A Media Disgrace: Craven WSJ Editors Blame Dems For U.S.S. Lincoln's Deplorable Conditions Instead Of Trump

 

"If he is no longer responsible for what he says or does, we should move beyond shock and outrage to outright fear. He could blow the world up. We must call on our elected representatives to remove him from office via the 25th Amendment as soon as possible, by reason of insanity."-  Robert Reich, 'Beyond Shock and Outrage', Substack

Again, we have a diseased, bloated madman at the helm of this country, trying to steer it into permanent wreckage - while a supplicant congress is simply content to follow his every order and suck his butt. The latest outrage is how the carrier U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln has been allowed to be deployed for over 250 days, as living conditions have  deteriorated along with morale. The latter leading to six sailors already reaching such desperation they tried to jump off the ship, see e.g. the Kyle Kulinski video podcast:

6 US Soldiers Tried To K*LL THEMSELVES By Jumping Off The USS Lincoln | The Kyle Kulinski Show

And what has been the response of the rotting orange fungal Turd? Well only to insist the besieged U.S.S. Lincoln tour "wasn't nearly long enough".  (WSJ, 'Trump Downplays Concerns About Carrier, Aug. 15-16, p. A7).  

Not nearly long enough with guys so stir crazy  they're jumping off the ship for escape?  What mushrooms or drugs is this fat fucker on?

This was the response of the demented pig who passes for 'commander in chief- though he couldn't command emptying a porto potty.  Why would he, as a draft dodger, traitor and grifting crypto criminal who cares more about completing his gold ballroom than the distressed sailors on the U.S.S. Lincoln?

 As NY Times' Maggie Haberman recently noted in an Ezra Klein interview: 

"70 percent of his mind share is on completing his ego projects like his ballroom and Arch de Trump."

This is the slime ball who the craven, conservo-cuck WSJ editors (in the same Journal issue) could not bring themselves to blame for the Carrier's problems in their editorial ('A Crisis in U.S. Naval Readiness Revealed', p. A 14).  And the Editor's asinine response? It's the Democrats to blame!  Writing: 

"Democrats this week are expressing outrage over press reports of low morale and tough conditions aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, the aircraft carrier deployed for 250 days. This is a new level of chutzpah from the party that won't pass a bill to finance military operations."

Woah! 'A new level of chutzpah'? Back up there Dotard asslickers and bald-faced liars passing for 'editors'. The sole blame is on your vaunted Orange hero who launched the attacks on Iran with Israel. Iran then responded with an initial all out targeted assault on the U.S. supply depot in Bahrain - which forced the Navy to move supply operations 2,2oo miles away to the island of Diego Garcia -with a Brit base in the Indian Ocean. Check your damn facts and you will find the same moron that launched this war of choice also LOST it on Day one, see e.g., 

 "He lost the war on Day 1" — Paul Krugman Exposes Iran War Failure

But no, the mesmerized Journal editors are dug too deeply into Donnie Dotard's rear end. What with believing Trump's lies to the extent they will swallow anything he or keg master Kegsbreath bellows out of their pieholes. I.e. the latter gaslighting the nation with this horse shit:  "The brave Sailors of that Strike Group are very proud of their tough and historic mission!"

Er no, they are not, Petey. They are barely hanging on for dear life having "not made a port call in 200 days, setting a record for consecutive days at sea".

And all that time dealing with half rotten food, moldy showers, no hot water and a ship basically falling apart as Kyle Kulinski's podcast notes.  No wonder these guys are ready to jump off it for relief - and yeah troops are lashing out, e.g.

Trump has CATASTROPHIC SUNDAY as TROOPS LASH OUT!!

But the craven  WSJ editors go on to bark out this twaddle:

"If Democrats are so concerned perhaps they could expedite passage of the $17 billion for U.S. military operations that the Administration requested."

