California Free Press

After Attacking Medicare for All as 'Unrealistic' During Primary, Biden Says Healthcare a 'Right for All' Amid Pandemic

Published on Thursday, June 25, 2020

by Common Dreams

"And the natural idea that follows from that is....?"

by Julia Conley, staff writer

 

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden gestures as he delivers remarks about healthcare on June 25, 2020 in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. (Photo by Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images)

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden left some progressives perplexed Thursday when he spoke at length about healthcare during a campaign stop in Lancaster, Pennsylvania—making a number of points that would suggest he supports Medicare for All, a proposal he denounced as "unrealistic" throughout the Democratic primary.

Washington Post reporter Jeff Stein noted that Biden mentioned the unemployment crisis that's grown out of the coronavirus pandemic in his speech, suggesting that the loss of employer-based health coverage has made a powerful case for the federal government to guarantee healthcare to all Americans.

Joe Biden notes in speech today that many people are losing their health insurance during the pandemic because it is tied to their employment

— Jeffrey Stein (@JStein_WaPo) June 25, 2020

"Families are reeling right now," the former vice president said, "losing their employers' plans in droves as their employers go out of business, or have to suspend business—they need lifelines now."

Thomas Kennedy, Florida state coordinator for the immigrant rights group United We Dream, suggested expanding the popular Medicare program to cover all Americans would be an effective lifeline for the 43 million people who could lose their employer-based health insurance during the pandemic, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

There is this thing called Medicare For All that would fix this. Biden should support it. https://t.co/kZtSFDKWqA

— Thomas Kennedy (@tomaskenn) June 25, 2020

However, Biden tied the crisis to his push for a public healthcare plan which would exist alongside the for-profit health insurance industry—not Medicare for All.

"We need a public option now more than ever, especially when 20 million people are unemployed," Biden said. "The public option will allow every American, regardless of their employment status, the choice to get a Medicare-like plan."

Biden is reportedly revamping some of the specifics of his healthcare plan in the coming weeks after forming a joint task force with former advisors to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who continues to advocate for Medicare for All following his presidential run. 

In his speech, Biden said Americans would have to pay no more than 8.5% of their income on healthcare costs; under the Affordable Care Act, the current limit is 9.86%, and was lower in previous years. Deductibles and out-of-pocket costs on top of premiums would still exist under Biden's plan, and as written, roughly 10 million Americans would remain uninsured. 

During the primary, Biden derided Sanders' Medicare for All proposal—which a Yale University study in February showed would save over $450 billion in healthcare costs annually—as "unrealistic." In an interview with MSNBC in March, days before the coronavirus pandemic was declared a national public health emergency and millions were left jobless overnight, Biden suggested that even if Medicare for All legislation were to pass in both chambers of Congress during his potential presidency, he would not necessarily sign it into law, citing concerns over cost.  

Objections to Medicare for All over its potential costs have been particularly irksome to proponents of the single-payer solution, with study after study showing overall expenditures would be less while providing comprehensive coverage to everyone in the country.

On social media during his appearance in Pennsylvania—where a 2018 Morning Consult/Politico poll found a majority of voters supported Medicare for All—Biden suggested that Sanders was correct to demand that the federal government ensure every American have healthcare coverage, referring to healthcare as a "right for all."

Health care is a right for all — not a privilege for the few.

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) June 25, 2020

Medicare for All advocates implored Biden to commit to fighting to expand healthcare to all Americans—rather than just borrowing rhetoric from politicians who have pledged to do just that.

Health care is a right for all — not a privilege for the few.

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) June 25, 2020

"So what are you going to do about that?" asked Lauren Ashcraft, a democratic socialist who ran for Congress in New York's 12th district this year.

---

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

 

America Self-Destructing From the Malignant Neuroses of its President & Republicans Gone Inhumanely Conservative

by Frank Thomas

A year ago, Trump told a crowd that he might remain in office “at least for 10-14 years.” He tweeted, “After serving two terms, do you think the people would demand that I stay longer?” Trump, the Great Divider, Liar, Egoist, revels in his megalomaniac illusions of being the Great Saviour who fits the footsteps of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, even Churchill.

As crazy as Trump’s question and his self-proclaimed greatness are, the craziness gets wilder with a question addressed by Daniel Block of Washington Monthly: “How Could Trump Lose the Presidential Election and Remain President?” What would it look like if Trump refused to concede to a loss? Such a maddening prospect is scary as would also be his election to a second term. Daniel Block’s analysis obviously concludes the likelihood of that happening is NIL. (https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/april-may-june-2019)

Whatever happens, the above dramatizes the absolute necessity the Democrat Party captures the maximum registered and unregistered voter potential in November. In the 2016 presidential election, total voter turnout was 60.1%. As I noted in an earlier analysis, if the total voter turnout is in +65% range in November, Joe Biden will win the election for president. The Independent vote is well over 25% of the total voter turnout today. And at least 60% of that share (hopefully far more), will likely vote Democrat. The 18 to 34 and over 65 voter age groups are strongly behind Joe Biden as are the non-white Black/Latino voters, women voters, and white college-educated working class voters. The GOP’s suburban white non-college voters are shrinking; Trump has alienated Hispanic and minority voters in a number of states where the non-white share of the vote is growing. In states like Texas, Colorado, Virginia, Georgia, Arizona, Republicans are doing poorly in urban-suburban districts with growing non-white and white college educated voters. However, the Democrats must do a much better job of winning the loyalty of the white non-college educated working class voters.

Current polls show that in the race to win the Senate back, the Democrats have women candidates with good leads over the Republican opposition. And 3 or 4 other Senate races can go either way. Current polls show Biden to be nationally ahead in all swing states except North Carolina. In 2016, Trump won 30 out of 50 states, by a slim vote margin in some key states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, Ohio, Iowa – all won by Obama in 2008 and 2012. Here are Trump’s winning popular vote margins:

	Winning Vote	Margin %	Electoral Votes
Pennsylvania	44,292	0.72%	20
Michigan	10,704	0.23%	16
Wisconsin	22,748	0.77%	10
Florida	112,911	1.20%	29
Ohio	446,841	8.13%	18
Iowa	147,314	9.41%	6
Arizona	91,234	3.54%	11
North Carolina	173,315	3.66%	15
Margin 50 States	2,868,686	2.09%
(Won By Hillary)
TOTAL VOTES
Hillary	65,853,514	48.17%	227 =42.8%
Trump	62,984,828	46.09%	304 =57.2%
			531

If Biden wins any four of above key states, he will win the presidency. Each state has as many electors in the Electoral College as it has Representatives and Senators in the Congress. (The District of Columbia has three electors). Given how well the Democrats won back the House of Representatives in 2018 and will likely maintain that margin in 2020 and possibly win at least 2 more Senate seats (or 49 Senate seats in total), this will help the Democrats win the Senate electoral majority vote in November.

With a sinking economy made worse by Trump’s late response to and mismanagement of the Covid-19 pandemic and the George Floyd protest movement, it’s no surprise his campaign strategy is hell-bent focused on suppressing voter turnout – e.g., by demonizing Joe Biden and by falsely discrediting mail-in voting as inherently fraudulent. He’s now repeating that mail-in voting is responsible for “thousands and thousands (later increasing that to millions and millions) of fake ballots.” When asked what’s the evidence, his deceitful reply was, “I think just common sense would tell you that massive manipulation can take place.”

This outrageous charge has led Trump to threaten to withhold government support funds from Michigan and Nevada – if they go ahead with plans to send absentee ballots to voters to help avoid the Covid-19 crisis. In his words: “People cheat … mail-in ballots are a very dangerous thing for this country because they (the voters) are cheaters.” Reckless, lying remarks like this now are now also being made in his calling Governors weak in controlling protesters and his pushing Governors to put protesters in prison for 10 years.

Stunningly, Republican Party members remain dead, dumb, and blind to all of Trump’s neuroses and deranged, misleading tweets. Once upon a time after WWII up to 1980, there were traditional moderate, pragmatic Republican norms that balanced individual and community interests. That supported prosperity and opportunities that raise all ships equitably. There was a spirit of mutual cooperation and plain decency in the country. That constructive, moderate relatively egalitarian period was uprooted by an army of angry men who rose to power through pure politics. Their ultra-conservative spokesman, Grover Norquest summed this up: “Bipartisanship is another term for date rape. I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” Conservatives call it “starving the beast”, ^i.e.shrinking government by huge tax cuts for corporations and the Top 10% - ultimately causing net federal tax revenue losses offset by cuts in government spending, including basic social programs like Medicare, Medicade, Social Security, Welfare Support, etc. 

And now we have Trump carrying on the purest-ideology, survival-of-the-fittest, right-of-center Republican transformation – with his 24-hour tweeter drumbeat of warnings, alarms, insults, sudden policy switches, and personal harassments. All to keep the public uneasy, divided and distracted from his latest failing or deception.

We have a politically authoritarian and fundamentalist bully who wants to jail whistle blowers, journalists and protesters. A nihilist in golf pants who governs by surrounding himself with boot licking sycophants – many ending up in jail or fired for criminal acts or insubordination to their omnipotent RULER. To Hell with everyone who opposes him! Welcome to our DISUNITED democracy at work, thanks to Trump Inc.!

CONCLUSION:

Trump’s form of leadership is by nature a pernicious disuniting force – always adding oil to the endemic societal fires and problems stemming from the rampant tribalism, anger, inequality and racism tearing our nation apart. Empathy, mutual respect, harmony, common sense cooperation, plain decency amongst politicians, supporters, the public are becoming harder and harder to find. This is a great nation that wasn’t made so by an angry, shockingly divided people who felt that their country’s opportunities and prosperity weren’t raising the well-being of all equitably. In this regard, what a relief to hear now our esteemed Military Generals speaking up on our built-up SOCIETAL MESS, DIVISIONS & The CONSEQUENCES for our constitutional democracy that Trump’s dis-unifying, disarrayed, disingenuous leadership is only making worse.

