Come January 2019, current California state Senate President Kevin de León, pictured left, should join Kamala Harris, pictured right, representing California in the U.S. Senate. Fivethirtyeight.com recently has noted that incumbent “Democratic” Sen. Dianne “Cryptkeeper” Feinstein “has voted in support of President Trump’s agenda 31 percent of the time,” which is “a bigger pro-Trump gap than any other Democrat in the Senate.”
In 2016, I’d really wanted California to elect a Latino or Latina U.S. senator to replace the retiring Barbara Boxer, but unfortunately, the Latina who ran in 2016 (Loretta Sanchez) is a nut job who, had she been elected, would have embarrassed the state continually.
In the top-two primary-election system of California that pitted two Democrats (well, one Democrat and one “Democrat”) against each other, Kamala Harris clearly was the better choice to represent California in the U.S Senate, and so I voted for her.
Why did I want to be able to vote for a Latino U.S. senator in November 2016? Because more Californians are Latino than are of any other race, and it’s long past time that California’s Latinos, now a plurality of the state, had their own representative in the U.S. Senate.
Of course, “Democratic” Sen. Dianne “Cryptkeeper” Feinstein, who has “represented” California in the U.S. Senate since 1992 and who at age 84 is the oldest U.S. senator, refuses to step aside but is seeking a fifth six-year term.*
Feinstein’s old, dead hands of the past have a death grip on her Senate seat, which she and her supporters need to realize doesn’t actually belong to her, but belongs to us, the people of California.
We, the people of California, can and should retire Feinstein at the ballot box.
Thus far, I support Democrat Kevin de León, the current president of the California state Senate, to replace Feinstein come January 2019. He formally launched his bid for the U.S. Senate seat today.
De León not only is Latino, but is 50 years old and is much more in step with the California of today. He is the fresh, much more representative face that California needs. Out-of-touch multi-millionaire Feinstein doesn’t need, and should not be allowed, yet another six-year term in the U.S. Senate at the end of which she would be 91 years old.
Huge kudos to de León for having the cajones to face Feinstein in the June 2018 California primary election. Many if not most of California’s so-called Democrats, the establishmentarian zombies, already knee-jerkedly and stupidly have endorsed Feinstein, which is a big fucking mistake before the field is even known.**
The calcified Democratic Party really needs to stop frowning upon primary challenges, such as it did for mega-weak, center-right, widely despised candidate Billary Clinton, and let the voters decide.
Otherwise, the party will continue its slide into irrelevance. If an incumbent candidate is strong, he or she can fucking handle a primary challenger. (Of course, a weak “Democratic” candidate nonetheless will get all of the help possible from the center-right “Democratic” establishment, as Billary did.)
Kevin de León knows how to legislate and how to lead. He served in the California state Assembly for four years, from 2006 to 2010, and then was elected to the state Senate in 2010, and has served there since, having been made the president of the state Senate in 2014.
De León’s legislative accomplishments especially have been in the area of environmentalism and renewable energy; Wikipedia notes that “De León is the author of much of California’s renewable energy and environmental protection regulations, which are regarded by environmental groups as exemplary.”
Gun control is one-trick pony Cryptkeeper’s forte, but de León is strong on that issue, too; Wikipedia notes that “In 2016, de León led the charge in the passage of a package of eleven bills intended to prevent gun violence.”
De León is quite qualified to be a U.S. senator and very probably can do a better job than can the Cryptkeeper.
The predictable cries for “party unity” (How dare de León challenge the Cryptkeeper?) that we’ll hear are meant only to preserve the power and the privilege of center-right, pro-corporate, pro-plutocratic, anti-populist, self-serving “Democrats” who have plagued us since at least the Clintons in the 1990s. They know fully well that the multi-millionaire, octogenarian Cryptkeeper has their conservative, elitist, plutocratic backs.
These “Democratic” sellouts aren’t going to give up their power.
We, the people, must take it from them.
