cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Reply Thu 17 Jan, 2019 06:34 pm
@livinglava,
I never implied what you said.
Quote:
So basically you're saying that the government should support landlords charging high rents by raising wages, even though that will make it harder to hire more people while also stimulating price inflation overall?
In this country, everybody has the freedom of movement from one place to another. There are plenty of choices from low cost to high cost areas in almost every city and state. The price you pay for goods and services are based and supply and demand. That's basic Econ 101. We happen to live in Sunnyvale, CA, one of the high cost locations in Silicon Valley. Housing
Item Sunnyvale National avg.
Home Price $859,100.00 $184,700.00
Avg. Mortgage Payment $2,702.60 $1,202.44
Apartment Rent $1,949.00 $949.00
Sunnyvale, CA Cost Of Living - AreaVibes
https://www.areavibes.com/sunnyvale-ca/cost-of-living/ We made our home here in the mid-1970's, long before it became Silicon Valley. We love it here for the easy access to San Francisco, the Pacific Ocean, the Sierra Nevada Mountains, and Mineta International Airport. It's also one of the country's safest cities.
We also called Naperville, IL, home when I worked for Florsheim Shoe Company. That's also a desired location for living in a safe environment with good schools and entertainment. The Naperville living index is 143.8. Here's a cost of living index between Sunnyvale and Los Angeles. https://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/sunnyvale-ca/los-angeles-ca/120000 Los Angeles, California is 50.2% cheaper than Sunnyvale, California
Download .xls
Cost of Living Indexes Sunnyvale, CA Los Angeles, CA Difference
Overall 391.9. 195.1 50.2% less
Food & Groceries 110.8. 100.4 9.4% less
Housing (Homeowner) 1,024.2. 358.4 65.0% less
Housing (Renter)
Median Home Cost. $1,915,400 $670,200. $1,245,200 (65.0% less)
Utilities 84.5 93.7 10.9% more
Transportation 162.9 190.7 17.1% more
Health 93.7 85.2 9.1% less
edgarblythe
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 Jan, 2019 07:57 pm
Figured it was a sham from the first.

Key House Democrat Wimps Out of Holding Medicare for All Hearings
https://splinternews.com/key-house-democrat-wimps-out-of-holding-medicare-for-al-1831845787?utm_campaign=socialflow_splinter_twitter&utm_source=splinter_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow&fbclid=IwAR2J-ZOwP1Z7HUwwYhdrzrSAgK0y1evP1W3yXydhRgSFyreKU0OCFQZDGPk
Earlier this month, Nancy Pelosi signaled her support for House Democrats holding hearings on Medicare for All in the Rules and Budget committees. But those aren’t the major committees that would consider Medicare for All. So it was significant news when the Hill reported yesterday that Rep. Anna Eshoo, chair of the much more relevant Energy & Commerce Health Subcommittee, said she intended to hold hearings on Medicare for All, saying she thought “it would be interesting to have the authors of these bills come to testify and explain what their bill does and have the members ask them questions.”

But today, Politico Pulse reports that Eshoo walked those statements back last night (emphasis theirs):

ANNA ESHOO walks back vow on Medicare-for-all hearing. The Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee chair told reporters Wednesday afternoon she’d hold a hearing on Democrats’ Medicare for All proposals — a seeming break with Committee Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) that would mark a significant victory for the party’s progressive wing.

But by Wednesday evening, the California Democrat was having second thoughts, telling POLITICO’s Adam Cancryn that her subcommittee needed to prioritize shoring up Obamacare and crafting sweeping drug price reforms.

Only after the committee gets done with those issues, Eshoo said, will she see if there’s any “spare time” to tackle Medicare for All — an outcome that she suggested was unlikely.
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  3  
Reply Thu 17 Jan, 2019 08:33 pm
Women's March plans 'Medicare for All' day of lobbying in DC.


Published January 17, 2019
Quote:
The Women's March and other progressive organizations are planning to lobby for "Medicare for All" legislation on the eve of the annual Women's March in Washington, D.C., this weekend.

