READER COMMENTS ON
"GOP Health Care Vote Delayed as Repub Senators Balk at Medicaid Cuts, Harm to Hospitals: 'BradCast' 6/27/2017"
(7 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
...
SH
said on 6/28/2017 @ 3:19 pm PT...
Dear Brad,
No deep thoughts on CNN's implosion and Feinstein and Schiff supporting inquiries into the Obama admin's handling of the Clinton email investigation and failure to follow act on Russian tampering?
I think the last point is kind of unfair myself since there is not a single verified publicly accessible document which supports this conspiracy theory. On the other hand, it appears that this was all made up by Obama and Clinton supporters inside and outside gov't with the help of all those Fake News companies like CNN, so I don't really feel sorry for them.
As for CNN, I read much of your quite compelling investigative reporting on Project Veritas and Acorn, and it does look like a shady edited hitpiece. However, do you think these currently breaking videos showing the utter and complete moral vacuum that appears to exist at all levels in CNN rehabilitates PV's reputation at all?
Finally, the topic at hand. Initially, I want to make it clear that I think we should absolutely cut our military budget dramatically, close most of our bases worldwide and stop funding crazy expensive corrupt unicorn weapons projects (not to mention the "moderate rebels" in Syria and elsewhere, otherwise known as ISIS and Al Qaida. I also think that we should reform our tax code so that anyone bringing in money from whatever source in excess of 500k a year pays at least 30% of all earnings as taxes, without loopholes or deductions of any kind. Conversely, any individual making less than 40k a year or a household making less than 80k a year should pay zero income taxes.
So I want the government to spend less on death and war and have a fair tax system that honestly taxes those who can afford to pay and stops taxing those who can't really afford it. However, I don't think that all these savings should necessary be pumped into entitlement programs willy nilly.
That said, what do you think of Rand Paul's idea to let large organizations such as AARP shop ins. co.'s across state lines to purchase affordable group insurance for its tens of millions of members?
I fully agree that Medicaid needs to stay and be fully funded for Aged requiring long-term care and to pay medicare premiums, the Disabled of all ages and minors whose parents can't otherwise afford insurance for them. However, working age people with no disabilities issues probably shouldn't qualify for taxpayer funded healthcare in our current model.
I myself did not see a doctor more than a handful of times for the entirety of my 20s up till now (30s) because I didn't need to. Even today if I had the choice I would just get catastrophic/emergency coverage for myself.
And even if I could have applied for Medicaid at any point since I became an adult I wouldn't have because that would be messed up to use up resources that really should go to the poor elderly, the disabled and the poor youth. Healthy working age adults should be helping to support the vulnerable, or at the very least not draining resources that should go to vulnerable.
That doesn't mean that a true single payer system wouldn't be better than whatever Republicans propose and the current post ACA system, but given the reality that the Democratic party sucks and is losing and doesn't control anything, wouldn't it be a good idea to really look into proposals that might be feasible?
The Rand Paul thing looks like a pretty good idea on its face, but I don't think it could work if people's only other choice is to buy expensive shitty insurance or face massive tax penalties - i.e. insurance co's would likely collude and not play ball since they know they have a monopoly on healthcare for everyone who doesn't get Medicaid.
I don't understand why "private" is always equated with "evil/greed/etc," either explicitly or by implication, but our government, which has killed millions people in its endless imperial escapades and is massively captured by the medical-pharmaceutical complex, can be entrusted with insuring (literally) the health of the entire nation.
Also, for the record, I think tax cuts for super wealthy people is a travesty and for that reason alone the GOP bill sucks and should be buried. However ACA treats people making more than 45-50k a year as "middle class" requiring hundreds of dollars a month in premiums with no subsidies, and also requiring massive coinsurance for the lowest plans and bankruptcy inducing out of pocket limits. On the other hand, after bankruptcy, you might qualify for a poverty based Medicaid program, so that is positive I guess.
Obama should have left the private insurance stuff alone and simply expanded Medicaid as he did and it would have been a much better law and the Dems would actually have some moral high ground to stand on. Or maybe not, since they are as good as Republicans at fucking everyone over, but much better at fucking themselves over.
Finally, the elephant in the room is preventative health. We need to break the stranglehold of the medical-pharma complex. It is crazy that every supplement, no matter how benign needs a stupid FDA label about there being no proof that these things help. Forget literally thousands of years of use and current scientific support for something like curcumin, the FDA didn't sign off on it. On the other hand, FDA approved Vioxx killed a bunch of people and did anyone go to jail?
