The Very Worst People On Earth Are Backing Joe Biden

That comment wasn't meant for you. Forgot to take it out.

 

The Bijein Biden Gang

 

They may not be good at it, but yes, those that formed BLM are "trained Marxists". That's a quote. And their beef is that they don't have equality of outcome between their demographic and others. So they call Jews, Asians, Indians, "White Supremacists".

 

This concept of "equality of outcome" has nothing to do with Marxism. Jordan Peterson is an idiot. If the BLM leaders were Marxists they'd be taking on the ruling class, not pulling down statues, which won't change anything.

 

~ Nobody said they were intelligent Marxists...

 

The far-right also said Obama is a Communist and Muslim. Anyone to the left of Mussolini is a Communist. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are Communists. All Democrats are Communists. Donald Trump was a Democrat until Obama's second term. He's an opportunist and a demagogue.

 

But not coworkers, it seems.

Queue Trump's 'White' House staff picture

 

The KKK is the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party.

 

~ He's also a very good president - and not a politician .

 

Skip to 6:10.

 

And still, the Trump side and conservatives love to depict him as a far-leftist who endorses rioting and looting... LOL

Thankfully, because Medicare-for-All is an incredibly boneheaded idea and the main reason why I was against Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren; fortunately neither one was nominated.

 

What are you basing your opinion on? Healthcare industry talking points pushed by Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg? Warren didn't really support M4A btw.

Lobbyist Documents Reveal Health Care Industry Battle Plan Against “Medicare for All"

Fmr. Healthcare Exec. Wendell Potter: Pete Buttigieg is running the industry playbook



From the Commonwealth Fund:

69 Percent of Americans Want Medicare for All, Including 46 Percent of Republicans - Newsweek

 

Warren supported a version of it.
No, I NEVER base my opinion on anybody's freaking talking points; which is actually what you have presented in this post of yours: more talking points. I base my opinion on my DECADES of professional experience, in VERY high level positions, in healthcare in not one, not two, but three continents. I'm PERFECTLY aware of the problems in our healthcare system (probably way more than YOU are unless you also have the kind of experience that I have - which I suspect you do not, since your point is to post a freaking Bernie Sanders video clip, ugh). Unlike Bernie Sanders, I have many thoughts on how to fix it which would actually work (as long as political will existed, and as long as contrary forces could be conquered, which is really a long shot so in a sense it is more theoretical than pragmatic, but still, the blueprint does exist). His plan wouldn't work. M4A isn't it, for a long list of reasons that you probably have no clue about (and neither do your sources), again, unless you have the decades of experience that I have, BOTH in the American healthcare system, and in an European Union country's healthcare system ranked pretty darn high in the world. And see, their solution there is NOT similar to M4A... but is 100 times better.

Talking points pushed by Biden and Buttigieg... dear, I could teach them a lot on this; I don't need to hear talking points *from* them.

And by the way, Bernie Sanders is a moron who has absolutely NO CLUE on how to fix the US healthcare system. His approach would fall flat, due to a large number of unintended consequences that people rarely think about (although some have; there is the occasional clever product of a think tank on the matter, but most people are still off-target).

It's 1:38 AM and I don't want to get into details now... but eventually I will. I've been a member here for a little more than a month and my focus for posting here has been the COVID-19 crisis (see my signature), and sure, if we had a universal healthcare system we could have dealt a little better, maybe, with *some* aspects of the response to the pandemic (not all; it would have made somewhat less of a difference than most lay persons might expect) and I am not about to change my focus on Covid-19, to a long discussion on how to fix the American healthcare system (although they are slightly related issues). Several long posts would be needed.

But like I said, eventually I'll address it; you can count on it. At some point I'll start a thread on it. Not tonight, though. Good night.

PS - 69% of Americans want it - which is why the vast majority of them voted for the candidate who is against it in the Dem primaries (and the other half of the country hates the one proposing it), right? Makes sense... [insert rolling eyes here]. You don't seem to realize the small impact of single-issue voting in most elections, and I'd be able to post some additional long posts on why this idea (of American's support for it), even if accurate, is misleading. Again, at some point my thread on this will mention this part, too.

I'm curious about something, if you don't mind answering. Are you a millenial?

 

No she didn't. She was gaslighting voters to siphon off voters from Bernie, which was the whole point of her campaign.

Elizabeth Warren Isn't Serious About Winning Medicare for All

New study says 'Medicare for All' will save the US money with lower healthcare costs

The media kept telling voters that Bernie couldn't beat Trump because he's "too far Left."

