How to pay for a green New Deal

My Recent Posts


 Start  with medicare for all.  According to a study by the Koch brothers Medicare for all will cost 32 trillion dollars over 10 years.  What goes unmentioned is that the same report
shows that if we do nothing the cost to the nation over the same period
will be 34 trillion dollars.  Further medicare for all may put cash in
your pocket.  Today we are paid partially by the benefit of medical
insurance that our employers buy for us.  With Medicare for all those
wages could be paid directly as cash and should more than offset any
increase in taxes. They should be more than the taxes for the following
reasons. First the employer will be relieved of the administrative costs
imposed by the necessity of providing a product that is not his
specialty.  What does a battery business know about healthcare?  By relieving these businesses of these costs we also make our businesses more competitive in the world market because other countries dont impose these costs on their small businesses. Second a medicare for all will enable the customer to negotiate with providers for the lowest cost by the sheer numbers that providers will lose by not negotiating.  This has been shown time and again that the largest customer is always able to get the steepest discounts. Finally the medical provider will be able to lower costs by being relieved of the administrative costs of negotiating with 30 different insurance providers to be reimbursed.  The US spends almost double what Canada does in administrative costs on healthcare.  All these should result in an increase in the real wage of workers.  Under the status quo real wages havent risen for the wage earner since 1980 despite massive gains in productivity which have gone into the hands of the wealthiest.  This is one way to turn that around and start to increase the standard of living.


   The cost of free education at state universities would be about 69 billion dollars per year.  We currently spend about 62 billion dollars on financial aid.  This money needs to be looked at as an investment.  By providing free education to our citizens  in areas that will be in demand in the future we can reduce the need to bring in foreign workers who tend to sen much of their earnings overseas.  We would see a higher tax base as our workers qualified for higher paying jobs.  We would see increased productivity as our workforce became more expensive the use of technology would increase as manual labor becomes too expensive to inhibit tech advances. This has already happened in countries like Denmark with some of the best educated citizens in the world. 


And finally no one seems to want to talk about the elephant in the room. 
This years military budget is 700 billion dollars.  This is so bloated
and unnecessary that we could cut it in half and still outspend every
other nation by a larger margin.  It no longer bears any relation to
national defense but functions more as a jobs program  and as a source of
corporate welfare.  As a jobs program it is extremely inefficient because
the jobs it creates contribute nothing to the future growth potential of
the country.  For instance taking a portion of that money and repairing
our desperately underfunded and dangerous roads and bridges could insure
that commerce continues for the foreseeable future.  This contributes
more to our welfare as a nation than armor plated  troop transports that
sit idle waiting to be destroyed in the deserts of Arabia.  As far as its
role as corporate welfare why do we hate to provide the poorest among us
with food and shelter and some measure of dignity for a pittance of we
provide to the richest people in the country. I am appalled by the
indifference we show to the elderly in this country. What other
industrialized nation allows its senior citizens to sleep on the streets
in the rain and cold when it could provide them with a safe warm place to
stay at a fraction of the cost of the the tax cuts we just gave to the
wealthiest of us. Why does Mitt Romney pay 14% of his income in taxes
when his secretary pays 30%.. This idea that we cant pay to for things
that will only enrich us as a people is pure bs fed to us daily by
billionaires like Trump and Bezos and we keep buying it literally voting
against our own interests because someone labels something socialist.
Forget about the stupid labels. Where was the we cant afford this when
the bankers came looking for a bailout in 2008. We somehow found a way
to ensure that the guys who nearly destroyed the worlds economy and
foreclosed on thousands of homes got their multi million dollar bonuses.


Dino Manalis Added Feb 10, 2019 - 4:33pm
 Alexandria is dreaming and would destroy the U.S. economy, hurting us and the rest of the world.  We need reforms, but they ought to be done within our capitalist system with pro-growth pro-business policies.
