Welcome to Dem Land

[Pam]

More from the Jimmy Dore show. Corporate dems continue to smear Sanders and his followers.

https://youtu.be/p4M4Yj6y0j0

[GMan]

So the "pay to play" emails are classified or are you conflating two different Fox News stories?

I wonder if "pay to play" would include things like appointing a major campaign donor to be Secretary of Education despite her being grossly unqualified to fill that role. That's OK though, right?

Anyways, if Hillary Clinton broke the law, then why isn't there a criminal investigation? Do the Republicans not control the House of Representatives and thus could launch a committee investigation? Do the Republicans not control the Senate and thus could launch a committee investigation there? Do the Republicans not control the Justice Department, is AG Jeff Sessions a Clinton supporter?

If she broke the law...then prosecute her. Why are Republicans not doing that? What happened to "lock her up?"

Don't know about Fox News stories you allude to. What are they?
Pay to play in politics is not new. Lot's of unqualified diplomats exist.
I was referring to other countries paying to access US government influence over foreign policy decision making.
[[ The same thing D.T. is accused of with Russian yet no evidence of collusion has stuck yet.)

Why won't Washington act? These things take time to sort out with FOIA requests being sorted out in the courts and a willing party to take on the task. Also the fallout on both sides might be too much for the accusing party to want to face as they might go down the drain with the rest of the swamp.

[noise]

That comment belongs in "Welcome to Trump Land."
This is Dem Land. A Fantastical World where all the socialist dreams of the past can come true.

I think you're giving democrats far too much credit. The left who actually supports socialism find the dems pretty feckless.

[Richard]

More from the Jimmy Dore show. Corporate dems continue to smear Sanders and his followers.

https://youtu.be/p4M4Yj6y0j0

He is an independent so why would he want to join in with Democratic Party ,he was against them in past state elections.

This is what I think.

Stalins stance was to support Germany and wait until they ran over Europe,then when everybody was war weary they would jump in and take over,which is why Hitler went after Russia when they had the strength.

I think there is the Bernie Sanders camp then another faction within useing him as a Trojan horse,a more agenda based radical group.

You see them on social media,they jump in and fire the Democrats up against the republicans then when it gets hot they slide back out,they never say what thier party affiliation is,where most Sanders supporters will make it clear.

So destroy the Democratic Party,use them to destroy the Republican Party then jump in and pick up the pieces.

What is the point of Russian effecting an election without a base or plan in place to pick up the pieces,it does make for a good distraction.

While they are watching the right hand, they are not paying attention to the left or diversionary tactics.

I think that whole tarmac meeting was about the bigger scope of things and sacrifices that served the country in the bigger picture.It was time to fall on the knife in order to prevent a bigger fall.

Mr Sanders is a self discribed socialist,the Democratic Party may have liberal leanings but most, that I know anyways,are anything but hard line socialist leaning,so why would they choose a hard line socialist to support the Democratic Party?

Is the end game to switch the Democratic Party to the socialist agenda?What percentage of democrats are willing to make that switch,and is it enough to win a election based on a socialist agenda?

[GMan]

.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ........................
Is the end game to switch the Democratic Party to the socialist agenda?What percentage of democrats are willing to make that switch,and is it enough to win a election based on a socialist agenda?

I think this has been the plan for quite awhile now. I don't think the socialists can win a free vote if they truly represented their agenda to the masses.

What scares me the most is Socialists have been emboldened by the division in this country and that I hear more and more younger folks speak in idealistic terms of equality brought on by government control of all aspects of society.

[GMan]

I think you're giving democrats far too much credit. The left who actually supports socialism find the dems pretty feckless.

Aren't they the useful idiots?

[Pam]

Bernie is a European style Democratic socialist. Why is that so terrible? What's wrong with wanting government to actually help regular people instead of only helping billionaires, corporations and the military industrial complex?

Bernie feels the Democrats have gone too far to the right and they don't stand for anything and that's why they keep losing elections. I guess they want to keep on losing though because they aren't taking his advice or listening to the millions who left the party.

[GMan]

Bernie is a European style Democratic socialist. Why is that so terrible? What's wrong with wanting government to actually help regular people instead of only helping billionaires, corporations and the military industrial complex?

Bernie feels the Democrats have gone too far to the right and they don't stand for anything and that's why they keep losing elections. I guess they want to keep on losing though because they aren't taking his advice or listening to the millions who left the party.

