Showing posts with label Amy Klobuchar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Amy Klobuchar. Show all posts

Thursday, March 5, 2020

With Dem Moderates United & The Youth Vote "AWOL" - No One Should Be Surprised By Biden's "Lazarus" - like Rise

Recall in my February 25th post, I'd written:

"Third Way Pooh- Bah (Jonathan Cowan) recently put it:  "The moderate wing needs to consolidate support behind a single moderate candidate, and quickly.  By April it's too late."

But have they? Hell no!


If they did the basic math they'd see - from their respective numbers, percentages - they are continuing to divide their moderate vote thereby enabling Bernie to have a free ride (in one single lane) to the D-nomination.  So, as they whine about Bernie's alleged threats they really are doing nothing to stop him given they are not allowing any one centrist standard bearer to take over.  Each is too prideful and egoistic to bow out, especially the low rankers like Amy Klobuchar, to really enable a DNC-brand moderate to prevail
."

Well, the day before Super Tuesday and after Joe Biden's South Carolina win (after getting a critical endorsement from Rep. Jim Clyburn) all the afterthought moderate Dem candidates got the sense they were born with. They realized if they didn't finally bow out of the race and leave Biden as the lone moderate hope, Bernie would not be stopped.  Once Klobuchar, Buttigieg and Steyer left their votes had to go somewhere, and they went to Biden.  Hence, the huge Super Tuesday night for Joe.

Also helping him, and hurting Bernie, is the youth vote (the Millennials et al), did not turn out as they had in previous cycles.  This was reported last night by Intercept journalist Mehdi Hasan (on 'All In') and also by Rachel Maddow, in the course of her excellent interview with Sanders.    See e.g.

The reason for the lack of youthful turnout is troubling as well as incomprehensible.  This is given the young who are quick to chant "Ok, Boomer!" have a lot more to lose than us Boomers by failing to vote. As I had written in my November 18th post:

"Pew Research reports consistently that only 10 percent of likely voters are under 30.  Do you really want to change things so your agenda is dealt with and not ignored? Then you need to triple or quadruple that performance.

 Yet this is the age demographic most adversely affected by a plurality of federal resources being spent on seniors. So what exactly do these under 30s  (e.g. Millennials)  expect when the political class feels it can write them off each year as non-serious threats?

The voting percentages are even worse in the off year elections, which are often as important as general elections. The reason is that House seats are often up for grabs and it is in the House that budgets are made and where economic winners and losers determined. In the 2010 election, for example, barely 16% of 18-24 years olds voted compared to 28 % in 2008. 

My point is that if you really want to impress me and other Boomers, don't invoke a dumb meme and then wear it out. Get your butts out to vote - in every election- and change your lot in life by pushing the political class to recognize you instead of ignoring you.  Even more impressive, put down your cell phones and the incessant, vacuous search for 'likes'  and cut out the social media -
instagram blabber.  Instead,  emulate the Parkland students' style of activism and maybe even voter enrollment instead. "


Have the young on whom Bernie depends done that? Evidently not in the Super Tuesday states, according to stats delivered by Mehdi Hasan and Rachel Maddow last night - from exit polls.  Also as we read in today's NY Times ( 'How Huge Voter Turnout Eluded Bernie Sanders On Super Tuesday')

"In state after state, there has been little evidence — at least outside California — that he has generated higher turnout among young voters. And though he has promised to deliver record turnout, it may in fact be Mr. Biden who is accomplishing that, lifted by his strong support among black voters.


In Texas, where Mr. Biden prevailed over Mr. Sanders, only 15 percent of voters were younger than 30, and nearly two-thirds were 45 or older, according to exit polls. ..  In no state did people younger than 30 account for more than 20 percent of the electorate, based on exit polls, and in most states they accounted for 15 percent or less.  Because so few young people voted, it did not matter that Mr. Sanders won them by huge margins, because Mr. Biden won the much more plentiful older voters."

 So maybe these youngsters - more invested in their smart phone texting than voting -are ok with the status quo of monstrous student loan debt,  marginal health care options and more attention to Boomers than to their own issues. But see,  the Boomers get out and vote in every election,  they don't slack off like these young, social media addicts. So politicos know they can't afford to ignore them or they get voted out.   

