Carl,
You need a second gen stream and a list of leftists podcasts to search for.
Actually, they take up too much time. I've just listened to a 2 hour plus Media
Roots podcast with Joshua Levine discussing the internet. There's Citations
Neeeded, Clearing The Fog, Moderate Rebels Light and Clear, Intercepted, The
Dig, The Real News Network, and more. I now have 17 of them.The NYT Book Review
is as centrist as I get. Next is Start Making Sense from The Nation magazine.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 10:46 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: A Proposal Designed to Confuse Public and
Prevent 'Medicare for All'
Point well taken, Miriam. As I said before, curiosity causes me to seek out
differing viewpoints. While I mostly try to avoid labels, I do tend to bunch
my sources into groups. Over time some of my reliable sources either change
focus or become unreliable. Unreliable is for me to determine, for my
purposes, not for anyone else. Where I once never missed Democracy Now, these
days I try to at least listen to the opening headlines. Often I turn to
Flashpoint for the remainder of the hour. Very seldom do I listen to NPR.
Once upon a time I never missed Bob Edwards and the morning news.
Thom Hartman seems to have taken a liking to Richard D. Wolff. He's had him on
almost as a regular on his daily talk show. Wolff is a self proclaimed Marxist
and Hartman appears to be somewhere between Liberal Democrat and Progressive.
Yet, he gives Wolff good exposure.
I will need to do a bit of hunting to see if Amy Goodman has ever had Wolff or
any Marxist on her show. I also get differing points of view from Alternative
Radio, with David Barsamian. I can go to their web page and link with all
sorts of topics. I noticed Alan Chartock's name. *WAMC's Dr. Alan Chartock
discusses gun control and the continued trail of Joseph Percoco, New York
Governor Andrew Cuomo's former aide..
For several years now I have listened to a weekly program called, The Media
Project, with Alan Chartock and two other news/journalists participants. This
program may now be the more middle of the road program in my listening stable,
but it gives me good insight into topics I don't find anywhere else.
Now, as far as tuning out goes, I give a listen to most any new program or
personality, but if they fall into my category of, "Empire Lackeys, I don't
give them much of my time. While it would be nice to have some Main Stream
access to Left of Center Programming, the fact is that the Empire can't stand
criticism. Just check out their Top Joker, Donald Trump.
Although I do worry that the American People will fritter away their freedom of
speech, and end up in a vice grip the likes of which we've not seen since Nazi
Germany began telling the Big Lie, my optimistic side still trusts the working
class Americans to take action and build a new political system.
It's 26 degrees and the remaining snow is now hard ice. But today's an office
day, and since our office is right here in the hallway across from the handy
dandy bath room, and my cup of coffee is cool enough for my tender lips, I'm
set for the day.
Carl Jarvis
On 2/26/18, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes, but my problem is that we depend on independent journalists to
shed some light on the world to help us make our own conclusions. And
many many people have come to trust Amy Goodman. I still do trust Juan
Gonzales. But many of the people who learned how to be independent
journalists from Amy, are now questioning the turn that her reporting
is taking. She never once, for example, had Bob Perry on her show. She
did, to her credit, have Stephen Cohen and still, occasionally, Glen
Greenwald, but never max Blumenthal or Kenneth Gestola, and sseldom
anymore, Jeremy Scahill. There are reasons for her choices. And
you've never heard a Marxist economist on her show. Joe Stiglitz is as
far left as she'll go, not even Baker, and they're not Marxist.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 12:51 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: A Proposal Designed to Confuse Public
and Prevent 'Medicare for All'
Miriam,
I know that it doesn't change anything, but my rule of thumb is to
read, think, read again and draw, to the best of my limited abilities,
my own conclusions. I have respect for Amy Goodman and Juan
Gonzalez, and I gain lots to think about from Thom Hartman and Richard D.
Wolff. I especially gain great gooey gobs of food for thought from
Chris Hedges and also from Naomi Klein, among many others. But first
and foremost I remind myself that these are Human Type People, just
like me. They are giving me their best information, as they see it.
I can deal with differences of opinion, or conclusions that do not
make me happy, but I walk away from those who prove to be hypocrites.
There's a fellow on the ACB Chat List who insists on labeling me as a
socialist or communist, and then tells everyone how stupid communism
and socialism are. He is a lover of capitalism, and I understand why.
From what he says, if true, he earns in the six figures. He is
profiting from his loyalty to capitalism. And he doesn't seem to
know, or to care that he is doing it at the expense of the Working
Class. So, in the manner of his capitalist mentors, he uses trash
talk to put down his opponents. Anyway, I don't know of a single
person, on this list or anywhere who agrees with me 100% of the time.
Even I don't agree with me 100% of the time. But I do have great
respect for those people, like you, who have an inquiring mind. Gads!
if there's one thing I can't tolerate, it's a "Block Head".