America's richest 400 families now pay a lower tax rate than the middle class - CBS News

https://prospect.org/economy/corporate-welfare-hurts/

 

If you want to convince me (although I think it's unlikely) you'll have to do better than posting a bunch of videos with talking points, while accusing me of listening to talking points. Do you have any original personal idea on this? You know, I do know how to google. I don't care for your sources and I can get to them if I want to. What do YOU think about it and why?

The idea that M4A is cheap misunderstands LOTS of issues about healthcare funding and the unintended consequences of M4A that would increase costs. Your sources look at the roses but not at the thorns. As for Warren, yes, I understand her attempt at political expediency. It fell flat on her, and I've always questioned her integrity anyway. Just like I'm not one of Mr. Sanders' fans, I say the same about Ms. Warren.

And by the way, contrary to what you may have been thinking when you tell me about the media trying to depict Biden as too far left, it's a claim I've made myself, and FYI I'm inclined to vote for the Dem ticket in November. But again, you're going the route of the single issues... which doesn't win elections. At some point I will show to you why, if you care for learning about this point. I need to go to work soon and I've been extremely busy; like I said I don't intend to start a huge chain of posts on these issues for now, but later I will. We might want to postpone the discussion until then.

 

I don't care what your opinion is on this. The science is in.

Medicare for All Would Save $450 Billion Annually While Preventing 68,000 Deaths, New Study Shows - Newsweek

Improving the prognosis of health care in the USA - The Lancet

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003013

 

What does "trained Marxist" mean? Is there a school? Did they read a book? Why is the term "trained Marxist" significant?

Their beef is unarmed black men being killed by cops. I haven't read Das Kapital so I don't know whether police brutality is covered by Marx.

 

Yes, I've read the Lancet study, long ago. It is flawed and full or errors. I've read comments debunking it, too. It is an exercise in guessing that like I said doesn't take into account the cost increases from unintended consequences. Again, roses without thorns.

Again, I don't want right now to engage in a long series of posts on this (although I will do that in the near future) but I'll give you one point anyway just to give you a flavor.

One example of unintended consequences in Sander's plan: it supposes that even undocumented aliens would have access to the same benefits (explicitly said so in his platform) and it is coupled with new rules for admission of refugee seekers, also granting them full benefits while they wait for a decision on their cases. States that a claim of domestic violence is sufficient to admit an asylum seeker while the case is under investigation (could take two years).

The going idea and many of these studies embrace it, is that extending benefits to illegal aliens would decrease ER costs because they wouldn't crash and burn and wouldn't have preventable diseases get worse and end up being seen, uncovered and unpaid, by expensive ERs, which then would shift costs to the insured. Yeah, brilliant thinking, right? Wrong.

ER cost is 10% of American health expenditures with direct care. The other 90% come from scheduled/elective procedures (elective in the sense of non-emergency; not in the sense of frivolous care like plastic surgery).

So, sure, Mr. Juan Gonzales can get an Albuterol prescription in a primary care office and spend, covered by M4A, $200 this way, avoiding his crashing in an ER and spending $2000 to take care of a full asthma attack. Great, right? The taxpayers got spared $1,800, right? Wrong. The cost being passed on to insured people was not on taxpayers. What is actually happening here is that taxpayers are now in the hook for $200. Sure, good for the hospitals but not for taxpayers. But this isn't all. Keep reading.

OK, now, Mr. Juan Gonzales is covered. He got the system to save $1,800. Great. Except that oops, an X-ray is done to look at his lung due to his repeated asthma attacks and a nodule is seen. He is diagnosed with lung cancer and will need thoracic surgery and chemotherapy. Or he is found to have as underlying cause for his apparent asthma, a degenerative and progressive lung condition that at one point is only treatable with a lung transplant. Great, he is covered, right? Now his treatment cost $600,000 to taxpayers. Phenomenal, he saved $1,800... but spent $600,000. Lovely. Keep reading.

Mrs. Maria Gonzales is diagnosed with a bad, but treatable form of breast cancer. Her Third World country doesn't have the means to treat her. Hey, easy. Mrs. Gonzales simply presents herself to a legal entry point and claims (despite her husband never having laid hand on her) that she is a victim of domestic violence, and requests asylum. According to Bernie Sanders, she is immediately admitted and immediately granted the benefits of M4A while she waits on a resolution (years in the making) of her asylum application. Great, two weeks later she says, oh oops, I have this breast cancer, I want treatment for it. Great, the taxpayer then gets billed $300,000. In her hometown, two of her acquaintances, Mrs. Juana Garcia and Mrs. Carmen Hernandez hear of her success story, and they also have breast cancer. Up they go to the US border and claim domestic violence too. They each get to spend another $300,000. Their stories spread like wild fire everywhere South of the border and elsewhere. Next month 2,000 women with breast cancer show up at various US entry points claiming domestic violence. Rinse, repeat.