As for Bernie, with Bloomberg now backing Trump with his endorsement and money, there is little doubt unless he gets that youth vote turnout in the next 6 states he isn't going to get the nomination.  Especially if he's behind in delegates at the final bell in the Super Tuesday vote count. (California could still decide it).. The reason is that a  runnerup, even a few delegates behind, has a herculean task overtaking the front runner - because of only getting fractions of delegates in each subsequent primary. 

The question remaining is whether Biden can really beat Trump.  After all, he's not really been vetted under real heat from one opponent. A real vetting would be in the form of a head to head debate between Biden and Bernie early next week - before the next set of primaries. So voters can really see what they are getting.  In the meantime, Rachel Maddow had best resign herself she isn't going to get a one on one interview with Joe, like she had with Sanders last night.  

It might expose more weaknesses than his campaign team wants. Oh yeah, the DOW bounced back up yesterday on the Biden results. Businesses, investors had earlier been "petrified" of a Sanders' presidency  and what executive orders he might issue or policy changes.   But watch for markets to tank today, as the supply side threat of COVID-19 returns to take precedence in investor consciousness.


See also:


And:
Excerpt:

"Being of unoriginal mind but keenly exploitative of whatever maliciousness worked before, congressional Republicans are now set on recreating Hillary Clinton's nonexistent email scandal in the evil-clown form of nonexistent Biden scandals.


They'll hold public hearings to humiliate and badger, issue subpoenas to intimidate and bankrupt, employ hundreds of fanged shysters to play Roy Cohn; and all the while their corrupt but unaccountable president will strong-arm the FBI to conduct illicit political investigations into Biden's innocent activities — the dark and phony proceedings of which will leak daily via the White House."


Tuesday, February 25, 2020

OK, Dems, Let's Have No Circular Firing Squads In Tonight's Debate!

Well, tonight is the last Dem debate before the Super Tuesday contest next week and the question of the moment is whether the Democrats will again put on a circular firing squad. Effectively, they need to cease giving free propaganda and advertising material to the Repukes (RNC) and Trumpists.

In the Denver Post yesterday (p. 10A) we learned the moderates in the field are in a near frenzy, obsessed with trying to stop Bernie's march to the nomination.  They also praise their own modes of centrism and non-radicalism as the only way for the party to regain executive power. Interesting, yet if they sincerely believed that Sanders is the purported threat they claim - to the nation and the party - you'd think they'd know enough to apply game theory to the situation.  That would mean, as one Third Way Pooh- Bah (Jonathan Cowan) recently put it: "Consolidating support behind a single moderate candidate, and quickly.  By April it's too late."

But have they? Hell no!

If they did the basic math they'd see - from their respective numbers, percentages - they are continuing to divide their moderate vote thereby enabling Bernie to have a free ride (in one single lane) to the D-nomination.  So, as they whine about Bernie's alleged threats they really are doing nothing to stop him given they are not allowing any one centrist standard bearer to take over.  Each is too prideful and egoistic to bow out, especially the low rankers like Amy Klobuchar, to really enable a DNC-brand moderate to prevail. 

Tonight these losers could nearly torch any Dem chances to prevail in November if they all try to roast Sanders as expected (especially over his Castro comment,  forgetting all of Trump's reckless nonsense).  What else could they do,  take the high road and focus firepower on the REAL  threat, Trump?  Not bloody likely. They're all severely behind,  desperate and could be totally in the rear view mirror by next Wednesday. Yet by doing such torching they could well be destroying their own opportunities - say as a potential Sanders Veep pick  - as well as providing free ad fodder for the odious Trump campaign.

We also know the moderate antagonists will be egged on by a  corporate media that's doubled down on its attacks on Sanders, ever since his 60 Minutes interview with Anderson Cooper on Sunday.  Therein, he made mention of Fidel Castro's literacy program in Cuba which helped nearly a million Cubans to read and write.  And they all went batshit nuts, as on CBS this morning- when Nora O'Donnell and Gayle King expressed horror (that in a CNN town meet) he even "doubled down" on the Castro comments.