Autumn Cote Added Feb 10, 2019 - 5:01pm
Please note, you have several unsightly formatting issues going on in this article.  Are you aware you can edit and previously submitted article?  By chance do you have a better photo/avatar I can associate with your account?  If so please email it to me or let me know where it exists on the internet.
Ana Ross Added Feb 10, 2019 - 5:25pm
Dino Manalis 
First these ideas would actually make our economy much stronger by eliminating the inefficiencies in our current healthcare system and the investment in education can only help us to regain our place as one of best places to be educated.  These reforms are being proposed within our system AOC is a member of congress not a bomb throwing anarchist,  If we let ourselves be swayed by the labels of a socialist boogieman we will always be talked into voting out of fear rather than reason.  The ideas She is proposing are things what we need to get done and thank goodness she has the courage to propose them.     Its about time we had someone with the courage to lead in congress.  I am so sick of every Democrat pretending that there is no choice but be as republican as Nixon in some faux reasonableness.  Democrats have tried being reasonable since Reagan and the standard of living for the middle class has gone down, poverty has gone up and only the wealthiest have seen any gain since then.
Thomas Sutrina Added Feb 10, 2019 - 5:35pm
Anna Ross,  the myth of socialism is strong within you.  The Facts are not.  So let me start walking though your mine field of myths.
<< With Medicare for all those wages could be paid directly as cash and should more than offset any increase in taxes. >>  Obama promised that Obama Care would save families ~$2500. That has not happened.  Since cost have gone up with Obama Care what myth are you using to say they will decrease?
<<First the employer will be relieved of the administrative costs imposed by the necessity of providing a product that is not his specialty. >> Every self insured companies hire a service to handle the paperwork of health insurance. I have worked from fortune 100 companies to a dozen people companies.  They all use experts to administer the paper work.  And they are all charged for that work.
Obama promised that Obama Care would save families $2500. That has not happened. So the government doing the paperwork does not save costs either.
<<Second a medicare for all, (Obama Care with a new name) will enable the customer to negotiate with providers for the lowest cost by the sheer numbers that providers will lose by not negotiating.>> The reason the present system is the most costly in the world is that a third party sits at the bargaining table.  The patent or providing individual doesn't know the cost of the service until after it is performed.  Thus the choice of the person, location and timing of the procedure or even which procedure is part of the decision process for patent.  He can not get different proposals from other providers before choosing.   The difference in cost as reported by the medical industry shows a very high distribution of cost for the same exact same procedure and also a significant different range of procedures.  
This is why a third party bargaining is so costly.  Those at the table make more profit when the cost go up. Insurance companies pass all cost to the client which is passed down to the employee. They have no incentive to reduce cost.
Government health care hire experts that happen to come from those that sit at the table for private health care. Their self interest is not reduce cost. As we see in Canada, England, VA in America, etc.  it is the self interest of the state to reduce cost and since the experts set the price the state administrators can twist the arm of their service providers to not choose the best option for a patent but the cheapest.  They can denial or delay providing services. The VA scandals are all related to these three. Why would another government run health care service be different then the VA?   Myth that government can change and this time they will do better.  Never happens.
The only thing that keeps the Medicare service on its toes is that the patents can shop around for providers that accept medicare.  they pay portion themselves, and they know the services provided to insurance patents as a base line.   Less quality or delay tactic would be questioned, and protested.  Attorneys would be brought it.   Medicare for all would end these safe guards.  
Trump has passed and is continuing to expand the voucher alternative for VA patents.   This will put pressure for the first time, competition.    Competition in a free market improves that market.  Health care is no different.   Doctor Carson ran on  health savings account that already existed in 2016 but was very limited.  So limited that it could not effect prices.   We know that the free market does effect prices of products of all sizes, cost, and complexity.   Health care free market would be no different.  The health savings account takes care of the day to day typical health care needs.  Public health clinics have done the same for the poor.  I believe that Dr. Carson suggested a health credit care provided by the state as food stamps and other welfare program now employ should be used for their health savings account.
