We live in a country where divisions are encouraged because they allow for targeted marketing, increased online engagement, and higher profits, but this is an unstable system, it is not sustainable, and it will soon break.

Many people recognize this problem, and are working in solutions.

I recognize the Democratic and Republican parties are part of the problem, and no solution will come from them, as they thrive in conflict.

Only the libertarian party has ballot access in all 50 states, but it has never matured.

The economic philosophy of the libertarian party is naïve and irrelevant for the challenges of the 21st century, and yet, its goals of freedom, peace and personal responsibility are enough for me to join this coalition.

The threat of polarization is real, and it will destroy our republic. It would be absurd to call for unity only with people who agree 100% with me. Therefore, I will simply lead by example. I recognize the libertarian party has identified the problem, and while we may disagree on the solutions.

Defeating the duopoly and encouraging respectful dialogue to arrive to optimal solutions should be our short term goal.

Join the libertarian party. Everyone is welcome.

I will work side by side with other libertarians to decentralize power, to end wasteful wars, to put an end to the police state that incarcerates more citizens than any other country per capita.

And I will try to inject a sense of community. So my fellow libertarians realize that in this day and age, cooperation is the only path forward to guarantee humanity’s survival.

We do not live in the 1800’s any more. Personal reliance is not enough. Liberty means the ability for every individual to reach their maximum potential regardless of the color of their skin and economic background.

To be truly free, we must trust and help each other.

Join us.

Find the libertarian group that aligns best with your goals:

Libertarian Party:
Website: https://www.lp.org/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/LPNational

Libertarian Party Mises Caucus:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lpmisescaucus/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/LPMisesCaucus

Libertarian Socialist Caucus:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/libsoccaucuslp
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1089219457875154

Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus:
Website: https://www.lpcaucus.org/our_caucus
Twitter: https://twitter.com/LPCaucus
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LPCaucus/

I am an engineer with MS and PhD focusing in nanotechnology, and artificial intelligence.

I have a day job, but I enjoy on the side to dabble in politics.

During the 2020 presidential cycle realized that many people lack the understanding of how the market works, and how they can benefit from it.

Here is the number one piece of advise that anyone can give you about investing in the Market: Never invest money that you will need. Only invest money you are willing to lose.

Unless a company goes bankrupt, time and patience are your friend.

Remember you don’t lose money when your investments go down, you only lose money when you sell at a loss.

Once you take this approach, you will see that indeed the stock market is one of the most effective ways to build wealth, now the next step is to know how to do your investments in the most effective way possible.

Here are few additional hints.

1. Open a Roth IRA account. Roth IRA accounts allow you to build wealth, and since you are using money that has already been taxed, the earnings on those accounts are TAX FREE. Assume you invest $10K and by your retirement age, that money has grown to $100K 20 years later. It means that you will have $90K tax free. Too good to be true? No, the only “gotcha” is that you can only withdraw that money after you reached a certain age, and there is a limit to the yearly contributions.
2. If your employer has a retirement matching: ALWAYS contribute the amount to maximize the employer matching. This is FREE money, that you would be leaving on the table if you don’t max out. What it is the trick? perhaps you can’t “afford” maxing out, well try to make adjustments in your standard of living, and live below your means, and you will quickly find out that you can afford saving more for your retirement.
3. If you have children, open 529 accounts for them, just like Roth IRA accounts, they grow tax free, and in some states they give you yearly tax deductions. If you have a genius kid who doesn’t need the money, you can transfer it to family members (self, spouse, uncles, nephews, grand kids, etc).

Notice how in all those three cases, the main advice remains valid: Never invest money you know you will need. If you withdraw earlier from a Roth IRA, or 529 accounts either before the retirement age or for emergencies not education related, you will need to pay penalties.

People with money are not smarter than you. They simply have the benefit of having enough money to live, and money to invest.

This is one of the reasons the income inequality has grown so large. People with money can afford to invest safely.

People who live paycheck to paycheck don’t have that opportunity.

You can find me in twitter at https://twitter.com/AlanMyron

Feel free to post a question about investments. And if I can help, I will gladly do so.

Oh! and before I forget, if anyone tells you they can manage your money better than you can, run, run away. Always keep control over your own finances. Only you know your own reality, and only you can decide what is best for you.

My advise will be only to help you get started.

