Yes, prior to the Reagan Revolution American companies actually invested in their workers, their communities, and their business. They attended to the needs of their customers, by in large...
I was in the middle of these changes as my own legal practice until health forced me to retire was predominantly as an antitrust and trade regulation lawyer. The evolution you so accurately describe really began before Reagan, though, with the GTE-Sylvania case in 1977, in which the Supreme Court effectively made presumptively legal “vertical” restrictions aside from price imposed by manufacturers on distributors. I was largely a defense attorney, but with each new decision loosening regulation, I warned my colleagues that they were cheering the demise of their practices, not just the end of the anti-monopolistic thrust and intention of the antitrust laws.
It was more rewarding to me to help clients comply with what I viewed as extremely important protections for the businesses, people and places you identify than to win victories for heavy-handed restrictions imposed by my corporate clients. To no avail. By the time I was forced to retire some twenty years ago, antitrust enforcement had become so moribund that my practice became predominantly focused on intellectual property and securities regulation. I found neither as appealing, vital, or intellectually stimulating as antitrust law, and clearly saw in concrete ways the negative effects of its demise.
But I fear that the best intentions of a hopefully re-elected Biden Administration will be thwarted by Big Money and its servile, captive SCOTUS majority, for which I have lost all respect. It is worse than the court FDR faced early in his Presidency. It is the worst court since the one under Chief Justice Roger Taney that issued the Dred Scott decision. It will effectively gut any new legislation or Executive Orders designed to strengthen antitrust, anti-monopoly or oligopoly regulation in this country. All of us, save the morbidly rich, will be the poorer as a result. We are truly the United $tate$ of America...
Thom said Bork, "He never considered the impact on a community now having no say in how destructively businesses in that community were run. He never considered the impact on workers of giant employers engaging in nationwide union-busting and pension-stripping."
I think Bork considered those outcomes but rejected them as not as important as helping the wealthy get wealthier. He wanted to go back to the gilded age, before FDR leveled the playing field.
Thanks again for explaining what happened to us and what needs to be done.
Bork started out as a socialist, coopted by Nixon, who served as solicitor general from 1973 until 1977. In The Antitrust Paradox, he argued that consumers often benefited from corporate mergers, and that many contemporary readings of the antitrust laws were economically irrational and hurt consumers. The primary focus of antitrust laws should be on consumer welfare (consumer welfare in Bork's book includes both producer welfare and consumer welfare) rather than ensuring competition.
Part of "big is better" started during the Carter administration -- reduction in the capital gains tax. Later, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 reduced capital gains tax rates to 10% and 20%. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 reduced them further, to 8% and 18%, for assets held for five years or more.
Carter "deregulated" the Airline industry and the ICC.
As a result, it made sense to take capital gains rather than reinvest profits in research and development. Instead of considering log term health and viability of a businesses, owners cashed out. As a result, we sold the goose that laid the golden egg -- manufacturing.
Daniel I wish to address the statement, Carter "deregulated", the Airline Indusry and the ICC. In ths same vein that Clinton deregulated the Telecommunications Industry and signed NAFTA and GAAT, and Obama stemped long and hard to pass the Transpacific Partnership (TPP)
Here are my thoughts. Carter and Obama have good instincts and are honorable men. Bill Clinton not so much, he is as narcissistic and self serving as the orange Jesus, but not as socio and psychopathic
Carter and Clinton were governors, from small southern states, and were chosen by the DNC for that reason. On top of which The DNC saw in Carter a clone of sorts for the fabled JFK, in looks, hairstyle and quaint accent (there are striking similarities between the Mass. and Georgia accent., evnough to activate a subconscious response.
Governors know how to govern, senators to compromise.
However all three were waifs, naive when they moved into the center of the beltway, they did not have the connections, the knowledge, the experience needed to govern the United States, or execute it's laws, so they were susceptible and vulnerable to established "experts" like Larry Summers who descended on Obama, along with Rahm Emanuel, like a vulture on fresh meat.
They don't vet or really choose their cabinets and advisors, because they lack knowledge, they don't know who is who, who has the requisite knowledge, connections, skills
That was also true for Trump 45, his choice of cabinet and advisors was made for him from proven tried and true credentialed right wingers, no one ever asks, who is that actually chooses cabinet members White House staff and advisors.
I doubt that Trump ever heard of Steven Miller before he became President, someone of influence vetted him to Trump., same with all of his advisors and cabinet members. We know the Federalist Society handpicked his judges, and we can lay that on Leo Leonard's doorstep.
Trump 47 is a different animal now, he knows who is who, and he has vetted his own stable, picked his own horses.
Back to Reagan. Reagan was nothing more than a B Grade actor, Bed time for Bonzo, and Death Valley Days), he could read a script, and was a perfect tool of the powers that be.
He didn't pick his staff, and he did what he was "advised" to do. It wan't Reagans Idea to negotiate the hostage release with Khomeini, but he had his script and he sanctioned it.
Reagan before becoming Governor of California, was a liberal Democrat, in as much as he gave politics any thought. to him running for Governor was auditioning for a role, and actually much easier than auditioning for a role, as he didn't have to catch the super critical eye of a casting director. The same for President.
His script for President was to be pro union, anti CFR, anti Trilateral Commission, and he was convincingly so, but no sooner he was elected then he became a union buster, busting the Professional Ait Traffic Controllers union (PATCO) and filling State and Defense Department with members of the CFT and TC (like Casper Weinberger), yet his adoring fans overlooked that betraayl, because of his racist dog whistles.
IMO, we don't elect Presidents we elect cabals.,or did until Trump who has the experience and instincts of a mob boss., who surrounds himself with caporegimes and made men.
We became a "greed is good," and "every man for himself" mentality country. Sometimes I wish I believed in heaven and hell so that I could at least have the satisfaction that those evil players that ruined the economy for the 99% are burning in hell.
O gosh wouldn't "hell" be a comforting belief in more than this context! I was exposed enough in my youth to religion to remember the Biblical phrase "principalities and powers." Something having to do with demonic war against human well-being. The metaphor fits so scarily in the "powers" Thom explicates.
Reaganomics ruined business in our country by getting rid of our economy based on Business, and created a Financial Model economy. Business no longer existed to better their products/services and to please their customers. They instead focused only on pleasing their investors. Now, business exists only to make Quick profits for Wall Street. So we saw good jobs disappear as production was moved overseas for cheap labor. Even customer service was forwarded to India. Only low wage service jobs remained here.
A fine synopsis. The only defense, theoretically, would be massive market fail of the monopolies. Thom's explication of the degree of consolidation shows how daunting such an undertaking would be: you'd have to have a huge backlash of "grow local/buy local" combined with mass boycott. I remember a lawsuit by Archer/Daniels years ago against a farmer who had "benefitted" from their genetically engineered corn trespassing on him. (do I have that right?) Like Trump, the bullies can pay lawyers to beat down the little guy. Why don't Trump groupies care that Trump's goldarn ties are made in China?
I remember that case of the organic farmer. His corn became “contaminated “ with the GMO corn, threatening his business. Yet the corporate farmer had the gall...and the wealth...to sue the victim for “theft”. !
The extremely wealthy do not care about gay rights, racism, religion or abortion. All they want is more money. Anyone that cannot make them money will be called a communist or a Marxist or socialist or a humanist.... Those people whether they are mentally or physically disabled whether they are old or they are criminals or they are intellectuals and journalists, will be punished. Since it is too expensive to lock up about 80 million Americans, the fascists will have to exterminate them. That is what fascists do best.
There are over 60 million millionaires and billionaires in the world and only about 250 want to pay more taxes. I applaud the 250. But 250 is not going to cut it. The fascist millionaires and billionaires that don't want to pay taxes have already got those 250 on a list and will probably confiscate all their freaking wealth, unless they pay protection money and convert to greed is good.
