Claire McCaskill: "Bernie Sanders Is Too Extreme" - She's Another Neolib Traitor Dem

Claire McCaskil's brain dead,  dopey face after being called out by Mark Halperin when she asserted Bernie Sanders is "too extreme for Americans."  Maybe for pro-corporate Democrats like Claire McCaskill who prefer to see a stronger Corporatocracy!

I had Sen. Claire McCaskill pegged correctly as a Neoliberal, corporate Democrat when I wrote in an April 30, 2011 post:

"Another traitor Dem is none other than Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri (much like one of her predecessors, Sen. Carnahan in 2001 - who voted for the original deficit creating Bush tax cuts) who now wants to join up with Republican Bob Corker of Tennessee in a pie-eyed, cock-eyed, half-baked scheme to "save $7.6 trillion over 10 years." How? By capping federal spending at 20.6 percent of gross domestic product within a decade. That’s down from 24.3 percent now. And that's despite an expected increase in population of more than 15%. What the hell is she drinking?"

Of course, such capping would have meant mainly the poor - on programs like Medicaid and food stamps-  would suffer,  along with seniors on Medicare and Social Security. Meanwhile - as history has shown, MCCaskill has had no problem protecting the original Bush tax cuts, and protecting defense spending.

I write this because this morning it would have been no surprise for many when on 'Morning Joe', she slimed Bernie Sanders and the giant, energized crowds he was getting - insisting his platform was "too extreme" and he wasn't being subjected by the media to the same standard as Hillary. Including being tagged as a "socialist".

Maybe Claire has lost the ability to read, or perhaps she's got one blind eye, but I've seen at least ten articles or columns in the past month on Sanders' socialism - mainly written by right wing media imps like George Will. But this "unequal" treatment narrative fits in with McCaskill's shtick of protecting and exalting a pro-corporate, Wall Street -backed candidate.

She did concede that Bernie Sanders "has a message that is touching people's frustrations" and that she "totally gets that" - but "so does Hillary Clinton".   Of course, but in all the examples Claire gave it was only after her being pushed to the left once Bernie entered the race and began climbing in the polls (in one NH poll coming within pts. of Hillary). So she's being too clever by half and disingenuous.

The fact Claire wouldn't admit on air is that Hillary is being backed by Wall Street money and tons of it shows her dishonesty. But then as a pro-corporate Dem there'd be no reason for her to broach this on national TV.

Mark Halperin then challenged McCaskill to name three ways that Bernie Sanders' political message and platform was too extreme. After babbling for a bit, and then trying to dodge it ("why don't you name them?") she finally barfed up the following:

- "He would like to see  Medicare for all in this country and let everyone have a government insurance policy. "

Oh yeah, terrible! Horrible! Fuckin' awful! Imagine, each citizen being covered by a program already embraced by seniors which has the lowest administration fees compared to private insurance. And.  having it as opposed to a program (Obamacare) which allows the insurance companies to all take their cuts, jack up premiums whenever they want and forces people to pay into it even if they can't afford it.

And she's also dead wrong when she claimed "I don't think Americans want government to have every insurance policy" - because they DO - in poll after poll - when the alternative is only private medical insurance or some hybrid like Obamacare.  But again, what do you expect from a corporate Dem?

She went on:

- "He would like to see expansion of entitlement (Social Security)"

Again, god forbid seniors get expanded Social Security though I already showed there are ample justifications for it, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/02/a-social-security-expansion-bill.html

She added in connection with this, "he is not worried about debt at all" which is false. Because on multiple occasions Bernie has made it clear the social benefits he wants expanded can be paid for by decreasing the out of control military spending which already exceeds the total of the next 22 nations combined. 

- "Somebody who I think is frankly against trade"

Again, wrong! Bernie is not against trade, but rather against unbalanced trade agreements (with almost all  benefits to Wall Street & corporations) and  concealed trade pacts like the Trans Pacific Partnership  (TPP) which also enable corporate- multinational hegemony over national democratic decisions. I touched on many of the negative aspects here:


http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/05/so-how-bad-is-trans-pacific-partnership.html

Readers who want to see more can check these links:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/william-rivers-pitt/62790/killing-a-nation-with-euphemisms-tpp-eats-medicare-edition


http://www.salon.com/2015/05/12/the_10_biggest_lies_youve_been_told_about_the_trans_pacific_partnership

Make no mistake McCaskill has merely disclosed her true colors, as anti-Middle class, and pro-Wall Street. What do we know about the TPP? We know, according to Public Citizen,  that the TPP could ship millions of good-paying US jobs overseas.

We also  know that the TPP could increase the costs of health care and medicine, while hurting health and safety standards. (An excellent reason for Claire to be against  Bernie's "Medicare for All".)

