Trump can’t lose White working class voters with a bad AHCA

Kevin MacDonald

It’s no secret that the Alt Right supported Donald Trump in the election — indeed, we were the only recognizable intellectual perspective to endorse him. What we liked about him — and continue to like about him — are, first and foremost, his attitudes on immigration, but also his America First economic nationalism and his foreign policy pronouncements in opposition to neocon nation building. It’s also well known that Trump won the election by getting out the vote in several key swing states among White rural and working class voters who saw Trump as supporting their interests in rolling back immigration that depresses wages and disrupts traditional homogeneous White communities that are still common in rural America. Trump’s stated trade policy and economic nationalism also benefit working class Americans because of the promise to keep jobs in America. All of these policies were opposed by powerful factions in the GOP, particularly big business interests and neoconservatives, not to mention the left.

Trump’s populism enabled him to win an election, but for him to have a chance to win in 2020 and for the GOP to avoid disaster in 2018, he will have to hold on to the coalition of voters that propelled him to victory. Indeed, he must add to it, given that the ascendant non-White coalition that is the backbone of the Democratic Party will continue to increase in size.

Since the election, the vast majority of media attention has been on Trump’s executive orders on immigration, seen by the left as evil. This is not surprising, since the left has abandoned all pretense of caring about the working class, opting instead for sexual and (non-White) racial identity politics. Indeed, the left is rapidly fashioning a legal system where every human has a affirmative right to immigrate to America.

Trump’s appeal to the working class was based not just on jobs, but on promising not to destroy the safety net and to actually improve it. Parenthetically, much of the blame for the current state of things has to be placed ultimately on globalism. Globalism, which was a consensus among the donor class of both parties until Trump came along, disproportionately benefits the 1% and has dramatically increased wealth disparities; it has also had disastrous effects on the White working  class, as employers competing in a global marketplace increasingly fail to provide health care and unions have become steadily more marginalized, as non-government jobs are shipped abroad.

The point here is that throughout the campaign, Trump promised to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something much better. His voters took him to mean that they would get a better deal on health care. But if something like the present bill passes, it’s going to be a disaster (see Katie McHugh, “7 Reasons Why Obamacare 2.0 Is All But Guaranteed to Impose Crushing Costs on Voters, Hurt Trump’s Base, And Hand Power Back to the Democrats“).

I’m no expert on health care, but it seems to me that, assuming there is going to be a health care safety net, it’s a pretty much insoluble problem if medical costs aren’t dramatically lowered, given the levels of serious, expensive-to-treat chronic diseases. For example, over 29 million Americans have diabetes, and 86 million more are pre-diabetic.

Health care is a huge issue for many of the people who voted for Trump. Whatever bill he signs has got to be something that helps these voters deal with health care. We can’t just dismiss the criticisms from the left and centrist Republicans that are being put forward against Paul Ryan’s AHCA. Even though estimates of the effects of this bill made by the Congressional Budget Office are to be taken with a grain of salt (given their predictions about Obamacare), there is certainly a large streak in conservatism that opposes a safety net. The fact that there is a tax cut for the wealthy in the bill is a huge problem and will likely be trumpeted by Democrats in the next election if it remains in the final version.

True populism means working for the best interests of the people. It’s quite compatible with national socialism (lower case) — a sense that the country is a collective rather than a conglomeration of individuals who have no responsibility to each other. Granted that the increasing ethnic diversity makes investing in social capital a tough sell for many Whites who rightly see these programs as more likely to benefit people not at all like themselves — a common finding in research on multiculturalism is that people are less willing to contribute to public goods in ethnically diverse societies. Still, we have to understand that many of our people and a lot of Trump voters need help with health care. Trump and the GOP will lose the next round of elections if they don’t do something to address their concerns.

The Alt Right is most interested in immigration because of its effects on the future demographics of the country and generally opposing the legitimate interests of White Americans in not becoming a (persecuted) minority in the country they built. But the Trump administration’s attitudes and policies on immigration, even if they become reality — which is proving to be difficult indeed, will be short-lived if issues like health care are dealt with in a way that ignores the interests of the White base of the GOP.  If the bill is seen as benefiting more traditional GOP constituencies — big business and ideological libertarianism — it is a death sentence for Trump’s populism.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

61 Comments to "Trump can’t lose White working class voters with a bad AHCA"

  1. John King's Gravatar John King
    March 20, 2017 - 12:32 am | Permalink

    Important post. The analysis is sound.

  2. Gilbert Huntly's Gravatar Gilbert Huntly
    March 20, 2017 - 3:19 am | Permalink

    Exorbitant costs in the medical field are partly caused by the litigious nature of the clientele, and outrageous financial settlements. The value of a life is largely measured by the greed of the lawyers representing it. Likewise, the costs of a particular service are largely determined by the financial opportunities presented the physicians/technicians rendering it. Those opportunities are
    enhanced by the notion that public assistance is an unlimited entitlement.

    • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
      March 20, 2017 - 11:43 pm | Permalink

      Medicine is expensive for one reason- third-party payments. Patients think that others [the company or government] are paying. They don’t know that salaries are reduced by an amount equal to insurance charges- they, not others, are paying. If insurance were removed wages would rise sustantially- [guessing] $2-$5 per hour.

      The answer is to get government entirely out of the economy and destroy all monopolies, cartels, and special interests, including FDA.

      Licensure must end, replaced by private certification, and/or reputation of medical practitioners. Word of mouth- reputation replacing coercive licensing.

      • Mark's Gravatar Mark
        March 21, 2017 - 2:15 pm | Permalink

        Bullsh*t. The old trope about tort reform rears its head yet again. In every state that I’m aware of which has enacted tort reform, medical costs and malpractice insurance are as high as they ever were. Hmmm….so I wonder what that means? Specifically it means defunding Democrats by way of trial lawyers (who I am led to believe contribute mainly to Dems) and increasing profits for insurance and pharma while hurting patients.

        Sure there have been abuses of the tort system in the past, but by no means enough to justify screwing all of us over when it comes to healthcare.

  3. Luke's Gravatar Luke
    March 20, 2017 - 3:31 am | Permalink

    Another outstanding analysis by Professor MacDonald.

    I’m no fan of Rand Paul, but I do have some respect for his opinions regarding health care, since the guy was once a practicing physician and so, he deserves to be listened to on this obamacare repeal effort. And, he is adamantly opposed to the Ryan crafted legislation and promises that it is going to make the already horrible situation even worse. Which Ryan and his neocon RINO cuck pals could be intentionally trying to do, in order to undermine Trump and jeopardize his chances of reelection in 4 years.

    However, it appears as if Trump is allowing himself to be drawn into the trap that Ryan is setting for him. Initially, and far too quickly for my taste, Trump almost immediately announced his support for the Ryan alternative legislation. More recently, however, it seems as if Trump is backing off a little bit on his original endorsement and he’s now saying that he agrees that there must be a number of tweaks made to the Ryan proposal.