It's because he wants to use a tool called socialism to help people. A tool which has been tried many times in many countries and has failed to deliver anything other than a more concentrated power and wealth base. Sure people initially see programs which seem to help but then when they embrace the fullness of the concept which is an empty promise, they realize there is nothing there other than continued sacrifice with no possibility of gain in it for themselves or their loved ones. Socialism relies on the benevolence of Man and man is a flawed beast. Concentrate wealth and power in that system and the greed of man becomes the supreme. IMHO.

[Honky Tonk]

Bernie is a European style Democratic socialist. Why is that so terrible? What's wrong with wanting government to actually help regular people instead of only helping billionaires, corporations and the military industrial complex?

Nothing is wrong with that. The issue is the sports mentality instilled in the populace. The whole election process has turned into game day and winning, and not about making things better for everyone. "but we've always done it this way..."

[Pam]

It's because he wants to use a tool called socialism to help people. A tool which has been tried many times in many countries and has failed to deliver anything other than a more concentrated power and wealth base. Sure people initially see programs which seem to help but then when they embrace the fullness of the concept which is an empty promise, they realize there is nothing there other than continued sacrifice with no possibility of gain in it for themselves or their loved ones. Socialism relies on the benevolence of Man and man is a flawed beast. Concentrate wealth and power in that system and the greed of man becomes the supreme. IMHO.

I don't understand what you are talking about. How is universal health care an "empty promise"? Every other major country on the Earth has it except us. People are dying and going bankrupt with our shitty health care system. The insurance industry is getting rich off the backs of sick people. The politicians who say we can't have it are taking bribes from insurance and drug companies. God forbid we live in a socialist hell hole like Sweden or Canada.

[Richard]

I don't understand what you are talking about. How is universal health care an "empty promise"? Every other major country on the Earth has it except us. People are dying and going bankrupt with our shitty health care system. The insurance industry is getting rich off the backs of sick people. The politicians who say we can't have it are taking bribes from insurance and drug companies. God forbid we live in a socialist hell hole like Sweden or Canada.

Universial "free" healthcare sounds good in theory,but according to these links it does not seem to be working very well.


https://www.city-journal.org/html/ug...are-13032.html

http://m.huffingtonpost.ca/bacchus-b...b_6004034.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.e3264fa1964d

U.K. Healthcare is also having serious issues.

To say we need to model our healthcare systems against others does not appear to be the answer,and people seem to dieing at a greater rate waiting for care.

I recently paid $450 cash for a lower back MRI where my friend with health insurance was charged $1850 using his insurance company for the exact same thing.

People look at it as free healthcare,it is not free because it is taken out in taxes so you do not see it and the results are the same,a percentage that pay taxes are paying for those who do not,when the ratio of those that cannot pay climbs,either the tax increases on those who can pay or the leval of service declines for all.

[Honky Tonk]

I recently paid $450 cash for a lower back MRI where my friend with health insurance was charged $1850 using his insurance company for the exact same thing.

Could you be a little more specific about the circumstances and what your's and your friend's "health insurance" constitutes?

[Richard]

I am self employed,self insured.
He is also self employed but covered under his wife's insurance policy,which is through her employer,but she still pays around $5000 a year,he still had a co-pay of $40.

We are both veterans,but served in a time of military budget cuts,so no VA.

Both were lower back partial MRI,where you do not have to go fully into the tunnel.

Both were pinched nerves in the back from getting older and thinking we could lift things like we were 30 again,but under different circumstances.

MRI was same company,weeks apart and not related.

[GMan]

I don't understand what you are talking about. How is universal health care an "empty promise"? Every other major country on the Earth has it except us. People are dying and going bankrupt with our shitty health care system. The insurance industry is getting rich off the backs of sick people. The politicians who say we can't have it are taking bribes from insurance and drug companies. God forbid we live in a socialist hell hole like Sweden or Canada.

It's an empty promise because it can't deliver what it promises.
The NHS in England has had to be propped up numerous times with infusions of money and reduction in services or longer wait times because of increasing demand. Concentrating a large amount of money and using a one size fits all approach dictated by bureaucrats is designed to fail and fraught with waste.
Better to let a regulated market approach find an efficient system which gives the consumer a stake in their healthcare decisions based on their individual needs and aversion to risk. [[ That what insurance is.) Did I have health insurance when I was in school but too old to be covered by my parents? Not that I knew of but I was ok with that risk and accepted it. When I started working I was given healthcare free. [[ I never saw a deduction in my paycheck.) That was great! I had surgery for an injury that occurred during one of my pass times. It was great. I was off work for 1 month / full pay and not 1 Bill. No Worries. Then Times changed, I have to pay for a portion of my healthcare but I get to choose what type of coverage I want to pay for. More coverage more money out of my pocket. Needless to say it makes you think about what type of risk I am willing to take. Now I have co-pays for everything /doctor visits and meds, I think about my condition before consulting my doc who is busy anyway.
I try to take better care of myself and I don't get involved in risky activities with the associated bad outcomes. I matured in a sense and didn't think healthcare was owed to me.
We can push for healthcare reform but is shouldn't be in the form of single payer. Got to get everybody involved.