Oh you mean this "administration"? Actually a regime of criminals, clowns and congenital liars who can't even get their stories straight two days in a row? How about instead, Captain Bonespurs finally take an 'L' and admit he lost this war and that Iran will never cease making his life miserable'?  At least Hormuz would open again and the desperate people of the globe who need energy - including for fertilizer - would breathe easier.

But no, "Bonespurs" Trump ain't about to do that. He'd rather spit out tons more horse manure like asking voters to accept $4 gas prices for a war they are not behind.  (See top graphic). Do the WSJ editors mention any of this? Hell no! They prefer to piss all over the Dems in their editorial, but then in the next paragraph bleat: 

"Yet the GOP also seems ready to abandon the President's $350 billion defense request."

Well, hell's bells, maybe they've also seen the light, but more likely are trying a reconciliation bill end around. Personally, I don't care so long as Dotard Donnie and Kegsbreath don't get any more taxpayer money to blow on their futile war that's already lost. And clearly we're never going to get the truth from the WSJ Pooh Bahs anyway, so outside sources are essential. Below some of the videos, podcasts that tell it like it is:

Trump Just Lost Control of His Own Military — And It's Getting Worse | Col Douglas Macgregor

&

The Misery Will Continue Until Morale Improves

&

The Military’s SHAME: Inside the USS Lincoln Crisis

&

Deep Intel on Carrier LINCOLN's Morale Crisis - YouTube

&

BREAKING: Trump Says USS Lincoln Deployment Hasn’t Gone on “Nearly Long Enough” | Command Post

&

We need to accept that we elected an actual madman to be president

&

Why Trump's Ballroom Bunker Proves He's Terrified | The Daily Beast Podcast

The only WSJ Op-ed contributor who (for now) seems to possess a full deck and some grasp of reality appears to be Peggy Noonan ('Trump is Starting To Look Precarious', Aug. 15-16, p. A15) who writes this regarding Bonespurs:

"His political problem with Iran is not only that the conflict is dangerous and unresolved. or that his attempts at diplomatic resolution seem half-baked, but that almost six months in he seems utterly out of his depth.  Like someone who wouldn't have gone in there had he understood history or the nature of Iran's leadership."

To which all I can retort is a big "DUH!"  Of course this deranged nitwit doesn't understand history because he's never studied it. Hell, the dolt doesn't read and can't even handle a vastly reduced half page daily brief - as Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan note in their book Regime Change,

 'Regime Change' - Perhaps The Best Political Expose in 20 years (A Review)

Noonan herself is also wise enough to grasp Trump is to blame for whatever morass or lack of military readiness or weapons the country finds itself in. Especially given the idiots defended U.S. bases around the Gulf with thousands of Patriot missiles at $4 m each, while Iran took out its targets with $400k drones. Of course the U.S. -guided by certified morons- would run through its whole inventory!

Near the end of her piece Noonan writes that Trump spoke to Tucker Carlson "by phone in the weeks before the Iran war commenced"  Adding:"Mr. Carlson was trying to warn him against military action" But Trump replied: "I know you're worried about it. But it's going to be OK."

Again proving severe detachment from reality and military facts. Namely that Iran would shut down the Strait of Hormuz when the first missiles struck. But the Orangutan believed he'd have a cakewalk like in Venezuela.  Noonan again:

"It's hard to understand such a breezy gloss on history, or on life. Presidents don't say that kind of thing because presidents are precisely the people that learn each day that many things don't work out for the best."

Well, especially if that president is deluded, deranged or both - like Trump. Or which Pegs attributes to "boredom", i.e.

"Mr. Trump seems to have a real fear of boredom. Even at his age he is restless, and when there's peace and quiet he seems to become anxious as if he can't tolerate normality."

Exactly, Peggy! Because he's not normal though too much of the reactionary press treats him as such (even YOU at other times!)

But what Noonan interprets as aversion to normality I and many others - including his former lawyer Ty Cobb - trace to mounting insanity, i.e.