I have never heard (or researched) the time period that MAGA wants to return to. Maybe this has been well established, and if not, I can make assumptions. I assume that it would be before Neoliberalism began leading us to where we are today. Great people like Thom and Robert Reich do a fantastic job of breaking down what has happened economically, and why, but it is still not reaching enough people.
In my almost 50 years, I have witnessed the death of many rural downtowns. I understand that there was a time when someone could work downtown (and not own the business) and make a living.
1. The Donor class, whose agenda is driven by donations to politicians, perks, benefits and after career subsidies
2. The Voter class.
The donor class get action, their wants, needs, desires are attended to.
The Voter class gets lip service and crumb, so long as the crumbs also benefit and do not upset the donor class.
There are time period correct names for each class. For instance in 1860, they were. if you lived in the south, planters, and if you lived in the north industrialists/financiers .
In pre Tudor England they were royalty/nobility and freeman/serf. With Henry VII's victory over Richard III, a new class arose. the middle class aka bourgeoisie
My once prospective father in law, a highly ranked labor leader, then retired, related to me that an associate of his was active in the FDR administration. FDR called several prominent bankers in for a meeting, which was slightly delayed because "some had to be sent for". He related what was a direct quote by FDR:. "Gentlemen, for the past several years, the banks have run the federal government. From today forward, the federal government is going to run the banks". He then gave them three days to dwell on it. History called this the "bankers' holiday". I marvel at the clout presumed by FDR, and wonder of the scope of that clout, and how that clout has changed to today's presidency. By my lights, the only president I see who would assert such clout is Trump. Certainly not Biden. Biden's timid hopscotching on the political dividing line on most issues comes no where near the concept of assumed clout (FDR, given today's dire political dynamics, would never have picked for Supreme Court Justice, failing that, then Attorney General Republican Party member Merrick Garland). Seems there is some large room for interpreting just how much sway a president has in declaring Presidential action. What would FDR decide to do, what clout would he assume, just when America's second Civil War, now, was on us? Certainly a Civil War would add rubber to the stretch.
I have been assuming 1950s for most of the base, but I suppose some may be 1860-ish. In either case, most of the base may not have their focus on the economics. But, if they understood the middle class economics from after WWII till the late 1970/early 1980s, and from there until now...it might blow some minds. And not just Republican minds but everybody's.
That is what frustrates me about the Dem's, I was watching Chrisiane Amanpour yesterday and she had some effete (soft, and yes I mean soft and wishy washy) Democratic big wig from the Biden Campaign on, and as usual he was banging the Look what Joe has done for the economy drum, They really are out of touch with the electorate, as any of the assholes who live and/or work inside the beltway are, they are troglydytes all. They schmooze with their own class, they get their news or opinions from the NYT or WAPO, and don't have an inkling of what real America is like.
There essentially two types of Voters, maybe three.
There are those that are financially comfortable and the only thing that they care about are social issues (the culture war,
And those that are struggling to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads.
The self indulgent pampered late boomers, millenials and gen Zers, who are filled with self righteousness, and political correct holier than thou bullshit.. The children of helicopter parents and soccer moms.
The kind that whine about everything, and hold their breath till their faces turn blue, until they get attention and their demands are met.
Let us remember that poor reagan was quite not the sharpest tool in the drawer. He was surrounded by people who told him what to do and was supposedly happy to comply. No fuss no mess. Most probably not the first neither the last president coached is such a damaging way for the american people and some more around the planet. Heil kapitalismus!
Obama and the Democrats started designing the ACA to be based on the establishment of a Public Option. IT WAS the Republicans who demanded it be ditched. It was republicans who insisted on bringing the insurance companies to the negotiations. By doing this, they kicked out one leg of a three-legged stool.
Actually you are wrong, you want to believe it was the Republicans, and I am not defending them either, but it was all cooked up by Larry Summers and Rahm Emanuel, the Association of Health Insurance Providers (AHIP) is a major donor to the Democratic party, as is PhRMA, and the Democratic party chases Donor funds, money is the lifeblood of politics, and they are terrified of Donor cash all going to the Republicans.
Summers Goldman Sachs Tweedle Dum: Geithner Goldman Sachs Tweedle-Dee, I forgot about Rahm Emanuel, can you even give Obama credit for being intimidated "triangulated" into the sell-out? It would have been one thing to fight it out for all he could get, but these were his guys!
Mmerose. I guess I should save my comments and cut and paste them again and again, because more than once I have caveated my criticism of the Obama ADMINISTRATION. not Obama.
Obama is a good man, he was just a fish out of water. no experience inside the beltway, only 2 years as a Senator and half of that campaigning.
Senators don't make good presidents, because the skill one learns as a senator (compromise, bargaining, comity, bipartisanship) don't work well with the skills necessary to be an executive.
Governors on the other hand have experience governing, we may not like their experience such as Bush and Reagan, but FDR was a governor and the best President in the 20th and 21st Century, and in my opinion the best since Washington.
Obama entered the White House with no experience inside the beltway, no allies other than a few Democratic Senators, and was leaped on by those with an agenda, loyalties and connections, like Larry Summers and Rahm Emanuel. .
I believe that Larry Summers was the Éminence grise, twas he who represented Wall Street and the financial powers, it was he who recommended Rahm Emanuel, whom Obama could not even have known existed as Chief of Staff, it was he who steered Obama into appointing Timothy Geithner, a Goldman Sachs maven as Secretary of the Treasurer.
When Trump sat down behind the Resolute Desk, an Éminence grise, sidled up to him, and made recommendations as to who to appoint to offices. They obviously believed that with the right cabinet and advisors they could control Trump, the same mistake made by Krupp, Thyssen and the rest of the German industrialists and financial powers, who had backed Hitler., and indeed Hitler was good for their business, as the factories started to hum pouring out weapons of war.
Jamie Dimon, said at Davos, that he could work with either Trump or Biden.
This Éminence grise, or manipulator behind the throne, misjudged Trump. Trump has the mind and morals of mafia boss. Obama didn't neither does Biden.
Obama was out of his depth, a fish out of water, and thus manipulated by his Chief of Staff, and the Cabinent chose by his Chief of Staff and larry Summers.
The same Éminence grise was and probably is, at work with Biden. Biden knows his way around D.C., he was also called, for good reason, the Senator from Wall Street.
Do I have to explain that again, for the 10th Time?
But Biden is not omniscient and has a limited area of expertise, mostly negotiating and compromise, guided by a desire for comity and bipartisanship, but being an Executive of the United States, is not a job one can do on their own, they need a staff to help them, people knowledgeable and capable, to handle certain areas like Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, Transportation, Agriculture, and so on which we call cabinets or advisors.
So how does he find the people to fill those jobs, for one thing there is the DNC, the DSCC, the DCCC, and the manipulator, the Éminence grise
Let me give you a current example. Do you think Trump ever heard of Steven Miller before he sat behind the Resolute Desk, or even Gen Mattis, or Mark Meadows?
Hell no, he was too busy sticking his finger in the pussy's of teenage girls, and scam contractors, NYC officials, Insurance companies and Banks.
So who was this manipulator, this power behind the throne, this Éminence grise,who picked his Cabinet and Staff.?
Things will be different this time, if he wins the election. He knows the ropes now, he knows his power, Trump 45 was OJT, (on the job training).
Same with Biden, Biden came into office with a tool kit, as a senator, he realized in his first term that his tool kit was that of an electrician and he needed a plumbers tool kit.
I fully expect Garland to be replaced in a second Biden Term, the fact that he can't run for re election means he can ignore political blowback and clean house, one caveat is the Éminence grise, not necessarily a man, but a cabal of men and women, behind the scenes like the donors , the DNC,
A commanding geneeral, an admiral, a Captain of the Ship, a CEO, the President all have one thing in common, they are not omnescient nor omnipresent, and have to delegate, but in the end they are responsible for everything under their watch, because they delegated to subordinates. Subordinates chose by them.
