January 29, 2016

Bernie Sanders And Elizabeth Warren May Have Just Saved Consumers $14 Billion

Source: Huffington Post

WASHINGTON -- Cable customers who are tired of paying through the nose to rent set-top boxes are about to see some serious savings, thanks to a new proposal from the Federal Communications Commission.

The new regulation would open up the set-top box market to consumer choice so that customers could rent or buy devices from providers other than their cable companies. About 99 percent of cable customers currently rent set-top boxes from their cable company. According to a survey commissioned by Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), cable customers pay an average of $232 a year for those rentals -- a $20 billion market annually, just for set-top box rentals.
...
Cable companies and their lobbyists are furious about the plan, which the commission is set to vote on Feb. 18. But the proposal didn't emerge from a vacuum. Liberal senators have been pressuring the FCC to act on cable "monopolies" for months. In July, current Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) organized a letter calling on the agency to collect a host of consumer pricing information from cable companies -- a move designed to show that in many regions of the country, households pay arbitrarily high prices due to a lack of other cable options. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Markey and Blumenthal all signed on to the letter.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fcc-proposal-cable-tv-boxes_us_56aa781ae4b05e4e3703b26e

---

Way to go Bernie and Elizabeth!! (though we have to wait for Feb 18th vote to really celebrate)

January 28, 2016

I'll focus on this lame crap:

Mr. Sanders’s story continues with fantastical claims about how he would make the European social model work in the United States. He admits that he would have to raise taxes on the middle class in order to pay for his universal, Medicare-for-all health-care plan, and he promises massive savings on health-care costs that would translate into generous benefits for ordinary people, putting them well ahead, on net. But he does not adequately explain where those massive savings would come from. Getting rid of corporate advertising and overhead would only yield so much. Savings would also have to come from slashing payments to doctors and hospitals and denying benefits that people want.

Unfortunately, The Editorial Board of the Washington just flunked reading comprehension.

Sanders got an economist to lay out his proposal financially
https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/friedman-memo-1.pdf

FeeltheBern: BERNIE SANDERS ON HEALTHCARE
http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-healthcare/
See section on:
How the heck are we going to pay for it?

Sanders site: Medicare for All
https://berniesanders.com/medicareforall/
See section on:
HOW MUCH WILL IT COST AND HOW DO WE PAY FOR IT?

One thing a high school level journalist knows is that when they're going to write about something, they should research it a little. And if they're confused or want to know more (which they normally should if they're going to write about a subject), then they should try to contact a group like the Sanders campaign to get whatever understanding or clarification they require. The Sanders campaign is in the business right now of clarifying their policies to the media.

Has that happened here with the Washington Post? No way. I'd flunk their high school level of journalism.

And if they were really stuck, all they had to do was ask one of their other reporters who told Washington Post readers how it was going to be paid for right here!!!:
Bernie Sanders’s health-care plan is the biggest attack on the rich of this campaign
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/17/bernie-sanders-new-health-care-plan-is-his-biggest-attack-on-the-rich-so-far/

We also know that, by Sanders' accounting, the plan would actually put more money into the pockets of all but the very richest Americans.

That's because the planned tax increases would be more than offset by a decline in how much most Americans pay for their health care — their premiums, their deductibles, their co-pays, all of it — per Sanders' math.

There are still lots of questions about how the middle class would fare under his new plan. But it's clear they would definitely do better than the rich.

Employers would put up about half of what Sanders’ staff think the campaign would cost. They’d pay a new payroll tax of 6.2 percent, equal to the amount employers already pay to Social Security. That tax would raise $630 billion a year, the campaign projects.

A bunch of these guys were also able to figure it out:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/perspective/politifact-how-much-would-bernie-sanders-health-care-plan-cost-the-middle/2261384

Others, however, are more optimistic that Sanders' plan could be actuarially sound.