Carl Jarvis
On 2/25/18, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
There was a time when I could trust a number of mainstream media
outlets and journalists, and books to provide a picture of the real
world. Or at least, I thought that I could. I have been reading about
and listening to discussions about Russiagate for more than a year
and I am horrified at the number of people and publications whom I
used to consider trustworthy, who are now sounding irrational, to say
the least. But this was already happening with reporting on Ukraine
and Syria. There's almost no one left who hasn't succumbed to the
propaganda. It's like watchin everyone after
9/11 when almost everyone thought that it made sense to attack
Afghanistan because Bin Ladin was hiding in the mountains between
Afghanistan and Pakistan. The fact that the Taliban bore no
responsibility for the 9/11 attacks was irrelevant to just about
everyone. When my Jamaican friend who ran an adoption agency and
lived in Maryland, suggested gently to her friends that perhaps US
foreign policy had something to do with why the US was attacked,
people were horrified that she would suggest such a thing. In 2018, I
can no longer trust the reporting that Democracy Now does on Syria or
Russiagate. I've been shocked at their Syrian coverage which has
deteriorated over the past few years. Masha Jessen, the Russian
American who talked about Russiagate on the program the other day, in
lieu of evidence that the Russian government had anything to do with
the commercial Russian company that did advertising in the US, said
that the relationship between the owner of that company and Putin
was like a clan relationship. A clan relationship? No evidence, but a
claim that Amy didn't question. She's barely talking to anyone who is
part of the real Left, no one who actually dissents from mainstream
acceptable liberal leftists. She covers the easy stuff, women's
empowerment, gun control, and she hasn't yet admitted that The White
Helmets are a US funded propaganda group, not an indigenous Syrian
self defense group. It's really rather awful.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl ;
Jarvis
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2018 2:29 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: A Proposal Designed to Confuse Public
and Prevent 'Medicare for All'
Miriam,
A little paranoya is a good thing.
Carl Jarvis
On 2/25/18, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
To me, what is most horrifying about what it tells us, is that the
Democratic Party leadership is still supporting wealthy corporations
over people and that the party learned nothing from the 2016 election.
CAP basically represents the powers in the party, Podesta, the
Clintons, the Obamas, Tim Kane, all of them. Remember that when you
read articles from Think Progress, they come from CAP, a Podesta
lobbying organization.
It'simportant to look at everything we read and hear with an eye to
the source and the motives of the source. I know I'm sounding
paranoid, but paranoia is appropriate at the present time.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl ;
Jarvis
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2018 12:47 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: A Proposal Designed to Confuse Public
and Prevent 'Medicare for All'
We need to file this article and read it again and again over the
next several years.
Carl Jarvis
On 2/24/18, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
A Proposal Designed to Confuse Public and Prevent 'Medicare for All'
Michael Fleshman / CC 2.0
The Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington-based
Democratic Party think tank funded by Wall Street, including
private health insurers and their lobbying group, unveiled a new
healthcare proposal designed to confuse supporters of "Medicare for
All" and protect private health insurance profits. It is receiving
widespread coverage in 'progressive' media outlets.
We must be aware of what is happening so that we are not fooled
into another 'public option' dead end.*
The fact that CAP is using Medicare for All language is both a
blessing and a curse. It means Medicare for All is so popular that
they feel a need to co-opt it, and it means that they are trying to
co-opt it, which will give Democrats an opportunity to use it to
confuse people.
This effort could be preparation for the possibility that Democrats
win a majority in Congress in 2018 or 2020. It is normal for the
pendulum to swing to the party opposite the President's party
during the first term in office.
If Democrats win a majority, they will be expected to deliver on
health care, but they face a dilemma of having to please their
campaign donors, which includes the health insurance industry, or
pleasing their voters, where 75% support single payer health care.
The public is aware that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) protects the
profits of the medical-industrial complex (private health insurers,
Big Pharma and for-profit providers) and not the healthcare needs
of the public. "Fixing the ACA" is not popular. Last year during
repeal attempts, people made it clear at town halls and rallies
that they want a single payer healthcare system such as National
Improved Medicare for All (NIMA). By offering a solution that
sounds good to the uninformed, "Medicare Extra for All," but
continues to benefit their Wall Street donors, Democrats hope to
fool people or buy enough support to undermine efforts for NIMA.
This is an expected development. If we look at the phases of stage
six of successful social movements by Bill Moyers (see slide 8), we
see that as a movement nears victory, the power holders appear to
get in line with the public's solution while actually attacking it.
If the movement recognizes what is happening, that this is a false
solution and not what the movement is demanding, then we have a
chance to win NIMA. If the movement falls for the false solution,
it loses.