And so on. The United States becomes the Mecca of medical tourism, or in this case, medical asylum seeking. Anybody in any failing country who can't be treated there for expensive conditions, no problem, just get to the US with some bogus claim and they'll be treated for free. I mean, not for free. There is no free lunch. It's free for them, but it's paid by you and me.

Get it?

I mean, on humanitarian bases, cool. I'm all for helping human beings. But the thing is, can we afford it? And what happens to our own people? You know, suddenly you have competition for the same operation room spots, the same ICU beds, and hospitals couldn't care less if the money they are collecting comes from care delivered to a US citizen under M4A, or from an illegal alien or asylum seeker under M4A, so the number of spots would decrease for US citizens, resulting in rationing of care and waiting lists.

Like I said, this is only ONE example. I could go on and on, on what flaws exist in the whole platform that would get to huge cost increases.

A couple more just before I go? (almost at the end of my break, very busy like I said).

Medicare currently processes 44 million beneficiaries. Of these only about 14 million are regular and exclusive Medicare consumers (I'm quoting these numbers from memory, I could be a bit off, no time now to look up the correct number). So, sure, we get to M4A or some such form, in 4 years according to Bernie Sanders, and brace for it, 90 days according to Elizabeth Warren!!!

Great, right? Savings for all, like the studies you've mentioned say.

Why is it that most of those studies don't look into infrastructure and personnel costs?

See, you are serving 44 million people of which only 14 million actually put a strain on the system, as they also rely on other avenues. But then you make of M4A the only avenue, and suddenly you extend it to 331 million people. How do you make this jump?

Well, obviously you'll have to buy a lot of computers by the thousands... you'll have to hire literally hundreds of thousands of employees... (all processing that is now done by the millions who work for private healthinsurance plans would have to switch to Medicare). You'll have to lease or buy or build lots of office space... with everything that they need, from paper clips to HVACs. Talk about ballooning payroll, maintenance costs for all this new equipment, leasing, etc. It's interesting that these costs are never factored in by these "smart" researchers.

Now, look at paying structure. Currently we have Medicaid paying 50% of the cost of delivering care. Medicare pays 95%. Private health insurance plans pay 145%. So, the latter subsidize the former. Why is the system sustainable and profitable? Because of the 45% on top of the cost to deliver care that hospitals, clinics, and providers collect from private plans. Then, you'll say, why do hospitals and clinics accept Medicaid and Medicare if they lose money? Well, because a lot of the costs are built-in and have been spent already. Say, you have an MRI machine, which you've already bought and paid for. You need to recover your investment. Ideally you'd fill the schedule up with only private insurance patients and maximize the profits generated by the exam. But there is still idle capacity. The cost per patient is in function of the costs of building up the infrastructure (what hospitals call - and bill for - a "facility fee"). However if the machine is turned off it is not getting any dollars so it's best to still run it in those idle moments with Medicaid and Medicare patients. Better to collect some, than nothing. So the machine owner continues to accept MCD and MCR.

Now, let's look at what happens if we get M4A, especially the Sanders kind that aimed at forbidding private insurance from operating, or at least strongly discouraging them (as in, if someone delivers care this way, the provider is not eligible for M4A and will have to continue to operate out of only the patients willing to go outside of the system - result, will go broke). So, OK, M4A becomes the only game in town.

Now, pray tell, will the system remain viable and profitable (therefore open for business) if M4A continues to only pay 95% of the cost of delivering care? Whoa, now, there is no more subsided fees from the private sector. So, you can't continue to only collect 95% while incurring in costs that are 100%. You'll run a constant 5% deficit and will not make any profit whatsoever (and remember, a lot of your "profit" goes to your own payroll as you need to pay for the services of doctors, nurses, x-ray techs, etc.). Result, you'll go broke and close down. For one thing, regional hospitals in rural areas would be decimated.

Remedy: you'll have to dramatically increase Medicare reimbursement, to restore the profitability of the system. Say, to 135%. That's a 40% add-on. But it's not the only add-on for taxpayers, because since it's now the only system, you're gobbling up the Medicaid people too, right? Whoa, those, you were getting away with reimbursing 50% of the cost of delivering care, due to the subsidized situation. Now you don't have that... so you have to go from 50% to 135% too, since you're now in only one system and there will be no tiers of reimbursement. That's an add-on of 85%. Hey, now M4A will take over the VA too. And county hospitals. And city hospitals. And state hospitals...

