++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Barr appeared before The Senate and continued to hang tough and displayed what a sound attorney he is and what a refreshing appointment Trump has made.
If Barr is given support he might be able to restore confidence in both his department as well as The FBI.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The joy of socialism. (See 1 and 1a below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Will Graham be able to reveal who started the collusion fraud against Trump? (See 2 below.)The shoe now shifts on the other foot and I suspect sweat will begin appearing on the brow of all those who were involved in criminal behaviour such as obtaining illegal FISA warrants, paying for a dossier based on false information and actual spying on a political campaign.
I suspect, before this travesty has been investigated in a thorough manner, the boomerang will reach the top of those in the Obama Administration including him. I believe the boomerang will eventually find it's rightful owner and home because, thank God, our system still has a few people who push for justice and are opposed to allowing a double standard to exist.
Time will tell.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
BDS has backfired. Israel has not been hurt to any great extent but many Palestinians have lost jobs. One more action based on Arab hatred and the results are, as expected - stupid. (See 3 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Buttigieg the Democrat candidate de-jour! Will he be a flash in the pan? (See 4 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Finally, Trump is actually to blame for the immigration crisis because his policies created an improved economy. Thus, America has become a magnet attracting people who want to work.
People who work are an embarrassment to Democrats who prefer those on welfare. Why? Because people who have a job are free to make choices and pay for them. Employed have pride, are not dependent upon government and thus, their enslavement to the Democrat Party could be severed.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
let's hear it from Bernie. If Obamacare made you sick Berniecare surely will cure you of your ills. (See 5 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)The best outcome is a reversion to capitalism. The worst? Hundreds of millions dead.
By Joshua Muravchik
Self-described socialist Bernie Sanders has become a favorite of young voters by posing as an apostle of daring new ideas. Socialism, however, is anything but new. It’s hard to think of another idea that has been tried and failed as many times in as many ways or at a steeper price in human suffering.
The term “socialism” was coined by followers of Robert Owen (1771-1858), whom Karl Marx would label a “utopian socialist.” In 1825 Owen founded New Harmony, an Indiana commune, to demonstrate the superiority of what was first called the “social system.” The same year, Owen explained his experiment to a joint session of Congress attended by Supreme Court justices, President James Monroe and President-elect John Quincy Adams. Although Owen poured his fortune into it, New Harmony collapsed in disarray and recrimination within two years.
Owen’s son Robert Dale Owen salvaged the community by implementing what he called “a policy the very reverse” of socialism: “giving each respectable citizen every facility and encouragement to become (what every adult ought to be) a landed proprietor.”
Undeterred, others founded some 40 to 50 similar communes during the 19th century, and all collapsed quickly. New Harmony’s two years proved to be their median lifespan.
Based on the uniformly dismal results, the idea of socialism might have died a quiet death were it not for Marx (1818-83), who transformed socialism from an experiment—tried, tested and failed—into a prophecy, “the riddle of history solved.” Ironically, he called his vision “scientific socialism.”
Inspired by the dream of proletarian revolution overthrowing capitalist immiseration, socialist parties sprouted across Europe. Yet instead of growing poorer, workers in industrialized countries saw improvement in their living standards; and instead of disappearing, middle classes expanded—all disproving Marx.
It took Vladimir Lenin’s “vanguard” and the horrors of World War I to give socialism new life. In Russia, Lenin pioneered modern communism, which in the 20th century was imposed on 18 countries and one-third of mankind. Repression was justified by socialism’s purported economic benefits, but the actual trade-off entailed economic misery and the snuffing out of as many as 100 million lives.
Today Communist parties rule six countries. Most follow the lead of China, where the party redefined itself to include entrepreneurs. A 2012 Wall Street Journal report identified 160 people with an average net worth of more than $1 billion holding high government or party seats. No Chinese Bernie Sanders rails against them.
“Social democrats” and “democratic socialists” rejected Lenin’s methods. But their goals remained transformational. As British Labour Party leader Clement Attlee, who became prime minister in 1945, explained: “Our policy was not a reformed capitalism but progress toward a democratic socialism.” Labour sought to bring “main factors in the economic system”—including banks, mining and energy—under “public ownership and control.” Nationalization worked so badly, however, that Attlee soon beat a retreat and was voted out in 1951.