    Trump needs to be on guard against allowing Ryan and his RINOs to set landmines for him to step on – because I am convinced that his enemies in both parties will be using that very tactic for the next 4 years, hoping that they can maneuver him into destroying his chances for reelection.

    • Junghans's Gravatar Junghans
      March 20, 2017 - 8:23 am | Permalink

      Clear thinking here, Kevin & Luke. The Cucks are working overtime to screw up things for Trump, and Trump seems to be falling into their trap. Ron Paul is an M.D., not sure, however, about his son Rand ?

      • Beowulf's Gravatar Beowulf
        March 21, 2017 - 12:47 am | Permalink

        Actually, both father Ron and son Rand are physicians, gynecologist and ophthalmologist, respectively.

      • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
        March 21, 2017 - 1:05 am | Permalink

        Rand Paul is an MD, Junghans; specifically, he has practiced as an ophthalmologist and ophthalmic surgeon.

  4. Jan Sammer's Gravatar Jan Sammer
    March 20, 2017 - 4:25 am | Permalink

    The core of the problem in my view is that the present health care system is built on perverse incentives. The financial profitability of health care providers depends on the perpetuation and treatment of chronic disease, whereas preventing or curing illness is bad for business. In addition, the most expensive treatments tend also to be the most profitable. No health care reform can succeed unless it tackles these perverse incentives. The financial burdens to be shared are simply too great and are increasing at an unsustainable pace.

    • MGD's Gravatar MGD
      March 21, 2017 - 12:13 pm | Permalink

      This is something that Colorado Governor Richard Lamm was saying thirty years ago.

  5. Ger Tzedek's Gravatar Ger Tzedek
    March 20, 2017 - 6:37 am | Permalink

    Humanity would sink into eternal darkness, it would fall into a dull and primitive state, were the Jews to win this war. Dr. Joseph Goebbels.

    We should have listened… Now I feel black-pilled and helpless.

    • March 20, 2017 - 1:01 pm | Permalink

      In medicine, Galen ruled for about a millennium, and only began to be dethroned by the work of Vesalius and a few others. It may be ‘we’ (our descendants) will live through such a situation again.

      • Ger Tzedek's Gravatar Ger Tzedek
        March 20, 2017 - 10:50 pm | Permalink

        We will sleep in the bed that we will make for ourselves. If we let them exterminate us like lambs to slaughter, they will do. They have it carefully planned, long-term. (((They))) too will sleep in the bed that they have made for themselves. They have already slept through pogroms, nazis, expulsions. With the head that they have, more to come. A Jewish proverb says, if God wants to destroy somebody, God gives him too much power.

  6. Randy's Gravatar Randy
    March 20, 2017 - 7:57 am | Permalink

    Last sentence of third paragraph:
    Indeed, the left is rapidly fashioning a legal system where every human has an affirmative right to immigrate to America.

    Minor cavil: The left would very likely want to exclude white South Africans. According to Genocide Watch’s eight stages of genocide, this group would be at Stage 5 or Stage 6. Nevertheless, even the very conservative ex-Senator Sam Brownback would deny asylum to white South Africans because they might bring “racist attitudes” to the US.

    • Keith's Gravatar Keith
      March 20, 2017 - 10:33 am | Permalink

      Then Senator Sam Brownback is actually a Leftist. “Racist attitudes” are absolutely essential to the survival of Whites and White civilisation. Those that pretend not to see this are traitors and destroyers. They are the enemy. Worse than the enemy because they pretend to be on our side. Its as simple as that.

  7. Robert Browning's Gravatar Robert Browning
    March 20, 2017 - 8:21 am | Permalink

    Government can increase the supply of doctors by offering a totally free education to any one who wants to be a doctor in exchange for a period of public service.

    • Charles Frey's Gravatar Charles Frey
      March 20, 2017 - 3:39 pm | Permalink

      Good point, government is already doing just that, albeit only with Air Force pilots, due to their expensive training.

      Canada, and probably others, allow foreign-trained physicians to enter, who, after local make-up courses and examinations, have agreed to be placed in underserved areas. Far from charging ” whatever the market will bear ” they are handsomely remunerated by tariffs established by government for specified services.

  8. March 20, 2017 - 8:32 am | Permalink

    Many people have awoken to the damaging effects of Jews in general politics, wars etc. It’s absolutely necessary for (what I’d call) the revisionist movement to extend to healthcare, including harmful impositions such as fluoridation and vaccinations, invented profitable things like ‘AIDS’, and of course large-scale problems such as ‘diabetes and pre-diabetes’ and diet. It will be another long haul, including serious crits of the foundations of cell biology and immunology, which are full of errors and mistakes even in simple experimentation and logic. It’s necessary to clear up the supposed basic stuff, because otherwise there will be more and endless debates based on fake science, just as there are endless debates on fake race and fake crime and fake economic statistics and fake history caused by the crippling hold of Jewish liars.

    Unfortunately, this will be opposed at every step by shills and trolls, in the same way Trump is faced with trolls, liars and scum controlled by Jews. And also unfortunately, it will mean a lot of work, and Americans are conditioned by years of junk education, and junk TV, and junk Hollywood, and junk quizzes to think they are well-informed. And these are the few who might be able to make an effort; there will be endless Oprah Winfrey types, uneducated, stupid, actor and actress parrot types, without even the slightest basis for scientific understanding.

    I had the good fortune to get to know a critic of biology methodologies, though in his lifetime he got, broadly speaking, nowhere. who was and is treated in analogous ways to the reactions to people like David Irving, Kevin MacDonald, David Duke, and innumerable others, by the low-grade filth of the Jewish media and ‘education’.

    (I may as well add the unfounded campaign against salt awareness of which I owe to an Australian, Frank McManus).

    • ex South African's Gravatar ex South African
      March 20, 2017 - 12:54 pm | Permalink

      “Unfortunately, this will be opposed at every step by shills and trolls, in the same way Trump is faced with trolls, liars and scum controlled by Jews.”

      This is my big concern, that president Trump will find himself reduced to a token president without any teeth, should the deep state opposition just run over him and his few men. So what is the use of an executive order, if the courts just overrules it?

  9. David's Gravatar David
    March 20, 2017 - 10:44 am | Permalink

    I can say this, the penalty associated with the mandate will be a killer for people whose situations I am well familiar with. It hurts particularly severely, the “tweener”: age 60 to 62, especially those who have been targeted in the age-ist, anti-White push of the Globalists to dismantle Western nations, inhibit entrepreneurship, squash professionalism and to bring about the destruction of our capacity to mount a political response.

    Also, many people–correctly so–reject the loss of security and privacy of one’s personal information. This is exacerbated by the clumsiness with which personal information is treated by both private and governmental entities.

    Ryan is a major threat to our movement. Trump must risk temporary & immediate political capital, but will certainly gain long-term & deep political capital, by accomplishing what he promised regarding our ability to insure ourselves privately and to obtain medical care privately–and thereby neutralizing Ryan as well.