Garrison Keiller had some ‘right-on-the-mark slams’ of conservative politics in past times that still apply to what’s happening now under Trump’s presidency:

“Lies pop up like toad stools in the forest! Wild swine crowd round the public through! Outrageous gerrymandering! Pocket lining on a massive scale! Paid lobbyists sit in committee rooms and write legislation to alleviate the suffering of billionaires! Hypocrises shine like cat turds in the moonlight! O Mark Twain, where art thou at this hour? Arise and behold the Gilded Age, reincarnated gaudier than ever, upholding great wealth as the sure sign of DIVINE GRACE. The wealth and power in the hands of the few is the death knell of democracy. No republic in the history of humanity has survived this!

ADDENDUM: My and The Economist’s Similar Forecast Conclusions: Biden Will Defeat Trump in Electoral College By Winning Key States

The Economist has just reported its study results, citing 9 key swing states for Biden to reach the minimum required 270 electoral votes (and more) to win the presidency in November. The Economist’s June 11th list of swing states is exactly the same as my June 3rd list above from my independent study, except for the addition of Georgia. Here’s the Economist’s ‘Big Picture’ conclusion on Biden’s chances of winning key swing states:

---

Key Swing States	Probability Biden Wins	Probability %	2016 Electoral Votes
Pennsylvania	LIKELY	65-85%	20
Michigan	VERY LIKELY	85-99%	16
Wisconsin	LIKELY	65-85%	10
Florida	LIKELY	65-85%	29
Ohio	UNCERTAIN	50-65%	18
Iowa	UNLIKELY	WELL BELOW 65%	6
Arizona	UNCERTAIN	50-65%	11
North Carolina	UNCERTAIN	50-65%	15
Georgia	UNCERTAIN	50-65%	16

---

As stated in my June 3rd writing, if Biden wins any 4 of the first 8 states above or any 4 of the Economist’s 9 states, he will win the required minimum of 270 electoral votes to become president. Most polls now show Biden ahead in the first 5 states and is moving closer to Trump in the Iowa race with its very small electoral votes. These are the very same six states Obama won in 2008 and 2012! Overall, Biden has an average polling margin lead of 6.7 percentage points. Races in Arizona, North Carolina and Georgia are also now getting closer between Biden and Trump.

The Economist predicts Biden will LIKELY WIN Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida and is VERY LIKELY to WIN Michigan. My study of these states concludes the same, especially if there is a +65% total voter TURNOUT compared to 60.1% in the 2016 presidential election. If total voter TURNOUT is in the +65% range, my analysis indicates Biden will win at least 1, perhaps 2 , of the last 5 swing states, namely Ohio, Iowa, Arizona, North Carolina, or Georgia. That scenario will surely bring Biden well over the minimum 270 electoral votes required to win the presidency (although Iowa and North Carolina are still ‘long shots’).

NOTE – Study Details 

The Economist: “Meet Our US 2020 Election-Forecasting Model,“ June 11, 2020.

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2020/06/11/meet-our-us-2020-election-forecasting-model

https://projects.economist.com/united-states/2020/06/11/meet-our-us-2020-election-forecasting-model

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-latest-swing-state-polls-look-good-for-biden    

Frank Thomas, The Netherlands, June 3, 2020

Off the Top of My Head

Racist Economics

by John Lawrence, June 8, 2020

Is it racism when the schools in predominantly black neighborhoods are worse than schools in predominantly white neighborhoods? Schools in many parts of the country are funded with local property taxes. It stands to reason that property values in poor neighborhoods are less than property values in rich neighborhoods, and, therefore, property tax revenues and hence school funding is less. So the worse schools are found in poor "predominantly black" neighborhoods. A word you hear often these days is "predominantly". Nothing is totally black and white, but, when black people are affected in a way that is greater than their percentage of the population, one could say it is a "predominantly black" situation. When police arrest black people at a greater rate than they do white people, we could say that the police are a racist institution.

It has been said that the only mistake that the looters at the current protests made was that they didn't form a hedge fund first before they started looting. Martin Luther King said, “The black revolution is much more than a struggle for the rights of Negroes. It is forcing America to face all its interrelated flaws—racism, poverty, militarism, and materialism. It is exposing the evils that are rooted deeply in the whole structure of our society. It reveals systemic rather than superficial flaws and suggests that radical reconstruction of society itself is the real issue to be faced.” Republicans have breathed a sigh of relief that so far the Black Lives Matter movement has had little to say about poverty, economic inequality, militarism and materialism. Some though are getting to the heart of the problems in our society that affect us all but affect black people "disproportionately."

Writing in the New Yorker Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor said:

The [1992] uprising in L.A. shared with the rebellions of the nineteen-sixties an igniting spark of police abuse, widespread violence, and the fury of the rebels. But, in the nineteen-sixties, the flush economy and the still-intact notion of the social contract meant that President Lyndon B. Johnson could attempt to drown the civil-rights movement and the Black Power radicalization with enormous social spending and government-program expansion, including the passage of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, which produced the first government-backed, low-income homeownership opportunities directed at African-Americans.

By the late nineteen-eighties and early nineties, the economy was in recession and the social contract had been ripped to shreds. The rebellions of the nineteen-sixties and the enormous social spending intended to bring them under control were wielded by the right to generate a backlash against the expanded welfare state. Political conservatives argued that the market, not government intervention, could create efficiencies and innovation in the delivery of public services. This rhetoric was coupled with virulent racist characterizations of African-Americans, who relied disproportionately on welfare programs. Ronald Reagan mastered the art of color-blind racism in the post-civil-rights era with his invocations of “welfare queens.” Not only did these distortions pave the way for undermining the welfare state, they reinforced racist delusions about the state of black America that legitimized deprivation and marginalization.

The 1990s saw Democrats agreeing with Republicans that problems in the black community were largely caused by overly generous social programs. President Bill Clinton promised to "end welfare as we know it." Senator Joe Biden jumped right on board the push to reduce welfare programs by saying, "“the culture of welfare must be replaced with the culture of work. The culture of dependence must be replaced with the culture of self-sufficiency and personal responsibility. And the culture of permanence must no longer be a way of life.” Biden championed the 1994 “crime bill” that pledged to put a hundred thousand more police on the street, called for mandatory prison sentences for certain crimes, increased funding for policing and prisons, and expanded the use of the death penalty. By the 1980s Ronald Reagan decried "welfare queens."

Taylor continues:

So, though Biden desperately wants us to believe that he is a harbinger of change, his long record of public service says otherwise. He has claimed that Barack Obama’s selection of him as his running mate was a kind of absolution for Biden’s dealings in the Democrats’ race-baiting politics of the nineteen-nineties. But, from the excesses of the criminal-justice system and the absence of a welfare state to the inequality rooted in an unbridled, rapacious market economy, Biden has shaped much of the world that this generation has inherited and is revolting against.

More important, the ideas honed in the nineteen-eighties and nineties continue to beat at the center of Biden’s political agenda. His campaign advisers include Larry Summers, who, as Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, was an enthusiastic supporter of deregulation, and, as Obama’s chief economic adviser during the recession, endorsed the Wall Street bailout while allowing millions of Americans to default on their mortgages.

Biden was chiefly responsible for the 2005 bill that took away bankruptcy protection from student load debtors (presumably disproportionately black). Credit card companies, many of whom are headquartered in Biden's state of Delaware, have been major Biden campaign contributors. Biden was known as the Senator from MBNA. Biden should just turn over the Democratic nomination to Bernie Sanders who has been on the right side of issues which are now coming to the forefront in American life.

Taylor continues:

In 1968, King, in the weeks before he was assassinated, said, “In a sense, I guess you could say, we are engaged in the class struggle.” He was speaking to the costs of the programs that would be necessary to lift black people out of poverty and inequality, which were, in and of themselves, emblems of racist subjugation. Ending segregation in the South, then, was cheap compared with the huge costs necessary to end the kinds of discrimination that kept blacks locked out of the advantages of U.S. society, from well-paying jobs to well-resourced schools, good housing, and a comfortable retirement. The price of the ticket is quite steep, but, if we are to have a real conversation about how we change America, it must begin with an honest assessment of the scope of the deprivation involved. Racist and corrupt policing is the tip of the iceberg.

We have to make space for new politics, new ideas, new formations, and new people. The election of Biden may stop the misery of another Trump term, but it won’t stop the underlying issues that have brought about more than a hundred thousand COVID-19 deaths or continuous protests against police abuse and violence. Will the federal government intervene to stop the looming crisis of evictions that will disproportionately impact black women? Will it use its power and authority to punish police, and to empty prisons and jails, which not only bring about social death but are now also sites of rampant COVID-19 infection? Will it end the war on food stamps and allow African-Americans and other residents of this country to eat in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression? Will it finance the health-care needs of tens of millions of African-Americans who have become susceptible to the worst effects of the coronavirus, and are dying as a result? Will it provide the resources to depleted public schools, allowing black children the opportunity to learn in peace? Will it redistribute the hundreds of billions of dollars necessary to rebuild devastated working-class communities? Will there be free day care and transportation?

In short we need good paying union jobs (Green New Deal) that will deal with the issue of climate change (Green New Deal), forgiveness of student loan debt (the least Biden can do since he was largely responsible for creating the situation), Medicare for All (since hospitals in black neighborhoods compare unfavorably with those in white neighborhoods), public housing (to end homelessness and guarantee everyone the right to have a roof over their head). If we want to solve the problem of institutional racism in this country, we need to address the fundamental problems of economic inequality. Where do we get the money? Not only by defunding the police which claim the lion's share of local budgets, but by demilitarizing the bloated military-industrial complex and taxing the rich at 1955 levels (91%). The Federal Reserve can always take a few more trillion on its balance sheet; it has taken trillions on its balance sheet already and given the money to the big banks. How about Quantitative Easing for the people? Economic inequality is a problem which affects black people disproportionately (there's that word again), but the solution of which will contribute to the benefit of white people as well.

Off the Top of My Head

Does Justice for George Floyd Include Economic Justice?

by John Lawrence, June 6, 2020

There is much that needs to be done with police and prison reform. A national ban against "carotid restraints." California has already banned them state wide. A national legalization of marijuana. Black people are disproportionately in prison due to being caught with small amounts of marijuana. Decriminalizing possession of small amounts of any drug. Let law enforcement go after the big guys - the dealers - instead of throwing every user in jail.

