And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

[JBS]

Well yes, that last aspect is one of the reasons it seems like a bad system. Along with the general impediment on people changing jobs or starting their own business for fear of losing health benefits.

As for corporations having more power to negotiate prices than individuals do, I think that's true but this is where I'm fascinated by the American preference for relying on a corporation rather than a government to do this kind of work. A government purchasing healthcare and medicine for the whole population is arguably in an even better negotiating position than a corporation doing it for employees.

The preference is sort the reverse: a resistance to the idea that government bureaucrats set benefits and rates that providers are paid, because they will be more focused on staying with budgets than obtaining quality care.  Given how current Medicare for seniors and Medicaid operate, that idea is very plausible.  IOW, government will get us lower premiums, but at the cost of lesser quality of care.

[JBS]

    It a description of how money works that differs in being frank. Of course the currency issuer can issue up to practical limits because that is exactly what we do. Paul Samuelson admitted in an interview that the debt mania was a superstition, Fed chairmen (Greenspan, Bernanke) explain it to Congress and you can watch them on YT. You can't be a working economist without understanding what I'm saying is correct. Knowledge of how money works is popular among fund managers (Warren Mosler speaks their language). It doesn't surprise me that practitioners are catching on and that academic economists are still stuck on models that explain nothing that actually happens.

    Yes, the revenue theory of taxation is obsolete. The NY Fed Chairman said so in 1946. It's not coming back, it applies to users like states that don't have their own money.

    We created as much money to fight WWII as we needed to deploy every resource possible and produced the richest grandkids in world history. When was the last time you moaned about the crushing debt burden from all those B-17s and 8 million GIs? Talk about delusions!!

   

No one complains about WWII debt becausd it was paid off within 10-15 years


By about 1960 the debt was down to about Great Depression levels, and it went even lower into the 1970s.

[drogulus]

No one complains about WWII debt becausd it was paid off within 10-15 years


By about 1960 the debt was down to about Great Depression levels, and it went even lower into the 1970s.

     None of it was paid off. You're looking at a ratio of Debt to GDP. The debt is rolled over, old debt paid and new debt issued. What happens is that debt rises and falls relative to the size of GDP while both grow. Nominal debt continues to rise with short interruptions which if they go on long enough crash the economy.

     The national debt will never be paid. We pay the bills, not the debt. The debt is all the net financial savings in the economy and it will never, ever be taxed back.
     

[JBS]

     None of it was paid off. You're looking at a ratio of Debt to GDP. The debt is rolled over, old debt paid and new debt issued. What happens is that debt rises and falls relative to the size of GDP while both grow. Nominal debt continues to rise with short interruptions which if they go on long enough crash the economy.

     The national debt will never be paid. We pay the bills, not the debt. The debt is all the net financial savings in the economy and it will never, ever be taxed back.
   

As I said, a theory with no relation to reality.  Your last sentence doesn't even mean anything...

[drogulus]

     There something a little odd about the debt/GDP chart above, the projection look like something Ken Rogoff would come up with. For the first time a debt bulge will not be followed by a growth explosion that reduces debt/GDP like in the past (Civil War, WWI, depression/WWII). From a mainstream comfortably wrong perspective I get it, but then that's why I don't listen to people like that.

     

As I said, a theory with no relation to reality.  Your last sentence doesn't even mean anything...

     Where do you think the money to pay the tax would come from?  Do you know what paying a debt is? It extinguishes the money and the debt together. No debt, no money for the whole system. What use is a money system with no money in it?

[Madiel]

The preference is sort the reverse: a resistance to the idea that government bureaucrats set benefits and rates that providers are paid, because they will be more focused on staying with budgets than obtaining quality care.  Given how current Medicare for seniors and Medicaid operate, that idea is very plausible.  IOW, government will get us lower premiums, but at the cost of lesser quality of care.

Half the problem with the American system is that you frequently have a higher standard of care then everyone really needs, and then people have to pay for it.