    To the mat, Trump!

  10. David's Gravatar David
    March 20, 2017 - 10:51 am | Permalink

    I know this may seem obscurantist or quirky, but I do believe that words matter and one thing that we must always do is examine closely, and often reject, changes to the vocabulary. I will not expound at length here, but it is important to insist on referring to these matters as involving “medical care’, not “healthcare.” “Healthcare” is a big, barnyard gate that allows the Pernicious Enemies to drive way too much through it.

    We can regain control of this in one important way by insisting on using, in absolutely exclusionary form, only the phrase ‘medical care’.

  11. Dave's Gravatar Dave
    March 20, 2017 - 11:03 am | Permalink has some good ideas on this topic. First off, insurance that covers pre-existing conditions is not insurance at all, it’s a handout. And the least efficient way to give handouts is to force private industry to do it, and so the industry doesn’t go broke, force solvent people to buy their products.

    Australian-style two-tier health care is a workable solution, where paying customers enter through a different door and are never forced to wait in line with the indigents they’re subsidizing. In a one-tier system like Canada’s, long queues favor moochers — if you have no time to wait in line, you must travel to another country and pay cash.

    The future of healthcare is the Surgery Center of Oklahoma, where all prices are advertised up-front, payable with cash, check, or credit card. They do not accept any type of insurance, nor will they discuss your treatment with insurance companies.

    • March 21, 2017 - 8:40 am | Permalink

      Insurance that covers pre-existing conditions – presumably refers to conditions that once did not exist, but showed up – in which case if insurance had been cancelled or dropped, it’s not renewed.

  12. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    March 20, 2017 - 2:18 pm | Permalink

    I hope that all careful readers of this article will look at the comment by Jan Sammer; it is an invaluable addendum to the article.

    Today’s health-care incentives are indeed totally perverse. Put simply, they are meant to enrich doctors and hospitals beyond their most avaricious dreams while also impoverishing their patients—that is to say, their prey. Betterment of patient health has no place in the present system. To this end, the chronic conditions that KM and Jan Sammer refer to are almost universally treated in a manner appropriate only to acute conditions.*

    Also, apropos Rerevisionist’s call for extending revisionism to health care, I’d add only that such an enterprise already exists under several different rubrics—integrative medicine, alternative medicine, homeopathic medicine, and so on—not all of which are necessarily useful to a given person at a given time but all of which constitute steps in the right direction for patients (which, alas, we all are at some point or other) as a whole. As one doctor, a man in his early eighties, said to me several weeks ago, “The medicine I was trained in in medical school sixty years ago was called mainstream then but is now derided by most of my colleagues as ‘alternative.'” Sic transit gloria.

    Lastly, permit me to remind readers of two things: (1) As recently as the seventies, the Jews’ did not have the stranglehold on the medical racket that they have today. Their presence in medicine was formidable then, of course, but not decisive, as it now is. (2) I vividly recall that in the sixties, one still encountered doctors who were, if not poor, no more prosperous than middle middle class. Thanks to the AMA-federal partnership, even imagining a doctor who isn’t well-to-do constitutes a virtual hate crime.
    *This analysis, of course, is by no means original with me. Robert Atkins (whose cardiology patient I was in 2001) was writing and speaking in these precise terms forty years ago, and he continued speaking thus till the day of his death. Most of the medical and drug establishment’s hate directed at him arose from the fact that he correctly linked many chronic conditions to weight, diet, vitamin and mineral deficiencies, and related issues. How evil is that!

    • March 21, 2017 - 8:37 am | Permalink

      The problem with (e.g.) homeopathy, alternative medicine etc is usually that the practitioners don’t have deep theoretical knowledge, and are easily dismissed, often rightly.
      Vitamin and mineral deficiencies have the problem that the mechanisms are often not known (except e.g. with vitamin C and its oxygen-carrying properties. However, empirical evidence is often overwhelming – e.g. the need for tiny amounts of iodine for normal functioning, or zinc for normal functioning- so empiricism is often OK.
      It will be an uphill task, and perhaps impossible, as the example of Galen shows – Galenics still form a chunk of the materia medica, and it’s rather terrifying to reflect that no progress was made in medicine for many centuries. And some of that was negative; it wouldn’t surprise me if lead poisoning in Rome was a Jewish infliction, comparable with fluoride now. The generally low standard of science education – not very large output, of obstinately narrow-minded parrots – is discouraging. Even if offered free.

      • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
        March 21, 2017 - 11:34 am | Permalink

        @Rerevisionist: Here as elsewhere you offer generalities, suppositions, rhetorical extensions of mere assertions, and emotionally and psychologically driven preferences to your readers as if they were facts. They aren’t.

        For a start, read Robert Atkins’s Vita-Nutrient Solution: Nature’s Answer to Drugs and then try restating your claim that he, for example, doesn’t have “deep theoretical knowledge, and [is] easily dismissed, often rightly.” I choose Atkins and this book in part because there is hardly a statement in it that isn’t supported both by three-plus decades of professional practice and by an endnote reference to an exhaustive (indeed exhausting) list of published studies—all published in accredited medical journals, be it noted.

        As a related exercise, do a five-minute Internet study of the etymology of the word “quack.” Even you may be surprised at the extent to which its transference from perpetrator to victim constitutes “fake news” more than a century avant la lettre.

        Secondly, what you call absence of “progress” in medicine above all had to do with the nearly total disappearance of knowledge of public hygiene that was a concomitant of the collapse of the Roman imperium and, far more significantly, its accompanying physical and cultural structures, the latter in the wake of the rise of Islam (i.e., the sole Jewish surrogate “religion”). Your own “terror” in reflecting upon this phenomenon pales before the infinitely less cozy terror of the millions of our white European ancestors who spent a century and a half in fully justified literal fear of their lives of the Danes, Vikings, Norsemen, Northmen—call ’em what you will—before their conversion to Christianity. Any chance, you think, that the war against “Galenics” might thus have seemed less vital to these folks?

        Also, your moans about the persistence of what you term Galenics pair oddly with your earlier moans about a lack of “deep theoretical knowledge.” It was of course the dismissal of “deep theoretical knowledge” in favor of the hard-nosed study of physical phenomena that characterized not only the anatomical and medical work of Vesalius (or of his younger contemporary Fallopius) but also the studious compilations of largely unknown medieval English and German herbalists and botanists. The seemingly irresistible temptation to prefer theory to observation plagued even so important a figure as Galileo, who scoffed at the math-supported observations that drove Kepler to conclude that the ellipse rather than the circle was the keystone of astronomy.

