I've been a geriatric social worker for over 30 years. Medicare will not pay for glasses, but it will pay for the hospitalization and rehab when an adult who is unable to see falls and breaks a hip; Medicare will not pay for hearing aids, even though it is well known that being unable to hear exacerbates the slide into dementia; Medicare will not cover oral health, and I have seen many folks who need immediate surgery and can't receive the service due to an infected mouth. I've witnessed seniors who do not eat properly due to chewing issues, therefore become dizzy, malnourished and in short, a failure to thrive. I would argue that expanding Medicare to include glasses, hearing aids and oral healthcare is a cost containment measure that will pay for itself many times over.
Without a doubt you are one of the most creative, well-informed, caring, and industrious people I have ever encountered. Your energy is contagious. Thank you.
For nearly as long as I can remember, the needs of ordinary and poor families and individuals have been shoved to the back burner (way back there!) so that wealthy and over-privileged individuals could continue thriving, consuming (over-consuming), and depriving others of any share in prosperity. Those at the bottom of the economic ladder are routinely left with the bills for the entire economic enterprise while those at the top reap ever more rewards and perks. For most of the time since Reagan, any criticism of this economic model (aka trickle-down) has been dismissed and the label of "socialist" routinely attached to those critics bold enough to suggest that making those with modest or low income shoulder the burdens so the wealthies can reap their "rewards" is the way to go. The facts of the matter are these: no socialist formerly or currently in office (specifically Bernie Sanders and his colleagues) have created the kind of wealth disparity and chaos that we are currently experiencing. Other facts: For well-on five years, I lived in countries that are routinely dismissed of socialist (Denmark, Norway). The citizens of those countries have every bit as much freedom and choice as people in the United States (more freedom and choice than people in the USA). Their economies combined extensive social welfare programs and a broad safety net for everyone with a lot of private enterprise and corporate innovation and growth. People in Denmark were guaranteed decent housing, full health care, free education and training, union membership and affiliation, and a sensibly run government with advanced and humane policies and involvement in international cooperation. Of course, there are social problems in Scandinavia (there are also right-wing white-supremacy groups in that area) but, on the other hand, the Danes unite, they believe in and trust their government, and they follow the science as in their own best interests. I believe (or hope) we will make progress but I am also sure that that progress would have been speedier and less encumbered by conflict under a government more concerned and less conflicted when dealing with its own citizens.
Your newsletter is awesome. Brief. Simple to understand. Truth telling. Love it. Going to subscribe so you can keep it going for free to those who need it🤓
The more the light is shined on the truth, less on misinformation, the more Americans can get behind the whiole infrastructure bills. We need to come together and help everybody in our nation. We are the United States. Let's work together and make it better than it's ever been.
Two of the most important parts of Biden's plan, as they relate to me, are listed as the most vulnerable: Drug prices, and expansion of Medicare to include dental and hearing benefits. That a senior cannot afford the drugs needed to keep them healthy (i.e. Eliquis...$850 or more per month) or get teeth or vision checked is horrible. Did you know getting a crown at the dentist is well over $1500 ? Meanwhile, the rich, who never have to worry about the cost of such things, pay $0 in taxes. This is not right.
In a perfect world, what's the logic behind a 10 year period? Maybe it could take that long for some big projects (guessing electric grid, evehicle chargers as examples), but I would think many other items could be put in place on a shorter timeline. Fund those for a shorter timeframe, and reap the lower cost for now. Isn't it harder to take something away once implemented? Maybe it's easier to fight to keep befits you already enjoy than to fight for their initial approval...
