Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Billy_TParticipantWV,
IMNSHO . . . I think the folks you cite err by starting out with that premise, which just so happens to coincide with Trump’s own public stance. That the deep state is out to get him.
================
You really think Trump and the CIA have been getting along, BT? I dont. Some of us have been talking about his feud with a faction of the CIA from the very beginning of his term. Its been written about a lot.
“….Wash Post, Trump is feuding with the CIA, but he could end up making it stronger,
January 20, 2017
During the transition period from November through January, Donald Trump developed perhaps the most publicly antagonistic relationship with U.S. intelligence agencies of any incoming president in decades. He compared the agencies to Nazis, disdained their reports as fake and dismissed their assessments of foreign interference in the 2016 election. In an interview published in the Wall Street Journal on Monday, outgoing CIA director John Brennan called Trump’s allegations “repugnant.” Other intelligence officials have expressed a sense of dread about what’s to come…..” WashPost:https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/20/soldier-spies/Yes, Trump has gone after them from even before Day One. Why? Because they had the nerve to hold the consensus that, yes, Russia interfered in our election and did so to help Trump. The Republican-led Senate just reaffirmed that view yesterday. All the Trump-appointed Intel folks agree that this happened, and that Trump was the beneficiary, and that just messes with Trump’s mind to no end.
Again, thought experiment: Rather than see this as a “deep state” plot against Trump, imagine instead the Intel community’s sensible reaction to his unprecedented, endless, daily, public attacks. His words, his deeds provoked this feud and kept it going.
In order for the premise in question to work, the one shared by the people you cite, they’d have to reverse the order of things. That the Intel community, which just happened to be dominated by Republicans for generations even before Trump named his own team, acted first to “take down” Trump. Not that they had legitimate reason to investigate his campaign, and later to respond to Trump’s daily bashing. That they supposedly invented all of this stuff just to “get Trump.”
I don’t buy that for a second. I see Trump completely obsessed with the idea that anyone would question his win, on any grounds, and that he simply couldn’t help himself but go after them endlessly. I’m also absolutely certain that he knows they got it right to begin with, that he is guilty of “collusion,” and lying about it, and covering it all up, and obstructing the Mueller probe, etc. etc. He knows they know, and that’s killing him to this day. Why else would he send his AG, his personal lawyer, his state department, around the world to manufacture an alternate narrative that supposedly exonerates Russia and Trump in the process?
Again, I don’t see this being nearly as complex as the Mates, Greenwalds and company do. Trump isn’t being persecuted. There is no “deep state” conspiracy against him, especially not as configured by the right. He’s committing egregious offenses and being called on those. That’s it, IMO.
Billy_TParticipantI think the Seahawks, Rams and 49ers are all purty close. And injury here, a bad bounce there is all that separates em, in my view. Whoever gets home-field will of course have an advantage.
I think a lot of us thot SF would be good ‘last’ year, but they had Fisher-level injuries. Lotta bad luck last year.
I dont see any juggernaut in the NFC. Just a lot of good teams. Coupla good teams wont make the playoffs.
w
vThat makes a lot of sense. It may have always been this way, but it seems like injuries are playing a bigger role in a team’s fate than they used to. Maybe it’s just me getting old and I’m noticing them more, cuz I usually feel like one of the walking wounded meself!
;>)
Anyway . . . yeah, bounces here and there, injuries, game of inches. Sheesh. Just Legatron’s kick Thursday is proof of that. This Sunday’s game would be entirely different if his kick had been a coupla inches to the left. It would be all about first place in the division, and I think the winner would have been pumped with “mo” to carry them a good ways forward.
Now, it’s basically a must-win for the Rams. At least if they don’t want to play that extra playoff game.
Should be a goodin’, as Walter Brennan used to say.
October 9, 2019 at 5:40 pm in reply to: Jacobin, on abandoning the Kurds and the annihilation of Rojava #106467Billy_TParticipantWell the Kurds had to be expecting this.
I mean, its Chinatown, and all…
w
vWV,
Can you flesh out that reference? I love the movie, but I’m missing something.
If you had said Lucy and the football, I would have gotten it right away. Of course, the life and death events in the balance probably make references to comics a bit too much at the moment.