Bottom line, we will never have a robust and responsive, responsible and inexpensive healthcare system unless most people are healthy, bottom line. There is no way that with cancer rates spiking, diabetes spiking, asthma, autoimmune diseases and all the rest all up historically, that we can provide quality healthcare for all for the next generation or two unless health professionals are willing to work for free.
Ok thanks Brad for the show and summary.
Shifting gears, I implore you please be less partisan. It is unbecoming especially when you are on the waning side in the cultural zeitgeist we find ourselves in, in addition to the total and complete moral bankruptcy of most of the supposed "liberals" in the Dem establishment.
Somehow, despite your keen intellect and investigative prowess, you are really suffering from confirmation bias with regard to Trump and everyone you call wing nuts or whatever stupid term you've been throwing around for 16 years. Do you recall when you had McGovern on your show in December and he told you point blank that he and VIPS know that the Russia thing is all total BS and the emails were leaked not hacked? You got uncomfortable because you really respect him and he was really easy to agree with wholeheartedly when Bush was in office but now you can't imagine him agreeing with something Trump or wingnutters say. That's your problem. It isn't about "skepticism" it is about your psychological framework for viewing the world leading to confirmation bias.
On that note, in the same blurb about the show you mention some of the "distinguished" members of VIPS such as William Binney. DO you know that William Binney has repeatedly gone on the Alex Jones show and praised Jones for his work. Does this change how you feel about Binney at all? Either way, you should have him on, he is an incredible brain.
Ditto John Kiriakou he was on Jones' show yesterday with the coauthor of his new book. Powerful powerful stuff.
I hope you try to get more hard core government whistleblower types on your show, some of the most powerful work I observed here was the Sibel Edmonds stuff. Really awesome.
Also, have you ever considered reaching out beyond your comfort zone to amplify your exposure? I am not talking about corporate media which is mostly worthless.
You and Jones both seem to agree wholeheartedly that there should only be paper voting and that electronic voting machines can be and have very likely been hacked in multiple major elections. If you can get past the Trump loving and libertarian stuff, I think there are some serious issues you could work together to expose. You should ask him to come on your show and offer to come on his. The guy has 3 or 4 million radio listeners each day and many of his listeners would benefit greatly from some of the epic work you have done here over the years. The only way this country has a chance is to break out of the partisan conditioning and rigid ideological border walls separating us and find common ground and hammer the shit out of it until we hit critical mass for change. And as you repeatedly remind everyone, the number one issue is voting integrity, otherwise nothing else matters and a violent revolution becomes inevitable at some point, which I really do not want to ever see in my lifetime.
Damn what a rant. Bye.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
...
Brad Friedman
said on 6/28/2017 @ 6:54 pm PT...
SH @ 1:
A lot of disinfo in your epically long rant, but as I don't believe it's "knowing disinfo" (in violation of our commenting rules), I'll leave it as is, with my best attempt to reply very quickly (on a deadline here at moment) to a number of your questions...
No deep thoughts on CNN's implosion and Feinstein and Schiff supporting inquiries into the Obama admin's handling of the Clinton email investigation and failure to follow act on Russian tampering?
Well, not for the moment because a) CNN is not "imploding" and b) I don't know anything about Feinstein/Schiff "supporting inquiries" you mention. I don't have any problems with inquiries, however, whether you've characterized them correctly or not. (Seems like you get info from a number of disreputable sources. Thus, my qualification there.)
I think the last point is kind of unfair myself since there is not a single verified publicly accessible document which supports this conspiracy theory. On the other hand, it appears that this was all made up by Obama and Clinton supporters inside and outside gov't with the help of all those Fake News companies like CNN, so I don't really feel sorry for them.
And there's your first bit of disinfo that I think you actually believe. CNN may be lousy news, in many cases, but it's not "Fake News". I'm sorry you so gullible that you'd go along with the con men hoping that you'd repeat their propaganda to that end. As to "a single verified publicly accessible document" regarding to the "Russian tampering", as I've noted many times on the show, I generally agree with that (even if you've overstated your case --- there is some publicly accessible documentation, even if it isn't very good.)
Trump's attempts to obstruct the investigation is very well documented, and there is much evidence to suggest that a number of Trump Admin members either lied to or misled investigators, as well as the public. Unless you are in favor of public corruption, I'd hope you'd support such inquiries, as I do.
