Reply With Quote
no, but maybe it would be so ed up as it would be under Repug WH and Congress. and even with WH and Congress control by Dems, the scorched-earth Repug obstructionists would find ways to obstruct solutions and PROGRESS.
Sanders to push a plan to ban private companies from running prisons
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) will unveil a plan Thursday to ban privately run jails and prisons, which he says have a “perverse incentive” to increase the number of incarcerated people in the country.
Under the proposal by the Democratic presidential hopeful, the federal government would have three years to end its practice of using private companies to keep people behind bars. The ban would also apply to state and local governments, which have increasingly turned to private contractors in a bid to save money.
“It runs counter to the best interests of our country,” Sanders said in an interview Wednesday. “You should not be making a profit off of putting people in prison.”
Sanders’s “Justice Is Not For Sale Act,” which he plans to introduce as legislation in Congress, also includes several provisions intended to dramatically reduce the number of immigrants who are held in detention facilities while awaiting court hearings on their legal status.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/p...nning-prisons/
no, but maybe it would be so ed up as it would be under Repug WH and Congress. and even with WH and Congress control by Dems, the scorched-earth Repug obstructionists would find ways to obstruct solutions and PROGRESS.
I know teachers getting paid 90 thousand a year for 9 months or less of work and they should get paid more?
sure, why not? It's an important job, and they don't get 3 months vacation, and most of them work a lot more than 40 hours/week.
Doesn't almost everyone with a salaried (i.e., not hourly wage) job work more than 40 hours per week?
so you are ok getting taxed more to pay the teachers more then that?
or do you want to eliminate waste spending and not raise taxes for that
I do not think they need more money I think they need 1 teacher for 20 students not 1 teacher 30 students
also less time grading paper so they do not have to work more then that druded over 40 hour a week
some are teaching 40 students, many are teaching subjects they have no background in, and many are not trained in proven, scientific teaching methods at all. lack of training and subject education really kneecaps many teachers. Many go out of pocket to pay for supplies for their classes.
some are teaching 40 students, many are teaching subjects they have no background in, and many are not trained in proven, scientific teaching methods at all. lack of training and subject education really kneecaps many teachers. Many go out of pocket to pay for supplies for their classes.
==============
VIDEO: The American Teacher Shortage Is a ‘Symptom of the Sick and Fractured System of Education’
Posted on Sep 17, 2015
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item...+the+Headlines
Last edited by boutons_deux; 09-17-2015 at 11:21 AM.
As a socialist, I have to say he barely scrapes socialism, especially on foreign policy and at ude towards the economy. More of a social democrat.
Teachers Aren’t Dumb
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/08...rent-dumb.html
Teacher Shortages Spur a Nationwide Hiring Scramble (Credentials Optional)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/10/us...-optional.html
They might not be dumb, but the education department (at the local university) is a joke. Started there own Chemistry class because their (apparently NOT dumb students couldn't pass the one in the actual chemistry department). The Chem class in education is taught by a "Chemistry Education" professor, not a "Chemistry" professor. This is the last couple of years, so testing ALL teachers might be different than just testing new teachers....
The Wall Street Journal's $18 Trillion Dollar Lie About Bernie
By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page
17 September 15
've had so many calls about an article appearing earlier this week in the Wall Street Journal -- charging that Bernie Sanders’s proposals would carry a “price tag” of $18 trillion over a 10-year period -- that it's necessary to respond.
The Journal's number is entirely bogus, designed to frighten the public. Please spread the truth:
(1) Bernie’s proposals would cost less than what we’d spend without them. Most of the “cost” the Journal comes up with—$15 trillion—would pay for opening Medicare to everyone. This would be cheaper than relying on our current system of for-profit private health insurers that charge you and me huge administrative costs, advertising, marketing, bloated executive salaries, and high pharmaceutical prices. (Gerald Friedman, an economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, estimates a Medicare-for-all system would actually save all of us $10 trillion over 10 years).
(2) The savings from Medicare-for-all would more than cover the costs of the rest of Bernie’s agenda—tuition-free education at public colleges, expanded Social Security benefits, improved infrastructure, and a fund to help cover paid family leave – and still leave us $2 trillion to cut federal deficits for the next ten years.
(3) Many of these other “costs" would also otherwise be paid by individuals and families -- for example, in college tuition and private insurance. So they shouldn't be considered added costs for the country as a whole, and may well save us money.
(4) Finally, Bernie’s proposed spending on education and infrastructure aren’t really “spending” at all, but investments in the nation’s future productivity. If we don’t make them, we’re all poorer.
That Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal would do this giant dump on Bernie, based on misinformation and distortion, confirms Bernie's status as the candidate willing to take on the moneyed interests that the Wall Street Journal represents.
https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/pho...373777/?type=1
Murdoch's toilet paper WSJ with nothing but lies, FUD, just like Murdoch's Fox News
Lmfao. Ah a hahaHappy merchant Jr. says feel the bern goyim!