"The tax rates are probably on the low side of what would be necessary, but not out of the ballpark," said Peter Hussey, a healthy policy analyst at the RAND Corp., adding that they would work only with significant cost savings and lower benefits.

Hussey pointed to other financing models with higher taxes. In Sanders' own Vermont, the proposed single-payer state system would require a payroll tax of 11.5 percent and a sliding income tax of 0 to 9.5 percent. A national single-payer system would require a payroll tax of 11.7 percent, according to the National Institute for Health Care Reform.

Gerald Friedman, a health economist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, analyzed a different 2013 Medicare-for-all bill proposed by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., and concluded it would be enough to cover everyone, upgrade benefits and save the country $5 trillion over a decade.

But beyond a 6 percent income tax and a sliding payroll tax of 3 to 6 percent, that would require a financial transaction tax (Sanders included this in his 2013 bill but has since committed the tax to free college tuition) as well as an estate tax, a capital gains tax and a cap on high-income tax deductions. (Sanders has proposed these but hasn't said they'll be used to pay for health care.)

Friedman calculated that with the extra taxes and some tweaks, Sanders' plan would provide ample coverage and even generate a surplus of $51 billion. Meanwhile, he said, middle-class families would still save thousands, inequality in care and costs would be dramatically reduced, and the overall population would be healthier.

Right now, the United States spends about $3 trillion (roughly) on healthcare covering about 90% of it's people.

Let's do really simplistic ballpark math.
1. We want to cover the final 10% of those not covered so (and this is excessive) let's add 10% of $3 trillion (in fact, it's closer to half that according to Krugman).
2. Corporation / healthcare insurance company profits do not have to be paid anymore. There's 5% roughly
3. Administration costs go way down. Let's be conservative and say 5% savings.

So with single payer, we've simply added the 29 million people who don't have it (10%) and chopped corporate profit (5%) and admin costs savings (5%) you get with single payer. And it hasn't cost the United States a fucking dime. It's not rocket science to figure this out.

In fact, the real numbers are about twice as good as that:
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-system-cost

July 2013: Economist Gerald Friedman, Ph.D., University of Massachusetts, Amherst

“Under the single-payer system created by HR 676 [the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, introduced by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich.], the U.S. could save an estimated $592 billion annually by slashing the administrative waste associated with the private insurance industry ($476 billion) and reducing pharmaceutical prices to European levels ($116 billion). In 2014, the savings would be enough to cover all 44 million uninsured and upgrade benefits for everyone else.

“Specifically, the savings from a single-payer plan would be more than enough to fund $343 billion in improvements to the health system such as expanded coverage, improved benefits, enhanced reimbursement of providers serving indigent patients, and the elimination of co-payments and deductibles in 2014.

“Health care financing in the U.S. is regressive, weighing heaviest on the poor, the working class, and the sick. With the progressive financing plan outlined for HR 676, 95% of all U.S. households would save money.

“HR 676 would also establish a system for future cost control using proven-effective methods such as negotiated fees, global budgets, and capital planning. Over time, reduced health cost inflation over the next decade (“bending the cost curve”) would save $1.8 trillion, making comprehensive health benefits sustainable for future generations.”

A fair review of Sanders plan to provide Medicare for All determines in the opinion of many that it's plausible. All those other folks above could figure it out but not the Washington Post Editorial Board ... who are owned by the corporate interests Sanders is going after.

I go back with the Washington Post to before Watergate. That's the most pathetic drivel I've ever read from their Editorial Board in my life. It's a lazy man's mindless bullshit deliberately intended to misinform and smear a candidate.

January 27, 2016

Sanders +8 in NH Poll, More Electable against Trump & Bloomberg than Hillary

http://media.wix.com/ugd/3bebb2_fdba60d808d0424aabe75c667d268972.pdf

Sanders holds a steady lead over Clinton of 52% to 44%.
...
Sanders is the only candidate with a positive favorability overall: (54% favorable to 40%
unfavorable) among New Hampshire voters. All other candidates have high negatives
among voters: Clinton (40% favorable to 55% unfavorable)
...