As for CNN, I read much of your quite compelling investigative reporting on Project Veritas and Acorn, and it does look like a shady edited hitpiece. However, do you think these currently breaking videos showing the utter and complete moral vacuum that appears to exist at all levels in CNN rehabilitates PV's reputation at all?
Not even close. PV and O'Keefe are con artists. As to CNN, I've seen only his first video yesterday, and if you think some medical producer at CNN (O'Keefe didn't mention the guy has nothing to do with their political coverage) making the case that CNN likes ratings equates to an "utter and complete moral vacuum", you must be remarkable gullible.
what do you think of Rand Paul's idea to let large organizations such as AARP shop ins. co.'s across state lines to purchase affordable group insurance for its tens of millions of members?
While I read his letter to McConnell today, where he discussed purchasing insurance over state lines (as I recall), I don't recall any references to AARP. That said, there is a very good reason why we don't currently allow insurance to be purchased over state lines. If we did, essentially the state's with the lowest requirements would quickly take over the entire market. (See, for example, Delaware and credit cards.)
If you want low or no standards for healthcare, then selling over state lines is a great idea. I'd prefer higher standards, at least for my health care. It's an issue we've discussed on the show many times, and hopefully you're aware of what a scam that would be for "consumers".
working age people with no disabilities issues probably shouldn't qualify for taxpayer funded healthcare in our current model.
So, if you lose your job and get cancer, fuck you? I respectfully and completely disagree.
I myself did not see a doctor more than a handful of times for the entirety of my 20s up till now (30s) because I didn't need to.
Lucky you. Congrats on your good health!
Even today if I had the choice I would just get catastrophic/emergency coverage for myself.
Thus, confirming a number of my assertions above that you are a sucker. You'd be better off with NO insurance than to waste your money on those grifter scheme "health" policies.
And even if I could have applied for Medicaid at any point since I became an adult I wouldn't have because that would be messed up to use up resources that really should go to the poor elderly, the disabled and the poor youth.
Well, you wouldn't have been able to apply, unless you also were "poor" enough that you couldn't afford insurance otherwise. But, either way, again, lucky you that you didn't need it. Congrats.
Healthy working age adults should be helping to support the vulnerable, or at the very least not draining resources that should go to vulnerable.
And, if they get cancer, or get hit by a car, or break a leg, fuck those slackers, amirite?
That doesn't mean that a true single payer system wouldn't be better than whatever Republicans propose and the current post ACA system, but given the reality that the Democratic party sucks and is losing and doesn't control anything, wouldn't it be a good idea to really look into proposals that might be feasible?
Sure. Got one? I know the Democrats in California (where, with super majorities they control the Assembly and the Governor's mansion, they'd be shocked to learn they "[don't] control anything") just passed a Single Payer health care bill in the state Senate to cover every Californian. The bill has a long way to go, and too much opposition from (yes) other Dems and Republicans, but I believe their proposal is feasible and better than ACA. If you or any other Republican has a feasible idea, I hope you or they will present it. If it offered better, cheaper coverage for more Americans, I'm sure I'd be in favor of it!
I don't understand why "private" is always equated with "evil/greed/etc," either explicitly or by implication, but our government, which has killed millions people in its endless imperial escapades and is massively captured by the medical-pharmaceutical complex, can be entrusted with insuring (literally) the health of the entire nation.
"Private" isn't "always equated with 'evil/greed/etc". At least not by me. But when it comes to healthcare, however, I find it immoral that private companies are profiting off of sick people. Remove the private profit motive from health care, which should be a right in a civilized nation, and coverage costs immediately drop anywhere from 15 to 30 percent. I'm sure you appreciate how many more people could be covered once the money spent on Administration and billionaires at private health insurance companies (who do nothing but write checks and deny coverage) is used for healthcare instead of immoral profiteering.
ACA treats people making more than 45-50k a year as "middle class" requiring hundreds of dollars a month in premiums with no subsidies, and also requiring massive coinsurance for the lowest plans and bankruptcy inducing out of pocket limits.
You "massively" overstate your case, but I don't disagree with the general premise. Which is why ACA should be improved, as opposed to worsened, as all of the GOP plans offered so far will do.