[oladub]

I don't understand what you are talking about. How is universal health care an "empty promise"? Every other major country on the Earth has it except us. People are dying and going bankrupt with our shitty health care system. The insurance industry is getting rich off the backs of sick people. The politicians who say we can't have it are taking bribes from insurance and drug companies. God forbid we live in a socialist hell hole like Sweden or Canada.

I don't oppose a single payer plan like those of any Canadian province. I do object to a national plan. That is one place I differ from Bernie. As a Democrat, Bernie ignores the 10th. Amendment [[caveat: Many establishment Republicans do too). What would be so wrong about any blue state simply rewording the health care plan of any Canadian province? Vermont tried but was effectively shot down by [[un)ACA bureaucrats, under Obama, not that it was their business anyway. Canada has a hybrid plan in which each province manages their own healthcare plan although the national government collects the taxes and has some standards for redistributing those taxes to provinces. That's getting closer to being consistent with the 10th. Amendment - almost there. But which Democratic governor of a blue state is going to be first to get rid of most Rx profits, insurance company profits, bureaucrats, and lawyers? Who would thereafter finance their campaigns? They are as hypocritical as Republicans who promised to end the [[un)ACA and now want to keep all those bad actors at the table. Iceland would be a better example than Sweden because it has a similar single payer plan and only US two states have a smaller population than Iceland. If Iceland can successfully manage a single payer plan, so can any state.

[Honky Tonk]

I am self employed,self insured.
He is also self employed but covered under his wife's insurance policy,which is through her employer,but she still pays around $5000 a year,he still had a co-pay of $40.

We are both veterans,but served in a time of military budget cuts,so no VA.

Both were lower back partial MRI,where you do not have to go fully into the tunnel.

Both were pinched nerves in the back from getting older and thinking we could lift things like we were 30 again,but under different circumstances.

MRI was same company,weeks apart and not related.

Ok, so both of you guys are under different providers, One pricing was "Ok", the other outrageous. I wasn't sure if it was AHCA or what. There's a lot of variables with HC plans and providers. Also, if your friend has an HMO or PPO, his initial monthly "contributions" are probably smaller, but when something needs to be done, he'll take a bigger hit. Thanx to both of you guys for serving. And for crying out loud, look @ your drivers license, where it says "age".

[Richard]

Ok, so both of you guys are under different providers, One pricing was "Ok", the other outrageous. I wasn't sure if it was AHCA or what. There's a lot of variables with HC plans and providers. Also, if your friend has an HMO or PPO, his initial monthly "contributions" are probably smaller, but when something needs to be done, he'll take a bigger hit. Thanx to both of you guys for serving. And for crying out loud, look @ your drivers license, where it says "age".

Thank you.

I will get more specifics on her insurance,I know she was livid with AHCA.

The same thing happened with a prescription of anti inflammatory meds,they filled it and the bill was $255 and then they asked who my carrier was and I told them Ben Franklin and then it became $16 cash.

Most do not realize that hospitals have a finance department,if paying cash with no insurance,you can still get needed care even if all one can afford is $5 per month.They also negotiate heavy when not dealing with insurance carriers,or cash talks even at $5 per month.

So it is not like it is unavailable to all already.

I am hardheaded on the age thing,never tried to rely on anybody else but now like Gman posted and watch what I am doing and the big box store has a 100 or so labors hanging out so when it comes to that it is easy enough to have somebody else do the heavy lifting.

[noise]

Nothing is wrong with that. The issue is the sports mentality instilled in the populace. The whole election process has turned into game day and winning, and not about making things better for everyone. "but we've always done it this way..."

Right on. Thanks.

[aj3647]

We are both veterans,but served in a time of military budget cuts,so no VA.

Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs are two entirely different cabinet-level departments. Military budget cuts do not affect the VA. They are wholly and distinctly separate with separate budgets.