Black people are also disproportionately poor, so let's extend justice from race to class. What is justice for poor people? The end of homelessness? A Federal guarantee of adequate housing? Not all black people are poor, however. That's why economic justice has to consider class and not just race. There are a significant number of black people that are pretty well off. Take billionaires Robert Smith, Oprah Winfrey and Michael Jordan for example. So when we talk about economic justice, we have to talk about economic justice for poor people, many of whom are disproportionately black, but not all black people. Giving Oprah Winfrey an extra $1000. solves nothing.

So Bernie Sanders, where are you?  He was the foremost spokesman for economic justice. Let's start with the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, specifically Articles 23, 24 and 25.

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

I would also say everyone should have a right to discharge debts through bankruptcy. However, in today's America student loan debtors don't have this right. Joe Biden voted to take this right away from student loan debtors. He backed a 2005 bill that stripped students of bankruptcy protections and left millions in financial stress. Too bad he's the presumptuous Democratic nominee. The mountain of student loan debt crushing borrowers across the country is having an even harsher impact on African-Americans in places like Brooklyn and Chicago when compared to white borrowers, according to none other than research economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

The Guardian reported:

The Republican-led bill tightened the bankruptcy code, unleashing a huge giveaway to lenders at the expense of indebted student borrowers. At the time it faced vociferous opposition from 25 Democrats in the US Senate.

But it passed anyway, with 18 Democratic senators breaking ranks and casting their vote in favor of the bill. Of those 18, one politician stood out as an especially enthusiastic champion of the credit companies who, as it happens, had given him hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions – Joe Biden.

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren voted against it. Student loan debt now stands at $1.5 trillion - greater even than mortgage debt in the US. The sum of outstanding educational loans borrowed from private financial entities was only $56 billion in 2005. More than 1 million people default on their student loans every year. By 2023 the proportion of borrowers falling behind with repayments is expected to reach 40%. This is a massive financial boot on the neck of many American citizens, disproportionately black. “This legislation breaks the bond that unites America, it sacrifices Americans to the rampant greed of the credit card industry,” Ted Kennedy said at the time.

Now Biden wants to change his tune if he becomes President. He announced in April that he is proposing to forgive all undergraduate federal student loan debt for borrowers who attended public colleges and universities. Sanders wanted to cancel all student loan debt tax-free with no limitations, including both federal and private student loans. So Biden is qualifying and nuancing his debt forgiveness plan. Only Federal, not private, student loan debt will be forgiven and then only for those who went to public colleges, and only undergraduate debt. This is stupid because much of the debt is to profit making institutions like the University of Phoenix, many of which were scam colleges producing worthless degrees. Of course something is better than nothing, but Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren would have forgiven all student loan debt unconditionally.

Most of the protesters are millennials, the ones most afflicted with student loan debt. I'll vote for Biden if the race for President is Biden vs Trump. Anyone would be better than Trump. However, there's much about Biden's record that leaves a lot to be desired. Bernie would have been a much better candidate, and he's not officially out of the race yet. The times that we're in call for more profound action than the kind Biden is mildly espousing.

Ocasio-Cortez Warns Biden That Just Throwing Progressives a 'Couple of Bones' Will Not Be Enough

Published on Monday, April 13, 2020

by Common Dreams

"At the bare minimum, we should aspire to be better than what we have been before," says New York Democrat in new interview. "People need to feel hope."

by Eoin Higgins, staff writer

 

27 Comments

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, (D-N.Y.), at the Capitol on Friday, March 27, 2020. (Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc/Getty Images)

In an interview with the New York Times published Monday, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez argues that presumptive 2020 Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has much work to do when it comes to motivating those within the progressive movement inspired and led by Sen. Bernie Sanders over the past five years.

"I don't think this conversation about changes that need to be made is one about throwing the progressive wing of the party a couple of bones—I think this is about how we can win," Ocasio-Cortez told the Times.

NEW: I interview @AOC abt Joe Biden and Democratic unity. What concessions she wants (plenty), if they've ever talked (no), whether we'll see a Biden-AOC unity rally (depends), and what she's thought abt his early health care outreach ("almost insulting")https://t.co/PytaBB0nk1

— Steadman™ (@AsteadWesley) April 13, 2020

In the Times interview, Ocasio-Cortez made clear she intends to support Biden if he is the nominee but said that thus far the former vice president's overtures to the Democratic Party's progressive wing leave much to be desired. 

The New York Democrat—who was a prominent and galvanizing surrogate for Sanders on the campaign trail before he dropped out of the race on April 8—said that while expectations for Biden's campaign should be realistic, there is a need for a forward-thinking agenda. 

"I think people understand that there are limits to what Biden will do and that's understandable—he didn't run as a progressive candidate," Ocasio-Cortez said. "But, at the bare minimum, we should aspire to be better than what we have been before."

At the same time, she said elsewhere in the interview, "people need to feel hope" when it comes to looking towards the next Democratic administration.

As Common Dreams reported last Thursday, a new policy proposal from Biden to lower the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 60 was met with disappointment from the left—and Ocasio-Cortez agreed.

"They floated this olive branch to the progressive left of lowering the Medicare age to 60. And it's almost insulting," she said. "I think Hillary was looking at policies that lowered it to 50. So we're talking about a 'progressive concession' that is 10 years worse than what the nominee had in 2016."

AOC seems to be on the same wavelength as me in this interview: a baseline commitment to defeating Trump, but no shilling, no enthusiasm, nothing besides the most nominal support if Biden doesn't offer us anything... and he hasn't offered us anything. https://t.co/3YMIYATTgn https://t.co/5S7TgqT2ZO

— David Klion (@DavidKlion) April 13, 2020

Ocasio-Cortez added that the exit polling from the primaries made clear that the majority of Democratic voters are on board with progressive policies, a sign that Biden's victories are not necessarily an endorsement of all of the former vice president's political positions.

"While Biden is the nominee, we also know that he didn't win because of policy—I don't think he won because of his agenda, he won because of different factors," said Ocasio-Cortez, referring to an unprecedented coalescing from the rest of the field around Biden after the South Carolina primary.

"In state after state after state," she added, "Democratic voters support a progressive agenda."

Asked about her willingness to rally with Biden, Ocasio-Cortez allowed it was a possibility. But ultimately, she said, the former vice president has to do a better job reaching out to supporters of Sanders and fellow former primary candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

"I've always said that I will support the Democratic nominee," said Ocasio-Cortez. "But unity is a process, and figuring out what that looks like is part of this whole conversation that I think Bernie and Warren and other folks are a part of as well."

---

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

Biden Must Become the Climate-Commander-in-Chief

Published on Saturday, April 11, 2020

by Common Dreams

Given the climate emergency, the difference between a candidate who is good enough on the issue and one who is great, could be the difference between a livable planet and not.

by Karyn Strickler

 

 

26 Comments

Over 150 middle and high school students demonstrated at the U.S. Capitol building urging senators to back the Green New Deal. (Photo: Sunrise Movement)

Now that Bernie Sanders has suspended his run for President Joe Biden is the presumptive Democratic nominee. But not so fast. Sanders’ voters are going to support Biden, when he earns it. Sanders blazed new trails of climate leadership, making it compulsory to have multi-billion dollar plans to decarbonize. He defined the terms of the climate change debate by relentlessly insisting that his fellow candidates understand the meaning of an existential threat and take appropriate action. Biden must follow Sanders’ example, not just for Sander’s voters, but for humanity itself.

A classic exchange during the last primary debate shows the gulf between lip service and true command of the issue, Sanders challenged Biden’s climate leadership. “I’m talking about telling the fossil fuel industry that they’re going to stop destroying the planet,” Sanders said. Biden responded, “So am I.” Sanders pressed him, “Well, I’m not sure your proposal does that.” He said, instead of spending 1.8 trillion on weapons to kill each other, let’s fight our common enemy, which is climate change.

"He seems satisfied with half measures like his promise to recommit to the Paris Climate Agreement, a necessary, but insufficient idea. That approach will not suffice for Sanders’ voters. Biden must become the Climate-Commander-in-Chief."

Sure Joe Biden advocates for action on climate change, but not as an urgent, top priority issue. He seems satisfied with half measures like his promise to recommit to the Paris Climate Agreement, a necessary, but insufficient idea. That approach will not suffice for Sanders’ voters. Biden must become the Climate-Commander-in-Chief.

Excessive CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels is driving up the average global temperature which is driving deadly, destructive weather extremes of all sorts. Joe Biden’s climate plan currently calls for a 100% clean energy economy and net-zero emissions by no later than 2050, likely two decades too late. He needs to commit to 100% renewable energy by 2030, as Bernie Sanders did.

In order to slow climate change, America must get off fossil fuels. Biden signed the No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge, but subsequently violated it by attending a fundraiser co-hosted by Western LNG’s co-founder Andrew Goldman, demonstrating a weak commitment, and an affinity for the fossil fuel industry and their money. You can’t fake your way off of fossil fuels, you can’t say one thing and do another and your commitment can’t waiver.

By contrast, Sanders was always ready to challenge the powerful fossil fuel industry. In the last primary debate where Sanders and Biden went mano e mano, Sanders said, “Look, in terms of the fossil fuel industry, these guys have been lying,” Sanders said, “They’ve been lying for years like the tobacco industry lied 50 years ago. ‘Oh we don’t know if, if fossil fuels, if oil, if carbon emissions, are causing climate change.’ They knew! ExxonMobil knew. They lied. In fact, I think they should be held criminally accountable.”

Biden supports a fee on carbon pollution, but needs to prioritize and publicly advocate for a fee on fossil fuels to dramatically reduce and ultimately eliminate the emission of carbon dioxide from those sources. Such a fee should set an ambitious, concrete goal for emission reductions that is adequate to slow climate change and its impacts. The fee itself, the price per ton of carbon dioxide, paid by the polluter, likely needs to start in the triple digits and rise from there, in order to get the job done.

At Mauna Loa, where the government tracks atmospheric carbon dioxide, it currently measures 414.5 parts per million (ppm). Carbon dioxide exceeded 400ppm for the first time in 3-5 million years, the first time in human history in 2014. In his paper, "Target Atmospheric CO2:  Where Should Society Aim," former NASA Climate Scientist Dr. James Hansen said, “The safe upper limit for atmospheric CO2 is no more than 350ppm." 