It's like going to the local car yard and discovering that only Porsches and BMWs are in stock, and being told that this is great because you have the best cars anywhere. Never mind that many customers will go bankrupt buying a Porsche because they really need transportation.

Some time ago I referred to a podcast episode about why someone was charged over $600 for what ended up being no more than a band-aid for a child's injury. The answer is essentially that each hospital and medical service in the USA prides itself on stocking absolutely everything that anyone could possibly need, which is arguably great if you have some incredibly rare problem, but also means that the huge cost of that has to be covered by those with far more mundane problems. The balance of cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment is shifted way off in the direction of covering every risk no matter what the cost and however infrequent the benefit.

So yeah, you have the best quality of care in the world. And it's horrifically expensive. And in terms of OUTCOMES, it doesn't actually deliver better results than a cheaper, lower quality system of care. Many countries spend far less on healthcare and get the same results or better.

My car gets me around, it's reliable and quite comfortable. I don't need it to have gold wheels.

[Florestan]

So yeah, you have the best quality of care in the world.

I think Israel is at least as good.

[71 dB]

He adheres to a crank theory about money that has no relation to reality. It seems to say that governments can issue unlimited amounts of money to pay for services, and the whole idea of tax revenue, national debt, and budgets is really a mass delusion.

The US controls it's own currency, USD, so the US government can issue "unlimited amounts of money" if it wants. It has ramifications of course such as inflation, but it can be done. For a country like the US national debt is not as serious as Republicans make it to be to block any policy that would help regular people, but conveniently forget when it's about tax cuts for the rich etc.

[71 dB]

So yeah, you have the best quality of care in the world.

The US doesn't have the best quality of care in the world overall. Rich people can have quality with cash, but regular people don't have that option. When comparing the US to other countries, the quality of care in the US is about the same, nothing that outshines other countries. Each country has it's stronger and weaker areas depending on how resources have been targeted.

The US has "average" quality of care. It is not an issue. The problems are the overall costs (highest in the World) lack of access to care, medical bankruptcies and employer based coverage that weakens freedom and gives the employer additional leverage against employees.  Medicare for all system fixes those problems.

[Madiel]

If people could read all of what I wrote instead of ripping one sentence out of context and misconstruing it, that would be great. Thanks.

I would have thought the car yard analogy would have helped make the point. As would have specifically indicating the difference between quality of care notionally available and actual outcomes.

I mean, anyone actually reading what I've written, not just in that post but previous ones but that post alone is sufficient, would understand that I think the American healthcare system is pretty shit and I'm explaining what's wrong with it. It's a system that offers outstanding care that hardly anyone needs and hardly anyone can afford.

[drogulus]

The US controls it's own currency, USD, so the US government can issue "unlimited amounts of money" if it wants. It has ramifications of course such as inflation, but it can be done. For a country like the US national debt is not as serious as Republicans make it to be to block any policy that would help regular people, but conveniently forget when it's about tax cuts for the rich etc.

     Exactly, it's not a crackpot theory, it's common practice. Repubs use it for one thing, Dems use it for the other thing, and both use dollar run out theory against the choices their opponents make.

     It's possible to know the difference between paying off a credit card balance and paying a small amount while the balance stays the same for years.

[71 dB]

think the American healthcare system is pretty shit and I'm explaining what's wrong with it. It's a system that offers outstanding care that hardly anyone needs and hardly anyone can afford.

Sorry if I took your words out of context, I totally agree with this. 

[drogulus]

    It's unlikely that any universal scheme will reduce the level of service for those getting good service now. It will be a high priority to prevent that from happening, and not hard to figure out how.

    We can game the approach as a phase in plan where more and more people abandon the sinking premium ship for the public ship run on the fiscal balance, with tax change deferred to when we have a better idea if changes should be made. An expanding economy pays more tax back, a big expansion more than that. I'm wary of efforts to Robin Hood the balances like Bernie wants.

