2020 Presidential Election

[theoddz]

Originally Posted by MsTinkerbelly

Assume

I would assume it is very similar to the payment system for Medicare that Seniors are held hostage to without exception. By that I mean the $100 plus per month that comes out of my check that I never see. If I spend nothing else, I am eligible for a decent plan which is similar to an HMO...but my Kasey spends an ADDITIONAL $150 a month so that she can see anyone she wants, anywhere in the country.

I will again assume, that there would be reasonably priced healthcare for everyone else, with the federal government collecting all of our payments, and then paying the bills from the doctors and hospitals. In which case, in MY opinion, we are all screwed, because we have seen just how badly the government runs the VA.

Or, we could get lucky and they follow the current Canadian system.

Well, I have to rush in here and defend a little bit of the "concept" of the VA health care system that has demonstrated, over the years, some features of how a single payer system might work more efficiently and economically than some other models. I have to point out here that the VA, as a national healthcare system for Veterans, has consistently, over the years, been ranked at the top levels of Patient Satisfaction above any other healthcare system. Make no mistake, however, that it is not a perfect system, by any means, but overall, most Veterans have been very satisfied with the care they receive in the VA system.

The VA, as a system, has implemented some very efficient and cost conscious measures that have really been able to deliver good care, overall. One of the best ones is the nationwide VA CPRS (Computerized Patient Records System) system. By linking the VA healthcare system together, nationally, with this computerized records system, Veterans are able to access their health care through any VA facility, nationally, no matter where they go. Because their records are accessible, procedures (x-rays, tests, labs, etc.) don't need to be repeated by practitioners outside of the Veteran's "home" area, should they relocate or travel to other areas in the nation. You'd be surprised at how very expensive it is to repeat tests, procedures, consults to specialists, etc., it can be for large groups of system beneficiaries, when they don't have access to data that has already been gathered and documented. When providers can communicate with each other over securely transmitted/encrypted data lines, care is greatly improved and consistent!! When I worked for the VA Health Care System, I accessed remote data constantly in the performance of my job. I was able to bring up records, diagnostics, sleep studies and treatment plans for Veterans who originated from cities and towns clear across the nation from where I was in Las Vegas. This improved care and consistency and saved money for the system.

Another huge cost saving measure that the VA and military medical systems both use is the process of negotiation for large quantities of pharmaceuticals. I believe that Big Pharma could be reigned in by limiting what they can charge for medicines. What Big Pharma does to the American consumer/patient is nothing short of criminal!!

Like I said, the VA system is not perfect, but it has some elements in it that could, reasonably, be implemented into a national health care system that would really "pop"!!! I still maintain that, in order to truly deliver top notch patient care, in any system, we desperately need to get the profit incentive out of medicine and health care. It's unethical and just shameful that gross, obscene profits are and have been made on the backs of a sick humanity.

One last thing I'd like to put out here for contemplation is something that I heard a while ago, while discussing some of the economic issues of the healthcare system. It has to do with the inverse relationship of access vs. quality. In other words, when the system improves access to more population, quality goes down. In order for quality to improve, however, access must be restricted. Hmm....I've been rolling that concept around in my mind for several years now, and I've realized some truth to it. I'd like to put that thought out there for others to roll around in your minds, also.

Sorry to derail here, but I did have to step in and say that I believe that there are many elements of the VA system that could be implemented into a single payer system that could treat the American population, as a whole.

Back to your regularly scheduled program!!

~Theo~

[MsTinkerbelly]

Originally Posted by theoddz

Well, I have to rush in here and defend a little bit of the "concept" of the VA health care system that has demonstrated, over the years, some features of how a single payer system might work more efficiently and economically than some other models. I have to point out here that the VA, as a national healthcare system for Veterans, has consistently, over the years, been ranked at the top levels of Patient Satisfaction above any other healthcare system. Make no mistake, however, that it is not a perfect system, by any means, but overall, most Veterans have been very satisfied with the care they receive in the VA system.