In 1981 Socialist François Mitterrand was elected president of France promising a clean “rupture” with capitalism. The results of his spending and nationalizations were so alarming that in 1982 Mitterrand reversed course and implemented austerity measures, which he dubbed “socialist rigor” to save face. “The aim is to bring about a real reconciliation between the left and the economy,” explained Socialist Party chief Lionel Jospin.
American socialists like Mr. Sanders, while often defending the likes of Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro, prefer to point to Scandinavia as a model. But Scandinavian social democrats learned to settle for dense social safety nets underwritten by remarkably free, capitalist economies. On the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business scale, Denmark ranks third of 190 countries, Norway seventh and Sweden 12th.
Still other forms of socialism arose in the Third World. Encouraged by United Nations development experts, virtually all newly decolonized states adopted “African Socialism,” “Arab Socialism” or other variants. The result was years of economic stagnation until the successful models of East Asia began to reverse their thinking.
Successful socialism has been created in only one place on earth, the kibbutzim of Israel. They were democratic and egalitarian; sharing possessions, meals, even child rearing. But once the Jewish state was securely on its feet, kibbutzniks chose to switch to private enterprise. Socialism, they learned to their surprise, was not a happy way to live.
Socialism has failed everywhere it’s been tried—even where it succeeded. Surely today’s young people can create their own ideas and make their own mistakes rather than repeat those that darkened the times of their parents, grandparents and the generations before.
Mr. Muravchik is author of “Heaven on Earth: The Rise, Fall, and Afterlife of Socialism.”
1a) Why Do Young People Find Socialism So Attractive?
To anyone over the age of 40, the growing appeal of socialist policies within the younger generations can be confusing. To us, this nation's capitalist system has provided the highest standard of living the world has ever seen, while "socialism" repeatedly leads to totalitarian governments like China and the USSR and destroys once prosperous nations like Venezuela. One must wonder if our younger generations live in the same world as we do. Do they not see the same things we see?
For the first group, America is already a largely socialist government. Members draw their subsistence from government welfare programs and can receive as much as $1,000 a month for simply not committing crimes. Health care is largely subsidized or simply free, as the recipients either have no money or cannot be traced due to their lack of registration with the government. Food and housing are often subsidized as well, through federal or state programs. They are also givenpreference in access to education and access to programs to offset the cost of that education. Many of them who receive those benefits are citizens of other nations residing here illegally, but they still receive both the preferential access and offset costs denied to citizens and even veterans.
1a) Why Do Young People Find Socialism So Attractive?
To anyone over the age of 40, the growing appeal of socialist policies within the younger generations can be confusing. To us, this nation's capitalist system has provided the highest standard of living the world has ever seen, while "socialism" repeatedly leads to totalitarian governments like China and the USSR and destroys once prosperous nations like Venezuela. One must wonder if our younger generations live in the same world as we do. Do they not see the same things we see?
The answer to these questions is a resounding no. The younger generations are growing up in a nation and a world vastly different from the ones in which Americans over the age of 40 were raised. What they see is therefore filtered through an equally offset lens.
People over the age of 40 saw their parents and grandparents work stable jobs for the entirety of their careers — often with a single parent earning enough to support an entire family. They saw their parents pay into Social Security, and then those same parents drew on those funds upon retirement. Their parents had college degrees without debt. They could access health care without concern that it would bankrupt them. They trusted the safety and competence of the public education system. They trusted elected officials to be honest and to obey the laws of the offices given to them. If their parents failed economically, there was a familial and religious culture that could combine with government programs to help them.
American children today have largely seen the opposite. American workers are routinely replaced by imported foreign workers and by outsourcing to foreign lands. Immigrants and illegal aliens massively drive down labor costs, requiring both parents to work to sustain an ever shrinking family. Everyone pays into Social Security, but no one under the age of thirty believes that it will remain in place for him to draw from when needed. The cost of college is unsustainable. No one trusts elected officials. Everyone feels that a single injury or illness will destroy his finances for decades. For many of us, it feels as if the prevailing sentiment of the now multicultural society is to cheer for our economic failure.