October 9, 2019 at 5:38 pm in reply to: Jacobin, on abandoning the Kurds and the annihilation of Rojava #106466Billy_TParticipantThe Kurds are holding tens of thousands ISIS members in captivity. If they suddenly find themselves in a battle with Turkish troops, they will likely be forced to set them free.
I wonder if the leftist ideology of the Kurds played a part in their abandonment? I know Trump incorrectly thinks ISIS has been defeated, but the infusion of thousands of formerly captive fighters could invigorate their fighting spirit.
I read that too. I haven’t checked back on this today, but it’s a guarantee that if Turkish forces go after the Kurds, whom they vastly outnumber, the Kurds have no choice but to stop guarding the ISIS captives and move to that new front. That means all of those captives escape prison, obviously, and find their way back to whatever organizational structure they may still have or can reform.
Aside from the obscene immorality of turning our backs on the Kurds yet again, this is going to cause major blowback. And the Kurds took the brunt of the dying in the battle against ISIS. I think these numbers are roughly correct:
More than 11,000 Kurdish fighters died in the battles, compared with something like a dozen Americans.
Good point about their ideology. I suspect that is a factor, especially for Erdogan. Trump’s alt-right whisperers too.
On the surface at least, there’s nothing that makes sense about abandoning the Kurds to the whim of the Turks.
No matter how he spins it, he knows ISIS isn’t defeated. Surely his military advisors have told him this. Ending US military involvement in the Mid East was a campaign promise, but only after accomplishing objectives that haven’t really been accomplished. Besides, his base likes that we’re over there killing brown people. There’s really no political pressure for him to do this.
Agree with all of that. Part of me thinks that Trump is just a very easy mark for autocrats. Erdogan is supposedly quite the talker, pushing a verbal onslaught of demands, etc. The more cynical part of me thinks this is yet another “deal” Trump worked out to get help with his white whales:
The Mueller Report and Democratic rivals for the 2020 elections. Too bad we’ll never have access to the raw, unfiltered recordings. I’d really like to see which part of me is spot on.
Billy_TParticipantWV,
IMNSHO . . . I think the folks you cite err by starting out with that premise, which just so happens to coincide with Trump’s own public stance. That the deep state is out to get him.
Personally, until we have evidence to support Trump’s theory — and there isn’t any — I think it’s a really bad assumption/premise, and pretty much the root of what I consider their subsequent misreading of events.
As in, their entire stance on Trump, his admin, Russiagate, and now this whistleblower, is fully dependent on a major assumption that they’ve never been able to prove. Yes, the CIA has a horrible history. Yes, it’s done some obscenely disgusting and terrible things. But that does not mean that it is currently acting on behalf of forces opposed to Trump, or has or would protect the Dems, given the same situations. Trump, in fact, has his own hand-picked guys to run these agencies. He’s the head honcho, not some powerless Joe or Jane, victimized by the machinery of the system.
What if it’s simply this? Occam’s Razor, etc. etc.
Trump has done some really stupid, awful things and brought all of this on himself. It’s on him and his enablers. There is no particular faction out to get him. He just keeps stepping in it, has his “fixers” clean up the mess, and these messes keep piling up to such a degree that some of the people surrounding him have simply had enough. That’s been the pattern in his life. His father bailed him out over the course of decades, to the tune of 400 million dollars, and set him up with his own “fixers” first, and then Trump added his own later. He’s always been protected that way. He’s always done truly reprehensible things and gotten away with them, and few people were willing to go up against him because he’s also always been a bully with great resources.
Just imagine for a moment: Trump brought all of this on himself and no particular faction — deep state or otherwise — was ever out to get him. People are just reacting to his words and deeds, and justifiably so. Those words and deeds came first.
Billy_TParticipantI was really hoping all of you would tell me, Naww. They’re terrible!!
;>)
Billy_TParticipantBilly, I agree.
I have to split with Taibbi on this one.
The bottom line is the whistleblower was correct. His information was good. This is no sort of set-up.
If we allow Trump this–what is next? Where would Matt seriously draw the line?
Or is the crime less important that who reports it? And what happens to them afterward?
What happened to the other whistleblowers was wrong.
But that can’t save this President.
For nearly three years, the old horror movie metaphor of “the call is coming from inside the house” has been in effect. That’s what reporters have been telling us indirectly, and the vast majority of their reporting has been corroborated. Yeah, Trump and his circle start out calling it “fake news,” but they soon stop doing that and run the gamut from, “We only did it in this case” to “Yes, there are these other cases that we forgot to mention but it was all no big deal” to “We have every right to do this!” to “Stop persecuting us!!”
