Republicans and racism

[stevenkesslar]

Poll: Most Americans call Trump's tweets targeting 4 congresswomen 'un-American'

So is there any way to take this other than that a lot of Republicans are racists, or at least very comfortable with racism?  Specifically meaning the racist comments of President Trump?

Before I make the point about the poll data, let me preface it with one of my favorite lines of the week,  from an article today by David Axelrod, about the upcoming debates:

If you believe, as I do, that the ultimate argument against President Trump is that his gleeful, nasty and unremitting penchant to divide the country is a dispiriting and exhausting barrier to progress, the charismatic Harris could emerge as a force to heal the breach.

You could take out the word "Harris" and put in the words "Warren" or "Sanders" and that would sum up my hopes for 2020.  I'd much rather have 90 % of what Democrats say be about a positive message about health care, and jobs, and taxes, and making America smarter, and helping people buy homes and get good educations without going neck deep into debt.  If we talk about racism, I'd prefer it to be in the sense Axelrod brings it up:  isn't this just really fucking exhausting?  Don't we have better things to talk about, and to accomplish?

That said, the reality is that Trump really does seem to want to talk about racism, because it feeds his base.  I assume most everyone here has already read that his own EEOC uses the phrase "go back to where you came from" as a textbook example of bigotry or racism or discrimination in the workplace.  But of course you can say that's just because the EEOC is made up of pin-headed bureaucrats.

What's fascinating about these polls is forget about the bureaucrats.  Let's talk about what the public thinks.

Quote

Two-thirds of those surveyed, 65%, say that telling minority Americans to "go back where they came from" is a racist statement. Nearly three-fourths of Democrats strongly agree with that. Republicans are inclined to agree that the comment is racist, but by a narrower margin, 45% to 34%.

So that's kind of amazing right there.  Most Democrats think it's racist to say "go back where you came from".  But apparently only a plurality of Republicans agree.

Quote

That said, the dispute could be costly for Trump among key voters in his bid for a second term. Three-fourths of the women polled call his tweets offensive. Independents, by more than 2-1, say the comments are "un-American."  

Overall, 59% call the president's tweets "un-American."

So this is where it gets really fucked up, I think.  If you read the whole article, the 59 % breaks down this way on partisan lines.  Trump's tweet is viewed as "un-American" by 88 % of Democrats, 54 % of Independents, and 25 % of Republicans.

So wait ................... let me get this straight.

45 % of Republicans say it is "racist" for Trump to tell Black or Muslim or Latinx members of Congress to "go back where you came from".  But only 25 % of Republicans think it is "un-American".  How exactly does that work?  It sounds like for the majority of Republicans, what Trump tweeted is not racist.  And then for another 20 %, it is "racist" but not "un-American". 

Huh?

 

[AdamSmith]

We’ll see if the millennials voting first time will be our hope & cure come 2020. I suspect so.

But then I have been spectacularly wrong before, again & again.

[stevenkesslar]

I thought this was an excellent discussion of both the morality and the politics of where we are at with Trump's racism.

Eddie Glaude, Jr. has been a voice of reason to me all through this nightmare.  So his 2-3 minute rap early in this segment really resonated for me.  I agree with him that this is a defining moment for America.  If 2020 were about the economy, Trump might win.  That's assuming we are not in a recession by November 2020.  It's over a year away.   But even if the economy holds up for another 16 months 2020 might be about something deeper.  It might be about who we are as a country.  And who we want to be.

A decade ago in the worst days of the Great Recession I decided that that old adage about "as goes California, so goes the nation" may no longer be true.  In 2008 or so it was easy to portray California as a fiscal mess.  But now California is the 5th largest economy in the world, if it were a separate nation.  It is affluent and prospering.  And so I think there is reason to hope that Trump may be nationalizing what happened under Pete Wilson in California a generation ago.  It's not that Californians are socialists.  Duh!  Of course we are not.  But Wilson and the Republicans of his time called the question on whether we hate immigrants or love them.  Or whether we stand for The Statue Of Liberty or the concentration camp.  And with the exception of Republican moderates like Schwarzenegger, himself an immigrant, California has been Democratic ever since.

