Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I'm moving to Medicare on April 1st. Medicare Part A is free, and I'll be paying $121 a month for Medicare Part B. My Medigap policy is roughly $145 and my Medicare part D is about $40. So my out of pocket insurance expense is roughly $300 a month, but my total out of pocket medical exposure is $167 a year. My drug expenses should be roughly $100, unless I need something new I'm not taking now.

This is what people want from their ACA plan.

Yes but you get that through the payments provided by tens of millions who pay into the system and receive nothing. To insure them on Medicare would require a major increase in payroll taxes. For many of these taxpayers you would be asking them to pay a lot more in payroll taxes in exchange for nothing, as the Medicare insurance they now qualify for is no better than the employer-provided plan they used to have.

This is why single-payer all-at-once is a political non-starter. On the other hand, Medicare as a public option is create an environment in which the ACA will evolve over time into single payer. This is why Wall Street Democrats* opposed the public option and all Republicans oppose the ACA.

*By Wall Street I mean supporters of free market capitalism, not that they necessarily got Wall Street donations.

People don't like Hillary not merely because of her politics and/or her record. People hate Hillary because she is the personification of yuppie globalist decadence. She is the personification of the delusional notion that has risen up and become dominant over the last 250-300 years, the idiotic belief that people can actually rule themselves. Prior to about 1700 AD if one looked just about anywhere in the world the form of government was basically the same, a military elite/aristocracy who ruled and provided military protection to the people in return for the submission of the people and the assertion leaderships right to extract produce from the populace any time the leader saw it as necessary. These leaders were usually hereditary and were trained from birth to be rulers.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

People don't like Hillary not merely because of her politics and/or her record. People hate Hillary because she is the personification of yuppie globalist decadence. She is the personification of the delusional notion that has risen up and become dominant over the last 250-300 years, the idiotic belief that people can actually rule themselves. Prior to about 1700 AD if one looked just about anywhere in the world the form of government was basically the same, a military elite/aristocracy who ruled and provided military protection to the people in return for the submission of the people and the assertion leaderships right to extract produce from the populace any time the leader saw it as necessary. These leaders were usually hereditary and were trained from birth to be rulers.

And we had a Revolution that overturned that system almost everywhere. Progress moves on, and Hillary and other blue Boomers are among those helping to move it forward. Viva La Revolution! Death to all tyrants! The people shall rule themselves from 1789 onward!

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Yes but you get that through the payments provided by tens of millions who pay into the system and receive nothing. To insure them on Medicare would require a major increase in payroll taxes. For many of these taxpayers you would be asking them to pay a lot more in payroll taxes in exchange for nothing, as the Medicare insurance they now qualify for is no better than the employer-provided plan they used to have.

I'm not so sure. Those who get services through medicare are already a large proportion of the population. While those younger people who would pay in through medicare for all would need much less in services. Medicare tax now is very small. I wonder how much it would really have to be raised to make it medicare for all.

Medicare as it is today doesn't cover everything. So private insurance would remain under that system, as part of Medicare Part C. And Part B still requires that people pay a premium of at least $105 a month. But people have a choice if they want this coverage, although they have to decide when they sign up.

This is why single-payer all-at-once is a political non-starter. On the other hand, Medicare as a public option is create an environment in which the ACA will evolve over time into single payer. This is why Wall Street Democrats* opposed the public option and all Republicans oppose the ACA.

It might evolve; that's one hope. Provided we keep the option alive. Since Bernie probably won't get single-payer, that will happen under Bernie. It depends on how great Bernie's rabble-rousing skills really are, how progressive his administration and congress would be. It wouldn't happen on Jan.20, 2017, that's for sure.

The happiest countries tend to be the freeist, with a few exceptions.

http://www.fastcoexist.com/3045425/t...s-in-the-world

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I read that post too. He touches on the problem, but missed the most important part. He talks about how inequality was high in the 1920's just like today, but was low in between. But he doesn't talks about how that happened. He says things like this:

He shows an outcome and then just states that a political side caused this to happen like magic. He doesn't go into more detail because he probably doesn't know HOW it happened. Well if you don't know how something happens how is the hell are you supposed to bring it about?

Sanders talks about raising the top tax rate by 94%. Has a left ever accomplished this in American history? No.

During the New Deal FDR raises top tax rates by 25%, about the same as the 1993 28% increase under Clinton. Republicans raised the top tax rate by 140% just before the New Deal, and supported further increasing the top rate by 21% for the war.

So you see Sanders top pro-equality tool is something "the Left" has never been able to achieve in peacetime. The big increases that were an important contributor to the inequality reduction described in the cited article were mostly done by Republicans. Ask yourself, why did they do it? Can one arrange things so that they are willing to do it again?