Trump Lawyer Calls For 25th Amendment Over PSYCHOTIC MELTDOWN

So it's past time this senile fool needs to be replaced under the 25th amendment.  If this traitor loses it with Iran and launches tactical nukes at some point (say at Pickaxe Mtn.), e.g.

MTG Gives URGENT WARNING on Trump USING NUKES!!!

 the nation's 'leaders' have only themselves to blame for refusing to act expeditiously.

See Also:

US Military Morale in the Middle East Is in the Overflowing Toilet

by Ann Wright | August 15, 2026 - 4:50am | permalink

Rotten food, overflowing toilets into bunking areas, no room in the incoming missile shelters, confiscated cellphones that are the notification devices for incoming missiles, infrequent mail, social media closed down, were some of the issues that military families identified at the national conference of Veterans For Peace.

Spouses and parents of Air Force, Army, Marine, and Navy members told of plummeting morale, lack of basic supplies, and attacks on US military bases that are not reported in the US media.

The frustration of the military families at the VFP conference echoed the descriptions of life on US military bases in the Middle East under attack by the Iranian response to the brutal US-Israeli five-month attack on Iran made by military families who met with the acting assistant secretary of the Navy and the commander of the US Pacific Fleet in San Diego on August 6, 2026.

» article continues...

And:

Opinion | Why the USS Abraham Lincoln crew has reached a breaking point - The Washington Post

Excerpt:

When missions expand while food, showers and sleep dwindle — and when mail and port calls are canceled, and homecoming dates repeatedly rescheduled — time seems to stop, making life in the middle of the ocean turn from hard to intolerable.

That breakdown matches recent reports of conditions on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, which is on a historic deployment with more than 260 consecutive days at sea. The crew of roughly 5,000 was supposed to be home several weeks ago, but the prolonged war with Iran has extended its operations. For months, worried family members have raised concerns about the well-being of their sailors and the status of the ship, sharing accounts of broken systems, supply shortages and extreme fatigue.

Rep. Mike Levin (D-California), who represents the congressional district neighboring the Lincoln’s home port in San Diego, chronicled the issues on social media: “Moldy showers, broken toilets, laundry down for weeks, long stretches with no hot water, a meal that came down to half a cup of rice and two tortillas. No soap, deodorant, or toothpaste.” 

And:

Professor Robert Pape: Iran War is a Trap and America Has No Way Out!

And:

Lawrence: Donald Trump has lost control – even his choice of airplane

And:

Chris Hedges - How Trump’s Iran War Is Bringing Down the American Empire

And:

🚨 Trump's FINAL NAIL in the COFFIN as Approval Ratings Hit ROCK BOTTOM! Iran DESTROYS HIM!

Solutions To Fresnel Diffraction Problems (Part 1)

 1) The innermost zone of a zone plate has a diameter 0.425mm.  

(a)Find the focal length of the plate when it is used with parallel incident light of wavelength 4471 Å from a helium lamp.

(b) Find the first subsidiary focal length for the zone plate.

Solutions.

a)  The focal length f =  s _m ² / m l

Where in this case: s _m  = s ₁   =  0. 0425 cm   (so m = 1)

l   =   4471 Å  = 4. 471   x  10 ^-5  cm

Then:  f =  (0. 0425 cm) 2 / (4. 471   x  10 ^-5  cm)  =  40. 39 cm

b) The first subsidiary focal length will correspond to f/ 3,  so:

f /3  =  40. 39 cm/  3   =  13. 46 cm

2) A zone plate is to be set up on an optical bench where it will be used as an enlarging lens.  Its innermost zone will have a diameter of 0.2250 mm with monochromatic green light of wavelength 4800 Å  to be used.  If all enlargements are to be eightfold in diameter find the focal length f of the zone plate.

Solution.