Obama should have left the private insurance stuff alone and simply expanded Medicaid as he did and it would have been a much better law and the Dems would actually have some moral high ground to stand on. Or maybe not, since they are as good as Republicans at fucking everyone over
Sorry to see you would have preferred to leave about 10 or 15 million uninsured because they were too wealthy for Medicaid, but too poor to afford private, profitized health care (as is the case with many people even under ACA, as you seemed to recognize above...before forgetting about it, one paragraph or so later.)
There is no way that with cancer rates spiking, diabetes spiking, asthma, autoimmune diseases and all the rest all up historically, that we can provide quality healthcare for all for the next generation or two unless health professionals are willing to work for free.
That is silly, ridiculous and wrong. Sorry you have fallen for that scam as well.
Shifting gears, I implore you please be less partisan.
Sorry. No actual clue what you're talking about there.
Somehow, despite your keen intellect and investigative prowess, you are really suffering from confirmation bias with regard to Trump and everyone you call wing nuts or whatever stupid term you've been throwing around for 16 years.
I'm sure you'll feel free to let me know what you're referring to there as well, and what reporting I've offered on Trump or "everyone [I] call wing nuts" is either inaccurate or otherwise false or untrue. I'm sure you've got something, right?
Do you recall when you had McGovern on your show in December and he told you point blank that he and VIPS know that the Russia thing is all total BS and the emails were leaked not hacked? You got uncomfortable because you really respect him and he was really easy to agree with wholeheartedly when Bush was in office but now you can't imagine him agreeing with something Trump or wingnutters say. That's your problem.
Thanks for the analysis, Doc. If you'd like to know why was actually "uncomfortable" (I wasn't, but I'll use your words), it was because he tossed that separate issue in at the very end of our time, as I recall, when there was not enough time to properly respond. But, more to the point, I had already spent a good deal of time off air looking into his allegations, speaking to him and several of his VIPs compadres to find their argument (and evidence) less than persuasive. In fact, though I like the VIPs folks quite a bit, they made a number of the very same mistakes in making their case that they were (correctly) accusing the MSM of. Since I like the VIPs folks --- and since we were short on time --- I didn't want to call them out on air without having the time to allow them to respond. Thus, the "uncomforable"-ness you cite. That you didn't know that or bother to ask before making your inaccurate presumption, well, that's your problem.
On that note, in the same blurb about the show you mention some of the "distinguished" members of VIPS such as William Binney. DO you know that William Binney has repeatedly gone on the Alex Jones show and praised Jones for his work. Does this change how you feel about Binney at all?
No.
Either way, you should have him on, he is an incredible brain.
I like Bill. But, on the topic you cite above, he was one of the folks who I found less than persuasive on the "leak" allegations, "incredible brain" or otherwise.
Also, have you ever considered reaching out beyond your comfort zone to amplify your exposure? ... You and Jones both seem to agree wholeheartedly that there should only be paper voting and that electronic voting machines can be and have very likely been hacked in multiple major elections. If you can get past the Trump loving and libertarian stuff, I think there are some serious issues you could work together to expose.
I was a guest on Alex' show many times in years past. He used to link to (or, actually, lift outright) my stories for his website. Then, perhaps as the need for traffic and making money increased, he became increasingly disreputable, in my opinion, which is where he is now. Completely discredited and largely running a scam for suckers who don't seem to have the wherewithal to know they are being played. Other than that, I generally will try to make time for anybody who invites me to do so, unless they are out and out charlatans.
The only way this country has a chance is to break out of the partisan conditioning and rigid ideological border walls separating us and find common ground and hammer the shit out of it until we hit critical mass for change.
If that includes "find[ing] common ground" with con men, I'm not particularly interested.
And as you repeatedly remind everyone, the number one issue is voting integrity
Actually, no. The number one issue is election integrity. The voters are doing fine, as I constantly remind everyone. That you joined the right-wing wingnuts in substituting the term "voting integrity" there is both disappointing, and a sad statement on the way wingnut con men have succeeded in conning even you.
Damn what a rant. Bye.
Yup. Try to keep it shorter next time and I might be able to have more of a convo with you.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
...
SH
said on 6/29/2017 @ 2:50 pm PT...
I sincerely thank you for the thoughtful response. I know you do not have much time or any obligation to answer anyone, especially someone you think is as misinformed as I.
I did make a mistake, I meant election integrity not individual voter fraud issues.