Time and time again, Trump and his circle end up confirming that reporting — eventually.
So this is waaay beyond the whistleblower. This is the norm for this White House, and they’ve already admitted that they moved the transcripts to the double secret servers . . . which actually breaks the law. If there was nothing wrong with them, there’s no reason to do that.
(Same with Russiagate. If Trump and company had done nothing wrong, there was never any reason for their endless lies and obstruction)
I think Taibbi and a few of his peers are far too quick to dismiss these things, and confuse legit critique of the media with what ends up being all too close to Trump’s own defense of his actions.
October 9, 2019 at 3:48 pm in reply to: Jacobin, on abandoning the Kurds and the annihilation of Rojava #106458Billy_TParticipantThe Kurds are holding tens of thousands ISIS members in captivity. If they suddenly find themselves in a battle with Turkish troops, they will likely be forced to set them free.
I wonder if the leftist ideology of the Kurds played a part in their abandonment? I know Trump incorrectly thinks ISIS has been defeated, but the infusion of thousands of formerly captive fighters could invigorate their fighting spirit.
I read that too. I haven’t checked back on this today, but it’s a guarantee that if Turkish forces go after the Kurds, whom they vastly outnumber, the Kurds have no choice but to stop guarding the ISIS captives and move to that new front. That means all of those captives escape prison, obviously, and find their way back to whatever organizational structure they may still have or can reform.
Aside from the obscene immorality of turning our backs on the Kurds yet again, this is going to cause major blowback. And the Kurds took the brunt of the dying in the battle against ISIS. I think these numbers are roughly correct:
More than 11,000 Kurdish fighters died in the battles, compared with something like a dozen Americans.
Good point about their ideology. I suspect that is a factor, especially for Erdogan. Trump’s alt-right whisperers too.
Billy_TParticipantThanks, WV and Zooey for your takes. It’s interesting, because I agree with both of them.
One might look at them and say, they don’t exactly mesh. But, my reading is that really they do. It’s not an easy fit. But I think they both reinforce each other in a sense, and they both speak to the difficulty of living a just life in the here and now. They both hint of despair but definitely not defeat. They’re still in the realm of “bash on” and that’s hopeful/helpful, and that’s where I’m sittin’ too.
Billy_TParticipantThanks, ZN.
You’re a gracious host, a gentleman and a scholar.
Much appreciated.
Hope all is well in the great state of Maine.
Billy_TParticipantAddendum:
It appears almost certain that Trump, in this situation, acted on completely personal and political grounds . . . for no one but himself. That’s the main reason why this is unlike pretty much all previous known whistleblower cases.
1. To manufacture a false narrative about Mueller’s probe
2. To manufacture a false narrative about one of his political rivals.
3. Use foreign powers to help him.
4. Offer carrots and/or sticks to get them to come on board.Trump isn’t acting as the usual head of state in this particular case. He’s not promoting the usual post-war US policy, and being outed for some aspect of it. That’s why the whistleblower hasn’t gotten bombarded yet by “the Establishment.” That’s why his or her life hasn’t been torn to shreds yet. He or she isn’t a threat to the oligarchy. He or she is just a threat to a deeply unpopular, very stupid person, working solely on his own behalf, fighting his own inner demons, which include the last election.
IMO, if the whistleblower were exposing established, sanctified, oligarchical policies that are supposed to remain hidden . . . then that person gets hammered from all sides. This is not that. Which is why it makes no sense to compare it with the past.
Billy_TParticipantWhat does he call himself? A Gothic Marxist? Excellent writer and a very good speaker.
I haven’t read any of his Sci-Fi novels, but I did read his history of the Russian Revolution, October. A must-read, IMO. Really, really important history-telling. Almost a day by day account, and provokes all kinds of additional avenues to walk down.
As for other “progressive fantasy,” you probably already read this, or at least know about it, by Ursula K. Leguin’s The Dispossessed is well worth read. She’s a leftist too.
link: https://www.harpercollins.com/9780061054884/the-dispossessed/
I like her Left Hand of Darkness more, but the above is really good as well.