Our tasks at this moment are to understand what the power holders
are offering, recognize why it is a false solution and reject it.
"Medicare Extra for All" versus National Improved Medicare for All
The basic outline for the new proposal is that people would be able
to buy a Medicare plan, a form of 'public option,' including the
Medicare Advantage plans offered by private health insurers. People
who choose to buy a Medicare plan would pay premiums and co-pays,
as they do now for private health insurance. The new Medicare
system would replace Medicaid for people with low incomes.
Private health insurance would still exist for employers, who
currently cover the largest number of people, federal employees and
the military.
While workers would have the option to buy a Medicare plan, it is
unclear how many would do so given that most employers who provide
health insurance have their own plans and that private health
insurers are experts at marketing their plans to the public.
NIMA, as embodied in HR 676: "The Expanded and Improved Medicare
for All Act," would create a single national healthcare system,
paid for up front through taxes, that covers every person from
birth to death and covers all medically-necessary care. NIMA
relegates private insurance to the sidelines where it could
potentially provide supplemental coverage for those who want
extras, but it would no longer serve as a barrier for people who need care.
Here are the flaws in the CAP proposal:
1.CAP's plan will continue to leave people without health
insurance.Instead of being a universal system of national coverage
like NIMA, coverage under the CAP plan relies on people's ability
to afford health insurance. Only people with low incomes would not
pay, as they do now under Medicaid. Just as it is today, those who
do not qualify as low income, but still can't afford health
insurance premiums, would be left out. Almost 30 million are
without coverage today. There is no guarantee that health insurance
premiums will be affordable.
2.CAPS's plan will continue to leave people with inadequate coverage.
Under NIMA, all people have the same comprehensive coverage without
financial barriers to care. The CAP plan allows private health
insurers to do what they do best - restrict where people can seek
health care, shift the cost of care onto patients and deny payment
for care. This is the business model of private health insurers
because they are financial instruments designed to make profits for
their investors. People with health insurance will face the same
bureaucratic nightmare of our current system and out-of-pocket
costs that force them to delay or avoid health care or risk
bankruptcy when they have high health care needs.
3.CAP's plan will continue the high costs of health care. NIMA has
been proven over and over to have the best cost efficiency because
it is one plan with one set of rules. It is estimated that NIMA
will save
$500 billion each year on administrative costs and over $100
billion each year on reduced prices for pharmaceuticals. As a
single purchaser of care, NIMA has powerful leverage to lower the
costs of goods and services. The CAP plan maintains the complicated
multi-payer system that we have today. At best, it will only
achieve 16% of the administrative savings of a single payer system
and it will have less power to reign in the high costs of care.
4.CAP's plan will allow private health insurers to continue to rip
off the government. NIMA is a publicly-financed program without the
requirement of creating profits for investors. With a low overhead,
most of the dollars are used to pay for health care. The CAP plan
maintains the same problems that exist with Medicare today. Private
Medicare providers cherry pick the healthiest patients and those
who have or develop healthcare needs wind up in the public Medicare plan.
This places a financial burden on the public Medicare plan, which
has to pay for the most care, while private health insurers rake in
huge profits from covering the healthy with a guaranteed payor, the
government.
5.CAP's plan will continue to perpetuate health disparities. NIMA
provides a single standard of care to all people. Because all
people, rich and poor (and lawmakers), are in the same system,
there are strong incentives to make it a high quality program.
CAP's plan maintains the current tiered system in which some people
have private health insurance, those with the greatest needs have
public health insurance, some people will have inadequate coverage
and others will have no coverage at all.
6.CAP's plan will continue to restrict patients' choices. NIMA
creates a nationwide network of coverage and consistent coverage
from year-to-year so that patients choose where they seek care and
have the freedom to stay with a health professional or leave if
they are dissatisfied. CAP's plan continues private health insurers
and their restricted networks that dictate where patients can seek care.
Private plans change from year-to-year and employers change the
plans they offer, so patients will still face the risk of losing
access to a health professional due to changes in their plan.
7.CAP's plan does not guarantee portability. NIMA creates a health
system that covers everyone no matter where they are in the United
States and its territories. CAP's plan maintains the link between
employment and health coverage. When people who have private health
insurance lose their job or move, they risk losing their health
insurance.
8.CAP's plan will perpetuate physician burn-out. NIMA creates a
healthcare system that is simple for both patients and health
professionals to use.
Under the current system, which the CAP plan will perpetuate,
health professionals spend more time on paperwork than they do with
patients and physician offices spend hours fighting with health
insurers for authorization for care and for payment for their
services. This is driving high rates of physician burnout. Suicides
among physicians and physicians-in-training are higher than the
general population.
The new proposal is a 'public option' wrapped in a "Medicare for All"
cloak.
