The Federal Government Holds All The Cards For Addressing the Climate Crisis, Don't Scapegoat Private Enterprise

If you want to advocate for a Cuba-like system in which there is no stock market and all means of production and distribution are part of a massive government, go for it. (and note that China's miracle of lifting 98% of its people out of extreme poverty in 30 years came from moving toward private ownership - along with a stock market).

But as long as America continues to have it's great free market system, everyone need to understand how it works. Investors are driven by self interest - and it is essential to the operation of the system that they be driven by self interest. When Americans need more toilet paper, toilet paper manufacturers expand their factories out of self interest, and investors provide the money for that expansion out of self interest, and tree farms expand out of self interest, and investors provide the money for that expansion out of self interest.

BECAUSE investors operate out of self interest, they respond very quickly to the slightest government pressures, whether that pressure is beneficial or injurious. As long as our government continues to subsidize oil well drilling and provide public land for it, investors will like oil stocks. On the other side, the enthusiasm for Tesla shares is greatly boosted by the subsidies for electric cars.

Investors and companies will rapidly respond to whatever sticks and carrots our government chooses for the Climate Crisis. So far, our leaders have been worse than unhelpful, for example, BOTH Trump and Bernie Sanders are proposing to block the import of solar panels into the United States. Please assign the blame where it is deserved, on our government, and not on our efficient free enterprise system.

The Real Numbers Don't Support Sanders' Assault On Insurance Companies

Sanders and Warren and some of the other candidates are trying to pull the wool over our eyes on health care costs by trying to make insurance companies the boogie man. The administration costs plus profit of health insurance is only 6.4% of total health care costs. Even if those costs could be eliminated (which of course they can't, there is always an administrative cost whether private or government), it would barely move the needle of overall health care costs.

While the 8-figure salaries for the CEOs of the largest insurers might be considered some kind of moral issue, financially it has zero impact on national health costs.

To make any meaningful reduction in overall costs, hospitals, doctors, pharmaceuticals and other components would need to be addressed. Those reductions would be hard, and more important for this discussion, any reductions in those areas could be made equally well whether health care is administered publicly or privately.

Sanders etc. could have proposed a system like the Veterans Administration health care system where the government owns the hospitals, and the doctors are government employees, but that is not their proposal. Their proposal (fortunately) does not nationalize doctors or hospitals, so there are no inherent savings in these areas (and the Veterans Administration health care system certainly has its own scandals, and cost overrun issues).

Sanders and Warren also have proposals to force the pharmaceutical companies to lower prices (which also has some very complex issues), but again this is completely divorced from their assault on insurance companies.

Bottom line, Sanders et al are inciting hatred toward insurance companies as a political tool in the same way that Trump incites hatred toward immigrants as a political tool.

and no, I am not an employee of an insurance company or have any financial interest.

100% Vote-By-Mail, The Best Answer To Election Security And Other Election Issues

100% Vote-By-Mail is the answer to several important questions about American elections...

Election security...  Vote-By-Mail inherently leaves a paper trail that is easy to audit. The Vote-By-Mail ballots can be counted twice, by unrelated machines and unrelated staff, and if the results are identical, the election is pretty secure. Vote-By-Mail is also inherently inaccessible from the internet.

The push to make election day a federal holiday... Vote-By-Mail allows voters to make their decisions and vote from the convenience of their own homes at a time of their own choosing, so there is no necessity of the expense and disruption of an Election Day holiday.

Accessibility...  Vote-By-Mail provides optimum accessibility for the disabled and others who have trouble traveling, walking, reading, etc.

Cost... The equipment to scan Vote-By-Mail ballots is much less expensive than voting machines. And far fewer people are required to staff a Vote-By-Mail system.

Convenience... There is no waiting in line to vote with Vote-By-Mail. And any technical issues (which are much less likely with Vote-By-Mail) do not cause delays or inconvenience to voters.

Voter ID issues...  With Vote-By-Mail, there is the possibility of informing a voter of a discrepancy and for them to resolve it before voting is finalized.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/all-mail-elections.aspx

https://postalnews.com/blog/2016/04/29/senator-calls-for-national-vote-by-mail-to-fight-back-against-new-barriers-to-voting/

https://etvnews.com/voting-by-mail-is-the-safe-secure-and-easy-way-to-vote-this-election-day/