An eight-fold enlargement means we need to find f/ 16 for the 8th subsidiary maximum of the plate.  Then:  

 f =  (0.0225 cm)/  (4. 8   x  10 ^-5  cm) =  10. 54 cm

And: f/ 16 = 10. 54 cm/  16  =  0.66 cm

Why Population Decline Is The Way To Reduce Inequality - As Opposed To Dependence On Higher Fertility

 

               Roadside market in Nigeria: 80% of  population growth until 2100 will be in Africa

In the most recent Population Connection issue we learn some important facts especially given the barrage of hysteria concerning the need to expand fertility – especially in the U.S. e.g.

           Unreal - Another Pro-Natalist Buffoon Thinks We Need More Than 1 Billion Americans

 – mostly pumped by clueless politicos. Or lamebrains like Elon Musk who has predicted “catastrophic population collapse.”   But all such hand wringing focuses on the wrong issue or index. Typically, warnings about falling fertility in the U.S. case focus on the old-age dependency ratio — the number of retirees relative to the economically active population. In countries where fertility decline started earliest the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) estimates that the ratio of people over 65 to working-age individuals (aged 15–64) will rise from around one-quarter today to one-half by 2050. In the U.S. the worry is that there will be insufficient active workers to support the elders receiving Social Security and Medicare.

But this assumes that retirement ages remain fixed despite rising life expectancy, thereby conflating two distinct demographic trends: falling fertility and increasing longevity. You'd think a billionaire genius like Elon Musk would get this but they don't.

Second, the standard fertility template ignores the fact that children are also dependents, which means lower fertility reduces child dependency even as old-age dependency rises. Politicians - especially on the Right - forget or dismiss that side of the equation. They call for “more babies” but fail to recognize that if birth rates do increase, the total dependency ratio will rise even faster than before until those children enter the workforce two decades later.

The major bugbear and fear throughout is spreading inequality, which will surely increase among the elderly worldwide if social support systems - like Medicare and Social Security in the U.S.-  are cut. (Which the GOOPs are already planning to do to extend and enhance their abominable 'big beautiful bill' which has already taken a wood chipper to Medicaid and Obamacare.

So the GOP and Trump are quite content to increase the misery index as Paul Krugman recently stated in a podcast.

Misery Business

And will do more damage to social support programs if they manage to get control of government again. But let's get back to whether and how inequality relates to fertility - population increase. Let's assume the GOP degrading factor to add economic misery is eliminated by 2028, then we ask: Can population decline reduce inequality?

Recall Thomas Piketty’s 2013 book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, showed that wealth-to-income (W/Y) ratios have increased sharply across most of the world’s developed economies over the past 70 years,

Piketty, Capital, Soaring Stock Markets and Why Americans Aren't Rioting in the Streets

 Piketty noted the innate tendency for capital to increase  encapsulated by the shorthand,  r > g  with r the long run returns on capital and g is the rate of economic growth. Basically, it shows the "past devours the future". This is highlighted by the fact that the heirs of the fatcats  pay zero capital gains taxes on their stocks or other assets. Americans aren't yet into torches and riots because they firmly believe one day they will join the 'upper crust'.

But here's the kicker: Because wealth is distributed far more unequally than income, and because it is inherited, this trend undermines social mobility. Without higher taxes on wealth or inheritance, Piketty argues, W/Y ratios will continue to rise. But the chances of higher taxes on wealth or inheritance are slim to none so long as the Reeps are in power- so how can the equation be made more favorable for those caught in the economic undertow fed by Trump's follies? 

It turns out Pikettey's analysis assumes that the annual increase in total wealth equals the savings rate multiplied by total income. In other words, wealth comes from household savings, which implies that the W/Y ratio depends on the savings rate relative to the economy’s growth rate. By reducing GDP growth, then, declining fertility would boost the W/Y ratio.

But hold strain. Piketty’s own data also show that most of the increase in the W/Y ratio is the result of housing prices rising faster than average earnings, driven by competition for limited supply in desirable locations. This implies that, contrary to Piketty’s prediction, population decline would actually slow the rise in W/Y ratios.  In other words, inequality could be reduced.