There is a bunch of stuff I want to ask you over the coming months via email if you have the time and inclination to respond. I will focus on one issue at a time. I will do my homework and go through your archives to see if you already addressed anything that concerns me, and I will provide citations.
I don't really have time to do any of that (full time job, side work, wife, daughter etc.), but I feel we are on a precipice in this country and the world and I don't see how we get out of it unless people are willing to work towards common interests with people who they may disagree with on 95% of the other issues.
I will be honest that at this point in my life I have become pretty disillusioned with the "left" (have pretty much always been disillusioned with the mainstream right wing, i.e. the unholy alliance of wall street, chicken hawk neocons and uber Christian conservatives). When I first found your blog after the 2004 pres election I would have 100% identified myself as a liberal democrat progressive etc.
Over the years, I saw identity politics and other relatively peripheral issues taking precedence over issues of empire, government corruption and election integrity. Transgender bathroom protocol or gay wedding cakes are not on my radar. Nikki Haley's tweet a couple days ago threatening war with Russia and Iran is an important issue, not because they affect me more, but because every single person in this country and perhaps the world would be affected by such a war.
And since no one has time to follow everything or be active about everything, what one chooses to focus on with limited time says a lot about priorities.
It seems borderline delusional to me to think that we can really build a sustained national movement for transgender rights or wage disparities or rights of undocumented immigrants when we can't even do so for the totally uncontroversial proposition of ending our aggressive imperial foreign policy which produces industrial scale death and destruction in our names.
We are basically in the same place we were after Bush with the exception of ACA, less troops in Iraq, a more fragile economic situation after years of super low interest rates, bank bailouts, a totally failed state in Libya, meddling in Syria and the Ukraine etc. The empire marches on.
I am bothering you with all of this because you have integrity and you care enough to consistently respond to people such as myself, sometimes at great length, instead of just banning people or ignoring them. That is really rare as far as I can tell. Plus you are one of the few trustworthy sources of independent journalism on election integrity issues.
Thanks for your hard work.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
...
SH
said on 6/29/2017 @ 4:27 pm PT...
I did want to address three specific points you made in a separate comment.
1) I am not a Republican. Both parties are corrupt and I believe are controlled by powerful interests at the highest levels. I don't like Mike Pence or Lindsay Graham or McCain or Paul Ryan or any of those weirdos. I also don't like Pelosi, or Franken or Waters or Warren. I only support Trump to the extent that he actually follows through on some of his rhetoric: to cancel TPP style deals, try to improve the economy, to stop foreign conquest wars, and to go after government corruption. If he was lying about all that and turns out to be just as corrupt as the average "swamp" dweller like Hillary, then fuck him and his stupid party. But he definitely is being constantly attacked by media and democrats, with blatantly spurious “news” such as the Russia collusion stuff, which I take as a good sign that he might actually do something that hurts the ruling class status quo.
2) I don't think people should sign up for Medicaid if they are healthy and working age, even if they have no job. I would consider any kind of acute emergency like breaking a leg, or any chronic life threatening disease like cancer coverable by Medicaid if people meet whatever poverty guidelines exist OR can prove that they could not get insurance through any private insurer in the state after they became sick/hurt. We can just expand the definition of disabled (temp or permanent) to include these situations. In fact this SHOULD have been the solution to preexisting conditions in the first place. I would rather the government directly reimburse healthcare providers to care for the chronically ill than give private insurance companies an excuse to raise premiums on many individual policyholders on top of receiving government subsidies. If these people have resources, then the government can collect an additional “health tax” from these people rather than forcing them to spend all their resources before they can access Medicaid.
3) With the California bill, it was criticized for being poorly written and did not address financing or how CA would continue to get Medicaid funding. House Speaker Rendon did not consider it a serious bill.
http://nymag.com/daily/i...by-assembly-speaker.html
Also, grating universal healthcare to undocumented immigrants is a really nice but stupid idea. You are basically inviting a tidal wave of illegal immigration to the state to access such services. Right now undocumented people can qualify only for restricted Medicaid services, not full scope coverage. You could say that only people present when the law passes are covered, but then you are creating another group of second class people who come later and it is really hard to justify such a policy except to say we don't want to bankrupt the program or create backlogs to access services. However, that then begs the question of why any undocumented immigrants should be given coverage at all if we are concerned about the long-term viability of the program and protecting legally recognized citizens and residents.
