Mediaboss Marketing

Email to a friend Permalink

Wednesday, July 05, 2017

Guest MINDSETTER Andrew Stewart

Bill Lynch

I am not some absurd sectarian dogmatist despite some beliefs to the contrary. Anthony F.C. Wallace described in a 1956 article for the journal American Anthropologist what he calls 'revitalization movements' which span the entire spectrum of human experience and orientations, from religion to politics to civic organizations. These movements promote a sort of gnosticism wherein the true believers work through a series of graduated membership steps towards a final enlightenment that they feel will offer them a salve for grievances that they believe cannot be redressed through traditional venues and methods. In my own life I have encountered these types in the Catholic Church, the extreme Left, and even the Boy Scouts. It is a symptomatic element of the inability within an individual to develop a truly independent and self-reliant support system that can integrate completely into the wider society.

Erich Fromm wrote in his 1957 article The Authoritarian Personality that We usually see a clear difference between the individual who wants to rule, control, or restrain others and the individual who tends to submit, obey, or to be humiliated. To use a somewhat friendlier term, we might talk of the leader and his followers. As natural as the difference between the ruling and the ruled might in many ways be, we also have to admit that these two types, or as we can also say, these two forms of authoritarian personality are actually tightly bound together.

Fromm's work was written in the aftermath of a generational moral collapse caused by first the ascent of the Nazi Party in his native Germany and then the discrediting of Communism, which had spearheaded the defeat of fascism in Europe. A year prior to Fromm's publication, in 1956, Nikita Khrushchev delivered his so-called 'Secret Speech' that acknowledged the crimes of his predecessor Joseph Stalin, a seismic impact whose crater caused millions to retreat into despair and quit worldwide Communist parties en masse.

Fromm continues by writing All the great dictatorial movements of our times were (and are) based on irrational authority. Its driving forces were the submissive individuals feeling of powerlessness, fear, and admiration for the 'leader.' All the great and fruitful cultures are founded on the existence of rational authority: on people, who are able to muster the given functions intellectually and socially and have therefore no need to appeal to irrational desires. But I do not want to close without emphasizing that the individuals goal must be to become his own authority; i.e. to have a consciousness in moral issues, conviction in questions of intellect, and fidelity in emotional matters. However, the individual can only have such an inner authority if he has matured enough to understand the world with reason and love. The development of these characteristics is the basis for ones own authority and therefore the basis for political democracy.

I provide such an extended side-note because understanding this dynamic is required for a progressive victory in the next election cycle, which is absolutely necessary to reinforce our communities and protect the most vulnerable from the onslaught of both the Trump administration and neoliberal Democrats who agree with Trump on policies that give hand-outs to the rich, tax the poor, privatize infrastructure, and harm working class families. The corporate media as well as pseudo-alternative Left outlets, which I have studied for over a decade now, have provided for almost twenty years a repeated series of narrative tropes that the public, including many intelligent and well-educated progressive thinkers, has internalized and made a part of their overall ideological orientation. Some of these include the demonstrably untrue ideas about Ralph Nader's Green Party run in 2000, the historical motivations and outcomes of military actions supported by both war parties since 9/11, the true nature of climate change as the most dire threat to our survival as a species in the next century, the method for repeal of Citizens United, and thousands of other notions that fly squarely in the face of reality. I would propose to offer two which must be deflated in order to have a successful 2018 progressive seizure of power.

The first is the idea that there is a wide ideological divide separating progressives from conservatives. According to the media, we live in a near-Manichean ideological landscape where everyone is polarized around ideas which their opponents respond to with antithetical positions that can never be compromised. It is a comforting narrative for two reasons. First, it lends itself to an individual's self-esteem by allowing them to say 'I have the right view, s/he has the wrong view, and we are opponents until they change their minds.' In religious terms, it is the difference between the Chosen and the sinful.

Fortunately for us this is absolutely untrue and there is a significant level of statistical data to back this up. In reality, as Ralph Nader wrote in his 2014 book 'Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State', the political landscape is defined in the legislature by only one sort of socio-economic philosophy, corporatism, which also can be called neoclassical economics. Both Republicans and Democrats promote corporatist policies that continue corporate welfare/crony capitalism. In order to keep the voters from uniting as a single base around their membership in the working class/as taxpayers, the parties agree to effectively manipulate their voter bases through deceptive and duplicitous media messaging that makes people think their neighbors are the enemy rather than the corporatists, usually based around notions of identity, sex, gender, creed, migration status before the law, or nationality.

