American Politics

[QUOTE=JustTK;2764112]Let me give you a hypothetical example to illustrate why the benchmark selection is important.

Lets say in USA avge income is USD 50.000, but that avge health costs is USD 20.000.
And in Germany avge income is USD 35.000, but that avge health costs provided by the state is USD 10.000.

So equalising to USA. USA is 50.000, Germany is 45.000 - so USA is nr 1.
But by equalising to Germany. USA is 30.000, Germany is 35.000 - so Germany is nr 1.

This is bcos by using USA as benchmark, its high health costs are ignored, whereas by using Germany as benchmark, the USA high health costs are accounted for.[/QUOTE]JustTK, what your analysis misses is that a large share of health care costs in the USA is paid by private employers to private insurance companies, and the value of those payments is not included in adjusted disposable income. When you take that into account, how you equalize shouldn't make a significant difference. Employer payments in the USA make up for higher health care costs.

Apologies in advance if I'm repeating what you already know. In the USA, most employees are covered by employer sponsored health insurance. And most (but not all) of their health care costs are effectively paid by their employers. The federal government pays for Medicare for people over 65 and some of the disabled, Medicaid for the indigent, and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) subsidies apply to others.

Also, please note from your link, "Information is also presented for gross household disposable income including social transfers in kind, such as health or education provided for free or at reduced prices [B]by governments and not-for-profit organisations.[/B] This indicator is in US dollars per capita at current prices and PPPs. In the System of National Accounts, household disposable income including social transfers in kind is referred to as 'adjusted household disposable income. ".

Private employers are not governments or not-for-profit organizations, so presumably their contributions to health care are not included in adjusted disposable income.

Per capita health consumption expenditures in the USA are about $12,000 per year, compared to $6,700 per year in Germany:

[URL]https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries-2/[/URL]

I'm kind of pulling numbers out of the air, but of the $12,000 per year, perhaps $5,000 is paid by employers, $5,000 by the USA Government, and $2,000 by individuals. So, for this example, maybe you could say USA Adjusted disposable or median income should be reduced by $2,000 per person. BUT, I imagine that there are health care costs in Germany that are paid by individuals directly too, so you'd need to reduce German per capita income too.

What's amazing to me is that the USA has a ridiculously inefficient and costly health care system, spends lots of money on defense, and is a very large country. Still it's the most prosperous country in the OECD, in terms of disposable income per capita adjusted for purchasing power. If you kick out Luxembourg (population 640,000), which is small, and Norway, which is a petrostate, the difference is very large. I believe the most important reason for our prosperity is small government as a % of GDP. Sounding like a broken record, more money stays in the hands of the people. And in the private sector, which is the engine of economic growth and jobs.

Have you spent a significant amount of time in both the USA and Europe? If you do that, I suspect your beliefs would change, from observing people's comparative standard of living.

Did you come up with this idea on your own? If so, Kudos, the renowned left wing economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman came up with a similar argument. I believe they largely abandoned it when confronted with my argument above, which is not original -- I read it some place. Now instead Saez and Zucman are arguing that employer payments for health care in the USA actually constitute a regressive tax! Incredible! The hoops they have to jump through.

[QUOTE=Xpartan;2764235]I think TK has got something there. Our healthcare system that favors only the very poor and the very rich is an atrocious embarrassment. No other industrial nation in the world denies its citizens universal care. It's just mind-blowing how successfully Republicans have trained their constituency to vote against their own basic interests.

Of course, his reasoning is uber simplified, because that German healthcare for example isn't made possible due to the lower average income, but higher average taxes. Still, there is no denial that our healthcare system is both the worst and most expensive in the civilized world.[/QUOTE]The Republican constituency is mostly covered by medical insurance and Medicare, and is rightfully concerned that government will take a bad system and make it even worse. The Democrats' approach last time around to expand coverage with the Affordable Care Act was doubling down on a failed system, that costs way too much and delivers comparatively poor results. I do give them credit however for finally making Medicare negotiate drug prices.