They surely didn't read yesterday's WSJ op-ed by Terry Sullivan (p. A17) who noted this about Sanders:

"It's exactly his passionate willingness to defend the crazy things he says that draws broad support. If I had a dollar for every voter I'd heard say 'I don't agree with everything Donald Trump says but I like that he has the guts to say it' I could buy Trump Tower."

But make no mistake here, this is not to conflate Trump's 'crazy' statements e.g. 'I could shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and no one would care", and "Me and Kim Jong Un are in love"  with Bernie's.  Because Bernie's remarks at least embody more than a grain of sense, for example given that literacy is a good thing, even in Cuba.

So much of the media's game, while they typically go easy on Trump and treat him as just a showman or reality TV guy, is red baiting of Bernie.  As noted by blogger Paul Street, e.g.


Some examples given by Mr. Street from the above:"

"The Atlantic, recently gave space for the right-wing pundit David Frump to call Sanders a “Marxist of the old school of dialectical materialism” for whom “class relations are foundational” and “everything else is epiphenomenon.”


At ”liberal” broadcast media’s central Stop Sanders headquarters MSNBC (hereafter “MSDNC”), veteran political talk-show host Chris Matthews channeled Joe McCarthy before the New Hampshire Democratic Primary in a bizarre tirade linking the “socialist Sanders” to the supposed threat of “executions in Central Park” if “Castro and the Reds” had “won the Cold War.”


Last week, three days before the Nevada Caucus, MSDNC’s Stephanie Ruhle had on an old friend, former Diamond Resorts CEO Stephen Cloobeck, a major Democratic Party funder, to speak from Las Vegas. Asked about one of Ruhle’s favorite topics, the menace of “socialist Bernie Sanders,” Cloobeck called Sanders “an anarchist” who “would love to burn down the United States” ”

No, folks, you can't make this shit up.  These are our "friends" in the so -called "Left bubble", supposedly the mirror image of FOX News.  And watch to see tonight how many of the losers will try to use these tropes against Bernie. And in the same process provide  tape for Trump campaign ads, and from the mouths of fellow Dems.

Pathetic.  But that's how the Dems often tend to roll, an uncanny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. As in 2016 when I warned that Hillary picking Tim Kaine as VP would seal her fate and the party's,  e.g.


That sealed her fate, as well as the corporo-media's singular fixation on her emails.  In this cycle we have to expect they will do the same with Bernie's Castro remarks- putting in a false equivalence to all of Trump's batshit crazy twaddle, such as claiming we are "on top of the coronavirus"  pandemic.  Oh,  and "everything will be just fine".   Which  I want to see him repeat when the DOW is in the toilet by June, thanks to the COVID-19 spreading.  Mainly because Trump hasn't done dick shit to prepare the country for what's coming - even cutting CDC funding for pandemicss.


Saturday, November 2, 2019

Sen. Elizabeth Warren's "Plan" To Pay For Medicare for All Exists Only In The Realm Of Fairy Tales

According to a NY Times report, Senator Elizabeth Warren on Friday revealed her plan to pay for an expansive transformation of our  health care system in her own version of Medicare for All. Notably absent in this "plan"  (which isn't going anyplace anyway unless  the Dems snatch the Senate back from the Repukes)  is any tax increase for the middle class. Which in my opinion shows it totally in the realm of fairy tales or fantasy.  Warren could as well have told her donors and others that the tooth fairy will leave  $20.5 trillion under their pillows to fund it.

What she is proposing  are military cuts of $800b  and huge tax increases on businesses and wealthy Americans to help cover her price tab of $20.5 trillion in new federal spending.   Look, this is pure poppycock and bull pockey. Warren ought to be ashamed to believe that this math mockery (not to mention abandonment of reality) could pass the most remote smell test for any rational person.

First, there is no way in hell she is going to be able to finagle $800 billion in cuts to the military.  We know ever since the military-industrial complex emerged (after WW II)  it has been the devil's own job to try and tame it as it just sucks up more and more $$$ each year.  Much of that is plowed into localities (like here in Colorado Springs) that have multiple military bases, or have a defense contractor making planes, bombs or tanks.    That is the new mode of job creation and there is absolutely no way that those special interests will cede that money to Warren.  Does she "have a plan" that will work? Sure. Possibly in an alternative universe where austerity freaks - not to mention Repugs - disappeared like the Whigs in this universe.