If Americans have learned one thing during this COVID 19 pandemic, it’s the critical importance of national leadership in a time of crisis. The World Health Organization warns that, “The climate crisis is a health crisis.” They say, besides health emergencies stemming from extreme weather events, climate change fuels the spread of infectious diseases.

Dr. Aaron Bernstein, a pediatrician and Interim Director of The Center for Climate Health at Harvard’s School of Public Health said, “The bottom line here is that if you wanted to prevent the spread of pathogens, the emergence of pathogens, as we see not just with people and COVID, but as well with wildlife, you wouldn't transform the climate. Because that forces species to come into contact with other species that may be vulnerable to infections.”

In 2018, the United Nation’s IPCC report said the world had 12 years to limit the climate change catastrophe and keep global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Given the climate emergency, the difference between a candidate who is good enough on the issue and one who is great, could be the difference between a livable planet and not, when electing a U.S. President in 2020.

With scientific estimates of about 11 years to slow climate change, the 2020 election may represent one of our last chances to prioritize climate change in the voting booth. The next 4 years is more than one third of the time we have for action, signaling the crucial need for Joe Biden to emulate Bernie Sanders’ tough stand and prioritize climate change. We have more immediate needs in the face of a global pandemic, which is itself exacerbated by climate change, but if we don’t slow climate change in short order, no other issue will matter.

Karyn Strickler is a political scientist, grassroots organizer and writer. She is the founder and president of Vote Climate U.S. PAC, working to elect candidates to get off fossil fuels and put a price on carbon. Karyn is the former producer and host of Climate Challenge on MMCTV. You can contact her at climatechallengetv@gmail.com.

---

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

'Why the Unnecessary 6?': Medicare for All Advocates Warn Biden That Lowering Age to 60 Solves Nothing

Published on Thursday, April 09, 2020

by Common Dreams

"These policies are what I would expect from Republicans. This is not a 'big overture' by any stretch of the imagination."

by Eoin Higgins, staff writer

 

38 Comments

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders listens as former Vice President Joe Biden speaks during the Democratic Presidential Debate at Texas Southern University's Health and PE Center on September 12, 2019 in Houston, Texas. (Photo:  Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Progressives on Thursday were quick to call foul after it was reported that Joe Biden, now the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, put forth a pair of policy proposals—one lowering the Medicare age to 60 and the other a student debt relief program—purportedly designed to win over supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders who instead saw the plans as woefully insufficient.

"We have to do more to ease the economic burden on working people," Biden said in a tweet announcing the plan. "So today, I'm adopting two new policies to help deliver relief."

We have to do more to ease the economic burden on working people. So today, I'm adopting two new policies to help deliver relief. As president, I will:

- Lower Medicare eligibility to age 60
- Forgive student debt for low-income and middle class families https://t.co/wtMnhJdCaR

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) April 9, 2020

But the proposals—one a lowering of the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 60 and the other a means-tested, complicated student debt forgiveness plan—were seen by progressives as at best insufficient.

"That he's willing to shift on these issues after telling us they were 'pie-in-the-sky' indicates that we can go further," tweeted Briahna Joy Gray, Sanders' campaign press secretary. 

Good.

That he's willing to shift on these issues after telling us they were "pie-in-the-sky" indicates that we can go further.

*Lower the age to 55 year one, 45 year two, 35 year 3, & cover everyone in year 4. That's #MedicareForAll.

*Tax Wall St & cancel ALL student debt. https://t.co/wOMJziQ1nZ

— Briahna Joy Gray (@briebriejoy) April 9, 2020

Gray's optimism, however, was not shared by everyone on the left. In a lengthy Facebook essay reacting to the proposals, CUNY professor Corey Robin questioned how Biden could hope to pass anything approximating his plans through Congress.

"The rule of politics is you never get 100% of what you want," said Robin, adding, "Our sense of political time is not keeping up with actual time, and I find the euphoria of complacency and incrementalism totally mystifying."

Greg Sargent and Paul Waldman of the Washington Post broke the story Thursday, reporting that Biden was announcing the shift in policy as a way to show Sanders supporters that what he now supports is "significantly more liberal than what he supported when he was vice president."

As Sargent and Waldman explained, the policy proposals show that Biden and his campaign are acknowledging the political reality that Sanders and his movement have changed the national conversation around domestic politics:

There will, of course, be many Sanders supporters who will see these proposals as insufficient, and there's a reasonable case to be made for that position. But you could also see them as a validation of Sanders' entire strategy.

Sanders ran for president not just to win, but also to get his ideas in wide circulation and pull the Democratic Party to the left. And that’s precisely what's happening. The party is going to nominate a candidate with establishment roots and centrist instincts, but that candidate is adapting his policy agenda to move in Sanders' direction.

In an email to the Post, Economic Policy Institute director of research Josh Bivens said the overtures were further proof that the Sanders effect on the party was real and making a difference.

"Both of these ideas represent really welcome U-turns from what was damaging conventional wisdom even in big swaths of the Democratic Party for years," wrote Bivens.

But other progressives were skeptical, at best, of the content of Biden's proposals, calling the Medicare age rollback in particular a transparent attempt to placate concerns over the former vice president's commitment to single-payer healthcare that would benefit the private insurance industry more than taxpayers. 

"These policies are what I would expect from Republicans," tweeted anthropolgist and political activist Michael Oman-Reagan. "This is not a 'big overture' by any stretch of the imagination."

In a tweet, healthcare advocacy group Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) wondered sarcastically if Biden had added an unnecessary "6" to the eligibility age—a reference to Medicare for All's immediate eligibility at birth. 

Why the unnecessary "6"?#MedicareForAll https://t.co/0INA83EgCM

— Physicians for a National Health Program (@PNHP) April 9, 2020

PNHP president-elect Dr. Susan Rogers, in exclusive comment to Common Dreams, said that Biden's so-called "big" gesture is simply not sufficient to address  the healthcare crisis in the country, especially now that the coronavirus outbreak has paralyzed the economy and thrown millions out of work—and off of employer-provided insurance.

"One of the main benefits of Medicare for All is that it uncouples health coverage from employment, which is even more urgent now as our system of job-based private insurance is crumbling beneath our feet," said Rogers. "Reducing Medicare eligibility to age 60 does not resolve the underlying problem for the vast majority of working Americans and their families."

Only Medicare for All, added Rogers, packs the cost-saving punch to solve both the healthcare and fiscal crises now facing the country.

"By cutting out the waste of private insurance, Medicare for All could save nearly $600 billion a year while covering everybody for all medically necessary care," said Rogers.

The only explanation for lowering the Medicare eligibility age to 60 and then stopping: protecting the profits of the private health insurance industry.

— chemo and insulin should be free, too! (@AllOnMedicare) April 9, 2020

"The net effect of Biden's Medicare expansion would be to slough the most expensive patients off private insurance rolls and instead put them into government-subsidized, extremely profitable privatized Medicare Advantage plans," said healthcare activist and author Timothy Faust. "Some overture."

Sanders aide David Sirota was among those pointing out that the Biden proposal is less ambitious than one defeated in the Senate by former Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) in 2010. 

"For reference, lowering Medicare to age 60 is actually a retreat from Senate Dems' own push 10 years ago to lower it to age 55," Sirota tweeted.

Meanwhile, as Gray noted, the student debt relief aspect of the plan has very narrow, means-tested prerequisites.

Joe Biden's plan appears to exclude:

🚫Graduates of for-profit colleges, who are among the most indebted;

🚫The 1/3 of college students who attend private schools (other than HBCUs);

🚫Graduates of trade schools;

🚫Graduate student debt;

🚫Those making over 125k. https://t.co/EdSmSe6wA2 pic.twitter.com/1AkI6VMhKW

— Briahna Joy Gray (@briebriejoy) April 9, 2020

The cost of offering all students relief, Gray added, is the equivalent of tax cuts for the rich pushed through Congress by President Donald Trump and his Republican allies in 2018.

"Cancelling ALL student debt only costs $1.6 trillion—that's about the same as Trump's tax cut, which helped no one but the rich," said Gray.

Ultimately, the question is who should be taken care of, Gray tweeted.

"If we can bail out Wall Street," Gray said, "we can bail out students."

---

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

Off the Top of My Head

Bernie Bows Out ... Or Did He?

by John Lawrence, April 8, 2020

Bernie has suspended his campaign. That's not the same as ending his candidacy for the Democratic nomination. He's going to remain on the ballot. It could take a miracle, but it is still possible that Bernie could win the nomination. So far Biden has 1217 pledged delegates; Bernie has 914. 1991 are needed for the nomination. There are a total of 4051 delegates. That means there are still 1920 delegates outstanding. Suspending his campaign is not the same as conceding. Bernie still hopes to collect more delegates as that will give him more leverage at the convention. He could even still win, campaign or no campaign. The coronavirus has changed everything. You can't really campaign in the traditional sense anyway.

In Bernie's speech today he emphasized the point about Medicare for All as a human right independent of employment which is looking pretty good right now. Employer based health care has been exposed by the coronavirus as not too desirable especially if you have lost your job and with it your health insurance. This was the major difference between Joe and Bernie, and now that people have seen with their own eyes how flawed employer based health care is, they might have second thoughts about Medicare for All vs Medicare for All Who Want It as was touted by Pete Buttagieg and Amy Klobuchar.

I think that not too much should be read into Bernie's suspending his campaign. You can't campaign under the conditions represented by a pandemic. In fact I think Bernie's candidacy is looking better to a lot of people who have cast their ballots for Joe Biden. At any rate Bernie will have a lot of influence in setting the agenda of the Democratic party. Joe has already moved considerably to the left. Bernie is still a force to be reckoned with. Biden may be the presumptive nominee, but he's not the actual nominee ... yet.

Bernie asserted today that, while he may have lost the popular vote for the nomination, he has not lost the ideological argument. True, health care as a human right, free college, a Green New Deal, calling out corporate greed and for a living wage. These issues remain on the table. Economic inequality has also been brought home by the shutdown of the economy and the fact that half of American families have less than $400 in the bank. Most are highly in debt as well as a lot of corporations which have bought back their own stock instead of saving their money. They borrowed money for that purpose, and now they're in danger of going bankrupt.