Former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg has been considering a third-party run for the
presidency. In a general election between Sanders, Trump, and Bloomberg, Sanders
comes out ahead by 11 points, securing 44%. Trump comes in second with 33% and
Bloomberg finishes third with 11%. In a general election between Clinton, Trump, and
Bloomberg, the race tightens with Clinton ahead by three points at 39%, Trump at 36%
and Bloomberg at 12%.
...

Another good result for Bernie who is +13.8 in RealClear's poll of polls
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_presidential_primary-3351.html

January 27, 2016

Why Trayvon Martin’s family attorney is endorsing Bernie Sanders

link

TJS: So, why are you throwing your support behind Sen. Bernie Sanders?

NJ: I’ve been supporting him from the very beginning. I like the fact that he is anti-establishment and pro-economic justice. My initial support of him was around his refrain that “We have to take money out of politics.” Then he came out for us when he hired Symone Sanders [as his national press secretary]. It really reinforced that I made the right decision. After the Black Lives Matter protests in Seattle, a lot of people were upset that they interrupted Bernie Sanders. But I thought that he did what a president should do: Instead of taking the criticism as an insult, he saw it as an opportunity to improve his campaign and that’s what we want our leaders to do.
...
TJS: If you were on national television and had 30 seconds to pitch Bernie to America, what would you say?

Jackson: One of the things that people get wrong is that he is the idealist or the dreamer. But what we’ve been sold by all of these politicians so far are dreams and ideas; Bernie actually has a solid plan that says, “Listen: True American democracy is the empowerment of the average working class person; not corporate business interests or the privileged top 1% (which the majority of Black America has never been a part of). College should be free for students, universal health care should be available to everyone, corporate money shouldn’t rule governmental action, and government should focus on things that will help everyone not the few.” I don’t think he’s the dreamer. We’ve been sold status quo dreams all of these years and some of us can’t recognize the real from the dream anymore. Bernie Sanders is real, and he’s discussing the things that we need. Especially black people.

January 27, 2016

DNC Chair Attempts To Block Unsanctioned New Hampshire Democratic Debate

http://www.hngn.com/articles/173695/20160127/dnc-chair-attempts-block-unsanctioned-new-hampshire-democratic-debate.htm

Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz said Tuesday that an additional debate in New Hampshire ahead of the early voting state's primary is unlikely to happen, dealing a blow to co-hosts MSNBC and the New Hampshire Union Leader.

"We have no plans to sanction any further debates before the upcoming First in the Nation caucuses and primary, but will reconvene with our campaigns after those two contests to review our schedule," Wasserman Schultz said in a statement, referring to early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire. "Our three major candidates are already scheduled to appear on the same stage next week for the New Hampshire Democratic Party dinner on February 5th."

...

Here's her statement
http://www.democrats.org/Post/dnc-statement-on-demdebate-schedule

DNC STATEMENT ON #DEMDEBATE SCHEDULE JANUARY 26, 2016
WASHINGTON – DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz issued the following statement on the primary debate schedule:

“Here are the facts. Democratic debates this cycle have far exceeded the viewership of debates in past competitive primaries. Our October debate in Nevada set a Democratic primary record with 15.8 million viewers, the sixth-biggest non-sport cable broadcast in U.S. history, while our most recent debate on NBC was the third highest-rated debate in Democratic primary history with 12.5 million viewers including broadcast and online streaming. Our next DNC-sanctioned debate featuring our major candidates will be held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin hosted by PBS on February 11th, with another already scheduled for March 9th with Univision and the Washington Post. We have consistently worked with our campaigns to ensure a schedule that is robust and that allows them to engage with voters in a variety of ways, whether through debates, forums, town halls, but also leaving them the flexibility to attend county fairs and living room conversations in states like Iowa and New Hampshire where direct voter contact matters so much. We have no plans to sanction any further debates before the upcoming First in the Nation caucuses and primary, but will reconvene with our campaigns after those two contests to review our schedule. Our three major candidates are already scheduled to appear on the same stage next week for the New Hampshire Democratic Party dinner on February 5th.”