Only about 10% of Americans are uninsured. So yes, while we should have universal care, it's even more important to bring down the cost and improve outcomes. Maybe the federal government should allow states to opt out of Medicare, Medicaid, etc. , and instead receive cash payments from the Federal government. Then those that chose to do so could come up with their own systems. One might opt for "nationalizing" the system while another might try to incentivize competition while providing a safety net. Presumably whatever works would be adopted by other states. Just an idea, probably a bad one, but just about anything would work better than what we have now.

I know this is from Italy. But.

[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQLd6iH8oow[/URL]

A new political party born from Diem 25. They now have parties in Greece, Germany, Italy. They are growing fast. People and seeing the need for chage, for a new direction. And the overall man behind the wheel, Yanis Varoufakis, is my current politcal hero. Transnationalism is on the rise. Its your life. Grab it and take it, its yours.

Smthg like this could well be born from disilllusionment in the USA. Would you support it, would you fight for it, or are you too comfortable in your own world? We need a new direction. The only obstacle are the people that don't think change is possible.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2764274]The Republican constituency is mostly covered by medical insurance and Medicare, and is rightfully concerned that government will take a bad system and make it even worse. The Democrats' approach last time around to expand coverage with the Affordable Care Act was doubling down on a failed system, that costs way too much and delivers comparatively poor results. I do give them credit however for finally making Medicare negotiate drug prices.

Only about 10% of Americans are uninsured. So yes, while we should have universal care, it's even more important to bring down the cost and improve outcomes. Maybe the federal government should allow states to opt out of Medicare, Medicaid, etc. , and instead receive cash payments from the Federal government. Then those that chose to do so could come up with their own systems. One might opt for "nationalizing" the system while another might try to incentivize competition while providing a safety net. Presumably whatever works would be adopted by other states. Just an idea, probably a bad one, but just about anything would work better than what we have now.[/QUOTE]"Covered" huh?

You're not covered when you're responsible for copayments, deductible and often co-insurance.

You're not covered when your plan tells you how limited your treatment options are (only so many chemotherapy sessions are covered, some life-saving surgeries are not, etc).

You're not covered by Medicare when it only covers 80% of services, and Medigap plans for the elderlies cost as much as a normal commercial insurance plan for a younger person.

Why not Medicare Advantage then? Well, try it, then come back and tell us how many providers have refused to see you.

So those 90% who you claim are "insured" - they ain't. They only think they are.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2764253]JustTK, what your analysis misses is that a large share of health care costs in the USA is paid by private employers to private insurance companies, and the value of those payments is not included in adjusted disposable income. [/QUOTE]I don't think its appropriate to criticize my example bcos it does not take account of XYZ. I didn't share it as a fait acumpli. It is just a very simplified example to demonstrate how the choice of benchmark can affect the outcome. I made no attempt to account for all factors. Tiny, neither you nor I have access to all the necessary factors that must be accounted for. But what I do know is that the cost of healthcare to the avge Joe in the USA is much higher than anywhere else in the world, and certainly higher than the cost that each state takes on in providing public health care in each developed country. Spartanbrain made the best point (and maybe only point) in his most recent post about limitatons in private healthcare. Also note that its the better paid jobs that have healthcare, not the poorer folks, and right, no doubt the 30 million invisibles are properly accounted for too in healthcare coverage in the state records (hehe).

So in summary, neither yof us can say with any accuracy. I am merely saying I do not accept the stats as given bcos there is a high degree of uncertainty in it. Difficulties in benchmarking, and also unaccounted unpeople. I hope that explains my position. And going back to start of this exchange. I still stand by the squeeze on the middle class, and if you want to deny that, you need to show that the situation of the middle class has not diminished over time. The research study I included clearly shows the opposite.