Their is one difference though, in the military, the officers, the enlisted leaders, did not choose their subordinates, their subordinates were chosen for them, yet the responsibility lies on them
Stock buybacks are the most offensive form of insider trading and they are allowed by law because of a rule passed by the Reagan administration. Executives take most of their pay in stock, so they have their corporations buy back their shares as often as possible.
Even conservatives know this results in market manipulation for the benefit of the executives. Trump appointee SEC commissioner Robert J Jackson, Jr reported that stock prices did increase immediately before a buyback. https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/speech-jackson-061118
The problem is not that buybacks in themselves are harmful, it’s that executives are allowed to control the corporation to buy back their own shares.
To make this issue more confusing, the rule (SEC 10b-18) that the Reagan administration passed on this issue begins by prohibiting a corporation from buying back executive shares but then provides a loophole the size of a black hole. It is permitted if the buyback meets four very complex conditions called a safe haven. SEC chair Mary Jo White said that exemption was so complicated the SEC could not enforce it and so executives are completely free to have their corporation buyback their shares.
The reform needed is not to prohibit all buybacks, but to eliminate the safe haven provision that allows the corporation to buy executives shares. The prohibition on this practice should be absolute.
I'm not going to mince words about the fact that the old way of having Mom & Pop community stores could be abusive as well. There was racism, price gouging, and a lot of tax cheating. It was much harder to regulate the bad eggs.
That's the difference now, with computing power, we are better able to protect the customer and collect taxes. If only the damn conservatives would stop thinking that rich people do what they do so they can create jobs. If only Republicans had some respect for the customers and workers that are the real engine that drives the economy.
We shouldn't waste our ability to regulate, bust the trusts, and collect taxes. We owe it to the people that drive the economy; we don't owe anything to the billionaires who go shopping for politicians and judges!
First: Stoller reveals his bias right off, by referring to the ACA as “Obamacare, a pejorative term invented by the right wing. Secondly, this article confirms what I wrote about earlier, that Reaganomics destroyed our Economy based on Business, and replaced it with one based on Finance. The medical field has now joined in. Thirdly, the ACA was half written by insurance companies, pushed into the design process by the Republicans, who forced the elimination of the Public Option plan, which was supposed to be the crux of the ACA. “Obamacare“ is the result of too many greedy hands spoiling the stew.
Despite its faults, it provides cheap health care to more people and eliminates discrimination against pre-existing conditions. Low income people have Medicaid.
The easy answer: extend Medicare. Medicare for all with the elimination of the collateral source law could fix everything. Part B and all PI type insurance costs would probably drop.
Biden, BTW is doing what he can by adding competition in cost of medicine.
The easier answer is to do what every other industrialized nation does, and that would be allowing everyone to "buy in" to Medicare and create a single, simple, far less bureaucratic pool. And Biden has done nothing tangible apart from allowing Medicare to negotiate the prices of 10 medications out of 20000 prescribed starting in three years, and by that time another administration could try and change that paltry electorally based policy. Like climate change, nipping around the edges of health care policy will not change the dire trajectory of health care in America. It's not a coincidence that those who are more well situated tend to minimize the crises that I see right in front of me on a daily basis.
I have Medicare and $164.90 is deducted from my Social Security monthly
My wife is on a social security replacement program and has SSA deduct the premium from out checking account. I also have a secondary group pllan, via CalPers. I am in remission from brain and lung cancer, diagnosed as stage 4 six years ago. A craniotomy, 10 bouts of radiation, two years of tri weekly infusions of immunotherapy (Keytruda), and a CT Scan and MRI quarterly for four years, now semi annually (both next month)
And to date I have paid nothing for medical bills that are over mlliions and climbing, not to mention all of the colonoscopies, had my last one Jan 17th, and then there are my diabetic check up's, every six months, with blood tests and still nothing, and my cataract surgery last April and May, again cost me nothing.
Granted if I didn't have a secondary insurance it would cost me dearly, but at least I would be alive. The reason I have to have a secondary insurance is because of George W. Bush and the Republicans.
BTW when I was 17, 1956, I lived with my grandparents in a shotgun cabin in Louisiana, my grandfather was blind in one eye from a wood chip when lumberjacking for Crossett lumber company, he tried share cropping in Oxbow, Oklahoma., they were poor folk, they received a bare minimum social security check, enough to buy sugar, flour , snuff, Moonshine syrup, dried black eyed peas and ground meat for Pappy's hamburgers (Mammy wouldn't eat beef).
The cabin belong to their son, and he paid the electricity, sewage was a septic tank, an upgrade to the outhouse in which we lived.
LBJ made a big difference in their life when he signed the Medicare, Medicaid act, no longer did they have to pay for medicine..
So what I want to know, Barry, is what are you really all about. What is your true ideology? Are you a "tankie" or an unrequited Marxist?
Marx really wasn't a champion of the proletariat, he thought of them as a useful resource, nothing more. He was a proto libertarian., who actually had no problem exploiting the working class His partner Engels inherited a textile mill,and he agitated to free the slaves and hire them back at market wages, because Fred had to import the inferior but cheaper cotton. Also he was a gold bug and thought that gold was the standard of value., as did the USSR
Your bias is showing by blaming the Republicans for the faults inherent in a 2,100 page albatross that placed the insurance industry squarely in charge of our health care system. Being a physician for the past 30 years, I can tell you that the ACA has made my life and my patient's access to medicine and care a nightmare of pre-authorizations, approvals, appeals and denials. And the fact is that it has pushed physicians out of private practice and into conglomerate medicine, which now puts patient care in the hands of nurse practitioners, physician's assistants and hospitalists. Blame whoever you want but the overarching point is that our politicians are doing the work of industry and not for the public good. Period. And don't tell me Obama went pushing for a public option. I read that legislation and could have told you what the outcome would be, and he knew it as well. It didn't work.
I am on medicare and have been the last 17 years, and never ever has my PCP been frequired to ask for pre approval. You must be dealing with Medicare disAdvantage customers and they are not medicare but private insurance, mostly HMO's, which do require approval.
What a fraud on the American people! Can somebody get to Joe Namath, for one, to get him to eat crow? As a totally humble, grateful military relict, I got the message to NOT sign up for those PIRATES! Try-Care for Life is my "Supplement," plain and simple. I was a family caregiver who went thru years of cut-offs from "Advantage" plan leeches for my aunts. There's a musical stage-play in there somewhere with a feature of social workers explaining how your plan cuts you off, cuts you off, crescendo, arms raised, CUTS YOU ooooofff!
True for the most part. Unfortunately, half of Americans enrolled in Medicare are in Medicare Advantage plans. And traditional Medicare only covers less than 20% of all insureds, so between Advantage and private insurance there is endless negotiating. In addition, Medicare cannot cover over 60% of medications due to cost, so there is indeed wrangling with traditional Medicare regarding what can and cannot be prescribed, including formulary and tier exceptions.
Medicare advantage has the same rules as Medicare, it only covers 80% and worse most are HMO's which means you are out of luck, if you go see a doctor, unless it is an emergency, and HMO authorized doctors have to get approval for procedures\\
there are indeed discrepancies and serious problems, but that is because of the problem of money in politics. Medicare and Medicaid were great programs, until George W. Bush and AHIP/PhRMA used their donor power to screw them.
We have the best government and justice system that money can buy, and Thom has covered that ground many times, it stretches back to the head note in Santa Clara County v. southern Pacific RR.
The only solution, at the moment, is a dictatorship and we are staring one in the face. Trump 47, and it is not too comfortable for any of us, the old dog catches the car trope.