Catastrophic is purchase by individuals for home and auto.  Similar insurance would replace the present employee system.  This is already done for health savings accounts programs of employers.  So Dr. Carson's approach is to expand a tested and effectively working system.   The testing has already been done we know that when customers vote with their feet and providers compete cost and quality will favor the patent.   
No national health care system has ever shown that cost and quality both improve. 
Bill H. Added Feb 10, 2019 - 6:01pm
One thing for sure that is out of control is costs for medical services and prescription drugs, not to mention health insurance premiums.
Can you see who is getting screwed here?
The Pharmaceutical companies are smiling all the way to the bank, as are medical service providers. Who ends up paying for much of this? Yes, the health insurance providers (who are also smiling all the way to the bank) and taxpayers (who are the ones getting screwed in the end).
Most are aware that the present leadership is in-bed with lobbyists from all of these corporations, and would never do anything to affect their profits, so any talk from them about "lowering costs" is pure bullshit.
Just recently Big Pharma teamed up together and raised many drug prices by up to 10%. They have now managed to pull off a 50% increase in average prices since 2010. One diabetes drug whose price has shot up lately is Metformin, which treats high blood sugar. Its manufacturer, Granules Pharmaceutical, in December jacked up the price 148 percent.
Thomas Sutrina Added Feb 10, 2019 - 6:21pm
Ana Ross,  The 2008 campaign promise of Obama on health care system, OBAMA CARE (AKA) MATCH CLOSELY MEDICARE.  What we got was not close to the promises.  Why do you thing anything will be different.  What actually becomes law ALWAYS IS WORSE THEN PROMISED.  That is why I call  MEDICARE FOR ALL JUST OBAMA CARE UNDER ANOTHER NAME.  Obama care is not FREE both during the campaign and in practice and also as state by the Supreme Court it is a TAX, not free.   
Ana Ross I can not remember any national health care system call FREE.  So your just trying to create an arguing point that doesn't exist.   Your deflecting from the fact that national health care are expensive and since we can not compare them to anything since as Obama Care did is to destroy what it replaced.    What we do know is that Socialist economies collapse at best or just leave a malaise of misery. 
opher goodwin Added Feb 10, 2019 - 6:25pm
Exactly - In terms of Healthcare the US spends a staggering 18% of its GDP on Healthcare compared to the UK spending 9.8%.
Not even all Americans are covered. 
It is time the US started addressing the obscene inequality that is creating such huge poverty in many areas. It is time it started addressing its appalling public services, poor working benefits and poor infrastructure too.
Things are only good for certain sectors of society.
Doug Plumb Added Feb 10, 2019 - 6:58pm
I think these doctors and big pharma would be out of business if people learned how to eat. Medical requirements would be maybe around half, half pharma sells is anti-inflamatory.
  Real common sense could make this debate irrelevant, if we had it.
  I've learned a lot about this new autophagy / ketosis diet, from my own experience and from youtube videos made by docs. I think it's a game changer. My own experience has been excellent, fixing up a wide variety of little ailments that I attributed to age and smoking.
Ana Ross Added Feb 10, 2019 - 11:35pm
Every self insured companies hire a service to handle the paperwork of health insurance. I have worked from fortune 100 companies to a dozen people companies.  They all use experts to administer the paper work.  And they are all charged for that work.
Medicare for all would relieve corporations from this cost.  The deduction for health care would automatically be given as wages since that is what it is.  Every employee would see a rise in his paycheck because money is not being deducted.  That is automatic.  Being freed from the administrative costs of providing healthcare whether those costs are paid  in house or from a service is money the company could use to become more competitive.
Medicare uses a set table for what they are willing to pay for services so any company that accepts medicare agrees to those prices. With the addition of the average americans  the bargaining price for services such as MRI could be substantially decreased for providers who want to be included in the network. Ditto for drug prices.  These would lower costs overall.
