Originally Posted by marypoza

According to S&H the Silents have yet to produce a President, infact they are the only cohort group that hasn't (along with the colonial groups) Several Silents have run, none have been elected. Now along comes Bernie, crowds turn out to hear him speak, but.... can he turn those crowds into votes? Bernie is a War Baby, so he is probably the Silents last hurrah. But could he be the Silents 1st (& likely only) Prez? What do you think?

Yes, marypoza, I realize this is a reply to your first post, but I would like to see the discussion come full circle to the issue of his electability. And so I ask what would it take for Bernie Sanders to win?

1) He needs an overarching theme (e.g., New Deal, Great Society) to his campaign, something that binds together his various policy prescriptions in a coherent fashion, the very name of which resonates with average Americans. On his senatorial website he calls his "12 Steps Forward" the "Agenda for America." That's a good start, but his title sounds too much like Newt Gingrich's "Contract for America," and the word "agenda" has often taken on a negative connotation. He will also need a catchphrase that sums up his philosophy of governance in as few words as possible. Alas, the days of a Lincoln-Douglas style debate of the issues has long since passed. Reagan gave voice to neo-liberalism in his 1980 campaign without ever mentioning the word, simply by saying, "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." This philosophy of governance is still very much in vogue, especially at the state level.

2) He needs to clearly brand himself. He won his Senate seat running as an Independent in Vermont. Yet he caucuses with Democrats, and votes with them the vast majority of the time. He is also a self-described "democratic socialist." See the confusion? His Republican rivals--and many voters will be asking, "What are you, exactly, Bernie Sanders? An Independent? A Democrat? A socialist?"

3) He will need to flesh out a foreign policy that brings anti-war Democrats into the fold; otherwise, they (like me) may continue to defect to the Green Party. Personally, given Sander's troubling voting record on war and defense appropriations, I need to see more headlines like this: "Sanders Votes No on War Funds," which refers to his September 2014 vote against the United States training and arming Syrian rebels. Too, he needs to put defense cuts on the table as another way to fund his ambitious domestic program--while at the same blunting the war hawks' almost certain contention that he is soft on defense. A fine line to walk, for sure.

4) He needs to convert early momentum (his surge in the polls and big political rallies) into victories in the Iowa caucus or New Hampshire primary, if not both. Then he has to either win or finish a close second on Super Tuesday.

Here, though, are some "tells" that his campaign is running into trouble:

1) If when his rivals and the media red-bait him, he backs away from his self-described "socialist" label. (So far, he hasn't.) Or if he can't clearly explain his kind of socialism (the Nordic model, really), he runs the risk that simple-minded Americans equate his socialism with communism. Fox News has already begun the attack. (http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/sanders-to-vote-no-on-war-funds )
2) If he is backed into a corner--either in interviews or debates--as to whether he would commit ground troops to defeat ISIS. If he says no, he will look weak on national security to many Americans. If he says yes, then to anti-war Democrats and independents he may come off as just one more politician who would risk bogging us down in another military quagmire. If he says, "All options are on the table," then that equivocation is troubling too.

3) If Hillary succeeds in co-opting his domestic platform, if only as a campaign maneuver. He especially cannot let her outflank him on the key issue of income inequality. He must project his righteous anger about the wealth gap in a way that is so genuine as to make hers look insincere.

4) If his campaign is overwhelmed by the big-money backing his rivals, and he decides to seek similar sources of funding just to keep his candidacy alive. Then he compromises his "small-money" campaign approach and all that that implies.

In the meantime, when it comes to his criticism of billionaire oligarchs and Wall Street, I say, "Give 'em hell, Bernie!"

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Soon after my father dies, Toronto here I come!

What a waste. Instead you ought to head down the Corktown / Mexicantown and rally some Millies. Seriously. That's the sort of thing we need.

Jordan #1 says no other power is seeking a hegemonic struggle. Jordan #2 says China is.

Now you're just being obtuse. A hegemonic transition on the scale of the previous ones is visibly coming right on schedule in the 2020s. So said S & H (well, close enough), Goldstein, Thompson & Modelski et al, and events are bearing them out. A situation where America does not prevail and remain the leader for another cycle, which is entirely possible and frankly (from what I'm seeing) probable, does not then imply that the Chinese will take up the same mantle that Britain did in the 19th or the US did in the 20th. They are not an Anglo-Protestant nation, and the same Gladstonian and Wilsonian impulses will likely not apply. They don't even really believe in Maoism at this point. This does not invalidate the hegemonic transition, as most previous hegemons set very different sets of rules, ones that left other powers in play to a much greater extent. No need to invoke yet another strained hypothesis of yours which, as much as I like reading them, seem to be made and then dropped just as quickly with little predictive power to them. Just take the model as written and stop trying to wave your hands about events that only seem important to you as a person in time (Vietnam, the Cold War) and not as a scholar.