Billy_TParticipantA CIA officer who exposes information about CIA wrongdoings without the CIA’s permission is a whistleblower. A CIA officer who exposes information about someone else is just a spook doing spook things. You can recognize the latter by the way the mass media supports, applauds and employs them. You can recognize the former by the way they have been persecuted, imprisoned, and/or died under mysterious circumstances.
The above baffles me. Apparently this person was assigned to the White House. He or she wasn’t hidden. He or she spoke with several among White House staff who told that person about a series of questionable actions/calls/etc. etc. by Trump, Barr and Giuliani, and felt the need to take it to his/her IG. That person went through all the proper channels. Sought advice on how best to do just that.
I’m baffled by these lefty attacks on someone bringing an abuse of presidential powers to the public. One would think the entire left would support this, especially given Trump’s history, resume and ideological standing on the far right.
The whole world seems to have gone mad, including my own side.
And this baffles me even more:
“The idea that the media needs to ‘protect’ a high-level CIA officer making explosive claims about the president, which have now been used as the basis for impeachment proceedings, is such an insane perversion of journalistic ethics,” journalist Michael Tracey tweeted today on this new development….see link
Is it an insane perversion to try to protect someone from being killed? Cuz after Trump called him a traitor and suggested he be executed, the rabid right was whipped up into a frenzy. They’ve got bounty on the guy, and it’s all over 4chan and 8chan, apparently. We’ve already had several mass killings after one of Trump’s public rants, and several other attempts.
Come on, people. Again, this isn’t rocket science.
Billy_TParticipantI think Taibbi is overthinking this, and letting his paranoia meter get the best of him.
He’s not accounting for the obvious: The whistleblower’s account syncs up very closely with Trump’s own summary of the call in question, which he made public, plus the text messages that have been released, plus Trump’s own public entreaty for China to help him out recently, plus calls to the UK, Australia, Italy . . . plus trips by Barr and Giuliani on the same mission. None of this has been refuted even by the players in question.
This isn’t rocket science, or “deep state” voodoo, or a James Bond novel. It’s simply a very stupid man-child, who has no business being president, who frequently causes the people surrounding him to be stunned, and many times a day insults them and anyone with the nerve to be critical. It makes perfect sense that given his odious nature, he’d provoke this. And I couldn’t care less that the whistleblower is from the CIA. The second one, and those likely to speak out later, will probably be from different departments or just the West Wing.
Taibbi and others are letting that one (possible) fact get in the way of their judgment. They’re letting the idea of a “spook” them, and burdening this one person with the entire history of said agency. That goes waaay beyond mere bias. That’s flat out nonsensical.
Lastly . . . the reason why this is different from past instances of whistleblowing, as far as the way he or she is being treated . . . is that person hasn’t been publicly outed yet, though the political right and Trump’s cultists are trying desperately to do just that. Taibbi also seems to have forgotten that Trump called him/her a traitor and suggested execution was in order. Again, this is prior to any “outing.” Taibbi and company should at least wait until that happens before making comparisons with the Snowdens, et al.
I like Taibbi, but I don’t think he’s thought this out.
Billy_TParticipantThis hit on Mason Rudolph . . . if I’m commish, I lay down the law, let every player, coach, staff member and ref know . . . No more of these. They won’t be tolerated. Not against any player, at any time, under any circumstance. All players included, not just the QB or the ball carrier. Every single player will fall under the umbrella of this rule.
The spearing play will be reviewed immediately, and the refs will determine if it was intentional, or was unavoidable. Flag and ejection if it was on purpose/could have been avoided. Fine levied. Second time, out for a full (16 game) season. Third time, out of the NFL for good.
Again, if I’m commish, I couldn’t care less about the people who say the NFL has gone “soft.” Brain injuries matter a hell of a lot more than the opinions of couch potato, weekend warriors.
Billy_TParticipantWell i havent seen you post a single solitary article by the LA Times that was in favor of Sanders-Health-Care. I’d be pleased to see one of those articles by the LA Times.
As far as the effects of Ownership on reporters and coverage. I recommend the mountain of research on that subject.
At any rate, I usually stay out of the nuances and algebra of the Health Care debate. Its not my thing as I’ve said before. Cause it doesnt matter to me what the algebra sez. What matters is do we want to be a country where everyone gets adequate health care or not. Should the rich get great health care and the poor get none or inadequate health care? Should their be ‘classes’ of health care the same as when we fly on planes — first class, second class, third class, etc. Should we have a health care system equivalent to the airline bizness? Or shold health care be… different. In a class all its own. Special. Beyond profit and capitalism.