The VA, as a system, has implemented some very efficient and cost conscious measures that have really been able to deliver good care, overall. One of the best ones is the nationwide VA CPRS (Computerized Patient Records System) system. By linking the VA healthcare system together, nationally, with this computerized records system, Veterans are able to access their health care through any VA facility, nationally, no matter where they go. Because their records are accessible, procedures (x-rays, tests, labs, etc.) don't need to be repeated by practitioners outside of the Veteran's "home" area, should they relocate or travel to other areas in the nation. You'd be surprised at how very expensive it is to repeat tests, procedures, consults to specialists, etc., it can be for large groups of system beneficiaries, when they don't have access to data that has already been gathered and documented. When providers can communicate with each other over securely transmitted/encrypted data lines, care is greatly improved and consistent!! When I worked for the VA Health Care System, I accessed remote data constantly in the performance of my job. I was able to bring up records, diagnostics, sleep studies and treatment plans for Veterans who originated from cities and towns clear across the nation from where I was in Las Vegas. This improved care and consistency and saved money for the system.

Another huge cost saving measure that the VA and military medical systems both use is the process of negotiation for large quantities of pharmaceuticals. I believe that Big Pharma could be reigned in by limiting what they can charge for medicines. What Big Pharma does to the American consumer/patient is nothing short of criminal!!

Like I said, the VA system is not perfect, but it has some elements in it that could, reasonably, be implemented into a national health care system that would really "pop"!!! I still maintain that, in order to truly deliver top notch patient care, in any system, we desperately need to get the profit incentive out of medicine and health care. It's unethical and just shameful that gross, obscene profits are and have been made on the backs of a sick humanity.

One last thing I'd like to put out here for contemplation is something that I heard a while ago, while discussing some of the economic issues of the healthcare system. It has to do with the inverse relationship of access vs. quality. In other words, when the system improves access to more population, quality goes down. In order for quality to improve, however, access must be restricted. Hmm....I've been rolling that concept around in my mind for several years now, and I've realized some truth to it. I'd like to put that thought out there for others to roll around in your minds, also.

Sorry to derail here, but I did have to step in and say that I believe that there are many elements of the VA system that could be implemented into a single payer system that could treat the American population, as a whole.

Back to your regularly scheduled program!!

~Theo~

You bring up a lot of very valid points, thank you!

[dark_crystal]

Originally Posted by theoddz

in order to truly deliver top notch patient care, in any system, we desperately need to get the profit incentive out of medicine and health care. It's unethical and just shameful that gross, obscene profits are and have been made on the backs of a sick humanity.

~Theo~

I read a comment that says the fact that the US has for-profit justice, health care, education, and religion is truly screwed up and unlike any other developed country.

Socialism or no socialism, it should not take a genius to understand that the essentials of human life should be exempt from capitalism.

[dark_crystal]

Originally Posted by dark_crystal

I am concerned about Russia. Whether or not people are currently feeling the anti-mainstream heat, Russia will make sure sentiments like these grow legs.

Chapo Traphouse stated multiple times that interest in the Russia investigation was a litmus test for who NOT to support among the Dem candidates.

It's like they are Russian Meddling deniers, despite extensive proof that the Russians used them last time.

This will make just make the left a better weapon.

Part of the reason the #NeverHillary situation last year was so terrifying to me was because it was as much IRL than online, in that i had 2 Sanders supporters close to me (both guys, one white/cishet) who hated Hillary Clinton so much that i thought they were about to stroke out over it. Ruining ever happy hour and dinner party and ranting 24/7 on facebook. And i couldn't mute them because i was going to see them.

Anyway, i feel like this lingering hatred is driving the tendency of outlets like Chapo Traphouse to mock and dismiss the Russia situation.

If Russia delivered the election to Trump, Clinton's loss was not because of how badly she sucked. It was not because the Democrats failed to nominate Bernie.

If Trump cheated, then Clinton didn't lose.

Clinton's loss validates the idea that the Democrats need to move further left. If she didn't lose, some of that validation shift back to the center.

We're not supposed to talk abut politics at work, but we have talked about the Russian meddling because it is relevant to our work.

I have colleagues who feel like what Russia did was no big deal.

If Russia changed votes by amplifying and promoting misinformation, they believe that's fair. Critical thinking is available to everyone, they say, and if people had used it, Russia's tricks wouldn't have worked.