I do not think actual wars are part of the equation any more. Look the US just fought a medium-sized war in the Middle East and we cut taxes. A nation seriously at war to win raises taxes. We did for WW I, WW I, Korea. For Vietnam it was mixed we cut taxes in 1965 before the war and then belatedly hiked them in 1969 and then cut them again in 1970. Looks like we weren't serious about Vietnam. This same thing has been the case for every war since then.

You're only saying that because you don't want to think about the possibility of great power war, and so you are grasping at completely arbitrary and inconclusive metrics to convince yourself that something has changed, and this time it really is different.

The problem is internal rot. No external agent is going to swoop in and somehow "trigger" some sort of regenerative process. Either we do the job or we do not. If we "stand up" to "foreign aggression", then we will have decided to not do.

There is a perfectly acceptable word for culture and societies experiencing that sort of "internal rot", and that word is decadence. Decadent societies are usually toppled by more vigorous outsiders, and then refashion themselves. They don't really become "undecadent" on their own.

In order for China to develop fully it has to wean itself off the heroin of export-led growth. That is their internal problem for this 4T which they will either do or not do (most countries fail to do this). They will probably need to gin up some powerful anti-American sentiment to create the authority for them to go up against their own powerful elites.

The process is already well under way.

PS I might be interviewing for a job in a BSL2 laboratory. Is this skill valuable enough in the long run to be worth taking a potential pay cut in comparison to another job offer?

Originally Posted by B Butler

I'd second Mike's evaluation of the Glorious Revolution. This is one place where Marx might have got something right. The Robber Barons generally take power from the old nobility before the People / Workers / 99 percent take on the Robber Barons.

Nobody is disputing who won the Glorious Revolution. Have you actually read Marx, or just the cliff notes?

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Nobody is disputing who won the Glorious Revolution. Have you actually read Marx, or just the cliff notes?

Oh, yes. It's been a while, but I used to amuse myself bringing various writings to the Isabella Gardner museum, a few blocks away from my college. I was never sure who would be more outraged, the ghost of the capitalist's wife, or the ghost of Marx.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

A hegemonic transition on the scale of the previous ones is visibly coming right on schedule in the 2020s.

No it isn't. The other countries aren't near as far along as they should be, if the conflict is to be analogous to the past ones.

A situation where America does not prevail and remain the leader for another cycle, which is entirely possible and frankly (from what I'm seeing) probable, does not then imply that the Chinese will take up the same mantle that Britain did in the 19th or the US did in the 20th. They are not an Anglo-Protestant nation, and the same Gladstonian and Wilsonian impulses will likely not apply.

They didn't for the Portuguese either or even the Dutch. But neither of these really operated as did the UK or US. In fact, calling them hegemons is rather strained when comparing them to the other two.

This does not invalidate the hegemonic transition, as most previous hegemons set very different sets of rules, ones that left other powers in play to a much greater extent.

It does invalidate the concept if participants do not play their roles (hegemon, challenger etc.)

No need to invoke yet another strained hypothesis of yours which, as much as I like reading them, seem to be made and then dropped just as quickly with little predictive power to them. Just take the model as written

It was pretty clear that when pieces from which the Modelski model was assembled were developed the challenger was seen as the USSR (e.g. Dehio). As late as the Glasnost era some observers (e.g. Nixon in 1999) still saw a resurgent USSR as a future player. My modified model was to deal with the USSR, which I did not believe could just be brushed under the rug. Remember, a potentially valid model has to be falsifiable. How do you falsify the Modelski model, or S&H? That's an important question. If there is no answer then it's not social science, it's secular theology.

In the 1980's the focus moved to Japan and a multipolar world, only to see Japan crack up shortly after the USSR did. Now the focus is on China. And if China cracks up next decade like Japan did in the 1990's that won't look right either.

The conflict you are postulating would involve China and the US on different sides. But the Modelski model holds that the new and old hegemon are on the same side in the global war. Only China has the potential to displace the US, so they are the only choice for a future hegemon. But who is the challenger? There isn't any.

I abandoned the hegemonic idea as unworkable. I don't think the great powers concept works any more, if it ever did, because there are so very few states playing the great power game.