And it is within our grasp; fivethirtyeight.com reports that “Dianne Feinstein’s Senate Seat May No Longer Be a Sure Thing,” noting that:
… Feinstein is feeling the heat [from the California electorate right now] in part because her more liberal constituents are correct in surmising that she is more conservative — relative to the politics of the state she represents — than other Democrats.
Feinstein has voted in support of President Trump’s agenda 31 percent of the time, according to our Trump score. Ten [Senate] Democrats have voted with Trump more [than she has].
But because California is so liberal — Trump lost there by 30 percentage points in 2016 — we’d expect Feinstein to vote in line with the Trump position just 19 percent of the time. That’s a bigger pro-Trump gap than any other Democrat in the Senate.
California just passed legislation to become a “sanctuary state,” a move that has been met with displeasure by the Trump administration. De León seems likely to play up the state’s need to assert itself as a powerful bloc of resistance to Trump.
In recent weeks, local news sources have noted de León’s rebukes of Feinstein, whom he paints as sympathetic to Trump. In August, after Feinstein said Trump “can be a good president” if he were to “learn and change,” de León hit back, saying, “It is the responsibility of Congress to hold him accountable — especially Democrats — not be complicit in his reckless behavior.”
Most recently, de León pushed back against Feinstein’s comments that the recent massacre in Las Vegas couldn’t have been prevented by changes in gun laws because the shooter had passed background checks. …
Feinstein has been able to get away with her center-right, Richie-Rich elitist bullshit in the U.S. Senate for about 25 years now.
The tide finally seems to have turned on Cryptkeeper, however; if it hadn’t, you wouldn’t see such a high-level challenger to her like Kevin de León, whose decision to buck the status quo and not just allow Cryptkeeper to coast to yet another do-nothing Senate term already demonstrates his courage and his leadership.
*Cryptkeeper went to the U.S. Senate in a special election in 1992 (then-California U.S. Sen. Pete Wilson became California governor, freeing up the Senate seat) and then had to run for a full six-year Senate term for the first time in 1994, and won that election and the elections of 2000, 2006, and 2012.
**The field could expand beyond de León and Cryptkeeper, which I acknowledge by having written “Thus far, I support Democrat Kevin de León.”
However, I much doubt that anyone who impresses me more than de León does will enter the fray, and so I most likely will be marking my ballot “Kevin de León” in the June 2018 primary election and hopefully also in the November 2018 general election.
I have yet to see it reported in the mainstream media, but it’s clear that “Democratic” Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California (pictured above, I’m pretty sure) is going to run for a fifth six-year term.
I voted for the center-right, mostly irrelevant Feinstein exactly once, in 2000, when I was still pretty new to California and didn’t know much about her. Over the ensuing years I learned a lot more about her, such as how her war-profiteering husband profiteered from the unelected Bush regime’s illegal, immoral, unjust and unprovoked Vietraq War that she voted for, and therefore I haven’t voted for her since.*
Feinstein, whose net worth exceeds $50 million (yeah, she’s just one of us!) and who at age 8fucking3 is the oldest (apparently still living) member of the Senate, could step aside and vacate the seat that she has held since 19fucking92, giving a younger…
View original post 266 more words
Image from Cher’s Twitter feed
I haven’t written much about “President” Pussygrabber, and that’s in no small part because I never have accepted that he legitimately is the president of the United States of America (because he isn’t a legitimate president).
That’s for many reasons, but mostly, it’s because millions more Americans voted for his opponent in November 2016 than voted for him — and that was even with the help of Russia. (If there were no “there” there, the many concurrent investigations into the very apparent collusion with Russia very probably wouldn’t be ongoing.)
Also, of course, Pussygrabber not only is an abject moron and an ultra-tacky flim-flam man, but he had lost me well before the presidential election. He had lost me with his hateful, ignorant, racist anti-Mexican comments of June 2015 during his official “presidential” campaign announcement, and with the October 2016 release of the recording of him bragging that “when you’re a star, they [(attractive) women] let you do … anything,” such as “Grab them by the pussy.”