Medicare Advantage plans are the first major step in totally eliminating the Medicare program. They originated with the GOP (yes, republicans again) during the GW Bush administration. They were snuck in as an alternative to having separate drug plans, as all-in-one plans to make life easier and healthcare more convenient. Our tax dollars went to the private plan administrators to make the plans extremely affordable. With built in declining subsidies until after 10 years all government support was supposed to end. Of course, the subsidies to those PRIVATE insurers were extended indefinitely. A 2013 study found that the privately run Advantage plans actually cost Medicare about 15% more than Medicare would have charged. Thanks to very ‘creative billing’. Odd how the so called liberal media isn’t reporting on all this. And don’t forget, we were already in a healthcare crisis before the ACA was even initiated. It WHY the ACA was needed
Yes, I agree that the original intent of the ACA was twisted and ultimately benefits exactly the parties which we were attempting to control. Thank the Republican Party for throwing a monkey wrench into the negotiations and for blocking the best parts of the plan.
I'm not certain why you have to continue to make this a partisan issue as it's not. Obama did nothing to fight for a public option and soundly rejected any type of national health care program. The legislation was sloppy and full of holes because it was authored by lobbyists and Democrats were on board with that. It was so incredibly complex because over half of it concerned the health and welfare of the insurance industry, which is the opposite of what a health care bill should be. It is indeed Obama's legacy, and Republicans might have deconstructed it slightly but it's primary function was to increase corporate profits regardless and feed us to the health care conglomerates.
I think you forget that the same night that Obama was inaugurated, McConnell met with his senate leaders and plotted their plan to obstruct ANYTHING and everything that Obama proposed. “we will make him a one term president “ by ensuring he couldn’t succeed at anything. They used the filibuster to do exactly that. The fact that Obama was able to pass ANY kind of health legislation is miraculous. The Public Option was the first thing to be jettisoned, to save the remaining items. It certainly was the Republicans who refused to negotiate without the participation of the insurance companies. It ended up as a giraffe (a horse that is designed by a committee!😁). But that ‘giraffe’ is ensuring that millions of previously uninsured people now have healthcare coverage, including several of my friends. As a patient, I also feel the negative effects of the hospital conglomerates and the early retirement of my favorite physician. You know as well as I that Corporate America will seize every loophole and twist the law to their own advantage.
And I really don't understand why it's so important to defend a particular politician instead of facing facts. Last I checked I thought it was their job to watch out for our well being and not vice-versa: "Obama had promised on the campaign trail that he would sign a universal health care bill into law, and one that would “cut the cost of a typical family’s premium by up to $2,500 a year.” In 2004, the average insured family of four paid $11,192 in health care costs; by 2022 that amount was $30,260. That increase in cost for a family of four is the price of a small car, every single year." My premium alone for a family of four is nearly $30,000. How is that affordable?
What I know of the ACA is that Rahm Emanuel, as chief of staff, excluded single payor advocates like Bernie, from any White House Discussions, while the White House Visitors log shows a strong of health insurance lobbyists, coming and going. and Nancy was in the act, as she wouldn't bring in single payer bill to the floor, and worked with Rahm to keep single payor off the table.
Meanwhile all it would have taken is a simple bill with one line. Changing the eligibility date for Medicare from 65 to at birth. And what we got was a 600 page monstrosity.
As regards that bastard Medicare disAdvantage, lay that at the foot of George W. Bush.
What needs to be done is to draw up a list of the most powerful lobbying groups
Pelosi was a hard nosed realist who knew that any reference to a single payer system was dead on arrival. I guess Rahm was the same but I don’t know. I couldn’t stand him. I do know that GOP opposition was so strong that they even voted down their own jobs bill, just because Obama had proposed it after all his ideas had been filibustered. How do you think that the changes you propose would have survived?
You are making excuses. n the November 2008 elections, the Democratic Party increased its majorities in both chambers (including – when factoring in the two Democratic caucusing independents – a brief filibuster-proof 60-40 supermajority in the Senate), and with Barack Obama being sworn in as president on January 20, 2009, this gave Democrats an overall federal government trifecta for the first time since the 103rd Congress in 1993.
Therefore your Dead on Arrival statement means that it was dead on arrival at the White House, because Rahm Emanuel would have none of it.
The fact is that instead of a thousand page ACA, part of which SCOTUS nullified, was a gift to the insurance industry, and instead of an incomprehensible ACA, Nancy could have put a bill on he floor, that was one page, and one paragraph, changing the eligibility for Medicare from Age 65 to birth.
And there was a brief period when the Dems had a supermajority and were filibuster proof.
No, really. That was my first thought also. Alerting the public? How? No one reads newspapers anymore; they’ve become so financially strapped that they’ll publish any eye catching sensational junk that will make a buck. Like trump’s campaign in 2016.
"...[Bork] never considered the value of good food freshly made in a local restaurant as opposed to things arriving from across the country in giant plastic boxes to chain restaurants..." This reminds me of the longstanding knock against conservatives, to wit, that they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
The spark that lit the fire was the Powell Memorandum written in August of 1971 to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and that decried the power of workers' unions and the need to counter it with business organizations. Membership in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce increased tremendously as did corporate lobbying of public officials. Powell's reward was his appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court the following year.
Another turning point was enactment of the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act in 1947 with Congress overriding Truman's veto. It could not have passed without the support of members of the Democratic Party.
Gore Vidal accurately observed "It makes no difference who you vote for - the two parties are really one party representing four percent of the people." Few people realize that the party bosses choose who to put on the ballot as with Truman replaccing three trerm VP Henry A Wallace and so becoming president a few months later or as with Sanders not being on the ballot and votes having neocons like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden as "choices".
I could write a thank-you to you almost every day for your insight, diligence, and fearlessness. Today’s message just grabbed me and inspired me to let you know that your well researched, well reasoned, and thoughtful take on the “Reagan Revolution” and its attendant slow burn catastrophes reminded me once again why I follow you.
I have much gratitude for what you do and how you do it. Please keep up the great work!
Boeing's decline of market share from 70% in 1996 to 42% today does seem to mirror America's waning economic influence and lessening ability to nimbly produce what the world's consumers demand. Of course corporations and economies rise and fall--what firms are listed in the Dow industrial average has changed many times in a century--but when US Steel was sold to Japanese company that didn’t say anything good about America's industrial capacity now or in the future. An emphasis on short term profits is no way to run a modern nation, no matter what goods or services it produces.
And another part of turning things around would be reviving the Depression-era laws, particularly Stegall-Glass, which separated commercial and investment banking. Clinton happily "reformed" things by approving its repeal, though it was weakening long before him. (Some sections, like the FDIC, are still in effect.) There are arguments that after it was killed investment speculation increased, leading right into the Great Recession. Bork might consider uncontrolled speculative investments by large banks to ultimately "help" the consumer in a more efficient economy. But most people would disagree with that.
I was in the middle of these changes as my own legal practice until health forced me to retire was predominantly as an antitrust and trade regulation lawyer. The evolution you so accurately describe really began before Reagan, though, with the GTE-Sylvania case in 1977, in which the Supreme Court effectively made presumptively legal “vertical” restrictions aside from price imposed by manufacturers on distributors. I was largely a defense attorney, but with each new decision loosening regulation, I warned my colleagues that they were cheering the demise of their practices, not just the end of the anti-monopolistic thrust and intention of the antitrust laws.
It was more rewarding to me to help clients comply with what I viewed as extremely important protections for the businesses, people and places you identify than to win victories for heavy-handed restrictions imposed by my corporate clients. To no avail. By the time I was forced to retire some twenty years ago, antitrust enforcement had become so moribund that my practice became predominantly focused on intellectual property and securities regulation. I found neither as appealing, vital, or intellectually stimulating as antitrust law, and clearly saw in concrete ways the negative effects of its demise.