In short the problems and issues that Bernie so ably brought to the fore will continue to demand the attention of the public even if Bernie passes from the scene which he won't any time soon. Remember he's still the Senator from Vermont. God bless him. He's done a lot for this country.

As Sanders Demands End to Iran Sanctions to Save Lives Amid Coronavirus Pandemic, Biden Says He Needs 'More Information'

Published on Monday, March 30, 2020

by Common Dreams

"Iran is facing a catastrophic toll from the coronavirus pandemic," said Sanders. "U.S. sanctions should not be contributing to this humanitarian disaster."

by Jake Johnson, staff writer

 

17 Comments

A view of the fairground of Iran, Tehran's largest shopping mall, after it converted into a hospital for coronavirus (COVID-19) patients, in Tehran, Iran on March 30, 2020. (Photo: Fatemeh Bahrami/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

After Sen. Bernie Sanders and other progressive lawmakers last week called on the Trump administration to end its economic warfare against Iran amid the coronavirus pandemic, 2020 Democratic presidential frontrunner Joe Biden on Sunday refused to commit to even temporarily lifting U.S. sanctions on Iran that are severely restricting the country's access to essential medical supplies.

"There is no logic to these sanctions. They're cruel and unusual punishment, full stop."
—Sina Toossi, National Iranian American Council

"I don't have enough information about the situation in Iran right now," said Biden, the former vice president under the Obama administration, which negotiated the Iran nuclear accord that President Donald Trump scrapped in 2018.

"There's a lot of speculation from my foreign policy team that they're in real trouble and they're lying," said Biden. "But I would need more information to make that judgement. I don't have the national security information available."

Watch:

EXCLUSIVE: Would Joe Biden temporarily lift sanctions on Iran during the coroanvirus pandemic? #MTP #IfItsSunday@JoeBiden: "There's a lot of speculation ... that they're in real trouble and they're lying. But I would need more information to make that judgement." pic.twitter.com/d6KFmcm9FZ

— Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) March 29, 2020

The dire situation in Iran has been international news for weeks and the public outcry over U.S. sanctions has been coming from human rights groups as well as Biden's fellow Democrats.

Biden's remarks on Sunday came a week after more than dozen members of Congress—including Sanders, Biden's remaining 2020 Democratic presidential rival—sent letters to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin demanding that the White House immediately lift sanctions on Iran as the nation attempts to combat one of the largest coronavirus outbreaks in the world.

"Rather than continue to pile on sanctions in the Iranian people's hour of need, we urge you to substantially suspend sanctions on Iran in a humanitarian gesture to the Iranian people to better enable them to fight the virus," reads a letter signed by Sanders, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), and six other members of Congress.

The letter was sent days after Pompeo announced that the Trump administration is imposing more sanctions on Iran in an effort to "deprive the regime of critical income from its petrochemical industry and further Iran's economic and diplomatic isolation."

Iran is facing a catastrophic toll from the coronavirus pandemic. U.S. sanctions should not be contributing to this humanitarian disaster.

As a caring nation, we must lift any sanctions hurting Iran’s ability to address this crisis, including financial sanctions. https://t.co/OBjff1nsxz

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) March 18, 2020

The U.S. reimposed sweeping sanctions on Iran in 2018 after Trump violated the Iran nuclear deal, effectively killing a signature foreign policy achievement of the Obama administration. On the campaign trail, Biden has condemned Trump's decision to withdraw from the agreement and vowed to return to the negotiating table with Iran if elected president.

The Washington Post reported Sunday that U.S. sanctions against Iran—where the coronavirus has officially infected more than 41,000 people and killed nearly 2,800—"have limited Tehran's ability to finance and purchase essential items from abroad, including drugs as well as the raw materials and equipment needed to manufacture medicines domestically."

"There is no logic to these sanctions," tweeted Sina Toossi, senior research analyst with the National Iranian American Council. "They're cruel and unusual punishment, full stop."

An anonymous employee of a major Iranian pharmaceutical company told the Post that "the sanctions have definitely made the import and production processes longer and more expensive."

"Some suppliers are afraid and not willing to work with us anymore," the person said. "The sanctions have reduced Iran's capacity to control the outbreak."

---

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

Off the Top of My Head

Maybe the Shut Down of Non-Essential Businesses Should Be Made Permanent

by John Lawrence, March 27, 2020

As long as we have electricity, the internet, clean water, waste water disposal, full grocery markets, pharmacies, excellent health care, gas stations, trash collection and other essential businesses, perhaps the shut down of non-essential businesses is a good thing. Already it has cleaned up the environment and significantly reduced the emission of greenhouse gasses. What about all those unemployed people, you say? Put them to work in the Green New Deal building and repairing infrastructure throughout the country. If this COVID-19 thing lasts till January 20, 2021, I'm hoping President Joe Biden will do just that. And we should help build essential businesses in other parts of the world instead of engaging in military adventurism. Billions of people don't even have clean water, adequate sanitation, the internet, full grocery markets and other essential businesses.

Once these essential needs are taken care of for the entire world's population in such a way that GHG emissions are reduced to zero, then maybe some non-essential businesses could be reestablished. The pandemic goes to show that much of the US economy is based on non-essential businesses and the provision of non-essential goods and services. In fact not only are many of them non-essential, they are downright deleterious. Consider the gambling industry: downright deleterious. The movie and TV industry: about 70% deleterious. The fast food industry: 90% deleterious creating obesity and diabetes. Why isn't the school system educating people about nutrition? Many people have essentially a fast food diet. The food is cheap and ubiquitous, and people don't have time to create nutritious meals any more the way Moms used to when they didn't have to work to pay the mortgage and car payments.

The American way of life including may non-essential businesses is sickness producing. The profit oriented health care industry makes money off of sick people, not keeping people healthy. If everyone were healthy or were encouraged to lead healthy lifestyles, there would be far less sickness. But the stress induced by both spouses having to work leads to unhealthy lifestyles. Some families need 2 or 3 jobs just to make ends meet. The children are also subjected to a competitively oriented style of learning in which they are forced to compete with other children to get good grades so they can get into the best colleges. Instead maybe they should be encouraged to think in terms of what they want to do in their lives which would be a service to society in addition to affording a comfortable living for themselves.

More businesses considered to be non-essential:

Theaters, Salons and Spas, Racetracks, Shopping malls, Bowling alleys, Sporting and Concert Venues, Liquor stores, Bars, Cruises, Golf Courses, Resorts, Hair and Nail Salons.

Highly polluting industries and activities which are non-essential:

Most airline travel, the cruise industry, the travel and tourism industry, most automobile travel (use mass transit instead), most of the trucking industry (use rail instead), the beef industry, the hog industry, agribusiness (encourage small organic farms instead), most military and military-industrial complex, the plastic industry, the fossil fuel industry.

In Coronavirus Will Change the World Permanently. Here’s How. Mark Lawrence Schrad writes:

America has long equated patriotism with the armed forces. But you can’t shoot a virus. Those on the frontlines against coronavirus aren’t conscripts, mercenaries or enlisted men; they are our doctors, nurses, pharmacists, teachers, caregivers, store clerks, utility workers, small-business owners and employees. Like Li Wenliang and the doctors of Wuhan, many are suddenly saddled with unfathomable tasks, compounded by an increased risk of contamination and death they never signed up for.

When all is said and done, perhaps we will recognize their sacrifice as true patriotism, saluting our doctors and nurses, genuflecting and saying, “Thank you for your service,” as we now do for military veterans. We will give them guaranteed health benefits and corporate discounts, and build statues and have holidays for this new class of people who sacrifice their health and their lives for ours. Perhaps, too, we will finally start to understand patriotism more as cultivating the health and life of your community, rather than blowing up someone else’s community. Maybe the de-militarization of American patriotism and love of community will be one of the benefits to come out of this whole awful mess.

The same sentiments hold true for teachers and other caregivers. People that take care of people and encourage people to have better lives are the true heroes. The Peace Corps and AmeriCorps should be the preeminent national services not the Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard and Marines. We need to spread good will in the world by spades instead of bullying the rest of the world with US sanctions. We should develop the equivalent of China's Belt and Road initiative and start building clean water plants, sanitation plants, industries which decrease pollution and plastic trash in the ocean. We need to clean the environment around the world not contribute to dirtying it. We need to help bring home all the refugees in refugee camps and guarantee the safety and security of Latin Americans so they don't become migrants and refugees.

Off the Top of My Head

Bernie Slammed for Saying Something Positive About Cuba. Now Cuban Doctors Are Going to Italy to Help With Coronavirus.

by John Lawrence

Something the main stream media won't report: Cuban doctors are being sent to Italy. Previously, they helped with the Ebola crisis in Africa. Regardless of their form of government, give credit where credit is due. Joe Biden and the media jumped all over Bernie for saying one good thing about Cuba.  Biden sought to contrast Sanders’ comments with former President Barack Obama, noting that Obama “did not in any way suggest that there was anything positive about the Cuban government.” No, nothing positive? Not increased literacy? Not better health care outcomes than the US? The conventional wisdom about Cuba is bullshit, and you can't acknowledge that they have done one good thing without being slammed? Give me a break. Italy has no such compunctions about Cuba. They requested that the Cuban doctors come to Lombardy. That tells you something about what the rest of the world thinks about Cuba's proficiency in medical care. The rest of the world isn't as ignorant as US politicians and media stalwarts like Anderson Cooper. The US needs to wake up and realize that the meme that Cuba is all bad is outdated and factually incorrect. It is the meme of an ignorant electorate - Democrats included!

Reuters reported:

The Caribbean island has sent its “armies of white robes” to disaster sites around the world largely in poor countries since its 1959 revolution. Its doctors were in the front lines in the fight against cholera in Haiti and against ebola in West Africa in the 2010s.

Yet with the 52-strong brigade, this is the first time Cuba has sent an emergency contingent to Italy, one of the world’s richest countries, demonstrating the reach of its medical diplomacy.

This is the sixth medical brigade Cuba has sent in recent days to combat the spread of the new disease abroad. It has sent contingents to socialist allies Venezuela and Nicaragua as well as Jamaica, Suriname and Grenada.