[QUOTE=Xpartan;2764235]I think TK has got something there. Our healthcare system that favors only the very poor and the very rich is an atrocious embarrassment. No other industrial nation in the world denies its citizens universal care. It's just mind-blowing how successfully Republicans have trained their constituency to vote against their own basic interests.

Of course, his reasoning is uber simplified, because that German healthcare for example isn't made possible due to the lower average income, but higher average taxes. Still, there is no denial that our healthcare system is both the worst and most expensive in the civilized world.[/QUOTE]Here's the thing. America's "health care" costs $3. 6 trillion every year (about that, anyway). So, with a 330 million population, that's about $11,000 per person or $44,000 for a family of 4. Granted, some of that $44,000 is paid for by insurance, but a lot isn't. But even then, somebody has to pay, right? Of course, dumb Republicans think that that's OK, even though it is, by definition, socialism. What's worse is that a study said that "Medicare for All" would cost $36 trillion over 10 years. I don't know about you, but when I went to school, 3.6 times 10 equaled 36.

And yes, the dumb Repubs keep getting their stupid voters to vote against their best interest. When Donnie the Dumbass said that he loved the uneducated, he was correct.

Let's not forget, though, that the US' "average tax rate" is 37% whereas Germany's is 45%. Higher, yes, but not abnormally so. [URL]https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/highest-taxed-countries[/URL].

[QUOTE=Xpartan;2764300]"Covered" huh?

You're not covered when you're responsible for copayments, deductible and often co-insurance.

You're not covered when your plan tells you how limited your treatment options are (only so many chemotherapy sessions are covered, some life-saving surgeries are not, etc).

You're not covered by Medicare when it only covers 80% of services, and Medigap plans for the elderlies cost as much as a normal commercial insurance plan for a younger person.

Why not Medicare Advantage then? Well, try it, then come back and tell us how many providers have refused to see you.

So those 90% who you claim are "insured" - they ain't. They only think they are.[/QUOTE]Good post. You'd make a good Baptist preacher. Or politician or trial attorney or something. You need to amp up the sanctimonious outrage a couple of notches though, and start with it instead of waiting until the end.

I don't disagree. In 2020 about 36% of health care expenditures were made by the federal government, and 14% by state and local governments. That's 50% altogether. And health care expenditures were about 19.5% of GDP. They'll come down a little in the post-COVID era and then go back up again. But anyway about 9. 5% of health care is paid for by government.

Western Europeans pay around 11% of GDP, total, for healthcare. And they have better outcomes than we do. Singapore pays 4% and people there live 6. 5 years longer on average than in the USA. Colombia, Thailand, Turkey, and Albania all have longer life expectancies than the USA. Costa Ricans live 3 years longer. And all those countries spend way less, per capita and as a % of GDP, than our government alone spends on health care. We should be able to ramp that 9. 5% that government spends up to 11% and provide universal health care with better outcomes. Actually I think we should be able to do that for less than 9. 5%.

Your belief that if the Democratic Party had complete control all would be hunky dory is a fantasy. Yeah we can cover all those things you mention that aren't covered, and make it where people don't have to pay zip out of pocket, but the Democratic Party solutions won't do jack to control costs or improve outcomes, except perhaps to lower drug costs. I say "perhaps" because, despite their control of the House, Senate and Presidency, they only managed to get Medicare to negotiate drug prices. They might also have done something about insulin cost too, I'm not sure as I didn't follow it that closely. In any event they don't appear to have the guts to stand up to the providers and the hospitals and the insurance companies and the drug companies when they price gouge and game the system. Or institute a single payer system.

The one exception WAS Bernie Sanders. He used to say with Medicare for All you're not going to have Cadillac health care, where your doctor is allowed to pick a drug that isn't any better than another one that's cheaper, or you can spend tons of money on end of life care, or have government pay for high cost experimental cancer treatments that haven't been showed to work. He doesn't say that much any more though, because he knows it doesn't appeal to the base.