        Finally for now, your offhand comment that the mechanisms of “vitamin and mineral deficiencies … are often not known” slyly passes over the easy-to-acquire awareness that the “mechanisms,” let alone the proved or provable causes, of a very large percentage of physical ills are similarly unknown. The self-glorifying mob of allopathic medical practitioners—whose latest redefinitional preference is to style themselves “healers” rather than “physicians”—shows its true hucksterish colors by giving most things whose etiology they can’t explain the label “syndromes.” (This is hardly surprising, given that almost all medical schools have swapped out the old Hippocratic Oath for the newer and cooler Hippocratic Recommendations.)

        This reply is already very long, so I’ll stop now. But there is much more to be said.

        • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
          March 22, 2017 - 5:24 pm | Permalink

          is to style themselves “healers” rather than “physicians”

          . . .physician, heal thyself. . .

    • Charles Frey's Gravatar Charles Frey
      March 21, 2017 - 11:18 am | Permalink

      Pierre, I am not astonished, that a conscientious Atkins felt obliged to inform a dense public, who always have thirty dollars to drop at MacDonald’s but haven’t ‘ bellied ‘ up to a produce counter in decades. They are too occupied with reading the essential ingredients on their pet food labels.

      Much of the world is horrified when they observe on American street shots in the news or in films the enormous derrieres of the average citizenry; criminally including those of children. My reaction to these visuals is to perceive the ringing of hospitals’ , doctors’ and big pharma’s cash registers.

      The brave attempt by some conscientious individuals, school-boards, municipalities, etc. to turn the tide is negated by the ever more rapidly advancing government-through- lobbies, vital to re-election coffers.

      The only contact between too many people and America’s future in particular, and a vegetable, is with the potato sub-species couch.

  13. Ger Tzedek's Gravatar Ger Tzedek
    March 20, 2017 - 2:49 pm | Permalink

    Everywhere Whites are mentioned in a derogatory way, we must substitute White with (((White))). Will see the taste of it. Will be too much fun. And yes, US is a Jewish dictatorship, not a democracy.

    Now I think that North Korea is globalists’ way of tipping over Trump. If they don’t do it, it is because they are unsure about the outcome.

  14. Santoculto's Gravatar Santoculto
    March 20, 2017 - 5:57 pm | Permalink

    Would be interesting McDonald talk about proximities between Jews and hbd movement…

  15. norm741's Gravatar norm741
    March 20, 2017 - 5:58 pm | Permalink

    Before Medicaid poor people did not die in the streets. Charity Hospitals did more than help the poor they also kept costs down by giving competition to health Insurers, and doctors did residency there which also kept cost down. Fraud was no where what it is now. Once Medicaid was enacted it opened the door for Big Pharm to take advantage as well, Its no wonder the Russian mob was quick to get into medicaid fraud.

  16. Ger Tzedek's Gravatar Ger Tzedek
    March 20, 2017 - 8:19 pm | Permalink

    Here we go with some more (((White))) interests.

  17. Mike's Gravatar Mike
    March 21, 2017 - 1:23 am | Permalink

    “Still, we have to understand that many of our people and a lot of Trump voters need help with health care. Trump and the GOP will lose the next round of elections if they don’t do something to address their concerns.”

    Kevin, the main concern of Trump voters probably isn’t that they need help with healthcare but rather that their premiums are skyrocketing, which was the natural effect of partially socializing healthcare. By requiring that insurance companies cover people with pre-existing conditions who would not be accepted for coverage in a market environment it became pretty much inevitable that everyone else would have to pay higher premiums to cover the added costs.

  18. JM's Gravatar JM
    March 21, 2017 - 1:51 am | Permalink

    The US system is primitive and based on greed. The US government should do the “insuring” and leverage from that into controlling prices, part of which is negotiating drug costs, part is curbing monopoly power and part is supply of medical practitioners. Just suggesting…

    • Charles Frey's Gravatar Charles Frey
      March 21, 2017 - 4:53 pm | Permalink

      You are ” just suggesting ” just right. Perhaps someone here can explain the difference in motivation between a Hilton Hotel’s interest in selling its beds and the interest of a privately owned, for-profit hospital’s interest in selling its beds. [ And do so without reporting the sighting of a dangerous socialist, or even communist behind a blade of grass some 1100 ft. away }.

      • JM's Gravatar JM
        March 21, 2017 - 11:10 pm | Permalink

        @Charles Frey
        What? Why the vagueness? Hopefully not to hide an individualist, anti-nationalist, Libertarianism. What interest do White Nationalists have in encouraging parasitic, plutocratically owned insurance companies? About the same as they ought to have for the Fed or the banks.

        • Charles Frey's Gravatar Charles Frey
          March 22, 2017 - 12:27 pm | Permalink

          I completely agree with your INITIAL comment, and said so.
          What doubt can one harbor when asked to see the similarity between hotels and hospitals ” selling ” their beds, essentially for the same bottom line ?

          And don’t get me going on insurance companies. I defeated Ford Canada; Allianz, Europe’s largest insurer and re-insurer of the Twin Towers, in a mere total write off of my beloved ’69 BMW 633csi; with the check for the full amount co-signed by their VP for Canada, who initially told me personally across his desk, that they would pay nothing.

          And, I might add, without the involvement of a single lawyer, whose retainer only guarantees an at least quadrupling of your problems, with their endemic make-work bullcrap, and frequent deal-making behind their clients’ back, to their detriment.

          I am sufficiently versed with the creation of the Fed, not only with regard to its control over the US, but also its timely fiat money to finance WW I and its subsequent transfers via Germany’s Four D banks [ Deutsche, Diskonto, Dresdner, Dortmunder ] to the Bolsheviks.

          With respect to ” plutocracy “: The late Jim Tucker, the internationally-renowned ” Bilderberg Hound ” of the populist Spotlight had been apprised by a friend at State, that the Bilderbergers were meeting at King City, north of Toronto from May 30-June 2, 1996.

          Weeks earlier I had informed the editor of the business section of the large-circulation Toronto Star about the difference between a banquetburger and a Bilderberger, which prepared him to publish an extensive article, framed by photos representative of attendees, hours after their arrival. The letters to the editor in response, proved we had done our job to put these people on the map nationally.

          And, some always necessary humorous relief:
          Their venue was the luxurious Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce ” Leadership Center ” described by the editor as being valued at 64 million. CIBC President Allan Foot remonstrated with the editor personally for this disclosure to the Bank’s stockholders, which motivated him to hire a plane for his photographer. The front page of the Sunday edition of the business section was graced by an aerial photo depicting the grandeur of this 136 luxury room complex, with fountains, stables and a roofed circular jogging trail.

          Lending one more example to the concept of unintended consequences.

        • Charles Frey's Gravatar Charles Frey
          March 22, 2017 - 4:30 pm | Permalink

          Now I recall the name of the Star business editor: John Deverell; who sent his reporter Toni Wong. Toni diligently copied a list of participants, smuggled out by a waiter at the conference; a disapproving political science major at the U of Toronto and boyfriend of a waitress at the Brampton Holiday Inn, whom Jimmy had co-opted over several meals.