For me that answers to those questions dont require a complicated algebra.
You know, usually ‘you’ are the one saying ‘dont over-intellectualize things.’
w
vI think, in general, Americans have a tough time seeing class as a thing, and an even harder time thinking of class divisions and their effects. At least in the present tense. I’d imagine it’s a lot easier to do so in the past tense. With how things “used to be.” They’d probably recognize the inherent ugliness and unfairness of, say, the divisions on the Titanic that enabled the rich to escape and doomed the poor, stuck below deck. They might even thrill to a scene that showed a rich guy getting his comeuppance, sliding down the upturned ship to his death.
But it’s really tough to think in those terms about now, today, here and now, when it comes to education, health care, environmental dangers, disaster relief, etc. It’s much tougher to think in terms of a caste system, which we actually have, that largely determines what people get to be and do with their lives, simply due to the accident of their birth and their built-in networks, support systems, or lack thereof. And all around us, we’re bombarded by the message that it’s all up to us, if we just work hard and be-leeve, we can do any-thing!!
America is the only “developed” nation in the world that has an epidemic of medical bankruptcies. In the rest of the developed world, it’s virtually unheard of. There’s only one reason for that: our formalized, segregated, balkanized, normalized caste system . . . which most of the OECD, at least when it comes to health care, has largely jettisoned.
Again, this isn’t rocket science.
Billy_TParticipantJust to be on the safe side here . . . with the absence of any follow ups:
Nittany, I was kid-ding!!
;>)
Except about the cheating part. The Terps would have crushed Penn State this year if not for that.
Double ;>)
Billy_TParticipantNow, if you were to suggest that Nittany will “graggoksnorfle” the day, then I think he really would get antsy a bit and stop posting on behalf of Monsanto. But “rue”? It just sounds too nice a word to me.
Well, “Rue” is the name of a morgue where some murders took place in a short story written by Edgar Allen Poe.
What, exactly, is there about murders, morgues, and Edgar Allen Poe that you consider “nice”?
I may be a shill for Monsanto, but at least I’m not twisted enough to have warm feelings about a word so closely associated with the macabre.
Well, Rue is French for street. And I have a lot of warm feelings about certain streets in France. Certain street walkers, too.
As for Poe, he’s my budd. I bet you didn’t know that he hangs out at UVA in his old quarters still, and he and I have had some great chats there, especially after I’ve had a few whiskeys. A coupla years ago he admitted to me something I have long suspected. His poems? He knows they’re not that good, and that Baudelaire’s translations are most responsible for his legacy as a poet. He’s very proud and rightfully so about his short stories, mind you. But he knows that Baudelaire is the real genius when it comes to his poems. Those translations into French are really what links Poe to the Symbolist Movement, Arthur Symons, Yeats, Pound and Eliot.
Ask ZN. He’ll back me up on that, though I’m not sure he’s had the pleasure of direct contact with Poe like I have.
Anyway, Poe is always a gracious host, and he makes sure the Ravens stay in Baltimore while I’m there. Oh, and another thing: Penn State cheats at football!!
Billy_TParticipant“Take personal responsibility!!” needs to include the pushers of garbage too.
================
Right. Trouble-Making-Nittany has riled up wv and Billy Truax. Thats like unleashing Rodan AND Gabara.
He’ll rue the day he posted about the evils of smoking.Smoking is bad, of course.
but he’ll still rue the day
w
vWell, maybe Rodan and Gabara are a bit much. I’d settle for dire wolves. That’s the kind of angry I’d like to be. Growling and howling and so on.
But I gotta tell ya, WV. Personally, I’m not in favor of playing the “rue” card. Why, you say? Because I have this bad habit when I hear it. It makes me laugh. It makes me think of flowers and spring time and pretty girls under parasols by the Seine, and I bet it doesn’t scare anyone. “You’ll rue the day” actually sounds like a good thing to me, not bad. It just doesn’t live up the hype.
Now, if you were to suggest that Nittany will “graggoksnorfle” the day, then I think he really would get antsy a bit and stop posting on behalf of Monsanto. But “rue”? It just sounds too nice a word to me.