“Trump is toast,” I declared in October 2016, as I truly had believed that no one running for high office could survive having bragged, on tape, about “grabbing” women “by the pussy,” but here we are.
(Hey, again, he did lose the popular vote — substantially, which is why he has lied repeatedly about actually having won the popular vote. The anti-democratic [and anti-Democratic] Electoral College has got to go; we tell people how important it is that they vote, and then the candidate who won the highest number of votes doesn’t even take office, but the fucking loser does.)
Aside from his illegitimacy, Pussygrabber’s abysmal behavior in office disallows me from considering him to be the real president of the United States of America. Just this past week in post-hurricane-ravaged Puerto Rico, for instance, “President” Pussygrabber (in no certain order):
- Of course made it all about his baby-boomer self and his fucking “ratings.” He praised the governor of Puerto Rico for having sucked up to him dutifully, saying, “this governor did not play politics, he didn’t play it all … he was giving us the highest grades.” This good gubernatorial behavior of course was in contrast to the bad behavior of the valiant female mayor of San Juan, who for very good reason does not give Pussygrabber the highest grades (and who no doubt would destroy him should he even try to grab her pussy).
- Of course let the people of Puerto Rico — who are (largely brown and black) American citizens — know how inconvenient they are. He actually told them, “Now, I hate to tell you, Puerto Rico, but you’ve thrown our budget a little out of whack, because we’ve spent a lot of money on Puerto Rico.” For once he apparently realized fairly immediately what a colossal fucking prick he sounded like, so he added obviously insincerely, “Which is fine.”
- Of course made the devastation wrought by hurricanes into a competitive television “reality” show. He actually told the Puerto Ricans that Hurricane Katrina, as opposed to Hurricane Maria, was “a real catastrophe,” and indicated that Puerto Rico’s “16” dead was better than Katrina’s body count of “thousands.” Yay, Puerto Rico, you win! (Actually, Puerto Rico’s body count from Maria now stands at more than 30, and Katrina’s official body count, while way higher than it ever should have been — under the other unelected and thus illegitimate Repugnican “president” — never reached 2,000, so “thousands” is incorrect, but we all know that Pussygrabber never troubles himself with facts.)
- Of course had to keep the “reality” TV show thing going by actually having thrown rolls of paper towels to Puerto Ricans:
Reuters news photo
Because when your nation has been destroyed by a natural disaster, your No. 1 need is paper towels. (And the paper towels that Mad King Pussygrabber so generously deigned to toss to the rabble of Puerto Rico weren’t even the quicker picker-upper, which you would need after a hurricane.)
Seriously, though — look at that Reuters news photo above for a long time and then tell me that I should accept this fucking imbecile as my president, even if he actually had won the fucking presidential election.
(Oh, and as if he hadn’t made a big enough of a baboon’s ass of himself when he was in Puerto Rico earlier this week, during a speech for Hispanic Heritage Month at the White House yesterday, Pussygrabber very apparently adopted a mocking Spanish accent when he repeatedly said “Puerto Rico.”*)
Alas, despite the mind-blowing image and the beyond-pathetic information above, I do have hope for the United States of America. “President” Pussygrabber isn’t the first idiot in chief whom we have weathered (even though he does make even George W. Bush look presidential). We probably will survive him.**
And no, I don’t buy the oft-repeated argument that Pussygrabber is just the logical outcome of what most Americans are. No, he isn’t representative of most Americans. (Indeed, let me say it again: Most Americans did not vote for him; in fact, Billary beat him by 2.1 percentage points, or almost 3 million more popular votes.***)
Pussygrabber certainly is representative of his narcissistic and rapacious generation, the baby boomers, but not of all Americans. Indeed, Pussygrabber probably represents the last, pathetic gasp of rule by the baby boomers and rule by stupid white males (I can’t call them “men”).