The America of today is starkly divided into two groups: a group that already accesses America as a socialist entity and a group that pays for that system but has no access to it.
For the first group, America is already a largely socialist government. Members draw their subsistence from government welfare programs and can receive as much as $1,000 a month for simply not committing crimes. Health care is largely subsidized or simply free, as the recipients either have no money or cannot be traced due to their lack of registration with the government. Food and housing are often subsidized as well, through federal or state programs. They are also givenpreference in access to education and access to programs to offset the cost of that education. Many of them who receive those benefits are citizens of other nations residing here illegally, but they still receive both the preferential access and offset costs denied to citizens and even veterans.
For the second group, they and their parents have paid into this system through taxes for their entire lives, yet they have seen few, if any, of the benefits to that payment. They are on no government programs. While violent illegal aliens are protected from prosecution, members of this second group receive harsh punishment for even minor nonviolent offenses. Any injury results in massive costs, and they are always fighting to keep jobs with shrinking wages and no security.
To members of this second group, the implementation of government policies that promise them at least a minimal return on the payments they are making into that system is a relief. This is how the younger generation of Americans view a "socialist" model, and this is why they see potential in it.
To young Americans, a system that promises minimal access to equality with other classes living in the U.S. is preferable to a capitalist model that robs them of all funds, all options, and all dignity while providing benefits only to other groups. Access to a terrible health care system is still better than one that will bankrupt you if you touch it. Access to a low-quality but free university system may still be preferable to one that is inaccessible due to race and will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars if you are given the ability to attend. The guarantee of a poorly funded safety net is still better than one that isn't there at all.
The younger generation of Americans do not fear a totalitarian state, where they pay into a system in which the benefits can be accessed only by those with government influence, because younger Americans are already living in that state. The only difference is that those who are receiving the benefit of their labor are not some elite class of rulers from among their own people, but rather those who have the political and cultural power to redirect that wealth. This is namely a migrant class that has become the dominant force in American politics as well as other groups that have been able to establish power to give themselves legal preferences in education, contracting, and protections.
To pull the younger generation back from the lure of "socialism," we must demonstrate both that the rule of law still applies within the U.S. and reassert equality under the law — without delay and without exception. The government must also provide a minimal level of care and benefits for those who pay into the system without allowing threats of violence to pull those resources to citizens of other nations or to be used disproportionately on those who rely solely on those benefits for generations without efforts to rise above those benefits.
In short, the government must cease working for others and once again work for its citizens and stop calling that "socialism.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)
In Mueller's wake, Graham vows to investigate alleged FISA abuse, Clinton campaign
Graham calls out "double standard" in wake of Mueller investigation.
By Mariam Khan
GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham said on Monday that he will use his authority as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee to potentially "look into the other side" of the story now that special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation is complete.
Mueller's report into the Kremlin's interference in the 2016 presidential election did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia, according to a letter to Congress from Attorney General William Barr.
The letter describes "two main" Russian efforts to influence the election including "attempts by a Russian organization … to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States" and "the Russian government’s efforts to conduct computer hacking operations" targeting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic Party.
Graham, one of President Donald Trump’s staunchest allies on Capitol Hill, said he would like to "find somebody like a Mr. Mueller" to look into several other grievances, which he laid out to reporters during a press conference, including why the FBI spied on Trump associate Carter Page, and the 2016 airport tarmac meeting between former attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton.
"When it comes to the FISA warrant, the Clinton campaign, the counterintelligence investigation, it’s pretty much been swept under the rug ... those days are over,” he said. “I’m going to get answers to this."
He added: "If the shoe were on the other foot, it would be front page news all over the world. The double standard here has been striking and quite frankly disappointing."
Graham, like most Democrats and several other Republican senators, also called for the public release of the Mueller report.
"My desire is for the public to get as much of the report as possible…" Graham said.
Several Republicans have indicated that despite the Mueller investigation being over, they want to see the underlying evidence.
