm enough to overcome the disadvantage of the damaged soil if harvesters are used (and the soil is thicker). Shrubbery and nettles will pierce the soil and then the trees will take over in a second wave. After 100 years they forest will have recovered (or not even that long).
Cut down rainforests doe not recover in original form at all !
1
-
1
-
Klobuchar in Sep. 2019: "149 million Amercians will not have private insurance. I do not think that is a bold, it is a bad idea." That think tank talking point aged especially BADLY. Wasn't sane even then (well she was lying on behalf of big donors), it is an old idea: most nations do it at least since the end of WW2, and the rich ones spend roughly half per person compared to the U.S.
Most people mange to transition to "government run" * healthcare without worry when they are 65 years and finally ! are eligible for Medicare (acutally many are very eager to get it).
I have yet to notice the handwringing how they "lose" their private insurance. they lose it when they lose the jobs (pandemic unemployment crisis). They lose it or have to accept a change whenever their employer changes the policy (or is forced, the insurers "fire" companies that are not profitable for them, they do so be raising premiums, co-pays, deductibles,.... or they cannot include family members anymore).
The insurers are not going to do that with Microsoft, of Walmart, but with small to medium sized companies (if they offer healthcare at all).
"government run" does not really apply: the insurers is a middle man, private healthcare insurers are glorified paper shufflers. The public non-profits are doing just a much better job. And they do not screw the insured to maximize profits for the shareholders.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1