The interesting thing is that in this perpetual "is California or Texas the future?" debate, Texas is now looking more and more like California as well.  Kudos to Texas Republican Rep. Will Hurd, who has so far from what I can tell been the only GOP House member to speak out forcefully against this latest example of Trump's lies and racism.  And I have to imagine Rep. Hurd can do this not only because he is one of the few Republican House members who are not White, but also because he actually is speaking for the constituents of his moderate and diverse Texas border district.

My point in relation to what you said @AdamSmithis that, yeah,  this is in part about The Millennials.  But it's also about all these suburban, more center/left or center suburban people.  The people in Hurd's district, and the people in all those Orange County and California suburban districts that flipped from red to blue in 2018.  

And Glaude nailed it once again with the fear he articulated at the end of the 20 minute segment above, which he posed as a very smart question.  What exactly lies at the intersection of racism, on the one hand, and what he labelled as "greed and selfishness" on the other?  To be more specific, he said, what about the educated centrists who say "I'm not that" on this toxic racist bile, but do like the tax cuts, or the deregulation, or the top line numbers on the economy?  What do they do in 2020?

The response to Glaude, by a pundit quoting Kellyanne Conway of all people,  should be reason to worry:  people almost always vote on what affects them rather than on what offends them.  That is no doubt how Trump squeaked by in 2016.

So I think you are of course right @AdamSmiththat the Millennials will matter a lot.  And if it were just about that, honestly that is my Argument # 1 for Bernie, who inspires the Millennials.  But I think who also matters even more are these more highly educated, center left, suburban types.  The majority of whom seem to be women.  They are who turned it in 2018.  It's becoming clearer and clearer that they are moving away from Biden and toward Warren and Harris.  I'm looking to see where those voters go, and what Warren and Harris have to say to them and how it is received.

California (Harris) and Massachusetts (Warren) are both poster children right now for both the riches and the challenges of technocratic capitalism.  They are hardly havens of socialism.  So my hope is that "as goes California (or Massachusetts) so goes the nation" still holds.  Wilson and his racist policies killed the Republican Party in California, and it is still dead.  And the version of the Republican Party that is flourishing in New England (the Governors of Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maryland are all popular Republicans) is kind of a repudiation of much of what Trump stands for.  It is more like the old Party Of Lincoln Main Street capitalism.

Somehow that group of voters are the ones that the Democrats needs to lock up to send Trump to the curb.  They are smart, educated, relatively affluent, not socialist, but deeply offended by the Trump nightmare.  The fact that Warren and Harris are the kind of Democrats that can do well in states like that gives me reason to hope that if we nominate either one of them we can win, and end the nightmare, and move forward.

 

Edited July 21, 2019 by stevenkesslar
typo

[mvan1]

8 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

 

45 % of Republicans say it is "racist" for Trump to tell Black or Muslim or Latinx members of Congress to "go back where you came from".  But only 25 % of Republicans think it is "un-American".  How exactly does that work?  It sounds like for the majority of Republicans, what Trump tweeted is not racist.  And then for another 20 %, it is "racist" but not "un-American". 

Huh?

 

If you have any problem believing that Trump is a chronic habitual liar and racist, just watch a couple of minutes of the below linked public interview with Trump.

In the interview, the most egregious lie uttered by Trump is that his father was born in Germany.

However, Trump's father was born in New York, just like Trump was.  WHY THE LIE?

When Trump spews his frequent and hideous racist comments, why does the media not play the public interview of Trump lying about his father's birthplace?  That lie of Trump is so easy to prove by public documents.  That interview should be played each time Trump is caught in another bizarre racist rant. 

That interview confirms that Trump cannot be believed except when he says he wants to make America white again.

Here is the link to the interview:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmhiInYqlTU 

 

Edited July 21, 2019 by mvan1

[AdamSmith]

1 hour ago, stevenkesslar said:

I thought this was an excellent discussion of both the morality and the politics of where we are at with Trump's racism.