I can’t see our socially conscious young adults of today, when they become presidents in the future, acting anything like Pussygrabber routinely does. No, Pussygrabber is an anomaly, the occasional illegitimate, mad king that we’ve seen throughout history.
He will pass.
Yes, it feels like passing a fucking kidney stone, but it will pass.
And our history books (the honest ones, anyway) will record “President” Pussygrabber as just another bad blip, just another blemish on our history.
P.S. Two things: One, Pussygrabber still can’t reach an approval rating of even 40 percent in most nationwide polls. This doesn’t bode well for his “re”-election. Don’t become complacent, but take some comfort in that fact.
Two, if you want to help out the people of Puerto Rico — whom you should want to help whether they are U.S. citizens or not — you can do so by giving what you can afford to give to the Hispanic Federation, as I have, and/or to another reputable aid organization.
*As I have noted, the anti-Latino Pussygrabber is doing to the Repugnican Party on the national level what anti-Latino former Repugnican California Gov. Pete Wilson did to the party here in California (for his own short-term personal and political gain, Wilson planted the seeds that later would decimate his party here in California).
As Latinos are the fastest-growing group of people in the United States, I encourage the Repugnican Party to continue to alienate these voters.
**As far as nukes and nuclear war go, Pussygrabber is an abject idiot, but I don’t think that he’s suicidal. No vampire wants to die, but wants to continue to suck the blood of its victims for as long as possible.
***Don’t get me wrong; as I’ve written here a million times, it was a colossal fucking mistake for the (so-called) Democrats to make Billary Clinton, (with Pussygrabber) one of the most unpopular candidates for U.S. president in history, their presidential nominee. (As I have noted, I am not a registered Democrat and will not register with the Democratic Party again until and unless it becomes the progressive party that it once was.)
With their heads planted firmly in their rectums, the “Democrats” all pretended that Billary isn’t the widely despised, corrupt harpy that she is, and we have them to thank in no tiny part for “President” Pussygrabber.
The so-called Democrats had a winning candidate in Bernie Sanders, but they decided to coronate Repugnican Lite Billary instead because it was “her turn,” you see.
We’ll see if they learned their lesson. I much doubt that they have.
An apparently high-maintenance elementary-school teacher recently sent this note to the parents of his or her students. It’s good that the teacher’s favorite color is red, because he or she probably sees red all of the fucking time because the world won’t conform to his or her reconstruction of the English language.
I have no problem with individuals who feel neither male nor female or who feel both male and female (and I’m not sure that there’s much difference between those two distinctions…).*
But I am a bit of a purist where it comes to the English language — which, in the age of tweets, is languishing (by the way, “tweet” as something other than having do with a vocalizing bird is in the dictionary now, or at least is on this online dictionary) — and the English language has yet to catch up to the idea of a person without a gender.
An elementary-school teacher in Tallahassee, Florida, recently sent home a note to his/her students’ parents proclaiming, “One thing that you should know about me is that I use gender neutral terms. My prefix is Mx. (pronounced Mix). Additionally, my pronouns are ‘they, them, their’ instead of ‘he, his, she, hers’.”
The period goes inside of the last quotation mark in a sentence, not after it. That might look funny or seem illogical to some, but that’s the rule (at least in American English).
On that note, does this teacher teach English? Because it should be “gender-neutral terms,” not “gender neutral terms,” and if you declare how something is pronounced, you use quotation marks — “My prefix is Mx. (pronounced ‘Mix’)” is correct, and you could argue (and I probably would argue) that it should be “My prefix is ‘Mx.’ (pronounced ‘Mix’).”
And, of course, you insert “and” before the last item in a list; it’s “they, them and their” (my preference) or “they, them, and their,” not “they, them, their.” (And you could argue that each of those words needs its own quotation marks around it. [And you could argue that you never start a sentence with “and” or “but,” but I have a journalism degree, not an English degree, and I write journalistically, not academically, which means that I get to start a sentence with “and” or “but,” but there still are some lines in the English language that I don’t cross, which I’ll get to shortly.])