Bernie Sanders campaign has stated it will not participate in an unsanctioned debate

January 24, 2016

I agree. Hillary represents basically more of the same, though a little further

to the right, with no guarantee she'll retain the White House - particularly if her scandals catch up to her.

Bernie represents change though some could argue accurately that he represents what liberal democrats used to stand for.

Hopefully, we realize and do what we didn't do for six Obama years: follow through and get the House & Senate for him. That's what it will take to get meaningful change.

January 24, 2016

I think the establishment endorses Hillary while gleefully rubbing their hands together

imagining a cabinet post, help in their re-election campaign, cashing in on lobbying, etc - something like that. Many of them strike me as pigs at the Washington trough looking for some more slop - not looking out for what is truly best for the people they represent.

To me, that's the core difference between the candidates: Bernie really cares and has all his life while Hillary pretends to care or is limited in how sincerely she cares while manipulateing the media to try to portray she cares as much as Bernie. Look over their careers if you doubt that. Actions speak louder than words.

I cannot comprehend and do not get the sensation that the establishment just "love" Hillary - much like I question Hillary's sincerity. Many are coldly just putting their money down on the best looking horse in the race to them at this time for their own self gain.

A number who had endorsed Hillary in 2008 switched Obama - jumped on a better horse.

I think Hillary represents the status quo - not lots will change in Washington on her watch. Washington will continue to be owned by Wall Street. No single payer. Any civil rights issues will be decided on how they affect her and their re-electability, income inequality will persist, more gridlock, a move to the neocon right on foreign affairs, etc Folks in Washington will resist change because they're the ones who need to be changed out.

Bernie might wind up with a similar result but at least he's going to try to change things as he has his entire life. Whether he does or not is up to us and whether we can get his political revolution results in the Senate and House.

Maybe I'm cynical but that's how I see it.

January 23, 2016

When you see her campaign going to the lengths of deception about Bernie it has in the

last few weeks, it makes a rational person wonder "Why can't Hillary win with the truth?"

When one lies, flip-flops and deceives as readily as Hillary has throughout her career and in this campaign, it's hard to enthusiastically support her. I'd never support anything resembling the present day GOP but if Hillary prevails, I'm not sure what effort I'll be able to muster knowing my heart won't be behind her and that her campaign, when it involves people like David Brock doing a hatchet job on her opponent, is closer to resembling the GOP than anything I can recall in my history with the Democrats.

Bernie on the other hand, he's straight up. He tells you plain and simple where he stands and why. And you can look back 40-50 years and see him taking similar positions throughout his life.















Bernie has been elected for decades running on the things he believes in his heart. He had a pretty good vision as a young man because he hasn't had to "evolve" on many of his basic ideas about foreign wars, income diversity, etc. He doesn't have to lie. He doesn't have to flip-flop to get votes like Hillary. He doesn't have to hire political hit men to tear down his opponent with lies and deception like Hillary. You can take to the bank what he says because that's what he's done and fought for his entire life. Hillary's political epitaph will never be able to say anything like that because she's a political chameleon who rapidly changes color to attain political power - not necessarily because it's the right thing to do.

January 23, 2016

My folks often repeated an old expression:

"you are judged by the company you keep"

January 22, 2016

Feb 29 isn't just Iowa & NH, it basically gets her past

Super Tuesday on March 1 because no one can digest nearly 10,000 pages of emails over night and get that out into the media and to the electorate while the polls are open the next day.

This is just the end of the batch of emails Hillary produced. Someone has sued to get the batch of deleted emails the FBI recovered (that are supposed to be all personal - and I don't think they can get those)