Second,  anyone who does the math knows there is simply not the money in corporations and the wealthy alone to support her far- fetched plan.   Even if a massive new tax on both could be passed  which it won't (so long as Moscow Mitch runs the Senate)   it will still fall far short of the funds needed to support Medicare for all - which most honest brokers and spokespersons estimate is more in the realm of $30 trillion over ten years.  Even Sen. Bernie Sanders admitted this, e.g.  in the last Dem debate:

"At the end of the day the overwhelming majority of people will save money on their health care bills.   But I do think it is appropriate to acknowledge that taxes will go up."

To which Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a moderate Dem, replied: "At least Bernie’s being honest here.".

As The Times observes,   her plan "represents a significant bet that enough voters will favor an approach that dismantles the current system and replaces it with Medicare for all, a government-run health insurance program. And it comes after decades in which Democrats have largely tiptoed around policy proposals that relied on major tax increases and Republicans ran on tax cuts."

Hmmm... seems that I recall even in the early days of Obama's administration and when the Dems had a filibuster- proof majority of 60 in the Senate they couldn't even get the most modest public option passed.  So riddle me this:  How would a President Warren manage a feat  that  will cost twenty times more- and through a Senate likely to still be in Reepo hands?

Folks, this is the stuff of fairy tales, no lie. (Hey, I know Reeptards also called it a 'fairy tale" but even a broken clock is right twice a day!)

The Times piece also notes:

"While the proposal allows Ms. Warren to say she is not raising taxes on the middle class, it opened her to renewed charges that her plan is too radical to pass through Congress. "

Doh! Of course it is too radical! Has Warren done a head count of the deficit hawks and austerity cheerleaders still in congress?  Does she believe they will magically vanish if she's elected?  She needs to stop chomping on that special Astra Ultra MJ candy methinks.

Confirming her ingestion of new higher punch candies we then read:

"It represents an extraordinary embrace of the tax system to redistribute wealth and re-engineer one of the pillars of the American economy, with measures that would double her proposed wealth tax on billionaires and impose new levies on investment gains and even stock trades. "

And it possibly could work-- in Canada or Denmark.  But I can tell her right now it will never work here, not if Barack Obama and a Senate with 60 Dems couldn't even get a public option in 2010.

Warren needs to come back to reality, cease imbibing those high buzz candies, and  once that's done, stop babbling nonsense - when most Americans with any sense will see right through it as errant codswallop. 

Those who are honest - like Bernie, a fellow DSA member - know that middle class taxes being raised 15-20 % will be the most pragmatic way to pay for any new health program. 

As I've shown with other large scale liberal Dem plans, such as the Green New Deal, the bugbear or deal breaker in all of them is the failure or avoidance to reckon in the math,  E.g.

Applying Physics (And Some Math) To The Green Ne...

Where I pointed out that omitting nuclear energy from the mix would be a non-starter. As I put it, "Leave out nuclear and the time needed to get to a preponderance of renewables, even using Germany's high standard of adding 0.7 trillion kwh of clean energy per year, would take close to 150 years - by which time this planet would be on the verge of being another Venus. "

The same retreat from reality is evident in Warren's "plans" and defense of Medicare for all.  She seems unable or unwilling to tell voters straight that the choice is one between more taxes or less health care.

Kate Bedingfield, a deputy campaign manager for Joe Biden summed up my own take on Warren's plan when she said:

“The mathematical gymnastics in this plan are all geared towards hiding a simple truth from voters: It’s impossible to pay for Medicare for all without middle-class tax increases,” 


If Warren fails to 'come clean' she may pay a huge price in the primaries if enough D voters get wise to her unworkable math and impossible dreams.  In the meantime, progressive pundits on Left blogs also need to come clean after trying to assert Warren actually does have a plan ...but it will be "attacked" (and 'lied about')  by those nasty, revolting scum from the medical insurance industry.    See e.g.




