|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
We deal with a lot of that stuff here in the Eastern and Western Districts of Michigan. Lots of "nope, go directly to jail" judicial orders 
|
On October 17 2015 02:57 KwarK wrote:This was a fun read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movementShow nested quote +According to a 2014 report by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, a survey of law-enforcement officials and agencies across the United States concluded that the movement was the single greatest threat to their communities, ranking above Islamic terrorists and jihadists.
Those people are a nightmare for police officers. If they get a traffic ticket they often go and file liens on thier cars and houses. Then in court they do weird things like object to thier public defender, object to a court being a naval court based on the flag, etc.
They rarely seem dangerous, but I can see why cops hate them.
|
ALEXANDRIA, Va. – Wayne Shelby Simmons, 62, of Annapolis, Maryland, a former occasional on-air commentator who appeared on a cable news network (Fox News), was arrested today after being indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of major fraud against the United States, wire fraud, and making false statements to the government.
According to the indictment, Simmons falsely claimed he worked as an “Outside Paramilitary Special Operations Officer” for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from 1973 to 2000, and used that false claim in an attempt to obtain government security clearances and work as a defense contractor, including at one point successfully getting deployed overseas as an intelligence advisor to senior military personnel. According to the indictment, Simmons also falsely claimed on national security forms that his prior arrests and criminal convictions were directly related to his supposed intelligence work for the CIA, and that he had previously held a top secret security clearance. The indictment also alleges that Simmons defrauded an individual victim out of approximately $125,000 in connection with a bogus real estate investment.
Source
|
On October 17 2015 03:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +ALEXANDRIA, Va. – Wayne Shelby Simmons, 62, of Annapolis, Maryland, a former occasional on-air commentator who appeared on a cable news network (Fox News), was arrested today after being indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of major fraud against the United States, wire fraud, and making false statements to the government.
According to the indictment, Simmons falsely claimed he worked as an “Outside Paramilitary Special Operations Officer” for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from 1973 to 2000, and used that false claim in an attempt to obtain government security clearances and work as a defense contractor, including at one point successfully getting deployed overseas as an intelligence advisor to senior military personnel. According to the indictment, Simmons also falsely claimed on national security forms that his prior arrests and criminal convictions were directly related to his supposed intelligence work for the CIA, and that he had previously held a top secret security clearance. The indictment also alleges that Simmons defrauded an individual victim out of approximately $125,000 in connection with a bogus real estate investment. Source
including at one point successfully getting deployed overseas as an intelligence advisor to senior military personnel. Do people seriously not check such claims?
|
On October 17 2015 02:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2015 02:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Presidential campaigns released their fundraising totals for the third quarter of 2015 on Thursday. The results included a few surprises, as the pace of the 2016 presidential primary gets ready to pick up in the fall. Most notable were the stunning take from Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, the surprisingly low-budget campaign of Donald Trump and the continuing financial advantage that top Democratic candidates had over their Republican rivals.
The two Democratic frontrunners, Hillary Clinton and Sanders, each out-raised all of their Republican rivals. Clinton raised $29.4m, edging Sanders who had $26.2m. Both far outpaced Ben Carson, the top GOP fundraiser at $20.8m, in the past quarter and were even further ahead of other top Republicans as well.
Unsurprisingly the two Democratic candidates raised this in entirely different ways. An eye-popping 77% of Sanders’ contributions come from small donors and the frugal socialist’s campaign ended the quarter with $27.1m cash on hand. Sanders had more than 650,000 donors of whom only 270 have given the maximum amount of $2,700. Further, his campaign said it was keeping up its frenetic fundraising pace. Sanders has received 97,800 contributions totaling some $3.2m since the first Democratic debate on Tuesday.
The only candidate to end with more cash available than Sanders was Clinton, who had nearly $33m available. However the former secretary of state relied heavily on high-dollar donations with more than 80% of her donors giving over $200, the reverse of the ratio for Sanders.
Among their Democratic rivals, the former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley raised $1.28m – a disappointing total for a candidate with a professional campaign organization who was long pegged as a rising star on the left. In contrast former Virginia senator Jim Webb and former Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee posted numbers that jibed with their anemic campaign effort. Webb, who boasted of killing an enemy soldier in combat in Thursday’s debate, raised $696,972.18 and Chafee, a self-proclaimed “block of granite”, raised a laughable $15,457.90 including $4,121 that he gave his own campaign. In addition, Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig, who is running a campaign based on the promise to promptly resign after enacting campaign finance reform, raised just over $1m. Source Sanders is running the most cost effective campaign of any candidate. Hillary has already spent more than Sanders has raised. Hillary has doubled Bernie's fundraising but tripled his spending. It's important to note 99.9% of Bernie's supporters can legally give more while ~63% of Hillary's donors are already maxed out. To give an idea as to why Jeb is driving around instead of flying, over 80% of Jeb's donors are already maxed out. It appears that Republicans and Hillary were planning on advertising (citizens united) being far more effective than it seems to be this election.