Back in 2016, I realized that only a real grassroot’s campaign with the right candidate could stop the corruption in our government.

I invested time, effort and resources to promote Tulsi Gabbard. But it was clear that I underestimated the power of the media and the lack of name recognition. It is not only enough to have the right candidate, it needs to a be a person who understand the media and has the experience to defeat the establishment.

Governor Jesse Ventura is planning to run as the Green party candidate. Many of you would wonder why now? Is he serious? What are the chances for him to win?

Dario Hunter and Howie Hawkins are aiming to get the green party to get beyond the 5% of the vote to strengthen the Green party and make it a viable national party.

Just like the Democrats coalesced around Joe Biden, if the Green party is serious about winning elections should try to find a way to draft Jesse Ventura to lead their presidential ticket.

Jesse Ventura’s campaign is not driven by ego, it is driven by a small army of volunteers from across the political spectrum. Just like Tulsi’s campaign brought people together, many of us are finding people from other campaigns: Sanders, Tulsi, Andrew Yang, republicans and libertarians coordinating to get Jesse to run.

We are putting aside our differences, and we are trying to convince the green party candidates that if they indeed care for the planet and our country, they should borrow a page from the democrats and rally together with the best candidate they can put forth.

It is obvious the disinformation campaign against Jesse has started. Do your homework, and use this article as resource.

1. Public Servant: Jesse has served in the Armed forces, as Mayor and as Governor. He has the patriotism and the executive experience to lead our country.
2. Media experience: Yes, his acting, wrestling and broadcasting career help him navigate the media attacks that will be thrown his way.
3. Protect the environment: People seem to think that he is a climate change denier, no, he is not. He has always believe that climate change is a threat to our planet, however he wanted to show who would benefit with the proposed solutions. He is against using carbon-credits as a mechanism to combat climate change. It is simple: When you create a market, it is very difficult to remove it. This is why I supported the #OFFAct legislation from Tulsi Gabbard, because it did not include any mechanism in which you can enrich yourself by trading carbon credits. This is also why he is running in the Green Party. He believes climate change is a threat to our world.
4. Some accuse him for suing the window of an American hero: No, he never affected the widow, he in fact won the defamation lawsuit (showing he was not guilty of what he was being accused) and it didn’t affect the widow of “The American Sniper”. Insurance paid the lawsuit, not the widow.

We need to get our country back.

Only together: Left, right and center, we can win.

Join us! let us save our country TOGETHER!

With Andrew Yang suspending his campaign in 2020, there is still one champion for Basic Income.

Most of the credit goes to Andrew Yang and his campaign to make this a topic of conversation in America.

I have been concerned about automation for a long time, in part, because I work in automation, and I see the rapid development of our tools.

I can tell you that this video “Humans need not apply” while old, is extremely accurate as to the challenges of automation, and for the longest time I could not see a solution.

Then, I started looking into Universal Basic Income (UBI) as a possible alternative. For those not familiar with the concept, this is a very objective and approachable description of UBI.

Now the question was, can we (The United States of America) afford it?

The problem is that when you take a look at the numbers, UBI itself does not solve the problem of job losses due to automation.

This job loss, in turn decreases overall revenues and increases the deficit thus negating its positive effects. Let me emphasize, UBI doesn’t cause job loss, in fact it slows it down, but the question is: Is UBI alone sufficient to address the challenges automation force in our society?

There is an optimal threshold at which UBI makes sense. The size of the economy and the expenditures need to be high enough that UBI becomes a baseline for everyone. But people still need to have jobs and careers to aspire to.

This is where a combination of UBI and market driven growth comes really handy.

The Off-Fossil Fuels for a Better Future Act introduced in 2017 by Tulsi Gabbard not only mandates a transition to renewable energy sources to save the planet. It does it in a way that improves the economy and creates jobs.

While Automation is on its way to reduce the need of transportation workers, salesman, administrative workers, and food preparation, it is still in its infancy to automate infrastructure development and construction, installation of solar panels, design of new systems of generation, distribution and transportation.

In other words. The Off Fossil fuels act, requires the creation of new jobs that the existing and future workforce can focus on, while giving time to the economy to grow enough to fully deploy UBI.

Right now, the implementation of UBI would increase the deficit from 665 billion dollars a year to 1.4 Trillion dollars in one year.