Eddie Glaude, Jr. has been a voice of reason to me all through this nightmare.  So his 2-3 minute rap early in this segment really resonated for me.  I agree with him that this is a defining moment for America.  If 2020 were about the economy, Trump might win.  That's assuming we are not in a recession by November 2020.  It's over a year away.   But even if the economy holds up for another 16 months 2020 might be about something deeper.  It might be about who we are as a country.  And who we want to be.

A decade ago in the worst days of the Great Recession I decided that that old adage about "as goes California, so goes the nation" may no longer be true.  In 2008 or so it was easy to portray California as a fiscal mess.  But now California is the 5th largest economy in the world, if it were a separate nation.  It is affluent and prospering.  And so I think there is reason to hope that Trump may be nationalizing what happened under Pete Wilson in California a generation ago.  It's not that Californians are socialists.  Duh!  Of course we are not.  But Wilson and the Republicans of his time called the question on whether we hate immigrants or love them.  Or whether we stand for The Statue Of Liberty or the concentration camp.  And with the exception of Republican moderates like Schwarzenegger, himself an immigrant, California has been Democratic ever since.

The interesting thing is that in this perpetual "is California or Texas the future?" debate, Texas is now looking more and more like California as well.  Kudos to Texas Republican Rep. Will Hurd, who has so far from what I can tell been the only GOP House member to speak out forcefully against this latest example of Trump's lies and racism.  And I have to imagine Rep. Hurd can do this not only because he is one of the few Republican House members who are not White, but also because he actually is speaking for the constituents of his moderate and diverse Texas border district.

My point in relation to what you said @AdamSmithis that, yeah,  this is in part about The Millennials.  But it's also about all these suburban, more center/left or center suburban people.  The people in Hurd's district, and the people in all those Orange County and California suburban districts that flipped from red to blue in 2018.  

And Glaude nailed it once again with the fear he articulated at the end of the 20 minute segment above, which he posed as a very smart question.  What exactly lies at the intersection of racism, on the one hand, and what he labelled as "greed and selfishness" on the other?  To be more specific, he said, what about the educated centrists who say "I'm not that" on this toxic racist bile, but do like the tax cuts, or the deregulation, or the top line numbers on the economy?  What do they do in 2020?

The response to Glaude, by a pundit quoting Kellyanne Conway of all people,  should be reason to worry:  people almost always vote on what affects them rather than on what offends them.  That is no doubt how Trump squeaked by in 2016.

So I think you are of course right @AdamSmiththat the Millennials will matter a lot.  And if it were just about that, honestly that is my Argument # 1 for Bernie, who inspires the Millennials.  But I think who also matters even more are these more highly educated, center left, suburban types.  The majority of whom seem to be women.  They are who turned it in 2018.  It's becoming clearer and clearer that they are moving away from Biden and toward Warren and Harris.  I'm looking to see where those voters go, and what Warren and Harris have to say to them and how it is received.

California (Harris) and Massachusetts (Warren) are both poster children right now for both the riches and the challenges of technocratic capitalism.  They are hardly havens of socialism.  So my hope is that "as goes California (or Massachusetts) so goes the nation" still holds.  Wilson and his racist policies killed the Republican Party in California, and it is still dead.  And the version of the Republican Party that is flourishing in New England (the Governors of Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maryland are all popular Republicans) is kind of a repudiation of much of what Trump stands for.  It is more like the old Party Of Lincoln Main Street capitalism.

Somehow that group of voters are the ones that the Democrats needs to lock up to send Trump to the curb.  They are smart, educated, relatively affluent, not socialist, but deeply offended by the Trump nightmare.  The fact that Warren and Harris are the kind of Democrats that can do well in states like that gives me reason to hope that if we nominate either one of them we can win, and end the nightmare, and move forward.

 

Harris is God. She may heart up so many of the electorate.

My personal preference is Warren. Who (repeating myself) if she is elected will legislatively know how to get shit done.

Which Bernie from a million in de Senate don’t know at all. 

[AdamSmith]

But this cycle is so very strange...

If by some queer  chance Mayor Pete gets it, he would be very much all right too.

An abundance of riches in candidate choice this early, I think contra some of the pundits, is not altogether a bad thing.