[QUOTE=PVMonger;2764435]Here's the thing. America's "health care" costs $3. 6 trillion every year (about that, anyway). So, with a 330 million population, that's about $11,000 per person or $44,000 for a family of 4. Granted, some of that $44,000 is paid for by insurance, but a lot isn't. But even then, somebody has to pay, right? Of course, dumb Republicans think that that's OK, even though it is, by definition, socialism. What's worse is that a study said that "Medicare for All" would cost $36 trillion over 10 years. I don't know about you, but when I went to school, 3.6 times 10 equaled 36.

And yes, the dumb Repubs keep getting their stupid voters to vote against their best interest. When Donnie the Dumbass said that he loved the uneducated, he was correct.

Let's not forget, though, that the US' "average tax rate" is 37% whereas Germany's is 45%. Higher, yes, but not abnormally so. [URL]https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/highest-taxed-countries[/URL].[/QUOTE]You'd really upped your game. Sorry to see it slip back. Yes, it's those stupid, evil Republicans. They're responsible for all the world's ills.

About your last paragraph, those are maximum marginal tax rates, and the number for the USA Is low. With the Obamacare tax it's an additional 3. 8%, or 40.8%. Add in the average state income tax rate and we're probably higher than Germany. In California the total would be 54.1%. The USA BTW has the most progressive tax system in the developed world.

What you should be looking at are government revenues as a % of GDP. See [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_government_spending_as_percentage_of_GDP[/URL]. This is for 2020, so the expenditures in the same table are misleading because of COVID, but the revenues should be consistent with past years.

Here they are for the USA, Germany and France.

USA: 30.3%.

Germany: 46.9%.

France: 52.5%.

If you look at other tables I've linked to, you'll see that by various measures the average resident of the USA is more prosperous than the average resident of Germany, who in turn is more prosperous than your average Frenchman.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2764503]Good post. You'd make a good Baptist preacher. Or politician or trial attorney or something. You need to amp up the sanctimonious outrage a couple of notches though, and start with it instead of waiting until the end.

I don't disagree. In 2020 about 36% of health care expenditures were made by the federal government, and 14% by state and local governments. That's 50% altogether. And health care expenditures were about 19.5% of GDP. They'll come down a little in the post-COVID era and then go back up again. But anyway about 9. 5% of health care is paid for by government.

Western Europeans pay around 11% of GDP, total, for healthcare. And they have better outcomes than we do. Singapore pays 4% and people there live 6. 5 years longer on average than in the USA. Colombia, Thailand, Turkey, and Albania all have longer life expectancies than the USA. Costa Ricans live 3 years longer. And all those countries spend way less, per capita and as a % of GDP, than our government alone spends on health care. We should be able to ramp that 9. 5% that government spends up to 11% and provide universal health care with better outcomes. Actually I think we should be able to do that for less than 9. 5%.

Your belief that if the Democratic Party had complete control all would be hunky dory is a fantasy. Yeah we can cover all those things you mention that aren't covered, and make it where people don't have to pay zip out of pocket, but the Democratic Party solutions won't do jack to control costs or improve outcomes, except perhaps to lower drug costs. I say "perhaps" because, despite their control of the House, Senate and Presidency, they only managed to get Medicare to negotiate drug prices. They might also have done something about insulin cost too, I'm not sure as I didn't follow it that closely. In any event they don't appear to have the guts to stand up to the providers and the hospitals and the insurance companies and the drug companies when they price gouge and game the system. Or institute a single payer system.

The one exception WAS Bernie Sanders. He used to say with Medicare for All you're not going to have Cadillac health care, where your doctor is allowed to pick a drug that isn't any better than another one that's cheaper, or you can spend tons of money on end of life care, or have government pay for high cost experimental cancer treatments that haven't been showed to work. He doesn't say that much any more though, because he knows it doesn't appeal to the base.[/QUOTE]Interesting! You call my view on our healthcare system "sanctimonious outrage," then immediately say you "don't disagree. " Then you provide really good examples from around the world that serve like an excellent reinforcement of my notion of how atrocious our own healthcare system is, then you confirm that it's entirely possible to provide all citizen with the universal care within our current budget or just for a little more.

