Home | About | Donate

Calling Ed Markey a 'Benchmark' Progressive, Dying Healthcare Activist Ady Barkan Endorses the Massachusetts Senator for Reelection

I just tried various versions of it (the link) but I did access it this time. I will let you know.

Andy Barkin Did not fundraise for Susan Collins. He had a campaign, which I contributed to, that was raising funds for anyone OPPOSING Collins, if she voted for Kavanaugh. Please get your facts straight before smearing this activist.

2 Likes

We are not talking about opinion Fern or not agreeing with what Ady did - he clearly did not do what you alleged. You charged Ady supported Collins, fund-raised for her, and thus supported the nomination of Kavanaugh - that statement by you was based on the source link you provided - that source states clearly exactly the OPPOSITE of what you claimed it did!
For truth and integrity, you need to abandon defense of the indefensible and fess-up that you misread Ady’s actions and then posted the falsity as accurate. No excuses please. .

Can I get a witness?
~https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ady_Barkan

2 Likes

" Barkan and the Be a Hero campaign advocated for Republican U.S. Senator Susan Collins to vote against the nomination; among other issues, Kavanaugh opposed abortion and while Collins had indicated she would not support a nominee who would overturn Roe v. Wade she nevertheless seemed likely to support the nomination. After making little headway with other means of reaching Collins, Barkan turned to fundraising."

Thank you for your input on this: I’m so use to the disingenuous approach to M4A that I may have overlooked issues of his involvement.

1 Like

That’s the real difference. It doesn’t matter if it is part of a treaty. The US has never had any problem ignoring treaties before.

The problem is that our masters don’t want us to have health care. Get rid of the masters, and treaties will take care of themselves.

1 Like

Good to know, thank you.

Ugh, not my usual read, this may take awhile. My first impression though is that when dealing with some issues they are a bit disreputable about the details. I am not a fan of globalization.

Hello Zed…I’m trying to find the person that posted a video of Bernie Sanders several days ago I think, titled - Bernie Sanders on GATT and WTO (11/29/1994)
~https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ggcU09ww5g&feature=youtu.be
The reference was as I recall Bernies muddled message. was that you by chance? If so I would like to understand the context and reply. Thanks.

Just to be clear, the state of MA has the same GDP of countries who currently have M4A systems. Since the 70’s there has been a single party with a SUPERMAJORITY at the state legislature, guess which one? They don’t want M4A obviously and they have veto proof power to pass anything they want, let that sink in!

1 Like

I’m not certain about that. Its far more likely that they just dont want to pay for it. They are trying to set up ways so that healthy but poor Americans without pre-existing conditions (we have to go back to the regulatory situation in 1998 according to the ideology we forced on the whole world, which isnt flexible at all) an still buy healthcare, even as their income drops.

I posted a link to an excellent paper that gives an idea of how much work has been put into their treaty to privatize everything.

Please read that paper. According to Fern the link didnt work before but it does now. Just in case the title is “Interpreting the General Agreement on Trade in Services and the WTO Instruments Relevant to the International Trade of Financial Services The Lawyers Perspective” I think it is in the North Carolina LAw Journal.

Its important to remember that we are trying so very hard to export our successful system to the rest of the world so that the wealthy in other countries, many of which are urdened by obsolete public healthcare systems that help everybody, can be rich like us.

Read the story of how the Clinton Administration rushed to get the GATS approved by Congress before much discussion of it had occurred anywhere.

I think that was the model for Obamacare but many sick people found that they did better under the previous lack of a system because MA had public clinics and poor people could buy drugs they needed instead of spending so much money on insurance they then could not afford to USE. The system they have now is optimized to keep the prices of healthcare and drugs from collapsing. But that comes at a huge cost. The problem is, we aggreed in 1998 to freeze the regulatory state then and not regulate healthcare any more - reducing its profitability. We did that to attract foreign companies to come in and take care of our poor people who cant afford insurance otherwise. Were it not for the global financial crisis in 2008 it would have remained like that, but because of the emergency we got to have a temporary regulation - I’m not 100% certain but I think that is seen outside of the US as a protectionist measure, because of the 2008 crisis. That would mean it would have an approximately 10 year time limit on it.

See ~http://policyspace.xyz/documents/patients-experiences-under-massachusetts-health-care-reform-public-citizen.pdf/@@download/file/Patients’%20Experiences%20Under%20Massachusetts%20Health%20Care%20Reform%20-%20Public%20Citizen.pdf

See the Standstill clause in the Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services. Part of the WTO commitments we made in the 90s. Thats why our heathcare is limited to becoming more and more profitable for corporations, never less.

1 Like

It doesnt care if youre a fan of it at all. It doesnt need to as we dont exist to it except as markets. So our function is to buy stuff, and function as inputs in services. When services are traded across borders. So you can go to work in Africa and make whatever they pay you. Since your job here has been taken by subcontractors if you want to continue to practice in your profession you may have to go somewhere else and send some money back to your family. Millions of others all around the world do that, and never see their children except maybe once a year, We set this system up to make labor cheaper. Now its 25 years later and its growing. But we ourselves have been dragging our feet on adopting the very system we created.

1 Like

I have very limited energy, and am not going to use it to read through a paper on trade agreements.

Yes, they don’t want to use our money to pay for our health care, despite Single Payer actually being cheaper. All money travels up the ladder.

Previously, most people already had an pre-existing condition, or at least the insurance company made one up for them if they needed anything expensive. After Covid, we all have a pre-existing.

