Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "David Pakman Show" channel.

  1.  @SG-xe1mv  The problem with Thatcher was that she had kitchen table economics ideas and ignored economic history. That she destroyed a part of the country to stick it to the other party (and their base). And LIED. A LOT. She lied about not going after the NHS (her inner circles implored her). Her police lied and framed miners. She sold off publicly owned housing to the lucky long term renters (thus getting their votes) and promised that would not result in a net loss of public housing. Of course that was a lie, too. They wanted to privatize the very successful project, they had to give the voters a few bones and in the future the landlord class (her buddies) could get those assets.
    1
  2.  @SG-xe1mv  Thatcher for tribal reasons undermined manufacturing in the country (they have unions and vote Labour so screw them). From an economic standpoint that is the original sin of Thatcher and Reagan. The economy was "financialized" (= lots of speculation, because what was needed in banking servies and to finance the REAL economy had existed before already. The banks had financed the Golden Era after WW2 after all.
    1
  3.  @SG-xe1mv  Thatcher also had no clue of FIAT MONEY and money creation. Her financialized economy can only hang on because money is created by the trillions. But it goes up to the top.
    1
  4. In an ideal world Sanders would be president, would deliver on economic populism, and the deluded would shut up. I think the uglies and the stupid are always among us, but when the economy works well they usually do not create a lot of problems.
    1
  5. exacerbate - to make something worse
    1
  6. The country does have a press and media - and most of them are very supportive of the opposition (near to the haves in Venezuela). And they can publish - at least when Abbey Martin was in the country recently.
    1
  7. I do not get why David thinks the libertarian vote would even be an legal argument. Last time I checked it is allowed to run under a ticket that is not D or R - and voters are allowed to vote for other parties as well.
    1
  8. Politco said those gestures "restore" the country (I disagree but it is not important). Well if Politico says it it makes it true and relevant for the country. - I would not even judge the president on his ability to be a good husband / father, nice eprson to be around. LBJ likely was an a-hole. Knew where politicians had their skeletons. Being from Texas and considering the time he grew up, he must have had some racial bias. He was the right bulldog to push through the Civil and Voting Rights Act. And not being "nice" was part of how he got the job done. W/o the Vietnam escalation (and not forcing Nixon to drop out of the race when he had evidence for TREASON - in the moral if not in the legal sense) - LBJ would be a GREAT president. Jacky Kennedy recalls that JFK did not like him either (Can you imagine him EVER being president, that would be really bad ... of course there was likely intense rivalry. JFK had chosen him as running buddy to win Texas and the South, to make up for the disadvantage of being a Catholic. There are long recordings made not long after the death of JFK - to document the time in the White House and her marriage / political life before she would forget - that were published by the Kennedy family (prematurely) in recent years in order to give the public insight, she also had negative things to say about MLK. Maybe she wasn't all the sweet Souther Belle. Within a year of the assassination her official statements about the new president were polite and positive. Seems like his way to do condolences and check in on the widow were tone deaf to put it midldy. Normally those recordings from the 1960s would still be kept from the public, but the family or an heir (Caroline ?) decided to publish them earlier than was planned when these recordings were made. Being a good family man / woman says something about the person - but a persident might not be nice in person and STILL get a lot of good done. FDR and Eleanor were not happily married. She was in charge of the cook, and denied him good food (which he loved). he cheated and she was pissed (that was supposedly her way to get revenge). FDR had a mistress, JFK and LBJ had mistresses.
    1
  9. A nephew has gotten diabetes 1, he is a young teenager. Getting a cesarian. People died of an infected apendix (one relative had almost a rupture at age 19, it was an unpleasant week, it was sure death back in the day). An uncle had a very severe pneumonia at age 40, might have died back in the day, was bad enough with modern medicine, but he recovered. One in 20 women died due to pregnancy or birth before modern medicine. An older relative (over 80 now): Does not drink, smoke, eats well, is slim, has been eating lots of raw garlic for his health for decades, and is exceptionally fit and active, - did not help with his vessels, he needed a stent around 75, and had a stomach rupture 2 years ago. He is back again, and has the reserves to recover well, but he would have died 5 years ago.   Instead he is likely just waiting for back to normal, so he can be out and about.
    1
  10. Republican leaning voters usually do not care beyond their social circle and they do not think in abstractions or expand compassion to the abstract other. So they soften towards gay marriage when a close family member comes out. They have the secret abortion (for them it is different). They catch CoVid19 and need the hospital and then they renounce their former anti mask stance. Some don't come around even then: a nurse reported frustrated in Dec. they yell at me, but still deny this could be CoVid19. The nurses of course know it is corona, they have tested the person. they yell at her until they cannot yell anymore and she knows they most likely will not make it.