And technically, “Mr.,” “Ms.” and “Miss” are not prefixes, but are titles, courtesy tiles or honorifics. (Technically, a prefix is “an affix placed before a word, base or another prefix to modify a term’s meaning,” such as “anti-” or “contra-” for “against,” “pro-” for “for,” “inter-” for “between,” “bi-” for “two” and “post-” for “after.”)
But the biggest sin is the wholesale creation of words that don’t exist and the unauthorized reassignment of words that already exist.
“Mx.” (spelled out “Mix”?) is not a word in English, not until and unless enough speakers of the English language decide to adopt it as a new word. New words do come into the language and old words also leave it, and I suppose that you could argue that if the “fight” for a gender-neutral courtesy title never begins, then the language never will adopt one.
But I can’t really fully get on board with calling someone “Mx. Bressack” (that is how the aforementioned Tallahassee teacher wishes to be addressed). Call me a fuddy-duddy.
That said, how do you handle it if someone demands to be addressed a certain way? I would try to skip the heretical courtesy title altogether whenever possible, but I’m not sure that that always would work, perhaps especially with an elementary-school teacher, whom we almost always refer to as “Mrs.,” “Miss” or “Mr.” I mean, that’s tradition.
But even if I could get board with “Mx.”/“Mix,” the fact of the matter remains that the pronouns “they,” “them” and “their” — and “theirs” and “themselves” — always have referred to more than one person. They are third-person plural personal pronouns.
I probably could bite my tongue and call you “Mix” if you absolutely insisted, even though it would make me feel like I’m just catering to a high-maintenance snowflake, but I will go to my fucking grave insisting that the third-personal plural personal pronouns are not gender-fucking-neutral pronouns.** They are not. NOT. NOT.
It is a common grammatical error to use a third-person plural personal pronoun to refer to a member of either sex, but it always has been a grammatical error. “Everyone should bring their own lunch” is incorrect. It should be “Everyone should bring his or her own lunch,” and that is because “everyone” is singular, not plural, and therefore, the third-person plural personal pronoun “their” doesn’t go with “everyone.” (You could recast the sentence this way: “The participants should bring their own lunch.” That is correct because “participants” is plural.)
Moreover, words having meaning, and altering their meaning on one’s own can cause confusion. If you use the third-personal plural personal pronouns to mean gender-neutral pronouns (which don’t exist yet in the English language), the listener easily could be confused as to whether you are talking about one person or more than one person.
Frankly, I’m not sure how much the push for shit like “Mx.” and the contortion of the third-person plural personal pronouns into gender-neutral pronouns is representative of a true need for the English language to evolve and how much it’s just a sad and pathetic attempt by snowflaky control freaks to try to control other people. I mean, you can be “victimized” now by even inadvertently being referred to by the “wrong” pronoun, and isn’t it fun (and awfully easy!) to be “victimized” these days?***
I don’t want to make that accusation falsely, but if you are a control freak who just gets off on such shit as trying to force others to adopt your own personal version of the English language because there is a gaping, sucking black hole where your soul should be, then maybe you should get a fucking grip.
In the meantime, if the English language needs to evolve and adopt some gender-neutral personal pronouns, I have faith that it will.
I’m just not sure how strong that need is, and the grammar Nazi within me is hoping that if and when that day comes, I already will have been dead for some time.
P.S. I should add that this elementary-school teacher’s name is Chloe Bressack, and don’t even get me started on the discussion of whether someone who claims to be without gender should use a gendered first name, which only creates even more confusion.
I mean, why insist on being referred to only with gender-free pronouns yet have a gendered first name?