As a result we as the working class/taxpayers stay at each other's throats rather than taking on the bipartisan corporatist agenda. Nader goes as far as pointing to 25 different and substantial areas where studies and his personal experience indicate solid class solidarity/universal taxpayer support, or to use his word, 'convergence', listen here.

Those who doubt this unity of class/taxpayers can actually look to a recent major event in our own state that was absolutely and undeniably an instance of convergence, the total and complete rejection of a taxpayer-subsidized baseball stadium for the Pawtucket Red Sox on the Providence waterfront. I very clearly and fondly remember Fred Ordonez from DARE (Direct Action for Rights and Equality) saying at the Rhode Island Commerce Corporation I dont think I ever imagined that I was going to be at a rally with the Tea Party on the same side but here we are! This is because the proposal was nothing but a corporatist hand-out for the rich to the detriment of the working class/taxpayers.

You see what I keep doing there with saying things like corporate welfare/crony capitalism, working class/taxpayers, and class solidarity/universal taxpayer support? That is not accidental, what I am trying to do is indicate that it is through the language of politics used by the corporatist duopoly system, including their media courtiers, that we are prevented from uniting around common goals.

Are there genuine revitalists who cannot be flexible and act dogmatically about certain matters, such as working with third parties? Absolutely, such types are drawn to political struggle like moths to a flame. And there also are many times where one side has some very bad ideas about people owing to the various factors of their identity which requires patient and adult conversation so to rectify such matters and promote further convergence. I personally would absolutely refuse to throw people of color or undocumented workers or women under the bus in the name of convergence. But I also would work very hard to rectify the issue and promote a level of trust and friendliness reflective of the great Aim Csaire's quote There is room enough for all at the rendezvous of victory.

This cuts to a fundamental issue of the budget the Democrats are jousting over, a massive corporatist document if there ever was one and the second fantastic notion to negate. Those supporting regressive cuts would do well to understand a very simple economic principle. Every public sector expense that is cut in a budget is undeniably absorbed by the taxpayers as a privatized expense that usually costs more, a kind of tax increase that in an Orwellian fashion is passed of as a tax cut. If the General Assembly refuses to pay for a $2 sandwich, the taxpayers will pay the private sector $5 for that sandwich which is still going to be necessary for sustenance. While there certainly are structural problems with our current public sector financing system, ones which can and have promoted corruption due to a lack of oversight, it also is a simple mathematical fact, the added expenses created by privatizing of public services in all cases are to the detriment of both the poor and the taxpayers, it is merely a matter of time before the bill comes due. The increase in necessity of living expenses for working class families through private services means their ability to inject demand into the local luxury economy is diminished, which in turn furthers the stagnation we are witnessing locally.

The only way progressives will actually change this policy is by working with a progressive third party. If they protest to the Democratic leadership and then are forced to stew in their anger over being ignored, they will become a captive caucus. The corporatist national Democratic Party leadership understands this completely and operate by the maxim 'we can move further to the right because they have nowhere else to go', meaning they will never vote for the Republicans (just ask Sista Souljah). On the converse, the middle class in this country quite obviously and openly boasts about how, if they don't get what they want, they do in fact have somewhere else to go, the GOP, which drives the Democrats further to the right.

It is in this spirit I would encourage progressives to relieve themselves of the false ideological narrative about third party spoilers. Take an honest and serious look at the Rhode Island Green Party. The 2016 platform document is a thorough and detailed roadmap to remake Rhode Island politics with. After a year of reporting on them, it seems like a simple matter of political thermodynamics, progressives must create equal pressure inside and outside the Democratic Party so to develop a shift in local politics towards our progressive goals. Refusal to do so owing to a false narrative about Ralph Nader or Jill Stein will only promote a further rightward shift locally at a time when we need to fortify our defenses. Pragmatic, flexible, mature, and reasonable progressives will understand this easily. Those who are interested should visit (greensofri.nationbuilder.com) to begin a fruitful and constructive dialogue so to build a better Rhode Island for all.