We also  know that the TPP could make corporations even stronger and undo what few reforms are left on Wall Street.

All this is even more germane now that traitor, poseur Dems like McCaskill have voted for the fast track on TPP which now only the most valiant and ferocious opposition can upend. (Here are the D-senators who voted for Fast Track: http://1.usa.gov/1GtAdTH )

At one time the Dems stood for core principles and they constituted more than a temporary ensemble or "coalition" brought together every four years by dodgy rhetoric to win one election. Now, having sold out to the money changers, bankers and business assholes - not to mention the pseudo-free market, they are barely discernible from the Repugs. Two sides of one corporate party coin  - except that the Ds use lube before they fuck you over.

See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/gaius-publius/62810/the-difference-between-bernie-sanders-and-hillary-clinton-in-one-paragraph


And:


http://www.salon.com/2015/06/24/bernie_sanders_cornel_west_the_radical_alliance_that_could_change_everything/

The Finer Details of Obamacare (Part 1)

With the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act set to be operative from tomorrow, there may be many details prospective buyers are still not aware of. In this post and the next, I’d like to try to fill in some of the blanks – also provide some advice and traps to avoid.

First, if anyone has paid compulsive attention to the political news, and especially anti-Obamacare PR from the Right (i.e FOX) you've probably bought into the dire predictions of "rate shock," i.e. the supposed sky-high health insurance premiums to be inflicted on Americans starting next year, when the new health care law starts requiring everyone to have health insurance or pay a fine. Make no mistake that these fears are all off the mark, over blown. In the 11 states where 2014 health insurance premium information is available, the average price for a plan with a middle range of benefits is coming in at $321 a month, 18 percent lower than the impartial Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated it would be, according to a report released not long ago by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Second, these premiums are for much better coverage than consumers can purchase on the individual market in most states today. For instance, they must all cover mental health care, maternity care, and prescription drugs, essential health benefits that are absent from a lot of plans being sold to individuals today, This is a biggie, no matter what the Tea Baggers and Ted Cruz have to say! Best of all, the vast majority of people buying these plans through their state's new health insurance Marketplace (they're opening for business Oct. 1 nationwide) will receive a break on costs in the form of a new kind of tax credit that they can use right away to offset part of the premiums.

Now, let’s examine more of the details, as also made available in a new report from Consumer Reports. Org.

1)The early market reforms, such as requirements for a minimum Medical Loss Ratio and for review of proposed rate increases of 10% or greater, have clearly created value for consumers.Further, data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Insurance Component (MEPS-IC) shows that the average premiums for employer sponsored insurance increased by only 3% from 2011 to 2012, the lowest rate of increase observed since the data series started in 1996. However, the major changes in the rules for individual and small group insurance will begin in plan year 2014.

2) Information on proposed premiums in the individual and small group markets has recently been made available by selected states, and it is now possible to move from theoretical arguments to data-driven analysis. This shows, for example, that for healthy young adults, who have the highest uninsurance rate of any age group and the lowest awareness of the coming reforms, premiums will be even lower. That's because the law allows younger adults to be charged lower premiums than older customers pay. In Los Angeles County, which according to HHS has more uninsured people than any other county in the country, a 25-year-old can purchase one of these mid-range plans for $174 a month, before subsidies. Young people ought to be breaking down the doors to get this insurance!

3) While the Tea Baggers have made much of the low initial penalties ($95 the first year)- and hence the "benefits" to the young of not signing up - they aren’t saying how the penalty costs will escalate reaching $2,585 per year by 2025. It therefore makes good sense to buy insurance in the initial stages – especially when financial support is also available.

4) In the eleven states for which data are already available, the lowest cost Silver plan in the individual market in 2014 is, on average, 18% less expensive than ASPE’s (Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation’s )estimate of 2014 individual market premiums derived from CBO publications. The lowest cost silver plan available to small employers in 2014 in the six states with available data ( New Mexico, Colorado, Vermont, District of Columbia, Washington, Oregon) is estimated to be 18% less expensive, on average, than the average premium that small employers would be paying for a pre-Affordable Care Act silver plan trended forward.

5) These preliminary rates may be further lowered before health plans are offered in Marketplaces this fall.

-- (*Marketplaces” are also known as “American Health Benefit Exchanges” or “Exchanges” as defined by and established in Section 1311 of the Affordable Care Act. In addition, Marketplaces may be established and operated by a state (State-based Marketplaces or “SBMs”), by the federal government (Federally-facilitated Marketplaces or “FFMs”), or by the federal government with state participation (State Partnership Marketplaces or “SPMs”)

Next in Part 2 - More Details: Who Is Paying, Benefits for Young Males and Possible Missteps