Will there be a war? There could be, but it won't be a hegemonic war, because nobody wants to be a hegemon and there is no challenger.

There is a perfectly acceptable word for culture and societies experiencing that sort of "internal rot", and that word is decadence. Decadent societies are usually toppled by more vigorous outsiders, and then refashion themselves. They don't really become "undecadent" on their own.

It's the same rot we had in the 1920's. Did we need vigorous outsiders to topple that? its the same rot Russia had in the 1980's and China had in the 1970's. Was the USSR toppled by vigorous outsiders? Were Deng's reforms forced on him by vigorous outsiders?

The rot I am referring to is excess numbers of elites, whose existence creates economic troubles that lead to political troubles that threaten the state. Russia, China and the US all have that problem. And they all have to get fixed domestically. If they and we don't then eventually there will be war because US will start one.

PS I might be interviewing for a job in a BSL2 laboratory. Is this skill valuable enough in the long run to be worth taking a potential pay cut in comparison to another job offer?

I work in API (chemical and fermentation processing). We do have containment areas (e.g. penicillin, which I cannot enter) but no pathogens or biosafety areas. Are you an operator? If so you should be able to get some idea of utility by searching job ads and looking for what they are seeing (we are late in the business cycle, usually a good time to look for a job.) In my field the pay increases typically all occurred in the last couple of years of business cycles because that is when hiring is most intense. But hell, I don't know anymore. Back in the day we used to actually hire people. Now everybody comes in as a contractor.

No it isn't. The other countries aren't near as far along as they should be, if the conflict is to be analogous to the past ones.

Horseshit. America's period of deconcentration clearly coincided with agenda-setting (US-China rapprochement, Deng's economic reforms, the massive investments in /changes in the size and orientation of the PLA in the wake of the Gulf War) on the part of China, as did the succeeding periods of delegitimization/coalition building after 2000 . The Kondratiev winter arrived on schedule, as did the continued relative decline of the US and the rising troubles in the periphery (uh, look at the Middle East, PIIGS, Ukraine, and the South China Sea). The present situation closely resembles that predicted by Chase-Dunn and Podobnik in the 90s, though like I said they were still more fixated on Germany and Japan at the time.

They didn't for the Portuguese either or even the Dutch. But neither of these really operated as did the UK or US. In fact, calling them hegemons is rather strained when comparing them to the other two.

Thompson-Modelski model goes back to the Southern Sung, rather a larger sample. But even using just the (early) modern ones you listed, half of them don't follow your definition of what a hegemon should be (ie the Anglo-Saxon model), proving my point. Hegemonic transition wars can occur without a victor being required to redeem the world or become the global policeman.

It does invalidate the concept if participants do not play their roles (hegemon, challenger etc.)

I disagree that the roles are not being played. Is China not a large, nationalistic land power previously aligned to us? Are we not a declining maritime hegemon?

It was pretty clear that when pieces from which the Modelski model was assembled were developed the challenger was seen as the USSR (e.g. Dehio).

Yes, and the pieces from which the leading sector model was assembled were still unclear as to what the core technology of the 19th K-Wave was. Space and nuclear looked like strong contenders at one point. In the 80s they were still talking about microprocessors or biotech as possible contenders for the present innovation wave. What of it? Lots of things that seem important at the time become trivial in hindsight, and the converse is true as well.

s late as the Glasnost era some observers (e.g. Nixon in 1999) still saw a resurgent USSR as a future player.

A resurgent Russia definitely seems to be a player now.

My modified model was to deal with the USSR, which I did not believe could just be brushed under the rug.

Most of your modified models are worthless, and swiftly discarded. Your inability to let go of the Cold War as being critical to things that were scheduled (by the authors you cite as well as me) for the 20s is more a reflection on your narrow-mindedness than the validity of the model. How can you discard the Space Race so swiftly, just because it went nowhere and IT has become more critical (acknowledging the enabling effect the one played on the other, just as Mao and USSR played such a role for their successors)?

Remember, a potentially valid model has to be falsifiable. How do you falsify the Modelski model, or S&H? That's an important question. If there is no answer then it's not social science, it's secular theology.

They made traditions, for a particular time period, that thus far have been occurring on schedule, and whose particular iteration has not just run its allotted course. I have no need as yet for your equation de jour.

The conflict you are postulating would involve China and the US on different sides. But the Modelski model holds that the new and old hegemon are on the same side in the global war. Only China has the potential to displace the US, so they are the only choice for a future hegemon. But who is the challenger? There isn't any.