But I fear that the best intentions of a hopefully re-elected Biden Administration will be thwarted by Big Money and its servile, captive SCOTUS majority, for which I have lost all respect. It is worse than the court FDR faced early in his Presidency. It is the worst court since the one under Chief Justice Roger Taney that issued the Dred Scott decision. It will effectively gut any new legislation or Executive Orders designed to strengthen antitrust, anti-monopoly or oligopoly regulation in this country. All of us, save the morbidly rich, will be the poorer as a result. We are truly the United $tate$ of America...
Thom said Bork, "He never considered the impact on a community now having no say in how destructively businesses in that community were run. He never considered the impact on workers of giant employers engaging in nationwide union-busting and pension-stripping."
I think Bork considered those outcomes but rejected them as not as important as helping the wealthy get wealthier. He wanted to go back to the gilded age, before FDR leveled the playing field.
Thanks again for explaining what happened to us and what needs to be done.
Bork started out as a socialist, coopted by Nixon, who served as solicitor general from 1973 until 1977. In The Antitrust Paradox, he argued that consumers often benefited from corporate mergers, and that many contemporary readings of the antitrust laws were economically irrational and hurt consumers. The primary focus of antitrust laws should be on consumer welfare (consumer welfare in Bork's book includes both producer welfare and consumer welfare) rather than ensuring competition.
I remember the "Bork Commission" that examined the US court system, at about the same time he published the Antitrust Paradox. Later he was a judge on the DC Circuit. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-07-19-mn-5041-story.html
Part of "big is better" started during the Carter administration -- reduction in the capital gains tax. Later, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 reduced capital gains tax rates to 10% and 20%. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 reduced them further, to 8% and 18%, for assets held for five years or more.
Carter "deregulated" the Airline industry and the ICC.
As a result, it made sense to take capital gains rather than reinvest profits in research and development. Instead of considering log term health and viability of a businesses, owners cashed out. As a result, we sold the goose that laid the golden egg -- manufacturing.
Daniel I wish to address the statement, Carter "deregulated", the Airline Indusry and the ICC. In ths same vein that Clinton deregulated the Telecommunications Industry and signed NAFTA and GAAT, and Obama stemped long and hard to pass the Transpacific Partnership (TPP)
Here are my thoughts. Carter and Obama have good instincts and are honorable men. Bill Clinton not so much, he is as narcissistic and self serving as the orange Jesus, but not as socio and psychopathic
Carter and Clinton were governors, from small southern states, and were chosen by the DNC for that reason. On top of which The DNC saw in Carter a clone of sorts for the fabled JFK, in looks, hairstyle and quaint accent (there are striking similarities between the Mass. and Georgia accent., evnough to activate a subconscious response.
Governors know how to govern, senators to compromise.
However all three were waifs, naive when they moved into the center of the beltway, they did not have the connections, the knowledge, the experience needed to govern the United States, or execute it's laws, so they were susceptible and vulnerable to established "experts" like Larry Summers who descended on Obama, along with Rahm Emanuel, like a vulture on fresh meat.
They don't vet or really choose their cabinets and advisors, because they lack knowledge, they don't know who is who, who has the requisite knowledge, connections, skills
That was also true for Trump 45, his choice of cabinet and advisors was made for him from proven tried and true credentialed right wingers, no one ever asks, who is that actually chooses cabinet members White House staff and advisors.
I doubt that Trump ever heard of Steven Miller before he became President, someone of influence vetted him to Trump., same with all of his advisors and cabinet members. We know the Federalist Society handpicked his judges, and we can lay that on Leo Leonard's doorstep.
Trump 47 is a different animal now, he knows who is who, and he has vetted his own stable, picked his own horses.
Back to Reagan. Reagan was nothing more than a B Grade actor, Bed time for Bonzo, and Death Valley Days), he could read a script, and was a perfect tool of the powers that be.
He didn't pick his staff, and he did what he was "advised" to do. It wan't Reagans Idea to negotiate the hostage release with Khomeini, but he had his script and he sanctioned it.
Reagan before becoming Governor of California, was a liberal Democrat, in as much as he gave politics any thought. to him running for Governor was auditioning for a role, and actually much easier than auditioning for a role, as he didn't have to catch the super critical eye of a casting director. The same for President.
His script for President was to be pro union, anti CFR, anti Trilateral Commission, and he was convincingly so, but no sooner he was elected then he became a union buster, busting the Professional Ait Traffic Controllers union (PATCO) and filling State and Defense Department with members of the CFT and TC (like Casper Weinberger), yet his adoring fans overlooked that betraayl, because of his racist dog whistles.
IMO, we don't elect Presidents we elect cabals.,or did until Trump who has the experience and instincts of a mob boss., who surrounds himself with caporegimes and made men.
We became a "greed is good," and "every man for himself" mentality country. Sometimes I wish I believed in heaven and hell so that I could at least have the satisfaction that those evil players that ruined the economy for the 99% are burning in hell.
O gosh wouldn't "hell" be a comforting belief in more than this context! I was exposed enough in my youth to religion to remember the Biblical phrase "principalities and powers." Something having to do with demonic war against human well-being. The metaphor fits so scarily in the "powers" Thom explicates.
Reaganomics ruined business in our country by getting rid of our economy based on Business, and created a Financial Model economy. Business no longer existed to better their products/services and to please their customers. They instead focused only on pleasing their investors. Now, business exists only to make Quick profits for Wall Street. So we saw good jobs disappear as production was moved overseas for cheap labor. Even customer service was forwarded to India. Only low wage service jobs remained here.
A fine synopsis. The only defense, theoretically, would be massive market fail of the monopolies. Thom's explication of the degree of consolidation shows how daunting such an undertaking would be: you'd have to have a huge backlash of "grow local/buy local" combined with mass boycott. I remember a lawsuit by Archer/Daniels years ago against a farmer who had "benefitted" from their genetically engineered corn trespassing on him. (do I have that right?) Like Trump, the bullies can pay lawyers to beat down the little guy. Why don't Trump groupies care that Trump's goldarn ties are made in China?
I remember that case of the organic farmer. His corn became “contaminated “ with the GMO corn, threatening his business. Yet the corporate farmer had the gall...and the wealth...to sue the victim for “theft”. !
The extremely wealthy do not care about gay rights, racism, religion or abortion. All they want is more money. Anyone that cannot make them money will be called a communist or a Marxist or socialist or a humanist.... Those people whether they are mentally or physically disabled whether they are old or they are criminals or they are intellectuals and journalists, will be punished. Since it is too expensive to lock up about 80 million Americans, the fascists will have to exterminate them. That is what fascists do best.
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. https://fortune.com/2023/08/21/mackenzie-scott-one-of-worlds-richest-women-has-given-away-14-billion-nearly-half-her-fortune-in-just-3-years/?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=fortunemagazine&xid=soc_socialflow_facebook_FORTUNE&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR3It2vfoNoVGNmpt-xzEA1820-TqokVF4S-suWxmAP_xxPB8XVYCFvIYfU
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/17/mega-rich-renew-call-on-global-leaders-at-davos-to-tax-our-extreme-wealth.html
There are over 60 million millionaires and billionaires in the world and only about 250 want to pay more taxes. I applaud the 250. But 250 is not going to cut it. The fascist millionaires and billionaires that don't want to pay taxes have already got those 250 on a list and will probably confiscate all their freaking wealth, unless they pay protection money and convert to greed is good.
Lovely. But, notable exceptions aside, it still proves the rule!
I have never heard (or researched) the time period that MAGA wants to return to. Maybe this has been well established, and if not, I can make assumptions. I assume that it would be before Neoliberalism began leading us to where we are today. Great people like Thom and Robert Reich do a fantastic job of breaking down what has happened economically, and why, but it is still not reaching enough people.