Obama care failed because it is a giveaway to insurance companies who have no incentive to lower prices.  The cost savings were supposed to come because of the mandate.  But this is not really an incentive to cut costs to the consumer.  It is nothing at all like medicare for all.  Having a single insurer lowers the costs to providers having to hire staff to process claims from 50 different companies. I thought Obama sold out by eliminating the public option in his healthcare package so dont look to me to defend Obama.  Obama taught at the university of chicago home to Milton Friedman as far as I am concerned Obama swallowed friedmanite policies throughout his career.
Medicare for all actually increases competition.  Any  one can still buy private insurance but they will have to compete with medicare to attract customers. Since medicare will have the largest base insurance companies will have to innovate to compete.
Finally our current system is broken unless you have the money to afford high end insurance.  If you are unemployed you dont have insurance,  so much money is wasted  by people who cant afford a primary physician and must use emergency rooms as such.  We keep saying we cant afford it but  we can afford 18 years of war in Afghanistan, We can afford to bail out crooks on wall street but we cant afford to do what every other country in the industrialized world somehow manages to do which is to insure healthcare for every citizen.  If your happy with 60% of bankruptcies being caused by our medical system, if you dont mind 4 million kids in the richest country in the world who have no health coverage, If you are happy paying twice as much as anyone else in the world while getting results like being ranked 29 of 35 oecd countries in life expectancy, ranking 20 of 20 wealthy countries in infant mortality then by all means do nothing. I think we can do better and if we need to light a fire under the butt of the insurance companies  then give me a match.  Its time to do something instead of watching America decline in everything worthwhile as the top 1% take 90%of the wealth in this  country by buying out our congress.
Ana Ross Added Feb 10, 2019 - 11:57pm
Mogg Tsur
Here are some other stats
Us medical bankruptcies in 2015 = 1 million *1
UK medical bankruptcies in 2015 = 0
Us life expectancy = 78 yrs
Uk life expectancy = 80 yrs*2
US under 5 mortality per 1000 =6.5
Uk under 5 mortality per 1000 =4.3*3
Flying Junior Added Feb 11, 2019 - 1:48am
You make a great deal of sense and define good points.  I was always surprised that business friendly conservatives saw no value in freeing employers from paying the inflated costs associated with healthcare insurance.  With a single-payer system for national healthcare, businesses could thrive unfettered by any costs associated with healthcare or employee insurance other than worker's compensation insurance.  If I were a big investor or other functional member of the capitalist class, I would be clamoring for it.
Bill H. Added Feb 11, 2019 - 1:55am
Great article.
Makes total sense.
Flying Junior Added Feb 11, 2019 - 2:10am
I'm not sure that it is fair to say that the PPACA failed.  It was a decent stop-gap measure.  It seems to me that many people were forced to pay more for insurance because they had insurance that was little more than catastrophic insurance.  Maybe that defines it as a failure to those concerned.
Take Obamacare and mix in some mean-spirited republican sabotage...  Who really knows?  I was expecting to see a jump in my premiums this year.  It had been relatively stable under the last six years of Obamacare with annual increases actually slowing.  I think people who are paying for full coverage through an employer or large institution may not get hit as hard as others, in particular those who purchase individual insurance policies.  But the worst thing that could have possibly happened was Obama plus Trump and his army of dicks.
opher goodwin Added Feb 11, 2019 - 8:03am
Mogg - interesting facts on the comparison.
Allow me to elucidate further:
On most comparisons the UK comes out very close if not better than the US.
The present problems in the UK health system are due to 10 years of Tory austerity and wage freezes. The cuts are devastating. It has resulted in a shortage of nurses and doctors. Compounded by Brexit where a lot of nurses and doctors have left the country and returned home.
The shortages are regional. Where I live, in the North of England, there are no shortages and no waiting lists. I get to see specialists in no time at all and have no problems in A&E or doctor's. In the inner cities, where living is more expensive, it might be a different picture.
In the UK we tend not to overtreat. They address the illness. In the US it is more like a business. They want to sell you a product and make money out of you. That was certainly mu experience with the US medical system.