He calls for a national minimum wage of $15. This is good. How about calling for a rally in Washington for a 70K minimum salary for exemption from overtime rules. This is something the president can do unilaterally. Maybe a call for a tariff. How about prosecution of those who hire the undocumented, combined with a path to citizenship for those those they employ who show a willingness to become Americans. Maybe steal a bit of Trumps thunder. What I am suggesting is open up a wide range of policy issues, all of which are unified in that they were possibly involved in the great compression. The vast reduction in inequality from 1929-1946 occurred in a world in which immigration has been sharply reduced in 1924, tax raises sharply in 1930, 1935 and 1941, a massive tariff passed in 1930, labor actions legalized in 1935, prohibition ended in 1933, economy flooded with money in 1933 and after, welfare programs established mid 1930's, massive stimulus in 1941-46, price and wage controls with an explicit income leveled objective built in, etc. Lots of moving parts. No one know for sure how big of a role any one of these played. Maybe the results came from most or all of these acting in concert. The more policies along these lines that can be thrown into the debate, the better. And the primary is the time to do it.

In the 1940s and 1950s the economic elites of America dreaded Communism. To ensure that they did not have to face a sullen proletariat ready to stab the economic elites in the back the elites made sure that working people had a stake in the system -- the consumer economy. With the consumer economy also came opportunity for the smart kids of industrial workers to join the middle class by attending college, having work that used their minds instead of their bodies, and buying tract houses in the suburbs.

Today there is no such fear by the economic elites. Those elites can act without conscience and get away with it because they can promote numbing stupidity in mass media, second-rate and limited schooling (college has become expensive and in view of its costs higher education cannot justify itself for the value of learning so much as for vocational training), brutal law enforcement (Ferguson, Missouri), and politicians who thoroughly believe that the first duty of a leader is to his financial backer.

From the late 1940s to the late 1980s, the Soviet threat ensured that the economic elites needed to offer an alternative to Socialism. Now those elites can offer a New Peonage with impunity. Social mobility? The elites need no middle class -- only people in a grim contest to determine who will earn the privilege of survival through their suffering.

Hunger Games, anyone?

I am tempted to believe that labor-management relations are the essence of the domestic struggle of this 4T.

"I might get BERNED up by the Sun, but I had my fun!"

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

In the 1940s and 1950s the economic elites of America dreaded Communism. To ensure that they did not have to face a sullen proletariat ready to stab the economic elites in the back the elites made sure that working people had a stake in the system -- the consumer economy. With the consumer economy also came opportunity for the smart kids of industrial workers to join the middle class by attending college, having work that used their minds instead of their bodies, and buying tract houses in the suburbs.

Today there is no such fear by the economic elites. Those elites can act without conscience and get away with it because they can promote numbing stupidity in mass media, second-rate and limited schooling (college has become expensive and in view of its costs higher education cannot justify itself for the value of learning so much as for vocational training), brutal law enforcement (Ferguson, Missouri), and politicians who thoroughly believe that the first duty of a leader is to his financial backer.

From the late 1940s to the late 1980s, the Soviet threat ensured that the economic elites needed to offer an alternative to Socialism. Now those elites can offer a New Peonage with impunity. Social mobility? The elites need no middle class -- only people in a grim contest to determine who will earn the privilege of survival through their suffering.

Hunger Games, anyone?

I am tempted to believe that labor-management relations are the essence of the domestic struggle of this 4T.

The US economy was also helped by having a very large share of the world's GNP after the destruction during WWII of much of Europe( including Russia) and Japan.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Yes but you get that through the payments provided by tens of millions who pay into the system and receive nothing. To insure them on Medicare would require a major increase in payroll taxes. For many of these taxpayers you would be asking them to pay a lot more in payroll taxes in exchange for nothing, as the Medicare insurance they now qualify for is no better than the employer-provided plan they used to have.

This is why single-payer all-at-once is a political non-starter. On the other hand, Medicare as a public option is create an environment in which the ACA will evolve over time into single payer. This is why Wall Street Democrats* opposed the public option and all Republicans oppose the ACA.

*By Wall Street I mean supporters of free market capitalism, not that they necessarily got Wall Street donations.

One way to cost-shift without actually shifting costs at all would be to tax companies to recover the healthcare payments they'll shed by moving to Medicare For All. Of course, the devil resides in his usual habitat: the details. It wouldn't bother me too much to see piker companies, like Walmart, be taxed for the plans they should have offered but didn't. In fact, fairness might be a selling point. Then again, the transition method is OK too, but it can't be never ending or subject to a continuous series of steps -- each needing a separate approval by Congress.