Hopefully by that time the national Democrats will begin to apologize to progressives for their treatment of Bernie Sanders and their decision to hand the election to Donald Trump as a result. That might seem odd but I in fact did talk to people who voted for Sanders and then Trump owing to the fact Donald plagiarized talking points from the Vermont senator on the campaign trail.

There has yet to be any apology for the continuing swindle of the pension heist, the largest loss of money in Rhode Island history. There is no apology for Democrats like Gina Raimondo who privatize our schools and damage our public infrastructure.

It is time for progressives to recognize the writing on the wall and bring their efforts to where they are welcomed.

CCRI

The state's community college is poised to be the sole beneficiary of the Governor's Promise scholarship program.

It would make Rhode Island the fourth state to have tuition-free community college, allowing every resident the opportunity to earn an associate's degree tuition free. There is no means testing for the program and few standards.

The cost would be roughly $3 million in the FY18 (for the first cohort of students) and then $6 million the following year there are two classes.

State Government

As part of negotiations -- and the fiscal realities facing Rhode Island with a nearly $140 million shortfally, the Speaker announced Thursday that $25 million will be cut in generalspending.

"It's something we discussed with the Governor and she thinks she can make [it] work," said Matteillo.

Also on the chopping block -- funding for the legislative office to the tune of $2 million.

Elderly and Disabled Bus Riders

After levying fares on some of the most needy RIPTA bus riders (the elderly and disabled) for the first time this past year, which resulted in strong public outcry, the House Finance budget contains just over $3 million -- for each of the next two years -- to refund the program this coming year.

WATCH: Opponents of RIPTA Fare Hikes to Rally at RI State House Wednesday Afternoon

Mattiello noted that after the two years is up, it is up to the Governor to find the funding.

Governor Raimondo

On Thursday, Raimondo learned she is poised to get a piece (jCCRI) of her free college tuition proposal, which had been a major focal point of her budget proposal - and political strategy.

On the flip side, she is tasked with finding $25 million in government spending to cut, in order to balance the budget.

Unlike the May estimating conference, where Rhode Island revenues were found to be off nearly $100 million plus, the Governor can't say she didn't see this coming.

Medical Marijuana Expansion

In June, Raimondo called for an increase in medical marijuana dispensaries and an increase in licensing fees to generate $1.5 million in revenue for the state.

She called for "no less than six licensed compassion centers."

On Thursday, Mattiello said it was not in the budget, due the proposal's late timing.

Davies High School

The House finance budget contains additional help for manufacturing, including $3.6 million to upgrade facilities at Davies Career and Tech.

Commerce Corporation

While Mattiello made scant mention of cuts in the briefing Thursday - save for the $25 million out of government spending -- the question was raised as to where the rest of the $140 million shortfall will come from.

"Millions in cuts came from the Commerce Corp budget. The budget kept the Rebuild RI funding, but money for several other Commerce programs were reduced," said Larry Berman, spokesman for Mattiello.

Mininum Wage Hike

Workers will be happy, employers might not.

The FY18 budget proposal calls for a $.50 minimum wage increase as of January 1, 2018, and then an additional $.40 the following year.

Business owners have continuously fought against such hikes.

Email to a friend Permalink

Read more here:
Guest MINDSETTER Stewart: Progressives Should Refuse to be Captive Caucus, Work With Green Party - GoLocalProv

My guess, especially given his hopeful conclusion, is that ifDouglass was alive today he would speak about America in a way that resembles Obama's depictionin the body of his public remarks over 20 yearsin the broadest sense. Neither would ignore the horrific crimes of the past, nor the way the legacy of those crimes continues to resonate. Neither would shrink from highlighting the continuing, fresh injustices being visited on African Americans and members of other non-white groups today. But both would present a nuanced narrativeone full of struggle and loss, yet also one of hope and gradual progress toward a goal for which we continue to reach. In The Audacity of Hope, Obama asserted that on civil rights "things have gotten better," yet added: "better isnt good enough."

Meteor Blades is right to identify Frederick Douglass as a hero. Along a similar vein, Michael Lind characterized him in The Next American Nation as"perhaps the greatest American of any race, of any century." It's highly appropriate in 2016 to remember Douglass's 1852 speech, especially on July 4. I want to reinforce that here. What I am also doing here is using Meteor Blades' post about Douglass as a jumping-off point for a relatedbut differentdiscussion.