Well, seeing how we're both on the same page here, what makes me a preacher or "whatever" then?

Aha, it's the Democrats who have failed to control the costs.

I wonder where you've been in the last 14 years and how you have managed to miss the total war declared by Republicans on Obamacare even though Obamacare efforts were based on what Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts. Then there was the sheer madness of the Republican propaganda machine comparing Obama to both Stalin and Hitler, accusing ACA of being akin to the Third Reich's "euthanasia" program, followed by countless lawsuits and obstruction and sabotage, in other words, the only things the Republicans have really excelled in since Gingrich.

You're blaming the Democrats for their inability to control prices. Fine, I'm not saying they're blameless, but even if they were. How are you going to control prices with the Reps refusing to reign in that abomination AKA Medicare Advantage plans?

Which party has consistently blocked Medicare from negotiating prices with the Pharma that you seem to be in favor of? Want to guess?

Which party is lobbying to replace Medicare with vouchers to buy healthcare from private insurers?

You're claiming the Dems should've done more having controlled the Congress and White House, like you're not aware that their razor-thin "control" has been undermined by Munchin and Sinema at every step.

Seriously, those elephants in the room where you're typing your posts -- it's got to be really hard to ignore them. Don't know how you manage.

[URL]https://seekingalpha.com/news/3890099-gop-senators-introduce-bill-to-undo-medicare-prescription-drug-negotiation[/URL]

[URL]https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/11/01/fact-sheet-by-the-numbers-millions-of-americans-would-lose-health-care-coverage-benefits-and-protections-under-congressional-republicans-plans/[/URL]

[QUOTE=PVMonger;2764435]Here's the thing. America's "health care" costs $3. 6 trillion every year (about that, anyway). So, with a 330 million population, that's about $11,000 per person or $44,000 for a family of 4. Granted, some of that $44,000 is paid for by insurance, but a lot isn't. But even then, somebody has to pay, right? Of course, dumb Republicans think that that's OK, even though it is, by definition, socialism. What's worse is that a study said that "Medicare for All" would cost $36 trillion over 10 years. I don't know about you, but when I went to school, 3.6 times 10 equaled 36.

And yes, the dumb Repubs keep getting their stupid voters to vote against their best interest. When Donnie the Dumbass said that he loved the uneducated, he was correct.

Let's not forget, though, that the US' "average tax rate" is 37% whereas Germany's is 45%. Higher, yes, but not abnormally so. [URL]https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/highest-taxed-countries[/URL].[/QUOTE]Even the demonstrably Repub-leaning Emerson poll shows Trump being supported overwhelmingly by the uneducated. Which is convenient for his Party's penchant for promoting disastrous policies that produce horrific results. Ignorant and ill-informed people are easier to convince that never happened or if it did it was the Dems' fault or, easiest of all, that it was the fault of "Bothsides. ".

[B]Trump would beat DeSantis in 2024, as Biden approval rate remains underwater, new poll finds[/B]

[URL]https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/22/trump-would-beat-desantis-in-2024-biden-approval-rate-underwater.html[/URL]

[QUOTE]The poll noted an education divide exists among Republican primary voters, according to Spencer Kimball, executive director of Emerson College Polling.

Voters with a high school degree or less support Trump by 71%. Voters with a college degree, some college, or an associates degree support him by 53%.

Republican voters with a postgraduate degree support Trump the least, at 32%.[/QUOTE]Also, this demonstrably Repub-leaning polling service has Trump totally obliterating Trump Without The Flash DeSantis and Biden beating both of them in a hypothetical 2024 matchup.