Without a specific focus in industries that are not subject to the pressures of automation and outsourcing (one cannot build electrified railways in a different country, and then ship them to the US).

The table shows how even by removing medicaid, food stamps (income security programs), and ALL non-defense miscellaneous spending, and even with the optimistic introduction of a 10% Value Added Tax the deficit more than doubles.

Worse, by itself cannot prevent the creation of not-yet-automated jobs, and even a 10% of loss revenue by individual income and payroll taxes would add almost 200 billion dollar more to the deficit a year.

This is where the peace dividend and Off-Fossil fuels act come in. By reducing military spending, and by investing those resources in our infrastructure, the reduction of jobs due automation is not as severe, and in addition there is enough money to prevent huge deficits.

Many will ask you what the difference is between the Off-Fossil Fuels Act and the Green new deal, and I ask you to read the companion article.

The benefit of the OFF-fossil fuels act is that it re-directs fossil fuels subsidies to new renewable infrastructure, and it uses market forces to create jobs, while saving our environment.

I for one thank Andrew Yang to be a champion for UBI and Tulsi Gabbard for the peace dividend, and the Off-Fossil Fuels act.

Many people have criticized Tulsi Gabbard because she has departed from “Medicare For All” in favor of her own universal “Single Payer Plus” plan, and I expect that many people may criticize Tulsi for diverging from Andrew’s implementation of UBI. However as exemplified by Tulsi’s Single Payer Plus Plan, it remains a universal single payer program, but the implementation details are geared to increase chances of bi-partisan support, as well as encourage health provider participation, while still delivering the savings and coverage that Medicare for All provides.

Given her record, I expect Tulsi’s solution to UBI will look different than Andrew Yang’s. One of the current main differences is that her Basic Income ($1000/month) applies to people making $200K/year or less per individual. So in pragmatic terms it would not be Universal, but it would cover about 98% of the American population. In my case, I would not receive it, but my wife would, and that is fine with me.

While I distrust most politicians, there are those few who fight for a brighter future for our nation and the world. They have earned our support and trust.

But as we always say: Trust but verify.

In 2020 there are 3979 pledged delegates and 771 super delegates. Super delegates do not come into play until the second vote (if any).

To win the Democratic nomination, a presidential candidate needs to receive the support of 1991 pledged delegates.

In the case of a contested convention, the candidate receiving 2375 votes will become the nominee.

These states below have open primaries. The first number is the number of pledged delegates, the second number is the number of super delegates,

By these states alone, it is not mathematically possible to get the necessary 1991 pledged delegates to win the nomination.

That leaves 453 delegates that need to be won from the closed primary states. The remaining closed primary states total 2441 pledged delegates. As 453 more pledged delegates are needed, this means that at least 19% of closed primary voters would need to vote for the independent candidate.

We can repeat this exercise for different scenarios. If an independent candidate gets 100% of all open primary states, that candidate would only need 19% of the pledged delegates in the other states, or if an independent candidate gets 80% of the pledged delegates of an open primary state, that same candidate would need 31% of the closed primary voters.

Given that super-delegates are less likely to vote for an independent candidate, if these threshold aren’t met, the chances for an independent candidate to win the nomination become extremely small.

In other words, if you want an independent candidate to win the nomination. Help them get as many votes in the open primary states. But be aware, that this alone will not be enough, we also need to convince as many democrats as possible in the closed primary states.

As of the writing of this article Representative Tulsi Gabbard has expressed no position about the crisis in Bolivia.

Some have already condemned the coup against President Morales, while others claim it is the will of the Bolivian people against a president who didn’t want to leave power.

Let us look at the facts.

In 2005 Evo Morales was elected president of Bolivia, back then the Bolivian Constitution did not have term limits for Presidents, as they could be re-elected multiple times without restrictions.

However in 2006 a Constitutional amendment was passed to limit the number of re-elections to one.

Evo Morales was elected president in 2009 and 2014, and his administration sought a referendum to explore the possibility to restore the ability for a President to be elected multiple times.

51% of the population voted against the amendment, and 49% of the population voted in favor of the amendment, however in September of 2017 the Supreme Tribunal of Justice abolished the term limits citing the American Convention on Human Rights, thus allowing Morales to run for re-election in 2019.