In my almost 50 years, I have witnessed the death of many rural downtowns. I understand that there was a time when someone could work downtown (and not own the business) and make a living.
If only we still had a liberal press. But that time is over
There are two constituents in society.
1. The Donor class, whose agenda is driven by donations to politicians, perks, benefits and after career subsidies
2. The Voter class.
The donor class get action, their wants, needs, desires are attended to.
The Voter class gets lip service and crumb, so long as the crumbs also benefit and do not upset the donor class.
There are time period correct names for each class. For instance in 1860, they were. if you lived in the south, planters, and if you lived in the north industrialists/financiers .
In pre Tudor England they were royalty/nobility and freeman/serf. With Henry VII's victory over Richard III, a new class arose. the middle class aka bourgeoisie
Does the term Make America Great Again mean a point in time? Or is it just a garbage slogan like everything that comes from MAGA?
My once prospective father in law, a highly ranked labor leader, then retired, related to me that an associate of his was active in the FDR administration. FDR called several prominent bankers in for a meeting, which was slightly delayed because "some had to be sent for". He related what was a direct quote by FDR:. "Gentlemen, for the past several years, the banks have run the federal government. From today forward, the federal government is going to run the banks". He then gave them three days to dwell on it. History called this the "bankers' holiday". I marvel at the clout presumed by FDR, and wonder of the scope of that clout, and how that clout has changed to today's presidency. By my lights, the only president I see who would assert such clout is Trump. Certainly not Biden. Biden's timid hopscotching on the political dividing line on most issues comes no where near the concept of assumed clout (FDR, given today's dire political dynamics, would never have picked for Supreme Court Justice, failing that, then Attorney General Republican Party member Merrick Garland). Seems there is some large room for interpreting just how much sway a president has in declaring Presidential action. What would FDR decide to do, what clout would he assume, just when America's second Civil War, now, was on us? Certainly a Civil War would add rubber to the stretch.
Both, the point in time depends on the age and angst of the speaker. For some it is 1950 for others 1860.
I have been assuming 1950s for most of the base, but I suppose some may be 1860-ish. In either case, most of the base may not have their focus on the economics. But, if they understood the middle class economics from after WWII till the late 1970/early 1980s, and from there until now...it might blow some minds. And not just Republican minds but everybody's.
That is what frustrates me about the Dem's, I was watching Chrisiane Amanpour yesterday and she had some effete (soft, and yes I mean soft and wishy washy) Democratic big wig from the Biden Campaign on, and as usual he was banging the Look what Joe has done for the economy drum, They really are out of touch with the electorate, as any of the assholes who live and/or work inside the beltway are, they are troglydytes all. They schmooze with their own class, they get their news or opinions from the NYT or WAPO, and don't have an inkling of what real America is like.
There essentially two types of Voters, maybe three.
There are those that are financially comfortable and the only thing that they care about are social issues (the culture war,
And those that are struggling to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads.
The self indulgent pampered late boomers, millenials and gen Zers, who are filled with self righteousness, and political correct holier than thou bullshit.. The children of helicopter parents and soccer moms.
The kind that whine about everything, and hold their breath till their faces turn blue, until they get attention and their demands are met.
Back to when women and People of color were second class citizens
Let us remember that poor reagan was quite not the sharpest tool in the drawer. He was surrounded by people who told him what to do and was supposedly happy to comply. No fuss no mess. Most probably not the first neither the last president coached is such a damaging way for the american people and some more around the planet. Heil kapitalismus!
Obama and the Democrats started designing the ACA to be based on the establishment of a Public Option. IT WAS the Republicans who demanded it be ditched. It was republicans who insisted on bringing the insurance companies to the negotiations. By doing this, they kicked out one leg of a three-legged stool.
Actually you are wrong, you want to believe it was the Republicans, and I am not defending them either, but it was all cooked up by Larry Summers and Rahm Emanuel, the Association of Health Insurance Providers (AHIP) is a major donor to the Democratic party, as is PhRMA, and the Democratic party chases Donor funds, money is the lifeblood of politics, and they are terrified of Donor cash all going to the Republicans.
Summers Goldman Sachs Tweedle Dum: Geithner Goldman Sachs Tweedle-Dee, I forgot about Rahm Emanuel, can you even give Obama credit for being intimidated "triangulated" into the sell-out? It would have been one thing to fight it out for all he could get, but these were his guys!
Mmerose. I guess I should save my comments and cut and paste them again and again, because more than once I have caveated my criticism of the Obama ADMINISTRATION. not Obama.
Obama is a good man, he was just a fish out of water. no experience inside the beltway, only 2 years as a Senator and half of that campaigning.
Senators don't make good presidents, because the skill one learns as a senator (compromise, bargaining, comity, bipartisanship) don't work well with the skills necessary to be an executive.
Governors on the other hand have experience governing, we may not like their experience such as Bush and Reagan, but FDR was a governor and the best President in the 20th and 21st Century, and in my opinion the best since Washington.
Obama entered the White House with no experience inside the beltway, no allies other than a few Democratic Senators, and was leaped on by those with an agenda, loyalties and connections, like Larry Summers and Rahm Emanuel. .
I believe that Larry Summers was the Éminence grise, twas he who represented Wall Street and the financial powers, it was he who recommended Rahm Emanuel, whom Obama could not even have known existed as Chief of Staff, it was he who steered Obama into appointing Timothy Geithner, a Goldman Sachs maven as Secretary of the Treasurer.
When Trump sat down behind the Resolute Desk, an Éminence grise, sidled up to him, and made recommendations as to who to appoint to offices. They obviously believed that with the right cabinet and advisors they could control Trump, the same mistake made by Krupp, Thyssen and the rest of the German industrialists and financial powers, who had backed Hitler., and indeed Hitler was good for their business, as the factories started to hum pouring out weapons of war.
Jamie Dimon, said at Davos, that he could work with either Trump or Biden.
This Éminence grise, or manipulator behind the throne, misjudged Trump. Trump has the mind and morals of mafia boss. Obama didn't neither does Biden.
Obama was out of his depth, a fish out of water, and thus manipulated by his Chief of Staff, and the Cabinent chose by his Chief of Staff and larry Summers.
The same Éminence grise was and probably is, at work with Biden. Biden knows his way around D.C., he was also called, for good reason, the Senator from Wall Street.
Do I have to explain that again, for the 10th Time?
But Biden is not omniscient and has a limited area of expertise, mostly negotiating and compromise, guided by a desire for comity and bipartisanship, but being an Executive of the United States, is not a job one can do on their own, they need a staff to help them, people knowledgeable and capable, to handle certain areas like Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, Transportation, Agriculture, and so on which we call cabinets or advisors.
So how does he find the people to fill those jobs, for one thing there is the DNC, the DSCC, the DCCC, and the manipulator, the Éminence grise
Let me give you a current example. Do you think Trump ever heard of Steven Miller before he sat behind the Resolute Desk, or even Gen Mattis, or Mark Meadows?
Hell no, he was too busy sticking his finger in the pussy's of teenage girls, and scam contractors, NYC officials, Insurance companies and Banks.
So who was this manipulator, this power behind the throne, this Éminence grise,who picked his Cabinet and Staff.?
Things will be different this time, if he wins the election. He knows the ropes now, he knows his power, Trump 45 was OJT, (on the job training).
Same with Biden, Biden came into office with a tool kit, as a senator, he realized in his first term that his tool kit was that of an electrician and he needed a plumbers tool kit.
I fully expect Garland to be replaced in a second Biden Term, the fact that he can't run for re election means he can ignore political blowback and clean house, one caveat is the Éminence grise, not necessarily a man, but a cabal of men and women, behind the scenes like the donors , the DNC,
A commanding geneeral, an admiral, a Captain of the Ship, a CEO, the President all have one thing in common, they are not omnescient nor omnipresent, and have to delegate, but in the end they are responsible for everything under their watch, because they delegated to subordinates. Subordinates chose by them.
