USA Politics (redux)

[71 dB]

This is very time consuming for me and I am not so interested anymore to debate over this.

404 error.

Sorry. Lets try again:

https://www.benefitspro.com/2020/02/18/latest-study-pegs-medicare-for-all-savings-at-450-billion-annually/

[krummholz]

As far as I know, M4A (as proposed by people like Bernie Sanders) would not be financed only with tax increases of the rich, but also regular people would see taxes increase. However, for regular people this would be less than what they would save on not paying for premiums and other costs of the current system. Bernie is a lefty. He wants to help regular people and the poor on the expense of the rich. Do you think this senator who has been fighting for M4A for DECADES doesn't know the math?

I think he is so biased that he is likely making assumptions that may well prove to be erroneous. And he reckons without the fact that if you try to push higher taxes on the American people, the pushback will be overwhelming. Look at what happened after the Obama years. Don't you think that is likely to happen again if the Left manages to get something as progressive as this passed?

It is the MSM creating the doubts in order to protect status quo.

There you go again with the agitprop. It's ironic really, considering that nearly the exact opposite allegation is made by Trump and his followers, that the MSM is controlled by communists and what they call "globalists".

People who get healthcare paid by their employee would get higher salaries, because their employee doesn't need to pay for the healthcare. So, even if your taxes go up your net incomes goes up. Even if your expensies went up under M4A (would be very special case) you could feel good because millions of fellow American would have access to healtcare and this would save so many lives. Or is money the only thing that matters to you? Are you that shallow. Suffering off other people does not matter to you?

Wow. You have not been reading what I have written. I would be very happy to see this go through EVEN THOUGH it would cost me a small increase in my healthcare expenses. My salary would go up by roughly $70 per month but because I would be paying the premiums out of pocket (again, assuming this is Medicare as we know it, except that everyone is eligible), that would be about $150 per month after a drug plan was added in, for a net loss of $80/mo. The gain for me would be that I would not be tied to my job for fear of losing my health insurance. But I am not sure how it would balance out for most people. I have the highest tier plan my employer offers. For those opting for cheaper plans, at least at my employer, the loss would be greater.

My worry, as I've said several times now, is how it would be paid for. My guess is that it would not, because the pushback against higher taxes would nix anything like this, so it would either not happen or we would simply tack this onto the deficit. That is not a recipe for a healthy future, economically speaking.

Yes in the US they lie all the time, but there are a few good Apples and Bernie Sanders is one of them. The fact that this is unclear to you tells more about you than Bernie Sanders. Bernie doesn't take corporate money so why would he lie for corporations? Why do corporations and the establishment hate him if he lies for them? What is his lies about?

Lies are not always about shilling for a more powerful entity like a mega-corporation. They can be untruths we tell ourselves because we so much want something to be true. Bernie wants to see the US remade on the Scandinavian model. It's a noble goal, I agree. But having watched how the political pendulum swings in this country for over 60 years now, and knowing that our electoral system favors rural states which are now predominantly Red (meaning, Republican, not Communist), I am convinced it is not going to happen, and trying to force it to happen will result in another four years of Trump, or maybe eight of a Trump clone. Someday, maybe we'll be mature enough to accept higher taxes for something that should exist in every first world country. We're not there yet though.

[71 dB]

Sadly, in the world we live in, and considering the threats to national security that the US faces, I can accept that it is.

The safety of Americans is not improved by increasing the military budget. That is not even the purpose of those increases. The purpose of those increases is to funnel more money to the military industry complex. The US could half its military budget and still be the king of the hill militarily. The biggest threads to Americans come from the societal divide (the oligarchic tension between the top 1 % and the bottom 99 % which the establishment skilfully make manifest itself as right vs left cultural war), lack of healthcare among millions of Americans, the effects of climate change, relaxed gun laws and the amount of guns, domestic right-wing terrorism and other things of that nature. Increases in military budget do not address these issues and therefore don't help increasing the security of Americans. The real solutions are implementing things like progressive ideas to leviate societal tension, making gun laws stricter, addressing climate change, medicare for all and ending the unnecessary wars. American soldiers won't die in the middle east when there are no American soldiers in the middle east.

