American Politics

[PVMonger]

I agree with you about single payer and the wisdom of cutting the role of the insurance companies.

Universal health care run through the government is a whole different ball of wax. I'm not saying it's not worth doing. If we could reduce costs and raise quality so we're anywhere close to the same league as, say Singapore (the best out there IMHO), we'd be crazy not to.

I totally disagree with you about raising taxes being B.S. I don't think Democratic politicians would be willing to raise taxes or payroll contributions on the middle class enough to make government run universal health care happen. Democrats seem intent on getting the top 1% to pay for all this, and the top 1%, or even individuals and couples making over $200,000 a year, don't have enough money.

What makes the problem worse, as you touch on above ($12,000 per capita cost), is that we spend a ridiculous amount of money on health care compared to everywhere else. And outcomes are worse than most developed countries.

Here are some numbers from 2019, the latest year for which IRS statistics are available.

https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-t...d-gross-income..

We currently spend $4 T per year on healthcare. That's an "all in" cost and covers everything that Medicare and Medicaid pay, everything every insurance company pays, everybody's out-of-pocket costs (meds, co-pays, etc.), everything that's donated, etc. So if single-payer costs less, then it is simply a matter of reallocating what we, as citizens, already pay.

FDR got us into this healthcare mess with his WWII policy which was probably OK for the time but it should have been scrapped as soon as the war was over.

BY the way, the US did just fine under Ike when the top income tax rate was 91%.

[EihTooms]

What are the things you like the most about gay sex? That's assuming you're heterosexual.

That's like what you're asking me. I'm a small government libertarian who would prefer that, to the extent it makes sense, my local and state governments run government and exercise the power of the purse. And leave our inefficient and wasteful federal government to deal with what's left. And presumably you're asking me to research and highlight big government programs, budget busters, Ponzi schemes, and ticking time bombs. Or at least that's what you've chosen to bring to our attention. Except for the Civil Rights Act, which was passed with more Republican than Democrat votes.

A FULLY FUNDED, efficient health care and retirement program run by the federal government could make sense. It would be transportable when someone changes jobs or moves to another state. It would greatly lower health care costs, from the current, ridiculous level of 18% of GDP, while providing better outcomes, comparable to other developed countries. It would make it where people were setting side enough while they're working so that they have a livable income after they retire..

And just like Ground Hog Day, you make a ridiculous Bothsider claim that dismisses multiple great Dem achievements and elevates Repub nothingness and have got absolutely nothing to back it up or meet my simple challenge.

I cited just 4 important pieces of healthcare-related legislation passed when Dems held the White House and a Majority in both Houses of Congress. To be fair to your ridiculous "50 - 50" claim I should have asked you and anybody else here to cite four such legislations passed when Repubs were in the same position. Instead, I made it exceedingly easy by just asking for one.

But you can't even cite one, right?

Then why not just admit that instead of giving us a short list of some of your favorite movies?

[Tiny 12]

Could it actual be, that the Brits have finally wised-up? Perhaps the situation they now see themselves in, after a conservative right-wing Brexit, has given them a sense of perspective, when it comes to the socio-eco neoliberal lies, misinformation and misconceptions put forth on the right.

Round of applause for the Brits! Next up, Repubs!

For all you football fans, out there keeping score:

Head of Lettuce 1, Liz Truss (right-wing tickle-down economics) 0 (....kkkk!)

Or could it be the Brits are stupid. Perhaps she shouldn't have proposed cutting taxes while inflation was out of control. But Liz Truss had the makings of the greatest British Prime Minister since Margaret Thatcher. Unfortunately Truss, a classical and social liberal like Gary Johnson, only had the support of a small % of the population. Truss was too smart for her own good, and didn't play the game.

Verbal intelligence is correlated with socially and economically liberal beliefs
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...60289614000373

[The Cane]

Head of Lettuce 1, Liz Truss (right-wing tickle-down economics) 0 (....kkkk!)

