The two Washington State Senators are bought and paid for soulless sacks of shit.
An opinion, of course.
Do you think people are really pissed off now? Just wait a few more years for the real hell to kick in, like when food, water, etc. shortages and the longer term environmental destruction becomes reality for our delusional bread-and-circus majority. The Mexican mafia will look like a bunch of pussies when survival supersedes abstract concepts like profits. Where do you think the environmental refugees will go in just the lower 48? The aquifers and soil in the West and Midwest will have been depleted by then due, partially, to peak oil being a not so distant memory and the peak oil curve being much steeper on the post peak side. Need some fuel to stay warm? Let’s clear cut every damn tree out there. While we’re at it lets convert most of it to ethanol so that we can continue driving our precious little cars some more. Then again, maybe we will be smart enough to use that fuel to power the trucks that deliver our food (and water?). How long will that last since the delivery routes are becoming longer and longer. In an effort to become more “efficient” there will be a mass migration to the remaining sources of not so fresh water and soon to be depleted soil. Rural living will no longer exist in these areas. And let’s not forget our ever increasing population. Its growth will eventually reverse in a more or less painful way. Unfortunately, the more painful way is less painful in the short term
Sorry for being such a gloom and doomer. I hope I didn’t “piss” anyone off.
Vested interests are always the subject of pissed off tax payers and can be found in many areas of the US and other developed countries. Identifying key players in industry related political appointees is always a good place to start. Whether it be Big Pharma, Health insurance, or what have you, always look to see who’s praising whom in the media. Incestuous relationship abound if we’re astute enough to notice. A recent development in Canadian jurisprudence demonstrates that practically anything can be rigged in favor of special interests:
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled Jessica Ernst can’t sue the powerful and controversial Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) over alleged violations of her Charter rights. The split ruling Friday — five justices rejected her claim, with four supporting it — is a setback for the protection of groundwater and the rights of landowners dealing with provincial energy regulators, often funded or captured by industry interests, say many critics and lawyers.
EDMONTON - Some critics are worried the Alberta government’s new regulatory body for oil, gas and coal could result in weaker, less transparent application of environmental protection laws. Energy Minister Ken Hughes is trying to soothe those concerns, saying a new government branch, the Policy Management Office, will monitor the Alberta Energy Regulator to make sure that doesn’t happen.
Rex Tillerson, Chairman and CEO of ExxonMobil, the world’s biggest energy company, praised Alberta's province’s regulatory process for bringing critical regulatory "functions under one umbrella...[the AER]...decreasing duplication and costs and increasing efficiency." Tillerson argued that the U.S. energy policy has not "kept up with rapid changes in the sector."If you live in Pennsylvania, Wyoming, Colorado, Texas or other tight gas areas, new developments could be coming soon to an area near you. Check with your local Secretary of State for details. Sparkling water you say?
Chris, while I highly sympathize with the massive fraud, blaming the drug companies, heath insurance companies, phone companies just deflects the blame from the real culprit, the governments that limits your choice and competition on their behalf. They are simply playing the game rigged by our politicians and bureaucrats. Shinning a spotlight on this half of the problem does nothing but prompt people to call for more regulation, more bureaucracies that created the mess in the first place.
After all, the ACA was the call of the people to save them from the evil health care companies, how did that turn out? The problem is more regulation = less competition = higher prices = more violence. Before ACA the federal government was already close to 70% of the health care market (Medicaid, Medicare, VA). There is no incentive for any type of cost control when you can simply steal from everyone (taxation) to cover the promises made.
Let’s take your tirade against United Health, from above you show they had $46.3B in revenue and ended up with $1.98B in profits, that’s 4.2% profit - not exactly stellar? As a shareholder I would be upset that the C* executives make so much, but from an impact to everyone else it’s pretty minimal unless your trying to rile people up. Lets also take United Health Group CEO, from above his compensation was $66M, with 70M subscribers, that means if you took all his pay away and distributed to those subscribers, they would each save a whopping $0.94 (94 cents).