The 2019 election was deemed controversial as there as a pause in the results transmission for 24 hours, which took Morales from a tight race to an outright win. On October 26 Morales invited foreign governments to carry out an audit and promised to call for a run-off if electoral fraud was found.

However thing unfolded rapidly:

October 27th 2019: Morales declared a coup was in the making.
November 6th 2019: The opposition published a report claiming electoral fraud.
November 9th 2019: The OAS published a report citing clear manipulation of the electoral records, while a separate statistical analysis of the results by the Center of Economic and Policy research revealed no irregularities.
November 10th 2019: Morales announces fresh elections, but several hours later Morales and most of his administration resign after losing support of the police, and the military.

It is important to note that under President Morales the poverty rate in Bolivia was almost cut in half: From 60% to 35%

While it is easy to claim US involvement based on prior experience, given that Morales led a leftist government, one must also consider the changes in the constitution that first prevented him to run multiple times, and then the decision by the supreme court to let him run a fourth time.

I for one applaud Tulsi’s reluctance to express an opinion before she learns more about the situation, as it is not clear if indeed the Bolivian people wanted President Morales to be reelected, or if indeed there is US intervention at play.

There is clear infighting, and clearly the right is trying to retake the government, by preventing legislators of Morales’ party to attend sessions of congress.

The new president of Bolivia has has her own scandals with members of her family found guilty of drug trafficking, and now preventing left-leaning legislators join the sessions of congress.

However, just like in the Egyptian coup that deposed the Muslim Brotherhood from power, it is really not easy to identify external factors that have led to this uprising.

If this right-leaning interim government calls for new elections, just like Morales’ was going to do just hours before being deposed, the goal remains the same, then the outcome is what Bolivia really needs.

If indeed the new government tries to install their own leader via voter fraud, then countries around the world should express their dissatisfaction with these events. But at its core, and with the information available as of November 14th 2019, this is seems to be a domestic dispute, that only the people of Bolivia should address.

One of the reasons I support her, is because of her principled and honest positions. I am attracted to truth and honesty, and while it is easy to turn a blind eye to situations that could help her campaign, I also cannot accept interpretations that are not based in reality.

Steven Crowder has claimed that he found evidence of election tampering by YouTube, and many people are making the hashtag #CrowderExposesYouTube trend in twitter.

Steven Crowder on Twitter

EXCLUSIVE: @TulsiGabbard's channel was blacklisted from results when she was trending for her interchange with Hillary Clinton, but ONLY in U.S. Days later, her results returned to normal. #YouTube2020ElectionBlacklist #CrowderExposesYoutube Full report: https://t.co/1VwFNGdBC7

Some of my professional work involves using A.I. developed by Facebook and Google, and applied to electronic manufacturing. This gives me sufficient information to map Steven’s observations with how I would expect the YouTube preference algorithms to work.

First, one must realize the recommendations provided by YouTube are generated by an A.I. which takes into account a relative score for creators. This has been widely discussed elsewhere, when independent content creators stated to see a decrease in their views. Mainly benefiting larger corporations. This was done in order to retain advertisers in YouTube by making it more “family friendly”.

The golden age of YouTube is over

Which brings to Steven’s observations.

As there was very limited coverage by mainstream channels for Tulsi Gabbard, the main results pointed to her own channel. However, as the Clinton story developed, many mainstream news outlets developed their own content, which in turn pushed Tulsi’s own content down.

The second observation is that Tulsi’s content was not updated in other countries, this is because there is a latency between the system since they take into account geography in the algorithm to determine the recommendations. However, after a few days, the system will relax into a steady-state system thus providing a more consistent set of results.

What does this tell us?

1. The evidence DOES not suggest manual manipulation of the results. The behavior observed and reported by Steven Crowder is consistent with the current policies of YouTube and their preference for larger channels and preferred partners.
2. The evidence DOES suggest the impact of large corporations in the public discourse. With the YouTube algorithm changes, it will become increasingly difficult for independent channels to have their “viral moment”, in a way destroying the sense of independence that YouTube used to provide to its users since its creation.

Does that mean that there is no intervention against Tulsi in the media? No, but that’s a different story, and one I covered in a different article, as to how to recognize a purposeful media blackout.

#Peace.