“We are all afraid but we have a revolutionary duty to fulfill, so we take our fear and put it to one side,” Leonardo Fernandez, 68, an intensive care specialist, told Reuters late on Saturday shortly before his brigade’s departure.

Even staunch US ally, Britain, thanked Cuba for allowing a British cruise ship that had been turned away by several Caribbean ports to dock on the island and for enabling the evacuation of the more than 600 passengers onboard. Yet the US continues to sanction Cuba forcing it to forego much needed pharmaceuticals and medical supplies. Despite more than half a century of a US economic embargo, Cuba’s average life expectancy is greater than that in the US. As of 2015 Cuban life expectancies of 79.5 years and infant mortality rates of 4.3 per 1000 live births were better than rich nations like the US (78.7 years and 5.7 per 1, 000 live births) yet its per capita income of $7602. makes it one of the poorest economies in the hemisphere (World Development Indicators DataBank, 2017).

As for literacy, the rate was 77% in 1959 before the revolution. Two years after the revolution it was 100%.

Cuba has better health care outcomes than the US despite every attempt by the US from embargoes to sanctions to destroy their economy. Perhaps the American people should wake up and listen to Bernie Sanders for a change. He knows a helluva lot more about Cuba than the ignorant Joe Biden and the other Democrats who have attacked him about his remarks about Cuba and Latin America in general. At least admit the undeniable truth no matter how much you dislike their form of government.

Off the Top of My Head

Joe Biden's Commitment to Student Debt Bankruptcy Will Attract Bernie's Supporters

by John Lawrence, March 20, 2020

Joe Biden is being smart now. In 2005 "middle class Joe" voted for the most anti-middle class legislation of the 20th century. Biden voted against borrowers drowning in medical debt, student loan debt, seniors, service members, union members and victims of deadbeat dads. He helped make it impossible to discharge student loan debt in bankruptcy court. Now, thanks to Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, he's on board for a reversal of that bill if he's elected President. The record makes clear that as a senator, Biden used his clout to push for the law’s passage and to defeat amendments to shield service members, women, and children from its harsh treatment. Particularly, after the 2008 Great Recession the lack of bankruptcy protection at a time when trillions of dollars were being pumped into the banking system was draconian by its very nature.

The American Prospect reported:

Biden also consistently voted against efforts to soften BAPCPA’s blow on vulnerable populations. He voted against three amendments to ease bankruptcy requirements for consumers whose financial troubles stem from medical expenses. He voted against an amendment that would have helped seniors keep their homes. He voted against exempting service members and widows of service members killed in action from the law’s eligibility restrictions. He voted against an amendment to exempt women whose financial troubles stemmed from deadbeat husbands’ failure to pay child support or alimony. And Biden even voted against an amendment that would have ensured that children of debtors could still be given birthday and Christmas presents. Biden also voted against allowing debtors to pay their union dues during bankruptcy, potentially imperiling their employment and ability to achieve financial rehabilitation.

It’s not as if Joe Biden was opposed to all amendments to the legislation: He voted to enshrine a “millionaire’s loophole” that allows wealthy, well-counseled debtors to shield their assets from creditors by placing them in asset-protection trusts. Nor did he act to cut off the loophole that shields assets placed by wealthy families in “dynasty trusts,” such as are offered by Delaware.

Good ol' middle class Joe. Well, finally, he's had a come-to-Jesus revelation that just maybe he was wrong about all those things he had previously voted for. Will he hang his head and ask for forgiveness? I doubt it. However, if he has seen the error of his ways and is willing to reverse his support of all the credit card companies headquartered in his home state of Delaware, then just maybe I will support him over Donald Trump for President. Sometimes you just have to hold your nose and vote. Bernie and Elizabeth have been consistent in their stands for the middle class. Biden is a Johnie-come-lately. He likes to reference himself to Barack Obama, and he certainly has a lot of African-American support, but he's just as phony as most politicians and served well all the financial interests in the state of Delaware at the expense of the middle class. Don't you think Trump will point this out?

Now it's all about Biden's running mate. Bernie is effectively out of the race although he and Elizabeth Warren have had a major effect  in pushing Biden to the Left. His agenda is not all that bad. See joebiden.com. His infrastructure plans are great. His proposals to increase income for seniors is great. I think Amy Klobuchar would be an ideal running mate. She has flyover state cred. She's a woman. Biden is committed to choosing a woman as a running mate. She's proficient and experienced.

Biden is a major asshole, but he's the lesser of two evils when compared to Trump. In short he's our asshole. When it counted, Joe Biden looked out for millionaires and the banks, not the middle class. Let's hope he has seen the error of his ways and will come out from hiding behind the cloak of Barack Obama.

Off the Top of My Head

Joe Biden's Approach to a Carbon Free Infrastructure

by John Lawrence

I guess you could say Joe Biden is a railfan. I remember that he always rode the Amtrak from Washington to his home in Delaware. Now at joebiden.com I read about some of his innovative ideas for revolutionizing the transportation system in this country starting with a national network of recharging stations for electric cars. He'll also invest in a national high speed rail network for moving people and goods. These are good ideas. We need to completely electrify transportation in the next few years as automobile emissions are the greatest contributor to greenhouse gasses right now. The transportation system is much in need of revitalizing including roads and bridges. Research in carbon neutral propulsion systems for ships and planes also needs to be part of it. The more that goods and people can be moved by train, the more the streets and roads will be made available for car traffic cutting down on the need to build more and more freeways or toll roads.

Power generating plants need to be converted to 100% renewable energy ASAP. Joe is intending to do that too. Good news! "As president, Biden will partner with utilities and regulators around the country to build a 21st-century power grid, able to distribute clean energy reliably and safely to households and businesses across the United States. Specifically, he will appoint commissioners to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission who will drive market reforms, like expanding regional electric markets, integrating renewables, building in demand-response, and promoting long-term infrastructure planning to achieve a 100% clean energy economy and net-zero emissions by 2050. " Well, Joe, we need this long before 2050 when we'll both be pushing up daisies.

Biden's plans to have community colleges launch new Apprenticeship Readiness Programs is a great idea. Not everyone needs to attend university per se. Programs that enable people to do actual work rather than sitting behind a computer screen all day will give incentives to people to train for more meaningful jobs. Those who want to become true professionals like doctors, lawyers, professors etc. need to go to college. There should be no stigma attached to those who want to work with their hands, not sit at a desk all day, and actually build something.

Joe's plans for infrastructure development are excellent. More money needs to be put behind them though and they need to be accelerated time wise. Joe has also said he would support Elizabeth Warren's plan to allow student loan debtors to discharge their debt in bankruptcy court. This is a major step for Joe since he was instrumental in changing the law in 2006 which prevented students from discharging their student loan debt in bankruptcy. Let's hope that Joe Biden will now be the former Senator from MBNA.

Biden endorses Warren's bankruptcy plan, calling it 'one of the things that I think Bernie and I will agree on'

By Eric Bradner and Arlette Saenz, CNN

March 14, 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Biden-Warren feud re-emerges on campaign trail

Former Vice President Joe Biden says he now backs Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren's bankruptcy plan, endorsing his former Democratic rival's proposal to repeal portions of a law they had clashed over 15 years earlier.

Biden touted his support for Warren's plan as an olive branch to supporters of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in a virtual town hall for Illinois voters Friday night, calling it "one of the things that I think Bernie and I will agree on."

He highlighted a portion of Warren's plan that would allow student loan debt to be eliminated in bankruptcy just like other debts.

"I'm going to endorse -- I've endorsed -- Elizabeth Warren's bankruptcy proposal, which in fact goes further, allows for student debt to be relieved in bankruptcy, provides for a whole range of other issues that allows us to in fact impact on how people are dealing with their circumstances," Biden said. "So there's a whole range of things we agree on."

Biden's move to back Warren's plan shows that, as he moves toward clinching the Democratic presidential nomination and seeks to soothe over tensions from a year-long intra-party battle, the former vice president is taking steps to embrace his former rivals and adopt planks of their platforms -- and is willing to move left to do so.

Warren's team got a heads-up from the Biden camp that he would be endorsing the senator's bankruptcy plan ahead of his public announcement on Friday, a Warren aide told CNN's MJ Lee. The two teams were in touch leading up to the announcement, the aide said.

A Biden campaign aide said he would likely say more about his support for Warren's bankruptcy plan in his debate against Sanders on Sunday night.

Biden and Warren's high-profile battle over a 2005 bill that made it more difficult to declare bankruptcy, when he was a Delaware senator and leading advocate of the measure and she was a Harvard professor and vocal opponent, played a key role in inspiring Warren's move into politics.

As a presidential candidate, she used it to highlight her differences with Biden. On the day in April 2019 that Biden entered the race, she said at a rally that Biden had been "on the side of the credit companies."

The law, which was heavily backed by the banking and credit card industries, made it harder for Americans to get out of debt by filing for bankruptcy. Supporters of the measure said it would prevent financially irresponsible people from abusing the system, while opponents denounced it, saying it would hurt struggling people by increasing the regulation, documentation and costs of seeking bankruptcy protection. Bankruptcies plummeted after the law took effect, but not for the right reasons, consumer advocates argued.

Biden was seen as a leading proponent of the bill at the time, though it was largely backed by Republicans and passed by a GOP-controlled Congress. Biden's campaign has argued he successfully fought for changes to the bill that prioritized child support and alimony in front of lenders and required credit card companies to warn borrowers about their interest rates.

The Warren plan targets a series of provisions that she has criticized for years, arguing that they benefit credit card companies and big lenders at the expense of Americans struggling with consumer, household and student debt.

Warren's proposal would make the bankruptcy system "simple, cheap, fast, and flexible," she wrote in a Medium post when she unveiled it in January. It would merge the two types of consumer bankruptcy filings -- Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 -- into one, offering filers a "menu of options" for dealing with their unpaid debt. It would eliminate what she termed "burdensome paperwork" that makes bankruptcy more expensive, deterring some from filing. It would reverse the 2005 law's requirement that filers seek pre-filing credit counseling, as well as the additional rules it placed on consumer bankruptcy attorneys.