Also, eligibility criteria for VA health care services don't depend on when you served. If you were on active duty, served at least two years [[unless you were medically discharged for a service-connected reason), and received anything other than a dishonorable discharge, you are eligible to enroll for VA health care services.

https://www.va.gov/healthbenefits/apply/veterans.asp

To suggest that you weren't eligible for VA health care despite being a veteran because of "military budget cuts" is a demonstrably false statement. You either meet the eligibility criteria...or you don't.

[Richard]

Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs are two entirely different cabinet-level departments. Military budget cuts do not affect the VA. They are wholly and distinctly separate with separate budgets.

Also, eligibility criteria for VA health care services don't depend on when you served. If you were on active duty, served at least two years [[unless you were medically discharged for a service-connected reason), and received anything other than a dishonorable discharge, you are eligible to enroll for VA health care services.

https://www.va.gov/healthbenefits/apply/veterans.asp

To suggest that you weren't eligible for VA health care despite being a veteran because of "military budget cuts" is a demonstrably false statement. You either meet the eligibility criteria...or you don't.

Peace time service,volunteer not drafted,in the time after Vietnam,things going on at time were considered happening not in a time of war,at that time the rest of the country could have cared less and to be in uniform in public was to be a magnet for empty beer bottles and spit.So yes,at that time,the country was really not in the mood to support the military in any way so budgets and bennifts were slashed across the board.

Lots of things happening at the time but the only thing the public knew was about the hostage rescue attempt that went south.

Yes eligibility is there,down at the bottom #8 in priority but so is the reality if one applies and is denied it takes a $10,000 check and attorney and many years of appeals.

There is a huge difference in benefits based on many different factors and it is not based on you either meet the criteria or not,it is the government after all and not that simple.

The most basic being if you did not serve in time of war and can qualify for Medicaid it will be used before VA,but the VA has limited funds so thier actions are based on how to prioritize those funds in the best way.

The realities of life should be taken into consideration when making the false statements claim.

[aj3647]

Universial "free" healthcare sounds good in theory,but according to these links it does not seem to be working very well.


https://www.city-journal.org/html/ug...are-13032.html

http://m.huffingtonpost.ca/bacchus-b...b_6004034.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.e3264fa1964d

"According to these links." Ok then, let's go down the list. City Journal is a magazine published by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a conservative think tank.

The second is a HuffPost blog post written by a fellow at the Fraser Institute, which is a libertarian public policy think tank funded by the Koch Brothers.

The third link actually makes the opposite argument of what you are making, it paints the Canadian health care system in a mostly POSITIVE light. It does acknowledge that long wait times are a problem, but also points out that:
1) Healthcare outcomes in the Canadian healthcare system are very good, among the best for industrialized nations
2) The cost of health care, which higher than average for OECD nations, is still far below what Americans spend on health care.
3) Canadians are, by and large, very happy and satisfied with their health care system.

And "doesn't seem to be working well?" In comparison to what exactly? The American health care system? 57% of Canadians are satisfied with their national health care system, only 25% of Americans are satisfied with the care they receive through the U.S. health care system [[from your third link).

If Universal Health Care "isn't working well", then by comparison, how's the U.S. for-profit healthcare system working out? Great?

The argument that because the Canadian health care system has flaws means that it is not worthwhile or that our system is better is a flawed argument. When polled, most Canadians think the best way to fix their national health care system is to put MORE money into it, not less, and certainly not to privatize it.

[Pam]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...umn/540641001/

Something shady is going on and former Democratic National Committee chief Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Shultz doesn't want to talk about it.

[313WX]

It's because he wants to use a tool called socialism to help people. A tool which has been tried many times in many countries and has failed to deliver anything other than a more concentrated power and wealth base. Sure people initially see programs which seem to help but then when they embrace the fullness of the concept which is an empty promise, they realize there is nothing there other than continued sacrifice with no possibility of gain in it for themselves or their loved ones. Socialism relies on the benevolence of Man and man is a flawed beast. Concentrate wealth and power in that system and the greed of man becomes the supreme. IMHO.

Uh, I think you're confusing Socialism with Capitalism there...

[GMan]

Uh, I think you're confusing Socialism with Capitalism there...

You left out the word "unfettered" in front of capitalism.
Unfettered capitalism is as bad as Communism.
Communism is bad because it is always driven from the lowest factions of man's ambitions for power with the false promise of equality.
This equality just requires one to give up the right of self determination and simply trust in your fellow man, er.....government.

[Zacha341]

^^^ Well stated GMan! We're basically operating in a 'mixed' economy of both capitalist and socialist/communist social and economic policies!