invite responseComments 1 - 5 of 5 Search these comments
1
AD
2018 May 16, 10:41am
AD
2018 May 16, 10:41am
Okay, so make Medicare available for all. Hence, that would do away with the Affordable Care Act. The insurance companies can then compete to help administer the Medicare-for-all program, hence the displaced insurance workers from Humana, Blue Cross, etc. become part of the new bureaucracy.
So the healthcare industry will become a lot larger than the military industrial complex. I wonder what that means as far as the earnings for pharmaceutical companies, as well as salaries for doctors, nurses, hospital lab technicians, etc. Just look at how Lockheed Martin and the major defense stocks have fared since World War 2, and examine the salary trends for their executives, managers, engineers, technicians, contract administrators, etc.
Democrats have a backbone, look at how Obama ruled especially with immigration and border control. Look at how his administration spent money and at least doubled the national debt while not increasing defense/national security spending.
If anything, he was brazen and bold as far as his administration working with NGO's to encourage the mass migration from Central America to the USA via the DACA program. That is a lie and propaganda that Democrats do not have a backbone and are not aggressive in progressive views. Look at Joey Manchin(i) of West Virginia. Look at how he voted. Don't tell me he does not have a backbone.
So the healthcare industry will become a lot larger than the military industrial complex. I wonder what that means as far as the earnings for pharmaceutical companies, as well as salaries for doctors, nurses, hospital lab technicians, etc. Just look at how Lockheed Martin and the major defense stocks have fared since World War 2, and examine the salary trends for their executives, managers, engineers, technicians, contract administrators, etc.
Democrats have a backbone, look at how Obama ruled especially with immigration and border control. Look at how his administration spent money and at least doubled the national debt while not increasing defense/national security spending.
If anything, he was brazen and bold as far as his administration working with NGO's to encourage the mass migration from Central America to the USA via the DACA program. That is a lie and propaganda that Democrats do not have a backbone and are not aggressive in progressive views. Look at Joey Manchin(i) of West Virginia. Look at how he voted. Don't tell me he does not have a backbone.
2
AD
2018 May 16, 10:46am
AD
2018 May 16, 10:46am
jazz_music says
Very true Senor Jazzy Music. And the "rest of the world" does not spend money on defense/national security as the USA does.
Obama did not press Europe and NATO to spend at least 3% of GDP on national security as required by the NATO agreement. Why ? Cause he knew those countries needed to save $ for social welfare spending, especially countries that admitted a large amount of immigrants. Let alone you did not see Obama critique Germany's trade balance. One may view that Obama perhaps was an apologist and only seemed bold when it came to bashing Republicans (with of course the reliable assistance from Mr Rachel Maddow, the Washington Post, NY Times, etc.) and also Russian policy on gay rights. Obama was certainly and conveniently AWOL when it came to human rights in China or the trade balance with China.
Can I get a Roll Tide Roll, Senor Jazzy Music ?
Revolutionary, yeah I get it.
Like the whole rest of the civilized world is not already doing this.
Very true Senor Jazzy Music. And the "rest of the world" does not spend money on defense/national security as the USA does.
Obama did not press Europe and NATO to spend at least 3% of GDP on national security as required by the NATO agreement. Why ? Cause he knew those countries needed to save $ for social welfare spending, especially countries that admitted a large amount of immigrants. Let alone you did not see Obama critique Germany's trade balance. One may view that Obama perhaps was an apologist and only seemed bold when it came to bashing Republicans (with of course the reliable assistance from Mr Rachel Maddow, the Washington Post, NY Times, etc.) and also Russian policy on gay rights. Obama was certainly and conveniently AWOL when it came to human rights in China or the trade balance with China.
Can I get a Roll Tide Roll, Senor Jazzy Music ?
3
Heraclitusstudent
2018 May 16, 11:16am
Heraclitusstudent
2018 May 16, 11:16am
adarmiento says
No, no, no, it's not like that.
It's not that the US government doesn't have the money because it spends it on something else.
The US gov DOES spend about AS MUCH money on healthcare per capita as other governments of industrialized countries.
The only difference is that, for that money, you don't have universal healthcare.
You could. You just choose not to.
Very true Senor Jazzy Music. And the "rest of the world" does not spend money on defense/national security as the USA does.
No, no, no, it's not like that.
It's not that the US government doesn't have the money because it spends it on something else.
The US gov DOES spend about AS MUCH money on healthcare per capita as other governments of industrialized countries.
The only difference is that, for that money, you don't have universal healthcare.
You could. You just choose not to.
4
AD
2018 May 16, 12:03pm
AD
2018 May 16, 12:03pm
Heraclitusstudent says
Good points "Heraclitusstudent" as far as not having the money. Okay, so what changes would occur if the USA switches to universal care. How will that impact the salaries of the researchers at the biomedical companies ? How will that impact the public pension funds like CALPERS who invests in healthcare companies ? So if "we choose to" have universal healthcare what are the economic impacts such as for surgeon salaries, nurses salaries, etc. ?
adarmiento saysVery true Senor Jazzy Music. And the "rest of the world" does not spend money on defense/national security as the USA does.
