The piece that needs to be spoken loudly and often is the hospital system shrinks and nears collapse without Medicare and Medicaid. Those 2 things fund over 50% of hospital income. Think about that for a minute.

What dies first? Rural and critical access. The little places that transfer out to a larger metro hospital when you need surgery. Statistically, specialists and surgeons gather around metro locations where Level 1 and most Level 2 are located. Look up your closest hospital. If it’s Level 3 or 4, or labeled as critical access, it will be in trouble. Those hospitals rely even more on Medicare and Medicaid income to stay alive. In fact Medicare may provide subsidy to hospitals considered critical access.

What dies second? Mother/Baby, NICU, labor and delivery. The hospital units involving childbirth are all loss leaders in the hospital product line. Surgery and speciality income cover those costs.

What dies third? Jobs. Layoffs will ensue, from supply runners to nurses. I can’t imagine hospitalist staff (attending, in house, generalist doctors) won’t be cut to bare bones as well. Patients will be more unsafe due to less staff in general, those who are able to drive 100mi for services.

Yup. If you can’t stand up and enthusiastically declare that you support Medicare 4 All as a fundamental right, then shut the fuck up, you’re part of the problem.

Has he indicated that he’s come around on that issue at all? Or still just as against it

Corporate media is 100% working to make people who think alternative media is pod save, believe he is that guy.

Pete doesn’t get to be a candidate until he wins a federal election. Straight up. No candidate who haven’t won a race at SOME Federal level or very high (state Governerships count).

You need to show you can win elections. The only election Pete was to be a small town mayor. He was awarded for the ratfucking of progressives in 2020 with a cabinet position. And its like. Fine. But go win an election Pete, a real one. Where more than 30k votes are cast.

He’s the democratic equivalent of Marco Rubio.

I don’t think Pete is the next FDR but if he becomes it and improves the lives of millions of people I wouldn’t care about his motivations. If his selfishness/ego drove him to improve America then I’m okay with that.

But like I said I doubt that will happen.

This is true for every McKinsey type.

The man is silly putty. He’ll adopt whatever ethos you imprint upon him.

Lol, yes. Maybe I read it wrong. It was one of the less stressful discussions of late. He says right things. But I don’t buy that the DNC can reform itself with any of the old players.

I don’t think Gaza issue was the deciding factor in the election, it’s all the other stuff she should focus on.

It’s exasperating to have both: a) warned, extensively and explicitly, with detailed analysis and specific examples—not just months, but years in advance—that the Democrats’ 2024 strategy was failing; and b) to have to keep explaining, over and over, to people who think they understand how things ‘should’ have gone, that Democrats did campaign exactly as they claim—and lost dramatically as a result.

Look you caught the bull by its horns, but I want you to bear with me. You think “some thing” about electoralism; and its one that wasn’t borne out by reality.

Is it the thing which is wrong or you and your thinking? You wanted the election, the electorate, electoralism itself, to be something other than what it was: If you (and Democrats in general) keep approaching elections in this manner, we will never win another election.

You can either meet the moment and find voters where they are at, hear their issues, address them or say how you’ll address them, and ask them to join your cause, or you can continue to tell them that they are wrong for what they think and do, and they better vote for you or else they’ll get the fascist.

Which do you think grows a base and which one shrinks a base?

Sorry, I meant the point of the graph is to highlight the market’s impetus: selfishness.

Specifically, it casts investor sentiment in a negative light, where “feeling bullish” translates to “feeling greedy” and anything else is loss aversion/fear.

It is not a measure of public sentiment.

That’d be like a consumer confidence measure, something that just polls the general public.

The fear and greed index is based off of technical measurements of various active markets.

Very broadly, it is telling you whether or not the financial class, investors, stock traders, corporations significantly involved in that, your 401k managers… are acting fearful or greedy.

A middling score close to 50 basically represents ‘reasonable, stable growth’.

Extreme fear means market participants are acting like a significant stock/bond downturn either is occuring or about to occur.

Extreme greed means market participants are acting like a huge upswing in stocks and bonds are occuring and will be maintained in the future.

You’re right that extreme greed isn’t a good thing, as it usually means a whole bunch of irresponsible financial bets are being made, that will later pop, and crash.

At the same time, extreme fear is also bad… because it basically is that crash occuring.

Maybe think of it kind of like some value you get back from your blood work.

There’s a generally accepted ‘average’ value that means you are stable, healthy.

Then, there is a range of higher and lower values that are… relatively normal, within reasonable, expected variations.

Then, there are extreme values, way outside the acceptable range, either way too high or way to low, and now its time for your doctor to start looking at treatment options.