I guess that's what Chapo Traphouse thinks, too.

But is critical thinking available to everyone? I don't feel that it is, and part of a librarian's job is to address that.

[Martina]

A lot of us on the left have a broader critique of mainstream Democrats than just our hatred of Clintons. Working people have been betrayed by corporatist Democrats, who contributed to our headlong rush into a society of extreme economic inequality. Without the challenge from the left, Democrats would still be singing their same old song.

There has not been any over correction. I was hearing that BS on NPR today. Today's left are espousing FDR brand policies. The world canted way to the right starting with Reagan. Sensible folk are pointing that out in order to create a more humane system.

I do care about defeating Trump, but I also care about the truth. The idea that the Democratic Party is too far to the left is a joke.

After Trump, these divisions will still be with us, and I am not going to pretend that the Dems have not massively betrayed this country for any single election, even 2020.

[C0LLETTE]

I love the debates in here and I read them avidly. I often read them over and over and over till I understand the point.

Would it be possible to have a rule that a writer not use any "double negatives", surely not use more than one, and just stick to simple declarative sentences.

I figure you'd save time and space and even a simpleton like me would understand what you are saying in half the time.

Just a thought.

[dark_crystal]

Originally Posted by Martina

A lot of us on the left have a broader critique of mainstream Democrats than just our hatred of Clintons. Working people have been betrayed by corporatist Democrats, who contributed to our headlong rush into a society of extreme economic inequality. Without the challenge from the left, Democrats would still be singing their same old song.

There has not been any over correction. I was hearing that BS on NPR today. Today's left are espousing FDR brand policies. The world canted way to the right starting with Reagan. Sensible folk are pointing that out in order to create a more humane system.

I do care about defeating Trump, but I also care about the truth. The idea that the Democratic Party is too far to the left is a joke.

After Trump, these divisions will still be with us, and I am not going to pretend that the Dems have not massively betrayed this country for any single election, even 2020.

I don't think the Democratic party is too far to the left, my post was narrowly focused on why certain media and librarian progressives dismiss the Russian meddling.

There are a lot of things on the table for 2020 that would not even be in the air if Clinton had won.

We would be looking at Obamacare-with-lipstick-on for health care, rather than having a primary field where you have to support some form of single-payer. We would not even be talking about 70% tax rates on the wealthy. We would not be talking about redistribution at all.

I think all critiques of the yuppie wing of the Democratic party are valid.

I think those critiques are weakened when people are so invested in them that they ignore crimes just because the existence of those crimes challenges the critique narrative. That is what i see happening on Chapo Traphouse.

It's like the "tankie" (Tankie = member of a communist group or a "fellow traveller" (sympathiser) who believes fully in the political system of the Soviet Union and defends/defended the actions of the Soviet Union) phenomenon: tankies are so committed to communism that they ignore or defend atrocities because the existence of Soviet history puts a question mark on communism's virtues.

Anyway i was listening to Chapo Traphouse again this morning and they were having a lot of fun with the arrest of Roger Stone, so maybe their position is more nuanced that it seemed when i first heard them discuss it.

Also i do not know if i can promise to write in short declarative sentences. Brevity has never been a strength of mine.

[C0LLETTE]

The word "short" was never mine. I asked for "simple" declarative and fewer double negatives which bog me down. lol.

There's the line that Einstein probably never really uttered: " If you can't explain it simply, you probably don't understand it ".

On the other hand, one Nobel winner probably did say" "If it was simple to explain, I wouldn't have won a Nobel prize for it ".

[homoe]

Howard Schultz, Please Don’t Run for President...........




Really, what qualifications do you have besides being a decent businessman???????

[Martina]

Seriously, wasn't that out of left field? I wish he'd run in the Republican primary.

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by Martina

Seriously, wasn't that out of left field? I wish he'd run in the Republican primary.

My thoughts, exactly. Besides that he's a criminal and a traitor, Trump has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that a political neophyte has no place occupying the most powerful office in the world. A person needs to have some ideas about how our political system does and doesn't work. There's no room to learn as you go.