P.P.S. I see now that “Mx. Bressack” teaches math and science, according to his or her school’s principal. That makes me feel a little better about his or her mangling of the English language…
*As a gay man who is at least a little bit on the bisexual side, I feel like somewhat of a mixture of male and female myself, but I feel more male than female and I identify as male. (And no, that’s not just to make it easier for myself and for others where the personal pronouns are concerned, but it’s nice to not have to worry myself and others with those pronouns…)
**Of course, the impersonal pronouns “it,” “its” and “itself,” although called “neuter” pronouns, won’t work a gender-neutral personal pronouns, because, never having been used to refer to human beings, their use as gender-neutral personal pronouns would be dehumanizing.
***Of course, I’m not talking about addressing transgender individuals here. If you are a biological female who identifies as male, I’m fine with referring to you as a male, and I’m fine with referring to biological males who identify as female as females. It’s no skin off of my ass, and to intentionally refer to a transgender person as his or her biological sex is a transphobic slur.
But we’re in mostly uncharted waters where it comes to individuals who insist that they are of no gender.
New York Times news photo
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders had the support of 16 Democratic senators for the single-payer/“Medicare-for-all” health-care bill that he introduced in the U.S. Senate yesterday. Of course we won’t achieve single-payer/“Medicare-for-all” with the current Congress, but because of Bernie’s vision, persistence, courage and leadership, we are moving in that direction when the likes of Democrats in name only like Billary Clinton still are saying that we commoners have to continue to suffer under the for for-profit “health-care” system because there is no other way.
Anyone who claims that Bernie Sanders isn’t the front runner for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination must explain why, then, anyone who wants to be the 2020 Dem prez nominee signed on to the single-payer/“Medicare-for-all” health-care bill that Bernie introduced in the U.S. Senate yesterday.
Yes, the 16 signatories (all Democrats and no Repugnicans, of course) included Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Kamala Harris of California, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Cory Booker of New Jersey. (Even corporate whores who call themselves Democrats are smart enough to know that they don’t want to be said to have not supported single-payer/“Medicare for all” in 2017 if they want to run for the White House for 2020.)
Sixteen signatories is a lot of them, considering that when he last made the effort in 2013, Bernie could find not a single signatory.
This is what leaders do: They fucking lead.
And this is how big changes happen: People with small minds and no vision (and sometimes with a personal stake in the socioeconomic status quo) laugh and scoff at you, they tell you that it can’t be done, but you push and push and push and push, and then it finally gets done, perhaps decades later, and then it becomes the new normal, and in the future people are surprised to hear that it ever was such an uphill battle in the first fucking place; to them, it was a fucking no-brainer.
… The “Overton Window” is a term meant to define the range of acceptable discourse in a certain time and place. In Democratic American politics, circa early 2016, advocating for universal healthcare was not inside the Overton Window — in fact, it was considered a campaign killer.
The fact that it’s not only inside the window today, but that support for it has practically become a requisite for any ambitious Democrat, is entirely the doing of [Bernie] Sanders. His campaign shifted the ideological grounds, and has redefined the party’s platform.
We’re rapidly approaching a point where failing to support the concept of universal health care will be a deal breaker—at this point, 60 percent of Americans favor the idea, and that number is consistently growing with time. …
It’s a simple, popular idea, but it took someone like Sanders with the courage to defy inherited political wisdom and bring it out from under the shadows of history and into the mainstream.
It’s not the only example, but it’s the most prominent right now, and it helps explain why Sanders himself has maintained and grown his personal popularity in the Trump era.
This phenomenon has little to do with Sanders in particular — he has authenticity on his side, but no special charisma. [I disagree that he has no charisma, but no, he doesn’t make his personality and his ego the centerpiece of his politics, which in this day and age is refreshing.]
It’s the strength of his ideas that have persisted and grown. Winning and losing isn’t his primary concern, and his political beliefs are all aimed at the future. And as that future approaches, he’s positioned himself as the most influential leader on the left….
While Bernie Sanders is leading, Billary Clinton is only even further demonstrating exactly what happened — she is now shilling her book that blames everyone except herself for her shitty presidential campaign (which was doomed to fail because it was based upon a shitty human being) and she apparently is trying to keep her brand of obsolete, center-right, pro-corporate, anti-populist, pay-to-play politics alive when it already is in a hospice.