In a previous article I have described the reasons as to why single payer universal health insurance is the most cost effective way to provide healthcare to all Americans. In another article I discuss the role of private insurance under the implementation of the House and Senate plans to implement “Medicare for All”.

Unfortunately we have stopped applying critical thinking and dive in deep research before believing something. We prefer to make up our own mind, go to the marketplace of ideas, and pick the one that better aligns with our current preconception.

Truth doesn’t work that way. Truth is independent of beliefs. This is important given the outrage and polarization in the implementations for universal healthcare. Why people are passionate about this subject? Because it is literally a matter of life and death. But we also need to be objective, and look at the facts. To clearly define, what we want, what is possible to get, and how to achieve it.

First a few definitions.

Universal Single Payer Healthcare: An idea in which every single doctor and treatment is covered under a government sponsored program, leaving no room for private insurance because it is prohibited by law, ALL services are covered, and all healthcare providers are forced to accept it.

Medicare for All: A program in which every American contributes a portion of their income and in exchange a large number of life saving and life prolonging treatments are made available without additional cost.

Medicare Choice/Single Payer Plus: Terms coined by Representative Tulsi Gabbard to expand over the single payer system. Recognizing that there are additional healthcare services that are not covered under existing Medicare for All bills.

Public Option: A term defining the co-existence of publicly funded healthcare AND private insurance, both serving THE SAME needs of the patients, with the ability to select one OR the other.

Current system: Healthcare insurance is private and only elderly or the poor have access to programs to partial healthcare coverage.

Let us start from the bottom of the table.

Current system

In our current system, nobody is forced to participate, but that also means that if you don’t participate you are not covered unless you are old or very poor. And even in those situations given that not all services are covered there is still a cost that needs to be covered by your own funds. Our current system is inefficient because the healthcare insurance companies are for profit companies, and the only way to increase their profits is by either raising prices or limiting care and payouts. We clearly need something better than this.

Public option

Why is a public option popular with the insurance companies? Assuming they are forced to accept some form of government interference, a public option is actually a way to privatize profits and socialize risks.

Why?

Because a public option will need to accept ANY American, independent of health condition. Under a public option, private companies can create insurance plans targeted to healthy and young populations. They WOULD appear to be more cost effective because they will ONLY apply during the low-cost lifetime of the patient. Once a patient becomes chronically ill, Insurance companies can raise premiums so that it becomes impossible to afford them, and then people will move to the public option.

Because the public option will be biased towards less healthy people, its costs will be higher, and it will give the appearance that the public option is less cost-effective than the private option. This in turn, can be used as evidence that the government is ill suited to provide healthcare, thus reducing the widespread support of an universal healthcare coverage.

People will think “If not even the public option worked! How can we expect a universal single payer system to work!” This is critical. A public option is the Trojan horse to derail universal single payer coverage.

Medicare for All (Senate version)

Every American pays into the system, and every American receives very generous and life-saving treatments. Under this program, no American will die for the lack of coverage or go bankrupt (assuming the patient uses the Medicare network).

Look at the legislation. Because Healthcare providers need to opt in the program, only those healthcare providers who opt in the program will be covered under Medicare for all.

This means that there is a real possibility that your Doctor may choose not to participate, and therefore it leaves you with two options: Pay the Doctor directly or buy a private insurance that covers your doctor.

At this point people are going to say: But hey! there is a non-duplicative care provision! You cannot get private insurance!

You will be wrong, and this is the biggest misconception. The legislation is very clear, to something be considered covered the service AND the provider need to be covered under Medicare, if the service OR the provider is not covered under Medicare, then the provision of private contracts kicks in, opening the door for private insurance AND cash payments to healthcare providers. For more details on the differences between the House and Senate bill, please refer to a previous article.

As stated in that article, the Senate version allows Healthcare providers to select the procedures they want to cover under Medicare for All. Which can cause a ramification in the quality of service that a healthcare provider will give to a patient.

Can it create a tiered service among Medicare healthcare providers? Yes
Does it make the program worthless? No

Medicare for All (House version)

Similar to the Senate version, however; in the House version, healthcare providers cannot pick and choose which services they will cover under Medicare, it means that if they provide one service, they must accept Medicare payment, and are prevented of taking extra payments. In that sense, it is impossible for this program to encourage a tiered service by healthcare professionals taking Medicare.