Healthcare is one of those areas where we are living well beyond our means. We have let the politicians tell us that we can have it all, nothing but empty promises because we can’t afford it. It’s another of the illusions where we are borrowing from the future for today.
Sorry most people won’t be able to have an organ transplant, or the latest high tech drug and treatment. If you don’t make a lot of money, sorry, your not going to be able to afford the best healthcare, just like you can’t afford a top of the line car. Tradeoffs have to be made, and only patients are able to properly make that tradeoff decision - so that decision has to be placed back in the hands of the patient. It has too include who to see, what treatment they are willing to pay for, and what insurance (if any) they want to carry.
cmartenson wrote:
Obama’s main failing in the ACA was in not going directly after the powerful insurance industry and forcing its players to participate in the reduction of waste, and sharing in the costs.
Crony capitalism is the logical endpoint of capitalism.
A company with a great product that ends up dominating its market segment will gradually realize that investment dollars that might be spent keeping ahead of the competition would have a better ROI if spent stifling competition, rewriting regulation to its own benefit by bribing politicans, buying up potential competitors, and ultimately colluding with the other big players to fix prices at a mutually high-and-profitable level.
This is common sense. Its also borne out by real world experience.
Here’s the only way out I see:
- prevent companies from having “too much” of a given market. centralization of money = centralization of power = direct threat to democracy. Fewer players = collusion on prices becomes vastly easier. More players = collusion becomes much harder.
- remove money from politics - eliminating bribery.
- forbid politicians or people who have served in government from then serving in the companies they regulated - eliminating ex post facto bribery.
The worst possible outcome, given the cartels now in place in most industries, is to deregulate a market that is dominated by only a couple of monster players who completely control Congress via campaign contributions as well as revolving-door rewards after “public service.”
I would ONLY be in favor of a “free market” (deregulation-oriented) solution if the cartels were first broken up, if money was removed from politics, and if the revolving door was closed.
Until then, a single payer solution is our only hope for healthcare.
So all you “free market” proponents - if you want your plan to have a chance, focus on breaking up the cartels and getting money out of politics. Any “free market” approach that leaves the cartels intact, and thus able to easily collude on prices, and also leaves their channels for bribery in place so they don’t get arrested for their collusion, will simply ensure ongoing monopolistic pricing practices that have healthcare at 18% of GDP. And growing at 10% per year.
Ron Paul is also noticing confrontational acts aimed at Russia from the Obama administration in its last week in office.
Not Just Poland: US Marines Deployed to Norway
Poland is not the only European country into which United States military forces are being inserted in the final days of the Obama administration. On Monday, about 300 Marines arrived in Norway. Reuters reports that the Marines, who will be the first foreign troops stationed in Norway since World War II, will be stationed at Norway’s Vaernes military base about 900 miles from the Russian border.I went to bed last night wondering if Obama's team still had enough time to precipitate a war with Russia and awakened to find gold spiking. Maybe someone else was worried about this too? ----------------------------- Charles Hugh Smith writes about the 2 groups that are apoplectic with all things Trump: 1. The liberal progressive community, and, 2. The "Eastern Establishment" (Washington DC, NY, Harvard, Yale, CIA and the Deep State Cronies). CHS doesn't expand on specifics in this essay, but points out that "the establishment" has a lot to lose should their skims and scams be disrupted. They hold the social roll of gatekeeper / toll-collector enabling them to siphon off wealth from the productive. Trump threatens their grip. They are not happy. This "Eastern Establishment" also owns the MSM. Thus the evidence-free efforts to link Trump with Current Bogeyman Numero Uno (Mr. Putin) continues. It is no wonder that Trump wishes to bypass the MSM, and remove them from close access to the presidency. They ARE the opposition party. The brilliant strategists of the "Eastern Establishment" will encourage the angst and outrage of the liberal progressive community in an alliance to oppose Trump. For humanitarian purposes. Alas, the beautiful and kind-hearted GREEN Meme doesn't usually catch on that compassion can be used as a handle-for-manipulation in the Game of Thrones by those whose goals are actually power and profit. ----------- Mish points out that Merkel's Human rights speaker, Erika Steinbach, resigned today over immigration policy.