It's been a while, but I recall that as a general trend, and not a hard and fast rule. Alternatively, we could play out scenarios where the US and Russia fought a war and China rose further on the sidelines or a late participant. Or perhaps one where China and the US went to war, and India became the seat of the next leading sectors, even if China was still more politically and militarily dominant (as was the case for Spain and France during Portugal and the Netherland's peak, respectively.) Or possibly war and economic competition will be abolished completely by tomorrow, in which case I'd consider the thing falsified.

I abandoned the hegemonic idea as unworkable, you have too. I don't think the great powers concept works any more, if it ever did, because there are so very few states playing the great power game.

Will there be a war? There could be, but it won't be a hegemonic war, because nobody wants to be a hegemon and there is no challenger.

No, what you have done is taken a very narrow interpretation of one possible scenario for a model made by someone else and ruled THAT out.

It's the same rot we had in the 1920's. Did we need vigorous outsiders to topple that? its the same rot Russia had in the 1980's and China had in the 1970's. Was the USSR toppled by vigorous outsiders? Were Deng's reforms forced on him by vigorous outsiders? The rot I am referring to is excess numbers of elites, whose existence creates economic troubles that will eventually lead to political troubles that threaten the state security.

We needed an exogenous shock, and both of the other examples given (all from within your lifetime, unsurprisingly) were under extreme external pressure. But yes, an external force that does not somehow become domestic would preclude domestic change.

Russia, China and the US all have that problem. And they all have to get fixed domestically. If they and we don't then eventually there will be war because US will start one.

Yes, pretty much this. It looks a damn sight more likely than the imminent arrival of a glorious social democratic future of sparkling ponies carrying people to their subsidized government jobs brought about by the limp-wristed handflapping and endless whining of your fellow Boomer progressives.

I work in API (chemical and fermentation processing). We do have containment areas (e.g. penicillin, which I cannot enter) but no pathogens or biosafety areas. Are you an operator? If so you should be able to get some idea of utility by searching job ads and looking for what they are seeing (we are late in the business cycle, usually a good time to look for a job.) In my field the pay increases typically all occurred in the last couple of years of business cycles because that is when hiring is most intense. But hell, I don't know anymore. Back in the day we used to actually hire people. Now everybody comes in as a contractor.

Dude, I'm a guy with a history degree, some lab experience, and 90% of a biotech degree trying to get a job.

In the coming Great Power war, here are the roles (for convenience, I use WW2 role references):
UK = US
US = India
Germany = China
Japan = Russia
(these last two might switch)

There is no USSR equivalent this time around.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

The present situation closely resembles that predicted by Chase-Dunn and Podobnik in the 90s, though like I said they were still more fixated on Germany and Japan at the time.

Well they are way off on their Kondratieffs. They are still operating with a 1968 peak. That means the equivalent to 2008 occurred in the 1980's and the world economy was in depression in the 1990's, and now has entered the prosperous upgrade. That sound right to you?

Some cycle theories like S&H or Schlesinger are merely stated. No empirical support is provided. The beauty of the Modelski-Thompson cycle was you could actually plot out the cycles they say occurred from real data on naval power, army size, and war intensity. And they can be linked it to K-cycles that can be independently derived.

Portugal was the 16th century hegemon not because it acted as a hegemon, it didn't, but because it had the dominant navy. Spain gets the challenger role because it had the dominant Army. Other theorists like Wallerstein did not see Portugal as any such thing because they made verbal, not quantitative arguments.

With the fall of the USSR it all broke down. The US is still dominant navally 70 years after the last global war. Look at the data, during the deconcentration phase the old hegemon has seen its naval power fall a great deal. That has not happened, so naval power no longer works.

Casualties in interstate conflict have plummeted since WW II. There is no pattern left, so that tool doesn't work either. The guys you reference have got their K-cycles way off so that isn't working either. So now you are down to just another verbal model.

Yawn, you should read the stuff the Navy think tanks and blogs are writing about. The navy's size has plummeted since the end of the Cold War, and they're in a panic trying to gin up funding for a"third offset" to counter the naval impact of conventional missiles and land based airstrikes (ie A2/AD). Just as the Chase-Dunn paper cited Germany/Japan would do to blunt the US. I have no need to fixate on the quantitative aspects when the qualitative ones still hold so well.

The foreign war of the 2020s is likely to be a global effort to counter Islamic terrorists and/or The Islamic State, unless Russia continues its expansionist ambitions; in which case it could also involve countering this. Also, Japan might be involved for the first time since a saeculum ago.