For years it has seemed that Republican behavior is the antithesis of those wanting to serve the people. They are stingy; look after themselves first and only; have antiquated ideas about people and work; think EVERYONE can raise themselves up by the proverbial "bootstraps;" blame victims; if you work hard enough, you can do ANYTHING; and have a lust for power that makes me think they would sell out the entire country and even their own mothers if it meant they could stay #! in power. Their boot-licking of Trump is wimpy and scared and despite being very educated (I ASSUME, anyway,) are unwilling/ unable to see their support of a dictator-in-the-making will plunge they country they purport to serve into horrible misery the likes of which most of us have never seen. Will they EVER admit they are serving a lie? Will Mitch McConnell ever be able to rein in his spiteful actions? If I were younger, I would think seriously of leaving the country.
$142 trillion and $24 trillion, our household *net* wealth are still the unsaid bombshells in favor of $3.5, $5, $6 or more trillion as a 10 year investment, in my view.
It was a cool surprise to meet you, even so briefly, on the street last week. I may not have been entirely eloquent, hope to do better next time, hope I said '$142 trillion' without mumbling . . .
$142 trillion with a T is the *net* wealth of US households. $24 trillion with a T is only the *increase* in net wealth to 30 June, just published 23 September ( see below ). That number is just about equal to the 'national debt' . . . just for a thought . . .
If you ask a random sample of otherwise smart people you know, 'what is our household wealth?' I predict they will say something on the order of 'well, everybody knows we are under water.' No! 142 trillion times no! And that is why I hover on the edge of apoplectic that progressives don't say or write these foundational numbers, in my experience.
Very frustrated that these numbers are not front and center in the discussions. For 10 years I have called and written and spoken with key people. The excellent Senator Jeff Merkley is the only one who said he could use the number in this push, but I haven't heard him say it yet. And the idea that these investment programs will be a drag is insane. They will pump the economy like nothing we have seen.
We talk about billions and billionaires, and we should, but we need to talk about trillions with a T.
Source: A mysterious, fringe, extreme, radical organization that calls itself 'The Federal Reserve'
Thanks again for all you do, your book 'Saving Capitalism' was a slap to the head, the good kind, to show that capitalism needs law and government to even make sense as a word ( and much more ). Just re-read it, perfect timing for me. -- b.rad
I don't understand your comment about Manchin and the President being able to begin serious negotiations on the Build Back Better legislation. Isn't that what they've been doing at their frequent White House get-togethers over the past month or more? I'm of the opinion that Manchin is totally locked into the continuance of fossil fuels (especially his major personal investments in coal) and that Sinema, who never says anything, is 100% out for the money and the recognition as a 'key player' in the Senate. And to think we have 5 more years of this twit! The only solution is to pass something (anything!) that will directly affect voters across America and widen the Democratic margins in both houses of Congress in 2022. Historically, the party in power loses seats - which means Biden's legislation will be dead in the water if we don't have control of the Congress - so what's needed is to raise the somnolent Democrats to begin stumping the daylights out of not the cost of the legislation but the programs it would fund and how that would help average Americans.
I always red your insightful comments from your experience in a past administration and your heart in the right place, The media hides that the $3.5 trillion if over 10 years. That amounts yearly to a little less than half the military/merchants of death budget. And, you must know of a Rand Corporation September 2020 working paper: "Trends in Income from 1975 to 2018." It estimates that over 43 years the top 10% siphoned-off from the 90% between $25 to $47 TRILLION. Under a regime of "equitable equity" (you are for) this mountain of money would have gone into the pockets of the 90% (What a thriving economy would we have? Would millions have voted for Trump?) The point is that "wealth taxes," "taxing the corporations and the financiers" are misnomers, it is a just RESTITUTION of ill-gotten gains.
I like the idea of scaling back to four years instead of ten, and providing working poor a safety net! The majority of voters ( both parties) want this boost! That is why donors are polluting our “moderates” with obscene donations!
Drug prices are unconscionable. Seniors are crushed by medical costs. They need the hearing, dental and vision benefits. The idea that our privileged reps will deny them such care is disgusting. And every younger person will soon enough age into this group, post-employment and foregoing needed care in their turn.