Steinbach went further, accusing the government of deliberately promoting illegal migration. “At the Federal Office for Migration, thousands of thousands of passports have been identified as counterfeit, without the legal consequences for the respective migrants being drawn. There is a political will behind it.”Who is it that seeks to flood Germany with migrants? What goals does that serve?
I will reinforce what DaveF just said about Crony Capitalism. This is my understanding too.
The oligarchy can centralize control in both ways: by moving towards Big Government or towards Small Government.
- Big government increases oligarchic control by regulatory capture. This includes regulation over such laudable issues as ensuring quality, public safety, fairness and non-discrimination.
- Small government increases the control of the oligarchy through mergers, acquisitions, monopolies (and dirty tricks). For example, when General Motors, Standard Oil and Firestone Tire & Rubber buy up the right-of-way for the LA trolley lines for the purpose of shutting them down. Or when a conglomerate buys up all the smaller independent newspapers giving it a high degree of control over the public discourse. Or when a large hospital purchases a smaller competing hospital for the purpose of closing it creating a monopoly. Or when market-forces push unemployed inner city youth into military service.
Increasing the oligarchy’s control through “free markets” has been called Neo-Liberalism. - And then there are the awesome combination control structures blending both Big and Small Government such as the war on drugs. The public is protected from harmful street drugs by the DEA’s multi-billion dollar war on drugs. This produces floods of inner city youth criminals which fill the for-profit prisons which are funded by the taxpayers to protect the public. It also keeps drug prices high so that CIA / organized-crime joint operations remain fantastically profitable and can be used to fund unauthorized, covert paramilitary operations (such as staging coups and assassinations) to promote freedom and protect the public.
I will reinforce what DaveF just said about Crony Capitalism. This is my understanding too.
The oligarchy can centralize control in both ways: by moving towards Big Government or towards Small Government.
- Big government increases oligarchic control by regulatory capture. This includes regulation over such laudable issues as ensuring quality, public safety, fairness and non-discrimination.
- Small government increases the control of the oligarchy through mergers, acquisitions, monopolies (and dirty tricks). For example, when General Motors, Standard Oil and Firestone Tire & Rubber buy up the right-of-way for the LA trolley lines for the purpose of shutting them down. Or when a conglomerate buys up all the smaller independent newspapers giving it a high degree of control over the public discourse. Or when a large hospital purchases a smaller competing hospital for the purpose of closing it creating a monopoly. Or when market-forces push unemployed inner city youth into military service.
Increasing the oligarchy’s control through “free markets” has been called Neo-Liberalism. - And then there are the awesome combination control structures blending both Big and Small Government such as the war on drugs. The public is protected from harmful street drugs by the DEA’s multi-billion dollar war on drugs. This produces floods of inner city youth criminals which fill the for-profit prisons which are funded by the taxpayers to protect the public. It also keeps drug prices high so that CIA / organized-crime joint operations remain fantastically profitable and can be used to fund unauthorized, covert paramilitary operations (such as staging coups and assassinations) to promote freedom and protect the public.
I still suggest people should watch Netflix’ “14th”, closing their eyes as appropriate.
Now, that said:
Just a thought: MLK was heavily investigated and tailed by the FBI and CIA, with definite ties to the KKK. Then he was shot. Malcolm X, same story. Many other PEACEFUL activists, same story. JFK, arguably same story (the KKK also hated the Irish).
Now, the FBI and CIA have been in control of the mainstream media for some time, since Reagan at least. And they have been coming out against Trump the same way, perhaps this time because they percieve a threat to their power.
More than that, the mainstream media, ignoring things like Trump’s civil rights support, and awards were pushing for MLK’s heirs to come out against Trump; MLK’s heirs have been saying “nonsense, we VOTED for the guy.”
So I’m getting to the point where I’m starting to think FBI/CIA ~ KKK ~ deep state.