China will not attempt global hegemony, or start any wars. It could be involved in global efforts to curb the Islamic jihadists.

Our first priority as Americans must be to avoid becoming an Evil Empire.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Our first priority as Americans must be to avoid becoming an Evil Empire.

Our First priority as Americans must be to avoid being conquered by communist armies and arsenals who are bent on a "racial-cleansing of the world" and to toughen ourselves in defeat their maniacal dream in which all forms of urban-civilization are destroyed and those peoples allowed to continue existing are reorganized around rural-farmsteads presided over by warrior-farmers and warrior priests. We must defeat the neo-soviet empire; only Restorationism is capable of defeating this scourge.

Here, I Fixed it for you.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Our first priority as Americans must be to avoid becoming an Evil Empire.

Don't you think it's a little late for that?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It was the extent of reform which the Republicans and DINOs and generally the powers-that-be allowed to be passed; originally a Republican proposal.

-- exacxtly. Which is why it shouldn't of been passed. The foxes are guarding the henhouse

meanwhile Robert Reich (hardly a wingnut) weighs in:

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/07/robe...y_way_partner/

Originally Posted by marypoza

-- exacxtly. Which is why it shouldn't of been passed. The foxes are guarding the henhouse

meanwhile Robert Reich (hardly a wingnut) weighs in:

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/07/robe...y_way_partner/

Well, at least the henhouse is a bit more affordable, thanks to some ACA farmers who are watching the foxes. That's why Bernie voted for it, even though inadequate.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

Don't you think it's a little late for that?

I must admit, I was thinking of saying that. Bravo Seattleblue.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

Don't you think it's a little late for that?

I doubt that we Americans are as noble as the Filipinos who stood up to Marcos or the peoples of central and Balkan Europe who destabilized Commie regimes. Our ruling elites have done everything possible to turn us into a nation of swine, people who would sell out our fellow worker for a kind word from the Boss.

Political discourse is so debased in America that George Orwell, were he alive, would have much to say about Newspeak in America.

A 'patriotic' politician is thus one who believes that a war that kills a few million people for trillions in profits to armaments merchants is a good idea. Such was a common thread in 2014. The problem isn't that people say things like that -- it is that people believe it.

Is it just me or is CH clearly insane?

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Our First priority as Americans must be to avoid being conquered by communist armies and arsenals

Two problems here: 1. There isn't a communist state in the world today, not China, not Vietnam, not even the DPRK. In fact the Five states with a CP still ruling them are not now and never were communist. Those states are for edification of those who care to know: China, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK and Cuba.

And 2. Arsenals are collections of arms, they are objects not subjects.

who are bent on a "racial-cleansing of the world"

Racial cleansing is a project for various fascist and ultra-nationalist fronts. The concept of race is irrelevant to all scientific socialists because the concept of race outside of a social construct is irrelevant biologically. In short CH is ascribing to communists a program constructed by and for the opposite of communists.

and to toughen ourselves in defeat their maniacal dream in which all forms of urban-civilization are destroyed and those peoples allowed to continue existing are reorganized around rural-farmsteads presided over by warrior-farmers and warrior priests. We must defeat the neo-soviet empire; only Restorationism is capable of defeating this scourge.

Here, I Fixed it for you.

Again, this sounds like some sort of fascist "back to the land" pipe dream. Not even Pol Pot wanted to completely destroy urban culture because for communists a proletariat is absolutely vital in order to justify their existence. Socialism is a modern creation to address needs for a modern industrial world, it will not work in the long term for agrarian societies unless of course the goal is to take an agrarian society and to rapidly industrialize it.

As for "Restorationism" it sounds like a made up pseudo-facist nonsense to me. Indeed the only person I've ever seen on this forum who makes a correct observation less often than Eric the Ignoramus is CH. At least CH has the excuse of being completely insane though.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I doubt that we Americans are as noble as the Filipinos who stood up to Marcos or the peoples of central and Balkan Europe who destabilized Commie regimes. Our ruling elites have done everything possible to turn us into a nation of swine, people who would sell out our fellow worker for a kind word from the Boss.

Political discourse is so debased in America that George Orwell, were he alive, would have much to say about Newspeak in America.

A 'patriotic' politician is thus one who believes that a war that kills a few million people for trillions in profits to armaments merchants is a good idea. Such was a common thread in 2014. The problem isn't that people say things like that -- it is that people believe it.