[dark_crystal]

I thought this was an excellent article. I wish that last sentence could be shouted from every rooftop.

Bernie’s Likely 2020 Bid Could Transform the Political Landscape, by Norman Solomon, Truthout

The likely Bernie Sanders campaign for president offers a boost and a challenge to progressives. From the outset, the campaign’s strength would largely depend on how much synergy develops with social movements on the ground. Much more than the presidency is at stake. A powerful mix of grassroots activism and electoral work could transform the country’s political landscape.

<snip>

While conflicts between election-focused campaigns and issue-focused activism may be inevitable, there’s great potential to make such tensions creative rather than destructive. During this decade, the trajectories of progressive election campaigns and progressive organizing have become more intertwined.

<snip>

But relations between electoral campaigns and social movements are frequently difficult, and tensions are bound to develop. “Bringing the vibrancy and democracy of activist movement culture to a political campaign is necessary but complicated,” Tori Osborn, a longtime progressive organizer who eventually ran for political office, told me. “Activist protest culture is spontaneous, often angry and wildly uncontrollable. Campaigns have to be rigorously disciplined and controllable.”

<snip>

Routine media coverage about “a blue wave” has obscured the deeper opportunities for “a progressive wave” that could drastically extend the boundaries of public discussion and political power. The default position for mass media is to define electoral conflicts in partisan Democrat-vs.-Republican terms, but a key task for grassroots progressive leadership in election battles is to develop community-based power to replace corporate power.

Overall, a Sanders 2020 campaign could be a powerful catalyst for creating a new political culture that nurtures activism as a year-long, every-year way of life for millions of people across boundaries of race, class and region. For a future of democracy instead of oligarchy, that political culture has got to include and transcend electoral work.

<snip>

As progressives weigh involvement in the Sanders campaign and many other 2020 races, the Democratic Party should be approached much like we approach the government itself — an entity capable of inflicting great harm on a systemic basis, while also capable of mitigating systemic harm and doing profound good in response to social movements.

[C0LLETTE]

Any opinions on Marianne Williamson running?

[homoe]

Originally Posted by C0LLETTE

Any opinions on Marianne Williamson running?

I'll jump in COLLETTE, again like Schultz, really what are her qualifications?


I guess this time around I'm seeking someone who has political experience.

[dark_crystal]

Originally Posted by homoe

I'll jump in COLLETTE, again like Schultz, really what are her qualifications?


I guess this time around I'm seeking someone who has political experience.

HELLO?? She is Oprah's spiritual advisor what more do you need?

(just kidding)

Wikipedia says

• She ran for congress in 2014
  
• "She campaigned on a broad array of progressive issues, including: greater access to high-quality education and free college; child poverty; economic justice; climate change & renewable energy; campaign finance reform; universal health care; criminal justice reform; ending perpetual war and increasing investments in peacebuilding; women’s reproductive rights; and LGBTQ equality among others"
  
• Williamson has been a public advocate in the arenas of racial justice and race relations. She is known for leading public apologies for slavery and has encouraged paying reparations for slavery. Williamson has also worked in support of reforming the criminal justice system.
  
• Williamson advocates for an open border immigration policy, stating that as long as individuals are vetted, they should be allowed to move to the United States.

Anyway, she's toast lol

[homoe]

..

Cory Booker jumped in this morning.....

[homoe]

Originally Posted by homoe

Howard Schultz, Please Don’t Run for President...........




Really, what qualifications do you have besides being a decent businessman???????

Schultz was faced by protesters here in his home town of Seattle, with signs that said "Grande Ego" & "Venti Mistake" in regards to his possible run for president,while promoting his new book.

[Martina]

Originally Posted by homoe

..

Cory Booker jumped in this morning.....

Yep. He's one I would not vote for should he get the nomination. Corporate shill.

[homoe]

Oprah is going to be between a rock and a hard place!

She & Gail are friends HUGE BUDS with Cory yet with Harris in the running who knows! She could even possibly back someone other than those two!

It's going to interesting.......

[Martina]

I don't think Gail can officially endorse a candidate. She's co-anchor of a news show, which will certainly be covering the election.