A fascinating study of health care in each state reveals familiar patterns

See this article and interactive map showing how each state ranks in health care overall, based upon cost, access, and outcomes.

First, it is not surprising to see how the southern States (and states that contain citizens who wish they were Southern, i.e. OK, AZ, NV, WY) tend toward the worst in health care cost, access, and outcomes. It is also great the article emphasizes these states all exhibit a hostility toward expanding Medicaid. 

Texas, though part of that ideology, was still a shocker to me because major corporate media are always touting how wealthy it is and such a great place compared to that evil, awful "socialist" California. Here is the comparison: Texas overall 39 of 50/cost 45 of 50/access 42 of 50/outcomes 36 of 50. California overall 23/cost 38/access 16/outcomes 17. 

New Mexico is better than people here in New Mexico think: overall 28/cost 16/access 30/outcomes 36. The reason New Mexico is better than Texas in terms of all three categories is because there is an expanded Medicaid here and a more liberal politics that helps guide people to doctors and hospitals. However, in New Mexico, due to not having enough doctors in poor and rural areas, access and outcomes are not what they should be in a decent society. To the extent this lack of access and outcomes occurs in any of the more urbanized and populated areas, it is because there are still not enough docs taking Medicaid there. In contrast, there are much more doctors in CA willing to take Medicaid in largely poor areas, and so access and results are better. 

That leaves Texas, which probably has great medical care if one is well off or in a steady, good paying job is in Houston, Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio, but it begins to get pretty awful right about Lubbock, and falls off the cliff thereafter. And from what I know of professionals in Texas, many don't take Medicaid and an increasing number don't take Medicare, as they have enough rich people who have supplements to be choosey with.

To me, the most intriguing ranking numbers come from Utah. It ranked overall at 24, but it then had the weirdest rankings: cost 23/access 47/outcomes 4. What it shows is if you are not Mormon and you are a proletariat, you are screwed. And likely you are young, and won't remain there, so the outcomes are still only reflecting how insiders are treated. That's a guess, but based upon enough sociological reading over the years regarding Utah. 

But, yeah, maybe if a disgruntled Californian is not wealthy, going to Texas is not such a great idea. Yes, there is no income tax in Texas, but the property tax rates are more than double of CA and NM. Plus, with the way Texas politics operate, there are still enough people who would rather elect idiotic grifters for governor, such as the current idiotic grifter, Abbott. Say whatever you want about NM, but if one has to leave CA for a place with inexpensive land values, I'll take the Land of Enchantment over the Lone Star State any day.

You may wonder why these states with bad outcomes are really so hostile to Medicaid: As I explained to a former head of the CMA, the reason Republicans won't pay higher reimbursement rates is because that is a way to ensure the program does not meet people's needs and sows frustration. It lets poor white people comfort themselves into believing government will never work for them, and the only reason those "Democrats" want Medicaid is to serve darker skin people. Initially, the doc didn't believe me, but when he went to Sacramento and sat down with various Republican politicians (he was, at least at that time, a Republican himself), he realized I was correct. He remains a dear friend who, now retired, always took Medicaid patients as a civic duty, even when his accountant would tell him he would lose a little money for each treatment of those Medicaid patients. 

I shake my head at the complacency of people who don't want to move to a single payer system right now. And I mean it. Right now.

We lost the war against Afghanistan the moment Jimmy Carter armed the mujahideen

It is awful how the corporate media perceives what is happening in Afghanistan. Yes, just over 2,300 American dead. How many Afghans, though? Wiki keeps a list and it is over 111,000. 111,000. What was the reason the US invaded Afghanistan? To go after bin Laden in the wake of Bin-Laden's attack of the US on 9/11/2001. However, the Taliban was not behind the Al=Queda the 9/11/2001 attack. It was a bunch of Saudis led by a guy the US used to arm, and whose family the US had close ties: Bin Laden. Within a year, though, George Bush (the Second) admitted he no longer thought about Bin Laden as he and Cheney lied the nation into a war against another nation, Iraq, that had nothing to do with the events of 9/11/2001. 