My level of disgust with them is extreme.
I hope I’m wrong.
I believe it is appropriate to assume that most every government action is orchestrated behind the scenes. What you see as debate is simply window dressing. The recent vote on importing Canadian drugs is a perfect example. Just enough Democrats voted against, and just enough Republicans voted for the bill to make it look like a “bipartisan” action. It was all a show for our benefit. Spread the temporary anger around until it dies down and continue to allow concentrated industry to harvest the massive profits from the populace.
The ACA was the only healthcare reform that could get through Congress because it continued and extended the ability of insurance and pharma pigs to feed at the trough. What it did for the people was of minor consideration. The ACA is horribly flawed, but may have been the only possible legislation to come out of a corrupt Congress. Don’t hold your breath waiting for a better alternative.
In a true free market there would be many willing buyers, many willing sellers, and equal access to accurate information. NONE OF WHICH CURRENTLY EXIST. Dave F is exactly correct, trying to institute a free market without breaking up the cartels would lead the sheep directly to the slaughter.
A permaculture website recently had an interesting discussion of health care in intentional communities.
https://permies.com/t/54650/communities-tackle-problems-arising-medical
Eventually we will all need to take personal responsibility for our own health. It may not be easy to break our additions to sugar, processed foods, alcohol, pharmaceuticals, and other “inputs” that harm our health. But we cannot depend on any outside entity (government, insurance company, pharmaceutical company) to ensure our health. We can, however, band together and help each other maintain (or obtain) health through eating, exercise, mental support.
Quote:
Joseph Lofthouse
So after invoking David Holmgren the other day, I thought that I'd visit his web site and grab a quote: "By adopting the ethics and applying these principles in our daily life we can make the transition from being dependent consumers to becoming responsible producers."
So what would that look like in the context of medical care? Perhaps something like this, "By adopting the ethics and applying these principles in our daily life we can make the transition from being dependent consumers of medical insurance to becoming responsible healers in our own lives, in our families, and in our communities."
So how about it? Are you producers of health care or consumers?
A permaculture website recently had an interesting discussion of health care in intentional communities.
https://permies.com/t/54650/communities-tackle-problems-arising-medical
Eventually we will all need to take personal responsibility for our own health. It may not be easy to break our additions to sugar, processed foods, alcohol, pharmaceuticals, and other “inputs” that harm our health. But we cannot depend on any outside entity (government, insurance company, pharmaceutical company) to ensure our health. We can, however, band together and help each other maintain (or obtain) health through eating, exercise, mental support.
Quote:
Joseph Lofthouse
So after invoking David Holmgren the other day, I thought that I'd visit his web site and grab a quote: "By adopting the ethics and applying these principles in our daily life we can make the transition from being dependent consumers to becoming responsible producers."
So what would that look like in the context of medical care? Perhaps something like this, "By adopting the ethics and applying these principles in our daily life we can make the transition from being dependent consumers of medical insurance to becoming responsible healers in our own lives, in our families, and in our communities."
So how about it? Are you producers of health care or consumers?
…the Overton window has definitely shifted.
Bonus: Anti-drone surface-to-air missile system deployed at Standing Rock…
https://twitter.com/_Native_Life/status/821349842354077696/photo/1?ref_s…
Just when I think I can’t possibly get angier, there goes the world making me angrier-er. The second-lowest paid CEO in those pictures makes more in a day than I do in a year. They will make more in a year than I will in my lifetime. I’m not sure I have an explicative strong enough to even cover my response to such inequity.
I agree with DaveF and Sand_puppy: free-market capitalism only works if the system is free of collusion and political bribery. If you look back at history, too, you’ll find that the word “works” was also greatly dependent on which class you were in, which industry you were in, etc. A rising tide rarely lifts all boats equally, or at all.
davefairtex wrote:
Crony capitalism is the logical endpoint of capitalism.
davefairtex wrote:
A company with a great product that ends up dominating its market segment will gradually realize that investment dollars that might be spent keeping ahead of the competition would have a better ROI if spent stifling competition, rewriting regulation to its own benefit by bribing politicans, buying up potential competitors, and ultimately colluding with the other big players to fix prices at a mutually high-and-profitable level.
