AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, as we bring you Part 2 of our interview with Dr. Michele Barry, infectious disease expert, tropical disease expert, global health expert from Stanford University. The worldwide death toll from the coronavirus pandemic has topped 10,000, with nearly a quarter of a million confirmed cases of COVID-19.
AMY GOODMAN: I mean, President Trump has attacked now the governors who are crying out for all sorts of aid. Now he is mobilizing two ships. I think they’re the Comfort and the Mercy. One will be in Seattle, one will be in New York. But, in fact, they’re under repairs, and apparently it might take weeks. And the governors are saying, “This is your role.” And the president says, “We’re not here to order things for you. We are not your clerk.” Talk about what you see an ideal system would look like in this country. And I also want to ask you if you think Medicare for All fits into this picture.
DR. MICHELE BARRY: Well, I definitely think Medicare for All fits into this picture, because if we’re not taking care of one sector of our population, you’re not going to be able to control viruses. Viruses don’t know which economic class, and it’s the most vulnerable populations that are going to have the hardest time containing this illness. They’re crowded. They’re vulnerable. I think we also — you know, I’m not an economist, and I know you had Joe Stiglitz, that talked about the economic ramifications. But it’s the most vulnerable populations that are going to be hit the hardest, and it spreads from them. So we need to take care of all of us. We need some community solidarity about taking care of this virus and other threats that occur. And, you know, it’s interesting. You could think about climate, you can think about air pollution, you can think about other issues that we’re going to need global governance about it. It can’t be done country by country by country.
0 Replies
hightor
4
Reply
Sun 22 Mar, 2020 04:34 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
Indeed, this virus is teaching us a lesson: change may be hard when you live in comfort, but easy to do when you're afraid to die.
I agree, but I can't help observing another lesson, speciesism and human exceptionalism at work.
Sure, it's okay for animals to die, it's okay for entire species to be extirpated, it's okay to clear forests, poison the water, ruin ecosystems, and pollute the air, but human beings start to get sick and suddenly it's a crisis, and we now we have to act.
If we appreciated the biosphere for what it is, lived sustainably, and treated the natural world as something other than a resource to be exploited for our wealth and comfort we wouldn't be suffering this pandemic in the first place.
The trouble with "Medicare for All" is that it's become a brand. It refers to a specific program meant to enable universal single-payer health insurance. As a specific program it has been picked over and criticized from the left and the right alike. Here's just one example:
"Medicare for All" is tied in people's minds to the political campaigns of Sanders and Warren, and that can be both a good and a bad thing. I think it would be more constructive to call for a more generic "universal healthcare system" or "single payer health insurance" than to tie the reform to one specific plan. Someone might not support "Medicare for All" but prefer a similar plan which accomplishes just as much in a different way.
A good system is in place. Expanding it to include new age groups over time is the best plan.
We don’t need to re-invent the wheel to cater to anti-semitism and stupidity. Many of the people who are stiff-necked against the guy with the best plans are undergoing a die-off. Let’s check out attitudes after that.
Those who survive will learn that our society is only as safe as our most uninsured people. We all deserve healthcare. Healthcare cannot be based on class.
But why do you oppose universal healthcare system, single payer health insurance, or what other countries have developed out of this?
Then you could learn how long it takes to completely change an existing system, for example, and how the respective populations have (or haven't) accepted this, etc. etc.
it is not always right to bash your head against the wall.
We don’t need to re-invent the wheel to cater to anti-semitism and stupidity.
Reforming the system might become easier if it weren't locked to one specific brand. You don't get to monopolize the discussion. It has nothing to do with anti-semitism. Any stupidity in this case is solely your own.
Quote:
We all deserve healthcare.
The "I'm entitled because I'm alive" claim isn't a practical argument, it's a sentimental one. Pointing out the inefficiency, unfairness, and cost of the present system, highlighting its failures, and showing how a reformed system would provide better results is a more effective way to promote this change.
I oppose reinventing the wheel when we already have a successful system in place.
Sorry, I must have misunderstood not only your posts but the US health system.
Lash wrote:
Why do you oppose another country expanding their successful system?
Did I? As far as I remember, I wrote here several times over the last years differently. (I still think, our system is quite good but I would prefer something more like what the Swiss got.)
I can't help observing another lesson, speciesism and human exceptionalism at work.
My tougths are even worse: the reason why COVID-19 entices such an aggressive response and climate change doesn't, is (I suspect) because the latter affects the chances of survival of old men, a demographic which includes the many folks in positions of power right now, while the former will only seriously affect their children and grand children...
First, in response to the argument for Medicare for All, you threw this gobble-de-gook salad on the screen:
Quote:
Sure, it's okay for animals to die, it's okay for entire species to be extirpated, it's okay to clear forests, poison the water, ruin ecosystems, and pollute the air, but human beings start to get sick and suddenly it's a crisis, and we now we have to act.
If we appreciated the biosphere for what it is, lived sustainably, and treated the natural world as something other than a resource to be exploited for our wealth and comfort we wouldn't be suffering this pandemic in the first place.
It’s utter avoidance of the common sense plans being advocated by the only candidate who prioritizes humanity.
hightor wrote:
That's not possible, as you know, nor is it being suggested. "Let's not do anything" is not a solution. Let's address the problems we've made.
I specifically advocate the specifically people-centric, smart solutions that have been researched, written, and publicized by Bernie Sanders.
You advocate time travel to the past.
You advocate ignoring Bernie’s policies because some dickheads don’t like Bernie.
I challenge you to look at Bernie’s policies, stop falling back on ‘people don’t like Bernie, so they’ll stand in his way’ and review his policies on their face compared to Biden’s policies. Feel free to add in the reliability of Bernie and Biden to follow through with what they say they’ll do.
Good call. The wealthy can afford to avoid the worst effects of climate change while poorer people starve, drown, and fall prey to other desperate people fighting for whatever they can get.
The virus isn’t quite as classist, though in the US, the ability to get care is wealth-based...
0 Replies
layman
-1
Reply
Sun 22 Mar, 2020 07:44 am
Quote:
Majority of Americans now say they approve of Trump's handling of coronavirus: poll
Of those surveyed, 55 percent said that they approved of the president's handling of the situation, while 43 percent said they disapproved. The numbers were basically reversed from one week ago when 54 percent said they disapproved and 43 percent approved.
Nearly 70 percent of Democrats still disapprove of how Trump is dealing with the pandemic.
All coverage of these daily briefings must stop NOW!
0 Replies
hightor
3
Reply
Sun 22 Mar, 2020 07:47 am
@Olivier5,
Yes, that's probably the case. I can't help wondering, however, what the response would be if the virus tended to target the young rather than the old, like the swine flu of 2012. I think, if anything, the response would have actually been quicker.