          While the larger wheels go ’round and ’round, creating a bit of rut, I like to check over their spokes.

        • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
          March 22, 2017 - 5:05 pm | Permalink

          Libertarian Lunatic Hans-Hermann Hoppe on the migrant crisis:

          White men contributed the most to humanity but get hated on the most {Hoppe]

  19. unreconstructed's Gravatar unreconstructed
    March 21, 2017 - 12:02 pm | Permalink

    Will the country ever again get a president who will obey the Constitution? We haven’t had one in more than 150 years. Obviously, Mr. MacDonald does not want one. He just wants a president to violate the Constitution to advance unconstitutional programs with which he agrees and to oppose those with which he disagrees

  20. Michael Adkins's Gravatar Michael Adkins
    March 21, 2017 - 2:39 pm | Permalink

    I am sure most have noted that we are being more and more ask to depend on our genetic inheritance in the area of medical care (the homosexual and transgender movements were no accident).

    For states such as Japan and Israel this is also an opportunity to improve their populations at the most basic level. And they will take full advantage of it. Luckily, it is a two way street and Europeans can do the same.

  21. Ger Tzedek's Gravatar Ger Tzedek
    March 21, 2017 - 4:56 pm | Permalink

    Deposition of pope. Good grief, can’t come fast enough. Don’t make babies because they burden mother nature. Accept refugees as a gift from God.

  22. Fenria's Gravatar Fenria
    March 21, 2017 - 8:14 pm | Permalink

    Unfortunately, I think Trump is stuck in a “dance with them that brung ya” cycle where now he has to make major policy concessions to all the various groups that shilled in during his candidacy, and a lot of those read like a who’s who of the most vicious Republican wealthy elite. A veritable stew of billionaires and shady nameless figures ensconced on shareholder boards for life, protected by a barricade of highly paid lawyers at all times.

    Trump might be a populist in spirit, and even this I doubt, but whatever latent populism he might aspire to will be quickly shot down by those with their hands out, and he knows that for a chance at eight years, he’s got to keep them by his side. I have a feeling that he will be brought down by the multitude of insanely greedy agendas now competing for a green light under his admin. He doesn’t seem to have the mental fortitude to stick to his guns, if he ever really had a set of real ones to begin with. We’ve had, and will continue to have, a lot of great laughs at the expense of the left under Trump, but sadly, I think that’s all we’re going to have. Better than nothing. If you’ve got to go out, do it laughing.

  23. Forever guilty's Gravatar Forever guilty
    March 22, 2017 - 1:55 am | Permalink

    Well the problem with healthcare care in US is, that there is giant (((middleman))). the parasite who is sucking life out of it.

    The giant health insurance companies (owned by we know who) increasingly taking more and more money and trying provide less and less medical care. And because they have most expensive lawyers , lobbyists and (((money changers))) on their side, they are easy succeeding.

    End HMOs

    US healthcare in 1950th… Community Hospitals

  24. Richard McCulloch's Gravatar Richard McCulloch
    March 22, 2017 - 10:21 am | Permalink

    Obamacare, the misnamed “Affordable Care Act,” was designed as a redistribution scheme, with a mostly white and Republican constituency paying more for health insurance to pay for subsidies for health insurance for a disproportionately non-white and Democrat constituency. The constituency that pays for it hates it, the constituency that benefits from it loves it. Most of the redistribution is performed by the health insurance companies who were enlisted to support the plan on the condition they would not suffer financial loss, removing their reason for so effectively opposing “Hillarycare” back in 1993. The other redistribution is performed by the government taking $50 billion per year from Medicare Part B and giving it to Obamacare, again taking money from a mostly white and Republican constituency, who in this case had paid into the program during their working lives, to give to a disproportionately non-white and Democrat constituency who paid nothing toward it. This is why the cost of Medicare Part B has increased almost 30% since Obamacare went into effect, from $1,248 per year in 2012 to $1,608 in 2017.

    Trump’s campaign promise to repeal Obamacare was directed to, and supported by, the voters who are paying for it, not those who have been subsidized by it, it’s victims, not it’s beneficiaries. Voters who are subsidized by Obamacare, and who want those subsidies to continue, did not vote for Trump, or if they did they must have done so assuming that he intended to end their subsidies but voted for him anyway. So he is not going to lose their vote if he fulfills his promise and repeals Obamacare, including the subsidies, but he will lose the trust and support of those who are the financial victims of Obamacare and voted for him because they believed he would save them from its burdens.

    Let me relate my personal experience with Obamacare, as one of 180,000 employees of a large national company. From my discussions with employees of other companies over the last four years, especially during the annual enrollment periods when they are experiencing the newest sticker shock, I assume my example is fairly typical.

    In 2012, the last year before Obamacare, I chose the Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) PPO from the plans offered by my employer. My employer contributed $1,995 no matter what plan the employee chose, enough to almost cover the full cost of the most basic plan. The BCBS PPO cost me $2,136.

    In 2013, the first year of Obamacare, four standardized PPO plans were offered on the exchange – platinum, gold, silver and bronze – from several different insurers. The terms of the Gold PPO were actually a little better than the plan I had before Obamacare, but the Silver PPO terms were much worse, so I chose the BCBS Gold PPO, even though the cost was $2,865, a 34% increase. Before Obamacare the cost of my insurance increased about 3-5% per year, so this was a big jump, but I thought the increases would end there.

    But I was wrong. In 2014 the cost of the BCBS Gold PPO increased another 53% to $4,398. My employer continued to contribute the same amount, $1,995, as before Obamacare, so the increase was borne totally by the employee. Because of this huge increase I downgraded to the BCBS Silver PPO at a cost of $2,101, about the same price I paid for my BCBS PPO previously, before Obamacare, but the terms were much worse. So it only took one year for Obamacare to cause me to downgrade my coverage.

    But the increases continued. In 2016 the BCBS Silver PPO cost $4,116 and the BCBS Gold PPO increased to $8,500, a 196% increase in the three years since 2013. Fortunately, that year I was old enough to switch to a Medicare Part B Advantage PPO and escape from the financial burden of Obamacare.

    In 2017 The BCBS Silver PPO costs $4,731, a 125% increase in the three years since 2014, and the BCBS Gold PPO costs $9,764, a 240% increase in the four years since 2013.

    Obviously, the method of paying for Obamacare is extremely regressive, hitting lower income workers the hardest, with the increased costs taking a larger proportion of their income. I know several co-workers who make less than $25,000 per year but still make too much to qualify for subsidies, who would be crushed by the cost of a good plan, and now find even the cheapest plan, with terms that would be financially disastrous to them if they had a serious health issue, to be a great burden.