“I appreciate the Attorney General’s quick turnaround in sharing his summary of the Special Counsel’s report. AG Barr should release as much of the report as possible, without jeopardizing U.S. intelligence sources and methods or ongoing Department of Justice prosecutions,” Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr said Sunday in a tweet.
But other GOP senators also think it’s time for Congress to move on from investigating Trump.
"Democrats in Congress now have a choice to make: accept the findings of the Mueller report and move on to advancing the business of the American people or instead pander to their fringe base by rejecting the Mueller report and launching politically-motivated and conspiracy-fueled investigations that will further divide our country," GOP Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina said in a statement.
Graham also vowed to bring in Attorney General William Barr before his committee to testify on the investigation and its findings. But it was unclear if he intends to call in Mueller.
"I don't know the answer to that about the special counsel himself," Graham said. "Let's start with Mr. Barr, who is in charge of the Department of Justice. I want you to know as much as you possibly can know. It's a big deal."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) BDS Co-founder, Who Calls for Israel's Destruction, Leads Annual Anti-Israel Conference
Omar Barghouti – cofounder of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement – openly supports terrorism against Israelis and calls for the destruction of the Jewish state. Like other BDS activists, he continues to deceive international and western audiences by claiming that the BDS movement is a primarily peaceful tool for protesting Israel. Last month's annual BDS National Committee (BNC) conference in Ramallah was no exception.
3) BDS Co-founder, Who Calls for Israel's Destruction, Leads Annual Anti-Israel Conference
IPT News
Omar Barghouti – cofounder of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement – openly supports terrorism against Israelis and calls for the destruction of the Jewish state. Like other BDS activists, he continues to deceive international and western audiences by claiming that the BDS movement is a primarily peaceful tool for protesting Israel. Last month's annual BDS National Committee (BNC) conference in Ramallah was no exception.
Speaking to Palestinian BDS activists at the conference, Barghouti called on Palestinians to cut all ties to Israel while other speakers promoted "popular resistance" (or violence), the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center reports.
Barghouti specifically demanded that the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), and Palestinian society as a whole end all relations with Israel. He also said that the BDS movement is against "members of the Zionist media" appearing on Arab media outlets.
He even called for an end to security coordination, the most visible form of normalization between Israel and the Palestinians, despite Israel's success in shoring up the Palestinian Authority (PA) from Hamas attempts to take over the West Bank. Barghouti believes Palestinian security cooperation with Israel is a step towards wider Arab normalization – something he vehemently opposes.
During the conference, Omar's relative Mustafa Barghouti, secretary general of the National Initiative Movement, admitted that anti-Israel activists sought to turn BDS into a "national culture" and integrate its ideals as part of the wider "popular resistance" campaign against Israel.
In the conference's opening speech, PLO Executive Committee member Wasel Abu Yusuf similarly referenced BDS as an important component of the "popular resistance."
Palestinian leaders of various stripes often invoke the term "popular resistance" as a veiled reference to terrorism and violent Palestinian campaigns targeting Israeli civilians.
While the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Fatah are not actively involved in the BDS movement, their formal participation during the latest conference suggests Palestinian leaders see BDS as a legitimate method to counter Israel.
BDS – which seeks to isolate Israel economically and culturally – is considered anti-Semitic because it singles out the world's only Jewish state and ignores countries with far worse human rights records.
Barghouti also criticized forms of economic normalization between Palestinian and Israeli businesses, despite the interdependent nature of both economies. Israeli firms play an important role in the stability of Palestinian society by providing a sizeable number of West Bank residents with meaningful employment.
In the past, Barghouti openly supported Palestinian terrorism against Israel, the Meir Amit Center report showed.
"No, we most definitely have a moral and legal right to an armed resistance against the military occupation of our land, even according to international law, as long as we attack legitimate targets, that is, the occupation, settlers (Israeli civilians) and people who are armed," Barghouti said in a 2010 interview with al-Adab magazine.
Many BDS demonstrations feature extremists chanting calls for Israel's destruction.
