Well, you're right. People don't think for themselves these days.
But I suspect that down through our American history the working class
was only marginally better informed. One of the big changes that I've
watched develop, is the fewer numbers of people turning out for
political meetings, church, PTA, town meetings, or any other such
gatherings. The exceptions are such gatherings as sporting events,
and rock concerts.
Some of us spend time on groups such as Blind Democracy, but that
really does not replace a live gathering with open discussion. Far
too much of what we think is information, comes to us in short bursts,
usually between commercials.
Once upon a time I thought that I had to press my points until my
adversary gave in and yelled, "Uncle!" I converted very few. But in
small group or individual discussions, I am much more laid back, just
hoping to stimulate a few independent thoughts in the minds of those I
am chatting with. I hold no illusions that people will just jump up
and thank me for enlightening them. Just getting someone thinking a
little bit is a victory. It's hard work, thinking. Especially when
we've been spoon fed all the way through school, preached to from our
television and parents, and caught up in the need to conform and be
like, "All the Others". Also, we are trained to look outward rather
than inward for solutions. We'll let Hillary or Donald do it, and
then we can complain. But it's drilled into us that the problems are
far too complex for our little minds to grapple with. I really
believe that American working class folks have been placed on the
sidelines. It is much harder to get back in the game from warming the
bench. But that's what we need to do. Get back in the game. Do what
we can to tickle the brains of those around us. Spend time on
figuring how to get some light into the mind of a friend or relative
who is currently brain dead. I have even figured out how to begin the
process with my youngest daughter. Well, I think Donald Trump has
helped me in shedding a little light. Trouble is, I think that she's
now considering voting for Clinton. Like I said, just be glad the
thought process has begun. My second eldest grandson, despite his
parents Progressive ways, is going down to the wire with Trump. Dylan
tells everyone that he and Grandpa can discuss politics and still love
one another. But the deal is, when he "discusses" politics it is his
way or the highway. He rants. He is 25 years old, ex Air Force,
attending college and absolutely knows everything about everything,
and he is the last word. But I managed to get his older brother
thinking. I gave Matt a hard cover copy of Howard Zinn's, A People's
History of the United States. He began reading it a few pages at a
time. Now he tells me that he's gone back and read it from cover to
cover. He's thinking. Brought back from the Land of the Brain Dead.
It's rehabilitation at its finest. A nudge here, a gentle push there,
never reaching the lofty goal you imagined at the offset, but a work
in progress. Sometimes it seems like there is no change, and then
suddenly there comes an, "Ah Ha!" moment.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/20/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
But the people don't read stuff and if they do, money paid, isn't real to
them unless they're paying it. So if you tell them that medical costs are
higher in the US than in other countries, but they feel that they can
afford
their insurance payments and copays, they don't know what you're talking
about.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 11:03 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Critics of Bernie Sanders' Healthcare Plans
Receive Funding From Industries That Would Be Affected
No surprises here. What is puzzling is how so many working class Americans
buy into the attack on single payer health insurance.
I know that many folks argue that we can't afford such an expense, but they
don't seem to have a problem with the huge profits creamed off by the
"protectors" of our nation's health.
Currently the life expectancy for USA is, as of 2012, 78 years for females
and 74 years for males. Now that's pretty good when compared to the
average
back when FDR signed Social Security into law in 1935.
Women lived an average of 67 years and men an average of 63. Notice that
the retirement age of 65 was two years higher than the average life
expectancy of men? And remember, FDR died at the ripe old age of 63, still
too young to collect his first SS check.
But compared to the life expectancy around the world, the USA is, if memory
serves me, around 34th. We're nestled just below Costa Rica, and just
above
Qatar.
More than 30 nations are doing something better than we are. And for the
most part they are doing it at less of a financial drain. Even our once
highly regarded Veterans Care has fallen on hard times.
Okay, so if I were born with a silver spoon in my kissable baby mouth, I'd
understand growing up believing I and "My People" were simply brighter
than
the Riff Raff. They were placed here by God Almighty to serve and pleasure
me.
But where, in all that is sane, is the thinking of working folks who go
along stooping and kissing the hem of the garment of their corporate
masters?
This must be the great riddle that we must solve before we are freed from
our bondage.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/20/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
2012 to Urban.
Excerpt: "Left unsaid in the headlines and stories that condemned
Sanders'
healthcare proposal is that the Brookings Institution and Urban
Institute, the two major organizations behind the Tax Policy Center,
have received big contributions from the health insurance and
pharmaceutical industries - industries whose profits could be reduced
by Sanders' single-payer Medicare-for-all plan."
Madonna Rea shakes hands with Democratic presidential candidate Bernie
Sanders as he has breakfast at Peppy Grill in Indianapolis, May 3, 2016.