Oh, and a majority of the respondents think investigations of Repub Party Leader Icon Trump's Democracy-hating, America-hating, Anti-America January 6, 2021 Violent, Cop-Killing Insurrection should continue.

Guy Standing was simply Out-Standing in this chat.

[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hhdRrTDl1Q[/URL]

"A new system of basic income, where basic income for all is the foundational anchor of that system. It would allow people to do less destructive work. Making less emphasis on jobs. What the hell are we doing? Jobs, jobs, jobs? Jobs are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. I want people to do more work of care, more volunteering, more ecological work, more leisure. I think the Left has lost it if they think that maximising jobs is the answer to any sensible question. We have to have a new agenda. ".

[QUOTE=JustTK;2764704]Guy Standing was simply Out-Standing in this chat.
[/QUOTE]When there is no angle to write how shlt Chump is, the silence is deafening here.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2764565]Even the demonstrably Repub-leaning Emerson poll shows Trump being supported overwhelmingly by the uneducated. Which is convenient for his Party's penchant for promoting disastrous policies that produce horrific results. Ignorant and ill-informed people are easier to convince that never happened or if it did it was the Dems' fault or, easiest of all, that it was the fault of "Bothsides. ".

[B]Trump would beat DeSantis in 2024, as Biden approval rate remains underwater, new poll finds[/B]

[URL]https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/22/trump-would-beat-desantis-in-2024-biden-approval-rate-underwater.html[/URL]

Also, this demonstrably Repub-leaning polling service has Trump totally obliterating Trump Without The Flash DeSantis and Biden beating both of them in a hypothetical 2024 matchup.

Oh, and a majority of the respondents think investigations of Repub Party Leader Icon Trump's Democracy-hating, America-hating, Anti-America January 6, 2021 Violent, Cop-Killing Insurrection should continue.[/QUOTE]What is worse in your opinion, being educated and not working to your potential or being uneducated and working to your potential? Whats better for society? In the age of "instant information" is a 200 k college degree really necessary to be truly educated in order to solve the most important problems in society? Are people voting to solve problems or vote for the candidate who makes them feel good in the moment? Are politicians working to solve problems like immigration, societal cohesiveness / equality, affordable healthcare, quality education, inflation, opportunities to achieve happiness? Or are they working to just win an election? Are people voting for the most qualified candidate or the political party the candidate represents no matter how ineffective the individual candidate may be?

I don't think you can solve any of these problems until the extreme forms of tribalism are eliminated from politics. Logical solutions without human bias is what both parties need. Need more than two parties at this point as well. No more picking the lesser of two evils.

[QUOTE=JustTK;2765338]When there is no angle to write how shlt Chump is, the silence is deafening here.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=JustTK;2764704]Guy Standing was simply Out-Standing in this chat.

[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hhdRrTDl1Q[/URL]

"A new system of basic income, where basic income for all is the foundational anchor of that system. It would allow people to do less destructive work. Making less emphasis on jobs. What the hell are we doing? Jobs, jobs, jobs? Jobs are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. I want people to do more work of care, more volunteering, more ecological work, more leisure. I think the Left has lost it if they think that maximising jobs is the answer to any sensible question. We have to have a new agenda. ".[/QUOTE]The video's an hour long. I don't have time to watch all of it.

As to the quote, which I presume was spoken by one European talking to other Europeans, it highlights another reason besides smaller government why Americans are more prosperous than Europeans -- the American Work Ethic. Americans work harder and longer.

There's synergy with smaller government here. When the taxman isn't taking half your income, through income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and a VAT, like in Europe, you're more motivated to work. I am anyway.

[QUOTE=Xpartan;2764525]Interesting! You call my view on our healthcare system "sanctimonious outrage," then immediately say you "don't disagree. " Then you provide really good examples from around the world that serve like an excellent reinforcement of my notion of how atrocious our own healthcare system is, then you confirm that it's entirely possible to provide all citizen with the universal care within our current budget or just for a little more.