"From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free," "there is only one solution intifada (violent uprising) revolution" and "the people of Palestine will wipe the Zionist entity (Israel) off all the world maps," are just some of the slogans and statements picked up by exclusive IPT video of a December 2017 rally in New York City.
Barghouti frequently visits Western countries, particularly the United States, to spread BDS-related propaganda and activities. He promotes a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and "rejects the existence of a Jewish nation state," the Meir Amit report said.
Like the BDS movement overall, Barghouti's main objective is to facilitate a "right of return" for Palestinian refugees and their families abroad to move to Israel and upend the Jewish majority.
And like other anti-Israel activists, Barghouti couches his disdain for the Jewish state while speaking to Western audiences by invoking vague concepts like "democracy" and "justice."
U.S.-based Islamists embrace a similar strategy and support the BDS movement's overarching objective of destroying the Jewish state.
Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) San Franciso chapter director Zahra Billoo, for example, acknowledged in November that she is "not going to legitimize a country [Israel] that I don't believe has a right to exist." She also has denounced Muslim leaders who oppose the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement.
"I don't think of them as my leaders," Billoo said at a November gathering with the Ecumenical Peace Institute.
Billoo, like other U.S. Islamist figures, consistently opposes any type of engagement or interfaith dialogue with organizations that support Israel.
CAIR leaders from across the country often espouse blatantly anti-Semitic views. CAIR's Los Angeles chapter Executive Director Hussam Ayloush has referred to"zionazis" and openly called for Israel's termination, while Florida director Hassan Shibly refused to condemn Hamas and vilified "Israel [and] its supporters" as the "enemies of God and humanity."
Pro-BDS or anti-Israel conferences are not strictly limited to the Palestinian territories or the Arab world.
In September, a leading American BDS group, the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights (USCPR), held a conference in which speakers minimized nonviolent ways to protest Israel.
It is common for Islamists and pro-Palestinian activists to sanitize terrorist attacks as "legitimate resistance" at such events, but three USCPR speakers came right out and made a case for violence, going much further than "boycotts and divestment."
One speaker, a university professor, made a point of praising a terrorist murderer, while then-CNN pundit and Temple University professor Marc Lamont Hill diminished non-violent protest as a path for Palestinians to follow by saying "this nonviolent thing" can be too limiting, and raising a question "what legitimate resistance looks like."
The Meir Amit report makes clear what Barghouti and his BDS movement are about. It may be presented in softer rhetoric, but the goals are indistinguishable from Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other rejectionist groups: They want a world in which Israel has been replaced, the only distinction is whether that's done through mass terrorism or through deceit-laden boycott drives. To see the full report, click here.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4) How Astonishing Is Mayor Pete’s Rise?
The candidate started from the bottom and has officially arrived—in the middle of the Democratic pack.
By
Things are going much better for Pete Buttigieg than he could have realistically hoped. This month has brought the South Bend, Indiana, mayor promising polling numbers, flatteringcoverage, and a stunning fundraising haul. He spent the first few days of his campaign teaching reporters how to pronounce his name; he’s spent the past few getting profiled by TheDaily Show and appearing on Meet the Press. It’s been a remarkable rise for the 37-year-old, who unofficially entered the primary in late January with an exploratory committee but who won’t formally launch his bid for president until this weekend.
The latest batch of good news for Buttigieg came this week by way of two new national surveys, one each from HarrisX and Morning Consult, both of which have him solidly in the second tier of candidates—well behind Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, who remain out in front by a statistical mile, but right in the middle of the half-dozen credible contenders bunched up behind the two favorites. The RealClearPolitics national average is starting to tell a similar story. Last month, Mayor Pete was having a moment; this month, it looks like he has an actual chance.
Still, a bucket of cold context is in order. Buttigieg may be “the Democratic upstart of the moment” or “the hottest candidate in the land,” in the words of some of this week’s coverage, but only when viewed through the lens of expectations. By most real-world metrics, he’s performing roughly as well as Cory Booker or Amy Klobuchar, both of whom have far more endorsements, nearly as much cash, and roughly the same polling numbers as Buttigieg but who haven’t received the kind of fawning coverage he has of late. Kirsten Gillibrand might be willing to trade places with Buttigieg at the moment, but I don’t think Elizabeth Warren or Beto O’Rourke would—even as the former struggles to raise money and the latter draws critical coverage for simply holding steady after entering the race with a record-breaking bang.