Thomas Sutrina Added Feb 11, 2019 - 8:42am
Ana Ross, all of us pick and choose what we copy.  After debunking the 'not and expert in processing medical claims added cost,' you said hiring an expert also cost money.  WHAT YOU CHOSE TO PASS UP WAS THAT THE GOVERNMENT RUNS ON PAPER WORK SO YOUR GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE DOESN'T ELIMINATE PROCESSING COST.  The patent pays for it in all cases. Only the path the money takes is different.
No argument here Ana Ross <<Medicare uses a set table for what they are willing to pay for services >>  That is why it always be expensive.  Present Medicare just for us over 65 is the largest payer in the country so they could slowly reduce the cost of health care since many insurance companies use the price sent by the government to determine their bargaining position.  You again chose to skip my comment that the people that BUILD THE SET TABLE ARE EXPERTS, WHICH MEANS SERVICE PROVIDERS AND INSURANCE PROVIDERS. BOTH SERVE THEIR SELF INTEREST OF INCREASING THEIR PROFITS.  
There is only one person that self interest is to reduce cost and improve quality of service, THE PATENT.  GOVERNMENT self interest is seen in the VA is to reduce cost by any means.  Denying service saying it is to experimental, forcing the choice to less effective service, and delaying providing service.  America is not unique.  Opher, The English national health care (their medicare for all system) denied service and the ability to chose other options for, ask the parents of Alfie Evans and  Charlie Gard, both under three that died as planned by the bureaucrats.  
.Ana Ross again your misleading because I said Obama's 2008 campaign presented a national health care approach was basically MEDICARE FOR ALL.  'keep your doctor' 'choose the provider' choose additional insurance company.   The reason the AKA bill failed to achieve the campaign goals is because the people that wrote the bill were serving there self interest.  They were the 'experts that created those medicare tables and at the bargaining table of insurance companies and providers.   Ana Ross as I said above the only person that would reduce cost and improve service are the patents.  Now where to be found when the bill was written and will not be at the table that writes the MEDICARE FOR ALL BILL.  HISTORY TELLS US THAT THE BILL THAT COMES OUT OF CONGRESS WILL NOT BE CLOSE THE PROMISES.
Medicare increases competition is a straight out lie, fewer participants means less options and less bargaining.  The maximum amount of competition historically always occurs in the free market system.  Health savings account where the patent are presented with the price for services and can vote with there feet to choose the provider.  The providers compete on cost and quality of their service.  Lots of providers and lots of customers will create spontaneous order that will lower cost and improve services.  This works as can be seen in your own life, Ana Ross.  
Ana Ross Added Feb 11, 2019 - 8:31pm
You are missing something about the paperwork that Adam Smith points out in the first chapter of the wealth of nations.  That specialization leads to increased efficiency and profits.  It is extremely inefficient to have a mattress warehouse providing  health insurance.  The business will operate much more efficiently and profitable if it is allowed to focus on its core specialty.  The government can process the paper work much more efficiently than a plant that makes diesel locomotive engines. Having one agency doing all the paperwork is going to be much more efficient than having hundreds of thousands of offices in unrelated concerns doing few each.  That is basic Adam Smith pin factory stuff.
A 2008 study by Milliman averaged payments from Medicare, Medicaid, and private carriers without regard to geographic area, physician specialty, or service type. They found that for the same services, Medicare paid 0.89 from the mean, Medicaid paid 0.60 from the mean, and private carriers paid 1.14 more than mean. This doesnt include the price you would pay without any coverage at all which is outrageous.  So using the government payer system reduces the cost of services by at least 20% over private carriers.
