MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 11 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
Which Side Are You On, Hillary?
By HSG on Sun, 03/13/2016 - 5:58pm |"'I'm worried about Trump versus Hillary' says one Wisconsin labor activist"
URL:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/opinion/campaign-stops/which-side-are-you-on-hillary.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-le
- Add new comment
- 12679 reads
Comments
I thought the 1100 delegates chosen by the end of this month were important, but I guess we have to wait for the 96 Wisconsin delegates chosen April 5 to know the real outcome. As goes Wisconsin, so goes the nation...
Still, he'll have to win by more than 1.5% to walk away with more delegates. Since Hillary leads 9:1 in union endorsements, she must be doing something right. Or not.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 03/13/2016 - 6:54pm
Oddly enough, labor isn't a monolith and the leadership often takes nuanced stances on what is best. Also, Hillary Clinton has some good ideas for labor.
by Michael Maiello on Sun, 03/13/2016 - 8:45pm
The two most effective ways to improve the lot of the American worker right now probably are 1) to kibosh all talks on trans-oceanic trade agreements and to renounce the "free" trade deals entered into since the beginning of the Clinton administration 2) to pass universal single-payer healthcare. Bernie's for both. Hillary - not so much.
by HSG on Sun, 03/13/2016 - 8:52pm
Why would single-payer "improve the lot of the American worker"? Don't they already have coverage via employer and/or ACA?
Or is this just a multiple choice where the answer's always the same (no TPP/single-payer/vote Bernie)
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 03/13/2016 - 8:57pm
by jollyroger on Sun, 03/13/2016 - 10:42pm
Your being isolated from the Homeland and probably covered by a universal health care scheme may explain why you ask Hal such a clueless question.
Either you're feigning ignorance or you haven't a clue how our medical insurance system operates, to produce profits and minimize health care while being very expensive, for the insured and the employer. Are you really ignorant of the fact that 33,000,000 people in the US have no medical coverage.
by Peter (not verified) on Sun, 03/13/2016 - 10:55pm
Are they working as you said? Then what is the status of their insurance via their employer or ACA? Do they not have insurance despite working? In which case universal health care is needed, single-payer or not (or at least some required coverage somewhere for people who work, while Medicare/Medicaid can cover non-workers). Does their current employer or ACA plan not cover what single-payer would? Why not, and is it because of co-pays or unavailability or some other reason.
I feel we're still not differentiating between single-payer and universal health care. And presumably single-payer can have shitty coverage as can universal coverage, just like Bush's idea of welfare reform drastically differed from Clinton's original conditions. Whose plan are we discussing? "Single payer" doesnt mean "peace on earth" or even "Cadillac plan for everyone" - it's all in the details.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 03/14/2016 - 2:14am
I feel we're still not differentiating between single-payer and universal health care.
That's an important point. To often in these discussions people use single-payer and universal health care synonymously. And also imply or state that systems with private insurance cannot be universal or even good. While using European systems as examples of systems so much better than ours most people don't realize that some countries have mixed public and private systems. England, France and Germany have varying degrees of mixed public and private systems.
Affordably universal health care is the goal. Single payer is just one means to achieve that goal. Given the kludge we've inherited a mixed system is more likely to be used to get us to universal health care than single payer. Its more likely to be successfully passed.
by ocean-kat on Mon, 03/14/2016 - 3:41am
"Affordable quality universal healthcare", to add the missing qualifier. Covers abortions and prescription medicines and somehow deals with new experimental procedures, etc. What happens if doesnt cover something? Some countries dont allow additional private pay for services, others do. There will always be some level of rationing defined by insurance company or government or individual. Presumably the goal is to get the 95% of common needs dealt with as no-brainers, no-catastrophe, and then debate how we deal with the rest.
Of course there are issues like long-term and hospice care, meental health, etc, plus disability payment needs that go along with it. Maybe Im optimistic about 95% - maybe the fight is over 50% once we see what we're fighting over and what the total costs are, what expectations on quality are.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 03/14/2016 - 3:54am
With the ramming through of the ACA without any Public Option and the SCOTUS mandate that citizens must buy private insurance, Universal Healthcare is a dead horse issue and Sanders or others kicking that dead horse is at best a delusion. This costly, inefficient and usurious system is the best that the Liberal Democrat elites will offer because public/private partnership is part of their neoliberal agenda.
Affordable health care requires constraining the medical/industrial complex and their rapacious profit goals while Single Payer/Universal Healthcare is the most efficient method to distribute basic health care to all people and private health insurance can be used in addition to this basic guarantee of health care to satisfy wealthier citizens demands for additional services.
by Peter (not verified) on Mon, 03/14/2016 - 12:26pm
With the ramming through of the ACA
That's a republican talking point used to delegitimize Obama and the ACA. It's used to rile up the low imformation republican base. By no stretch of the imagination can the passage of the ACA be considered "ramming through."