From a political perspective, we on the left have to be wary of allowing our public rhetoric to focus primarily on feelings of alienation from this country. This isnt trying to tell anyone how they should feel. No one should do that. This is about what we publish and proclaim, and the strategic value thereof. What we cannot do, what Douglass himself did not doas seen in the conclusion to his 1852 speechis cede patriotism and an embrace of America to the right wing. This is a crucial point I've written about previously:

Michael Lind wrote further about the importance of embracing an inclusive, singular national narrative of our country's history with which Americans of every background can identify as their own:

Even in writing this, I want to be crystal clear about what I'm sayingso that nothing is misconstrued. I'm emphatically not saying that Meteor Blades or anyone else should tone down their criticisms of this country's flaws or injustices, whether in the present or the past. To be more specific, I am notsaying that black or brown or red or yellow or gay folks, or anyone who feels marginalized should keep their thoughts to themselves because they might scare the straight white folks.

But we must find a way to do what needs doing, to shine a light on the problems and injustices in our country, while still publicly embracing a commitment to the whole country, the whole community. We have to do both of those things at the same time, over and over again, in order to get our point across and persuade people to join our movement. If we don't do that, we can't solve those problems and fix those injustices.

As politically engaged progressives, we know that this country can and must do better on a whole host of different fronts, and that in order to do so we need to understand our history in full. A history, however, that emphasizes only our crimes and ignores the progress is but the mirror image of one that does the oppositeone that solely bathes our history in glory and righteousness. And if those are the only two options, many middle-of-the-road Americans, in particular whites but others as well, are likely to be more attracted to the Pollyanna-ish view simply because it sounds more familiar and makes them feels better.

As survey data from the Public Religion Research Institute makes clear, Donald Trump certainly appeals to those who are likely attracted to such a view, those who see America as having veered away from what once made it great. As Ronald Brownstein explained, Trumps emergence represents a triumph for the most ardent elements in the GOPs coalition of restoration, voters who are resistant to demographic change. This is certainly just as true in 2017 as it was during the presidential campaign.

We progressives have to make sure that we present a balanced picture. That way we can get those people who sometimes forget about the crimes our country has committed to remember them and to work toward reversing their effects, rather than dismiss our criticisms as somehow "anti-American" because we talk only about the negatives. We have to present our case as representing the true American values, and contrast them to the values of those whom we oppose. This is the way Barack Obama speaks about America's past, present and future. We can see this approach in his remarks of July 4, 2012:

That first paragraph represents what Obama, during his eulogy for Rev. Clementa Pinckney in Charleston, called an "honest accounting of America's history." The next two paragraphs connect his vision of America and its core values to the policies he is proposing going forwardpast, present, future.

Those who have fought for equality have long sought to connect that idea to America's fundamental principles, to our own history. Frederick Douglass did it, even in the speech discussed above, as did the black abolitionist David Walker a generation earlier, who called on us to "Hear your languages, proclaimed to the world, July 4th, 1776." So did Martin Luther King Jr. in his "Letter From a Birmingham Jail," where he predicted that the civil rights movement would succeed because "the goal of America is freedom," and in his "I Have A Dream" speech, in which he proclaimed that the dream he described that day was "deeply rooted in the American dream." So did Harvey Milk when he said: "All men are created equal. Now matter how hard they try, they can never erase those words. That is what America is about. So did Barbara Jordan, who noted, "What the people want is simple. They want an America as good as its promise." And so did Barack Obama in Selma, at the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the Bloody Sunday March, when he identified those who walked and bled on that bridge as the ones who truly represented what America is supposed to be:

Progressives must criticize, that is crucial. But we must also inspire, because inspiration is how we motivate action.

[This is a revised and updated version of an essay I have posted previously on July 4.]

Ian Reifowitz is the author of Obamas America: A Transformative Vision of Our National Identity (Potomac Books).

Originally posted here:
How progressives talk about July 4 and our national history - Daily Kos

Well, there was a lot a talk about Antifa protesters showing up at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania to protest and vandalize Confederate graves and burn the flag of the would-be rebel nation at the historic battle site. There are some problems of course. For starters, there are no Confederate gravesites at Gettysburg. Emily Zanotti of Heat Street had more:

According to local media, rumors are swirling that several groups affiliated with anti-Confederate monument protests across the south are targeting the Civil War battlefield. That site hosts its own Confederate memorial and Confederate cemetery, alongside more than a thousand other memorials marking one of the bloodiest battles in American history.