    It should be clear that repealing Obamacare would be a great benefit to the majority of white working class voters who make $20,000-$70,000 per year, definitely qualifying it as a populist position. This group is Trump’s core constituency, from which he got his strongest support and the great majority of his votes, and the group whose support he most needs to retain, and hopefully increase, in future elections. As for the disproportionately non-white and Democrat voters who are subsidized by Obamacare, those I know would never vote for any Republican under any imaginable circumstances, and I assume they are fairly representative of the whole, so attempts to appeal to and please them, like all the futile attempts to reach out to Blacks and other minorities, would only risk hazarding and weakening Trump’s core support in a quixotic pursuit of an impossible dream.

    Obamacare was created to provide free or subsidized health insurance to a disproportionately non-white and Democrat constituency paid for by a mostly white and Republican constituency, with the intention that once the benefiting constituency began to enjoy those subsidies it would be regarded as an entitlement that couldn’t be taken away or even reduced. But the burden on it’s victims, those paying for it, and the strength of their adverse reaction to it, appears to have been seriously underestimated, at great political cost to the Democrats and Hillary and benefit to the Republicans and Trump.

    Reality in politics, as in life, is a matter of making choices. Many things are either-or, and this includes Obamacare. The increased costs built into Obamacare cannot be reduced without reducing the money available to subsidize its beneficiaries, so the victims cannot be helped without reducing the subsidies. Trump has to make a choice between the two groups, either the victims who form his core constituency, or the beneficiaries who are, and realistically always will be, a core Democrat constituency. He cannot have it both ways.

    (Mod. Note: Mr. McCulloch, for the record, here in TOO comments “Brevity Is the Soul of Wit” applies. Please don’t confuse a comment with a long essay, or future posts will not be approved.)

    • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
      March 23, 2017 - 11:10 am | Permalink

      My employer contributed $1,995 no matter what

      You paid it.

      There are two kinds of deductions- the shown, and the unshown. The part allegedly paid by the boss is an unshown deduction from the worker’s paycheck. Workers real gross pay is higher than they think- insurance and the part of social security “paid by the boss” are deducted but not shown on the paycheck stub. If all deductions were shown, workers might get very angry.

      The boss does send a check to insurance company. Does that not prove that the boss is actually paying? No- that check is funded by lowering the pay.

      If the company contribution to health insurance ended, the market would kick up the wage by $1995/12 or $166.25. Same for the social security fraction that is misunderstood as being paid by the boss. The worker pays it all- the books are juggled so that the worker will think he is getting something for nothing from the company.

      There is a phantom income that is not shown as gross pay. Let’s say gross pay is $3000 with net pay $2250. The deduction is $750 or 25%. Now, let’s add in the phantom pay- say $400. The real gross pay is now $3400, and the real deduction is $750 plus $400 or $1150. The deduction % is 1150/3400 or 33.8%. . .the deduction itself has gone up by 53.3%.

      The PTB don’t want workers to know their actual gross pay, so it is trimmed in advance- knowing that workers will take the “gross pay” figure at face value. They don’t want workers to know the actual amount of deductions.

      Dear worker- you are paying it all- insurance and social security and whatever else is not counted on your pay stub.

    • HK Wills's Gravatar HK Wills
      March 25, 2017 - 1:05 pm | Permalink

      Very perceptive comment. What we are witnessing in Obamacare is, in biological terms, intra-specific parasitism. Non-whites parasitizing the health care resources of whites. The costs of health care in terms of premiums and deductables had to increase to cover the insurance companies exposure to the 30 millions black and browns who climbed on to rolls. Short of cooked books it could not be otherwise. What Obamacare imposed was multi-racial collectivized healthcare by proxy of the private sector. Any continuation -with modifications- of this type of arrangement is bound to impoverish white America to some degree: and given that there are about 90 million blacks and browns in America it is no small cost. It does not help that the U.S. population is both aging and living longer. Many now live into the expensive decades: the 70’s and 80’s where most of the total health care cost in ones lifetime occurs.

      Republicans should ignore the concerns and claims who did not vote for them for the obvious reason that they did not, nor will they ever vote for them – at least in any significant number. They can do this by treating them the way Democrats treat white men. Trump must ignore the media’s attempts to morally suborn him into producing policies that benefit the “poor”. The difficulty is in teasing out a way to help struggling whites but not transfer resources – which are largely white derived – to non-whites.

  25. Karen T's Gravatar Karen T
    March 22, 2017 - 4:29 pm | Permalink

    Forty years of N. American advertisements promoting gluttony, fast foods and instant gratification has created a diabetic zombie culture. And noone dares mention the elephant in the room, overpopulation. Millions of healthy browns, unable to sustain their own societies, invade the West, hating that which they are inferior to, resulting in overcrowded emergency rooms, weakening of social safety nets, destruction of our cultures. The Trojan Horse is here and Jewry is applauding it. They would rather reign over a ruined and ugly world than not rule at all.

  26. Charles Frey's Gravatar Charles Frey
    March 22, 2017 - 7:09 pm | Permalink

    Sir, with respect to your opening lines of your second-last paragraph: ” True populism means working for the best interest of your people “. A salient concomitant of that definition, if not a pre-condition of it, are Adolf’s repeated policy statements that the Volk is not there to serve the economy, but rather the opposite. [ Vaguely Trumpian but not realistic at this time ].

    As we know, he equally knocked left and right heads together, as reflected by the lyrics of the party’s anthem, the Horst Wessel Lied. I.e.” —comrades shot by the Red Front and Reaktion, are marching with us in spirit “. I think the left, then as now, prefers to play down the socialist aspects of his program and concentrate on its ” murderous nationalist ” side instead.

    As most here know, it was Otto Strasser and his more eminent brother Gregor, both more popular than Hitler in northern Germany, who tried to pull the party to the left; to the proximity of the KPD. Neither was an anti-Semite, which may explain their pull to the left; both having associated with Jewish friends and a Jewish ” collaborator “, as described and disclosed by a Spartakus member.

    Gregor declined an offer for suicide and was shot by two men on order of Hitler during the Night of the Long Knives. Otto emigrated via Bermuda ending up in Montreal in 1941, finally dying in ’74 in Munich.

    [ I met Otto during a German Canadian Trade Promotion Office reception in Toronto in ’52-’53 [?] as a 14 year old prisoner of my baby-sitting sister, there to professionally capture the meeting on camera. A Thyssen also attended ].

  27. pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
    March 23, 2017 - 4:21 am | Permalink

    “Americans because of the promise to keep jobs in America. All of these policies were opposed by powerful factions in the GOP, particularly big business interests and neoconservatives, not to mention the left.”

    re ‘big business interests’ and the word ‘interests’.

    It seems that these days (and this NEVER happened a few decades ago) there is a tendency for big business to support the ideas of the left openly and blatantly – and when the motive is not profits and the success of their own business, in fact even when their support of the far-left pressure groups IS AGAINST THEIR BUSINESS INTERESTS as it antagonises the majority of their customers, and goes beyond what can be described as ‘appeasing the left due to cowardice’ and becomes instead ‘supporting the left even when this reduces profits’.