It is a far cry from National Improved Medicare for All. And,
contrary to what CAP and its allies will tell you, the CAP plan
will delay and prevent the achievement of NIMA.
Co-founders of Physicians for a National Health Program**, Drs.
Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein, explained why the public
option would not work in the last health reform effort:
"
"The 'public plan option' won't work to fix the health care system
for two reasons.
"1. It forgoes at least 84 percent of the administrative savings
available through single payer. The public plan option would do
nothing to streamline the administrative tasks (and costs) of
hospitals, physicians offices, and nursing homes, which would still
contend with multiple payers, and hence still need the complex cost
tracking and billing apparatus that drives administrative costs.
These unnecessary provider administrative costs account for the
vast majority of bureaucratic waste. Hence, even if 95 percent of
Americans who are currently privately insured were to join the
public plan (and it had overhead costs at current Medicare levels),
the savings on insurance overhead would amount to only 16 percent
of the roughly
$400 billion annually achievable through single payer - not enough
to make reform affordable.
"2. A quarter century of experience with public/private competition
in the Medicare program demonstrates that the private plans will
not allow a level playing field. Despite strict regulation, private
insurers have successfully cherry picked healthier seniors, and
have exploited regional health spending differences to their advantage.
They have progressively undermined the public plan - which started
as the single payer for seniors and has now become a funding
mechanism for HMOs - and a place to dump the unprofitably ill. A
public plan option does not lead toward single payer, but toward
the segregation of patients, with profitable ones in private plans
and unprofitable ones in the public plan."
What we must do
The movement for National Improved Medicare for All experienced
tremendous growth in the past few years. All of the flaws of the
Affordable Care Act are becoming reality as people are forced to
pay high health insurance premiums, face high out-of-pocket costs
before they can receive care and have their access to health
professionals or services denied. There is a strong demand for NIMA
that has resulted in more than half of the Democrats in the House
of Representatives signing on to HR 676 and a third of the
Democratic Senators endorsing the Senate Medicare for All bill.
Medicare for All is becoming a litmus test for the 2018 elections
and 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.
Power holders are feeling threatened by support for NIMA. They are
looking for ways to throw the movement off track and allow
lawmakers who don't support NIMA to support something that sounds like
NIMA.
This is why they invented "Medicare Extra for All." It is common
for the opposition to adopt our language when we have strong support.
This is the time when the movement for NIMA needs to remain focused
on our goal of NIMA, resist compromising and escalate our pressure
for NIMA. We are closer to winning, it's time to increase our
efforts to pass the finish line.
Here are our tasks:
.We need to expose the reasons for CAP's proposal. It is designed
to protect health insurance industry profits.
.We need to educate ourselves and others about the reasons why
CAP's proposal is flawed and deficient.
.We need to educate and challenge lawmakers and candidates who
speak in favor of CAP's proposal and push them to support NIMA.
.We need to be loud and vocal in our demand for nothing less than
NIMA, as described in HR 676.
.We need to make support for HR 676 a litmus test in the upcoming
elections.
We need to practice "ICU" - being independent of political party on
this issue by not tying our agenda to the corporate agenda of major
political parties, being clear about what will and what will not
solve our healthcare crisis, and being uncompromising in our demand
for National Improve Medicare for All.
With a concentrated effort for NIMA, we can overcome this
distraction*** and win National Improved Medicare for All. This is
the time for all supporters of single payer health care to focus on
federal lawmakers from both parties.
Movements never realize how close they are to winning and victory
often feels far away when it is actually close at hand.
The fact that the Democrats are proposing something that sounds
like NIMA means we are gaining power. Let's use it to finally solve
the healthcare crisis in the United States and join many other
countries in providing health care for everyone. NIMA is the
smallest step we can take to head down the path of saving lives and
improving health in our country.
*The 'public option' dead end occurred during the health reform
process of 2009-10. Faced with widespread public support for
National Improved Medicare for All, and 80% support by Democratic
Party voters, the power holders had to find a way to suppress that
support.
They created the idea of a 'public option,' a public health
insurance for part of the population, and convinced progressives
that this was more politically-feasible and a back door to a single
payer healthcare system. Tens of millions of dollars were donated
to create a new coalition, Health Care for America Now (similar in
name to Healthcare-Now, a national single payer organization - this
was intentional), that organized progressives to fight for this
public option and suppress single payer supporters (they were
openly hostile when we raised single payer). Many single payer
supporters fell for it, and the movement was successfully divided and
weakened.
Kevin Zeese and I wrote about this in more detail in "Obamacare:
The Biggest Health Insurance Scam in History."
** Read more about this from Dr. Don McCanne of Physicians for a
National Health Program in his Quote-of-the-Day.
*** Read more about intentional distractions through incremental
approaches to prevent National Improved Medicare for All in this
presentation.