There were many reasons that ACA failed none of them are related to medicare for all.  First, Republican congressmen would shoot their own dogs if they thought Obama would be blamed.  These are people with no regard for the healthcare of the average american.If they hadnt set about to destroy it out of some irrational hatred for the President it might have been stable  for aa while longer.  It would eventually have fallen anyway though.  The way that ACA was supposed to keep costs down was to bribe insurance companies.  This is what the mandate was all about.  It said"We will give you a bunch of new money to keep your prices stable"  The problem is that this was a one off payment. once the industry had captured every customer the mandate would have added the market would have forced prices up again.  It addressed none of the underlying issues behind our out of control medical costs.  The way executive pay is structured in America is the executives are paid bonuses in stock options for short term gains in the price of the stock of their companies.  Stock prices only rise because of the expectation of the earnings of the company are going to grow.  Once the insurance company had adjusted to the the levels that the mandate provided for the insurance company would be in exactly the same place it was before.  To obtain obscene salaries the executives need to insure growth in earnings , once the customer base is stable earnings can only be increased by raising prices.  This would put us in the exact same spot that we are in now five years down the road.  It was essentially a bribe to insurance companies. 
Medicare for all will increase competition because nobody is forcing any insurance provider out of business. There will be an option to buy  private insurance for anyone who wants to but they will have to innovate to provide the service at the price that medicare does.  The extra competition will force insurance to be responsive to their customers if they want to stay in business, something sorely lacking in our current system.
Ana Ross Added Feb 11, 2019 - 8:57pm
Mogg and Thomas,
Nowhere did I say medicare would be free. I wrote about free education but I included the price in for it in the same sentence that I wrote free education so I can only assume that you read my article with a filter that obscured much of what I said and replaced it with what you want me to have said.  No problemo.  I have done the same myself at times, its human nature, try to give it a fair reading.  Its important and I respect both of your intelligence and criticism.
Thomas Sutrina Added Feb 11, 2019 - 9:12pm
Ana Ross your not listening.  A private expert is as efficient as a government expert in doing paperwork. 
Ana Ross again your just spinning away.  Note every medical provider does not take medicare patents and less medicaid patients.  Has been reported even by the liberal media.
Ana Ross your not listening, Obama's 2008 campaign presented 'Medicare for All'  can keep your doctor and provider, you will have choices of providers.  Insurance will pay a small portion families will save $2500.  As a person on Medicare that agrees with my image of Medicare says and often does. 
"Medicare for all will increase competition because nobody is forcing any insurance provider out of business. There will be an option to buy  private insurance for anyone who wants. " economic morons.  The risk of going out of business causes people to work harder as providing better services.  Worked for a fortune 100 and 500 company.  I was so far from the customers and so many dollars as padding.  They create the swamp and could care less about customers because that controlled such a large portion of the market.  Now the one dozen employee company are the innovators and risk takers because they risk going out of business.  The swamp purchases regulations they can afford the small companies can not.  As I said your an economic moron.  
Thomas Sutrina Added Feb 11, 2019 - 9:22pm
You present Milton Friedman.   I am know for quoting his book "Free to Choose" a best seller.  I have quoted this one also and it is one that is short and you should read. about two pages. 
Mustafa Kemal Added Feb 11, 2019 - 10:26pm
Ana, the MIC budget transfered into productive activities would be a godsend to this country. Imagine a 300B/year Pentagon budget?
Oooh, what do we do with this $400B/year?
Ana Ross Added Feb 11, 2019 - 11:22pm
I used to know a private fund manager that only accepted millionaires for customers.  I was surprised after a conversation we had one day when he told me that I didnt need a fund manager to manage my money because I was capable of doing it myself.  A multimillion dollar private fund manager told me I didnt need a fund manager.  So please whatever you think you know about economics I know more.  I know Friedman monetarism failed to stand up to examination.  I know his chicago boys failed in chile.  I know neoliberal economics has failed the modern world and I know that if you think Friedman was a great thinker and economist I know that you should look up the dunning kruger effect before you call anyone an economic moron. Its too bad, I thought you had the intellectual discipline to carry on a discussion about policy without slipping into the weak minded ad hominems those without the ability argue rationally and with intelligence often fall into.  To be short I thought you were smarter than that.  I find it a major failing of the right that when they just dont have the chops to win argument they call others morons etc.  For the sake of your own enlightenment the fact that I am a moron has nothing at all to do with whether my arguments are sound and you haven presented any evidence to back your ridiculous claims up except your own opinions because you worked for a fortune 500 company and some mindless friedman essay that the last decade has shown to be a failure of reason. so no I dont think Ill look at your stupid essay and if you had backed up anything you wrote  with evidence I might be hurt that you think Im a moron but I'll have to remember that youre a republican and the more fox news you watch the dumber you get...
Ana Ross Added Feb 11, 2019 - 11:36pm
 you havent addressed the point I made and second a private company to do the paperwork has to make a profit efficient or not .  There is not a shred of evidence to back up your point.  show it to me. there is not a shred of evidence to show that a private company can do it cheaper in fact every scrap of data from countries tha have universal coverage shows that government does it cheaper.  its just your crazy wish that it isnt so but you have not a shred of evidence to point to.I'm not listening?  you not only havent addressed my point by showing how many small companies can possibly more efficient than one large company which by the way flies in the face of every economic principle ever developed.  Please if your going to argue bring something more than an opinion you formed in your freshman year of college and have never asked if it was true, bring me some numbers your opinion is meaningless.  
Im not going to address the rest of your post since you just dont have the ability to understand real economics.
Doug Plumb Added Feb 12, 2019 - 6:34am
Medicare works in its own interest, it, big pharma and big food have steered Americans far from its true interest in food and nutrition. The standard diet is far from creating a healthy American. Too much carbs and too much sugar. Too much diabetes and pre diabetes. I had it, cured it with autophagy fasting.
  No large government organization is going to operate contrary to its own interest when these interests align with the interests of American people. Diet is a great example.
  Big loving controlling government always leads us to stack of bodies, every single time. Its this kind of government that is desired by the banksters. Its what we export through never ending wars and occupations. American history over the past century has been a trail of blood and destruction as it exports the big loving government to third world and first world states all over the planet. The banks require over 140 foreign occupations to keep it this way, in preparation for the new Jewish world order. Socialism, communism, fascism, etc are all just words that mean Talmudism.
  The establishment has occupied the minds of Americans and has successfully drawn them away from any kind of rational understanding of the basis for the existence of the American constitution, of the common law, its arch enemy. Few constitutionalists have the basic understanding of common law necessary to keep it. Its not taught in schools or churches.
Doug Plumb Added Feb 12, 2019 - 6:40am
re "you not only haven't addressed my point by showing how many small companies can possibly more efficient than one large company which by the way flies in the face of every economic principle ever developed."
...until you consider the cost of corruption. The price of corruption never enters the calculations. It is experienced afterwards and is why the promises of this promised idea never pan out.
  Big medacine has worked for Canada - got some Canadians to realize they need to take control of their own lives and live/eat responsibly.
  Vaccines, a well known scam now, obvious from the statistics, are a big part of the agenda and always have been. Any study that may be contrary to vaccine science just isn't done. "Herd immunity" and other nonsense comes from the mouths of faithful doctors.
Thomas Sutrina Added Feb 12, 2019 - 8:35am
Ana Ross you have said that companies that are expert of something else FILL OUT THE INSURANCE PAPER WORK.   I said they hire experts and are as good at filling out paper work as bureaucrats.   This is a generalized statement that is obvious so no proof is needed.  I never even tried to comment about the efficiency differences between private and government expert systems since then I would have to get into specifics, my guess 10,000 of more different actual offices.  Your free to provide such detail comparisons also.  I give you permission, go for it.
Economic moron applies to all socialist like you and my proof is the collapse of the USSR, Venezuela, and the malaise economies of other communist counties (those that have fully implemented socialism).  China and Vietnam are actually implementing Fascism branch of socialism that your try to attach the the right.   So China and Vietnam are not on the RIGHT?   
The key to socialism is that master minds know better what is good for the collective then the individual citizens.  Full implementation creates a totalitarian class society.   This is the definition of the left.   The right is defined by the Declaration of Independence. 