She would also reduce the cost of filing and make it easier for people to keep their homes and cars during bankruptcy. The proposal would make it harder for the wealthy to shield assets in trusts and would crack down on companies that violate consumer financial protection laws while trying to collect on debts. And her proposal would end the ban on shedding student loan debt in bankruptcy.

CNN's Gregory Krieg and Tami Luhby contributed to this report.

Off the Top of My Head

The Fed Keeps On Bailing Out Failing Businesses

by John Lawrence, March 17, 2020

The Fed announced recently that it would cut interest rates to zero. It has also promised to insert $1.5 trillion of "liquidity" into the markets. It's clear that the US is a society that runs on debt, and the biggest non profit producing industry that has gorged itself on humungus amounts of debt is fracking. But investors are getting weary. S&P Global Ratings this month cut credit ratings of six shale gas producers citing the outlook for natural gas prices. "We are particularly concerned about some of the issuers' ability to access the capital markets given investor aversion to the space," S&P said. But no worries. A Fed bailout is on the way. Zero percent interest. Free money. Whoopee. Frack away.

Just a few days ago, CNBC host Jim Cramer exclaimed, "I'm done with fossil fuel," after disappointing earnings reports from Dow Jones energy giants Chevron and Exxon Mobil. "We're in the death knell phase," he warned. The fracking industry is deathly afraid that, if Bernie Sanders is elected, the gravy train will be over. Fracking has provided a lot of jobs for a lot of people, but it is not profitable if the world oil price is less than $40 a barrel. Right now, thanks to Russia and Saudi Arabia, the price of oil is $30 a barrel. A Green New Deal would have to provide jobs for all those workers in the fracking industry who have been making pretty good money even though the industry as a whole is unprofitable.

The Fed is doing its job to create another tower of debt in the US. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has pointed out that the $1.5 trillion the Fed has injected into the system for "liquidity" could wipe out all the student loan debt in the US which now stands at $1.5 trillion. But the Fed insists that any stimulus to the economy which would actually help working people as opposed to investors has to come from the fiscal side meaning that Congress would have to appropriate the money. The Fed's job is to make sure that no major business player in the US economy goes bankrupt including the US government itself which is wallowing in debt to the tune of $1 trillion a year thanks to Trump's tax cuts for the rich similar to Ronald Reagan's tax cuts for the rich which quintupled the national debt. It took a Democrat, poor old Clinton, to reduce the deficit to zero.

The question naturally arises of why can't the Fed bail out American workers to the tune of $1000 a month as Andrew Yang has suggested especially now that the coronavirus has put a huge damper on consumption which is 70% of the economy. The Fed says, "Not my job. That's Congress' job." The Fed as it turns out is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street. It is not a publicly owned entity. Congress will do nothing to bail out the American people because of the Republican controlled Senate led by Mitch McConnell. Even if Democrats were to attain a majority in the Senate, the filibuster would prevent them from doing anything. So Joe Biden, even if elected, will get nothing substantial done including building on Obamacare. The only reason Obamacare was even passed in the first place was that Democrats had a majority in both Houses and a filibusterproof majority in the Senate (60 votes) for a very short period of time (4 months) during which Obamacare was passed. Good luck Joe.

If the Fed, instead of being privately controlled by Wall Street, were to become a truly public institution controlled by Congress, then maybe it could bail out the general American public instead of failing businesses. According to the rules of capitalism, failing businesses at some point should go bankrupt. The Fed is essentially preventing that from happening thus fueling the stock market. However, the stock market senses that at this point the Fed has used up all its tools and can do nothing further. There is probably too much liquidity in the markets already. Providing more wouldn't do any good. Interest rates are already at zero. The Fed could go to negative interest rates, but that would screw the economy up even more. Perhaps we'll all have to settle for a good old recession after all. But one thing is for certain. About six months from now, Trump will pull out all the stops to get the economy moving again just before the election since he is basing his reelection on a robust economy. However, it all depends on whether or not the coronavirus is under control at that point. If it is, Trump will take credit.

Off the Top of My Head

Joe Biden and Amy Klobuchar Would Make a Good Team

by John Lawrence, March 12, 2020

Amy Klobuchar was really running for vice President anyway, and she would bring the midwest rust belt voters along with her neutralizing the influence of Mike Pence's Indiana midwest cred. Pete Buttagieg was just running to raise his profile which he successfully did. Same for Kamala Harris and Cory Booker. Some of the candidates were never serious candidates for the Democratic nomination. Bernie Sanders is still in the thick of it despite Biden's commanding lead, and he will have a lot of influence over the party platform at the convention. The vice Predidential candidate is very important as Biden is basically a placeholder. His advanced age and apparent loss of some mental function means that whoever comes after him is very important. So Joe Biden may win the election, but his influence may wane compared to the resurgent Democrat progressives who will still be a force in waiting.

The main thing at this point in many voters minds is simply to get rid of Donald Trump. A Biden-Klobuchar team could do that. Amy is very proficient and she could make up for Joe's loss of a few marbles. Rejoining the Paris Accords on Day 1 is very important for climate change. Joe's plans for infrastructure are very good. A massive investment in infrastructure and a greening of infrastructure seems to be on his menu. A national infrastructure of electric charging stations, more electric vehicles on the road - these are very important things which Joe seems to have a handle on. He's even into high speed rail.

Biden's plans for Medicare and Social Security don't make many changes to these programs which are already available other than protecting them from assault by Republicans, not a piddling undertaking. I did notice one advantage for older Americans though. The Biden Plan will provide the oldest beneficiaries – those who have been receiving retirement benefits for at least 20 years – with a higher monthly check to help protect retirees from the pain of dwindling retirement savings. Huzzah! I will qualify for that in about 3 years so maybe finally, I'll get a monthly check which will be more than about one third of what you need to rent an apartment. Fortunately, I have other income, but I'm still in the situation of working, paying 15.3% of what I earn as social security and Medicare tax, while collecting a pitifully small amount of social security. I like this too: "The Biden Plan will revolutionize the Social Security’s minimum benefit, which has deteriorated over time to the point of being entirely ineffective. Under the Biden Plan, workers who spent 30 years working will get a benefit of at least 125% of the poverty level." The poverty level for one person is $12,490. 125% of that is $15,612.50. I've been working for about 50 years so I should qualify for that. That would double my monthly social security check. Huzzah!

Well, that's a good start. Unfortunately, no Medicare for All under Joe's plan, but maybe that will come later.

Joe Biden Would Be Donald Trump's Dream Opponent

by Conor Lynch, from truthdig, March 4, 2020

Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden gives a speech in Iowa in 2019. (Gage Skidmore / Flickr)(CC BY-SA 2.0)

Donald Trump had the perfect opponent in the 2016 election. Running as a populist billionaire taking on the Washington elite, he couldn’t have asked for a better rival in Hillary Clinton, who carried heavy political baggage and who, for many, personified the so-called establishment. While Trump’s populist shtick was easy to pick apart, Clinton was the wrong person to promote the message she was trying to get across to voters.

By nominating a candidate whose place in the Democratic Party establishment was undeniable and who lacked credibility on issues like money in politics, the Democrats simply let Trump run as the anti-establishment candidate. Not only that, but the Clinton camp even tried courting establishment Republicans who couldn’t bring themselves to vote for their own party’s candidate.

Here was a man who had openly bragged about bribing politicians, yet Democrats couldn’t go after Trump on the issue because their own candidate was one of the politicians to whom he’d donated in the past. The Clinton camp raised (and spent) far more money than Trump, but whether this actually helped or hurt her is unclear, as it also gave credence to the perception that she was the candidate favored by big donors Meanwhile, Trump positioned himself as the self-financing candidate who couldn’t be bought.

As the Trump campaign’s onetime CEO, Steve Bannon, put it shortly after the election, “Hillary Clinton was the perfect foil for Trump’s message. From her email server, to her lavishly paid speeches to Wall Street bankers, to her FBI problems, she represented everything that middle-class Americans had had enough of.”

This time around, Trump should have zero credibility running as a “populist.” The president has presided over the most corrupt administration in modern history, plagued by investigations and numerous indictments that have led to convictions of some of his closest associates. Trump has nominated Supreme Court justices who defend money in politics, and his major legislative achievement has been to give billionaires and corporate elites major tax cuts.

Under Trump, corporate America has thrived while real-income growth has declined for most working- and middle-class people. Inequality has continued to reach historic levels, and billionaires like Jeff Bezos and Mike Bloomberg have seen their wealth surge. In 2020, Trump is no longer even pretending to self-finance his campaign. With his recent predatory budget proposal he has made it clear that he is getting ready to gut programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, during his second term.

It should be easy for Democrats to expose Trump as the corrupt charlatan that he is. In an age when a majority of voters rate political corruption as America’s biggest crisis and nearly 8 in 10 Americans agree that there should be “limits on the amount of money individuals and organizations” can spend on political campaigns, how hard can it be to defeat a hugely unpopular president who makes Richard Nixon look half decent? The surest way for Democrats to lose to Trump again would be to follow the same strategy as 2016 and nominate a candidate who embodies the establishment, carries a ton of political baggage and lacks credibility on issues like corruption.

By the looks of it, Democrats might just pull it off. After Super Tuesday, it appears that Trump will have another perfect foil for his message in 2020. Former Vice President Joe Biden has regained his place as the Democratic frontrunner after a successful showing on Tuesday, thanks in large part to party elites, and some of his former rivals, quickly consolidating around his campaign the day before. Though the race is far from over, Biden is now well-positioned to win the nomination. By selecting Biden, Democrats will effectively let Trump and his deeply corrupt administration off the hook yet again.

Biden is a lot like Clinton, but worse in almost every measurable way. On issue after issue, Biden has consistently been to the right of Clinton throughout his fifty-year political career. He has a record of advocating cuts to Social Security and Medicare; he helped write the 1994 Crime Bill that led to an explosion in mass incarceration; he played a critical role in passing the 2005 bankruptcy bill that stripped bankruptcy protection from some of the most vulnerable people. Biden also supported and championed the Iraq War.

This list goes on and on. Beyond his extremely problematic record, which will make it hard for Democrats to go after Trump about, say, cutting Social Security (which Biden himself supported not too long ago), Biden has his own personal scandals that will make it very difficult for him to cast Trump as corrupt.