I mostly agree with your conclusions. In my working days, I was a software engineer, and saw the jobs disappearing. But I don’t think worrying about the treaties is the solution. Push back the masters and ignore those papers the masters signed.

1 Like

Ady Barkan, after reviewing their positions on M4A, threw his support behind Warren, instead of Sanders. After Warren lost, he endorsed Bernie. Now he is endorsing Markey, but I fail to see how his endorsement is meaningful and impactful.

I agree no it doesn’t care, it is the ultimate disconnect but unfortunately, as a commodification of services we will have to respond at the consumer level. I’m think it is far from sustainable and grossly unfair. And, so it goes.

I totally understand. Its very draining.

I have very limited energy, and am not going to use it to read through a paper on trade agreements.

I HOPE YOU FEEL BETTER…

Yes, they don’t want to use our money to pay for our health care,

The thing thats really preventing them is the connection thats been drawn between subsidizing something and outsourcing it. Under the GATS agreement, if a sector has been committed (in effect inviting other countries firms in- thats what we did) unless that sector has been withdrawn, subsidizing it basically is limited to specific conditions like emergencies or has to be limited in scope and duration. Because whats really supposed to happen for poor people is poor countries firms and even doctors, nurses and other services becoming available for them, here, to fill out the bottom part of the market… In order to make that possible any domestic regulation (any kind of law or policy) that stands in the way can be challenged. By doing that they want to deregulate so laws that limit the availability of foreign services here, are “harmonized” with others least common denominator (states too, they want to eliminate differences between states and countries that stand in the way of low cost, low value services, - perhaps delivered over the Internet- so healthcare can be more profitable for the middlemen despite being cheap)

despite Single Payer actually being cheaper.

Thats anathema to them because to them tiers are good. And natural. Its natural for poor people to get little and rich people to get much more/better.l Anything that upsets that natural order is “trade distorting” and they try to make it FTA illegal for governments to do.

If all of our healthcare had been single payer and we did not have any commercial healthcare or insurance in 1995 we’d be able to like Canada, continue maintaining a public health care system without any trouble from the WTO. But creating new services was forbidden because of its rigid ideology, its that ideology they forced onto us.

since we’re the country thats most obsessed with profit I actually think our goal is making healthcare more expensive, as expensive as possible. Globally. It certainly seems that way with COVID-19. (which by the way I suspect resveratrol may inhibit risk of, if taken regularly. I dont know but suspect. Its in a Phase 2 clinical trial right now. Lots seems to point in that direction.)

All money travels up the ladder.

Previously, most people already had an pre-existing condition, or at least the insurance company made one up for them if they needed anything expensive.

You make a good point in that insurers had an escape clause from covering anybody they thought was going to be unprofitable and despite the ACA its likely to come back because that was the status quo on the “standstill date” in 1998. (Feb 26) the effective date of a particular WTO document on financial services. Thats going to make Biden’s pledge to expand the ACA difficult to keep, I suspect.

After Covid, we all have a pre-existing.

Thats not it, they had already agreed to freeze FS regulation in 1998 and the US invested a lot in that Understanding to do so. The reason why I steered you to that paper (and Nick Skala’s 2009 paper is actually even more to the point)

I mostly agree with your conclusions. In my working days, I was a software engineer, and saw the jobs disappearing. But I don’t think worrying about the treaties is the solution. Push back the masters and ignore those papers the masters signed.

How? They are the law, they are binding on all the countries that signed them. What we’re told by politicians is not very relevant in this situation, its just the stuff they say to get elected. They actually even survive changes of governments.

Thats what happened to South Africa and their NHI. (National Health Insurance) As far as I know they still dont have it because of the obligations entered into by the previous (apartheid) government. This is despite having voted for a national health insurance plan at least a decade ago. They are still trying to figure out how to do it.

Anyway, thank you for listening. I hope it didnt bother you for me to clarify this stuff. It basically just comes down to honesty and trying to solve problems rather than trying to prolong them while lying to us as they are doing.

1 Like

Just because his endorsement of Warren (a huge error in judgement if you ask me which I can only assume was caused by being blinded by identity politics) wasn’t enough to make her (or later Bernie) win, doesn’t mean endorsements aren’t significant. He has enough exposure that I imagine his endorsement did register with some people - not as much nearly as an endorsement from Jim Clyburn did (a crying shame).

Actually I didn’t remember - thanks. He admits his vote was wrong (~https://www.bostonherald.com/2020/03/02/old-iraq-syria-votes-come-back-to-haunt-markey/ ) but won’t actually apologize (he’d preferred to blame Bush). I’m sorry but if you voted for that war you should be permanently disqualified from public office. All of us saw exactly what was going on and I’m not cutting any Democrat any slack on this issue. Clinton wasn’t qualified to be Senator or President because of that vote and Markey isn’t qualified to be Senator either. Too bad Joe Kennedy who can’t even get a vote on nuclear weapons straight (yes means what again?) isn’t any better qualified.

1 Like

I thought Barkan was based in California?

In your posts, you’ve done your homework, zed. You’re providing an intense and serious study of the legalese of this issue of Medicare for All. Good point that MACraig adds about Massachusetts; that state could have started Medicare for All. The Top 2% has so far beaten it down every time.

Perhaps the United States will get to the point where a large majority will demand Medicare for All, and the politicians will amend the GATS and WTO treaties. It vexes me that we’re still not there yet, even with this national and international pandemic of Covid-19.

So agree “permanently disqualified from public office” - but only in a just world which obviously we don’t have …