(photo: Getty)
Critics of Bernie Sanders' Healthcare Plans Receive Funding From
Industries That Would Be Affected By Clark Mindock and David Sirota,
International Business Times
19 May 16
Soon after the Tax Policy Center released its analysis of Bernie
Sanders'
tax and healthcare plans last week, the negative headlines began to
pile up about the Vermont lawmaker's push to extend Medicare coverage
to all Americans. Though a new Gallup poll shows Sanders' plan is
widely popular, news outlets across the country pounced on one of the
findings, which said the plan would increase the U.S. budget deficit
by some $18 trillion between
2017 and 2026. One paper, the Washington Post, posted Sanders stories
in just seven hours.
Left unsaid in the headlines and stories that condemned Sanders'
healthcare proposal is that the Brookings Institution and Urban
Institute, the two major organizations behind the Tax Policy Center,
have received big contributions from the health insurance and
pharmaceutical industries - industries whose profits could be reduced
by Sanders' single-payer Medicare-for-all plan. That is on top of
money the groups have received from Wall Street firms , fossil fuel
companies, efforts connected to the billionaire Charles Koch, a
foundation founded by the heirs to the Walmart fortune and others that
Sanders has criticized.
The health industry donors to the think tanks include:
. Health insurer Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts delivered
between $300,000 and $600,000 in 2012 and 2014 to the Urban Institute,
while insurer UnitedHealthcare gave Brookings between $2 million and
$4 million since 2012.
. Several of the country's top drug manufacturers and suppliers gave
to Brookings. The think tank's donors include the Roche Group (donated
between $1 million and $2 million since 2012), Sanofi ($125,000 to
$250,000)
and Amgen ($100,000 to $200,000).
. Two foundations connected to the pharmaceutical industry also gave
generously. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation - which was started by
a Johnson & Johnson founder in 1972 - gave between $210,000 and
$525,000 to Brookings and an undisclosed amount above $3 million since
The foundation for global pharmaceutical company Bristol-Myers Squibbby research.
gave between $55,000 and $125,000 to Brookings.
. MetLife, which has some health-related insurance business, gave a
combined $300,000 to $750,000 to Brookings in 2013 , 2014 and 2015 .
Brookings and Urban both told International Business Times that their
scholars conduct their research based on objective information and
analysis, and that their institutions take measures to ensure
independence. Both noted that their organizations have diverse funding
and that they have policies against allowing funders to determine
research results.
"Brookings' independence is critical to the promise we make to provide
objective, fact-based research, and we have robust policies in place
to ensure that independence, which we routinely review to maintain the
highest standards for safeguarding it. We have a diverse funding base
and no person, entity, or industry influences the research or
recommendations produced by Brookings scholars," David Nassar, the
vice president of communications at the Brookings Institution, wrote
in a statement to IBT.
The Urban Institute explained its funding sources in greater detail.
Laura Greenback, Urban's media relations manager, told IBT in an email
that Urban receives 49 percent of its funding from government sources,
usually in a competitive bidding process. Beyond that, researchers are
also supported by the foundation (43 percent of funding last year),
other nonprofits (5 percent), as well as trustees, individuals,
corporations and universities
(1
percent each).
"Urban's policies ensure researcher independence and guarantee that no
funder shall determine research findings, insights, or conclusions of
our experts," Greenback wrote. "Our scholars are independent and
empowered to share their evidence-based views and recommendations shaped
Theyear.
Urban Institute doesn't take official positions on issues, nor does it
have an advocacy agenda of any kind."
The Tax Policy Center has also released analysis of several other
candidates' tax plans, including Sanders' primary foe, Hillary Clinton.
(Their analysis said her tax increases would target the top 1 percent
of taxpayers, and noted that marginal tax rates would go up, "reducing
incentives to work, save and invest." ) In recent months, several
reports have raised new questions about the power of so-called
cognitive capture - scenarios in which organizations that represent
themselves as nonpartisan or academic, but which are funded by
industries that could be affected by the studies, help shape research
and the public debate. Brookings, in particular, has faced some of the
toughest
scrutiny: In October, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat,
questioned whether an economist with Brookings who conducted a study
was unduly affected by cozy relationships with Wall Street and the
funding behind his research. A 2014 report, too, noted that pension
reform-minded reports from Brookings were sponsored by the Laura and
John Arnold Foundation, which has pushed to reduce guaranteed
retirement benefits for public workers.
The Tax Policy Center report noted that spending under Sanders' plan
could add as much as $33.3 trillion in new spending over the next 10
years, which dwarfs the current $14 trillion in debt currently owed by
the federal government. Opponents of Sanders' plan say that such
spending, if not offset by other revenues, would send the economy into
a strong downward spiral.
The Sanders campaign has said those estimates assume a much more
expensive healthcare system than the candidate expects, and says low-
and middle-income households would end up saving thousands of dollars a
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not2012 to Urban.
valid.
Madonna Rea shakes hands with Democratic presidential candidate Bernie
Sanders as he has breakfast at Peppy Grill in Indianapolis, May 3, 2016.