I don’t know if you have kids, but some people might ask why an unemployed 25 year old man with no health problems who came to California illegally a couple years prior should receive the same access to health services as a California born baby or someone who lived and worked and paid taxes there for years?
Anyway I hope to explore some of these issues with you in a more thoughtful and manner with proper sourcing in private communications.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
...
Urinalism
said on 6/29/2017 @ 10:50 pm PT...
SH, better get healthy, the health care system will crash it won't be a joke it will be the math. The MATH must be addressed. But also BAD Policy like the Food Pyramid which makes people eat FAST carbs the most, and then get sick, fat and cancer. The doctors pushing this slow deceptive death need JAIL.
TWO things fix this mess.
END type 2 diabetes by cutting out fast carbs, and freeing up medicare pressure. with everyone off all the Blood medications it frees up cost. You should be at the FARMERS MARKET steaming your broccoli, and scrambling your eggs, not at 7-11 buying a sugar drink or something with wheat. Your home shouldn't have any BREAD. if you can't see your private parts without sucking your belly in, you are overweight and need to get on it, it ain't a joke.
Prices must be fixed. Can't mark up prices for the uninsured more than medicare would pay for EXACT same thing.
this will reduce cost 80% (forget the 400 billion California nonsense we can't PAY)
Lets say you get a heart attack and need a stent, with prices set it's $12,000 (ALL can afford that --- even if your poor you can get a loan)
Now with this savings you can Re-Beef up the Emergency Rooms for medicare/indigent walk-in's.
Stop depending on the broken system, it's going to collapse from the math, BE off any prescriptions drugs if possible when that happens. It's possible for Medicare people to get 30 day of drugs but lot of hoops to jump, it's better to Get off all these drugs and never need them again because your diet and weight and circulatory system are good to go.
The health part makes you have skin in the game since you don't want to go to the hospital in the first place, now you have incentive to actively take responsibility for your own body and health
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
...
Brad Friedman
said on 7/1/2017 @ 1:57 pm PT...
SH @3 said:
I feel we are on a precipice in this country and the world and I don't see how we get out of it unless people are willing to work towards common interests with people who they may disagree with on 95% of the other issues.
For the record, I have NO problem working with and finding common ground with anybody who is legitimate and honest, no matter how much I may disagree with them on anything else. The reason I have no interest in folks like AJ, is because he is wildly dishonest and purposely disformative.
I am happy to work with Republicans or Democrats who I might disagree with on other topics, as has been amply demonstrated here over the years. But if they are charlatans, I don't have any particular interest in adding credibility to their charlatanism. Even there, however, if the common ground in question and the positive to gain is more important than anything else, I'd even consider working with charlatans, if there are no particular trust issues in the advocacy at stake.
Over the years, I saw identity politics and other relatively peripheral issues taking precedence over issues of empire, government corruption and election integrity.
If by "identify politics" you mean equality, then I'm sorry to see that you feel Equal Justice Under the Law (as referenced in the Constitution) is little more than a "peripheral issue". I'm guessing it's because whatever you "identity" is, it is one that is not lacking in access to such justice. Much as I'm happy for you that you could afford to survive cancer, etc., if you lost your job and couldn't, for some reason, afford insurance (as discussed in previous note), I'm also happy for you that you don't have to worry about the oppression of minorities that our Consitution is meant to protect against.
Transgender bathroom protocol or gay wedding cakes are not on my radar.
I'm guessing that's because you are not barred by law from using a public restroom that fits your sexuality and are able to do business with anybody you wish. If businesses --- let's say hotels, gas stations, restaraunts --- began barring anyone who appeared to be an Alex Jones listener, just because they didn't like Alex Jones, I suspect you may have a few different items on your agenda.
You may not give much of a damn about things that don't directly affect you. But, as a progressive, I feel differently and I don't see such struggles as "peripheral issues". If you care about empire and the foreign wars and oppression it leads to, I'd think you'd also care about those who are ultimately forced, disproportionately, to fight and die in those wars. It's only a "peripheral issue", I suppose, if you are a part of the periphery.
Nikki Haley's tweet a couple days ago threatening war with Russia and Iran is an important issue, not because they affect me more, but because every single person in this country and perhaps the world would be affected by such a war.
Actually, probably not much. Though the folks on the "periphery" would be disproporationally affected by such wars, yes.
Not sure where you got the idea that things are matters of Either/Or.