No, no, no, it's not like that.
It's not that the US government doesn't have the money because it spends it on something else.
The US gov DOES spend about AS MUCH money on healthcare per capita as other governments of industrialized countries.
The only difference is that, for that money, you don't have universal healthcare.
You could. You just choose not to.
Good points "Heraclitusstudent" as far as not having the money. Okay, so what changes would occur if the USA switches to universal care. How will that impact the salaries of the researchers at the biomedical companies ? How will that impact the public pension funds like CALPERS who invests in healthcare companies ? So if "we choose to" have universal healthcare what are the economic impacts such as for surgeon salaries, nurses salaries, etc. ?
5
Heraclitusstudent
2018 May 16, 12:14pm
Heraclitusstudent
2018 May 16, 12:14pm
adarmiento says
Good points adarmiento. If we in fact chose to have reasonable prices for healthcare, a lot of profiteers could not continue to profit as much. Imagine that: surgeons might get a pay cut initially and then only raises in line with inflation. And poor stock holders would suffer - except in as much as people would spend or invest the money they save elsewhere and stock holders may profit somewhere else.
This is why you can't do these changes in one shot. You could progressively extend medicare to more people. Use the leverage to negotiate prices down. etc... Put a lid on price increases. etc...
The alternative is the heathcare industry continues to suck the blood out of the rest of the economy.
Okay, so what changes would occur if the USA switches to universal care. How will that impact the salaries of the researchers at the biomedical companies ? How will that impact the public pension funds like CALPERS who invests in healthcare companies ? So if "we choose to" have universal healthcare what are the economic impacts such as for surgeon salaries, nurses salaries, etc. ?
Good points adarmiento. If we in fact chose to have reasonable prices for healthcare, a lot of profiteers could not continue to profit as much. Imagine that: surgeons might get a pay cut initially and then only raises in line with inflation. And poor stock holders would suffer - except in as much as people would spend or invest the money they save elsewhere and stock holders may profit somewhere else.
This is why you can't do these changes in one shot. You could progressively extend medicare to more people. Use the leverage to negotiate prices down. etc... Put a lid on price increases. etc...
The alternative is the heathcare industry continues to suck the blood out of the rest of the economy.
Democrat Kara Eastman will face Republican incumbent Don Bacon in the Nebraska Second Congressional district in a crucial election.
A progressive candidate running on Medicare-for-all beat a former US Congress member in the Democratic primary for a crucial 2018 House election in Nebraska.
Kara Eastman, president of a local nonprofit, narrowly prevailed over former Rep. Brad Ashford in the Democratic primary in Nebraska’s Second Congressional District. Ashford had been elected to the seat in 2014, though he lost it to Republican Rep. Don Bacon in 2016. He had received public support from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Nebraska requires a recount if the margin of victory is narrower than 1 percent of the leading candidate’s vote total. Eastman has about 20,000 votes and leads by more than 1,000 votes, which would appear to be outside that recount margin, at last count.
Her win marks a significant victory for the single-payer push within the Democratic Party: one of its proponents prevailing over a well-known quasi-incumbent with Democratic voters and still likely able to contend in a competitive general election.
Who is Kara Eastman?
Eastman started the Omaha Healthy Kids Alliance in Omaha before running for office. She was endorsed by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a lefty national grassroots group, and the national Justice Democrats during the primary.
She notably endorsed Medicare-for-all in this district, Omaha and the surrounding area, which is much more of a swing region than the rest of Nebraska. Without naming Ashford, her campaign ad said that she was the only candidate in the race who supported universal health care. (Though, as BuzzFeed documented, it’s not clear what Democratic voters here think when they hear that a candidate supports Medicare-for-all.)
“I’m tired of hearing Democrats don’t have a backbone, that we don’t stand for anything,” Eastman says in the ad. “That changes now.”
Eastman also supports universal background checks, overturning Citizens United, raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy, and decriminalizing marijuana.
The Nebraska Second Congressional District 2018 election, briefly explained
Though the DCCC did put its brand behind Ashford, which makes Eastman’s win something of a loss for Washington Democrats, the Second District should be competitive in the general election no matter who the Democratic candidate is.
Incumbent Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE) beat Ashford in 2016 by a single percentage point, and this district has a history of narrow elections. Voters here elected Ashford by three points in 2014. Trump won here by just two percentage points in 2016.
Cook and the other major election prognosticators think this is a toss-up race in 2018. It could be a pivotal pickup in the Democratic bid to flip 24 seats and take back the House this fall.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/5/16/17359188/kara-eastman-nebraska-2nd-congressional-election-medicare-for-all