Sweden and the other Baltic nations say they are not Democratic Socialist (oxymoron combination)  but welfare states with free market capitalism, basically the same choice as India.  Totalitarian governments also choose limited free markets Vietnam and China because it works.  They all have tried the USSR economic approach that was part of the classic definition of socialism.   
Webmaster Added Feb 12, 2019 - 12:25pm
I agree with Ana Ross about the fact that bailouts given to bankrupt bankers in 2008 were nothing else but socialist phenomenon. So it is not AOC who launches socialism in US but state power of that period. Under capitalism, bankrupted banks should have closed like Lehman Brothers did.
Doug Plumb Added Feb 12, 2019 - 3:58pm
I don't believe you can understand macro economics without a great understanding of political science and human nature. Even then outcomes are not deterministic. Socialism is in fact Talmudism. Its the same philosophy. I suggest that socialists start looking into the Noahide laws, but they don't like bad news and tend to avoid it.
Cullen Kehoe Added Feb 12, 2019 - 7:23pm
Free university for state colleges would just turn them into community colleges where people are 'hanging out', going to parties, and the aimless young people would distract from everyone else's learning. That's practically what many universities already are. 
And over time, private universities would be where most businesses want to hire from. 
Germany has free university and very high entrance criteria so only about half of students qualify to get in. The rest have to go to technical school and/or into trades. That's how they keep out the aimless, party man, idiots. 
ChetDude Added Feb 13, 2019 - 6:07pm
As I posted at another article where one of our resident regressives posted an expurgated summary of the REAL (Green Party) Green New Deal - he doubtless meant it as a strawman to beat up on but probably gained us more converts...
A) thank you rycK for posting the Green Party's REAL Green New Deal.  It's not the democrat plan (yet) although I hope they can find their way to adopting it as a starting point...
B) It's always amusing to watch you regressives whine and complain about "How will you pay for it?" when proposals to improve people's lives and prepare for our post-AGW future are put forward.  When the goal is to promote Quality of Life instead of Oligarchy's corporate profits, that ridiculous meme gets trundled out to block it.
But when it comes to pissing away YUGE quantities of our treasure on the bloated war machine that can't win a f*cking war (but is very good at creating paranoia and 'enemies' faster than they can kill them) - pissing away over $18 Trillion (and counting) since 2001 - there's not one peep about how the f*ck we're gonna' pay for it. 
Nor is it ever said "How are you going to pay for it?" when it comes to YUGE subsidies for billionaires and corporate polluters.
C) "How do we pay for it?" As has been mentioned;
1) Since (even right-wing Koch funded "think tanks" have admitted) Expanded and Improved Medicare for All will SAVE the USAmerican People money and provide better care (as EVERY other industrialized nation already knows!) compared to sustaining the corporate, for-profit, remedial sick care system we have, it will pay for itself compared to how severely and quickly the current for-profit system is bankrupting us.
2) Just cutting the bloated war budgets from their current dizzying level of at least $1.2 Trillion per year down to a real DEFENSE FORCE -- let's just say we go to double our closest "enemy's" expenditures and cut the budgets by $750 Billion --  that $750B (with a "B") would be more than enough to finance the entirety of the REAL Green New Deal twice over.
ChetDude Added Feb 13, 2019 - 6:11pm
Goddamn Thomas:  "No national health care system has ever shown that cost and quality both improve. "
The truth is apparent to anyone who knows how Health Care is done around the world that EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED NATION has a superior Health Care system (as a human right) that costs 1/2 what USAmerica's failed, corporate for-profit obscenity costs.  Their people enjoy improved care and healthier outcomes at half the cost...
ChetDude Added Feb 13, 2019 - 6:15pm
Cullen: "Free university for state colleges would just turn them into community colleges where people are 'hanging out', going to parties"
Gee, college tuition was free or nearly free when I went to college in the early 60s and we did do some partying but mainly studied and learned.
And there were some damn fine students working hard at the Community College I went to in the early 90s to take some recording arts courses.  No "hanging out and partying" there at all.  Just learning.
Buy a new meme.