Members of the groups are planning to storm Capitol Hill on Friday for a "lobby day" to kick off a weekend of events surrounding the annual march through downtown Washington.

The national Women's March organization expects that "thousands" of people will participate in the lobbying push on Friday, Women's March senior adviser Winnie Wong told The Hill.

Participants will be instructed to go directly to their lawmakers' offices throughout the day to voice support for a pair of bills introduced by progressive lawmakers.

"Medicare for All" has been a rallying cry for progressive activists and lawmakers in recent years, with an increasing number of Democratic politicians including it in their policy platforms.

The Women's March is seeking to drum up support for two "Medicare for All" bills: one expected to be introduced by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and another from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has long spearheaded single-payer healthcare efforts.

Wong told The Hill that the Women's March has identified Jayapal's bill as "the most comprehensive and inclusive single-payer bill of all the different 'Medicare for All' bills out there."

"We hope that she will be able to launch the bill with more co-signers than the previous bill had," Wong said.

A previous form of the bill, introduced by former Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) during the previous Congress, received 124 co-sponsors.

Other progressive organizations that will participate in the lobbying push Friday include Center for Popular Democracy.

"The grassroots energy over the past two years has brought us to a point where the people have the opportunity to set an agenda,” Jennifer Epps-Addison, the co-executive director of Center for Popular Democracy Action, said in a statement.

“With the most diverse Congress in history, we can turn our momentum into policy to improve the lives of all people in this country. We support Medicare for All because it ensures that all people can access the care that they need to thrive."

The incoming Democratic chairwoman of the House Energy and Commerce health subcommittee said this week that she intends to hold a hearing on several “Medicare for all” proposals.

House Democrats are largely divided over single-payer health care, and there is some ambiguity over its future in the Democratic-led House.

A recent poll conducted by Hill.TV and the HarrisX polling company found that 70 percent of respondents support providing "Medicare for All" for Americans.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/425924-womens-march-progressive-orgs-to-lobby-for-medicare-for-all-on-capitol-hill
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 17 Jan, 2019 08:37 pm
@Real Music,
Quote:
Women's March plans 'Medicare for All' day of lobbying in DC.

Yeah, they can do that and hate Jews at the same time.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2019 01:46 am
@cicerone imposter,
Did you feel the quake yesterday morning? I was a bit concerned that it was on the Hayward fault. Wondering if it was strong enough to feel across the bay.
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2019 05:36 am
Quote:
The Women’s March ultimately faced a problem endemic to protest movements that organize spontaneously on the internet, going back to Occupy Wall Street. As Zeynep Tufekci argued in her 2017 book “Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest,” mass protest once required deep, sustained organizing, with all the compromise and human connection that entailed. The process of putting a major demonstration together would itself allow strong leaders to come to the fore. Digital organizing makes much of that work obsolete. As a result, people are often left trying to create a movement after a high-profile action, rather than before it, without clear common goals or leaders who have broadly accepted legitimacy.

nyt
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2019 08:47 am
By Tim Canova
https://medium.com/@Tim_Canova/important-update-on-our-election-challenge-case-ae8c349b7616

I am writing to bring you up to date on the latest developments in our efforts to expose the corruption in our election system.

Some weeks ago, I filed a lawsuit in Florida Circuit Court contesting the results of our November 6, 2018 election against Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Our lawyers then provided notice to the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives of our challenge and submitted a complaint requesting that the House not seat Wasserman Schultz.

Make no mistake, there are solid grounds for questioning our election results. For nearly 100,000 votes purportedly cast for Wasserman Schultz, there was no indication of where, when, or how the ballots were actually cast. According to computer programming experts, this is an indication that those votes could have been shifted from me or another candidate to Wasserman Schultz by hackers or insiders simply altering the software source code through the wireless cellular modems on the electronic scanning and tabulator machines used in Broward County. And that software is closed source, meaning it’s considered “proprietary” — the private property of the software vendors, and not subject to inspection by our experts or by anyone. We are literally asked to trust the results on blind faith.