[SimonNZ]

It's as easy as waving a wand.

[71 dB]

I think he is so biased that he is likely making assumptions that may well prove to be erroneous. And he reckons without the fact that if you try to push higher taxes on the American people, the pushback will be overwhelming. Look at what happened after the Obama years. Don't you think that is likely to happen again if the Left manages to get something as progressive as this passed?

This is endless. All I say is what happened after Obama happened because Obama didn't govern as progressive as he campaigned. People were disappointed in his corporate ways. Obama's BIG thing was Obamacare, which is originally a Republican plan from the 80's taylored to secure the business model for insurance companies mandating people to get insured! Americans want better than that, a healthcare system were EVERYBODY is covered and people don't go bankrupt because of medical bill. Obama did not improve the lives of Americans much.

[71 dB]

There you go again with the agitprop. It's ironic really, considering that nearly the exact opposite allegation is made by Trump and his followers, that the MSM is controlled by communists and what they call "globalists".

The difference is I am right. They are wrong. They are not "globalists" nor communist (what insane claim!). They are pro establishment. They want to uphold the oligarchic status quo and they manufacture consent for that purpose. It is that simple. I am astonished how people here don't understand this.

[krummholz]

The safety of Americans is not improved by increasing the military budget. That is not even the purpose of those increases. The purpose of those increases is to funnel more money to the military industry complex.

Oh, brother...

I can see we can't even agree on basic premises, so discussion is useless.

[71 dB]

Oh, brother...

I can see we can't even agree on basic premises, so discussion is useless.

Yeah, by now it is clear for me too. This is totally hopeless. That's why I stop here and go to watch the movie "Coma" on Blu-ray 

[SimonNZ]

The difference is I am right. They are wrong. They are not "globalists" nor communist (what insane claim!). They are pro establishment. They want to uphold the oligarchic status quo and they manufacture consent for that purpose. It is that simple. I am astonished how people here don't understand this.

Pick a media source and pick a topic. I'll provide links for you so you can see how they really are covered rather than taking your youtubers word about them on faith.

Also: the title of Chomsky and Herman's Manufacturing Consent refers to reporters consent of specific foundational assumptions in national interest policies- not the unthinking consent of the reader or viewer of the reporting. If you actually read the author you assume you understand through some kind of osmosis you'd know this and have many other false assumptions corrected.

[Gurn Blanston]

Yeah, by now it is clear for me too. This is totally hopeless. That's why I stop here and go to watch the movie "Coma" on Blu-ray 

Funny how, no matter what starts a discussion, we always revert to the same old argument. You know this is how you end up getting chastised and hating it. Yet here we are again.

Your options are the same as ever, I hope you will avail yourself of a safe one and make the most of the Blu-Ray timeout you have taken.

GB

[greg]

This isn't news and it isn't reporting and it certainly isn't superior or preferable to CNN or any of the other research driven media you denigrate.

It's news commentary... not sure if I ever called his videos themselves "news," but the articles themselves shown on-screen may be considered news articles.

Whether it's preferable is mostly a matter of taste. There's no one best way to take in the news. If people want to read articles by themselves, that's fine. Or if they want critique along that, that's also fine. It's not like I never watch CNN's videos on youtube (I don't watch TV any more), or never read online articles. The thing I like about his videos is the extra dimension to it, while maintaining sort of moderate opinions (a mix of right-wing and left-wing, really). That's why to me it seems preferable, more on top of more. Information needs to be challenged, without a challenger then it can become propaganda, info that disrespects the truth.

But overall, mixing things up is the most "superior" way to get news IMO, if that is a question to ponder.

[71 dB]

Funny how, no matter what starts a discussion, we always revert to the same old argument. You know this is how you end up getting chastised and hating it. Yet here we are again.

Your options are the same as ever, I hope you will avail yourself of a safe one and make the most of the Blu-Ray timeout you have taken.