A Civil War re-enactor forum claimed that a Facebook page appeared last week, calling on Antifa groups near Gettysburg to gather during the anniversary celebration to desecrate Confederate Gettysburg graves, and burn Confederate flags. A local blog also reported threats from Antifa-linked protest groups, and an event on a local website called Burn the Confederate Flag to Trigger Trump Fans.

Both the Facebook pages and the event appear to have been scrubbed. Even so, protesters on both sides of the debate over whether America should embrace the Confederate Flag have squared off at Gettysburg before, so the National Parks Service is taking the rumors seriously.

From Fox News Chris Wallace, who included that local Antifa groups thinks a lot of hoaxers got their fifteen minutes of fame:

The Central Pennsylvania AntiFa group says on its facebook page that such reports are most likely false and smell fishy.

Nevertheless, groups that sought to protect the battlefield from desecration by progressives attended just in case something happened (via Philadelphia Inquirer):

A total of four groups have now applied to exercise their First Amendment rights at the battlefield, said Katie Lawhon, a park spokeswoman.

Two of the groups that are ready to rally may find themselves with time on their hands if a fifth group which hasnt yet applied for a permit doesnt show up.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans and a group called Real 3% Risen have received special use permits for 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday in a special section north of Meades Headquarters, Lawhorn stated.

Blessedly, at the end of the day, nothing happened (via Penn Live):

The handful of people were from the Real 3% Risen group and they said they came in response to the rumors.

[]

The group's members said they were prepared to stay all day to protect the country's monuments and American flags. By noon, they were still the only demonstrators around as streams of visitors passed by to enjoy the park's events.

Government Supporters Storm Venezuela Congress, Injuring Lawmakers

View original post here:
Well, It Looks Like Progressives Decided Not To Cause Chaos At Gettysburg After All - Townhall

Jim Keady (right) discusses a variety of issues with Kate Triggiano (left) and other committee members.

The highlight of the committee meeting last week was guest speaker Jim Keady. Famous for being told by outgoing Gov. Chris Christie to sit down and shut up during a 2014 press conference, Keady is now running for a seat in New Jerseys 4th Congressional District in an effort to unseat Republican congressman Chris Smith, who has held the seat since 1981.

Keady spoke to members of the committee about his platform and upcoming campaign. He says he plans on running his campaign on an unapologetic, bold progressive platform. He believes the majority of people agree with the progressive platform and that it is just a matter of running an effective campaign to turn out votes.

If you look at the polling, we are on the right side of all of these issues, Keady said.

We just have to get out and talk to people about them.

The committee showed similar enthusiasm toward Keady as it has for other progressive candidates.

We are really excited to have a real progressive running, said Triggiano of Keady.

Progressive candidates like Keady believe securing the demographic of young voters is crucial to winning elections.

On our issues, 18- to 25- year-olds are not agreeing with a conservative Republican agenda, Keady said.

The leaders of the Young Progressives Committee hope that creating the group will keep young people politically active and, therefore, increase voter turnout for progressive candidates.

I think the main purpose is to keep all of these people together and talking, especially young people. I think that for younger people, the progressive platform really resonates with them, said Triggiano.

The dates and times of meetings are posted in advance on the Monmouth County Democrats website or on the Monmouth County Young Progressives Committee Facebook group page.

This article was first published in the June 29-July 6, 2017 print edition of The Two River Times.

Originally posted here:
Monmouth County's Young Progressives Build Forum for Political Engagement - The Two River Times

WASHINGTON

In many ways it seems so simple: Go to a doctor; find out what is wrong, and get a prescription. No bills, no arguments with an insurance company.

As Republicans struggle to devise an alternative to the 2010 health law known as Obamacare, progressives are turning once again to the simplicity of a government-operated, single-payer health care system in which everyone can see a doctor and nobody faces ruinous out-of-pocket costs.

But critics including some analysts and every conservative on the planet say a single-payer health care system is as it seems: too good to be true.

This is Lucy and the football, quipped Thomas Miller, a resident fellow and health care specialist at the Washington-based non-profit American Enterprise Institute. The closer you get, the harder it is to kick it.

Many progressives embraced single-payer last year as Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, touted its merits during his presidential run.