It's funny how the researchers don't seem to see this. They run their numbers with CURRENT Medicare reimbursement cost and CURRENT Medicare infrastructure and operational costs, not realizing how these costs will evolve if Medicare is the only game in town.

Again, is there a way to do it and actually have savings and improve health outcomes? Sure! But the half-baked plan put together but that moron Bernie Sanders ain't it.

I could go on and on and on as there's a lot more [e.g., physician manpower, but let's leave the rest for another day] (that's why I said it would be long) and actually show you papers and studies that DO take into account these caveats and say what I'm saying, too (hint: most people with an agenda who are trying to prove a point, conveniently ignore the unintended consequences of the plan and their impact on the final numbers), and I could tell you how to actually do it, and tell you about the differences in universal healthcare systems among the leading European countries, and which systems actually were able to deal with most of the above in a positive way (you may be surprised to understand that I *am* for universal healthcare; just not done in a half-baked way that will disrupt the whole system with horrible unintended consequences - a death toll will ensue, too, by the way, if it's implemented catastrophically) but like I said, I have to go back to work. Have a nice day.

 

Is it? Police brutality? Really? I do not believe that. I think the issue is a lack of equality of outcome and that police brutality has nothing to do with this movement. It's an excuse to tear down a functioning society and build one that, in their fantasies, hard working people will take care of violent bums. We can hope they will fail.

ITMT: Police brutality, regardless of the race of the cop or suspect, does exist. Fighting it takes hard work rather than looting and burning and destroying and encouraging racism.

This picture really says so much.
You want to know how to know that our legacy media is obedient?
A picture like this IS the story of this election. The Democratic party has placed a shambling zombie of a man as their candidate for POTUS. This old, senile political whore, if elected, will continue to do what he's done for 50 years. Sell the USA. Sell us, then sell us some more. That is why the elite want him. Endless wars in other people's countries. High taxes with breaks and kick backs to his political "John"s. Less freedom, more authoritarianism. That this is not the lead story of every news broadcast is a shame. We are not being told the truth.

 

But it's noteworthy that right-wing extremists and communist bastards both prefer Trump.

 

Sorry, you're going to need more than a meme, and you'll need some facts too, not wild-eyed conspiracies. You can start by answering my questions. What is a "trained Marxist" and why should I care?

 

I suppose defining "trained Marxist" could depend upon how the BLM founders mean it. Personally? I would write the type of person akin to those indoctrinated in our nation's universities.

The issue has been around for a long time. Example to review:

https://www.amazon.com/Closing-Amer...7&s=books&sprefix=closing+of+t,aps,165&sr=1-1

He writes of shelves of books at a typical Liberal Arts college analyzing Marx and his phony economic fantasies. He writes he could see a book chronicling the oceans of blood shed this fraud has brought upon humanity would be enough. There is not valid reason to delve further into it. I've experienced this at my own undergrad. Shelves of books on a despicable filthy bum who dreamed of a world where he just gets to live off of other people's work.

Why should you care? Because once so indoctrinated, these people see liberty and fear it. They see people coming to the USA and within their own generation, going from immigrants that cannot even speak English, to becoming millionaires. And with a system like that, why would anyone want a world that helps them be unemployable bums in comfort?

So in their minds, as we see with Antifa and BLM, they need to slaughter our families. Burn our cities. Open death camps, gulags and killing fields. If successful, how many 10s or even 100s of millions of Americans will have their murdered rotting corpses decay in a killing field somewhere?

So, vote Republican in November. If the election isn't stolen, your life may depend upon it.

 

I read a book on economics. Doesn't make me a trained economist. Reading books doesn't necessarily qualify one as being trained.

I asked you to steer clear of wild conspiracies. I've never met a trained Marxist. I've never met any Marxist, and I'm old enough to remember fallout shelters at the church and school. Sorry, I don't care about boogiemen.

 

I don't necessarily agree. If you read a book on economics and understand it and people ask you why you have the views you have and you reply that you are a trained economist, we can presume things about you and what you think about yourself.

Your 2nd statement is essentially along the "fiery but mostly peaceful protests... Hindenburg trip", etc. sort of thing.

 

You're the one claiming reading a book makes one "trained," not me. If you made such a claim, I can presume you either don't know the meaning of "trained," or that you're lying. You still haven't told me what a "trained Marxist" is. I'm presuming the BLM woman who said this, falls into one of the two categories I mentioned.

No, my statement is a reflection of reality. My house isn't burning. No riots here. Your meme is cute, but fallacious.