The ACA is very weak tea. It will be whittled away to nothing unless it's improved dramatically. It needs an army of advocates ... like Social Security. I don't see that happening with the Rube Goldberg ACA of today.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

I think of Hillary's "victory dance" after Libya "We came We saw He died". And then I think of Hillary with nuclear launch codes and I cringe.

But, but, hey she can be my kind of woman.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

I think of Hillary's "victory dance" after Libya "We came We saw He died". And then I think of Hillary with nuclear launch codes and I cringe.

One quote is not much basis for cringing. And remember we did not overthrow Qaddafi; the Libyans did.

Originally Posted by radind

The US economy was also helped by having a very large share of the world's GNP after the destruction during WWII of much of Europe (including Russia) and Japan.

Immediately after WWII the US was in an excellent position as an exporter. But see also those countries with market economies that largely escaped the ravages of a Crisis War to the US to their infrastructure -- Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Brazil, Mexico, Cuba, Sweden, Switzerland, Portugal, and (for a short time, as the country experienced few bombing raids or protracted battles) Czechoslovakia. British India (but not Burma, a war zone) enjoyed its most prosperous time ever.

On the other side, the US ended up with obsolete manufacturing plant because it was heavily pre-war (1920s and earlier) while Japan, Britain, and most of western continental Europe got more modern equipment.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Immediately after WWII the US was in an excellent position as an exporter. But see also those countries with market economies that largely escaped the ravages of a Crisis War to the US to their infrastructure -- Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Brazil, Mexico, Cuba, Sweden, Switzerland, Portugal, and (for a short time, as the country experienced few bombing raids or protracted battles) Czechoslovakia. British India (but not Burma, a war zone) enjoyed its most prosperous time ever.

On the other side, the US ended up with obsolete manufacturing plant because it was heavily pre-war (1920s and earlier) while Japan, Britain, and most of western continental Europe got more modern equipment.

The modern equipment had an effect, but it took some time for them to rebuild. The US did very well for a while.
Japan also had the good sense to listen to Deming on the value of Quality. The US Auto makers ignored this move for way too long.
Detroit tried to blame poor quality cars on the workers when the real problem in quality and cost was the old manufacturing systems.

I found an interesting HBR article on Statistical Quality Control(SQC) in manufacturing.

The Emerging Theory of Manufacturing


https://hbr.org/1990/05/the-emerging...-manufacturing


… "The Japanese owe their leadership in manufacturing quality largely to their embrace of Deming’s precepts in the 1950s and 1960s. Juran too had great impact in Japan. But U.S. industry ignored their contributions for 40 years and is only now converting to SQC, with companies such as Ford, General Motors, and Xerox among the new disciples. Western Europe also has largely ignored the concept. More important, even SQC’s most successful practitioners do not thoroughly understand what it really does. Generally, it is considered a production tool. Actually, its greatest impact is on the factory’s social organization.”…


… " Even after adjusting for their far greater reliance on outside suppliers, Toyota, Honda, and Nissan turn out two or three times more cars per worker than comparable U.S. or European plants do. Building quality into the process accounts for no more than one-third of this difference. Japan’s major productivity gains are the result of social changes brought about by SQC.”…


… “In the main, the United States has lacked the methodology to build quality and productivity into the manufacturing process Similarly, we have lacked the methodology to move responsibility for the process and control of it to the machine operator, to put into practice what the mathematician Norbert Wiener called the “human use of human beings.””…

Originally Posted by radind

I found an interesting HBR article on Statistical Quality Control(SQC) in manufacturing.

Very good; very important IMO.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

But, but, hey she can be my kind of woman.

Yep, and here's the other choice -





Given the American electorate IN THE GENERAL, which choice do you think the GOP is dying to run against?

Karl Rove knows, and is putting his money on it -

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/firs...didnt-ask-for/

Bernie Sanders Gets Some Outside Help He Didn’t Ask For

I'm reminded of those times the Dems had complete control of the federal government - WH and Congress - and couldn't get anything much done because of infighting and, well, not engaging brains.

It's amazing how Progressives screw up sure things for themselves.

There's not the slightest doubt the Republicans will peddle that meme of Bernie riding the magic pony and giving away other people's money. But they will be equally hard on Hillary. They will whack whoever the Democrats nominate with equal glee. To them, anyone to the left of Attila the Hun is a socialist giving away other people's money.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Yep, and here's the other choice -





Given the American electorate IN THE GENERAL, which choice do you think the GOP is dying to run against?

Karl Rove knows, and is putting his money on it -

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/firs...didnt-ask-for/




I'm reminded of those times the Dems had complete control of the federal government - WH and Congress - and couldn't get anything much done because of infighting and, well, not engaging brains.