And since no one has time to follow everything or be active about everything, what one chooses to focus on with limited time says a lot about priorities.
No doubt.
It seems borderline delusional to me to think that we can really build a sustained national movement for transgender rights or wage disparities or rights of undocumented immigrants when we can't even do so for the totally uncontroversial proposition of ending our aggressive imperial foreign policy which produces industrial scale death and destruction in our names.
Not sure where you got the idea that that was "totally uncontroversial", as I suspect the bulk of American people (and certainly politicians) likely feel that our foreign policy is meant to spread values of peace, democracy and equality across the world. (I disagree, of course, but just pointing out your narrow view if think that something like that is "totally uncontroversial", if only because it --- unlike being able to have the same rights as your fellow citizens --- matters to you.)
That you so easily gloss over "wage disparities" when so many in the richest nation in the world are living in poverty, lacking in food, shelter, and so much more so that the obscenely wealthy can become obscenely wealthier is a type of thinking my brain can hardly wrap itself around.
As to "transgender rights", I'll guess you are not transgender, and never had to live your life with the often-insurmountable amount of struggle that it can result in, particularly as a country which treats you as less than human every single day of your life. Again, congrats!
We are basically in the same place we were after Bush with the exception of ACA, less troops in Iraq, a more fragile economic situation after years of super low interest rates, bank bailouts, a totally failed state in Libya, meddling in Syria and the Ukraine etc. The empire marches on.
Yes. The empire marches on. But to suggest we are "basically in the same place", despite Marriage Equality now being the law of the land, some 30 million with access to health care who didn't have it before (you mentioned ACA), a far better economy than we had at the end of the Bush years, etc. seems remarkable narrow-sighted. Yes, Obama, in many ways, extended the empire (in some ways, in other ways he narrowed it, but not by much). But Trump has reversed pretty much any and all gains on that front and made things desperately far worse and FAR more dangerous.
I am bothering you with all of this because you have integrity and you care enough to consistently respond to people such as myself, sometimes at great length, instead of just banning people or ignoring them. That is really rare as far as I can tell. Plus you are one of the few trustworthy sources of independent journalism on election integrity issues.
Well, thank you. I am sorry that I can't always reply and/or in more details. I hope you'll find that my trustworthiness extends to ALL issues we deal with here, not just election integrity.
Thanks for your hard work.
And thanks for your comments! I'll try to get to your other note before I must hit the road shortly for a few days!
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
...
Brad Friedman
said on 7/1/2017 @ 3:15 pm PT...
SH @4 said:
I only support Trump to the extent that he actually follows through on some of his rhetoric: to cancel TPP style deals, try to improve the economy, to stop foreign conquest wars, and to go after government corruption.
Were you drunk or on heavy drugs when you typed that? Not only has he NOT followed through on the bulk of his (largely disinformed) rhetoric, he has far more frequently done the opposite of his rhetoric. As to the above specifics, he has only "cancelled" TPP (which had never gone to effect, in any case), he is so far continuing NAFTA and appears to be largely picking up TIPP where it was left by the previous administration. You'll have to show me where he has "[tried] to improve the economy". Is that by undermining the very few reforms put in place for big banks by the previous administration? By ignoring and/or undermining the most promising future technology (renewable energy) to allow other nations to take the lead and clean our clocks? I could go on, but I won't. You'll let me know what he'd done "to improve the economy". As to "stopping foreign conquest wars," you're just kidding right? Expanding our military presence all over the world and attacking a sovereign nation under terms that couldn't, in anybody's wildest stretch of the AUMF imagination be considered as legal under either international or U.S. law is your idea of putting a "stop [to] foreign conquest wars"??? And, finally, "go[ing] after government corruption", you'll have to share even one such example of any such thing. Or is adding dozens of Goldman Sachs officials and hundreds of industry lobbyists to every single federal agency your idea of "go[ing] after government corruption"???
Not even sure what version of Planet Earth you must be referring to with those seemingly insane assertions.
If that's what you "support", then I'd like some of what you are smoking please. Maybe it'll make this malignant presidency easier to survive.
If he was lying about all that and turns out to be just as corrupt as the average "swamp" dweller like Hillary, then fuck him and his stupid party.
Um...if you actually read any news anywhere, I'm fairly certain you would know by now that his corruption is far worse than any "swamp dweller" we have seen inside the White House. But, take your time in coming to terms with how wrong you ended up being about him. No rush. Just fate of the nation and planet at stake.