Precisely why he said it was a little late for the US to not become an evil-empire.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Is it just me or is CH clearly insane?

And what's scary, he gets to vote - they make up around 28% of the voting electorate.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Is it just me or is CH clearly insane?

Is he more insane than me? Where do I stand on your scale?

Two problems here: 1. There isn't a communist state in the world today, not China, not Vietnam, not even the DPRK. In fact the Five states with a CP still ruling them are not now and never were communist. Those states are for edification of those who care to know: China, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK and Cuba.

By your definition, there never were any communist states. So, meaningless. By CH's definition, communists are still comin' to git us and are hiding under every bed. So, meaningless.

And 2. Arsenals are collections of arms, they are objects not subjects.

So you admit there's a difference, eh?

Racial cleansing is a project for various fascist and ultra-nationalist fronts. The concept of race is irrelevant to all scientific socialists because the concept of race outside of a social construct is irrelevant biologically. In short CH is ascribing to communists a program constructed by and for the opposite of communists.

Yes, but this assumes that Cynic Hero has more familiarity with logic even than I do.

Again, this sounds like some sort of fascist "back to the land" pipe dream. Not even Pol Pot wanted to completely destroy urban culture because for communists a proletariat is absolutely vital in order to justify their existence. Socialism is a modern creation to address needs for a modern industrial world, it will not work in the long term for agrarian societies unless of course the goal is to take an agrarian society and to rapidly industrialize it.

Again, by your definition, and the agrarian ideal was definitely uppermost for Pol Pot and Mao, even if not exclusively.

As for "Restorationism" it sounds like a made up pseudo-facist nonsense to me. Indeed the only person I've ever seen on this forum who makes a correct observation less often than Eric the Ignoramus is CH. At least CH has the excuse of being completely insane though.

Oh I see here you have placed me on your scale. Good, whew!

Originally Posted by playwrite

And what's scary, he gets to vote - they make up around 28% of the voting electorate.

Approximately 30% of the electorate would vote Republican even if they ran Trotsky. 30% would vote Democrat if they ran Hitler. I'm not convinced that voting really matters that much. It is a choice between two different oppressors really.

Originally Posted by marypoza

-- exacxtly. Which is why it shouldn't of been passed. The foxes are guarding the henhouse

meanwhile Robert Reich (hardly a wingnut) weighs in:

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/07/robe...y_way_partner/

I think 26 million people, most of whom have health insurance for the first time, would disagree.

One way to tell a "theoretical Progressive" from a "practicing Progressive" is that the former tends to have, and take for granted, their pre-ACA insurance, and they bitch a lot. The latter bitch just as much but tend to actually try to do something about it.

What Reich failed to mention is the ACA's Medical Lost Ratio MLR) requirement that restricts insurers from using more than 20% of their revenue for ALL costs including profits. This is what is behind the consolidations - insurers are going to have get to be a lot more efficient under the ACA requirements and that will likely mean consolidations in the market.

There is little if any evidence that the exchanges are resulting in only unhealthy people signing up. If premiums are going to generally go up that is about health care getting to be more expensive which was not the primary thing the ACA was intended to address. The number of people uninsured was the primary problem that the ACA was intended to address and the ACA has been more successful in meeting that objective than anyone, including most supporters, had ever envisioned.

Finally, all the scaremongering about premiums going up is exactly the same scaremongering we heard at this time last year that eventually proved to be horseshit. This is the time in the cycle that insurer make their INITIAL rate proposal. Those proposals are then subject to each state's insurance board, made not only more in the public interest by the ACA but also more powerful with tools like the MLR requirement. More importantly, its the first time each insurer gets to look at what the others are offering and then the competitive juices kick in - the whole purpose of the exchanges is to allow consumers to shop around with more complete, accurate, and locked-in information than we have ever had before about what insurers have to offer - you can bet the insurers understand this and will act accordingly with their business models.

The likely result, like last year, is a substantial lower increase in rates that initially indicated. Last year, was the lowest rate increase in premiums since records on that have been kept. For example, TN had the insurer with the highest proposed increase in the nation, by the end of October, however, TN was the second lowest rate increase state in the nation. That's not magic; that comes from the huge effort of thousands of "practicing Progressives."

Psss, for those "in the know" at the strategic level, the consolidations are not a surprise. The consolidations are first a chance for the private sector model to make it work and second, if not, its a politically necessary step toward something called single payer.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

... It is a choice between two different oppressors really.

If you truly believe that, then you are a big part of the problem.