Billy_TParticipant. The private, for-profit sector will never, ever, not ever be able to compete with a truly non-profit, public health care system on costs, value, access, coverage or outcomes.
Though to clarify, this is about universal public insurance.
A fully public health care system would include de-privatizing the world of health care providers.
Universal insurance, in itself, does not do that.
Correct. It’s a right-wing scare-tactic to talk in terms of “socializing health care” overall. No Dem is calling for that. Their plans involve only the funding (insurance) side, not the delivery side.
But I’m not a Dem, so I get to call for the entire shebang to be public, non-profit.
;>)
Which I do. I’d be thrilled with the funding side going all public, non-profit. But I think the delivery side has to follow suit. If left to their own devices, for-profit delivery costs will keep rising, and they’re already the highest in the OECD. Doctors, big pharma, medical machinery — they’re all paid far more than in any other country . . . and that’s simply not sustainable for any kind of insurance system.
A for-profit one increases the costs to patients, as already mentioned. But a non-profit one has to deal with those rising (delivery side) costs too. To me, it makes far more sense to attack both problems at the same time.
And we used to have municipal arrangements in America as the norm. Doctors were paid by towns, housed by the town, etc. etc. Patients paid what they could, usually in the form of food or home production stuff. We could update that for the 21st century and merge it with public, non-profit insurance. Everyone would get a card. They’d present it at municipal clinics and hospitals and local offices for GPs, etc. We could also expand the VA system to cover all citizens. And lest people argue that the VA is a mess, that mess is easily fixed via hiring enough staff.
Most recent audit places its deficit at 23,000 people. That’s where the long waits come in.
Billy_TParticipantER’s right, W. That’s not “scholarly,” it’s the product of a dedicated right-wing think tank.
OK-forget my use of the work scholarly article-score one for you. It is an OPINION piece albeit with lots of facts to support an “opinion”. The fact that it may have been written by Attila the Hun should not take away from the merits one might find in it. This is no different than a conservative putting down a written Chomsky “opinion” because it is simply from a person dedicated to leftist causes and hence agenda driven. No difference at all.
W,
What’s your response to this fact:
The private, for-profit sector can not compete with the public, non-profit sector on value, on the percentage of funds going to health care itself, rather than to make a few people very wealthy. The private, for-profit sector will never, ever, not ever be able to compete with a truly non-profit, public health care system on costs, value, access, coverage or outcomes.
Billy_TParticipant“….Of course, this requires action. But it’s so much easier to blame others — Big Ag, Big Pharma, Big Food, Big Circus, or whomever — than to make responsible lifestyle choices. Maybe that explains the media coverage.”
=========================Well, fwiw, they lose ‘me’ when they put this kind of thing in the article. That causes all kinds of alarm bells to go off in my head. I mean, why add that last sentence? Where does ‘that’ come from?
Those big-ass corpse are subverting what little democracy there is, polluting the planet, and destroying the biosphere. Thats ‘worse’ than causing cancer.
w
vYeah, and who makes, mass markets, sells, lies about tobacco? Who pushed for war after war to open up new markets? Corporations. It’s addictive. They knew it was addictive long ago. And they still pushed it. To kids, too. And when North America and parts of Europe started reducing consumption a bit, they blitzed the “third world” with mass marketing and got billions hooked there.
“Take personal responsibility for your actions!!” never seems to apply to the owners of these corporations.
And food? Where does obesity come from? The mass marketing and production of crap, laced with unnecessary sugar and fat and dyes, et al. It’s not in corporate America’s best interest for people to eat less, or eat what’s healthy for us. That would kill profits. That would mean a radical shift away from corporate to local food sources. From factory to very small farms, etc.
“Take personal responsibility!!” needs to include the pushers of garbage too.
Billy_TParticipantTrying to boil this down.
I doubt many Americans think this way, but I think everyone should: Inserting profit-taking, “wealth creation,” “commodification” into every nook and cranny of our lives is beyond destructive, and in all cases, unnecessary. Especially when it comes to basic life-necessities, it’s simply irrelevant and shouldn’t even be in the discussion.
Think about it. What does a corporation’s ability to make massive profits, pay its shareholders, its executives, its lobbyists, its tax attorneys, its marketing department, its golden parachute set-asides . . . have to do with whether or not little Janie can beat cancer? What do those things add to the value of her health care? What additional costs do they force on Janie and her family?