[stevenkesslar]

16 hours ago, AdamSmith said:

My personal preference is Warren.

 

12 hours ago, AdamSmith said:

An abundance of riches in candidate choice this early, I think contra some of the pundits, is not altogether a bad thing.

I agree on both counts.  Warren is my favorite.  And I think (as Glaude said in that MSNBC piece above) the internal debate is actually good for the Democratic Party.  It's democracy.  We have an abundance of riches.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/?ex_cid=irpromo

Here's another thing that I find interesting that relates to the points about Millennials and suburban left/centrists.  As of today the polling shows that in all the early states (Iowa, NH, SC) and some of the key big states (CA, TX) Biden is still in the lead. (I'm referring to the July YouGov polls.)  But Warren and Sanders and Harris are all now in this pack that is not far behind.  As you say, Mayor Pete is still the queer alternative, but he's off in the distance.

So in almost every case in the polls in these 5 states (except SC) if you add up the percentage of votes Warren and Sanders gets, it exceeds the percentage Biden gets.  And also in almost every case these four candidates get over the 15 % hurdle it takes to get any delegates in the first place.

I've been saying since January that I would not discount the possibility of a ticket with both Warren and Sanders on it.  In January it looked more like it might be Sanders/Warren.  Today it looks more like it might be Warren/Sanders.  And I know that idea is horrifying to a lot of Democrats for a whole bunch of reasons.  Two East Coast liberals?  Please!  But my two points would be this:  1)  They may need to do it to get more delegates than Biden.  That's what the numbers suggest as of today.  2)  There have now been several good analytical pieces written about how their bases are very different.  Want Millennials?  Go Sanders!  Want educated center/left suburban women?  Go Warren!  So there is some built in conflict, but there is also some built in compliment there in terms of bringing different people together. 

And as much as any two candidates, they have been allies with complimentary change platforms.  And frankly, to show my bias, I'd rather have Warren be the # 1 because I just think she's smarter when it comes to policy, and she's proving it every day.

Of course you could say the same about Warren and Harris, sort of.  The data suggest their supporters are more similar.  But it would be exciting to have a ticket with two women who have great ideas, great energy, and are aggressive as hell working to take down the Racist In Chief.

The way this is playing out I'm hoping that some of these things are just going to sort themselves out.  They often do.  Including Trump hitting the panic button and just doing dumb shit, like his racist tweets, that lay thegroundwork for his own demise.

 

[TotallyOz]

I like Warren and Harris but Mayor Pete is my go to right now. He is smart, well-spoken and relatable. I don't just like him because he is gay although that helps. I like him as he is so well-spoken and intelligent. He is very common and seems to be on the same level as most of America. I don't think he has a chance but we will see. I hope the nominee is not Sanders. I like him a lot but do think he will hurt the ticket.

[stevenkesslar]

On 7/20/2019 at 5:35 PM, stevenkesslar said:

If 2020 were about the economy, Trump might win.  That's assuming we are not in a recession by November 2020.  It's over a year away.   But even if the economy holds up for another 16 months 2020 might be about something deeper.  It might be about who we are as a country.  And who we want to be.

The Coming Economic Crash — And How to Stop It

By Elizabeth Warren

I think Warren just took another big step forward to the nomination with this.  Part of what makes it so powerful is that, as the link to a Politifact article points out, she got it more or less exactly right in 2005 and 2006 and 2007 when she warned about subprime and predatory lending.  And how that would push us off the cliff.   Which it did.

If we are in recession by next November, it's a moot point.  Trump's racism won't help him a bit.  But I have to assume he's hoping that he can win by flogging a supposedly good economy, and then whip his base into a frenzy on racism.  Including the part of his base that isn't doing so well, and who noticed that he didn't deliver on health care or manufacturing jobs.

Warren more than anyone is the candidate that seems like she has thought it all through.  And this answers the question:  "What is your core motivation for running?  What problem are you really trying to fix?"