Sanders was in Columbus last week making some of those same points.

After we defeat this disastrous Republican health plan, he declared, our job is to go forward and pass Medicare-for-all single-payer system. If every other major country on earth can do it, surely this country can do it as well.

Sanders is hardly alone among progressives. The California state senate last month approved a single-payer model while 112 Democrats in the U.S. House have co-sponsored a single-payer plan financed by taxes instead of premiums, out-of-pocket expenses, and co-pays charged by insurance companies and hospitals.

Most people would be paying less than they are paying now and they would get better health care, said Gerald Friedman, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst who helped design the single-payer plan Sanders promoted last year.

Its a win-win win except if youre a drug company or an insurance company or a hospital, Friedman said.

But Republicans and some analysts dont see it as a win-win. They cite Sanders home state of Vermont, which dropped efforts in 2014 to install a single-payer system after state lawmakers discovered how high they would have to raise taxes.

Critics also note that while the California state senate approved a single-payer plan, the state assembly shelved the idea when the cost was estimated at $200 billion a year.

Vermont is a highly instructive as a case example because the governor and the legislature were so determined to do it, said John E. McDonough, a professor of public health practice at the Harvard School of Public Health. They gave it everything they had and couldnt make it work.

Health care around the world

Supporters of single-payer tend to cite the Canadian Medicare system as the ideal, but there are a wide variety of systems where governments play a role in health care.

In Canada, taxes finance about 71 percent of all health costs and all Canadians are covered. A patient does not pay to see a physician, and the doctor bills the province for the fee.

According to the Commonwealth Fund, a foundation in New York City that analyzes health-care systems throughout the world, more than 60 percent of Canadians also buy private insurance to pay for services not covered by the government, such as vision and dental care and prescription drugs.

Great Britain offers a much more socialized system based on taxes financing a comprehensive system of free physician care and public hospitals. They run the health system like the town of Amherst runs its fire department: Its paid for and if you need it, you use it, Friedman said.

Most industrialized nations such as Canada, Great Britain, Germany and Australia spend less than 12 percent of gross domestic product on health care, while the United States spends 17 percent, according to the Commonwealth Fund. Other industrialized nations also have longer life expectancy and lower rates of infant mortality than the United States.

During his appearance last weekend before 2,200 people in Columbus, Sanders said he lives 50 miles away from Canada; they manage to provide health care to all their people. Go to Germany, go to the U.K., go to Scandinavia, go to France. Every major country understands that in a civilized society, health care must be a right for all people.

Yet most Americans have never warmed to a national health insurance system. In a statewide ballot campaign in California in 1994, less than 27 percent of voters supported adoption of a single-payer system. A similar statewide ballot issue in 2002 in Oregon won the support of just 21.5 percent of the voters.

Although Friedman argues Americans would save money by paying taxes instead of health costs, Kenneth Thorpe, chairman of the Department of Health Policy and Management at Emory University in Atlanta, said Friedman is not even close to being right.

Last year Thorpe, a former Clinton administration official, calculated that Sanders single-payer plan would require the federal government to raise nearly $14 trillion in new revenue during a 10-year-span.

We would need a Value Added Tax for single-payer; youre not going to do that through the income tax, said AEIs Miller. This is make-believe land.

Some results better in U.S.

In determining why America is less healthy than many other countries, the nations obesity rate cant be ignored.

Canada and Great Britain both have obesity rates around 25 percent, or one in four people. Japan is in single digits. Countries like Sweden and Denmark are at 11.7 and 14.2 percent, while the U.S. was 35.3 percent, according to the latest data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

The quality of care differs greatly by country, but the American health care system does fare better in some categories.

On sophisticated care, such as cancer treatments, the U.S. system produces substantially better results without the waiting times that plague the Canadian and British systems. The Commonwealth Fund concluded that between 1995 and 2007, cancer mortality rates in the U.S. plummeted at a faster rate than any other major country.

I think if you look at the countries that spend less than us and have better outcomes there are two reasons, said Thorpe. One is they have a better primary care system And second they integrate better and spend more on social services, housing and things like that.

At the specialty level we do very well on different types of cancer and cancer treatments and mortality rates.

Marion Renault of the Columbus Dispatch contributed to this story.

View original post here:
Progressives tout single-payer as health care alternative - Dayton Daily News