Their is one difference though, in the military, the officers, the enlisted leaders, did not choose their subordinates, their subordinates were chosen for them, yet the responsibility lies on them
As Truman famously said, "The Buck stops here"
Stock buybacks are the most offensive form of insider trading and they are allowed by law because of a rule passed by the Reagan administration. Executives take most of their pay in stock, so they have their corporations buy back their shares as often as possible.
Even conservatives know this results in market manipulation for the benefit of the executives. Trump appointee SEC commissioner Robert J Jackson, Jr reported that stock prices did increase immediately before a buyback. https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/speech-jackson-061118
The problem is not that buybacks in themselves are harmful, it’s that executives are allowed to control the corporation to buy back their own shares.
To make this issue more confusing, the rule (SEC 10b-18) that the Reagan administration passed on this issue begins by prohibiting a corporation from buying back executive shares but then provides a loophole the size of a black hole. It is permitted if the buyback meets four very complex conditions called a safe haven. SEC chair Mary Jo White said that exemption was so complicated the SEC could not enforce it and so executives are completely free to have their corporation buyback their shares.
The reform needed is not to prohibit all buybacks, but to eliminate the safe haven provision that allows the corporation to buy executives shares. The prohibition on this practice should be absolute.
I'm not going to mince words about the fact that the old way of having Mom & Pop community stores could be abusive as well. There was racism, price gouging, and a lot of tax cheating. It was much harder to regulate the bad eggs.
That's the difference now, with computing power, we are better able to protect the customer and collect taxes. If only the damn conservatives would stop thinking that rich people do what they do so they can create jobs. If only Republicans had some respect for the customers and workers that are the real engine that drives the economy.
We shouldn't waste our ability to regulate, bust the trusts, and collect taxes. We owe it to the people that drive the economy; we don't owe anything to the billionaires who go shopping for politicians and judges!
I agree wholeheartedly and would add that this consolidation of power has been accelerated in the health care industry by the Affordable Care Act, you might want to have Matt Stoller on your show to elaborate. https://www.levernews.com/how-obamacare-created-big-medicine/?utm_source=newsletter-email&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=newsletter-article
First: Stoller reveals his bias right off, by referring to the ACA as “Obamacare, a pejorative term invented by the right wing. Secondly, this article confirms what I wrote about earlier, that Reaganomics destroyed our Economy based on Business, and replaced it with one based on Finance. The medical field has now joined in. Thirdly, the ACA was half written by insurance companies, pushed into the design process by the Republicans, who forced the elimination of the Public Option plan, which was supposed to be the crux of the ACA. “Obamacare“ is the result of too many greedy hands spoiling the stew.
Despite its faults, it provides cheap health care to more people and eliminates discrimination against pre-existing conditions. Low income people have Medicaid.
The easy answer: extend Medicare. Medicare for all with the elimination of the collateral source law could fix everything. Part B and all PI type insurance costs would probably drop.
Biden, BTW is doing what he can by adding competition in cost of medicine.
The easier answer is to do what every other industrialized nation does, and that would be allowing everyone to "buy in" to Medicare and create a single, simple, far less bureaucratic pool. And Biden has done nothing tangible apart from allowing Medicare to negotiate the prices of 10 medications out of 20000 prescribed starting in three years, and by that time another administration could try and change that paltry electorally based policy. Like climate change, nipping around the edges of health care policy will not change the dire trajectory of health care in America. It's not a coincidence that those who are more well situated tend to minimize the crises that I see right in front of me on a daily basis.
We don't live in a dictatorship.
Biden does not make law. He needs both houses of Congress and a supermajority in the Senate to make any progress.
I have Medicare and $164.90 is deducted from my Social Security monthly
My wife is on a social security replacement program and has SSA deduct the premium from out checking account. I also have a secondary group pllan, via CalPers. I am in remission from brain and lung cancer, diagnosed as stage 4 six years ago. A craniotomy, 10 bouts of radiation, two years of tri weekly infusions of immunotherapy (Keytruda), and a CT Scan and MRI quarterly for four years, now semi annually (both next month)
And to date I have paid nothing for medical bills that are over mlliions and climbing, not to mention all of the colonoscopies, had my last one Jan 17th, and then there are my diabetic check up's, every six months, with blood tests and still nothing, and my cataract surgery last April and May, again cost me nothing.
Granted if I didn't have a secondary insurance it would cost me dearly, but at least I would be alive. The reason I have to have a secondary insurance is because of George W. Bush and the Republicans.
BTW when I was 17, 1956, I lived with my grandparents in a shotgun cabin in Louisiana, my grandfather was blind in one eye from a wood chip when lumberjacking for Crossett lumber company, he tried share cropping in Oxbow, Oklahoma., they were poor folk, they received a bare minimum social security check, enough to buy sugar, flour , snuff, Moonshine syrup, dried black eyed peas and ground meat for Pappy's hamburgers (Mammy wouldn't eat beef).
The cabin belong to their son, and he paid the electricity, sewage was a septic tank, an upgrade to the outhouse in which we lived.
LBJ made a big difference in their life when he signed the Medicare, Medicaid act, no longer did they have to pay for medicine..
So what I want to know, Barry, is what are you really all about. What is your true ideology? Are you a "tankie" or an unrequited Marxist?
Marx really wasn't a champion of the proletariat, he thought of them as a useful resource, nothing more. He was a proto libertarian., who actually had no problem exploiting the working class His partner Engels inherited a textile mill,and he agitated to free the slaves and hire them back at market wages, because Fred had to import the inferior but cheaper cotton. Also he was a gold bug and thought that gold was the standard of value., as did the USSR
Your bias is showing by blaming the Republicans for the faults inherent in a 2,100 page albatross that placed the insurance industry squarely in charge of our health care system. Being a physician for the past 30 years, I can tell you that the ACA has made my life and my patient's access to medicine and care a nightmare of pre-authorizations, approvals, appeals and denials. And the fact is that it has pushed physicians out of private practice and into conglomerate medicine, which now puts patient care in the hands of nurse practitioners, physician's assistants and hospitalists. Blame whoever you want but the overarching point is that our politicians are doing the work of industry and not for the public good. Period. And don't tell me Obama went pushing for a public option. I read that legislation and could have told you what the outcome would be, and he knew it as well. It didn't work.
I am on medicare and have been the last 17 years, and never ever has my PCP been frequired to ask for pre approval. You must be dealing with Medicare disAdvantage customers and they are not medicare but private insurance, mostly HMO's, which do require approval.
What a fraud on the American people! Can somebody get to Joe Namath, for one, to get him to eat crow? As a totally humble, grateful military relict, I got the message to NOT sign up for those PIRATES! Try-Care for Life is my "Supplement," plain and simple. I was a family caregiver who went thru years of cut-offs from "Advantage" plan leeches for my aunts. There's a musical stage-play in there somewhere with a feature of social workers explaining how your plan cuts you off, cuts you off, crescendo, arms raised, CUTS YOU ooooofff!
True for the most part. Unfortunately, half of Americans enrolled in Medicare are in Medicare Advantage plans. And traditional Medicare only covers less than 20% of all insureds, so between Advantage and private insurance there is endless negotiating. In addition, Medicare cannot cover over 60% of medications due to cost, so there is indeed wrangling with traditional Medicare regarding what can and cannot be prescribed, including formulary and tier exceptions.
Medicare advantage has the same rules as Medicare, it only covers 80% and worse most are HMO's which means you are out of luck, if you go see a doctor, unless it is an emergency, and HMO authorized doctors have to get approval for procedures\\
there are indeed discrepancies and serious problems, but that is because of the problem of money in politics. Medicare and Medicaid were great programs, until George W. Bush and AHIP/PhRMA used their donor power to screw them.