Here’s an oversimplified timeline of Buttigieg’s ascent to the middle tier: He started campaigning in January, began to get noticed with some real talk about packing the Supreme Court in February, received rave reviews for his CNN town hall performance the following month, and then kicked off April with a fundraising report of $7 million, which ultimately placed him below Sanders ($18.2 million), Kamala Harris ($12 million), and O’Rourke ($9.4 million), and above Booker ($5.2 million) and Klobuchar ($5.1 million) on the unofficial first-quarter leaderboard. No one saw that coming.
Along the way there was plenty of excitement about his potential to make history as the first openly gay nominee of a major party, along with the related conversation about how his sexuality intersects with his lived experience as a white man. There were also the charming anecdotes about his nerdiness that proved catnip for certain swaths of Twitter, a narrative that overshadowed the reality that his reputation as a Big Thinker has largely yet to translateinto policy specifics—unlike a certain other second-tier candidate who also has Harvard on her résumé. All the while, Buttigieg’s traditional biography—Rhodes scholar, McKinsey consultant, Navy officer—has won him fans among the establishment set.
After that impressive start, Buttigieg remains on the upswing. He was mentioned a total of 216 times on Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN between March 31 and April 6, according to FiveThirtyEight, which counted cable news mentions of the candidates in the race (i.e., not Biden). The only candidates talked about more were Sanders (551) and O’Rourke (300). Following Buttigieg on the list: Harris (198), Tim Ryan (165), Warren (163), and Julian Castro (69). The frequency with which Ryan was mentioned is telling: With 24 hours to fill in a day, the talking heads are desperate for something, anything, new to talk about.
This isn’t a knock on the media for looking beyond the usual suspects. This is how things are supposed to work, generally speaking. The political press casts an increasingly wide net, which gives more candidates the chance to make their pitches to voters, and then voters decide whether those candidates are worth more attention. Polling and fundraising are imperfect metrics, but they’re the best the media has when the first nominating contests are still 10 months away. In a Democratic primary that has so far been lacking in surprises, Mayor Pete is a clear exception. And given the ongoing concerns about Biden’s behavior around women, it also seems like a particularly good time for moderate Democrats to consider their options.
For all of Buttigieg’s online buzz, it’s important to remember that Twitter is not the real world. He remains largely unknown IRL. He is currently at 2.9 percent in the RealClearPolitics national average, good for seventh place. If 2.9 percent doesn’t sound like a lot, well, it’s because it isn’t. Buttigieg’s support was within the margin of error in five of the seven polls that make up that average, including the new one from HarrisX, which was released Monday evening. (A sixth survey, the Harvard-Harris Poll, did not calculate margin of error). The one exception was the Morning Consult survey, released Tuesday morning, which found Buttigieg at 5 percent nationally, up from 1 percent a month ago
Given how static the polling has been in the (very) early days of the primary, Buttigieg’s subtle bump is important—elections by definition are popularity contests, after all—but it obscures the reality that 1 in 2 Democrats surveyed by Morning Consult still have not heard of him and roughly 2 in 3 have no opinion about him. His national profile really is on the rise, but he has a long way to go before he’s in the same ballpark as Warren, O’Rourke, or Harris—let alone Biden and Sanders, who currently enjoy near-universal name recognition. For now, then, Buttigieg’s standing is largely a matter of perspective: His current position looks remarkable given where he started, but it’s also a long way from where he’ll need to finish.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5) Sanders’ new ‘Medicare for All’ plan: Still not free, still pro abortion
Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday released an updated bill to implement a single-payer health insurance system, legislation that is politically divisive and will be a hallmark of his White House bid.