Found Blake's twitter account
Big numbers, but Reich is full of crap if he thinks you are going to save 10 TRILLION dollars by removing insurance companies from the mix. If health insurance companies are "bloating" the industry by a Trillion a year - where's the evidence. Unitedhealthcare - THE BIGGEST health insurer had revenue of $119 Billion - certainly a TON of money; but from this they paid medical claims, which absorbed most of that. Being under the AFA, in fact guarantees that they MUST pay at least 80 (small businesses) - 85 (large) percent of revenues out in claims. I'll assume 83% number for this discussion. That means that UnitedHealthcare is responsible (all bloat, administrative cost, profit, etc....) for $20 Billion in a year. That includes salaries for 184,000 people - all out of jobs, I assume under president Sanders (that doesn't count the other businesses, like insurance brokerages that would also be out of work overnight. For that $24 Billion, UnitedHealthcare insures ~70 million Americans. What percentage savings off of that $20 Billion is Reich assuming? 50%? 80% - or does Medicare cost us nothing to operate? Either way, we can only recoup $20 Billion maximum from the LARGEST insurer. Where's the other $980 Billion coming from???The Wall Street Journal's $18 Trillion Dollar Lie About Bernie
By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page
17 September 15
The Journal's number is entirely bogus, designed to frighten the public. Please spread the truth:
(1) Bernie’s proposals would cost less than what we’d spend without them. Most of the “cost” the Journal comes up with—$15 trillion—would pay for opening Medicare to everyone. This would be cheaper than relying on our current system of for-profit private health insurers that charge you and me huge administrative costs, advertising, marketing, bloated executive salaries, and high pharmaceutical prices. (Gerald Friedman, an economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, estimates a Medicare-for-all system would actually save all of us $10 trillion over 10 years).
(2) The savings from Medicare-for-all would more than cover the costs of the rest of Bernie’s agenda—tuition-free education at public colleges, expanded Social Security benefits, improved infrastructure, and a fund to help cover paid family leave – and still leave us $2 trillion to cut federal deficits for the next ten years.
(3) Many of these other “costs" would also otherwise be paid by individuals and families -- for example, in college tuition and private insurance. So they shouldn't be considered added costs for the country as a whole, and may well save us money.
(4) Finally, Bernie’s proposed spending on education and infrastructure aren’t really “spending” at all, but investments in the nation’s future productivity. If we don’t make them, we’re all poorer.
That Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal would do this giant dump on Bernie, based on misinformation and distortion, confirms Bernie's status as the candidate willing to take on the moneyed interests that the Wall Street Journal represents.
https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/pho...373777/?type=1
Murdoch's toilet paper WSJ with nothing but lies, FUD, just like Murdoch's Fox News
Reich is full of , and if the WSJ is using phony numbers to prop up an agenda, he is just as guilty.
Medicare saves money because, by law, they price control the docs and hospitals. Insurance companies AT BEST pay Medicare PLUS 30% to the providers, and it is usually Medicare + 40! That's IF the patient was at a network facility. If not, , we had to pay $120,000 for a $69 set of screws for a repaired knee a couple of years ago because the patient went out of network. Medicare would have paid $75.
It's a lot easier than disrupting everything to control healthcare costs, but the politicians (Reich included) don't want to do it; , they ignore it, and glam over it. Price control the hospitals and doctors. It's what Medicare does - it's what German does (universal coverage, private payers with govt. price controls). If you completely eliminated ALL administrative, marketing, bloat, etc...the entire $20 Billion; you would only save HALF of what you would if you simply said to providers that they are ONLY going to get paid what Medicare pays from ANY payer; be it it an insurance company, or a private individual off the street.
WSJ-Cited Economist Says Bernie's Plan SAVES the US $5.081 Trillion on Health Care
Gerald Friedman, the UMass economist whose economic analysis was cited in the Wall Street Journal article that claimed that Bernie Sander's proposals would cost the US $18 trillion thinks it is the Wall Street Journal that doesn't understand the math.
Doing all the calculations Friedman concludes that Single Payer health care and Bernie's plan for it will cost the US $5.081 Trillion LESS over the next ten years than the US is currently paying, while also insuring every uninsured person in the United States, and eliminating all copayments and deductibles!
The stunning chart and the Huffington Post article that outlines his math is linked following the julienne carrot:
Projected 10-Year Impact of HR 676 -- (John Conyers' Single Payer Healthcare Bill)
Increased Tax Revenue from Progressive Taxation: $17.568 Trillion
Deficit Reduction from Tax Increase Excess $02.889 Trillion
Additional Federal health Care Spending $14.679 Trillion
Total Savings from Health Care Efficiencies $09.634 Trillion
Reduced Private Spending $19.759 Trillion
Additional Spending -- Cost of Covering Everyone, $04.553 Trillion
and eliminating all co-payments and deductibles!)
Net REDUCED National Health Care Spending $5.081 TRILLION!!!
Thu Sep 17, 2015 at 5:44 AM PT: Really liked Bruh1's comment on the increased tax costs in Gerald Friedman's chart. Although there will be increased taxes, much of that increase is simply a redirection of current corporate healthcare payments, [and employee healthcare payments]. Under the new plan corporations and individual will be taxed for healthcare, rather than paying it directly to health care insurance companies, and the government will use those dollars to fund the single payer healthcare system that effectively allows the government to offer better healthcare benefits to company employees at a lower rate:
Bruh1's Comments:
"These three are paying that money anyway.