One of the themes that has reverberated for me all year so far among pundits I respect is "choice v. referendum".  So two examples.  Nicole Wallace of MSNBC said that when she worked for W. the key goal in the 2004 Prez race was to make it a choice, rather than a referendum on W.  She said had it been a referendum on W., he would have lost.   So they made it a choice between W. and flip flopper Swift Boater Kerry, with the idea that at least you knew where W. stood.  Republican Alex Castellanos has made an argument that is similar.  He sees 2020 shaping up to be a "Papa Bear" v. "Mama Bear" choice election.  And by that he means Papa Bear stands for a good economy and being tough (Trump) and Mama Bear stands for goodies and handouts (some Democrat).  He thinks Papa Bear (Trump) will win if that is the choice.  

So if you buy any of that, what is interesting about what Warren is doing (unlike Sanders, or anyone else), is that she is making this a referendum on greed and corruption and leaders that are leading us down the road to ruin, just like they did a decade ago.  You can integrate into that all her "Mama Bear" stuff - like student debt relief, better wages, green manufacturing jobs.  She is a poster child "Mama Bear", which is both a compliment because she is tough and fierce, and a concern because I don't think Castellanos is wrong.  But I think this is an important part of the core argument she would need to make, if nominated.  That this isn't just about freebies or giveaways.  This is about seeing clearly that we are headed toward the edge of a cliff, just like we were a decade ago, and acting now to prevent it.

The "choice v. referendum" dichotomy is a bit oversimplistic.  2020, like every election, will be some of both.  But I think Wallace and Castellanos are right, in essence.  Trump obviously agrees, since he is trying to make this a choice between capitalism v. socialism, or legal immigrants v. invading alien hordes with all the appropriate and racist not-too-subtle subtexts.

I think Warren is on to the recipe for winning.  Not only by taking on the Racist In Chief as such.  But also on the fundamental issue of his stewardship of our economy.

Edited July 22, 2019 by stevenkesslar

[stevenkesslar]

Despite U.S. Economic Success, Financial Anxiety Remains

This Gallup data is an important companion piece to the post immediately above.  There are two things in it I find fascinating.

First, these days more than ever before people's perception of the economy is hugely partisan.  And that is a real change from before.  If you are a Republican, it tends to be the "best economy ever" - whether it actually is or not. If you are a Democrat, you see red lights flashing.  And that's exactly the reverse of what it was under Obama, when Republicans thought the economy and our very Constitution were being destroyed day by day.

The Gallup poll confirms that on every measure, there is a huge link between partisanship and perception of economy reality.  Of the 27 % who say they have no economic concerns, 67 % approve of Trump.  And 63 % of that group are Republicans.  With the 49 % who who have one form or another of "immediate" cash flow concerns, it's exactly the opposite.  Only 30 % of that group approve of Trump.  And only 33 % percent of that group are Republican.  So you do have to wonder.  Are these people basing their view of their economic situation on whether they are a Democrat or Republican?  Or are they a Democrat or Republican because of their view of their economic situation?

Either way, these numbers explain why and how Trump can get kicked to the curb by Warren or somebody like her.   And his race baiting and immigrant bashing won't help him - even though he'll sure try as hard as he can.  If only 1 in 4 Americans say they have "no concerns" about things like cash flow or health care or long term financial security, there are HUGE cracks in Trump's support that are not measured by these top line economic numbers. 

We certainly learned that in the 2018 midterms.  Some part of that was a referendum on Trump being a jerk, no doubt.  But some part of it was about health care and all this economic anxiety that lies beneath Trump's "happy talk" and the race bashing.

I think this is why both Warren and Sanders are both on to something, and it is working.  And why ultimately if Biden's argument is lets just go back to 2008 or 2012, it ain't gonna work.  And if Warren beats Sanders, I think this is why.  Sanders, to his credit, is framing this in terms of what he's thought since Ronald Reagan was elected.  Like Millennials, I give him a ton of credit for consistency and perseverance in sticking to a good set of core principles. 

But Warren is getting better and better in framing this in terms of what is happening right now.   And why it is a result of the shitty leadership we have right now.  So far, she's the only one doing that.  Mayor Pete and Kamala Harris are saying great stuff, but to my ears it has not really been framed around emotional, gut level bumper stickers like Warren is doing - at least not yet.