    Here are examples:
    Amazon banning books:

    ‘Toys R Us’ no longer marketing boys’ toys and girls’ toys separately. (McDonalds still has boy/girl different toys given away with their children’s meals, showing that ending different toys is not compulsory)

    LEGO stopped advertising in the largest-readership British Newspaper Daily Mail due to its coverage of mass immigration that was deemed ‘anti-immigrant’. Here is a Tweet from LEGO: @LEGO_Group @StopFundingHate We have finished the agreement with The Daily Mail and are not planning any future promotional activity with the newspaper 9:07 AM – 12 Nov 2016 source of tweet:

    LEGO could have said something more bland or neutral, but instead jumped right in there.

    And there is the Daily Telegraph. Once very successful and aimed at the right wing readers, its new owners have taken it to the left and readership and sales have fallen dramatically since it switched sides. Clearly the need to be left-wing is more important than the profits of the newspaper. They know for certain there would be huge business profits if they reverted to being a right-wing paper, but they choose not to, even though this is against their business interests, and everyone at the paper knows this.

    More examples:
    A number of executives also followed:
    Stripe CEO Patrick Collison
    Nest founder Tony Fadell
    Union Square Ventures partner Fred Wilson, Joanne Wilson, Amy Batchelor and Brad Feld
    USV partner Albert Wenger and Ziggeo CEO Susan Danziger
    Homebrew Venture partners Hunter Walk and Satya Patel
    Intercom CEO Eoghan McCabe
    Slack CEO Stewart Butterfield
    Xamarin co-founder Nat Friedman
    Sequoia Capital’s Mike Vernal
    Charles River Ventures partner Izhar Armony
    Facebook’s head of advertising Andrew “Boz” Bosworth
    In addition, Google has created a $2 million “crisis fund” that can be matched by up to $2 million in donations from employees. The fund is for four organizations: the ACLU, Immigrant Resource Center, International Rescue Committee and Mercy Corps, according to that report. Google executives are separately giving money to the cause, though the report didn’t cite specifically who. A spokesperson for Google confirmed the existence of the fund.

    And there was a similar story in Breitbart a while ago where Kellogg’s decided to antagonise half its customers by jumping into politics on the side of the left. I cannot remember the details and I am not going to bother to look them up after that site banned me permanently from commenting for asking (politely and with links) why the tribe supports mass immigration from the third world, right up to the Board of Deputies.

    Also, film makers put blacks in leading roles in Hollywood even knowing that these make them less in demand in other countries when they sell the films.

    And look at current TV adverts. The PC content has stopped being subtle and now is slapping the viewers in the face. It cannot help the profits to put characters in their TV ads and scenarios that they know will antagonise half their customers.

    • March 23, 2017 - 6:02 pm | Permalink

      With respect, profits from sales to consumers aren’t the entirety of economic systems. Consider housing: this is now so expensive in major cities that many young people are barred from buying.
      BUT there is huge scope for immigration, because the Jewish money system allows them to profit from printing money: if immigrants are housed at public expense, national debt goes up, and with it indefinite Jewish profits, ‘interest’ in the other sense.
      This I think is one reason Jewish elites promote invasion, even by hordes of unemployable fast-breeding illiterates. The other reason is of course to spread ruin to whites. This Jewish logic extends to medical care, anti-white legal actions, and ‘education’, to give more money and power to Jews.

    • Lou's Gravatar Lou
      March 24, 2017 - 6:16 pm | Permalink

      Which site banned you?

  28. Deep North's Gravatar Deep North
    March 23, 2017 - 2:57 pm | Permalink

    We can’t have it all. That is to say we won’t win on every issue. I want Trump to round up and deport the 10s of millions of non-white crimigrants and build a physical barrier on our southern border.

  29. Joe Blue's Gravatar Joe Blue
    March 24, 2017 - 11:31 pm | Permalink

    How exactly is Trump capable of truly reforming the medical system when his own utterly corrupt Republican colleagues in Congress are entirely under the thumb of their medical industry contributors?

    Trump is dead meat if he can’t find a real solution quickly for this problem and not another band-aid like version of Obamacare lite. It’s as simple at that. I would personally prefer a tiered system such as those particularly clever Singaporeans presently enjoy. This plan was set up under the direction of the late Lee Quan set up, but only after spending much time and money studying the best aspects of virtually every medical system in the developed world. In Singapore, all of the poor people get free basic care while the more affluent pay extra and get more frills.

    If the more desirable tiered system meets any resistance (which it most definitely will from the Republicans) he should declare a nuclear option and then work with the very reluctant Democrats for a simple single payer system which is, after all, the standard for healthcare throughout much of the developed world.

    This is necessary because Trump has to get this problem behind him ASAP or his presidency will come to a full , shuddering stop. He will then lose his majorities in both houses in the upcoming elections specifically over this one single problem.

    Hopefully, the savings coming from single payer will allow Trump to easily fiance all the infrastructure projects he envisions. People writing on this blog seem to think there is another option other than a tiered system or the less desirable basic single payer like Canada has.

    People who are still debating what to do don’t seem to realize that the train has already left the station and isn’t coming back. Single payer, whether tiered or not, costs about half of what our current system does and unlike others on this board, I want my half back to spend myself whether I get my preferred tiered system or not.

    • Charles Frey's Gravatar Charles Frey
      March 25, 2017 - 11:14 am | Permalink

      Joe, I am one of the ” people writing [ commenting ] on this blog ” and I entirely agree with you on every patient and political aspect.

      It is puzzling and disconcerting to see the Americans, who have been to the moon more than once and to Mars by proxy, still struggling, knee-deep in mud, to resolve this essentially simple question.

      Otto von Bismarck, the Iron Chancellor of Germany, the very product of conservative, Prussian, property-based, Junker aristocracy, settled that question in Germany, yes, in 1883.
      Still referred to by the professional theoreticians of Health Care, as the ” Bismarck Model “, widely adopted and adapted, as far away as Japan at the time: while Americans still solicited the moon to ” keep ashinin in June “.

      My psyche obliged me to take a break from US news coverage, after being inundated by disinformation about the Canadian single payer system. [ Sanders aside ].
      ” Oh ! for many treatments they have to come to the US “. Not for many but preferably for some, given world-wide specialized centers of excellence for some little- or unknown ailments. That argument is about as valid as stating that Canadians have to travel to 5th Avenue to purchase an Armani suit. Our Ontario Health Insurance Plan [ OHIP ] even pays for or subsidizes specialty treatments exclusively available in the US; even Europe.

      It’s a given that high population density areas are always in a disadvantaged position. But that equally applies to snow removal. The series Mash on TV, at the latest, informed us of the reason and method of TRIAGE: if you are assessed as being under immediate risk you are next. So, alleged lengthy, purported life-endangering delays solely attributed to single-payer systems are merely additional, super-abundant untreated sewage poured over the heads of people of modest means, by apparent interest groups.