Well, seeing how we're both on the same page here, what makes me a preacher or "whatever" then?

Aha, it's the Democrats who have failed to control the costs.

I wonder where you've been in the last 14 years and how you have managed to miss the total war declared by Republicans on Obamacare even though Obamacare efforts were based on what Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts. Then there was the sheer madness of the Republican propaganda machine comparing Obama to both Stalin and Hitler, accusing ACA of being akin to the Third Reich's "euthanasia" program, followed by countless lawsuits and obstruction and sabotage, in other words, the only things the Republicans have really excelled in since Gingrich.

You're blaming the Democrats for their inability to control prices. Fine, I'm not saying they're blameless, but even if they were. How are you going to control prices with the Reps refusing to reign in that abomination AKA Medicare Advantage plans?

Which party has consistently blocked Medicare from negotiating prices with the Pharma that you seem to be in favor of? Want to guess?

Which party is lobbying to replace Medicare with vouchers to buy healthcare from private insurers?

You're claiming the Dems should've done more having controlled the Congress and White House, like you're not aware that their razor-thin "control" has been undermined by Munchin and Sinema at every step.

Seriously, those elephants in the room where you're typing your posts -- it's got to be really hard to ignore them. Don't know how you manage.

[URL]https://seekingalpha.com/news/3890099-gop-senators-introduce-bill-to-undo-medicare-prescription-drug-negotiation[/URL]

[URL]https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/11/01/fact-sheet-by-the-numbers-millions-of-americans-would-lose-health-care-coverage-benefits-and-protections-under-congressional-republicans-plans/[/URL][/QUOTE]You need to learn how to accept praise gracefully. And accept constructive criticism and learn from it. I'm the founder of the Church of Tiny*, which promotes free markets and social liberties. And while I promote a message of love and fellowship, like a good Methodist, I highly respect those who use fire and brimstone instead. And there's just not nearly enough fire and brimstone in your earlier message (#11049) and it doesn't even crop up until the end.

Yes, we know the faults of the Republicans as they relate to health care. The beloved Democratic Politicians however will never fix the system. It's like what I wrote about Bernie Sanders. At one time he was honest about what had to be done, how we wouldn't be able to get every drug or every doctor we want with a Medicare for All plan that wouldn't bankrupt the country. And he had to abandon that message. Because the Democratic Party is the Party of Free Money with No Accountability.

Moreover, rationalizing the system would upset the apple cart. The pharmaceutical and insurance industries do contribute slightly more to Republicans than Democrats. Slightly more. Many Democrats are sucking at the tit of big health businesses. They don't want to lose that tit.

Furthermore, who are the strongest supporters of the Democratic Party? The trial lawyers, that's who. They sue insurance companies, drug companies, doctors and hospitals for a living. If we're going to have better quality, lower cost care, we need to go to a single payer system. That means no health insurance companies to sue. And how about the ridiculous premiums many doctors and hospitals have to pay for liability insurance? The huge amounts of money that have been sucked out of the pharma companies and the pharmacies by the trial lawyers? Think about Fentanyl for example, which may eventually bankrupt CVS and Walgreens. All that has to go if we're going to implement a rational health care system. And the Democratic Party isn't going to bite the hands of some of its biggest sugar daddies.

And don't fool yourself about Sinema and Manchin. There were other Democratic Senators just as in hock to the drug companies as Sinema. If she hadn't come through for them, and limited the damage to Medicare and insulin, others would have stepped forward. In fact, supposedly the reason we still have carried interest treatment for management fees of private equity firms is because Sinema was running interference for Chuck Schumer, historically a stalwart for Wall Street. Still, I love that woman. She kept Congress and Biden from raising my taxes. And she's bisexual.

*Please send your tax deductible contribution to Church of Tiny, Account #123456, SWIFT ABCDEF, National Bank of the Cayman Islands. And thank you for your support!