[TotallyOz]

4 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

But Warren is getting better and better in framing this in terms of what is happening right now.   And why it is a result of the shitty leadership we have right now.  So far, she's the only one doing that.  Mayor Pete and Kamala Harris are saying great stuff, but to my ears it has not really been framed around emotional, gut level bumper stickers like Warren is doing - at least not yet.

Warren is always one of the smartest ones in the room. I do think Mayor Pete is as smart but perhaps without the economic insight. Warren has always been at the top of my lists and I like her. I am just not sure the American people will accept her. Now, I don't think a lot will accept Mayor Pete either so I'm in a bit of a mess. Joe Biden seems to be accepted by most but IMHO, his day has come and gone. But, no matter who finally gets the nomination, I'll vote for them. I've said I would not vote for the Senator from New York for the way she treated Al Franken but in the end, I would if I had to even though I despise her for that. And, I do think all of them are better than what we currently have in office.

[tassojunior]

And I'm sort of disappointed no progressive anti-war candidate, Bernie or otherwise,  has really gotten the groundswell of support it will take to wrest the nomination away from the DNC's chosen Kamala and go on to defeat Trump.  From a moral standpoint I could never support the number of brown people Kamala or Buttigieg would murder as puppets of AIPAC and Biden is a totally bought-and-paid-for puppet of China. As awful and vile as Trump is, so far he hasn't started any foreign invasions, while I'm sure there would be a lot of extra dead Syrians if Hillary had won. A million dead Iraqis made her smile and destroying Libya made her laugh. I know they're brown people and we're supposed to get used to killing them in masse but for some of us genocide is not a factor, it's a total disqualifier. I've never voted GOP in my life but any of those 3 would make me at least stay home like Hillary did. I think the DNC again underestimates how many Democrats will walk to stop genocide.  

[AdamSmith]

On 7/23/2019 at 2:48 AM, tassojunior said:

And I'm sort of disappointed no progressive anti-war candidate, Bernie or otherwise,  has really gotten the groundswell of support it will take to wrest the nomination away from the DNC's chosen Kamala and go on to defeat Trump.  From a moral standpoint I could never support the number of brown people Kamala or Buttigieg would murder as puppets of AIPAC and Biden is a totally bought-and-paid-for puppet of China. As awful and vile as Trump is, so far he hasn't started any foreign invasions, while I'm sure there would be a lot of extra dead Syrians if Hillary had won. A million dead Iraqis made her smile and destroying Libya made her laugh. I know they're brown people and we're supposed to get used to killing them in masse but for some of us genocide is not a factor, it's a total disqualifier. I've never voted GOP in my life but any of those 3 would make me at least stay home like Hillary did. I think the DNC again underestimates how many Democrats will walk to stop genocide.  

Agree anti-war is good morally, but where is there a single point of the electorate who cares about that versus the dozen other shitstorm issues out there before us today?

[RA1]

I just don't understand.  There is no doubt that Trump is a jerk (who isn't?)  But is the US ready to accept radical changes in the economic climate?  Most, if not all, of the various Demo proposals cannot be feasibly funded with any hope of continuance.  We already are so far in hock I am only too glad not to be able to survive to see the results.  

Sure I want to help everybody.  I want their health and welfare to be continued.  But at what expense and who shall pay for it?  I am always willing to pay my share but what is my share and what is yours?

"And the poor shall always be with us."  I wish to help but how can I if others are made to suffer?

Best regards,

RA1

[tassojunior]

10 hours ago, RA1 said:

I just don't understand.  There is no doubt that Trump is a jerk (who isn't?)  But is the US ready to accept radical changes in the economic climate?  Most, if not all, of the various Demo proposals cannot be feasibly funded with any hope of continuance.  We already are so far in hock I am only too glad not to be able to survive to see the results.  

Sure I want to help everybody.  I want their health and welfare to be continued.  But at what expense and who shall pay for it?  I am always willing to pay my share but what is my share and what is yours?

"And the poor shall always be with us."  I wish to help but how can I if others are made to suffer?