We have the best government and justice system that money can buy, and Thom has covered that ground many times, it stretches back to the head note in Santa Clara County v. southern Pacific RR.
The only solution, at the moment, is a dictatorship and we are staring one in the face. Trump 47, and it is not too comfortable for any of us, the old dog catches the car trope.
Dictatorship is the only solution?? What ??
Medicare Advantage plans are the first major step in totally eliminating the Medicare program. They originated with the GOP (yes, republicans again) during the GW Bush administration. They were snuck in as an alternative to having separate drug plans, as all-in-one plans to make life easier and healthcare more convenient. Our tax dollars went to the private plan administrators to make the plans extremely affordable. With built in declining subsidies until after 10 years all government support was supposed to end. Of course, the subsidies to those PRIVATE insurers were extended indefinitely. A 2013 study found that the privately run Advantage plans actually cost Medicare about 15% more than Medicare would have charged. Thanks to very ‘creative billing’. Odd how the so called liberal media isn’t reporting on all this. And don’t forget, we were already in a healthcare crisis before the ACA was even initiated. It WHY the ACA was needed
Yes, I agree that the original intent of the ACA was twisted and ultimately benefits exactly the parties which we were attempting to control. Thank the Republican Party for throwing a monkey wrench into the negotiations and for blocking the best parts of the plan.
I'm not certain why you have to continue to make this a partisan issue as it's not. Obama did nothing to fight for a public option and soundly rejected any type of national health care program. The legislation was sloppy and full of holes because it was authored by lobbyists and Democrats were on board with that. It was so incredibly complex because over half of it concerned the health and welfare of the insurance industry, which is the opposite of what a health care bill should be. It is indeed Obama's legacy, and Republicans might have deconstructed it slightly but it's primary function was to increase corporate profits regardless and feed us to the health care conglomerates.
I think you forget that the same night that Obama was inaugurated, McConnell met with his senate leaders and plotted their plan to obstruct ANYTHING and everything that Obama proposed. “we will make him a one term president “ by ensuring he couldn’t succeed at anything. They used the filibuster to do exactly that. The fact that Obama was able to pass ANY kind of health legislation is miraculous. The Public Option was the first thing to be jettisoned, to save the remaining items. It certainly was the Republicans who refused to negotiate without the participation of the insurance companies. It ended up as a giraffe (a horse that is designed by a committee!😁). But that ‘giraffe’ is ensuring that millions of previously uninsured people now have healthcare coverage, including several of my friends. As a patient, I also feel the negative effects of the hospital conglomerates and the early retirement of my favorite physician. You know as well as I that Corporate America will seize every loophole and twist the law to their own advantage.
The old joke is it's a camel designed by a committee. Other than that, Amen.
And I really don't understand why it's so important to defend a particular politician instead of facing facts. Last I checked I thought it was their job to watch out for our well being and not vice-versa: "Obama had promised on the campaign trail that he would sign a universal health care bill into law, and one that would “cut the cost of a typical family’s premium by up to $2,500 a year.” In 2004, the average insured family of four paid $11,192 in health care costs; by 2022 that amount was $30,260. That increase in cost for a family of four is the price of a small car, every single year." My premium alone for a family of four is nearly $30,000. How is that affordable?
I assume you do not have Obamacare.
Nothing heard from Barry yet???
LOL, good one Daniel.
,
What I know of the ACA is that Rahm Emanuel, as chief of staff, excluded single payor advocates like Bernie, from any White House Discussions, while the White House Visitors log shows a strong of health insurance lobbyists, coming and going. and Nancy was in the act, as she wouldn't bring in single payer bill to the floor, and worked with Rahm to keep single payor off the table.
Meanwhile all it would have taken is a simple bill with one line. Changing the eligibility date for Medicare from 65 to at birth. And what we got was a 600 page monstrosity.
As regards that bastard Medicare disAdvantage, lay that at the foot of George W. Bush.
What needs to be done is to draw up a list of the most powerful lobbying groups
Let's start with
Saudis
Carbon Cabal
Russians
AHIP
PhRMA
Evangelicals
AIPAC.
Pelosi was a hard nosed realist who knew that any reference to a single payer system was dead on arrival. I guess Rahm was the same but I don’t know. I couldn’t stand him. I do know that GOP opposition was so strong that they even voted down their own jobs bill, just because Obama had proposed it after all his ideas had been filibustered. How do you think that the changes you propose would have survived?
You are making excuses. n the November 2008 elections, the Democratic Party increased its majorities in both chambers (including – when factoring in the two Democratic caucusing independents – a brief filibuster-proof 60-40 supermajority in the Senate), and with Barack Obama being sworn in as president on January 20, 2009, this gave Democrats an overall federal government trifecta for the first time since the 103rd Congress in 1993.
Therefore your Dead on Arrival statement means that it was dead on arrival at the White House, because Rahm Emanuel would have none of it.
The fact is that instead of a thousand page ACA, part of which SCOTUS nullified, was a gift to the insurance industry, and instead of an incomprehensible ACA, Nancy could have put a bill on he floor, that was one page, and one paragraph, changing the eligibility for Medicare from Age 65 to birth.
And there was a brief period when the Dems had a supermajority and were filibuster proof.
Trolling are you? Looking for an argument.
No, really. That was my first thought also. Alerting the public? How? No one reads newspapers anymore; they’ve become so financially strapped that they’ll publish any eye catching sensational junk that will make a buck. Like trump’s campaign in 2016.
Via the only medium we have, we can draw up a list, publish it on substack and other social media, once it gets going it has its own life/
"...[Bork] never considered the value of good food freshly made in a local restaurant as opposed to things arriving from across the country in giant plastic boxes to chain restaurants..." This reminds me of the longstanding knock against conservatives, to wit, that they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
The spark that lit the fire was the Powell Memorandum written in August of 1971 to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and that decried the power of workers' unions and the need to counter it with business organizations. Membership in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce increased tremendously as did corporate lobbying of public officials. Powell's reward was his appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court the following year.
Another turning point was enactment of the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act in 1947 with Congress overriding Truman's veto. It could not have passed without the support of members of the Democratic Party.
Gore Vidal accurately observed "It makes no difference who you vote for - the two parties are really one party representing four percent of the people." Few people realize that the party bosses choose who to put on the ballot as with Truman replaccing three trerm VP Henry A Wallace and so becoming president a few months later or as with Sanders not being on the ballot and votes having neocons like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden as "choices".
Hi Thom,
I could write a thank-you to you almost every day for your insight, diligence, and fearlessness. Today’s message just grabbed me and inspired me to let you know that your well researched, well reasoned, and thoughtful take on the “Reagan Revolution” and its attendant slow burn catastrophes reminded me once again why I follow you.
I have much gratitude for what you do and how you do it. Please keep up the great work!
Boeing's decline of market share from 70% in 1996 to 42% today does seem to mirror America's waning economic influence and lessening ability to nimbly produce what the world's consumers demand. Of course corporations and economies rise and fall--what firms are listed in the Dow industrial average has changed many times in a century--but when US Steel was sold to Japanese company that didn’t say anything good about America's industrial capacity now or in the future. An emphasis on short term profits is no way to run a modern nation, no matter what goods or services it produces.
And another part of turning things around would be reviving the Depression-era laws, particularly Stegall-Glass, which separated commercial and investment banking. Clinton happily "reformed" things by approving its repeal, though it was weakening long before him. (Some sections, like the FDIC, are still in effect.) There are arguments that after it was killed investment speculation increased, leading right into the Great Recession. Bork might consider uncontrolled speculative investments by large banks to ultimately "help" the consumer in a more efficient economy. But most people would disagree with that.
...by AND large
Expand the Court! It’s the only solution. One I come to very reluctantly