    1
  11. Republican voters have other values: they care about obedience and loyalty. Loyalty would be the thing to alienate them from Trump, he has broken promises of his 2016 campaign: healthcare, reduced pharma prices - that convinced the step father of + Kevin Higgins. Trump could have dragged the Dems in Congress and the Repubs in Senate to at least do something about pharma prices. And that does not need the big systemic overhaul. The step likely paid attention to the campaign promise of Trump in 2016 to lower drug prices, so he noticed that broken promise. Economic advantages count for Republicans. Also prudence and putting resources to good use (some do). So that would ALSO help with Green New Deal, energy efficiency. Some Christians can be convinced to care about the environment when they are reminded of the Biblical order to be stewards of the earth. "Medicare for all is a human right, everyone should have it, it is the compassionate thing ...." They don't care (beyond family, friends and maybe people like them). Tell them that it costs double in the U.S. of what it should cost. That the current system is anti competitive and obviosuly not a functioning free market (free market does function for many products and services but NOT for all. Healthcare for instance is a terrible fit - exhibit a) the United States) Maternity leave - if someone is for a more traditional family model that should be a no brainer. Many conservatives (if they are not very religious) can now (kind of) accept gay marriage on grounds of libertarian views. The government should not interfere with the life of people. Harsh prison sentences for non-violent offenders ? It costs up to 80k to incarcerate a person per year. And cheap prison labor undermines tax paying businesses it is anti free market. Under Nixon Marijuana was defined as being as dangeours as heroin (the ONLY other schedule 1 drug). Meth, cocain etc. they are not schedule 1. That means very dangerous, highly addictive, no medical value - the latter meant that for years no research was possible, scientists could not get their hands on plants legally and could not justify the need to do research. It is remarkable that 2 Democratic presidents that KNOW from experience that weed is NOT that dangerous - Bill Clinton and Barack Obama - could not be bothered to change that classification to a more harmless one. Which would also undermine the penal code for weed possession, use, sales, growth. Nor did their FDA appointees push for a reality based classification. The president does not need Congress or Senate for that, that could be an EO, and of course an FDA head that is not against it for inexplicable reasons .... anyway Republican voters will not care about the racists reasons for the Nixon admin to make weed a schedule 1 drug or how many minorities and lower income people got in trouble. These are the "others". but they care about the health benefits (medical use, can help with parkinson, I saw a retired elderly police officer, he had no problem with it once he saw the efffect on his tremor). They care about the costs for the government to prosecute and imprison people to weed related crimes.
    1
  12. The husband is one of the owners of the house and had the right to be there. Not one person in the house could reasonably be expected to resist violently and he wasn't even accused of a made-up crime or misdemeanour. Police willingly colludes with corrupt politicians, in order to intimididate. Police cannot help carrying out the warrant BUT they could have kept i calm and classy. she let's them wait 20 minutes ? Well, she is calling her lawyer and if this spat is about her online activities and she works online - she obviously transfers her data. Which in her case does not add to the crime (but it means them confiscating her equipment does not hinder her to continue with her lawful activities). but this was not about the alleged offense (which was minor and no danger to the public, even if it is true). They try to intimidate and to make it as stressful as posible - and police willingly does the dirty job, when they could keep it classy and polite. The plan was to INTIMIDATE: Her, her family (to add more pressure) and to make a warning example of them for other potential vocal dissenters and whistleblowers (also among the people that still have a job with that agency). THAT was the real reason for having that raid. Plus police was pissed that she kept them waiting, they did not dare to shoot through the door or to throw teargass into the house or to kick down the door - but they act like they own the place, they intentionally are super rude and loud and escalate as far as they dare escalate with a family like that. She is a white member of the middle class, she not some attention when she was fired in summer and likely lives in a nice neighbourhood. Also: the affluent white academic middle class would have her back and even the Republican voting urban middle class would feel uncomfortable when the police would have killed someone in that raid. so they kept it at verbal violence and verbal escalation.She had some protection and they also did not kick down the door, use tear gas and not pet was shot either.
    1
  13. 2/3 If I was a powerful corporate DEMOCRAT doing the BIDDING of BIG DONORS, I too would want to pull off a controversy that has Kyle Kulinski and Cenk Uygur gone from Justice Democrats. And even better: have the MOVEMENT be BUSY and DISTRACTED with some INFIGHTING. This is 2018 - and there is the possibility that progressive candidates could unseat blue dogs. Then what ? On the other hand the Republicans and Trump make such a pig's ear of the job, that even blue dog Democrats could beat them in 2018 and 2020. Not inspiring the masses - and not as the start of a landslide (continuing into 2020) that would be necessary to fuel REAL CHANGE. But certainly an improvement to the seats they hold NOW. REAL CHANGE is NOT on the AGENDA for these DEFENDERS of the STATIS QUO, THEY LIVE WELL with the status quo (which serves their donors and they get their 30 pieces of silver too). They are quite CONTENT with a slim majority or even with the Republicans only losing a filibuster proof majority. They just have to maintain appearances for the unwashed masses whose vote they need (so in that respect they have a more difficult job than the Repbulicans). They ALL play the GAME of god cop / bad cop - aka "lesser of two evils - you have to be content with what WE decide to give you". The Dems scare their voters with Trump resp. with the GOP, attack on women's rights etc. The Repubs use Hillary Clinton, Feinstein, Pelosi, Schumer, and issues like immigration and abortion in the same way. And ALL of them - or nearly all of them - are in the pockets of Big Donors. They have to, the party establishments (both parties !!) MONITOR CLOSELY and SPRING INTO ACTION if there are straying footsoldier among the elected politicians - they will be undermined and defunded. The Tea party seemed to wreck some havock within the party - replacing moderate Republicans with rightwingers. Which is why the smart ruling class and Big Money financed them right from the beginning. They can be as racist and backwards and anti-science and fundamentalistic (in religious matters) as they want to be, as long as they are the sheeple that give them the votes to make tax cuts, "free" "trade" happen. As as long as the lucrative but insane speculation in Big Finance can continue (and no prospect of them being regulated for the good of the general public). The billionaires do not care if rural America is falling back, THEIR children can have abortions no matter what and do get an excellent education, and they will never be drafted to the army. So the country can go down the drains - they will be doing well and they think that their wealth can keep them safe in case of insurgencies. See Tulsi Gabbard - she must be very certain that she CAN WIN and hold her seat without big money and against the stabs of the party establishment (And Hawaii again is not that influental as a state). Or Nina Turner in Ohio (who lost her seat btw). And also Bernie Sanders. In that tiny and unimportant state Vermont (that has no major industries and is not important in the grande scheme of things) a figur like Sanders could politically survive - in the end the Democratic Party gave up on challenging his races (for Congress and later for Senate). They did not invest the money and manpower when they could have contained him. They just didn't bother (and sure he would have given them a run for their money even in the 1990s) It is easier to gain name recognition in a small state without Big Donors, and the power brokers just never bothered to invest a lot to fight him. There could be no "Sanders" or "Gabbard" in Texas or California. The representative would have either have made some shady compromises or would have been weeded out and replaced with a candidate that CONFORMS to the demands of the ruling class (which has undue influence in both parties and the political system).. A SLIM Republican majority keeps the Democratic voters that would like to have BETTER REPRESENTATION FROM the DEMOCRATS at their toes. The Republicans will reliably come up with a BOOGEYMAN (or a boogeyman agenda) with which the Democrats that serve Big Money can then SCARE OFF the voters, make them FALL IN LINE, prevent PROGRESSIVES from gaining TRACTION: The role of the Democrats is NOT necessarily to WIN ELECTIONS. Their role is to keep the PROGRESSIVE FORCES of the country in check. The infightig in Justice Democrats SERVES that PURPOSE: Here is my theory. Someone dug up some old dirt on Cenk. There are power brokers that would like to sheepguard the Justice Democrats into the "old gates". I think Cenk has made compromises anyway - taking 20 millions for the network etc. - but he is still way too progressive for the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. So it was essential to get rid of people like Cenk and Kyle - and then have some ongoing controversy. - W/o digging into the details of his transgression many years ago - it likely was reasonable for him to resign in order to avoid giving ammunition to the opposition. One would think Justice Democrats have bigger fish to fry: Remember what is going on with tax cuts for the rich, which will lead to deficits and more debt in a few years. (in addition to the insane increase of the military budget, which passed Congress and Senate almost w/o any Nos). Those deficits and the increase in debt will serve as pretext to privatize social security and to make even more cuts to the wellfare state in a few years (the ruling class can bide their time !). And to hand over infrastructure projects to the private for profit players. Which is splendid - infrastructure is usually a natural monopoly, so it is a SAFE and LUCRATIVE investestment. If such privatizations fail - like railroad in several nations, or motorway or the mint privatization in Germany - the taxpayers cover the losses and the infrastructure - providing a indispensible service for the general public - is bought back. That the project is a failure DOES NOT MEAN that it wasn't lucrative for some people in the short run (the mint in Germany many years ago is a splendid example for that, also the takeover of the good industries in Eastern Germany in the 90s by big players. They got the family silver for cheap - and if only to destroy their future competition). Under Bill Clinton there was a task force busy to give Wallstreet access to the funds of (allegedly failing) Social Security (the Monica Lewinsky scandal prevented them from following through). But the ruling class has money and can comfortably bide their time. In a few years they will try the next major attack (be it under the Dems or the Republicans - the "haves" have them both in their pockets). Then there is healthcare, racism and white supremacy, DACA, immigration, potential war with North Korea and Iran, and denial of climate change, plus an increase of the regular ! military budget BY 80 billions to about 650 billions - 80 billions is more than Russia has in total as yearly budget. The regular US military budget does not include WARS. (As a rule of thumb: a few trillions extra per war).
    1
  14. The dunning Kruge is strong here - the nerve to even dispute such an expert.
    1
  15. Megyn Kelly has some base intelligence - BUT she does not use it (or the bias and the desire to win points during an interview overpowers her intellectual capabilities. Working with Fox - or in the US media in general does bad things to the skills of an interviewer). The interview with Putin (in the 2nd year, she repeated the gig ) she made a fool of herself. Outright embarassing when she was on the stage (with PM Modi of India, and Pres. Putin, and I think Chancellor Kern of Austria). - I mean she could have asked intelligent and informed questions. Instead she went on with the Russian interference in U.S. elections (and that issues had gotten PLENTY of time before). Then she told Putin that Germany, France, UK also had confirmed interventions - so why did he deny it - yeah right. The status quo proponents tried to launch that claim in Europe in summer 2016 too (it worked well in the US) It did not catch on, the Europeans citizens did not bite (they know their elections are safe from a procedural standpoint ). And if the status-quo defenders have a hard time convincing the voters, they better correct their own game, not blame it at a foreign nation that might have some trolls online (like the West does too). It sounded like they were preparing their excuses who was to blame just in case the results would turn out to be catastrophically bad for them (but it was not pursued, it was just too ridiculous). No doubt if Le Pen had won in France, the mantra "Russia, Russia" would have been repeated more intensely. Back to Megyn Kelly on the stage, Putin got kind of annoyed with her and started to give her mocking answers. At some point she then turned to PM Modi and said: What do you think about the matter. That was the low point Modi - very subtly set her straight ("Such great names Germany, France, UK .. what can I say after such names were mentioned ?". ) - and Putin doubled down (That's the problem with these old cultures, you never get a direct answer). As in: you do not have any culture. The Russian audience laughed - they got the joke in Modi's answer and Putin's remark right away. Did she expect PM Modi - the head of a state and a large one - to criticize another head of state on stage ?? Jeez !
    1
  16. The German system IS NOT cheaper than that of Canada - quite the opposite, see OECD data for 2017 and World bank data 2014 (2017 is PPP adjusted it means adapted to reflect purchasing power). Both datasets give a consistent picture. Germany is at the HIGHER end of the average for a wealthy nation. Canada appeared to be in the middle (2014) resp. at the lower end in 2017 (that is the effect of the purchasing power adjustment). in numbers 2014 Germany 5,600 USD and Canada in the range of 5,000 - 5,5000 (can't remember - like many European countries). OECD numbers 2017 (PPP = purchasing power parity adjusted): Germany 5,700 versus Canada 4,900. Of course you need to consider that the Germans are older on average ! Another example: Switzerland had even higher spending (nominal amount) than the U.S. in the 2014 World Bank data, U.S. then 9,600 versus over 10,000 of Switzerland. In the 2017 OECD data the Swiss look better. I think the PPP approach is more accurate. Switzerland does have higher costs of living, that means also higher wages, which is also a major factor for healthcare costs. But the 8,000 USD IN Switzerland are not quite the same as if you would have that kind of spending in Germany or Austria. Citizens have higher wages and the GDP per capita is higher.
    1
  17. I stopped following the development of the numbers after Biden had been projected to be the winner by all networks (aka he limped over the finish line), but he improved in the popular vote after that - up to 7 million votes more than Trump: My guess was that the expats and the overseas military vote HEAVILY leaned into the direction of Biden. And that they had larger than usual turnout.
    1
  18. + Ian P. Hillary Clinton was not born rich (I am not even sure she grew up middle class). In the end it does not matter: FDR was very wealthy. Obama had a FDR style mandate came more from a middle class background (with some diverse epidsodes) - but he CHOSE to serve the wealthy.
    1
  19. see the comments (open them) - the expenditures are filed and David seems very willing to misrepresent things - bias ??
    1
  20. Amercian society REWARDS being adverserial, much more than other rich countries. Riling up people pays off, it is part of a business / political model: Riled up people are loyal, they come back for their dose of rage, they donate, turn out to vote, bring ad revenue. Churches. Media. Rightwing radio. Fox would not get a broadcasting licence in other nations if they would act like they do in the U.S. Big donor money can buy a lot of attack ads. That gets a certain type of politicians elected - and helps over time to weed out more moderate politicians. It getsthe voters (primed by churches and Fox) used to knee jerk reactions based on quasi religious convictions Especially voters that are pretrained by rabid pastors. I recommend to go to the The Victory Channel to see such prophets and pastors doing open political ridiculous rightwing propganda (their Jan 8th video is over 1 hours, I did not hear any religious message or the gospel, it was political pro Trump propaganda, posing as releigion). Or on the satire channel Holy Koolaid you can see the compilations. Which saves time and gives the rest of the (scared, shcocked, bewildered) world and insight into these people. Holy shit (literally !) The people storming the Capitol often invoked god, some prayed after they had forced their way in (for instance in one of the Chambers. No wonder these people believed to be in the right. Politics and elections are not a matter of facts anymore they have been also primed by their church to take for granted that god would give Donald Trump a second term. Only 2 parties, that also encourages them to be adverserial (at least 1 party) and it is even easier for the special interests to capture only 2 parties. Other nations have 1 - 2 major denominations (as opposed to many smaller faith groups). At most another one that is not that widespread. (and a few minor groups). So most people are affiliated with churches that are centrally organized and FINANCED. In the U.S. local groups have to compete for donations with each other. That is an incentive to go crazy (they do) and to increase the dose over year. Now they outcrazy each other, and that can be very lucrative for some. While others (especially if they do not wan to bother with the more difficult task to model a life after the gospel and the need for talent to be an inspirational precher) hang on for dear life. Even a talentless pastor can have modest success by riling up his small crowd it can help him (or her) to make a living. If they do not go along others will outcrazy them and give their faithful more red meat, and they will lose out. Other rich nations are not nearly as fundamentalistic about religion. It is unheard of that priests and pastors comment on politics. If they do it is higher ups and they carefully craft their messages. It is either condolences (after natural disasters or 9/11), appeals to end wars, polite and cautiosly formulated reminders that it behooves Christians to be kind towards refugees (if rightwing politicans use a crisis to make political hay). But nothing like the open propagand that is used in the U.s. to keep the congregation ENGAGED. The problem for the grifters / fierce ideoloues that rile up people ? They have to increase the dose over time. It gets more and more ridiculous.
    1
  21. No - folksy Joe the good family man is a brand that sells. And he pooling high anyway. They could successfully put down HRC (that has started in the 1990s before she had even time to prove herself as hawkish neoliberal). Biden is as neoliberal as they come and likley almost as hawkish as HRC, and has collected a lot of BAD votes, pushing for devastating policies, shoring up the Democratic votes for the Iraq war - but he is not such an easy target for the rightwingers. White. Male. And more political talent (like Bill Clinton). So they try to target Joe Biden on a main trait of his positive brand. They will continue to do that. You have to give it to the rightwing strategists behind those PR campaigns, they are consistent and know what they are doing. Tucker Carlson is a trustfund baby, he does not need his job with FOX, he could as well do something noble with his life - instead to the cynical grift.
    1
  22. Yep - and the tax payer pays for it, colluding police and judge get rewarded. DeSantis gets a pat on the head by the big donors (that do not want realistic numbers being published by a former gov. employee with some credibility).
    1
  23. That was PREEMPTIVE INTIMIDATION of potential dissenters (especially her former collegues). The crooks have no financial disadvantages, the brownshirts and the costs of a lawsuit of the family will be paid by the tax payers. Not only do they not have any financial or personal riks - the crooks will be rewarded one way or the other. Money for reelection campaigns (maybe also for the judge if that is an elected position), promotions. Perks under the table. A family member gets a very good job offer, lucrative and safe real estate deals are offered, that is a hidden way to funnel money to someone, the spouse can do the house flipping to make it inconspicious and to evade the law. They have just to flip a few houses and not be too outrageous about realistic market value versus what they have to pay or get paid. Some "renovations" can muddy the water even more. De Santis can write a book and he can use all the profit - if think tanks buy it up by the truckload as gift for members etc. - as personal income. Unlike donations, where he has to be more careful. Some grift is possible, like employing family members, but if you get the money directly and no legal strings attached it is much better. Buying the umtieth book and offering real estate deals is a way to funnel money for personal use to corrupt politicias. In case you have ever wondered WHO reads all those books written by politicians. Barrack Obama wrote a book long before he was on the national stage (yep, he sold out big time). I get that the Clintons, Obama, even Dick Cheney - or the likes of Henry Kissinger can sell their books. But Amy Klobuchar ? the unknown mayor of a smaller Midwestern town, that failed at state wide races (mayor pete). he wrote a book for his upcoming presidential race, and there is a reason corporte media hyped him up like crazy. he has never won any race but that for mayor (and not mayor of a big city either). He lost a few, he is young - so WHY would anyone want to read his book. Nope: party and big donors like types like him so they prop up Obama Lite. And if he gets money for personal use (which is very useful to him as he stopped being a mayor to concentrate on his race, and in many states they cannot pay a salary to themselves from the campaign donation), they make sure IF he is an upcoming star that they they already have him in their pocket.
    1
  24. +mediamanM - What SPECIFICALLY did the foreign power do to "influence" U.S. democracy ?? Citation needed. - The claim is: a) The DNC server was hacked and b) the Russians are ACCUSED of having done or ordered it. What we know for sure: Wikileaks got the data and published the Podesta emails, which were embarassing for the Clinton campaign. Maybe, maybe that had an impact on the election result.  It is by no means clear - most likely not. Clinton should have won the Rust Belt states - did the voters who voted for Obama turn their back on her because of the Podesta emails ? Or was it because she had no economic message for them and could not be bothered to campaign there after the primaries ? They had the genius strategy of leaving the blue collars there be (they expected some deplorables might defect to Trump) but they betted to get "2 moderate Republicans for every lost blue collar". (Chuck Schumer is on record with that statement). And that miracle would be possible w/o campaigning. As for the Trump campaign meeting or not meeting with Russian representatives - that is a) in a general sense common for presidential candidates - of course the campaign and Trump himself might have done something objectionable or even impeachable/criminal - but it did not subvert democracy and it did not help Trump win. This is about corruption, if anything. With PROOF I do not mean unsubstantiated claims by media or by the agencies. The agencies who will not show evidence of "hacking" although they easily could do so without "revealing sources and methods". They did shortly after the Sony Hack. If interested in FACTS: see William Binney , or the recent VIPS open letter to the president (see Ray McGovern)
    1
  25.  @tahjclemons8911  Switzerland spends USD 8,000 - versus the expensive (mostly single payer) Germany 5,700, versus 4,900 in France. Average wealthy country approx. 5,250 U.S: USD 10,240. so there is an extra for private insurance (wrong incentives and more complicated admin). Sure Switzerland pays better wages - but still the prices difference is not all due to higher costs of living and higher wages. On the other hand: even thought the Swiss are older on average (age is a major cost factor in healthcare) they still beat the U.S.
    1
  26. They are always on the search for a crusade and it is never for something worthwhile. They could take care of the homeless, adopt or walk dogs from shelters, raise hell to get vets mental healthcare, or go against money in politics. it is not about the "cause", it is about being averserial but not about stuff that counts or is important. Nothing that would inconvenience them (as far as they understand that even, the vaccination would help them, too but they are to willfully ignorant to get it).
    1
  27.  @marla79  I cheered on for Beto - well being better than Ted Cruz is an easy one - but it is NOT a good sign that the establishment now is getting so pleased with him - not a good sign at all. Those who hold contact with the Big donors / advertisers / party establishment know something we do not know. Voters (some !) have learned from the selling out of Obama. Obama did the rhetoric of Hope and Change - and already sold out in 2008 - as could be seen immediately in 2009 with his cabinet appointments. JHis attorney generals (Holder AND Lynch) carefully avoided prosecuting the banksters. No help for the teachers and unions, Big finance was rescued but not the regular people. The admin had a budget to bail out homeowners - wasn't not nearly as much as for the banksters - and it was never fully used. and on and on. - In 2008 the Big Donors = the big advertisers gave the green light to mainstream media that they could Obama in a friendly manner - they KNEW Obama was all talk - likley the special interests and the Obama campaign had already come to an understanding. The leaked Podesta emails prove that citibank made suggestions per email for the cabinets appointments (it is a change: usually Goldman Sachs calls the shots) - the "recommendations" were all followed. That was at a time when millions of people lost their homes and their jobs. the media covered Obama in a friendly manner. - not like Sanders - they remained hostile towards him. Ed Schultz got fired by MSNBC - he wanted to cover the announcement of Sanders to run in the primaries LIVE and had a short interview pre-recorded too. That was at the end of April 2015, before it was clear how much impact Sanders would make. Ed was ordered to stand down by management (cozy with the Clinton campaign) a few minutes before start. They had coordinated with the Sanders campaign for the live coverage. A heated discussion followed on the phone - to no avail. He was ordered to cover two other issues (on short notice). One had gotten plenty of coverage already and the other one was not important. No doubt the Clinton campaign had sent someone over to Burlington so see what was going on. They found a respectable crowd of 3000 on a fine day. And they noted the camera team (else the intervention would not have come so late). Getting some informative (and friendly) coverage in the Ed Schultz Show would have been a god-send. The Sanders campaign then planned with only 30 million USD as budget (Jack Weaver) - so ANY free airtime would have been welcome. Ed was a blue collar guy. He was critical of the Dems - that they did invite the industry to the Senate healthcare reform hearings in in 2009 - but no expert on single payer or expert from the nurses organization was present. He was likely one of the very few hosts on mainstream TV to point such things out. - So he could be expected to continue to cover the campaign. He had it coming anyway - being fired 40 days after he was forced to stand down. He was against TPP and then everyone assumed that was the reason for the termination. (All hail the "free" media). In spring 2018 (some months before his passing) he told the story of that censorship - that means the Sanders campaign knew of course WHAT they were up against. And the Clinton campaign was worried because they assumed Sanders could cost them a few percent ! in relevant states. (Dr. Richard Wolff heard that from a very high up female - must have been either Debbie Wasserman Schulz or Clinton in person, he did not mentions names) - Little did the Clinton campaign know .... My point: it is no coincidence that these hit pieces and misleading polls pop up. It started right after the midterms, the media starts to be hostile again. - AFTER the election of 2016 he got a chance to appear on the networks - and he seized it.He brought them ratings and was not "too dangerous". And could be useful to activate voters for the midterms. That is over - the seize fire is over. Here we go again .... If Beto would genuinely ! hold positions that are good for The People they would not drool over him - that much we learned from the "Obama experience". He retracted from Single Payer (and so did Gillum from Florida). It did not take much for these two to roll over.
    1
  28. Just checked out more details: 90 % in Germany have the mandatory insurance by a non-profit (the "legal" insurance if you translate it literally) - since 1996 people can chose WHICH non-profit insurance agency. * 10 % are fully privately insured. That is a historic relict and a favor for special interests with a hint of 2 class system - it does not add to the cost-efficiency (* see below). There are criteria - only certain people are allowed to CHOSE IF they want the non-profit or the private insurance. Until 1996 the 90 % regular folks were assigned to a public non-profit (regional, an agency for their profession, or a non-profit set up by the employer - if it is a large company). Since then the insured can chose which non-profit they want (I see no advantage in that, given how regulated they are, they could have ONE per state and be done with it. "multipayer" is no advantage. It can be explained from the origin from 1883 and grandfathering in then all existing solutions (communities, charities, large companies) It is the goal of the German government to reduce the number of agencies, they had 7000 in 1931, 1993: 1400, in 2019 down to 109 of which 84 are set up by large companies - think car manufacturers and other giants. Those can be open to the public or not (I guess some accept more for cost efficiency). That leaves 25 non-profit insurance agencies that are not set up for the staff of a company. Of course the doctors and hospitals need to deal with all those non-profits ! think software, more complex billing. The goal of the government is to bring the numbers down to 40 or 50. Mergers etc. Austria has 16 with a population of 8,7 million (also a little byzanthine, but it is still a single payer system, they cooperate, help each other out with the budgets, transfer from the well funded agencies from rich states, etc. Important and typical: the citizens are assigned to a certain agency, either the state were they work or the profession, I think there a maybe a few companies that are large enough to have their own) All people with a job or a biz MUST have insurance. For employees there is a mandatory wage deduction matched by the employer. the wage related deductions are relatively high. in 2019 ist is 7,75 % of the wage pre tax (so 14,6 % since the employer has to match it). There is a cap for deductions. In Austria for instance it is approx. 3,8 % times 2, and 2 - 3 % seem also be the numbers for Australia or the U.K. In Austria the cap is for a monthly wage of USD 5,000 per month (so one of the approx. 16 single payer agencies will get max. 2,400 USD times 2 for an employee per year. The low percentage is favorable for low-income people. they may not even pay taxes, only the Social security deductions (this is 3,8 % for healthcare and other deductions for disability, for retirement, etc. - in total it is 20 % - but the 3,8 % are earmarked for healthcare). There is an increasing number of working poor in Germany (Germany is crumbling behind the glossy facade, but of course if you are low income you still want to live there and not in the U.S.) - and for them the high % is a real disadvantage. (on the other hand VAT is 1 % lower than in Austria, so that helps). CHOICE: people that earn more than 67,000 USD per year (which accounts for more than in the U.S.), white collar professions with a safe job and the prospect of rising / good wages like teachers or civil servants. Entrepreneurs, students. The agencies have to get their money in that case from individuals, the criteria make sure they are likely to have enough money and that they have their ducks in a row. They cannot switch back to non-profit coverage, once they got full private insurance. And that insurance is RISK related. (I checked that, yes - Children cost extra for higher incomes - in the public version they are always included in coverage. Up to 3 months after birth the children can be included without checking their health status in the private insurance. Those rules seem to be very complicated - oh well) the healthy WILL switch, the people with higher risks end up in the non-profit sector, wich misses out on their contributions. There is is a chance for specialists to only accept the privately insured (urban, many civil servants, higher income people, think large cities) - they can make do w/o the other patients. But even so the people that get older under private insurance find it to be expensive - despite the protections they have (which are much better than in the U.S.). they cannot switch back. For high inocme people it may work well (tax deductible) There were discussions to have everyone in the non-profit system with no risk assessment.
    1
  29.  @DYRBCebuCity1968  I get it times are hard in the Philippines. I hope the pretending and trolling pays O.K.
    1
  30.  @DYRBCebuCity1968  Were you born under the U.S. backed dictator of the Philippines, Marcos, the tyrant, cleptocrat that had opposition killed (when seizing power, and his political opponent Aquino in the 1980s, after they had to lift martial law after many years. His widow won the election). If you fought "communism" in the Philippines you were likely a stooge for that regime that made up the danger of communism, which was also a convenient pretext to crush the unions, labor and environmental activists. (and organizing the stealing of the family silver). Marcos likely also staged the assassination (attempt) on the Secretary of Defense that was the pretext for the power grab of the military in the 1970s. Marcos had to flee the country in 1986 after even the military told him to get lost.
    1
  31.  @DYRBCebuCity1968  Philippines and Hawaii were US colonies, with large bases, that is why the Japanese ariforce bombed them on the same day in Dec. 1941. Later the U.S. propped up dictator and cleptocrat Marcos. - Patriotic (towards the Philippines) much ? What kind of American values do you see at play in the relationship between the U.S. and Philippines in the last 150 years ?
    1
  32. They are parading around their relationship and deaths in the family a little bit too muchfor my taste. They know it "sells" or gets him sympathies - and FOX and the rightwing strategists ALSO know that. Biden appearing to be folksy and the devoted family man is part of his brand and APPEAL. (And I think he really loves / likes his long time wife and was devastated by the loss of his son Beau, and the loss of his wife and one year old daughter in a car accident in 1972. Biden had just won his first Senate race, he was sworn in in the hospital being present with his severely injured two sons.  I dislike the fact that he insinuated (or let the audience believe) that the other driver was to blame for her accident though police determined she likely had not noticed the tractor trailer. Folksy Joe exaggerating things is also part of his brand. When Sanders had his stroke, that was alltogether a really bad week. His son's wife (his only biological son) had gotten a very short term cancer diagnosis and had died within weeks. She passed away in the very week, Sanders had the stroke, she and Levy had 3 children. But hardly anyone is aware of it, Sanders and his wife kept that private. I am sure they were shocked, but they did not try to use it for PR, nor was it their way of dealing with grief to go public). They invoke tragedies (accident of first wife) and death of Beau. Might be their way to deal with mourning, and it does not hurt that it gets them sympathy. That said: I think they really like each other and care about family. Even if Jill is his nurse now (I do not think it is that bad, at least not now) - she married him when he was much younger, more active, attractive and powerful. Wouldn't a loving loyal wife stay with her husband even as he gets older (if that is the case with Biden. Honestly he does not seem to be in good shape, Sanders would run the show differently. And Biden surrounded himself with neoliberals so they run the show. He was deeply hit by the death of his first wife and by the death of his son. I can also believe that Jill loved her step son and was worried about the other son and his (drug) escapades. Jill was married when they got together (he married her 5 years after her death).
    1