The tax is swapping one for the other. It is not on top of what they are paying.
The number that's relevant from a financial stand point is what one saves. You don't buy a car by saying 'well it would cost me 10000 here, but the same car would cost me 7000 there, so the price tag on the 7000 car is too expensive.'
You say 'it saves me 3000 to buy from the other guy.' It's completely irrational to ignore basic finance here. From a financial standpoint, the businesses, employees and individuals are gaining $5 trillion for savings, consumption, wages, profits and building businesses.
The guy who is being paid 50,000 is now may be able to ask for a raise of 53000 because there's that extra money sitting there not going into his health insurance.
The employer may not give him the full savings, but the employer now loses the argument that wages are depressed due to health care. They can now afford to give more to the employee.
And, if you are afraid they won't, you place the tax burden on the employer because its still less than the employer would have paid for health insurance on the open market. That's how you talk about it to the American public.
You point out what they gain from it. Not act as if they are complete idiots who can't get the idea of what a bargain is. Unlike other programs, where the cost is just a new tax, the argument here is fairly easy to make if one is not a far right wing ideologue pretending to be concerned or a partisan trying to support this or that candidate."
by bruh1 on Wed Sep 16, 2015 at 02:07:16 PM PDT
______________________
While, it's not quite that simple, another easy way way of looking at these numbers is provided by ypochris
"The only lines that are pertinent, the two lines used to come up with the figure of a $5.08 trillion savings, are
Additional Federal health Care Spending $14.679 Trillion
Reduced Private Spending $19.759 Trillion
__
Total savings $ 5.08 Trillion
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/0...e?detail=email
teachers going out of pocket to buy things is wrong and raising their wages is going to make teachers have to do that more
oh I work 55 hour week during the summer in the wintertime I work 80 or more hours a week
so cry me a river if people have to work over 40 hours a week
Bernie Rising, Hillary Fading: How Bernie Sanders Is Winning The Media War
While all eyes have been on Donald Trump’s media dominance andpremature reports of his media demise, the story that hasn’t been getting much attention is Hillary’s fading media fortunes in the Democratic race.
Much like Donald Trump, Bernie’s entrance fundamentally shifted the media dynamics of the field, capturing one third of all media coverage of Democratic candidates, a position which he has largely held ever since, increasing as high as 40% in recent weeks.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevlee...the-media-war/
media "war", (Americans LOVE, HUNGER for WAR fought by Other People's Kids). Still a long way to go, but Bernie is staying solid, surprising just about everybody.
Bernie's "problem" with blacks should be easy to solve, since his economic policies, not specifically "black" policies, would help blacks a lot (since Repug economic policies screw blacks, and browns, the most).
Yawn this old cracka is so ing boring. Anyone in the GOP field can kick his ass back to Montana
Lol if he wins Dmocratic nomination it's be like the party is on some strong narcotic sedative. They'll sleep through the entire election
there's no stopping FOR-PROFIT health care from INCREASINGLY sucking down our wealth, redistribution of our wealth upwards to BigMedicine and its investors.
mandatory universal payroll-deduction govt public insurance option is Bernie's answer (but Repug/VRWC will block it)
Healthcare costs rise again, and the burden continues to shift to workers
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...922-story.html
So the answer to costs being shifted to workers is a mandatory payroll deduction?
Got it.
yep, universal payers and universal coverage, replaced for-profit, employer-group insurance (skimmed from salaries already) that employers want to drop anyway.
Why your health bills are getting higher, in one chart
Health-care costs have grown at exceptionally slow rates for the past five years. But for lots of Americans, the growth hasn't felt slow. In polls, most will say their medical bills get more and more difficult to afford.
What gives? This fantastic new chart, from the Kaiser Family Foundation, helps explain the discrepancy.
(Kaiser Family Foundation)
What you see here are, to some extent, premiums growing faster than workers' earnings. But the real runaway cost is deductibles: they've grown nearly seven times faster than workers' earnings just since 2010.
And rising deductibles are almost certainly part of the explanation of why health care costs are growing slower.
When consumers have to pay a larger share of their bill — or pay all of it, before they hit their deductible — then they tend to use less medical care.
Patients tend to be more hesitant to seek care when they know they'll be stuck with the bill at the end.
At the same time, rising deductibles are also the reason why the public still feels like health-care costs are skyrocketing. Because deductibles are one major way Americans pay for health care, and those really are skyrocketing!
It makes sense that Americans feel like medical costs are going up quickly — they're bearing the brunt of any price increases at all.
http://www.vox.com/2015/9/22/9371271...ctibles-rising
A man goes home and masturbates his typical fantasy. A woman on her knees, a woman tied up, a woman abused.
A woman enjoys intercourse with her man — as she fantasizes being raped by 3 men simultaneously.
-Bernie Sanders
I know as a socialist democrat, that quote is more of a resume enhancement.
socialism is when the govt owns everything
communism is the "ideal end game" where there is no need for government because everything belongs to the public
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