[Muzio]

I say, keep Tulsi Gabbard in mind.  IMO, she is going to play a much bigger role in the primaries than most people think.  She is not going to allow the DNC to shove her aside so inofficiously and discourteously after she performed the surgical takedown of Heels-up Harris.  Some suggest she may threaten to run as an independent, or worse yet (better yet?) endorse our current sublime President...

Yes, I remind you to keep your eye on the Tulsi....

Hillary Clinton Suggests Tulsi Gabbard Is A 'Russian Asset'

Former first lady and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested that 2020 hopeful Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) is a Russian asset, in an interview with Campaign HQ's podcast. Moreover, Clinton blamed Russia for her failure to win the 2016 election against Donald Trump.

"I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and they're grooming her to be the third party candidate," Clinton told host David Plouffe.

"She's a favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far and that's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she is also a Russian asset."

"They know they can't win without a third-party candidate, and so I do not know who it is going to be but I can guarantee you they will have a vigorous third-party challenge in the key states that they most need it," Clinton concluded.

Ahead of this week's Democratic presidential debate, The New York Times published a piece that painted Gabbard as a tool of the Russians. The paper cited she's gained support "from online bot activity and the Russian news media." On the debate stage, Gabbard acknowledged it as a "smear."

https://saraacarter.com/hillary-clinton-suggests-tulsi-gabbard-is-a-russian-asset/

[drogulus]

Yes, I remind you to keep your eye on the Tulsi....
https://saraacarter.com/hillary-clinton-suggests-tulsi-gabbard-is-a-russian-asset/

     Mrs. Beast would know more than I do about that. Of course Tulsi arouses suspicions of a Jill Stein-ish variety. The pre-positioning for a 3rd party run raises eyebrows.

     If I see a troll push for her my view will develop some. Evidently there is one. I haven't seen it yet.

[Muzio]

Tulsi brings the heat back to Hillary...(twitter, 1:20 PM - 18 Oct 2019)

Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain.

From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose.

It's now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don't cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.

BTW, my condolences to Tulsi and her family....

[drogulus]

     From Feb. this year:

     Russia's propaganda machine discovers 2020 Democratic candidate Tulsi Gabbard

Since Gabbard announced her intention to run on Jan. 11, there have been at least 20 Gabbard stories on three major Moscow-based English-language websites affiliated with or supportive of the Russian government: RT, the Russian-owned TV outlet; Sputnik News, a radio outlet; and Russia Insider, a blog that experts say closely follows the Kremlin line. The CIA has called RT and Sputnik part of "Russia's state-run propaganda machine."

All three sites celebrated Gabbard's announcement, defended her positions on Russia and her 2017 meeting with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, and attacked those who have suggested she is a pawn for Moscow. The coverage devoted to Gabbard, both in news and commentary, exceeds that afforded to any of the declared or rumored Democratic candidates despite Gabbard's lack of voter recognition.

     

[SimonNZ]

Would Tulsi Gabbard as a third party candidate be taking votes away from the Ds or the Rs? if Muzio is an indication it would be the latter.

Do it, Tulsi. Dooo eeet.

[drogulus]

Would Tulsi Gabbard as a third party candidate be taking votes away from the Ds or the Rs? if Muzio is an indication it would be the latter.

Do it, Tulsi. Dooo eeet.

     Putin thinks she would take votes from Dems. I think the idea is that there are these Obama-Trump Dems disillusioned with Trump who want a better Russia backed alternative. Who can say? It sounds cuckoo but then Trump is President.

[Muzio]

Would Tulsi Gabbard as a third party candidate be taking votes away from the Ds or the Rs? if Muzio is an indication it would be the latter.
Do it, Tulsi. Dooo eeet.

Dems are afraid that Tulsi would split the dem vote and secure a victory for Our President Trump.

While I'm at it, allow me to share with you a beautiful autumn photo from the USA:


(Trump rally, Oct. 17, 2019...)