It's amazing how Progressives screw up sure things for themselves.

I hope you're not one of those Clinton supporters who will sit on their asses scolding the Sanders team if Sanders does win.

Let's face it, both of the two remaining Democratic candidates have definite flaws. In my view, Clinton has an expired "sell-by" date (too long in the public glare), plus too many ties to the establishment for the mood of the country today. Sanders lacks foreign policy chops and is viewed as too radical. Both are older than I'd like my President to be. Both are very vulnerable to Republican attacks. And both are 1,000 times better than anyone on the other side of the aisle.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Wow, the unicorns are hot. The last I saw one was in granny's bathroom with the squatty-potty.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Given the American electorate IN THE GENERAL, which choice do you think the GOP is dying to run against?

Karl Rove knows, and is putting his money on it -

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/firs...didnt-ask-for/

Hmm. lessee if we get this for the 2016 person of the year, 'kay?






Snakes are more trustworthy of Rove the Hut. I also have to admit, I don't have the magic words to turn sheeple into werewolves.

Why can't Bernie call up "Gentle Ben" ? "Gentle Ben" was also a kiddie show in the late 60's 'cause I remember it.



I take it , only werewolves, but not sheeple understand the above.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I'm reminded of those times the Dems had complete control of the federal government - WH and Congress - and couldn't get anything much done because of infighting and, well, not engaging brains.

Yes.

It's amazing how Progressives screw up sure things for themselves.

I'd say it's more of the "American Sheeple" thing. Like it's only Sheeple who'd actually believe the Shrub brothers stating that they're good because they "protected us [from terror]". In actuality this is stupid because one never, ever makes friends and influences people by bombing them to smithereens.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Yes but you get that through the payments provided by tens of millions who pay into the system and receive nothing. To insure them on Medicare would require a major increase in payroll taxes. For many of these taxpayers you would be asking them to pay a lot more in payroll taxes in exchange for nothing, as the Medicare insurance they now qualify for is no better than the employer-provided plan they used to have.

This is why single-payer all-at-once is a political non-starter. On the other hand, Medicare as a public option is create an environment in which the ACA will evolve over time into single payer. This is why Wall Street Democrats* opposed the public option and all Republicans oppose the ACA.

*By Wall Street I mean supporters of free market capitalism, not that they necessarily got Wall Street donations.

It worked on a smaller scale for Australia when Australia implemented it's Medicare system under Gough Whitlam (to whom Sanders has an eerie political resemblance). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28Australia%29. So it CAN be done if the political will is there. Any history of how Medicare came to NZ, Taramarie?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I hope you're not one of those Clinton supporters who will sit on their asses scolding the Sanders team if Sanders does win.

Let's face it, both of the two remaining Democratic candidates have definite flaws. In my view, Clinton has an expired "sell-by" date (too long in the public glare), plus too many ties to the establishment for the mood of the country today. Sanders lacks foreign policy chops and is viewed as too radical. Both are older than I'd like my President to be. Both are very vulnerable to Republican attacks. And both are 1,000 times better than anyone on the other side of the aisle.

Actually, my first choice would probably have been Jim Webb, who does have defence and foreign policy chops.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I hope you're not one of those Clinton supporters who will sit on their asses scolding the Sanders team if Sanders does win.

Let's face it, both of the two remaining Democratic candidates have definite flaws. In my view, Clinton has an expired "sell-by" date (too long in the public glare), plus too many ties to the establishment for the mood of the country today. Sanders lacks foreign policy chops and is viewed as too radical. Both are older than I'd like my President to be. Both are very vulnerable to Republican attacks. And both are 1,000 times better than anyone on the other side of the aisle.

No, that's not me. I'll be in my usual full attack mode to destroy GOP regardless of the Dem nominee.

I just wish E. Warren was running - all the attributes of the two current choices and none of the baggage.

What an unbelievable missed opportunity. :-(

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Actually, my first choice would probably have been Jim Webb, who does have defence and foreign policy chops.

And probably a lot more warlike than Hillary Clinton.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

And probably a lot more warlike than Hillary Clinton.

Hillary would take us into to war in order to defend other peoples lands and interests and not that of the US. A trump or a webb would go to war to advance AMERICAN interests.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Hillary would take us into to war in order to defend other peoples lands and interests and not that of the US. A trump or a webb would go to war to advance AMERICAN interests.

But Trump and Webb are boomers too.

Hillary would use some encouragements and apply pressure, like she did with Iran and recommended in Syria. And she helped and encouraged Obama to go after bin Laden. I haven't heard her recommend ground troops anywhere. But on Iraq, Webb and Trump were correct and she was wrong. Does one vote really suggest what she would "take us into," though?