The ACA was passed in the senate by a 60-39 vote margin to over come a filibuster. It passed with changes by the house by a majority there being no filibuster in the house. Since the democrats no longer had a supermajority in the senate the returned bill was passed using reconciliation 56-43
If you accept the filibuster as a legitimate legislative tactic, which I don't. I'd like to see it ended. Then you have to accept reconciliation as a legitimate legislative tactic to circumvent it. Reconciliation has been used by both parties. The ACA passed by comfortable majorities, sometimes supermajorities, every time it was voted on. I've seen no claims that the use of reconciliation by republicans was illegitimate and that the process "rammed through" their legislation.
So please explain why you think the ACA was "rammed through."
by ocean-kat on Mon, 03/14/2016 - 4:32pm
Nice comparison of ACA with German system. Maybe someone can tell Bernie we've gone European.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/04/what-american-healthca...
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 03/14/2016 - 5:45pm
by Peter (not verified) on Mon, 03/14/2016 - 6:38pm
Polls are not votes. All those politicians were voted in by the people. The vast majority of those who voted for the ACA were re-elected by the people. That's how democracy works. Everything could be changed very quickly if the voters wanted change and there was some general agreement on what that change would be. One could complain that the voters are stupid and vote against their own interests. That may be true but it's the problem with democracy. When the voters are uneducated or swayed by passion and emotion democracy can fail. As bad as democracy can sometimes be, all other systems are much worse.
by ocean-kat on Mon, 03/14/2016 - 6:53pm
Do we get a "lookback" option,ie, obama abandoned the co ops (last, best, hope of competitive consumer cost containment) by signing an omnibus without the risk corridor provisions, the elimination of which is now rubios main claim to fame? ( thank you, Obama!
by jollyroger on Mon, 03/14/2016 - 7:18pm
Let's try to remember that Obama was re-elected after the ACA was passed. We're a diverse nation. Intelligent people realize that compromise is necessary to make something work. If polled I might have stated I wanted a public option but that doesn't mean I didn't support the ACA.
Following the passage of the ACA republicans won the house and then the senate. They won many state governorships and state legislatures. Do you claim the people voted republican because the ACA didn't have a public option? Do you think if the democrats had ended employer based insurance and instituted single payer the people would have been happier?
I don't. I posted this a few times and no one has chosen to respond. The majority of people have employer based health care they are happy or at least satisfied with. While private insurance companies and pharmacuetical companies will fight single payer by far the largest group of people who will fight single payer are those with employer based private insurance. The will not let the government take it away no matter how often you tell them that the government system will be better.
That's why we will not get single payer. It's not the private insurance companies that are the main impediment. The people are invested in the kludge we've inherited and will fight for what they perceive as their interests.
by ocean-kat on Mon, 03/14/2016 - 7:41pm
Well, I see we agree on one thing ( kluge it is...)
Obamacare! The Windows of health care!
by jollyroger on Mon, 03/14/2016 - 8:11pm
I don't wanna take anything away...I want a single PROVIDER competitive choice offered...
by jollyroger on Mon, 03/14/2016 - 8:19pm
by Peter (not verified) on Mon, 03/14/2016 - 10:11pm
I know legally what our system is and I think I have a far better grasp as to how and why it works the way it does than you do. The number of people who desire power greatly exceeds the number of places of power available. If in fact " A large majority of citizens supported the creation and inclusion of a Public Insurance Option in the ACA and a majority of people rejected the passage of the ACA without the Public Option," If in fact those seeking power thought they could win on that issue there would have been primaries of every democrat that voted for the ACA.
The fact is that, while democrats lost seats in congress, the vast majority of those who voted for the ACA were re-elected. How do you explain that? The people are stupid and ignorant?
Your view of the world lacks nuance and complexity. It's childishly simplistic.
by ocean-kat on Tue, 03/15/2016 - 12:09am
Expand that grasp, vato
: "The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."
Researchers concluded that U.S. government policies rarely align with the preferences of the majority of Americans, but do favour special interests and lobbying organizations: "When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose.
http://www.businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-us-is-an-oliga...
by jollyroger on Tue, 03/15/2016 - 12:19am
Since you linked to this study and therefore found it convincing I must assume you paid the $37.50 to actually read it. Please take some time to give us some information from the study itself and why you found it valuable. I certainly don't expect you to repost the whole study here from the copy you purchased but If possible perhaps you could include some selected excerpts from the study that you thought especially powerful as I can't afford to purchase the article.
by ocean-kat on Tue, 03/15/2016 - 1:13am
Nice try.
I linked to one of the multitude of stories regarding the study. The best way to follow your commendable urge to dig deeper would probably be peruse the interview with one of the authors
Transcript here :
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/princeton-scholar-demise-of-democracy-am...
Google ( you know how to google don't you, you put your lips together wait, what??) had your curiousity so moved you, will respond to " Princeton oligarchy paper " conveniently, so well known. ( although, sadly, not to your well grasping self..) is the study...
http://www.google.com/search?q=princeton+oligarchy+paper&oq=ptinceryonol...