Not only would a slower or falling W/Y ratio benefit those without access to inheritance or the “bank of mom and dad”, i.e.  as a path to homeownership. But population decline will also reduce income inequality, benefiting lower-income groups.   Let's also bear in mind, as the recent issue of Population Connection notes(p.22)

"Historically, slow population growth — or outright decline — has tended to benefit workers and disadvantage capital owners. In his 2017 book, The Great Leveler, the Stanford University economic historian Walter Scheidel notes that the collapse in Europe’s population after the Black Death of 1348 drove up real wages and cut landowners’ rents. A 2020 study suggests that these wage increases also spurred innovation, putting northwest Europe on a path to sustained improvements in living standards."

And maybe the best part of all? A shrinking population would also enhance human welfare by reducing the burden on natural systems and resources, especially water.  What’s not to like?

See Also:

Clutter, Capitalism and Inequality: Why So Many Uncaring 'Muricans ?

And:

Economic Policy

The House’s ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ Is Only Beautiful If You’re Rich

by Robert Reich | May 23, 2025 - 5:35am | permalink

— from Robert Reich's Substack

The old professor in me thinks the best way to convey to you how utterly awful the so-called “one big beautiful bill” passed by the House last night actually is would be to give you this short 10-question exam. (Answers are in parenthesis but first try to answer without looking at them.)

1. Does the House’s “one big beautiful bill” cut Medicare? (Answer: Yes, by an estimated $500 billion.)

2. Because the bill cuts Medicaid, how many Americans are expected to lose Medicaid coverage? (At least 8.6 million.)

3. Will the tax cut in the bill benefit the rich or the poor or everyone?(Overwhelmingly, the rich.)

4. How much will the top 0.1% of earners stand to gain from it? (Nearly $390,000 per year).

» article continues...

And:

Passage Of Trump's Gargantuan Tax Cuts Bill Means Potential Medicare Cuts For The First Time (Can You Say 'Sequestration'?)

And:

A Skewed Economic System (Weighted for the Wealthy) Explains Why Gen Z Is Embracing "Financial Nihilism"

And:

Corporate America

Nothing Is Ours Anymore: Is the "Rental Economy" the Most Destructive Scam in Modern American Capitalism?

by Thom Hartmann | December 30, 2025 - 6:18am | permalink

— from The Hartmann Report

And:

Lower Living Standards For Generations To Come? Thank Global Monetary Policy

Fermat's Principle Of Least Time: Feynman's Intro & A Proof From Classical Mechanics

Fermat's principle is an intriguing one in physics, first pointed out by Feynman in his lectures.  Therein he noted Fermat discovered this principle in 1650, basically given all possible paths that light might take to get from one point to another, the one it actually takes requires the shortest time.  

In Sec. 26-3 of his Feynman Lectures, Richard Feynman uses a plane mirror and states Fermat's law includes both 'the law of straight line propagation' and 'the law for the mirror'.  He uses the diagram shown below for reference with MM' the mirror surface and asks for the way to get from A to B  - in the shortest time - but the ray striking the mirror first.

The evident point needed for the shortest time is C, but how to get it? Feynman proposes a 'geometrical trick' - to wit, constructing an 'artificial point' B' on the other side of MM' which is the same distance below MM' as point B is above it. Since BFM is a right angle and BF = FB', then EB is equal to EB'.

Then the sum of the two distances: AE + EB is proportional to the time it will take, assuming a constant value c (speed of light). Which is also the sum of the two lengths AE + EB'.  The problem is then easily re-phrased as: When is the sum of the two lengths the least? The answer, by inspection, is when the reflection line goes through point C as a straight line from A to B'.  C works because it is the best choice to get to the artificial point B' in the most direct manner from A.  To break it down: if ACB' is a straight line then the angle BCF is equal to the angle B'CF and thence to angle ACM. So saying the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection is equivalent to saying the light travels to the mirror in such a way that it comes back to point B' in the least possible time.