GB

I'm sorry I exist. In 50 years I should be dead and gone. I don't consider myself a problem (I consider myself a human being), but to others I am one, clearly. I am not the only one with these opinions. There are millions of people in the World thinking the way I do. What are we lefties supposed to do? Just watch Blu-rays and shut up? I don't get angry anymore. I don't care enough anymore to get angry. I am calm as you can see from the language I use. I am just confused about what is the purpose of my life? People are never supportive of what I do, so of course I feel I am bad at everything! US politics is just another example. According to you I suck at it. Why am I not allowed to be a communicator/influencer? Wrong political views? Wrong nationality? Wrong personality type? What?

[Fëanor]

This is endless. All I say is what happened after Obama happened because Obama didn't govern as progressive as he campaigned. People were disappointed in his corporate ways. Obama's BIG thing was Obamacare, which is originally a Republican plan from the 80's taylored to secure the business model for insurance companies mandating people to get insured! Americans want better than that, a healthcare system were EVERYBODY is covered and people don't go bankrupt because of medical bill. Obama did not improve the lives of Americans much.

Obama was a hardcore American centrist.  "Obamacare" was never anything more than a band-aid applied to the shattered pelvis that is US health care.

A real universal health care system provide all basic care (a) for everyone without restrictions, (b) be free of premiums, co-pays, or the like, (c) funded by general tax revenues, (d) and treated as a current expenditure of government.

The good news is that such a system would be far cheaper than the current US for-profit system.

The bad news is that the for-profit health care industry, (insurance, drugs, and all forms of delivery), have a testicle-crushing grip on Congress, and by dint of extensive media have mind-control over the likes of several of our friends here at GMG.  The major myth they cultivate is that a universal system would be impossibly expensive;  our folks here are in a mental rut, trapped by the myopic illusion of high cost, premiums, and funding.

[krummholz]

Obama was a hardcore American centrist.  "Obamacare" was never anything more than a band-aid applied to the shattered pelvis that is US health care.

A real universal health care system provide all basic care (a) for everyone without restrictions, (b) be free of premiums, co-pays, or the like, (c) funded by general tax revenues, (d) and treated as a current expenditure of government.

The good news is that such a system would be far cheaper than the current US for-profit system.

The bad news is that the for-profit health care industry, (insurance, drugs, and all forms of delivery), have a testicle-crushing grip on Congress, and by dint of extensive media have mind-control over the likes of several of our friends here at GMG.  The major myth they cultivate is that a universal system would be impossibly expensive;  our folks here are in a mental rut, trapped by the myopic illusion of high cost, premiums, and funding.

I presume I'm one of the "several of our friends here at GMG" that you're referring to, but in fact I've never said nor believed that a universal health care system in the US would be "impossibly expensive". If you read my previous posts carefully, you'll see that what I've actually said is that the hope that it could be paid for entirely by making the rich pay their fair share in taxes is a false one, and one that (as Poju said) not even Bernie Sanders explicitly promotes, at least not when he is pressed to explain his position carefully, and he is arguing for Medicare For All rather than true, universal health care. Yet that is the impression that many advocates seem to be trying to give. The problem is that it will require higher taxes for everyone else as well, and significantly higher taxes if it is to be fully paid for and not partially tacked onto the growing national debt. And the problem is that significantly higher taxes are a non-starter politically in the US. Full stop, end of story. That's why it won't happen. It's not because the media or anyone else is lying to the American public, it's because the public, by and large, understands what it will entail. We could afford to pay for it, we're simply unwilling to. The real pressure on Congress (and the real danger, IMHO) will be to deliver something like this without a realistic means to pay for it. Compromises will be made, and in the end we will both have an inferior system and go further into debt to finance it... much as has happened with the current version of Medicare. If that is the end result, it would be better not to go down that road.