No, it will also be firmly questioned by anyone with sense and an IQ over room temperature who grasps political reality and can do the math!   

As an antidote to the preceding B.S.  see the following spot-on take dealing with Warren's dishonest mumbo-jumbo:



Excerpt:

"The Massachusetts senator is adamant that her plan would not impose any taxes on the middle class. According to Tim Higginbotham, a Democratic Socialists of America organizer writing in Jacobin, her plan is “an impossible premise.”

Higginbotham believes Warren’s no-middle-class-taxes claim is dishonest: First, because any Medicare for All plan “will require some form of taxation, direct or indirect, on the broad ‘middle class.’” Second, because her premise ignores the possibility that even with a modest tax increase, Medicare for All will still provide overall health care cost savings in the long run for low- and middle-income families."

And:



Wednesday, October 16, 2019

Elizabeth Warren Displayed Unacceptable Cowardice By Not Admitting Higher Middle Class Taxes With 'Medicare for All'



"I still believe that the candidates with the biggest plans need to level with voters about how costly, painful and disruptive transformational changes are likely to be, at least in the short term. Take for instance the transformation of our health insurance system: Whether we are talking about Medicare for All or an expansion of Obamacare with a public option, there is a sticker price.

In other words, treat voters with respect by telling them the whole truth, warts and all, instead of simply dangling jewels in their faces."    - Charles Blow, NY Times, 'Democrats, Dream Big But Tell The Whole Truth'.

Last night Sen. Elizabeth Warren pronounced:

"Medicare for all is the gold standard. We can pay for this and I laid out the basic principles. Cost are gonna go up for the wealthy, for the big corporations. They will not go up for middle class families,"

Fine, but TAXES WILL go up and she dodged the answer to that question asked by one moderator, NY Times National Editor Marc Lacy.  What Warren ought to have said is that while middle class taxes WILL go up this will be more than offset by reduction in the costs derived from high monthly premiums, co-pays, drug costs.  She didn't. She dreaded use of the T word.  A lack of intestinal fortitude-   or plain courage  - to tell the truth about a policy position.

But at least Bernie Sanders was honest and forthright admitting:

"At the end of the day the overwhelming majority of people will save money on their health care bills.   But I do think it is appropriate to acknowledge that taxes will go up."

To which Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a moderate Dem, replied: "At least Bernie’s being honest here."

So why wasn't Warren?  Why was it so damned difficult to use the T word and admit that yes, taxes will increase but the benefits from lower medical costs will more than compensate for that.   According to CBS correspondent Major Garrett this morning:

"She made a tactical decision she doesn't have to answer this tax question... She had every opportunity last night to just say what Bernie Sanders  said, she didn't. She tactically decided this is not going to make or break her campaign."

However the voters, in the general election (if she gets that far), if not in the primary, could make the decision they need a more forthright,  honest candidate (and President)  than Elizabeth Warren.

Warren's deliberate tactic was also not a one off.  Time after time last night, in response to questions on how to pay for her Medicare for All plan, Warren tried to dodge using the T-word: and imposing higher taxes on the middle class.  As we watched I told Janice, if she'd just come clean like Bernie had she could avoid a lot of the  challenges and implications that her math is skewed, or non-existent.

Or worse, that she was deliberately being obfuscatory, even dishonest.

"Mayor Pete" Buttigieg was the first skeptic, a few minutes into the debate, after Mr. Lacy posed the question. He had been asked about Ms. Warren’s support for Medicare for All and her squishy responses to the question of whether middle-class taxes would rise under it.  Buttigieg taunted, “This was the candidate with 'a plan for everything,'except this.”

Warren’s head shot skyward as if beseeching the Almighty for inspiration or deliverance, saying quietly. “We can pay for this,” 

She kept repeating the mantra that “costs” would rise only for the wealthy and corporations   but kept on declining to concede — as Bernie had  — that middle-class taxes would go up.

Lack of courage, lack of candor. And not for the first time here with the Dems.  After Bush Jr. left office in January, 2009,  I screeched long and hard in many posts that it was idiocy to extend his tax cuts for the middle class as well as the wealthy, given all the needs that required income. See e.g.