 

In a more modern context, given Fermat's least time principle also applies in classical mechanics, it can be proven using a more quantitative method from calculus. We use the diagram below:

                                  Sketch for mathematical analysis of situation

The purpose here is to demonstrate that for a ray going from a to b  the angle of incidence will equal the angle of reflection and hence be in accordance with the principle of least time.  Consider then, from the diagram, a path such that the time from a to b is a minimum (i.e. x1,a to xo,o back to x2,b), then we have;

t₁ =  ò _{x1, a} ^xo,0     ds/  C     (1st integral for path 1) 

where:   ds   =   Ö (dx² + dy ² )  =    dx Ö [ 1  +  (dy/dx) ² ]

Let:   f  =   1  +  (dy/dx) ²     

Þ

f  -  y'   ¶ f / ¶ y'    =  const.

t₁ =   1/ c ò _{x1, a} ^xo,0     dx f

Therefore, 

Ö  1  -  y ²    =   y'   (½ )   [y' / Ö (1  +  y'  ²  ) ]  =  const.  = A

Þ

1  +  y'  ²    - 2 y' ²  =   A ((1  +  y'  ²  )  (½ )

1  +  y' ²    =   1/  A²  =  B

But:   y'   =  dy/dx  =   Ö B  -1 

 Þ

y   =   (Ö B  -1 )  x  + C      (straight line)

Then:   

 For x 1,a  to   x 0,0  to  x1, b  :

t₁ +   t₂    =   

1/ C  [(x 1   - x 0 )²  +   a ²] ^1/2  +  [(x 0   - x 2 )²  +   b ²] - ^1/2  (2 (x 0   - x 2 )

For minimum:  

¶ ( t₁ + t₂ ) / ¶ x 0    =  0

Þ

 ½ [(x 1   - x 0 )²  +   a ²] ^-1/2   2 (x 1   - x 0) (-1) 

+ ½ [(x 0   - x 2 )²  +   b ²] ^{- 1/2}  (2 (x 0   - x 2 )   =  0   

Þ

(x 1   - x 0 )²/ (x 1   - x 0 )²  +   a ²   =  (x 0   - x 2 )² / (x 0   - x 2 )²  +   b ²

Therefore:   cos² q 1   =    cos² q 2 

q 1   =    q 2      I.e.

q i   =    q r 

The statement of the law of reflection that the angle of incidence ( q i) is equal to the angle of reflection (q r ) is equivalent to the statement that light travels (via the mirror)  from point  x 1,a  to  x1, b    in  the least possible time.   Hence, the principle of least time or Fermat's principle.

The Real Issue With The 'Medicare For All' Proposal - There Aren't Adequate Resources To Support It

 

                         MRI machine of the type that did my May 5th scan

            Providers interpret scans - the specialists and available machines would be in short supply in any Medicare for All scenario

The pages of the Wall Street Journal are now rife with Op-eds complaining the Democratic Socialists have "taken over" the Democratic Party - and are spouting fantasies like Medicare for All i.e.

Socialist Chic and the ‘Medicare for All’ Sham - WSJ

Recall Senator Bernie Sanders’s  proposed (2016)Medicare for All Act would have scrapped private insurance and create a new federal system to cover everyone. An alternative plan from the Center for American Progress, a think tank, would have created an optional public program that anyone could "buy into". Meanwhile, an earlier plan from Senator Debbie Stabenow would have given all Americans the option to buy into Medicare, say from the age of 55.  But let's not kid ourselves - any "buy in" would not come cheap - especially now after Trump's tariffs and war of choice have sent everything through the roof in cost.