There’s also compelling statistical evidence of election rigging. Our campaign was capped at an unlikely 5% of the vote. Moreover, we were capped at that level for every demographic group — something so unbelievable that a leading expert in computational science concluded it was as likely as winning the lottery every day for a year! Those who talk about the need to follow the science of climate change should follow the science of statistics and mathematics.

There’s also no reason to trust a recount of the purported ballots. The disgraced former Broward Elections Supervisor Brenda Snipes and other election officials failed to safeguard the chain of custody of the paper ballots, the electronic voting machines, and the digital scanned ballot images. That’s why we’re not seeking a recount, but rather asking the House to invalidate the election results and to order a re-vote.

Unfortunately, when the new Congress convened last week, the House voted to seat Wasserman Schultz without any inquiry into our election results. This was déjà vu all over again! After a Florida court ruled last May that Brenda Snipes had illegally destroyed all the ballots cast in our 2016 Democratic primary against Wasserman Schultz, I wrote to every House and Senate member. The silence was deafening. Not one member of Congress even bothered to respond to our plea for a Congressional investigation.

The U.S. Constitution makes clear that the House is the final judge of the qualifications and elections of its members. Now that the House has seated Wasserman Schultz, our lawsuit is effectively moot as a procedural matter and we expect the Florida Circuit Court to dismiss the case any day now on narrow procedural grounds. And since the lawsuit is mooted by the House action, we will not be appealing the court’s expected dismissal.

The good news is that even though Wasserman Schultz has been seated, there’s nothing stopping the House Committee for Administration from conducting hearings on our fake election, invalidating the election, and ordering a re-vote.

There’s much more at stake here than one congressional district. This system of “black box voting” undermines public faith and confidence in our election results. If the electronic voting machines were rigged in Broward County, they can be rigged almost anywhere. If we fail to clean up this corrupt election system now, electronic voting machines may well be rigged in some of the 2020 presidential primaries and general election — and perhaps not by the Russians or Chinese.

That’s why I’ve been calling for banning these inherently vulnerable electronic voting machines and replacing them with a system of 100% hand-marked paper ballots counted by hand in public. Nothing less will help restore the conditions necessary for a functioning democracy.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2019 10:59 am
@Lash,
I, personally, did not feel anything, but saw the report on tv.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2019 11:10 am
Centrism = Extinction
Centrism = Extinction
@Notbluebland
·
Jan 17
We just tried to refill our youngest girl’s medicine. Last year, at most, it was a $20 copay. The most we ever paid for it out of pocket was $300. Yesterday they said until we meet our deductible, it’s over $1k.

This **** is ******* broken.

#Medicare4All #m4a
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2019 11:13 am
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
Yesterday they said until we meet our deductible, it’s over $1k.

Thanks Obama.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2019 11:28 am
@edgarblythe,
That's called a "High Deductible Plan" it's cheaper monthly but you pay 100% of your medical expenses until you meet the deductible.

My healthcare plan is like that. It takes $150/mo out of my pay but I have to pay the first $1500 of my medical expenses, then I pay 20% of my medical expenses after that. I had an option for $25 copays but it would have been ~$350/mo.

There were other plans that the tweeter could have signed up for. It probably would have cost more per month though.



Personally, I have no problem with my health care plan. None at all.

I still support some sort of medicare for all. But I'd like to see some actual details get presented someday.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2019 11:32 am
@maporsche,
You're going to love it when you retire. Also, join an HMO such as Kaiser Foundation Hospital. Some years ago, when I had to spend over one week in the hospital, my cost was $100/day, the billed price was over $1,000/day. We also have friends who paid the monthly fees, and also had high deductibles. They're now retired too! I've always been an advocate for universal health care. Our country spends the most for health care, and not everyone is covered. That's a crime and a sin. We should take the best universal health care programs that provides it, and combine them to provide the best health care at reasonable cost. Our prescription meds are also ridiculously high compared to other countries such as Canada. That needs to be controlled. Healthcare is no less important as public education to remain competitive in this world. We're even failing there.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2019 11:43 am
Bernie Sanders is having a Columbia town hall on MLK Day. Here’s where
https://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article224746435.html
coldjoint
 