Can it create a tiered service among Medicare healthcare providers? No
Does it make the program worthless? No

Medicare Choice/Single Payer Plus (Tulsi Gabbard’s interpretation of the House Medicare for All bill)

Tulsi has been very clear that Medicare for All will provide a base level (like the House and Senate legislation do), and people are free to buy private insurance (like the House and Senate legislation allow for).

The “choice” is not about choosing between public and private insurance, it is about choosing to get or not get private insurance. Public insurance is a given, you are covered, you pay into it, just like people pay property taxes and school taxes and can choose to send their kids to private school. You always have the option to take your children to public school, but you may want something different, well, you pay for it, but this does not allow you to not pay into the public system.

Recently Tulsi renamed her plan “Single Payer Plus” which reflects better her philosophy about providing healthcare to all Americans. The details haven’t changed, only the name.

Tulsi healthcare position, is the most consistent with the bill she voted for in the House. And she will soon release the details of her own expanded plan.

Universal Single Payer Healthcare

This is the dream in which every American pays into the system, every possible healthcare service is provided free of charge at the point of service, and ALL healthcare providers are FORCED to take only Medicare at the reimbursement rates the government decides.

This is extremely dangerous. It will severely cripple our ability to convince people to go into the medical field, it is a major violation of the rights of healthcare professionals, even when the end result would be the best for the rest of the population.

But practically, without healthcare professionals, there is no healthcare.

And this is why the Medicare Bills (both House and Senate) are the best realistic, and practical implementations of a system that approaches this ideal.

I am personally really disappointed of many politicians and news personalities who claim that the Medicare legislation in the Senate or the House is an implementation of this Universal Single Payer Healthcare system that will completely make Private insurance redundant and illegal.

My only plea, is to read the legislation by yourself, you can use this article as a starting point, and make sure that what your politician or favorite news person is telling you is consistent with the legislation they are claiming to support.

Both the Senate and House bills are good bills that will help us lower costs, make our economy more productive and reduce the pain and suffering of millions of Americans. They are both good bills, but please, let us represent them accurately.

I have written before an article explaining why Medicare for All, makes sense. You can read it here.

This article is to bring some light into two good implementations of the Medicare for All idea. Before we start, a few definitions first:

I will be referring to H.R.1384 — Medicare for All Act of 2019 House Bill

I will be referring to S.1129 — Medicare for All Act of 2019 Senate Bill.

First let us focus on the common areas:

1. Both provide universal coverage (HR 1384 sec 102, S 1129 sec 102).
2. Both have prohibition against duplicate coverage (HR 1384 sec 107, S 1129 sec 107).
3. Healthcare provider participation is an opt-in process (HR 1384 sec 301.a.2, S 1129 sec 301.a.2). Let this be clear. Healthcare providers need to file a participation agreement for both bills. Otherwise their services are NOT covered under either Act.

The primary difference between HR 1384 and S 1129 is the definition in the use private contracts.

HR 1384 prohibits any contracts between patient and health care provider if it is covered under the Act. This is the strongest implementation of preventing duplicate coverage. In other words, Doctors cannot selectively define procedures covered under the Act to not be covered.

S 1129 allows for contracts between patient and provider as long as the provider receives no claim of payment, no reimbursement under the Act, and no payment from another organization benefiting of this Act. This means that Doctors CAN selectively define procedures to be NOT covered under the Act.

Both Bills provide very similar coverage:

(1) Hospital services, including inpatient and outpatient hospital care, including 24-hour-a-day emergency services and inpatient prescription drugs.

(2) Ambulatory patient services.

(3) Primary and preventive services, including chronic disease management.

(4) Prescription drugs, medical devices, biological products, including outpatient prescription drugs, medical devices, and biological products.

(5) Mental health and substance abuse treatment services, including inpatient care.

(6) Laboratory and diagnostic services.

(7) Comprehensive reproductive, maternity, and newborn care.

(8) Pediatrics, including early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment services.

(9) Oral health, audiology, and vision services.

(10) Short-term rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices.

(11) Emergency services and transportation.

(12) Necessary transportation to receive health care services for individuals with disabilities and low-income individuals.

(13) Home and community-based long-term services

What is not covered by either bill?