When did we lose this Afghan war? One can better say we lost the war the moment Jimmy Carter decided to arm Muslim fanatics who were opposing a secular regime in Afghanistan the Soviet Union (Russia and satellites) had decided to prop up in Christmas season of 1979. The few who read this blog know about the photo that circulates on the Internet of young women at the U of Kabul from the 1960s and 1970s. However, most Americans don't know the story of Afghanistan's king voluntarily giving up power in 1973, a civilian national assembly created with many who were secular, and how the US did not care a fig about promoting that in the 1970s. The Soviet Union, which had a border with Afghanistan, sure did. And while its own designs were largely imperial, they knew it was proper to ensure a secular, modern society that valued women should be promoted. I am so old I remember supporting the Carter idea--at least until around 1984, when I saw an interview on tv with a village or regional mujahideen leader (I thought it was Dan Rather, but now don't believe so), and shuddered, because the guy said, after they kicked out the Soviet Union, they would turn against the US, as we were all infidels, essentially. It is too long to remember exact words, but I remember my own reaction: Oh my God, Alexander Cockburn, the left wing and marginally pro-Soviet journalist was right. These guys are 14th Century minds and the US is giving them 20th Century weapons to start a holy war. 

Yes, I am hoping the US can take as many people out of Afghanistan who trusted us. You know, maybe more than we did as our invented state of South Vietnam finally collapsed in April 1975. But, I see no point in any further American involvement. And here is the final ironic point: The US is really not leaving as we think. Trump and Biden are the same here. Both wanted to replace US troops with mercenaries, the privatized military Clinton had a dream about, Bush II-Cheney deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama further developed ties with, and Trump cemented. What Chomsky says about US foreign policy remains true: There is a continuity of policies designed to prop up the American Empire, whether the policy is moral or not (mostly not), and whether it is strategically advantageous or not (the US does bad things that don't work to ensure other places where we do bad things continue to work; that is how we continued killing Southeast Asians for multiple decades). 

Nobody on corporate media cable "news" will say any of this, or say it in any understandable way. Anyone who principally relies on corporate media cable "news" is angry, frustrated, and sad--yet unable to comprehend what has actually gone on for the past 35 years, and not able to understand how what happened with US intervention in Afghanistan is part of an overall imperial strategy. Oh, and historically, as at least more know due to social media, the Brits had invaded Afghanistan twice in the 19th Century, staying the first time for 20 years before bugging out, and then a shorter time about twenty years later. Then, the Soviet Union spent a decade there before bugging out. And now the US for twenty years. What Afghan rebels then, more recently, and now do is continually shift alliances that ultimate wear down and confuse invaders. They seem so simple, but they are not simple-minded. What is different now is the Islamic fundamentalist militancy, and how destructive they can be with modern weaponry courtesy of, well, the US. Great job, leaders. Great job. But, the soldiers who are especially right wing will be blaming Biden because they can't remember politics from last week, and can't remember Trump wanting to bug out, and don't know some of their friends are with the mercenaries that will be pushed in or remain if there. And have no idea what the hell I am writing about.

How the corporate media mass produces people such as Ronald Brownstein

Ronald Brownstein is precisely the type of commentator the corporate media mass produces. His take in The Atlantic should only be read with a critical eye capable of translating the elitist bullshit and misreading of the moment, as well as past history. For those who thought Julian Castro was a progressive, start here:

"Sawyer Hackett, executive director of People First Future, the political organization founded by Julián Castro, expressed that view when he told me that in 2022 and 2024, 'it is going to be tough [for Democrats] to run on a message that these people are too dangerous … to be in charge while simultaneously saying, "Hey, look what we’re getting done with the Republicans, Washington still works, look at this infrastructure deal we got done."' He added: 'We’re propping these things up as an example of a functioning Washington while the Republican Party is just moving to the right and becoming more extreme.'" 

Sawyer Hackett? What, no Hispanic, Julian? That is on top of the horrible assessment here. People want action more than bi-partisanship. And as people have learned what was in the corporate partisan (bi-partisan in media parlance) bill, they are outraged. Oh, but Brownstein's framing gets worse. Here is the very next paragraph:

"The scale of biden’s agenda has drawn justifiable comparisons to Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson. But in his posture toward the opposite party, Biden’s model seems to be a very different former president: Dwight Eisenhower. Like Eisenhower, Biden is largely positioning himself as an elder statesman who has transcended the partisan fray. A promise to unify the country has been a central pillar of Biden’s messaging since he first announced his candidacy. And he’s rarely looked as happy as he did in late June when he stepped onto the White House driveway, surrounded by senators of both parties, to announce the tentative deal on infrastructure spending."