Also, Medicare, as I've repeatedly pointed out, is no "entitlement" or freebie as the Right's media loons try to portray it.  Your eye exams, glasses are not covered, and neither is your dental care.  Over the past two years alone our mutual costs for just the latter have been around $5,500.  Not a huge surprise when you reckon one crown can cost upwards of $1,350 and together we've had three.  Add in dental cleanings, x-rays etc and well.....you get my point. Meanwhile our Medicare Supplement plans - the part needed to pay for procedures like my MRI and PET scans, Firmagon shots etc. - now exceed $350 each per month.

It is true that a single federal payer system — as such proposals envision — may well eliminate the waste, inefficiency and corruption that make the current system so expensive and inaccessible.  But getting to such a system would be no 'walk in the park'. If adopted we'd more likely emulate the experience of countries like Canada and Britain that rely heavily on one government payer. But such a system would require dramatic changes from the status quo with private insurance, and would be a tough political sell in a nation conditioned to low taxation.

But aversion to higher taxes and loss of private insurance isn't all on Americans since we've learned Doctors, hospitals, drug companies and insurers are intent on strangling Medicare for all before it advances from an aspirational slogan to a legislative agenda item.  The Partnership for America's Health Care Future claims that 'Medicare for All' will require tax increases out of synch with what Americans want.  In many respects they are not too far off. Basically most Americans are conditioned to want the 'goodies' but not to have to pay for them in higher taxes. Every Reep politico knows this, which is why 99% of their policy proposals embrace tax cuts.

The counterpoint to this are the social democracies in Europe. The citizens of European  nations, like Germany, Denmark and Norway, understand that there is no freebie medical care. Thus they are willing to pay higher taxes to get the medical care (as well as free child care) they need. They are also wise enough not to elect as a leader anyone who'd blow open their GDP on wars, or military funding.  In doing so they also shuck off the "socialism" label as American sour grapes, e.g.

Oprah got perfect response from Danish woman about their social welfare state PRESCIENT!

This is why many have refused to increase defense spending, including Spain's President Pedro Sanchez, because they grasp such a boost would force them to reduce social spending.  Unlike here in the U.S. where  the orange buffoon in the WH fantasizes increasing defense spending by 40 percent -  to $1.5 trillion. The misfit wackjob recently has gone so far as to say the government ought to stop funding Medicare as well as childcare across the board, to focus on his war of choice with Iran. E.g.

Trump says government should stop funding Medicare, daycare to focus on war

Again, why can’t people simply be shucked into Medicare like the oldies already are? Simply put, there aren’t adequate resources – neither nurses, physicians, facilities, labs, testing equipment – to accommodate the numbers.  This is why Medicare for All hasn’t gained serious traction since Bernie Sanders first seriously proposed it in 2016. To support such a system it’s been estimated federal subsidies would need to increase from between $1.5 trillion to $3 trillion a year by 2030.  In order to even begin to achieve this at least 2 percent a year would need to be lopped off the defense budget.

Bear in mind Medicare was created in the mid-1960s, for a defined limited population (which had already reached age 65) and which was already constrained in the benefits delivered, i.e. no dental care included, no vision care or necessities. We have to pay out of pocket for those which can reach several grand a year.

There are currently 70 million Americans who receive benefits under the program, which like Social Security is partially funded by payroll taxes. But to even remotely consider adding 25 million folks – say currently in Obamacare- would literally break the system without higher taxes, payroll and individual. 

Even Abdul El-Sayed, the winner of the recent Michigan Dem primary, conceded higher taxes would need to be paid in a Meet the Press interview. As he noted:  “We’d be paying for healthcare in a different way”  - noting that the current way entailed premiums of “thousands of dollars a month”

So wouldn’t higher taxes of two thousand dollars a YEAR be preferable? A rational person would think so but I am not sure how many Americans would agree.  They need to know front and center a Medicare for All Buy in will be very costly and the tax system has to be adjusted to suit.   No longer can middle class folk expect tax cuts and government- provided health care benefits in whatever guise. Higher premiums alone will not cut the mustard.