Truss? Hahahaha!

[Spidy]

Supply-Side / Trickle-Down Truss gone faster than a head of lettuce.
If only that had been the case for Great Repub Recession Reagan, Great Repub Recession Bush2 and Great Repub Recession Trump.

No way were Brits stupid enough to fall for that economy-destroying and job-destroying Reaganomics (actually Coolidge / Hoovernomics) con again. Unlike Repub voters and wiggly stealth Repub Bothsiders / Neithersiders in the USA. No, they have shown themselves to be that stupid over and over again.

With every vote for a Repub, they're going to show the world how stupid they are again next month:

That Time Fox Business Larry Kudlow Touted Liz Truss Terrific Economic Plan, Compared It to Kevin McCarthys (Video)

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/...204414777.html

Could it actual be, that the Brits have finally wised-up? Perhaps the situation they now see themselves in, after a conservative right-wing Brexit, has given them a sense of perspective, when it comes to the socio-eco neoliberal lies, misinformation and misconceptions put forth on the right.

Round of applause for the Brits! Next up, Repubs!

For all you football fans, out there keeping score:

Head of Lettuce 1, Liz Truss (right-wing tickle-down economics) 0 (....kkkk!)

[Tiny 12]

Roger Waters, the most informed rock star. Hate his music, love his politcis. Hehe.

Here he is ripping the CNN guy a new one. Fantastic stuff:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svhXSjo5oPk

Biden is a war criminal.

I wish we were working harder to end this conflict instead of encouraging Ukraine to keep fighting, to the last Ukrainian. And yeah, NATO made some bad moves. I think it should have asked Russia to join back when that was being discussed.

That said, claiming Biden is a war criminal is overboard, as is giving the Soviet Union all the credit for winning World War II. And there aren't a lot of people in Taiwan who would agree with his views on the future of their country.

"USA bad, China and Russia good," is pretty simplistic. It's not that easy.

[Tiny 12]

Actually, earlier in 2022, Sen. Sanders introduced a "Medicare for All 2022" bill, so he hasn't put it on the back burner. https://pnhp.org/what-is-single-payer/senate-bill/.

And the "raising taxes" thing is, well, BS. See, the US spends NOW about $12 k per capita on healthcare. Since the US has about 330 million people, that is a total of almost $4 trillion per year. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/...e-countries-2/#Health%20 consumption%20 expenditures%20 per%20 capita,%20 USA %20 dollars,%20 PPP%20 adjusted,%202020%20 or%20 nearest%20 year.

Granted, single-payer healthcare is expensive BUT over 10 years, the total cost should not exceed $36 trillion. So the total cost for single-payer is less. https://khn.org/news/does-medicare-f...umbers-say-no/.

The folks who really are against single-payer (other than every Repub member of congress) are the insurance companies. Instead of raking in huge dollars every year by "insuring" people then fighting tooth-and-nail to deny their claims, insurance companies would be relegated to selling low-dollar supplemental policies like they do in Canada.

I agree with you about single payer and the wisdom of cutting the role of the insurance companies.

Universal health care run through the government is a whole different ball of wax. I'm not saying it's not worth doing. If we could reduce costs and raise quality so we're anywhere close to the same league as, say Singapore (the best out there IMHO), we'd be crazy not to.

I totally disagree with you about raising taxes being B.S. I don't think Democratic politicians would be willing to raise taxes or payroll contributions on the middle class enough to make government run universal health care happen. Democrats seem intent on getting the top 1% to pay for all this, and the top 1%, or even individuals and couples making over $200,000 a year, don't have enough money.

What makes the problem worse, as you touch on above ($12,000 per capita cost), is that we spend a ridiculous amount of money on health care compared to everywhere else. And outcomes are worse than most developed countries.

Here are some numbers from 2019, the latest year for which IRS statistics are available.

https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-t...d-gross-income

Total adjusted gross income of the top 1.1%, less federal taxes already paid by the top 1.1%: $1. 9 trillion.