This isn’t rocket science.
Yes as you know (but repeating it anyway to get it down in black and white) one of the many key arguments for universal health insurance is that (as has been demonstrated in the world) a public system has far lower administrative costs. There’s no costs for high CEO salaries, advetertizing, lobbying, campaign donations, and of course profit and payouts to stock holders.
This is to the tune of billions of dollars, not a dime of which goes to health care provision.
Meanwhile try finding affordable insurance for a 26 year old. Nada. He or she has to be employed for someone who does provide insurance. Which means employers suffer from these costs too.
….
We agree.
Even if we leave out issues of morality and basic human decency — which we shouldn’t, of course — and just think in terms of cold, hard cash, this is an easy call. Americans will get a far better “deal” if the system is truly non-profit and public, with no privatization and no corporate influencing. It’s not close.
The private sector simply has a far higher overhead to deal with, and that’s money that must be subtracted from the issue at hand: health care. That’s money that doesn’t go to the thing itself. It goes instead to 7 and 8 figure executive salaries, 8 and 9 figure golden parachutes, 6 to 8 figure lobbyist salaries, etc. etc. None of that adds one iota of value to patient care. It subtracts from it.
In all capitalist transactions, the business owner is trying to make money. Which means he or she needs to take more from the consumer than he or she gives them. They can’t just break even. They need to end up selling something for more than it costs ownership. And if their intention is to make their own fortune, the net result of all transactions, including payment to their rank and file, must add up to a huge gap between value received and value given.
Given the fact that the ownership class is relatively small, and the vast majority of citizens will never be in it . . . I continuously find it stunning that so many people are okay with this arrangement.
It’s all the more baffling when it’s about life and death matters like health care.
Billy_TParticipantThe National Media sometimes criticizes Donald for ‘free lancing’. I wonder if that move is considered ‘free lancing’ ?
w
vI’m probably the billionth person who’s said this . . . but AD is so crazy good, so relentless, so driven, and so freakishly athletic, he can take himself out of a play and put himself right back into it before it ends — and make the stop. I’ve actually never seen another player do that . . . unless the play is abnormally extended.
Also, whenever I see him standing next to other very large humans, I’m amazed at how small he seems, relatively speaking. He shouldn’t be able to do the things he does on the field. He looks like a linebacker, not a DT.
Billy_TParticipantTrying to boil this down.
I doubt many Americans think this way, but I think everyone should: Inserting profit-taking, “wealth creation,” “commodification” into every nook and cranny of our lives is beyond destructive, and in all cases, unnecessary. Especially when it comes to basic life-necessities, it’s simply irrelevant and shouldn’t even be in the discussion.
Think about it. What does a corporation’s ability to make massive profits, pay its shareholders, its executives, its lobbyists, its tax attorneys, its marketing department, its golden parachute set-asides . . . have to do with whether or not little Janie can beat cancer? What do those things add to the value of her health care? What additional costs do they force on Janie and her family?
This isn’t rocket science.
Billy_TParticipantMy view: We need to ask ourselves, as a society, do we want a system that everyone can afford, that provides the best chance for healthy outcomes, puts patients first, puts the common good first? Or do we want to put profit-takers first, and the individual chance to make one’s fortune off the pain and misery of others . . . and hope for the best when it comes to patients and outcomes?
Because you can’t do both. It’s impossible. We have to choose. Want all Americans to have access to those healthy outcomes? You can’t leave it up to profit-takers. Why? Because their goals, interests and incentives are in direct opposition to those of patients. Obviously. That’s just math. The desire to make fortunes runs counter to the ability of citizens to afford health care. No way around it.
A sane society wouldn’t even hesitate on this. It would treat the health of its citizenry as “sacred,” in a secular sense. At the very least, it would have a non-profit system akin to its public schools, where the focus is on the students, not on insuring the personal accrual of large fortunes by the few.
Again, you can’t do both. You can’t make “wealth creation” a factor while you seek to give access to all citizens. It’s mathematically impossible. You will always and forever leave tens of millions of people out, and short cuts will need to be made for everyone else but the richest of the rich. Patient health will always be at best of secondary concern.
Gotta choose: health for all or wealth for a few.