1. Homeopathy
2. Chiropractics
3. Acupuncture
4. Meditation
5. Most non-life threatening counseling (e.g. Marriage counseling)
6. Cosmetic Surgery and Orthodontics
7. Hospital upgrades (e.g. private rooms)

This means private health insurance can co-exist with single payer. It is technically NOT supplemental insurance, in the sense that IF the patient wants to see a healthcare provided who has not OPTED IN Medicare for All, the insurance doesn’t SUPPLEMENT any payments.

It is also NOT a replacement for universal coverage because of the duplicate coverage prohibition. A doctor performing covered services CANNOT accept payment from both MEDICARE and a PRIVATE INSURANCE company.

The private insurance companies have been so detrimental to the healthcare industry, that it is understandable why so many people would love these companies to disappear altogether.

At the end, at what extent private insurance remains viable, depends on the number of healthcare providers who OPT-IN Medicare for All.This will greatly depend in the payout rates Medicare for All offers to healthcare providers.

Why does this work? and how is this different than a “public option”?

A public option would mean that Doctors can accept different types of insurance, a public and private one for the same service. This can cause private insurance companies to enrich themselves with healthy patients, and then throw the less healthy patients (and more expensive to serve) to the public option. Thus socializing risk, but privatizing profits.

But since Doctors will have to choose between participating in Medicare or not, private companies cannot offer the same service to healthier individuals at a seemingly lower cost, they can only ADD new services and providers NOT COVERED under Medicare.

Now let us look at a few examples:

a) Your Doctor participates in Medicare for All, and you undergo a covered service.

This is the default and easy case, you benefit 100% by the legislation

b) You love your doctor, you live in an upper-class neighborhood, and your doctor refuses to participate in Medicare for the treatment you need. This leaves you with three options:

1. You can change doctors, to another doctor that takes Medicare (at no extra cost to you).
2. You can pay your doctor directly (assuming you can afford it)
3. You can get private insurance covering your doctor, as any other private insurance in the market.

Assuming the Senate version of Medicare for All passes, because the Doctor can opt-in selectively different services it provides, it can lead to a dual path for service, those who have private insurance, and those who do not.

This is not the case for the House version because the Doctor cannot selectively opt-in for certain services, If he provides those services in his practice, and they are covered by Medicare for All, they have to take it.

c) You currently have a healthcare insurance that covers alternative medicine.

Because alternative medicine (acupuncture, chiropractics, homeopathy) is not covered under Medicare, you either need to:

1. Pay your doctor directly (assuming you can afford it)
2. Get private insurance covering your doctor, as any other private insurance in the market.

However, because now you are only paying for a fraction of the services, you will likely see a reduction in the premiums of your healthcare insurance bill.

Conclusion

These two bills support these two mechanisms:

1. Universal coverage for all healthcare providers taking Medicare for All.
2. Allow for the existence of private insurance even for covered procedures AS LONG AS THE healthcare provider does not participate in Medicare for All.

There is no infringement on the law, and both bills give people options for their care, while reducing the cost of providing service to all Americans. And as previously stated the House bill prevents a dual-service path, compared to the Senate bill.

smear
/smir/

verb

damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations; slander.

“someone was trying to smear her by faking letters”

synonyms: sully, tarnish, besmirch, blacken, drag through the mud/mire, stain, taint, damage, defame, discredit, defile, vilify, malign, slander, libel, stigmatize, calumniate, what Anna Kasparian and Emma Vigeland do for a living.

For my own sanity and well being, I had chosen to completely ignore TYT. They have become among the worst sources of information: Sloppy reporting, pushing a very distinct agenda in detriment of progressive ideals, and with zero integrity.

However, their latest video accusing Tulsi of opportunistic is something that I cannot leave alone.

Let us rewind a little. To have an idea of the crossover appeal Tulsi has, and how she is perceived by conservative Americans, one only needs to watch the comment section of Tucker Carlson videos, read conservative publications, and watch this little exchange of Dave Rubin with Glenn Beck

Three days later Tulsi appears in The Rubin report for a 1 hour long interview. I only have watched short clips of David Rubin when interviewing Marianne Williamson, and he sounds like a regular conservative/libertarian host.

I watched the video, and thought Tulsi did a fantastic job explaining her positions, she did not pander to his audience, and instead she presented the same consistent message she has been delivering all around the country during her campaign.

And then, Anna Kasparian and Emma Vigeland had to jump in.