These are serious issues Americans need to consider before voting for a candidate merely because s/he promises 'Medicare for All'.  Especially without pointing out taxes will need to be raised.

See Also:

Healthcare Policy

Doctors Like El-Sayed and Me Agree: It’s Time for Medicare for All

by Cheryl Huckins | August 16, 2026 - 4:32am | permalink

It’s time.

It’s time for Americans to finally have healthcare that’s compassionate and effective.

When I became a doctor 44 years ago I volunteered at a free clinic for patients without health insurance. I remember our clientele: a substitute teacher, a self-employed plumber, and other working people who weren’t offered coverage by an employer and couldn’t afford it on their own.

These weren’t freeloaders. They were neighbors, family members, and friends who earned too much to qualify for Medicaid, but still didn’t have health coverage through their jobs.

I wondered then, “Why should our ability to have health insurance depend on where we work?” I never got an answer.

» article continues...

And:

The Basics of ‘Medicare for All’ - The New York Times

Excerpt:

Medicare for all insurance would cover many services that most health plans omit now, including dental care, eyeglasses, hearing aids and home-based long-term care for people with disabilities.

It would also make major changes to how health care is financed in the United States. Now, we pay for health care through federal taxes and state taxes, as well as premiums and cash when we go to the doctor or the pharmacy counter. Under Medicare for all, federal taxes would pay for the entire system.

Economists have produced various estimates. It’s probably most helpful to think about the range. Give or take, they said the Medicare for all system would cost around the same as the current system — government, employer and individual spending combined. But even the most conservative spending estimate would involve a huge shift of health care dollars from individuals and businesses to the federal government. Medicare for all would be an enormous expansion of government spending, and would almost certainly require large tax increases.

And:

The Basis For Exploding Medical Costs Is The Inadequacy of Supply - Of Nurses, Drs., Medical Specialists - Of Immigrants!

And:

Healthcare Policy

Could Trump, or Anyone, Win Elections by Simply Promising Medicare for All?

by Thom Hartmann | August 11, 2026 - 4:58am | permalink

— from The Hartmann Report

If Trump wants Republicans to win this fall, all he has to do is endorse Medicare For All and call it a Republican policy.

After all, conservatives across Europe are generally quite happy with their national healthcare systems and definitely don’t want them going away or to be replaced by for-profit insurance companies.

When I did did my show from Denmark’s Danish Radio’s studios, I interviewed multiple conservative politicians and to a person their response to my question, “Do you want to get rid of your healthcare system?” was, “Are you nuts?”

This may not even be all that radical by today’s Republican standards: after all, Trump’s embraced the purely communist idea of the federal government taking control of the means of production and distribution — the textbook definition of communism — by having our government take stock in over 30 companies over the past 18 months.

» article continues...

And:

Peace & Justice

Aging in the Wrong World

by Tom Engelhardt | August 12, 2026 - 4:29am | permalink

from Tom Engelhardt's Substack

Talk about unjust, unfair, or just plain not right: Here I am at 82 years old with children, grandchildren, and old (and I mean old!) friends, and (like me) our country and our world seem to be all too distinctly on the downhill slope. I could, of course, have added aided by my president, Donald J. Trump, and (except for the “my”) that would be anything but inaccurate. And yet, the very fact that a near majority of Americans (46.4% in 2016 and 49.8% in 2024) elected him president of the United States should tell you that the process was already well underway; otherwise, such a… you chose the word… parody or atrocity (or both) of American politics would never have been possible.

In short, after all these years — 16 as an editor at Pantheon Books, a decade in a freelance editing (and writing) life, and almost a quarter of a century running and writing for TomDispatch.com, the website I created (and that’s now being run by the wonderful Nick Turse) — somehow, I still can’t believe (not truly) the world I find myself in. Phew! That was an exhausting sentence! (And no surprise there, since we’re on a distinctly exhausting planet.)

» article continues...