Total adjusted gross income of all taxpayers (individuals and couples) who make over $200,000 per year, less federal taxes already paid: $3. 6 trillion.

Compare to your cost estimates above. If you take ALL the income currently realized by people and couples making over $200,000 a year, you're less than the $4 trillion a year. Admittedly you should take off what we're already paying for Medicare, Medicaid, etc. from the $4 trillion. Still, obviously, you're going to have to take most of the money from the middle class to make this work. And I don't think Democrats, or certainly Republicans, have the stomach for it.

BTW, in the same year, 2019, federal government revenues were $3.5 trillion and outlays were $4.4 trillion. It's worth thinking about those amounts as well, as compared to the $4 trillion cost of health care.

[Tiny 12]

50 - 50? Really?

Medicare.

Medicaid.

The Affordable Care Act.

The Inflation Reduction Act.

Those are just some of the legislation proposed, fought for, signed and passed when Dems held the White House and the Majority in both Houses of Congress that have made healthcare more accessible and affordable for more Americans. At least small steps toward Universal Healthcare, as many steps as they can realistically accomplish each time.

Many, many, many days ago I posed a challenge to you and anyone else here, then repeated it many days later and as of this writing not one single poster has cited one single item.

I will repeat it again and this time I will even simplify it to include only healthcare-related legislation:

Please cite an important legislation and now revered fact of American life that was proposed, fought for, signed and passed when Repubs held the White House and the Majority in both Houses of Congress.

Remember, this time it is only about healthcare-related legislation. With a claim of 50 -50 good / bad contribution throughout history, this ought to be an exceedingly easy challenge to meet.

After all, that would therefore not include the Repubs producing the worst economic downturns and massive jobs destruction and none of the historic jobs creation and economic boom times in the past 100 years. Something that is abundantly clear from all verifiable data and evidence was definitely NOT shared 50 - 50 by the two major Parties.

So go ahead and enlighten us with this exceedingly easy one.

What are the things you like the most about gay sex? That's assuming you're heterosexual.

That's like what you're asking me. I'm a small government libertarian who would prefer that, to the extent it makes sense, my local and state governments run government and exercise the power of the purse. And leave our inefficient and wasteful federal government to deal with what's left. And presumably you're asking me to research and highlight big government programs, budget busters, Ponzi schemes, and ticking time bombs. Or at least that's what you've chosen to bring to our attention. Except for the Civil Rights Act, which was passed with more Republican than Democrat votes.

A FULLY FUNDED, efficient health care and retirement program run by the federal government could make sense. It would be transportable when someone changes jobs or moves to another state. It would greatly lower health care costs, from the current, ridiculous level of 18% of GDP, while providing better outcomes, comparable to other developed countries. It would make it where people were setting side enough while they're working so that they have a livable income after they retire. That's not what we have now. The programs you're so enamored with fall into the "Ponzi scheme and ticking time bomb" categories.

BTW, This is like the movie Ground Hog Day or 50 First Dates. You're posting the same thing over and over again. Please see posts 10312 and 10346, where I already replied.

[Spidy]

You may be right. I thought the Affordable Care Act passed with a simple majority, but it took 60 votes. In any event I believe budgetary matters affecting health care could be legislated with a majority.

Affordable Care Act, passed with bipartisan support of slightly more than 3/5 required in the Senate.

As to your title, most Republicans blocking a single payer system, I'd bet a majority of Democratic Congressmen and Senators are against that too. But I don't know. If you do please enlighten us. Sincerely, I'm not being flippant.

I don't think there would be a majority, but maybe a few. I covered this in my post when I said, "Whether its the Repubs or DINOs ...".

50-50. Bestsider, not bothsider. ...

50 - 50? Really? ...

Many, many, many days ago I posed a challenge to you and anyone else here, then repeated it many days later and as of this writing not one single poster has cited one single item.