Bush’s Revenge: Or how Zombie Tax cuts Will leave ...

The Dems never got the message, from me or many other wiser economic commenters - including Philip Stephens in The Financial Times. Instead they opted to keep that segment of cuts and digging deficit holes the Reeps would use to prevent increased funding of Medicare, Social Security.

As I've shown with other large scale liberal Dem plans, such as the Green New Deal, the bugbear or deal breaker in all of them is the failure or avoidance to reckon in the math,  E.g.

Applying Physics (And Some Math) To The Green Ne...

Where I pointed out that omitting nuclear energy from the mix would be a non-starter. As I put it, "Leave out nuclear and the time needed to get to a preponderance of renewables, even using Germany's high standard of adding 0.7 trillion kwh of clean energy per year, would take close to 150 years - by which time this planet would be on the verge of being another Venus. "

The same retreat from reality is evident in Warren's "plans" and defense of Medicare for all.  She seems unable or unwilling to tell voters straight that the choice is one between more taxes or less health care.  So if citizens think higher  taxes (by 15 % even for "middle class")  are the worst thing in their lives, what could happen? Well,  what if they are laid up in a hospital bed with severe disability, pneumonia  or prostate cancer? Is going bankrupt more to their liking?  (Without Medicare I''d have had to cough up over $85,000 for two major prostate cancer treatments:  high dose brachytherapy and focal cryotherapy,)

Again, for most Americans - who are tax hating Pollyannas-  they are convinced they're never going to get to that extreme fate so they make the bet those dire medical disasters won't happen to them.  Hence, why agree to pay higher taxes if the odds are so low in getting a medical calamity? But it's a terrible bet because any cancer, or serious accident can happen to any of us!

Make no mistake that 'Medicare for all'  would be the for profit medical  industry's biggest nightmare because they'd no longer be able to reap profits by invoking medical loss ratios - preventing sick people from getting care instead of delivering it. Hence, they and their  political lackeys and extremists will be prepared to fight like junkyard dogs to prevent it, including the perverse use of propaganda.

In this regard, the citizen needs to inform himself as much as possible about what the real arguments are for and against 'Medicare for all'. And also ask himself if he is willing to pay significantly more in taxes to be assured of better access to health care and significantly lower medical costs. Elizabeth Warren's dodging of the issue doesn't help citizens in making a judicious decision.

See also:



Cody Fenwick's picture
Article Tools E-mail | Print Comments (0)

Wednesday, September 4, 2019

Appalled By Trumpies' Endless Horror Policies On Immigration? Blame Trump's Top Nazi - Stephen Miller


The Nazi responsible for the child separation actions, including deportation of sick children: Stephen Miller, the reincarnation of Joseph Goebbels


"So we recently learned that Stephen Miller is the point person for much of the Trump administration's dehumanizing policies and actions against immigrants.  Now the administration wants to deport a small number of immigrants with significant medical conditions, but already granted temporary status.   It is likely Miller also suggested this.  I don't recall anyone voting for this person.

How do his far right radical ideas get to become aw and policy without the American public authorizing this joker to do this?    These actions are so far from what our country has always stood for."-   Letter writer H. Ramirez, Denver Post today, p. 21A

"This is just not America, to send a sick kid off to die."   Sen. Amy Klobuchar, last night on MSNBC 'Last Word'

Unless one has been living under a rock he or she is aware of the Trumpies' fell plan to deport sick immigrant kids, risking their health, and even lives.  We also know, after an outpouring of outrage Trump had to walk back this sick plan, which most savvy in deep politics know was hatched by his top Nazi, Stephen Miller. Miller can best be described as a pustulating putrescence  on the Oval Office and the entire Trump white nationalist administration.  Indeed, the power wielded by this maggot in an unelected position - as per the Denver Post letter writer's observation -  screams 'white nationalism' from the proverbial rafters.

Strangely, or maybe not, we learned of this nefarious and fascist effort through the media back channels, not directly.  For example,  the USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services )  did not announce the sudden cancellation of the program allowing sick immigrant kids to stay on a temporary basis (Medical Deferred Action Program) . The decision only became public after Boston National Public Radio station WBUR reached out to the agency about letters denying medical deferrals to children with cancer, cystic fibrosis, cerebral palsy, and HIV.