But he definitely is being constantly attacked by media and democrats, with blatantly spurious “news” such as the Russia collusion stuff, which I take as a good sign that he might actually do something that hurts the ruling class status quo.
Yes. When people are desperate, they tend to find "good sign[s]" anywhere they can, even when there are none. You'll have to point me to that "spurious news" you cite. I find a lot of incurious, credulous and often lazy reporting on what government officials unwilling to go on the record or supplly documentation to support their assertions are saying. I prefer to avoid that type of reporting myself and the trust given to those unnamed official's accounts is maddening and has an irresponsible multiplier effect. But as to "spurious" (you may as well have called it "FAKE NEWS!" like your friend), that seems to be another one of your patented overstatements to help you justify what you'd like to believe.
I am skeptical and dubious of the claims of "collusion", and have reported as much over and over. But to suggest he is, somehow, undeserved of the "attacks" he has received is to border on delusional.
For the record he IS "the ruling class status quo". He has arrived at his position by being it's very poster child. I can't even imagine the type of self-delusion required to convince one's self otherwise. I suspect it takes a very serious diet of misinformative media to become as brainwashed as to entertain such a notion.
2) I don't think people should sign up for Medicaid if they are healthy and working age, even if they have no job. I would consider any kind of acute emergency like breaking a leg, or any chronic life threatening disease like cancer coverable by Medicaid if people meet whatever poverty guidelines exist OR can prove that they could not get insurance through any private insurer in the state after they became sick/hurt.
Well, the existing law otherwise. And, thankfully, it has lead to some 11 million having access to health coverage. Some of whom I know could very well have died without it. Once again, I am glad you are not among them. Congrats on your luck and good health.
We can just expand the definition of disabled (temp or permanent) to include these situations. In fact this SHOULD have been the solution to preexisting conditions in the first place. I would rather the government directly reimburse healthcare providers to care for the chronically ill than give private insurance companies an excuse to raise premiums on many individual policyholders on top of receiving government subsidies. If these people have resources, then the government can collect an additional “health tax” from these people rather than forcing them to spend all their resources before they can access Medicaid.
That's not what the government does. Sounds like you may not be very familiar with how the ACA works?
3) With the California bill, it was criticized for being poorly written and did not address financing or how CA would continue to get Medicaid funding. House Speaker Rendon did not consider it a serious bill.
It was not "poorly written", but it did not include the funding mechanism. That's true. That was/is to be a separate initiative (and, most likely, would require a ballot initiative for a Const. Amendment to roll back Prop 98 in some fashion.) That said, Rendon has very close ties to the insurance and pharmaceutical industry that places his judgement in question.
Also, grating universal healthcare to undocumented immigrants is a really nice but stupid idea.
I don't know that the CA proposal does that. I don't much care if it does, however. I'm in favor of less sickness and misery and death. Whether someone was lucky enough to win the geographical jackpot at birth means little to me. Given your previous claims at being considered about death to foreign nationals via U.S. empire, it's somewhat suprising you have a completely contradicatory position on this matter. But, then again, so does Alex Jones. So maybe it's just a coincidence that you share his hypocrisy?
You are basically inviting a tidal wave of illegal immigration to the state to access such services.
Okay. I'll look forward to meeting them!
Right now undocumented people can qualify only for restricted Medicaid services, not full scope coverage. You could say that only people present when the law passes are covered, but then you are creating another group of second class people who come later and it is really hard to justify such a policy except to say we don't want to bankrupt the program or create backlogs to access services. However, that then begs the question of why any undocumented immigrants should be given coverage at all if we are concerned about the long-term viability of the program and protecting legally recognized citizens and residents.
The more immigrants (undocumented or otherwise), the better it is for our economy. I see no reason that allowing them the same human right of good health that citizens would receive under such a plan as any kind of harm to the viability of such a plan. As to this wave of undocumented immigrants you believe would occur because of health care for all, you'll have to explain why they would want to leave a country where they already have exactly that to come here for the same thing.
I don’t know if you have kids, but some people might ask why an unemployed 25 year old man with no health problems who came to California illegally a couple years prior should receive the same access to health services as a California born baby or someone who lived and worked and paid taxes there for years?
Because that California born baby has no more of a "right" to live a healthy happy life than anybody else. Unless, of course, one prefers to hide their racism beneath false patina of phony "patriotism".