Billy_TParticipant===================
Yeah, I think thats true that many were Reps who switched to Obama, but it doesnt really change the issue. They ‘could’ have just stayed the course and voted for Hillary, who was essentially a continuation of Obama.
But they rejected that totally.Somethin about the Dems just pissed em off, i guess 🙂
….Has any National American Politician ‘ever’ gotten people’s blood up
as much as Donald Trump? Lincoln maybe?w
vJust a guess, but I think it’s a good one: Obama is likeable. HRC isn’t. As mentioned before, most voters pick a team and stick with it. Those who don’t, typically vote on the basis of connection with the candidate. HRC was never good at that. She could maintain the Dem lifers, but not expand the tent. Obama could expand it.
As for getting the blood up. Dubya did that for me when he was prez. I had a visceral reaction to just seeing him on the screen, or hearing him. He pizzed me off to no end. Now he seems tame in comparison with Trump.
Another side note: Trump lies more than any previous politician that we know of, and he does so in public. I think this gave him and his admin cover to do all kinds of rotten shit behind the scenes, cuz we thought we’d know all about it, given Trump’s public lying. In recent days, we’ve learned that, for years, Trump, Giuliani, Pompeo, Pence and now Barr, have been busy trying to discredit the Russian interference story, to make HRC and the Dems the villains instead.
Trump has managed, without our knowing it, to get much of the government to work for his personal benefit. Not since Nixon have we seen anything like this, and more will come out in the coming weeks and months.
In short, Trump’s clown show of sorts masks his often successful attempt to manipulate the so-called “deep state” to his own advantage. All too many media types assumed it would be all out in the open, that he was too stupid and too ignorant to hide stuff, that his ego wouldn’t allow the secrecy needed. Looks like we’ve been way wrong for some time now.
Billy_TParticipantSide note: Jack posted it earlier, but when I saw the article at the NYT, I was livid. Trump was told that it was illegal to just shoot migrants, which he called for. He wanted to do that. So he kept trying to figure out ways to end this manufactured border “crisis” that were legal, and was told, repeatedly, “No, Mr. President,” you can’t do that.” He changed to shooting them in the legs, electrifying the fence, putting flesh-ripping spikes on the top of the wall, adding moats with snakes and alligators in them.
The man is a sadist and a monster.
At this point, going back to the topic above, the main reason why he keeps his base gives support for some recent studies on levels of stubbornness in humans. Those right of center, ideologically, the studies showed, tend to dig in even more when they’re confronted with facts. As in, they cling even harder to their stances, if criticized. Left of center people tend to reassess and give up on older positions, if the facts warrant this.
Obviously, these studies were about aggregate behavior, not individual. Exceptions galore exist and are assumed.
Billy_TParticipantWV,
This is in dispute, of course, and it’s not an exact science. But several articles after the 2016 noted that far and away most of those “Obama to Trump” voters had previously voted Republican for their entire adult lives. As in, it wasn’t that they switched from the Dems to Trump. They switched from the GOP to Obama (first), and then back to Trump again.
Also in dispute is what caused the switch, but I think that’s where your comment about the Dems driving people into the hands of the “populist right” comes in. This also was the case in Europe and in parts of Asia. The status quo, centrist, corporatist parties, in much of the world, pushed enough disillusioned voters over the line to lose them.
Reverse engineer that, and the logical answer (to me) is that the next time left of center parties win, they need to go Big. Very big. Very bold. Seriously progressive. Or we’ll have other Trumps and Boris Johnsons, or worse to come.
Billy_TParticipantIn my view, people are attributing far too much to Trump himself, as far as his “base” is concerned. He inherited the vast majority of it, simply by being the GOP standard bearer. The same people who voted for Romney, McCain, Dubya, Bush Sr, etc. etc. voted for Trump. If they’re old enough, the same people who voted for Reagan, Nixon, Goldwater and so on.
There’s no doubt in my mind that if Trump had run as an independent, he would have been crushed by the GOP nominee. If Kasich or Rubio, for instance, had won, they would have had at least as large a group of diehards behind them, if not larger.
Trump, on his own, brings very few new people into the GOP, and he loses more than most would to the Dems.
This is why I think the Dems make a huge mistake if they think the answer is to chase after Trump voters. They’re not going to vote Dem anyway. Smarter way to win in 2020? Go after the people who staid home who lean left. They’re virtually the only ones available in the “undecided” column.
-
AuthorPosts