(photo: Getty)
http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/bernie-sanders-tax-healthcare
-plans
-think-tanks-released-critical-study-receivehttp://www.ibtimes.com/pol
itical
-capital/bernie-sanders-tax-healthcare-plans-think-tanks-released-crit
ical-s
tudy-receive
Critics of Bernie Sanders' Healthcare Plans Receive Funding From
Industries That Would Be Affected By Clark Mindock and David Sirota,
International Business Times
19 May 16
oon after the Tax Policy Center released its analysis of Bernie Sanders'
tax and healthcare plans last week, the negative headlines began to
pile up about the Vermont lawmaker's push to extend Medicare coverage
to all Americans. Though a new Gallup poll shows Sanders' plan is
widely popular, news outlets across the country pounced on one of the
findings, which said the plan would increase the U.S. budget deficit
by some $18 trillion between
2017 and 2026. One paper, the Washington Post, posted Sanders stories
in just seven hours.
Left unsaid in the headlines and stories that condemned Sanders'
healthcare proposal is that the Brookings Institution and Urban
Institute, the two major organizations behind the Tax Policy Center,
have received big contributions from the health insurance and
pharmaceutical industries - industries whose profits could be reduced
by Sanders' single-payer Medicare-for-all plan. That is on top of
money the groups have received from Wall Street firms , fossil fuel
companies, efforts connected to the billionaire Charles Koch, a
foundation founded by the heirs to the Walmart fortune and others that
Sanders has criticized.
The health industry donors to the think tanks include:
. Health insurer Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts delivered
between $300,000 and $600,000 in 2012 and 2014 to the Urban Institute,
while insurer UnitedHealthcare gave Brookings between $2 million and
$4 million since 2012.
. Several of the country's top drug manufacturers and suppliers gave
to Brookings. The think tank's donors include the Roche Group (donated
between $1 million and $2 million since 2012), Sanofi ($125,000 to
$250,000)
and Amgen ($100,000 to $200,000).
. Two foundations connected to the pharmaceutical industry also gave
generously. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation - which was started by
a Johnson & Johnson founder in 1972 - gave between $210,000 and
$525,000 to Brookings and an undisclosed amount above $3 million since
The foundation for global pharmaceutical company Bristol-Myers Squibbby research.
gave between $55,000 and $125,000 to Brookings.
. MetLife, which has some health-related insurance business, gave a
combined $300,000 to $750,000 to Brookings in 2013 , 2014 and 2015 .
Brookings and Urban both told International Business Times that their
scholars conduct their research based on objective information and
analysis, and that their institutions take measures to ensure
independence. Both noted that their organizations have diverse funding
and that they have policies against allowing funders to determine
research results.
"Brookings' independence is critical to the promise we make to provide
objective, fact-based research, and we have robust policies in place
to ensure that independence, which we routinely review to maintain the
highest standards for safeguarding it. We have a diverse funding base
and no person, entity, or industry influences the research or
recommendations produced by Brookings scholars," David Nassar, the
vice president of communications at the Brookings Institution, wrote
in a statement to IBT.
The Urban Institute explained its funding sources in greater detail.
Laura Greenback, Urban's media relations manager, told IBT in an email
that Urban receives 49 percent of its funding from government sources,
usually in a competitive bidding process. Beyond that, researchers are
also supported by the foundation (43 percent of funding last year),
other nonprofits (5 percent), as well as trustees, individuals,
corporations and universities
(1
percent each).
"Urban's policies ensure researcher independence and guarantee that no
funder shall determine research findings, insights, or conclusions of
our experts," Greenback wrote. "Our scholars are independent and
empowered to share their evidence-based views and recommendations shaped
Theyear.
Urban Institute doesn't take official positions on issues, nor does it
have an advocacy agenda of any kind."
The Tax Policy Center has also released analysis of several other
candidates' tax plans, including Sanders' primary foe, Hillary Clinton.
(Their analysis said her tax increases would target the top 1 percent
of taxpayers, and noted that marginal tax rates would go up, "reducing
incentives to work, save and invest." ) In recent months, several
reports have raised new questions about the power of so-called
cognitive capture - scenarios in which organizations that represent
themselves as nonpartisan or academic, but which are funded by
industries that could be affected by the studies, help shape research
and the public debate. Brookings, in particular, has faced some of the
toughest
scrutiny: In October, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat,
questioned whether an economist with Brookings who conducted a study
was unduly affected by cozy relationships with Wall Street and the
funding behind his research. A 2014 report, too, noted that pension
reform-minded reports from Brookings were sponsored by the Laura and
John Arnold Foundation, which has pushed to reduce guaranteed
retirement benefits for public workers.
The Tax Policy Center report noted that spending under Sanders' plan
could add as much as $33.3 trillion in new spending over the next 10
years, which dwarfs the current $14 trillion in debt currently owed by
the federal government. Opponents of Sanders' plan say that such
spending, if not offset by other revenues, would send the economy into
a strong downward spiral.
The Sanders campaign has said those estimates assume a much more
expensive healthcare system than the candidate expects, and says low-
and middle-income households would end up saving thousands of dollars a
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