I really didn’t want to give any views to their video, but so many people were complaining about it, that I had to watch it.

And surprise, It was as terrible as I was told. Here are just a few highlights:

1:29 Rubin: “Those words have been associate with the Right, not with DEMOCRATS”
2:00 Anna: The way he frames the question is: “PROGRESSIVES” don’t love America

Since when DEMOCRATS is synonym of PROGRESSIVES? since they took corporate money and became corporate democrats through and through?

2:12 Anna: “Remember, she has positioned herself as a progressive candidate”.

No Anna, Tulsi is very clear and has said in MULTIPLE outlets she doesn’t fit in a single label. She has described herself as democrat-libertarian-progressive-green.

She does however support policies embraced by the progressive wing like: College for All, Higher Minimum Wage, Reinstating Glass-Steagall, Medicare for All, Moving us away from Fossil Fuels, and her foreign policy is to the left of practically all other candidates, INCLUDING Bernie.

2:21 Anna: You look at her voting record…[talking about Tulsi no being progressive]

Are you buying the progressivepunch.org score story? The one saying Pelosi is more progressive than Tulsi, and Kamala more progressive than Bernie?

Let us compare actual votes with important legislation. Who is more “progressive”?

2:26 Anna: [Tulsi] Might talk the talk, but doesn’t walk the walk.

Is your hatred for Tulsi so blinding?

a) She was vice-chair of the DNC, and resigned in protest of the way the DNC was treating Bernie, and to endorse him to prevent conflict of interests.

b) She could have skipped being deployed to Iraq during the worst of the conflict because she was an elected official, but she resigned and asked to be deployed with her unit.

c) She could change her message depending on who she talks to, but EVERY SINGLE TIME, no matter who is interviewing her, her answers remain the same and consistent, bridging the gap between left and right through integrity, which the Right respects. You should talk to Kyle Kulinski so he can explain to you how important is to bring leftists ideas to a conservative audience.

d) She has criticized both parties when they deserve it, like Obama’s mishandling of the middle east interventions, to Trump’s foreign policy mistakes (Arms deal with Saudi Arabia, Intervention in Venezuela, Escalation in Iran, Pulling away the Iran deal and the INF treaty).

e) She protested in congress and on site during the DAPL construction. When the army was going to remove the protesters she went to serve a human shield along several Iraq-war veterans.

f) She was one of the first politicians to stop taking PAC money, and be fully supported only by individual donations. A pledge she will carry through the primary and the general.

The list goes on and on.

TYT’s attempt to paint Tulsi as an opportunist when they support WARren, who is the most opportunistic politician of our time, is simply pathetic.

Unlike TYT, I will list the reason as to why I consider WARren an opportunist

a) She used her fake native american heritage to get ahead in college.

b) Despite claiming having a native american heritage she remained silent about the DAPL protectors until the easement was denied. Then she spoke when it was safe and convenient.

c) She didn’t endorse Bernie when she could have helped him win the democratic nomination in 2016, and instead wanted to be Hillary’s VP.

d) She took PAC money in her senate race, transferred those funds to the presidential campaign, and claims she is not taking PAC money, and has openly admitted she will take PAC money during the general election.

How on Earth can TYT be so disingenuous?

3:10 Anna: [Goes on a rant on how it is patriotic to criticize the country]

Anna and Emma are clearly women who have gained too much power in a short amount of time, and have no idea how leadership works. Tulsi’s solider’s focus allows her to be patriotic and speak for the love of country, while at the same time, working to make our country a more perfect union.

Tulsi doesn’t “question America” because America is all of us. She however, pushes against: Big Pharma (Negotiate drug prices), The Oil industry (Off Fossil Fuels Act), The finance Industry (Restore Glass-Steagall), The private prison system (Ending private prisons, and ending the federal prohibition of marijuana), Big Agro (End subsidies and invest in alternatives like restorative farming), Stop special interests to benefit at the cost of the blood and tears of the majority of Americans (Modifying the tax cut to make it fair and preventing big corporations to skip paying taxes), Promote recognition of the impact of slavery in our african-american population (One of the few candidates supporting reparations legislation).

This is the difference between the smear sisters and Tulsi. Their whole existence is about complaining about how things are, and were. Tulsi on the other hand is about not complaining but fixing those problems, through intelligence, leadership and integrity.