Understandably, the rollback has been widely condemned by all decent  lawmakers, immigration advocates, and attorneys as targeting the most vulnerable immigrants, almost all of whom entered the country legally to seek medical  treatment.  In the words of Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass), who joined other Massachusetts politicians at a Monday press conference denouncing USCIS’s decision.

“Kids with cancer, cystic fibrosis, and muscular dystrophy are now being told that they must leave the country or be put in the hands of ICE. These patients could be facing a de facto death sentence,” 

Markey added, while noting that USCIS was “too ashamed” to publicly announce the policy change until inquiries from the press:

 “This is a new low, even for Donald Trump. This administration is now literally deporting kids with cancer.”

But let's understand that as putrescent an entity as Trump is - and indeed I've described him as a "pestilence"-  it pales beside Miller who has fed these debased schemes nonstop to Trump.  Lacking any will power or moral compass as a leader, Dotard has simply reactively enacted them by fiat, including when immigrant kids were being put into cages last year.  And earlier this year when immigrant men were being packed cheek to jowl into caged pens in overcrowded border facilities.  The very existence of Miller shows in itself that neither humanity or decency be assumed  nor can it be imparted if one only has the DNA of a rat or cockroach.

Miller's earlier horrific policies - carried out by his personal bitch Trump - had  allowed the vile separation of migrant  kids from their parents with each dispatched to separate detention facilities. For the kids, we saw the horrific images and scenes play out as they were summarily ripped from parents' arms and sent off, terrified - in some cases to tent cities, and in others to prisons 1,000 miles away.  Finally ending up, many of them, in cages that spurred national outrage.

The scenes at the time reminded me of how the Nazi S.S. split up families soon after they arrived by train to Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen, as portrayed in the docudrama 'War and Remembrance' - and which noted historians (e.g. Gerhard Weinberg)  commenting on the series at the time, insisted held true to history.

As for Herr Miller, we already know he is the spitting image of Nazi propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, And is also the one who advocates Goebbels' use of the big lie, i.e.

"Make the lie big but keep it simple. Keep saying it and eventually they will believe it."

Clearly Traitor Trump has followed  Goebbels-Miller's dictums to perfection.  Thus, in the ghastly midst of the child separations and caging Trump had repeated numerous times his false assertion that Democrats were responsible for his administration’s policy of separating migrant families apprehended at the border.  I.e. "Obama was the one who caged those migrant kids!"

Thereby, this odious toad had adhered to a continuing refusal to publicly accept responsibility for a widely condemned practice that had become a symbol of his crackdown on illegal immigration. Spluttering in a morning post on Twitter.

“Democrats can fix their forced family breakup at the Border by working with Republicans on new legislation, for a change!” 

This B.S. came the day after his administration admitted that it had taken nearly 2,000 children away from their parents in a six-week period as part of a new “zero tolerance” policy that refers for criminal prosecution all immigrants apprehended crossing the border without authorization.  That they could commit such a Nazified, fascist move presaged their recent venomous actions to deport sick immigrant kids. In other words, it's all of the same pattern, and doesn't require a Mensa level IQ to parse it, or figure it out.

See also:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/17/us/politics/stephen-miller-immigration-trump.html

And:

Kathie Bozanich's picture

Friday, August 14, 2015

Doctors Are Correct to Wage War On Drug Prices


Under the header "It's About damned time",  is the outcry less than a month ago by more than one hundred oncologists from top cancer hospitals that the cost of cancer drugs is way too high. Indeed, the cost of many drugs is too high, and Americans are literally being taken to the cleaners by Big PhRMA.  So no surprise many doctors, not just oncologists (cancer specialists), are calling for new regulations to control the costs.

In fact, the oncologists and other doctors are only the latest to make vocal complaints. Preceding them have been insurers, state Medicaid officials, and most of all patients - many of whom have been forced to forego prescriptions because of the exorbitant costs.  All this in the wake of prescription drug prices rising more than 12 percent last year, and many prescriptions increasing more than 100 percent.