  0  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2019 11:47 am

Quote:
Socialist Country Raises Minimum Wage 300% to $6 a Month

Is the US ready for this? Sounds wonderful, doesn't it?
https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/272593/socialist-country-raises-minimum-wage-300-6-month-daniel-greenfield#.XEGgbXcziQw.twitter

0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2019 12:18 pm
I've got a question for everyone who supports raising taxes for Medicare for All.

1) What do you think is the appropriate amount of money for people to pay (through taxes or copays or premiums) for healthcare costs?

Let's use a real life example. Here is MY breakdown of my complete employee compensation, including how much my employer pays for my healthcare, how much they pay in payroll taxes, plus my salary.

This is the 2018 breakdown for me personally.

Taxes (32%)
Healthcare (10%)* (cost doesn't change with my salary)
Retirement (13%)
Take Home Pay (44%)


I personally think my 10% contribution is unnoticeable to my way of life. But if I made half as much that healthcare plan would consume 20% of my income, which would start to hurt.

So, I guess my question is....what percent is appropriate?



cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2019 12:28 pm
@maporsche,
I don't think there are easy answers to your question because of many factors such as the overall cost of living for the location one wishes to live, and costs differ from location to location in the same community for rent/purchase of a home. From Mercurynews.com:
Quote:
And rents remain high. The median rent for apartments, condos, co-ops and single-family homes in the San Jose metro area, which includes Santa Clara and San Benito counties, was $3,499 ($42,000/year) last month — down from $3,532 the year before, according to Zillow. In the San Francisco area, which includes Alameda, San Mateo and Contra Costa counties, the median rent was $3,399 last month — down from $3,419 the year before.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2019 12:41 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I don't think there are easy answers either CI, but they are questions that NEED to have answers.

Someone making $50,000/year who had to pay $417/mo in healthcare costs would think that's very expensive and it equals 10%.

That same person makes $4,150/mo and nets about $3,000.

So do progressives (since this is their thread) think that someone making $50,000 should pay more or less than 10% of their income for healthcare (in the form of taxes, premiums, copays, etc)?

What number here seems reasonable to pay per month?

16% = $667
14% = $583
12% = $500
10% = $417
8% = $333
6% = $250
4% = $167

maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2019 01:05 pm
@maporsche,
Hypothetical Budget for Person making $50,000

Net Pay = $3000/mo
Rent/Mort = $1000/mo
Utilities = $200/mo
Car/Gas/Insurance = $500/mo

After the most basic bills almost everyone has, this person is left with $1,300/month to pay for health insurance, food, clothing, entertainment, personal care, education loans, etc. This also assumes a single person with no children.

So, progressives, give me a number that this person should be expected to pay for healthcare costs (through taxes, premiums, copays, etc).
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2019 01:15 pm
@maporsche,
Rather than your %'s and cost list, a more reasonable question and answer would be, which countries provide the best quality healthcare for the least cost? Denmark seems to have the "happiest" population in this world, but they are composed of one culture and race which makes it much easier to provide for their "own." Their taxation is some of the highest in the world at around 50%. It works for them, but I doubt it'll work for multi-cultural countries such as the US with the variety of living costs, range of wealthy to poor, and differing cost of living from city to city, and state to state.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2019 01:19 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I get those points CI, I really really do.

But I'm trying to take this medicare for all idea and narrow it down to what it would mean to a hypothetical person.

If Medicare for All were to become law, someone would have to put numbers and percentages down on a piece of paper that gets signed into law. This number wouldn't care about cost of living in California vs Wyoming.

I'm trying to get progressives to start thinking about that (rather than posting random people's tweets).

Progressives, help me understand your thoughts on medicare for all!!!

 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 03/10/2025 at 08:11:31