I've been a geriatric social worker for over 30 years. Medicare will not pay for glasses, but it will pay for the hospitalization and rehab when an adult who is unable to see falls and breaks a hip; Medicare will not pay for hearing aids, even though it is well known that being unable to hear exacerbates the slide into dementia; Medicare will not cover oral health, and I have seen many folks who need immediate surgery and can't receive the service due to an infected mouth. I've witnessed seniors who do not eat properly due to chewing issues, therefore become dizzy, malnourished and in short, a failure to thrive. I would argue that expanding Medicare to include glasses, hearing aids and oral healthcare is a cost containment measure that will pay for itself many times over.
Without a doubt you are one of the most creative, well-informed, caring, and industrious people I have ever encountered. Your energy is contagious. Thank you.
For nearly as long as I can remember, the needs of ordinary and poor families and individuals have been shoved to the back burner (way back there!) so that wealthy and over-privileged individuals could continue thriving, consuming (over-consuming), and depriving others of any share in prosperity. Those at the bottom of the economic ladder are routinely left with the bills for the entire economic enterprise while those at the top reap ever more rewards and perks. For most of the time since Reagan, any criticism of this economic model (aka trickle-down) has been dismissed and the label of "socialist" routinely attached to those critics bold enough to suggest that making those with modest or low income shoulder the burdens so the wealthies can reap their "rewards" is the way to go. The facts of the matter are these: no socialist formerly or currently in office (specifically Bernie Sanders and his colleagues) have created the kind of wealth disparity and chaos that we are currently experiencing. Other facts: For well-on five years, I lived in countries that are routinely dismissed of socialist (Denmark, Norway). The citizens of those countries have every bit as much freedom and choice as people in the United States (more freedom and choice than people in the USA). Their economies combined extensive social welfare programs and a broad safety net for everyone with a lot of private enterprise and corporate innovation and growth. People in Denmark were guaranteed decent housing, full health care, free education and training, union membership and affiliation, and a sensibly run government with advanced and humane policies and involvement in international cooperation. Of course, there are social problems in Scandinavia (there are also right-wing white-supremacy groups in that area) but, on the other hand, the Danes unite, they believe in and trust their government, and they follow the science as in their own best interests. I believe (or hope) we will make progress but I am also sure that that progress would have been speedier and less encumbered by conflict under a government more concerned and less conflicted when dealing with its own citizens.
Lanae Isaacson
Your newsletter is awesome. Brief. Simple to understand. Truth telling. Love it. Going to subscribe so you can keep it going for free to those who need it🤓
Republicans favor welfare for the wealthy
The more the light is shined on the truth, less on misinformation, the more Americans can get behind the whiole infrastructure bills. We need to come together and help everybody in our nation. We are the United States. Let's work together and make it better than it's ever been.
Two of the most important parts of Biden's plan, as they relate to me, are listed as the most vulnerable: Drug prices, and expansion of Medicare to include dental and hearing benefits. That a senior cannot afford the drugs needed to keep them healthy (i.e. Eliquis...$850 or more per month) or get teeth or vision checked is horrible. Did you know getting a crown at the dentist is well over $1500 ? Meanwhile, the rich, who never have to worry about the cost of such things, pay $0 in taxes. This is not right.
In a perfect world, what's the logic behind a 10 year period? Maybe it could take that long for some big projects (guessing electric grid, evehicle chargers as examples), but I would think many other items could be put in place on a shorter timeline. Fund those for a shorter timeframe, and reap the lower cost for now. Isn't it harder to take something away once implemented? Maybe it's easier to fight to keep befits you already enjoy than to fight for their initial approval...
For years it has seemed that Republican behavior is the antithesis of those wanting to serve the people. They are stingy; look after themselves first and only; have antiquated ideas about people and work; think EVERYONE can raise themselves up by the proverbial "bootstraps;" blame victims; if you work hard enough, you can do ANYTHING; and have a lust for power that makes me think they would sell out the entire country and even their own mothers if it meant they could stay #! in power. Their boot-licking of Trump is wimpy and scared and despite being very educated (I ASSUME, anyway,) are unwilling/ unable to see their support of a dictator-in-the-making will plunge they country they purport to serve into horrible misery the likes of which most of us have never seen. Will they EVER admit they are serving a lie? Will Mitch McConnell ever be able to rein in his spiteful actions? If I were younger, I would think seriously of leaving the country.