While his son Hunter’s business dealings in Ukraine may not qualify as corruption, it was doubtless unethical and sleazy for Biden’s son to take a high-paying consultant gig with a foreign firm while his father was vice president (and Biden’s refusal to acknowledge this conflict only makes it worse). The behavior of Biden’s family will haunt him in the general election. As Ryan Grim wrote in The Intercept last October, Biden’s son and brother have been “trading on their family name for decades, cashing in on the implication — and sometimes the explicit argument — that giving money to a member of Joe Biden’s family wins the favor of Joe Biden.” Predictably, a majority of voters believe it was inappropriate for Biden’s son to take a job with the Ukrainian firm, and Trump will exploit this and use it to defend his own family’s nepotism and corruption.

In the lead-up to the general election, Biden, who has recently struggled to string coherent sentences together, would provide the slick demagogue Donald Trump with all the ammunition he needs. We were given a little preview of what to expect in President Trump’s Super Tuesday commentary: “The Democrat establishment came together and crushed Bernie Sanders, AGAIN!” he gloated on Twitter, once again positioning himself as the anti-establishment populist.

On Monday, the Democratic establishment proved that it still has far more control over the party than the Republican establishment did over their own party in 2016. No one stands to benefit more from an establishment triumph than Donald Trump. Sen. Bernie Sanders, who has the credibility to call out Trump on his corruption and neoliberal economic policies, is still in the race, but his chances are looking much slimmer than they were just a week ago.

Democrats have a choice: They can follow the same strategy that ended up costing them all three branches of government in recent years, or they can go another way. The stakes couldn’t be higher.

---

Conor Lynch is a freelance writer and journalist living in New York. His work has appeared in The Week, Salon, The New Republic, and other publications. You can follow him on Twitter.

'Give Us an Hour on MSNBC': Sanders Says He Would Love to Debate Medicare for All vs. For-Profit System With Joe Biden

Published on Thursday, March 05, 2020

by Common Dreams

"We're spending twice as much per capita on healthcare as the people of any other country and yet 27 million are uninsured, 30,000 people die, half a million people go bankrupt every year because of medical-related debt, and we spend far and away the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. You want to defend that system?" Sanders said. "Let's do it."

by Jon Queally, staff writer

 

104 Comments

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) gestures as former Vice President Joe Biden listens during the Democratic presidential primary debate at Loyola Marymount University on December 19, 2019 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday night said he would "love to debate Joe Biden on this issue"—the difference between a Medicare for All plan that dozens of studies show would cover all people for less overall cost and the for-profit status quo that leaves an estimated 28 million Americans uninsured and tens of millions more underinsured, vulnerable to bankruptcies, or lacking care due to financial reasons.

"It's time to say it: Medicare for All is now the mainstream, popular, nationwide consensus position for the Democratic Party in 2020. Voters are sick and tired of awful deductibles, surprise bills, stifling networks, and begging strangers for help with medical bills on GoFundMe." —Wendell Potter, Medicare for All Now

"Medicare for All is wildly popular with working class and lower income people who understand that we have a dysfunctional health care system," Sanders said in an interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow.

"We are spending twice as much—and by the way—I would love to debate Joe Biden on this issue, give us an hour on MSNBC," Sanders said, "where we can talk about how anyone can defend this system in which we're spending twice as much per capita on healthcare as the people of any other country and yet 27 million are uninsured, 30,000 people die, half a million people go bankrupt every year because of medical-related debt, and we spend far and away the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. You want to defend that system? Let's do it."

Watch:

"Medicare for All is wildly popular with working class and lower income people who understand that we have a dysfunctional health care system...I would love to debate Joe Biden on this issue, give us an hour on MSNBC... You want to defend that system? Let's do it." #Maddow pic.twitter.com/uvju5mdKDB

— People for Bernie (@People4Bernie) March 5, 2020

While Sanders won the biggest-delegate state of California on Super Tuesday—along with victories in Colorado, Utah, and Vermont—Biden swept the other ten states leaving him with a slight lead in the national count for Democratic delegates in the party's primary. Strikingly, in every single one of the primary races held so far that had entrance or exit polls on the question, Medicare for All has shown to be more popular with Democratic primary voters compared to those defending the for-profit system.

Wendell Potter, a former health insurance executive turned whistleblower who now runs the group Medicare for All Now, said the primary polling should be considered a "watershed moment" in public opinion:

A watershed moment in America: 16 states have voted in the Dem primary & been asked in exit/entrance polls about healthcare, and all 16 show majority support for replacing private health insurance with single-payer healthcare. As a former insurance exec my reaction is: wow. (1/5) https://t.co/alqPboYgJl

— Wendell Potter (@wendellpotter) March 4, 2020

"It's time to say it," Potter continued, "Medicare for All is now the mainstream, popular, nationwide consensus position for the Democratic Party in 2020. Voters are sick and tired of awful deductibles, surprise bills, stifling networks, and begging strangers for help with medical bills on GoFundMe."

"To my great shame," he added, "I spent years helping the private insurance industry trick the American people into thinking the for-profit healthcare system benefits them, when the very opposite is true. I've never been more glad to see my own legacy erased. It's a new era in America."

As study after study after study after study has shown, Medicare for All would cost the American people less money overall while providing comprehensive, free at point of service coverage to all—even as Biden continues to fearmonger over the pricetag.

Sanders has made Medicare for All a cornerstone of his 2020 campaign while Biden has attacked the progressive solution to the nation's healthcare woes by using GOP and insurance industry talking points and misleading mathematics to denounce it.

As Biden has repeatedly attacked the ten-year estimated cost of Medicare for All by saying it would cost $35 trillion, what he repeatedly leaves out is that, as Los Angeles Times columnist David Lazarus points out this week, citing figures from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, total spending under the status quo for-profit system "over the subsequent 10 years likely will reach a staggering $60 trillion — at least." As Lazarus writes:

That's the cost of doing nothing. It's what opponents of healthcare reform are saying is our best option.

And that, of course, is insane.

"We've gotten ourselves into a big hole by letting expenditures get out of hand," said Vivian Ho, a healthcare economist at Rice University. "It's happening right before our eyes, and we're not doing anything about it."

On Thursday morning, a new study by researcher Josh Bivens at the Economic Policy Institute found that a Medicare for All system "would bolster the labor market, strengthen economic security for millions of U.S. households, and would likely boost the number of jobs in the U.S. labor market."

Medicare for All, according to the study, would:

• Provide a potential boost to wages and salaries by allowing employers to redirect healthcare spending to workers' wages.
• Increase job quality by ensuring that every job would come bundled with a guarantee of health care.
• Lessen the income loss, stress, and economic shock of unemployment and job transitions by eliminating the loss of health care that accompanies job-loss
• Support self-employment and small business development—which is low in the United States relative to other rich Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries—by eliminating the daunting cost of health care from startup costs.
• Inject new dynamism into the overall economy by reducing "job lock," by allowing workers to go where their skills and preferences lie, not just to workplaces with affordable health plans.

"A fundamental health reform like Medicare for All would be an unambiguously good policy for the labor market, for the economy overall, and for U.S. workers," Bivens said in a statement. "Besides the obvious benefits of expanding health care to millions of uninsured and underinsured Americans, Medicare for All could raise wages, boost productivity, and help small business owners."

---

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

Off the Top of My Head

Trump Will Make Mincemeat out of Biden; Not So for Bernie

by John Lawrence, March 6, 2020

Biden is just not as mentally sharp as Trump. Bernie is more mentally sharp than Trump. Trump will get under Biden's skin with his bit about Hunter Biden and Burisma. It was obviously corruption although probably not illegal. If Joe Biden were not vice President, there's no way his son would have got a $50,000 a month job with a foreign company doing business in a field he had absolutely no expertise in. Joe's speaking manner leaves a lot to be desired. He loses his train of thought in midsentence and then interpolates - Look! - and starts off in a new direction. Then after making his point he says time and again, "That's #1. (pause) #2." I'm tired of Joe's number ones and number twos. He uses the same device so often that he's doing his absolute best to turn it into the cliche it's destined to become if it hasn't become one already.

Bernie doesn't lose his train of thought and always goes back to his speaking points without being distracted or dismayed. Trump will not be able to get under his skin with his puerile and weak blatherings. Trump has the great advantage in that his loose connection with factuality and the truth actually liberates him from mental hiccups. Whatever self serving thing he says, people just totally overlook it rather than seeing it as an example of his total incompetence. Trump makes the laughable and ridiculous seem like some sort of joke which people can laugh at, some kind of humorous relief. Joe is much too serious and will react without humor to Trump's parries and barbs. Bernie will either ignore him or come back with a tart riposte.

Bernie's successful effort to make Burlington a sister city of Yaroslavl, Russia should be applauded rather than condemned. Like a lot of us especially in the period of Glasnost and Perestroika just before the Berlin wall came down, Bernie was concerned to establish a peaceful and friendly relationship with a country with which we had long been antagonistic in the interests of preventing nuclear war. A people to people relationship increases understanding and neutralizes hate and animosity. They are still sister cities to this day. A number of other sister city relationships have been established between American and Russian and even Japanese cities in an effort to foster peace and diminish the need for an oversized and bloated military establishment which consumes horrific amounts of money which could be used for more constructive purposes.

Trump will try to use any dirt he has at his disposal to dispatch either Bernie or Biden in the Presidential contest. He will have the full backing of Fox news and Rush Limbaugh if he's still around as well as many other right wing demagogues. It will be up to the Democratic hopeful to stick to his game plan and not be deterred or dissuaded by Trump's tactics. Trump will consistently hit below the belt. Republicans are known and famous for dirty tricks and verbal twists and turns in an attempt to make their opponent look bad and set off a defensive reaction in him. The problem is I don't think that Joe Biden has the mental acuity and wherewithal not to fall into some of Trump's traps which will be astutely laid for him by Trump's advisors because I don't think Trump himself has the cleverness to lay therm himself. Any debate between Biden and Trump could easily turn into a slugfest in which Trump stands to gain the most as he can probably upset Biden while he remains cool and collected showing to viewers that he is the more skilled candidate.