Best regards,

RA1

The counter-argument is that the corporate welfare in our system is what we cannot afford and is seriously putting us in hock, largely to the Chinese. From the outrageously expensive American healthcare system that will soon take 20% of a family's income, to the military-industrial complex that demands half our discretionary spending. We have to cut the costs of healthcare and we have to stop being the world's policeman.  

[RA1]

9 hours ago, tassojunior said:

The counter-argument is that the corporate welfare in our system is what we cannot afford and is seriously putting us in hock, largely to the Chinese. From the outrageously expensive American healthcare system that will soon take 20% of a family's income, to the military-industrial complex that demands half our discretionary spending. We have to cut the costs of healthcare and we have to stop being the world's policeman.  

Thanks for your input.  Being in hock to the Chinese may be most of what is preventing a war with them or their subjects.  I agree we need to stop being the world's policeman.  How do you propose reducing the cost of the US healthcare system?  Universal Medicare would be more expensive.  Any form of one payer system will be more expensive.  The government has a long history of NOT running any agency efficiently.  

Best regards,

RA1

[tassojunior]

8 hours ago, RA1 said:

Thanks for your input.  Being in hock to the Chinese may be most of what is preventing a war with them or their subjects.  I agree we need to stop being the world's policeman.  How do you propose reducing the cost of the US healthcare system?  Universal Medicare would be more expensive.  Any form of one payer system will be more expensive.  The government has a long history of NOT running any agency efficiently.  

Best regards,

RA1

Every other major country does it for less than half our cost. Most for much less than half. We have no cost control and costs are outrageous. Insulin costs 10 times here what it does in Canada and 20 times what it does in Europe. Americans pay $1000/month. Surgeries are astronomical. If you really get sick you have to declare bankruptcy and go on Medicaid. There was a graph I saw yesterday that insurance company CEO's in 2011 made $35,000.........per day. Doctors are multi-millionaires and care more about their investments than seeing patients. It's gotten awful and spiraling downward fast. We have to have cost controls and only single--payer does that. 

[RA1]

15 hours ago, tassojunior said:

Every other major country does it for less than half our cost. Most for much less than half. We have no cost control and costs are outrageous. Insulin costs 10 times here what it does in Canada and 20 times what it does in Europe. Americans pay $1000/month. Surgeries are astronomical. If you really get sick you have to declare bankruptcy and go on Medicaid. There was a graph I saw yesterday that insurance company CEO's in 2011 made $35,000.........per day. Doctors are multi-millionaires and care more about their investments than seeing patients. It's gotten awful and spiraling downward fast. We have to have cost controls and only single--payer does that. 

Some say the reason other countries spend less on healthcare is two fold.  One they limit the amount and extent of health care and two their drugs are to some extent the result of the US paying for the development of new drugs.  Also some think not all drugs available in the US are available elsewhere.

I have friends in NZ and the UK.  Some have been known to wait a LONG time for treatment.  One died waiting.

Best regards,

RA1

[tassojunior]

23 minutes ago, RA1 said:

Some say the reason other countries spend less on healthcare is two fold.  One they limit the amount and extent of health care and two their drugs are to some extent the result of the US paying for the development of new drugs.  Also some think not all drugs available in the US are available elsewhere.

I have friends in NZ and the UK.  Some have been known to wait a LONG time for treatment.  One died waiting.

Best regards,

RA1

I've had healthcare in Germany and I was super impressed. A real doctor for a good hour for something non-emergency. At Kaiser here I'm lucky if my doc is allowed more than 5 minutes with me per visit. 

Insulin was developed by the government and the patent sold for $1. It's now $1000/month in the US, $100/month in Canada, and $50/month or free in Europe. A lot of drugs are in fact government research developed or assisted. I understand the incentive to develop for privates but the US patent has been extended way too long past what is needed to make them profitable.

But the non-drug inflation in the US healthcare  is even worse. Hospitals, doctors, tests, etc. Soon to be 20% of an average person's income. 

I'd say rationing in Europe is nothing like our rationing by cost in the US. People are dying every day from not affording insulin.