This is common sense. Its also borne out by real world experience.
davefairtex wrote:
1) prevent companies from having "too much" of a given market. centralization of money = centralization of power = direct threat to democracy. Fewer players = collusion on prices becomes vastly easier. More players = collusion becomes much harder.
2) remove money from politics - eliminating bribery.
3) forbid politicians or people who have served in government from then serving in the companies they regulated - eliminating ex post facto bribery.
davefairtex wrote:
The worst possible outcome, given the cartels now in place in most industries, is to deregulate a market that is dominated by only a couple of monster players who completely control Congress via campaign contributions as well as revolving-door rewards after "public service."
I would ONLY be in favor of a "free market" (deregulation-oriented) solution if the cartels were first broken up, if money was removed from politics, and if the revolving door was closed.
Until then, a single payer solution is our only hope for healthcare.
davefairtex wrote:
So all you "free market" proponents - if you want your plan to have a chance, focus on breaking up the cartels and getting money out of politics. Any "free market" approach that leaves the cartels intact, and thus able to easily collude on prices, and also leaves their channels for bribery in place so they don't get arrested for their collusion, will simply ensure ongoing monopolistic pricing practices that have healthcare at 18% of GDP. And growing at 10% per year.
http://www.vocativ.com/390175/liberal-preppers-stock-up-on-guns-food/
Ok, I think liberals becoming afraid of the government and becoming “preppers” is progress. Now if we can just convince the liberals and conservatives that the enemy is not the liberals and conservatives, but the government, the Federal Reserve, and the Deep State, then we’ll firing on all cylinders.
Colin Waugh bought a shotgun four weeks before November’s election. An unapologetic liberal, he was no fan of firearms. He had never owned one before. But Waugh, a 31-year-old from Independence, Missouri, couldn’t shake his fears of a Donald Trump presidency — and all of the chaos it could bring. He imagined hate crimes and violence waged by extremists emboldened by the Republican nominee’s brash, divisive rhetoric. He pictured state-sanctioned roundups of Muslims, gays, and outspoken critics. [So far, all we're getting is violence by the left.] “I kept asking myself, ‘Do I want to live under tyranny?'” said Waugh, who supported Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary and later backed Hillary Clinton. “The answer was absolutely not.” With Trump now days away from assuming the White House, Waugh’s preparing for the worst. He’s made “bug-out bags” stuffed with ammo, energy bars, and assorted survival gear for his wife and their three cats. He’s begun stowing water and browsing real estate listings in Gunnison County, Colorado, which he’s determined to be a “liberal safe-haven.” Last month, Waugh added a 9mm handgun to his arsenal. His advice to others on the left fearful of the next four years? “Get ready. Pay attention. Keep your wits about you...” Even as Letos and other liberals brace for bedlam, some longtime preppers worry that others in the movement have let their guard down. Michael Snyder, author of The Economic Collapse blog, recently warned against those on the right who seemed overly optimistic about a Trump presidency. “Everyone is feeling so good about things, very few people still seem interested in prepping for hard times ahead,” he wrote, raising the specter of financial instability in Europe and a potential trade war with China. “It is almost as if the apocalypse has been canceled and the future history of the U.S. has been rewritten with a much happier ending.” For Waugh and his liberal peers, the apocalypse may have just begun. “Fear is an unfortunate catalyst for a lot of folks,” he said. “But there are still too many caught up in the idea that the system is infallible and that it will persevere and prevail.”
I imagine the captain on the bridge of a massive oil tanker yelling “STOP!”
No such luck. The tanker carries momentum. Lots and lots of momentum. It takes most of a day cruising in large circles to bleed off the momentum of the hundred thousand ton behemoth.
Similarly, Trump takes office opposed to several entrenched elements of the deep state, including the CIA, a group that kills people and stages coups professionally. This has the potential to degenerate.