$142 trillion and $24 trillion, our household *net* wealth are still the unsaid bombshells in favor of $3.5, $5, $6 or more trillion as a 10 year investment, in my view.
It was a cool surprise to meet you, even so briefly, on the street last week. I may not have been entirely eloquent, hope to do better next time, hope I said '$142 trillion' without mumbling . . .
$142 trillion with a T is the *net* wealth of US households. $24 trillion with a T is only the *increase* in net wealth to 30 June, just published 23 September ( see below ). That number is just about equal to the 'national debt' . . . just for a thought . . .
If you ask a random sample of otherwise smart people you know, 'what is our household wealth?' I predict they will say something on the order of 'well, everybody knows we are under water.' No! 142 trillion times no! And that is why I hover on the edge of apoplectic that progressives don't say or write these foundational numbers, in my experience.
Very frustrated that these numbers are not front and center in the discussions. For 10 years I have called and written and spoken with key people. The excellent Senator Jeff Merkley is the only one who said he could use the number in this push, but I haven't heard him say it yet. And the idea that these investment programs will be a drag is insane. They will pump the economy like nothing we have seen.
We talk about billions and billionaires, and we should, but we need to talk about trillions with a T.
Source: A mysterious, fringe, extreme, radical organization that calls itself 'The Federal Reserve'
https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/z1/balance_sheet/chart/
Thanks again for all you do, your book 'Saving Capitalism' was a slap to the head, the good kind, to show that capitalism needs law and government to even make sense as a word ( and much more ). Just re-read it, perfect timing for me. -- b.rad
I don't understand your comment about Manchin and the President being able to begin serious negotiations on the Build Back Better legislation. Isn't that what they've been doing at their frequent White House get-togethers over the past month or more? I'm of the opinion that Manchin is totally locked into the continuance of fossil fuels (especially his major personal investments in coal) and that Sinema, who never says anything, is 100% out for the money and the recognition as a 'key player' in the Senate. And to think we have 5 more years of this twit! The only solution is to pass something (anything!) that will directly affect voters across America and widen the Democratic margins in both houses of Congress in 2022. Historically, the party in power loses seats - which means Biden's legislation will be dead in the water if we don't have control of the Congress - so what's needed is to raise the somnolent Democrats to begin stumping the daylights out of not the cost of the legislation but the programs it would fund and how that would help average Americans.
I always red your insightful comments from your experience in a past administration and your heart in the right place, The media hides that the $3.5 trillion if over 10 years. That amounts yearly to a little less than half the military/merchants of death budget. And, you must know of a Rand Corporation September 2020 working paper: "Trends in Income from 1975 to 2018." It estimates that over 43 years the top 10% siphoned-off from the 90% between $25 to $47 TRILLION. Under a regime of "equitable equity" (you are for) this mountain of money would have gone into the pockets of the 90% (What a thriving economy would we have? Would millions have voted for Trump?) The point is that "wealth taxes," "taxing the corporations and the financiers" are misnomers, it is a just RESTITUTION of ill-gotten gains.
Thank you for your calm voice of reason.
The reason the corporate titans and upper 10% should care about the bottom 90% is that we still remember where the pitchforks are.
I like the idea of scaling back to four years instead of ten, and providing working poor a safety net! The majority of voters ( both parties) want this boost! That is why donors are polluting our “moderates” with obscene donations!
Drug prices are unconscionable. Seniors are crushed by medical costs. They need the hearing, dental and vision benefits. The idea that our privileged reps will deny them such care is disgusting. And every younger person will soon enough age into this group, post-employment and foregoing needed care in their turn.