I will repeat it again and this time I will even simplify it to include only healthcare-related legislation:

Please cite an important legislation and now revered fact of American life that was proposed, fought for, signed and passed when Repubs held the White House and the Majority in both Houses of Congress.

Remember, this time it is only about healthcare-related legislation. With a claim of 50 -50 good / bad contribution throughout history, this ought to be an exceedingly easy challenge to meet. ...

Great challenge! I'd like to see it too.

[PVMonger]

CLAIM: Former President Donald Trump signed an order to deploy 20,000 National Guard troops before his supporters stormed the USA Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, but was stopped by the House sergeant at arms, at the behest of Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

THE FACTS: While Trump was involved in discussions in the days prior to Jan. 6 about the National Guard response, he issued no such order before or during the rioting. New footage released last week of House lawmakers on Jan. 6 has sparked a resurgence of false claims and conspiracy theories about the insurrection. The videos, recorded by Pelosi's daughter, showed the congresswoman negotiating with governors and defense officials in an effort to get Guard troops to the Capitol. Some on social media used the occasion to revive baseless claims that Pelosi had stopped a Trump order for tens of thousands of National Guard troops before the event. "Trump signed an order to deploy 20,000 Guardsmen on J6. It was refused by the House sergeant at arms, who reports to Nancy Pelosi," said one post that spread on Gettr, Instagram and Twitter. As the AP has previously reported, Trump was not involved in decision-making related to the National Guard on Jan. 6, and Pelosi did not stand in their way. Trump did say during a 30-second call on Jan. 5 with then Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller that "they" were going to need 10,000 troops on Jan. 6, according to a statement Miller provided to a House committee in May 2021. But Miller added that there was "no elaboration," and he took the comment to mean "a large force would be required to maintain order the following day. " There is no evidence that Trump actually signed any order requesting 10,000 Guard troops, let alone 20,000, for Jan. 6. Reached for comment, a spokesperson for the Department of Defense provided a timeline of the agency's involvement in preparing for and responding to the attack on the Capitol. The timeline shows no such order, and notes only that on Jan. 3, the president concurred with activating the the. See. National Guard to support law enforcement at the behest of Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser. When the rioting started, Bowser requested more Guard help, on behalf of the Capitol Police. That request was made to Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy, who then went to Miller, who approved it. Neither Pelosi nor the House sergeant at arms could have stopped an ordered deployment of National Guard troops because Congress doesn't control the National Guard, legal experts say. Guard troops are generally controlled by governors, though they can be federalized, said William see. Banks, a law professor at Syracuse University. The online claims "make no sense at all," Banks said, adding, "The House sergeant at arms, he or she is not in the chain of command. Nor is Nancy Pelosi. " As the newly released footage showed, she and Mitch McConnell, then Senate majority leader, called for military assistance, including the National Guard. The House sergeant at arms does sit on the Capitol Police Board, which also includes the Senate sergeant at arms and the architect of the Capitol. That board opted not to request the Guard ahead of the insurrection, but did eventually request assistance after the rioting had already begun. There is no evidence that either Pelosi or McConnell directed the security officials not to call the guard beforehand, and Drew Hammill, Pelosi's deputy chief of staff, said after the insurrection that Pelosi was never informed of such a request.

CLAIM: A new Massachusetts law providing driver's licenses for immigrants in the country illegally will also automatically register them to vote in elections.

THE FACTS: The law passed by Massachusetts state lawmakers this summer prohibits immigrants without legal permission to reside in the USA From being automatically registered to vote. Social media users have been reviving fears that the new Massachusetts law would give those living in the country illegally the right to vote since the state has automatic voter registration. The concerns come as residents weigh a ballot referendum on the law in next month's election. The law, which takes effect July 1, 2023, would allow Massachusetts residents who cannot provide proof of lawful presence in the USA To obtain a driver's license or permit if they meet all other requirements, such as passing a road test and providing proof of identity. "Giving Driver's licenses to illegals gives them the right to vote," the Massachusetts Republican Party said in a Facebook post. Republican gubernatorial candidate Geoff Diehl repeated the claim during a televised debate against Democratic rival Maura Healey. He noted that Republican Governor Charlie Baker vetoed the legislation in part over election concerns. Massachusetts' Democratic-led legislature ultimately overrode the veto. But state Sen. Brendan Crighton, a Democrat who was a lead sponsor of the bill, told the AP that the voting concerns have "long been debunked. " he argued that green card holders, student visa holders and other types of noncitizens can already seek Massachusetts driver's licenses, and there's a system in place to ensure they're not automatically registered to vote. The state in 2020 enacted an automatic voter registration law in which every eligible citizen who interacts with state agencies like the RMV is automatically registered to vote, unless they specifically opt out. The state's current driver's license form asks if the applicant is a USA Citizen and a Massachusetts resident under a section for voter registration. If the applicant can't answer "yes" to all the questions, they are then instructed to check a box that says, "Do not use my information for voter registration. " "The term 'automatic voter registration' is a misnomer in the sense that the individual is not registered to vote unless they are a citizen and over 18 years old," Crighton said. "It is not actually automatic. " Amanda Orlando, Diehl's campaign manager, didn't dispute that Massachusetts' new law specifically prohibits automatic voter registration for those seeking driver's licenses. But she maintained the law, as constructed, "places the burden" of reviewing voting eligibility on the already overburdened and understaffed RMV. "What is written in the law, and what will happen in reality are different," Orlando wrote in an email. "As noted by Governor Baker, they are not able to handle the volume they currently have, let alone increase it substantially with giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. " The RMV declined to comment, but Secretary of State William Galvin's office, which oversees Massachusetts elections, said the two agencies have been in communication ahead of the law taking effect next year. Under the current process, the RMV provides the secretary of state's office with all the relevant information for voter registration — such as an applicant's name, date of birth and address — and can provide additional information to further verify voting eligibility, said Debra O'Malley, Galvin's spokesperson. "The RMV has a record of what evidence of lawful presence has been provided and removes from those batches anyone who hasn't provided them with a USA Birth certificate, USA Passport, or USA.

Naturalization papers," she said by email.

Source: Associated Press https://news.yahoo.com/not-real-news...152649832.html.

[EihTooms]

As clearly shown in a previous similar report, Biden's strong economy of historic jobs creation and wage growth is working beautifully to counter the worst effects of Trump's Pandemic's Supply-Chain Collapse Inflation.

Also, now that we know at least 7 of the 10 States with the highest crime rates are Red States, that Biden has reduced the deficit by $1. 2 Trillion this year after Trump increased it by Hundreds of Billions every year even before he produced Trump's Pandemic and gas prices are still declining, typically pro Repub Mainstream Media really has their work cut out for them to help Repubs win these midterm elections.

U.S. consumer is soldiering on despite soaring inflation, credit card giants say

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/21/us-c...ndroidappshare

U.S. consumers have demonstrated a willingness to continue to pay higher prices in the face of a sluggish economy that could be tipped into a recession, according to credit card giants American Express and Bank of America.

American Express on Friday reported stronger-than-expected third-quarter earnings and revenue, while raising its full-year forecast. The company said overall customer spending jumped 21% year over year, driven by growth in goods and services as well as travel and entertainment.

The demand for travel is particularly resilient as Americans make up for postponed trips due to the pandemic. Consumers are also splurging on food and entertainment after pandemic lockdowns eased.

American Express said its travel and entertainment segment saw spending climb 57% from a year ago with volumes in its international markets surpassing pre-pandemic levels for the first time in the third quarter.

"Card member spending remained at near-record levels in the quarter", American Express CEO Stephen Squeri said Friday on an earnings call. "We expected the recovery in travel spending to be a tailwind for us, but the strength of the rebound has exceeded our expectations throughout the year."

Bank of America isnt experiencing any slower growth in spending either, despite inflation having reached historic highs. CEO Brian Moynihan said earlier this week that the banks customers continue to spend freely, using their credit cards and other payment methods for 10% more transaction volume in September and the first half of October than a year earlier.

"Analysts might wonder whether the talk of inflation, recession and other factors could result in a slower spending growth", Moynihan said Monday during a conference call. "We just dont see that here at Bank of America."

[JustTK]

Roger Waters, the most informed rock star. Hate his music, love his politcis. Hehe.

Here he is ripping the CNN guy a new one. Fantastic stuff:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svhXSjo5oPk

Biden is a war criminal.

[PVMonger]

50-50. Bestsider, not bothsider.

Both sides are reluctant to stand up to the hospitals, doctors, insurance companies, drug companies, and the lawyers who sue them. The Republicans are better at going after the lawyers, while recent developments show the Democrats are better at standing up to the drug companies. None of them wants to give Medicare or private insurance an out so it doesn't have to pay $200,000 for health care for your grannie when she's probably going to die in about 2 months anyway.

The only exception I recall is Bernie Sanders, for a while. I believe he said you're going to have to pay higher taxes and your medical care is going to suck when we do what we've got to do. Or something like that. Actually maybe EihTooms said that. Anyway Sanders must have backtracked on the idea by the time 2021 came around, when, as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, he was championing a $6 trillion Build Back Better bill, with a big chunk of that devoted to expanding Medicare. And without measures that would come close to funding all of the cost..

Actually, earlier in 2022, Sen. Sanders introduced a "Medicare for All 2022" bill, so he hasn't put it on the back burner. https://pnhp.org/what-is-single-payer/senate-bill/.

And the "raising taxes" thing is, well, BS. See, the US spends NOW about $12 k per capita on healthcare. Since the US has about 330 million people, that is a total of almost $4 trillion per year. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/...e-countries-2/#Health%20 consumption%20 expenditures%20 per%20 capita,%20 USA %20 dollars,%20 PPP%20 adjusted,%202020%20 or%20 nearest%20 year.

Granted, single-payer healthcare is expensive BUT over 10 years, the total cost should not exceed $36 trillion. So the total cost for single-payer is less. https://khn.org/news/does-medicare-f...umbers-say-no/.

The folks who really are against single-payer (other than every Repub member of congress) are the insurance companies. Instead of raking in huge dollars every year by "insuring" people then fighting tooth-and-nail to deny their claims, insurance companies would be relegated to selling low-dollar supplemental policies like they do in Canada.

[Tiny 12]

LOL, all due respect, you don't strike me as someone who can't find out what Medicare Advantage is on your own. But if you insist....

And thanks for the explanation, I know what it is now.

[EihTooms]

If only that had been the case for Great Repub Recession Reagan, Great Repub Recession Bush2 and Great Repub Recession Trump.

No way were Brits stupid enough to fall for that economy-destroying and job-destroying Reaganomics (actually Coolidge / Hoovernomics) con again. Unlike Repub voters and wiggly stealth Repub Bothsiders / Neithersiders in the USA. No, they have shown themselves to be that stupid over and over again.

With every vote for a Repub, they're going to show the world how stupid they are again next month:

That Time Fox Business Larry Kudlow Touted Liz Truss Terrific Economic Plan, Compared It to Kevin McCarthys (Video)

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/...204414777.html

Larry Kudlow, the Fox Business host and former Director of the National Economic Council under Trump, touted former British Prime Minister Liz Truss economic plan less than a month ago, on a clip that has resurfaced, hilariously, thanks to Twitter. (You can watch it below.)

"The U.S. midterm elections cavalry arrived early in London. What do I mean by that? Kudlow says in the Fox Business clip. Well, the new British prime minister, Liz Truss, has laid out a terrific supply-side economic growth plan which looks a lot like the basic thrust of Kevin McCarthys Commitment to America plan.