James Howard Kunstler wonders how Civil War 2 will play out. What is left in the CIA bag of tricks?
I dunno about you, but I rather enjoy watching the praetorian Deep State go batshit crazy as the day of Trump’s apotheosis approacheth. I imagine a lot of men and women running down the halls of Langley and the Pentagon and a hundred other secret operational redoubts with their hair on fire, wondering how on earth they can neutralize the fucker in the four days remaining. What’s left in their trick-bag? Bake a poison cheesecake for the inaugural lunch? CIA Chief John Brennan has been reduced to blowing raspberries at the incoming president. Maybe some code cowboys In the Utah NSA fortress can find a way to crash all the markets on Friday as an inauguration present. What does it take? A few strategic HFT spoofs? There will be lots of police sharpshooters on the DC rooftops that day. What might go wrong? ... There’s not much Trump can do until Friday noon except tweet out his tweets, but one can’t help but wonder what the Deep State can do after that magic moment passes. I’ve maintained for nearly a year that, if elected, Trump would be removed by a coup d’état within sixty days of assuming office. ... Perhaps it befits this particular Deep State to go down in the manner of an opéra bouffe. History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce, old Karl Marx observed. What does the Union stand for this time? The rights of former SEC employees to sell their services to CitiBank? The rights of competing pharma companies to jack the price of insulin up from $20 to $250 a vial? The rights of DIA subcontractors to sell Semtex plastic explosives to the “moderate” jihadis of the Middle East? ... I guess the big question is whether the Deep State... will tear the country apart in the attempt to defend all its ill-gotten perquisites and privileges. The public at large is restive, eager to get on with the job of deconstructing the matrix of racketeering that adds up to the immiserating culture we live in, a society where health insurance company presidents make $40 million a year while ordinary people lose their homes because a $5,000-deductible health insurance policy doesn’t cover the cost of treating a routine tonsillectomy. I didn’t vote for the Cheeto-head sonofabitch, but it will be interesting to see what he does between noon and six p.m. Friday, if he survives the festivities.
Would be something akin to this:
Woe unto us if that is the Deep State’s solution.
rhare-
Governments should operate like charitable foundations, total voluntary contributions. Don't like what one is doing, don't give it money. If a govenment can't steal, then #3 becomes a non-issue as well since the only reason to do so is because you can funnel of tax money or enforce policies against competition.I insist that an acceptable solution be selected from the group of "things people have tried before." Furthermore, I insist that the trial must have been successful. I'm simply not interested in gambling on unproven theories of "what would be simply wonderful if we only tried it." Communism was like that. It ended up being a poor choice for a whole lot of people who had to endure a lot of crap for decades. I suspect the whole libertarian model would also end up on the ash heap of history, but I'll let someone else take the risk. So, since you don't have an example of where such a thing has worked out well in the past, I'll pick something less revolutionary that has actually worked elsewhere. Lots of countries have implemented a single payer healthcare system and they have better outcomes and lower expenditures than us. I don't require perfection. Good enough will do. The libertarian solution would either be a fantastic success, or it would be a catastrophe. Given it hasn't been tried before, my money is solidly on "catastrophe". I can virtually guarantee there's something wrong with the theory of operation, but until the theory is tried in the real world, I have no idea which of the parts would end up failing. Furthermore, I'm happy to let someone else pay the costs for experimentation. With the already-tried-by-someone-else single payer system, we could cut our costs in half, and increase our outcomes all at the same time. Boy, would the healthcare stocks suffer though. Winners and losers, nothing comes for free. You know, Thailand has a basic, government-run healthcare system running right alongside a vast collection of private hospitals, all of which offer varying levels of service with all sorts of price points. Its a total free market. You're telling me they can do it, but we can't? All the arguments against such a system are, I believe, entirely about keeping the obscene profits in the healthcare industry. There really are better ways - that have actually been tried other places, and have proven satisfactory.
davefairtex wrote:
I insist that an acceptable solution be selected from the group of "things people have tried before." Furthermore, I insist that the trial must have been successful.