For example, as noted in an NBC News segment last night, one pharmacist complained that "it was the craziest price increase ever seen" in his life. He cited the wholesale price for the diabetes drug Glumetza which went from $1,000 for 90 days supply in January to just over $10,000 in July. He noted he had no choice but to pass the higher costs on.

The plight of patients was highlighted in one Mayo Clinic Proceedings editorial in which the financial burden was emphasized with the out of pocket costs bankrupting many just as they're fighting a deadly disease. As a result 10 to 20 percent of cancer patients don't fulfill their treatments as prescribed - and their cancers metastasize.  And 75% of other prescription drug takers have cut back on their medications, risking complications. No country with any dimension of decency can allow this to go on.

Fortunately some members of congress are on to this and have demanded that the pharmaceutical companies justify the pricing of hepatitis C medication which now runs tens of thousands of dollars per patient.  

Bernie Sanders, for example, has already advised the Department of Veterans Affairs to break the patents on hep C drugs so that generics companies can manufacture more of them for ailing vets. The problem is the Repukes won't hear of it as it constitutes "statist" interference in private business - so let the vets fend for themselves.

But this ought not be amazing or surprising given this is the typical Reptile response to everything concerning regular citizens - i.e. those not born with gilded spoons in their mouths.

Meanwhile, more sobering for many, has been the announcement from Medicare's Board of Trustees that expensive new medications will drive a sharp increase in the program's prescription drug spending over the next decade. In this milieu cancer medication increases have drawn particular ire with the average price of new cancer drugs having increased in the U.S. five fold to ten fold over 15 years to over $100,000 a year in 2015.

This isn't merely criminal, it's an abomination given those who can't afford the drugs are being issued a death  sentence. The newest and most effective drugs are those that harness the patient's own immune system and these can run up to $150,000 per patient per year. And the annual cost per patient could approach $300,000/ year if cancer drugs are prescribed in combination

As one Mayo Clinic hematologist put it:

"What we're fighting is the greed. The greed and the additional maneuvering that is being exercised after you've already recouped what you've invested. There is no control, no regulation."

This raises the plausible thesis that this "additional maneuvering" with no oversight - was actually built into the "Medicare Modernization Act" that Billy Tauzin and his Reepo criminal congress forced through back in 2003 - to the cheers of Big PhRMA.  It was no wonder that soon after it passed, Goldman Sachs estimated the benefit to PhRMA ( in terms of corporate welfare), would be over $13.7 b over ten years. It's probably even more now.

Indeed, another vile aspect of the 2003 law was that it barred Medicare from negotiating for lower drug prices like the VA does. The law actually leaves the negotiating to private insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers. The very existence of this refuse denies Medicare the ability to drive down prices - and indeed control prices. But then many of us at the time suspected the maggot Bushies were behind this recklessly expensive, bogus law as a means to rush Medicare toward insolvency - the better to privatize it. They even embedded a Trojan horse in the law called "Medicare Advantage" which is now spending $12b a year more than traditional Medicare.

Of course, the usual excuse trotted out by PhRMA for its current skyrocketing drug prices is that it "costs so much for research" - which is arrant bull pockey. The truth is the drug companies are blowing most of their profits and returns on TV advertising. Just look at a typical prime time news broadcast on any of the networks, you are sure to see at least five drug ads including one for Cialis or Viagra, every damned night.

All hope is not lost but it will still be an uphill battle, especially against the defenders of the PhRMA goons. Already, some Senators - such as John McCain (R-AZ) and Amy Klobuchar (D, MN) have supported legislation that would allow patients to import cheaper drugs from Canada. (Which option had also been foreclosed under the 2003 'Modernization'  Act.)

Others have called for the pharmaceutical industry to justify its rising prices - which I believe is one of the most urgent steps to hold these bastards accountable.  These efforts include one California bill demanding the PhrMA leeches provide a detailed breakdown of costs, including for clinical trials, regulatory expenses, advertising, manufacturing and acquisition costs - and for all drugs that have an annual wholesale price of $10,000 or more.

This is a step long overdue and let's hope it succeeds! For all our sakes!