      None of the above explains the far lower cost of drugs in Canada, many produced by the self same pharmaceutical firms. And what of both the FTA and NAFTA, which, after a period of 14 [?] years was going to do away with tariffs on everything ?

      Here is the briefest of histories of one of those pitiable Canadians subjected to the single payer system which is solely funded by our various taxes:

      Three summers ago I got an excruciating pain in my abdomen, on a Friday around 10 am. I went to the hospital of our near-by town of merely 7,000. They x-rayed, were displeased and IMMEDIATELY sent me to the next close town with an MRI machine, with orders to return thereafter. Upon my return I was admitted forthwith. An hour later the specialist, Dr. D. appeared to inform me that I had stage four colon cancer and asked what I proposed we do. I couldn’t suppress a laugh when I asked what my [ obvious two ] choices were. He departed, promising to return shortly. When he did, he informed me that on the next morning, a Saturday, I would be awakened by the nurses at 6 and prepared for the operation, which would last five or six hours. Which is exactly what happened. Awakened, prepared, opened, snipped on or out and stitched up by noon: after having been disemboweled and repackaged.

      Total cost to me or endangerment by delay: ZERO, including six months of subsequent chemotherapy. How disadvantaged compared to American cancer victims, invited to sign into The Cancer Centers of America, and attempt financial survival after encumbering oneself with a hefty second mortgage or selling one’s abode altogether.

      One more surprise. Dr. D. came from Medellin, of all places: doubly destroying yet another set of preconceptions.

      And I’m doing just fine. If Donald also wants to feel just fine at the end of two, then four years, I would recommend he direct his secretary to ask Ontario for a faxed copy of its plan: then institute it in America.

      Admittedly, Bismarck used his heath care policies in 1883, to further socially unite the myriad of independent German polities; only just shortly before having themselves been united politically when he founded the Second Reich in 1871.

      The difference is insufficient to quibble about.

      The inevitable opponents to this scheme, should, if they act consequentially, cancel their auto insurance, preferring their individual alternative to loose all they have.

    • Kai Wesselchak's Gravatar Kai Wesselchak
      March 25, 2017 - 5:38 pm | Permalink

      A single-payer system is not the end of the world IF we can absolutely limit its payments to Blacks, Hispanics (legal and illegal), etc. Perhaps there could be some minimum income requirement, etc. to “accidentally” select out many Blacks and Hispanics but help poor Whites.

    • bob klinck's Gravatar bob klinck
      March 26, 2017 - 3:54 pm | Permalink

      Let’s see. Banks create over 95% of the money supply out of nothing through the process of making loans. Yet everybody is wracking their brains over being short on money and fiercely competing with others for “their share”. You might as well be fighting over a lack of inches or pounds. The bankers have everybody hypnotized and dotty. Properly viewed, financial credit is nothing more than numbers; i.e. accountancy.

    • Clytemnestra's Gravatar Clytemnestra
      March 27, 2017 - 6:49 pm | Permalink


      Single payer came up for discussion on another board and several posters agreed that even under single payer, just like public schooling and its education curriculum, the quality of care would be higher in wealthier neighborhoods with higher property tax.

      But the one benefit of a Singapore System with basic care made available to all, but if the wealthy want their frills they have to pay for them, is that it would look fair to Americans, even the American poor, as used as they are to a capitalist system where the wealthy get Cadillacs and Beamers, because they can afford to pay more for them.

      • Charles Frey's Gravatar Charles Frey
        March 29, 2017 - 8:51 am | Permalink

        I agree with your general sentiment/remarks. But, in our community and indeed in the remainder of Ontario, “property tax” is paid to the Township and handed up to County for education, except for road maintenance and other specifically very local responsibilities, e.g. policing.

        The wealth of a specific community does not affect health care as such: with the minor exception of private people and organizations donating this or that equipment to ‘their’ hospital; none of which lacks the ample essentials.

        Is the Ontario plan squeaky clean in its administrative components ? No, it has warts like everything else administered by the civil service bureaucratic mentality, but it comes acceptably close: much closer than the US well-organized, wide-spread, essentially simplistic embezzlement running into the billions; as reported. Waiting in vain for stiffer auditing, even on the forensic level, with hefty jail-terms for abusers, as a deterrent.

  30. Clytemnestra's Gravatar Clytemnestra
    March 27, 2017 - 6:30 pm | Permalink

    Obamacare was simply the same old Rob Peter (White Taxpayers) to Pay (Medicaid) Paul (Rainbow Welfarites) scheme (already in place) on steroids.

    Yet you have White Nationalists acting like this never happened before Obamacare and vehemently opposed to any single payer health insurance because People of Color (who have always benefited from any kind of social service) might benefit as well.

    Thanks to the immigration law of 1965 changing the demographics to favor POC, there is a zero to an infinitesimal chance that Whites will be able to cut any social net out from under POC without disenfranchising them and how do you do that non-violently?

    We need to get real, here. Trump is not going to install some kind of glorious American Reich. However, if WNs and conservatives will allow Trump to institute a large enough social net (i.e. single payer health insurance) that will support ALL Americans, then he can break the Democrat hegemony as social services provider.

    If Trump can get the Republicans to institute a Bismarck Health Plan, then Democrats can’t run against RYANcare or whip up Mediscare to coerce the electorate into voting for them. That means you have a larger portion of the White electorate voting for him and many people of color who might otherwise feel compelled to vote Democrat even though BLM antics make them jittery.

    Trump needs to tamp down on Christian evangelicals abstinence obstinence and have such a single payer health plan incorporate free birth control on demand, particularly Norplants and IUDs for poor women who can’t (or won’t) regularly take the pill. Colorado implemented such a program and drastically reduced abortions and out of wedlock births.

    Conservatives could be persuaded to get behind single payer health care if Trump could make a case that it would help reduce the welfare rolls, because people could accept jobs that don’t have healthcare benefits. Trump could negotiate with businesses to offer a little more pay in lieu of insurance, too.

    But, to me, single payer health insurance is the best way Trump can keep our grandchildren from being reduced to a class of White helots, where they end up being slaves to support an Anti-White system and be up to harassment and possible hate speech laws if they dare complain about it.

    • Hans's Gravatar Hans
      March 28, 2017 - 3:41 pm | Permalink

      But, to me, single payer health insurance is the best way Trump can keep our grandchildren from being reduced to a class of White helots, where they end up being slaves to support an Anti-White system and be up to harassment and possible hate speech laws if they dare complain about it.

      And rarely has a [redacted expletive] sentence ever been written. First, single payer wouldn’t do a thing to reduce health costs. The problem is third-party payment for routine services which has caused costs to skyrocket. A single state monopoly like you advocate could easily be skewed to discriminate against/deny services to whites and favor minorities. [Sentence redacted]
      (Mod Note: “Hans”, feel free to disagree with another commenter and make a point. Don’t feel free to call them vile names)

Comments are closed.