This is awful history on top of an awful present understanding. How is Biden's agenda like FDR's or LBJ's when Biden has already reneged on almost every substantive promise? And where he won't facilitate or participate in rallies that go after recalcitrant senators, such as Manchin or Sinema? Does anyone honestly think FDR or LBJ would let Manchin and Sinema rule the roost as they have since January 2021? As for Eisenhower, I wish Biden was Eisenhower on domestic policy, at least, as Eisenhower vetoed defense bills and was clear about pushing for a real infrastructure program, the Highway National Defense Act. 

What explains Brownstein's framing other than personal corruption? It is not as if Brownstein is bribed with a paper bag of money. No. It's just about his being placed into the Wise Man chair in elite DC connected circles. He is groomed as the new David Broder. It is a corruption of status and access, and, among the NY-DC-LA set, personal celebrity. He knows what he is saying is wrong from a historical perspective at least, and is pushing a courtesan or mandarin narrative for the present moments. In Brownstein's relative youth (he is 63), he worked for Ralph Nader--so therefore, he KNOWS. What is so extraordinary how he, and these other courtesans and mandarins, can blithely walk by the climate disaster, and not think of their children--and continue to push bi-partisanship and incrementalism.

Moving on from the Democratic Party to the Movement for a People's Party

In the wake of the Nina Turner defeat, and win for corporate power, in Ohio's 11th Congressional District this week, I have finally had to take heed to my own misgivings about the Democratic Party across most of our nation. And this morning, a friend, on and off FB, reminded me of a Joe Biden ad that sent a very nasty implication that anyone supporting Medicare for All was insulting Joe Biden's dead son, Beau, who had the best health insurance in the world, unlike most Americans. When reading the article explaining the language used in the ad, and not merely watching the ad, the online magazine Vice makes a persuasive case Joe Biden meant precisely that.  I am now ready (though I have given $50 or so last year) to join others in building the Movement for a People's Party.  I agree with Brie Joy Gray it may be better for progressives to run OUTSIDE the Democratic Party, as it is clear the party powers would rather have a compliant nothing (I watched a debate with her and was struck by how dull and uninformed she was), and corrupt, Shontel Brown, in Congress than an empathetic, intelligent, and exciting Nina Turner. And if someone wants to say "spoiler," then try to explain the progress made when each Democratic Party administration and Congress follows a further right wing Republican one. Ten years ago, it was Max Baucus, Harry Reid, and for awhile Joe Lieberman who blocked the progress.  Today it is Sinema and Manchin.  It is part of a game of finger pointing and virtue signaling--all while doing next to nothing to move our nation to where even the majority of Americans want.  

The argument "We have to save the Supreme Court" has been lost. The current president campaigned on a public option last year and, once elected, promptly broke that promise.  Biden won't take action on student debt except at the margins of those who went to truly fraudulent college-businesses. His moves on climate change are hardly sufficient. Etc. To say, "Well, Trump was and is worse!" does not get us anywhere policy-wise. It is, instead, more of a debating point--and one I agree with, but that is now no longer enough. Too many progressives and liberals who said they would work to push Biden "left" have been AWOL, or worse running interference for Biden and progressives in Congress as if they were celebrities and this was an argument which Kardashian we like least or best (Don't ask me which one as I don't follow them, and they all seem awful).

The Democratic Party's brand is toxic in so many States, and Biden's administration is not making anything better in that regard.  This is not simply a matter of public policy but of strategy. The strategy of voting for lesser evils continues to fail as the Republicans move further and further right into outright fascism, white supremacist nationalism, and unhinged conspiracy theories.  

Yes, I can still maintain my hope that the Dem Party in NM may become an exception, as has Nevada's Dem Party.  But, for at least 40 states, that is not true at all. My advice is to give to the Movement for a People's Party for them to get on the ballot in those states, and to come out for rallies for movements, whether it is BLM, climate change organizations, student debt relief, M4A, etc.  Change is more in the streets than at the ballot box, as Dems insist on their failed neo-lib strategy, and saying the Republicans will regain control of the House and Senate in 2022. That is not only an abdication of leadership, but a failure of policymaking--as again, a strong voice from the party on issues Americans are either ready to embrace or have already embraced would strengthen Democratic prospects. But, no corporate Dems have shown they would rather lose than win with Bernie type policies.  So, I have decided it is time--again--to say two can make that strategic move. 

Change means moving beyond the political duopoly known as Democratic and Republican Parties. And no longer worrying about being a spoiler.  The corporate Dems have spoiled their own beds, and it is time, as Seward, Chase, and Lincoln did in the 1850s, to move to a new party away from a party that was feckless and hopelessly divided.