Carry on.
by jollyroger on Tue, 03/15/2016 - 1:43am
PS you know of my affliction, why torture me with a request to abandon brevity.
As if!
by jollyroger on Tue, 03/15/2016 - 1:46am
You and peter both think other people should google the links to verify your claims. If you got a point to make find your own damn links. I take the time to find links to back up my points. I don't have time to do your work for you.
Next time don't post bullshit links and you won't get condescending replies. Or not. I enjoy making condescending replies to bullshit posts.
by ocean-kat on Tue, 03/15/2016 - 2:26am
And I so enjoy your condescension ( in the Jane Austen sense...).
A perfect fit.
That said, if you don't like my style, why then, you are free to follow the dictum you so recently expounded, viz, to ignore my blowhard ass.
Alternately, go fuck your self.
by jollyroger on Tue, 03/15/2016 - 4:29am
But Jr. Didn't you read my comment? Another problem you and peter share, reading comprehension. I just told you I enjoy making condescending replies to bullshit posts.
by ocean-kat on Tue, 03/15/2016 - 4:37am
Sometimes you gotta build people up to tear them down. quite the drudgery.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 03/15/2016 - 8:26am
by Peter (not verified) on Tue, 03/15/2016 - 11:01am
Well peter the question that began this discussion is whether the ACA was "rammed through" congress or whether it was passed by comfortable majorities every time it was voted on. I think the evidence is clear that it was passed by comfortable majorities every time it was voted on.
If the question is whether democracy exists in America, in reference to the ACA I think it's clear that the electorate had an opportunity to vote for every member of the house and about 1/3 of the senators several months after congress passed the ACA and could have thrown out of office every one of them who voted for the ACA. It's hard for me to see how that constitutes "nonexistent democracy."
I think my analysis stands up and your analysis does not. But you're welcome to make the case that democracy is "nonexistent" in America if you think you can.
by ocean-kat on Tue, 03/15/2016 - 4:15pm
by Peter (not verified) on Mon, 03/14/2016 - 10:36pm
Single-payer eliminates an enormous additional expense, beyond wages, that each employee imposes on her employer. Thus single-payer reduces the marginal cost of each laborer to each business which, due to the iron-clad laws of supply and demand, will increase demand for labor ceteris parabis, i.e., it will lead to more employment.
This is why single-payer, as opposed to universal coverage, is crucial. A universal coverage scheme, pursuant to which employers pay for the cost of their employees' healthcare, disincentivizes hiring. It also further incentivizes to companies to off-shore jobs to nations which provide single-payer health coverage or don't mandate employer coverage.
by HSG on Mon, 03/14/2016 - 7:54pm
That's a common argument that turns out not to be true as I discovered when reading about this issue 7 years ago. Non profits can wring some savings from the system but single payer isn't necessary nor is having employers pay into the system and unsolvable problem. Health care has to be paid for by somebody. Germany is not single payer and uses employer/employee contribution system to pay for their health care and seems to have dealt with whatever problems that causes with disincentives to hiring or incentives to off shoring jobs.
Health insurance is compulsory for the whole population in Germany. Salaried workers and employees below the relatively high income threshold of almost 50,000 Euros per year are automatically enrolled into one of currently around 130 public non-profit "sickness funds" at common rates for all members, and is paid for with joint employer-employee contributions.
In France employees pay for health care.
The entire population must pay compulsory health insurance. The insurers are non-profit agencies that annually participate in negotiations with the state regarding the overall funding of health care in France. A premium is deducted from all employees' pay automatically. The 2001 Social Security Funding Act, set the rates for health insurance covering the statutory health care plan at 5.25% on earned income, capital and winnings from gambling and at 3.95% on benefits (pensions and allowances).[5]
by ocean-kat on Mon, 03/14/2016 - 9:37pm
Fuck single payer....single PROVIDER (optional....)
by jollyroger on Mon, 03/14/2016 - 9:50pm
Your examples are not persuasive. In France, as you describe her, employers don't face additional marginal health care costs when they hire additional workers and don't save on health care expenses simply by firing workers. In Germany, trade unions actually are represented on the boards of corporations and have tremendous political power. They have created a political economy where the most skilled and highest compensated labor has to be done domestically. German executives simply don't have the freedom to offshore jobs the way they can here if costs rise.
by HSG on Mon, 03/14/2016 - 10:12pm
The trade agreements are important.
One thing that puzzles me in various comparisons of jobs lost versus increases in market volume is the way that current balances of payments and the GDP of the moment are used to calculate what could have been. For better and worse, the market is what it is now. It is difficult to understand Mr. Scott's numbers when he applies the present volume of exchange to decisions made more than a decade in the past.
That isn't to say that paths not taken would have been better than the ones that were followed. But the idea that one could measure the difference on the basis of what is happening now requires more than multiplying a coefficient of assumed value.
by moat on Tue, 03/15/2016 - 10:13pm