[Fëanor]

I presume I'm one of the "several of our friends here at GMG" that you're referring to, but in fact I've never said nor believed that a universal health care system in the US would be "impossibly expensive". If you read my previous posts carefully, you'll see that what I've actually said is that the hope that it could be paid for entirely by making the rich pay their fair share in taxes is a false one, and one that (as Poju said) not even Bernie Sanders explicitly promotes, at least not when he is pressed to explain his position carefully, and he is arguing for Medicare For All rather than true, universal health care. Yet that is the impression that many advocates seem to be trying to give. The problem is that it will require higher taxes for everyone else as well, and significantly higher taxes if it is to be fully paid for and not partially tacked onto the growing national debt. And the problem is that significantly higher taxes are a non-starter politically in the US. Full stop, end of story. That's why it won't happen. It's not because the media or anyone else is lying to the American public, it's because the public, by and large, understands what it will entail. We could afford to pay for it, we're simply unwilling to. The real pressure on Congress (and the real danger, IMHO) will be to deliver something like this without a realistic means to pay for it. Compromises will be made, and in the end we will both have an inferior system and go further into debt to finance it... much as has happened with the current version of Medicare. If that is the end result, it would be better not to go down that road.

Granted yes, you haven't yourself been utterly against universal healthcare or making the Rich pay.

Yes, also it will mean higher taxes for everyone, (as here in Canada);  it will also mean far low insurance premiums for almost everyone, including employers.  The central point to grasp is that overall health care costs could/should/would be far lower, much more in line with those in other OECD countries.  Worth reiterating is that these lower cost countries achieve equal or better health outcomes.

I dare say you're right that allowing higher taxes would be necessary for any real progress, is a political brick wall for American politicians -- which is why Sanders, et al., rarely mention is.  But, at least in the case of health care, it is thoroughly irrational -- US tax payers don't want to pay the taxes but are willing needlessly will in to pay much more in premiums, co-pays, and out-of-pocket.  The impasse must be broke and it doesn't help to keep yelling, "It's impossible, it can't be done !!"

[71 dB]

Fëanor is doing such a good job here that I can be silent in order to keep Gurn happy.  0:)

[milk]

I'm sorry I exist. In 50 years I should be dead and gone. I don't consider myself a problem (I consider myself a human being), but to others I am one, clearly. I am not the only one with these opinions. There are millions of people in the World thinking the way I do. What are we lefties supposed to do? Just watch Blu-rays and shut up? I don't get angry anymore. I don't care enough anymore to get angry. I am calm as you can see from the language I use. I am just confused about what is the purpose of my life? People are never supportive of what I do, so of course I feel I am bad at everything! US politics is just another example. According to you I suck at it. Why am I not allowed to be a communicator/influencer? Wrong political views? Wrong nationality? Wrong personality type? What?

for what it's worth, and though I don't always agree with you, I don't think you've earned the condescension you get around here. Maybe I'm missing something.

[71 dB]

for what it's worth, and though I don't always agree with you, I don't think you've earned the condescension you get around here. Maybe I'm missing something.

Thanks! Maybe we are missing the same thing?

[Brahmsian]

for what it's worth, and though I don't always agree with you, I don't think you've earned the condescension you get around here. Maybe I'm missing something.

+1

[krummholz]

Yes, also it will mean higher taxes for everyone, (as here in Canada);  it will also mean far low insurance premiums for almost everyone, including employers.  The central point to grasp is that overall health care costs could/should/would be far lower, much more in line with those in other OECD countries.  Worth reiterating is that these lower cost countries achieve equal or better health outcomes.

While I don't disagree in principle, I do question whether this can be done without significant sacrifice by US health professionals, and I daresay, significant pain to consumers of health care in other countries who currently pay much less than we do for prescription drugs. Health professionals, because as I understand it, at least in Europe, physicians do not earn the enormous salaries (much of which ends up going towards malpractice insurance) that physicians here in the US do. And consumers in other countries because, though I have never seen this discussed, it seems self-evident that we in the US, through the high costs we pay for prescription drugs, are in a sense subsidizing the lower costs that European countries pay, i.e. are at least partly making up the difference in the profits of the big pharma companies. So it seems very likely that resistance from big pharma would be another brick wall in the way of anything like this becoming reality in the US, and that there would be huge pressure from big pharma on countries with universal health care to renegotiate drug prices upward. I could be wrong about this, but given the enormous power and profitability of the pharma industry, it seems like another inevitable hurdle that would somehow need to be overcome.