As the writer for Paste also noted:
… Then there’s Hillary Clinton, who remains firmly rooted in the past. She lost the general election to an enormously unpopular candidate, and nearly lost the primary to Bernie Sanders, because she couldn’t rely on the strength of her ideas.
Hers was a personality- and identity-based campaign rather than an ideological one, and it came with the underlying belief that Her Time Had Come.
So it’s no surprise that in the aftermath of an historical loss to Trump, her egocentric rhetoric remains fatally attached to herself, and therefore attached to the past. …
Clinton’s new book, What Happened, is a postmortem that looks for blame everywhere but the proverbial mirror. It is rife with complaints, but woefully short on honest self-analysis. (There’s a comical comparison here to Sanders’ own recently released book, which is a policy-based look at the future of progressivism.) There’s plenty of aspersions to go around, but Bernie Sanders came in for special treatment…
While Sanders stands in the face of the Trump wave, a 76-year-old man fighting tooth and nail and with unprecedented success to bring healthcare to all Americans, Clinton has only emerged from hiding months later to promote a querulous book and sow further divisions on the left.
Their respective actions in the wake of a horrifying election result have proved the point: Sanders cares about the future, while Clinton cares only about herself.
Clearly, having made Billary the deplorable the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nominee was a huge fucking mistake. And at that time Bernie Sanders, being new to most Americans, just couldn’t overcome the corrupt Democratic National Committee that was doing its best to coronate Billary.
But the DNC has been exposed now (and at least partially purged of the Billarybots), and in hindsight Bernie looks even better now than he did in 2020. (Indeed, I love this meme:
On the topic of single-payer/“Medicare for all”/universal health care, of course I agree that health care is a human right. Every human being has the right to good health care.
I’m not an expert on health care, but I’m clear on the fact that the largest obstacles to universal health care in the United States are political. There are too many selfish pieces of shit out there who are profiteering obscenely from health care, since health care is a necessity of human life. These selfish traitors, who don’t at all mind harming others for their own excessive, undeserved gain, don’t want their gravy train derailed, and so of course they’re going to continue to fight for their incredibly unfair advantage.*
The United States spends more money per person on health care but doesn’t have outcomes to match that spending, and that’s because the goal in a for-profit “health-care” system is to profiteer — not to actually deliver good health care.
Two nations that spend less per person on health care but have better outcomes than does the United States are Britain and Italy — both of which have universal health care, so those who say that the United States cannot achieve universal health care are full of shit.**
We probably can’t wipe out for-profit “health care” overnight, and I am OK with allowing public/universal health care and private health care to co-exist at least for a time. (We do, after all, have both public schools and private schools, and no child is unable to attend school because his or her family cannot pay for it.)
But my hope would be that public health care (single-payer/“Medicare for all”/universal health care) turns out to be so successful — including delivering significantly better outcomes at significantly less expense — that the private wealth-care weasels just cannot compete and deservedly go the way of the dinosaurs.
In the future, I suspect, history will show that Bernie Sanders was the father of universal health care, that he transcended not just the for-profit “health-care” system, but that he did what the namby-pamby Obamacare, which kept the for-profit “health-care” system intact, did not do: ensure good health care for everyone.
And history will show, I suspect, that Bernie Sanders finally rescued the Democratic Party from the Clintonistas (who, in fairness, include Saint Barack, of course).
*In the for-profit “health-care” system lots of people profiteer at others’ expense, and it’s not only the owners of the for-profit “health-care” companies, but stockholders, too, and those craven politicians to whom the wealth-care weasels give a lot of campaign cash in order to keep their treasonous scam going.
**Other nations whose citizens have longer life expectancy than do Americans but that spend less on health care per capita and have universal health care include Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Sweden and Switzerland. See here and here.