The unnumbered Senate bill would transition the U.S. health care system to a single-payer system over a four-year transition and eliminate nearly all premiums, copays and deductibles. The legislation largely mirrors Sanders’ 2017 proposal, but the new plan also would cover home and community-based long-term care services through an expanded Medicare program, according to a summary. The earlier version would have maintained those services through existing Medicaid benefits.
The “Medicare for All” concept, which the Vermont independent ran on during his unsuccessful 2016 presidential campaign, has become more popular since then. Still, as of Tuesday night, Sanders’ single-payer bill had secured just 14 Democratic Senate co-sponsors, fewer than the 16 that signed on by last year.
His bill comes after other Democrats have offered their own proposals to expand health insurance coverage, such as allowing people to buy into Medicare or Medicaid or creating a Medicare-run public option to be sold on the exchanges created under the health care law.
The biggest change from Sanders’ previous bill — to expand long-term care services — in part mirrors a House bill introduced by Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., earlier this year. Sanders’ proposal would cover home and community-based care through the expanded Medicare program, but care provided in an institution, such as in a nursing home, would continue to be covered through Medicaid. Jayapal’s bill would cover all of that through the universal Medicare program. That change earned significant support from disability advocates.
The Medicare program envisioned through Sanders’ and Jayapal’s plans would be a significant expansion of the program as it exists today. It would cover mental health care, vision and dental, emergency transportation and substance abuse treatment, among other things.
Sanders proposed a four-year phase-in, so the qualifying age for Medicare would fall from the current 65 by a decade each year. That’s slower than the two-year transition under Jayapal’s measure.
During that transition, people could buy into the program. People currently enrolled in federal health programs would transition into the universal Medicare program, although the Indian Health Service and the Department of Veterans Affairs would both stay independent for at least a decade.
All health care providers would be required to sign a participation agreement that would ban discrimination on issues including race, national origin, income, religion, age, sex or sexual orientation, disability or illness. Providers would be paid based on the existing Medicare fee schedule and existing alternative payment methods created under the 2010 health care law and a 2015 Medicare overhaul law would continue.
That differs from the House bill, under which hospitals would be paid through a global budget that would pay institutions regular lump sums throughout the year to cover care, while individual providers would be paid on a fee-for-service payment schedule.
Sanders’ bill would also create a national health budget to cover the cost of services delivered under the act and make other payments, including public health activities, capital expenditures and administrative costs. For the program’s first five years, that budget may also cover transition assistance to workers affected by the change to the insurance industry. It would establish a trust fund for the program to cover issues such as public health emergencies.
The plan would require Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices and establish a drug formulary, while allowing patients and providers to petition for certain drugs to be on or off the formulary.
While the bill would eliminate premiums and deductibles, enrollees would still face a $200 maximum copay each year for prescription drugs.
The plan would ban the Hyde amendment, which prohibits federal funds from covering abortion in most cases.
The program would be run by the Health and Human Services secretary leading the new Universal Medicare Agency, along with six other people to be confirmed by the Senate.
Sanders’ bill does not lay out how the measure would be financed, but in a separate white paper he argues that funding the program would be repurposing current spending. The average family would save thousands of dollars annually without out-of-pocket spending on health care, he says.
Still, families would likely face higher taxes to finance a single-payer system.
Some ways he’s proposed to pay for the bill include a 4 percent income-based premium paid by employees that exempts the first $29,000 for a family of four, a 7.5 percent income-based premium on employers that exempts the first $2 million in payroll, making the federal income tax more progressive, or establishing a tax on extreme wealth.
Others supporting the bill are Sens. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis.; Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.; Cory Booker, D-N.J.; Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.; Kamala Harris, D-Calif.; Martin Heinrich, D-N.M.; Mazie K. Hirono, D-Hawaii; Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt.; Edward J. Markey, D-Mass; Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.; Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii; Tom Udall, D-N.M.; Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.; and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.
One previous co-sponsor, former Minnesota Democrat Al Franken, is no longer in office. Another, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, decided not to support it this time, an indication of how the issue divides Democrats who otherwise are unified behind a general desire to expand coverage.
“There are faster ways to reach universal coverage by building on the progress we’ve made through the Affordable Care Act, while addressing the high cost of care and medications,” Shaheen said.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment