American Politics

[QUOTE=JustTK;2754338]You mean look at all the places that are blocked from participating in normal world trade by the USA, simply bcos they dare try a different economic system and refuse to suck the USA dick?

Of course they are likely to fail. Show me a socialist country that has not had to try to succeeed AS WELL as compete against the oppressive weiight of sanctions / coups / ostracism by the USA and other leading puppy-dog powers.

Listen to Bill Burr spoke out candidly:

[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ScLu3BX1AY[/URL][/QUOTE]I haven't watched the link yet, but you've got a good point. The bigger factor though is those countries' departure from neoliberalism, the system that's raised hundreds of millions from abject poverty.

[QUOTE=Spidy;2754339]Medicare Advantage is a major part of the problem.

But, what's f*cked up is the QAnon/Repubs, wanting to keep the status quo, while Dems are at least trying to remedy past healthcare sins and provide a more equitable healthcare, outta the clutches of the insurance companies and big data firms. It helps to recognize, at the very least, which side is trying to do right by the Americans voted them into office, that want to see a better healthcare system. On![/QUOTE]I give the Democrats credit for finally aggressively negotiating drug prices for Medicare. Otherwise they're part of the problem. Health care costs are over 18% of GDP and neither party is doing or has done diddly squat about it, with the exception I mentioned.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2754283]You were replying to me Spidy. I don't even know what Medicare Advantage is, so don't have an opinion.[/QUOTE]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 (in just a few words) Medicare Advantage was enacted by forcing Medicare to contract with private insurance companies (and paying dearly for their "assistance" They normally cover things not covered by traditional Medicare, like 20% outpatient copayments, drugs and other services. To be able to offer these "savings" they create private, HMO-like networks, and cut off seniors' access to better hospitals and other medical services.

Plus they routinely scam Medicare, overcharging taxpayers to the tune of tens of billions year after year, but that's a given.

[URL]https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/08/upshot/medicare-advantage-fraud-allegations.html[/URL]

To be fair, while this monstrous scam was originally created by the Republicans, its enormous expansion lately has sadly and shamefully attracted a lot of Democratic support.

And why are Medicare Advantage plans so successful? Because MA marketers relentlessly spam and lie to the most vulnerable group of people, the seniors.

Even well-meaning people say Medicare-for-all is not realistic because there isn't enough money to pay for it. How about taking billions back from the crooks? That would be a start.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2754283]I do believe that our health system is really f*cked up, and both parties share part of the blame for that. So does that make me a Bothsider? No! That makes me a Bestsider![/QUOTE]Well, so you are aware that despite being the only developed country in the world without the Universal health care system, we still spend (or rather waste) on health care more than any other nation in the world?

USA Health Care from a Global Perspective, 2019: Higher Spending, Worse Outcomes?

[URL]https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2020/jan/us-health-care-global-perspective-2019[/URL]

The question is then, what part of the blame you think they share. Like a 50-50 part or 5-95 part? I don't think you can blame both parties equally (at least with a straight face) after the Reps have been blocking all and every attempt on developing a fair Universal health care system for decades. Every step of the way! Because that would be socialism!

So if you do assign the blame equally to both sides, I must say yes, you are being somewhat a Bothsider here.

[QUOTE=Tiny 12;2754350]I give the Democrats credit for finally aggressively negotiating drug prices for Medicare. Otherwise they're part of the problem. Health care costs are over 18% of GDP and neither party is doing or has done diddly squat about it, with the exception I mentioned.[/QUOTE]Like I said, it helps to know which party is doing more. Democrats, have been continually making more strides towards more affordable and equitable healthcare, like the aforementioned affordable drugs. Dems have also put forth strong proposals for single-payer healthcare.

I'm sure this has been covered here before, but I'll reiterate:

[b]Medicare For All? Shock Poll Discovers That 70 Percent Of Americans Want Single-Payer Healthcare To Happen[/b]
[URL]https://investortimes.com/freedomoutpost/medicare-for-all-shock-poll-discovers-that-70-percent-of-americans-want-single-payer-healthcare-to-happen/[/URL]

Single-payer healthcare (also known as "Medicare For All"), is something 70% of Americans want and support. Surprisingly enough, 54% of Repubs, also want to see single-payer healthcare system.

But true to the pettiness that is Repubs politicians (and would rather bite off their noses to spite their faces), they don't want to pass healthcare bill/act that the Dems, have put forth, and would benefit most Americans, just because it was the Dems.

Democrats, proposals of a single-payer system, are at least trying to make healthcare closer to [b]a right[/b] and [b]not a privilege[/b] and join every other industrialized country in the world, w/r to healthcare.

[QUOTE=Spidy;2754384]Like I said, it helps to know which party is doing more. Democrats, have been continually making more strides towards more affordable and equitable healthcare, like the aforementioned affordable drugs. Dems have also put forth strong proposals for single-payer healthcare.

I'm sure this has been covered here before, but I'll reiterate:

[b]Medicare For All? Shock Poll Discovers That 70 Percent Of Americans Want Single-Payer Healthcare To Happen[/b]
[URL]https://investortimes.com/freedomoutpost/medicare-for-all-shock-poll-discovers-that-70-percent-of-americans-want-single-payer-healthcare-to-happen/[/URL]

Single-payer healthcare (also known as "Medicare For All"), is something 70% of Americans want and support. Surprisingly enough, 54% of Repubs, also want to see single-payer healthcare system.

But true to the pettiness that is Repubs politicians (and would rather bite off their noses to spite their faces), they don't want to pass healthcare bill/act that the Dems, have put forth, and would benefit most Americans, just because it was the Dems.

Democrats, proposals of a single-payer system, are at least trying to make healthcare closer to [b]a right[/b] and [b]not a privilege[/b] and join every other industrialized country in the world, w/r to healthcare.[/QUOTE]I don't have a problem with single payer. In fact it's part of the Tiny Savings and Medical Plan. If there's massive support for single payer in the Democratic Party, why wasn't it passed when Democrats controlled the House, Senate and Presidency? Like in 2009, 2010, 2021 or 2022? Like I said, neither party has done diddly squat, outside of lowering prices that will be paid for drugs for Medicare patients, which I give your side credit for.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2754300]Thanks to [B]Obama's[/B] decisions ten years earlier, we had vaccines produced and ready to go at warp speed:

[B]Obama's science advisors outline plan for faster pandemic vaccine.
Aug. 19, 2010[/B]

[URL]https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2010/08/obamas-science-advisors-outline-plan-faster-pandemic-vaccine[/URL]

[B]Foster Highlights President Obamas Contribution to Rapid Vaccine Development in Hearing with Dr. Fauci[/B]

[URL]https://foster.house.gov/media/press-releases/foster-highlights-president-obama-s-contribution-to-rapid-vaccine-development[/URL]

However, thanks to Trump's decisions the world [B]needed[/B] vaccines produced and ready to go at warp speed:

[B]Timeline of Trumps Coronavirus Response[/B]

[URL]https://doggett.house.gov/media/blog-post/timeline-trumps-coronavirus-responses[/URL]

Also, thanks to Trump, most Americans and many millions of others around the world harbored the deadly and mistaken notion that it wasn't necessary for anyone to bother inventing a vaccine at either warp speed or at their leisure much less ever bother or risk taking one for practically the entire critical Trump's Pandemic year of 2020:

[B]'It's going to disappear':
A timeline of Trump's claims that Covid-19 will vanish[/B]

[URL]https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2020/10/politics/covid-disappearing-trump-comment-tracker/[/URL]

[B]Trump Baselessly Claims Coronavirus Will Go Away Without Vaccine[/B]

[URL]https://www.factcheck.org/2020/05/trump-baselessly-claims-coronavirus-will-go-away-without-vaccine/[/URL][/QUOTE]Your first post is a report by Obama's science committee. It doesn't mention any steps that were necessarily taken, only recommendations. Your next two are partisan propaganda. As to Trump, yes, he's a liar and he'll say anything, no matter how ridiculous, that he thinks promotes his prospects. What's new.

The pioneering research for mRNA vaccines was done with grants provided in part by the federal government during the Bush Administration. Bush took the risk of pandemics in general and coronavirus pandemics in particular seriously, because of the SARS scare.

Otherwise, the heroes in government are not the politicians. They're great Americans like Anthony Fauci, who were steering grants to vaccine research, among other areas. Still, the amount spent on mRNA vaccines prior to COVID was a pittance, in comparison to the tens of billions dumped into them by Pfizer, Moderna, BioNTech, and Operation Warp Speed.

I've heard American Hero Anthony Fauci give credit to the Trump Administration at least three times for Operation Warp Speed. Something like $18 billion was dumped into Operation Warp Speed, and it was worth every penny.

Furthermore, I give credit to Trump for pushing approval for the vaccines through the FDA. He was trying to get them through before the election but didn't quite manage that. You see Biden doing something similar with releases of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The difference is that what Trump did made a lot of sense, for the country. What Biden is doing may make sense for his party's prospects in the Mid Terms (i.e. lowering gasoline prices), but he's depleting our strategic oil stockpiles. Almost all the sour crude preferred by our refineries is now gone from the reserve.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2754387]I don't have a problem with single payer. In fact it's part of the Tiny Savings and Medical Plan. If there's massive support for single payer in the Democratic Party, why wasn't it passed when [b]Democrats controlled[/b] the House, Senate and Presidency? Like in 2009, 2010, 2021 or 2022? Like I said, neither party has done diddly squat, outside of lowering prices that will be paid for drugs for Medicare patients, which I give your side credit for.[/QUOTE]You would have to go back and look at the politics of day to really get your answer. But I'm not sure if single-payer healthcare (SPHC), was so widely adopted in 2009,2010 as it is today.

As you also well know, in the "game of politics", bills being written going in, often don't look anything like they do, when coming out. Whether its the Repubs or DINOs and their big-money lobbyists / insurance / pharma donors, blocking or changing the bill, enough bipartisan support wasn't available, to pass both houses. But I suspect you already knew this!

Not too mention (in 2021 or 2022), Democrats don't have enough seats to overcome the senate filibuster and therefore would require Repub bipartisan support. Ego, Dems have no such control w/r to passing this type of a bill.

[U]Hence when I said:[/U]

[QUOTE=Spidy;2754384] But true to [b]the pettiness that is Repubs politicians [/b](and would rather bite off their noses to spite their faces), they don't want to pass healthcare bill/act that the Dems, have put forth, and would benefit most Americans, just because it was the Dems. ... [/QUOTE]Again, given the politics of the day, public opinion, sentiment and appetite, there maybe more pressing issues and unfortunately get shoved to the back-burner.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2754388]Your first post is a report by Obama's science committee. It doesn't mention any steps that were necessarily taken, only recommendations. Your next two are partisan propaganda. As to Trump, yes, he's a liar and he'll say anything, no matter how ridiculous, that he thinks promotes his prospects. What's new.

The pioneering research for mRNA vaccines was done with grants provided in part by the federal government during the Bush Administration. Bush took the risk of pandemics in general and coronavirus pandemics in particular seriously, because of the SARS scare.

Otherwise, the heroes in government are not the politicians. They're great Americans like Anthony Fauci, who were steering grants to vaccine research, among other areas. Still, the amount spent on mRNA vaccines prior to COVID was a pittance, in comparison to the tens of billions dumped into them by Pfizer, Moderna, BioNTech, and Operation Warp Speed.

I've heard American Hero Anthony Fauci give credit to the Trump Administration at least three times for Operation Warp Speed. Something like $18 billion was dumped into Operation Warp Speed, and it was worth every penny.

Furthermore, I give credit to Trump for pushing approval for the vaccines through the FDA. He was trying to get them through before the election but didn't quite manage that. You see Biden doing something similar with releases of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The difference is that what Trump did made a lot of sense, for the country. What Biden is doing may make sense for his party's prospects in the Mid Terms (i.e. lowering gasoline prices), but he's depleting our strategic oil stockpiles. Almost all the sour crude preferred by our refineries is now gone from the reserve.[/QUOTE]So now you're crediting GW Bush for warp speed and totally ignoring my links for the timely strides made by the Obama administration and how Trump created Trump's Pandemic as far back as 2018 from the one golden opportunity available for him to do so. And all with no substantiation report links at all.

Duly noted.

[QUOTE=Spidy;2754424]You would have to go back and look at the politics of day to really get your answer. But I'm not sure if single-payer healthcare (SPHC), was so widely adopted in 2009,2010 as it is today.

As you also well know, in the "game of politics", bills being written going in, often don't look anything like they do, when coming out. Whether its the Repubs or DINOs and their big-money lobbyists / insurance / pharma donors, blocking or changing the bill, enough bipartisan support wasn't available, to pass both houses. But I suspect you already knew this!

Not too mention (in 2021 or 2022), Democrats don't have enough seats to overcome the senate filibuster and therefore would require Repub bipartisan support. Ego, Dems have no such control w/r to passing this type of a bill.

[U]Hence when I said:[/U]

Again, given the politics of the day, public opinion, sentiment and appetite, there maybe more pressing issues and unfortunately get shoved to the back-burner.[/QUOTE]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.

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.

[QUOTE=Xpartan;2754377]The question is then, what part of the blame you think they share. Like a 50-50 part or 5-95 part? I don't think you can blame both parties equally (at least with a straight face) after the Reps have been blocking all and every attempt on developing a fair Universal health care system for decades. Every step of the way! Because that would be socialism!

So if you do assign the blame equally to both sides, I must say yes, you are being somewhat a Bothsider here.[/QUOTE]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.

And yeah, a majority of Democrats may support universal health care. Maybe, I don't know. But to make it happen they'd have to either raise taxes and payroll contributions massively on the middle class, or rationalize health care so it doesn't cost so much. And they're not willing to do either.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2754463]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.

And yeah, a majority of Democrats may support universal health care. Maybe, I don't know. But to make it happen they'd have to either raise taxes and payroll contributions massively on the middle class, or rationalize health care so it doesn't cost so much. And they're not willing to do either.[/QUOTE]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.

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:

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

[URL]https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/time-fox-business-larry-kudlow-204414777.html[/URL]

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Xpartan;2754377]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....[/QUOTE]And thanks for the explanation, I know what it is now.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2754463]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..[/QUOTE]Actually, earlier in 2022, Sen. Sanders introduced a "Medicare for All 2022" bill, so he hasn't put it on the back burner. [URL]https://pnhp.org/what-is-single-payer/senate-bill/[/URL].

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. [URL]https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries-2/[/URL]#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. [URL]https://khn.org/news/does-medicare-for-all-cost-more-than-the-entire-budget-biden-says-so-but-numbers-say-no/[/URL].

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.

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:

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

Biden is a war criminal.