How is the maximum amount for a campaign donation calculated? Is it the same for every person, or is it dependent on tax brackets/ income?
|
On October 17 2015 03:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2015 02:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2015 02:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Presidential campaigns released their fundraising totals for the third quarter of 2015 on Thursday. The results included a few surprises, as the pace of the 2016 presidential primary gets ready to pick up in the fall. Most notable were the stunning take from Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, the surprisingly low-budget campaign of Donald Trump and the continuing financial advantage that top Democratic candidates had over their Republican rivals.
The two Democratic frontrunners, Hillary Clinton and Sanders, each out-raised all of their Republican rivals. Clinton raised $29.4m, edging Sanders who had $26.2m. Both far outpaced Ben Carson, the top GOP fundraiser at $20.8m, in the past quarter and were even further ahead of other top Republicans as well.
Unsurprisingly the two Democratic candidates raised this in entirely different ways. An eye-popping 77% of Sanders’ contributions come from small donors and the frugal socialist’s campaign ended the quarter with $27.1m cash on hand. Sanders had more than 650,000 donors of whom only 270 have given the maximum amount of $2,700. Further, his campaign said it was keeping up its frenetic fundraising pace. Sanders has received 97,800 contributions totaling some $3.2m since the first Democratic debate on Tuesday.
The only candidate to end with more cash available than Sanders was Clinton, who had nearly $33m available. However the former secretary of state relied heavily on high-dollar donations with more than 80% of her donors giving over $200, the reverse of the ratio for Sanders.
Among their Democratic rivals, the former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley raised $1.28m – a disappointing total for a candidate with a professional campaign organization who was long pegged as a rising star on the left. In contrast former Virginia senator Jim Webb and former Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee posted numbers that jibed with their anemic campaign effort. Webb, who boasted of killing an enemy soldier in combat in Thursday’s debate, raised $696,972.18 and Chafee, a self-proclaimed “block of granite”, raised a laughable $15,457.90 including $4,121 that he gave his own campaign. In addition, Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig, who is running a campaign based on the promise to promptly resign after enacting campaign finance reform, raised just over $1m. Source Sanders is running the most cost effective campaign of any candidate. Hillary has already spent more than Sanders has raised. Hillary has doubled Bernie's fundraising but tripled his spending. It's important to note 99.9% of Bernie's supporters can legally give more while ~63% of Hillary's donors are already maxed out. To give an idea as to why Jeb is driving around instead of flying, over 80% of Jeb's donors are already maxed out. It appears that Republicans and Hillary were planning on advertising (citizens united) being far more effective than it seems to be this election. How is the maximum amount for a campaign donation calculated? Is it the same for every person, or is it dependent on tax brackets/ income?
It's 2,700 dollars.
|
This woman seems to desperately want a top job in the Clinton Administration if she's elected.
A vice chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) says the chairwoman, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.), did not consult others about the party's primary debate schedule, as she claims, and is questioning her leadership.
R.T. Rybak, a former mayor of Minneapolis, told The New York Times on Thursday that Wasserman Schultz had made statements that were "flat out not true."
“This is not a back-and-forth between a chair and a vice chair,” he said, according to the Times
“This is a chair of the Democratic Party wrongly stating that she consulted with all of the party officers. I was not consulted. I know that [Rep.] Tulsi Gabbard [D-Hawaii] was not consulted. And this is becoming about much more than debates.”
Rybak's comments are the latest salvo in an internal party fight over the number of presidential primary debates.
The DNC is planning to hold six debates, but many, including presidential contenders Martin O'Malley and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), have called for more. Ryback and his fellow DNC vice chair Gabbard also publicly called for more debates.
Gabbard said she was disinvited from the first Democratic debate, held on Tuesday, Oct. 13, after repeating her calls.
According to reports, DNC officials said Gabbard was not disinvited but that Wasserman Schultz wanted to avoid distractions and keep the "focus" on the candidates in the debate. Wasserman Schultz also said she had consulted with others in the party about the timing and number of debates.
Gabbard responded by accusing Wasserman Schultz of making statements "that aren't true."
Rybak on Thursday insisted he had never been consulted and also questioned Wasserman Schultz's judgment.
Source
|
On October 17 2015 03:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:This woman seems to desperately want a top job in the Clinton Administration if she's elected. Show nested quote +A vice chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) says the chairwoman, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.), did not consult others about the party's primary debate schedule, as she claims, and is questioning her leadership.
R.T. Rybak, a former mayor of Minneapolis, told The New York Times on Thursday that Wasserman Schultz had made statements that were "flat out not true."
“This is not a back-and-forth between a chair and a vice chair,” he said, according to the Times
“This is a chair of the Democratic Party wrongly stating that she consulted with all of the party officers. I was not consulted. I know that [Rep.] Tulsi Gabbard [D-Hawaii] was not consulted. And this is becoming about much more than debates.”
Rybak's comments are the latest salvo in an internal party fight over the number of presidential primary debates.
The DNC is planning to hold six debates, but many, including presidential contenders Martin O'Malley and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), have called for more. Ryback and his fellow DNC vice chair Gabbard also publicly called for more debates.
Gabbard said she was disinvited from the first Democratic debate, held on Tuesday, Oct. 13, after repeating her calls.
According to reports, DNC officials said Gabbard was not disinvited but that Wasserman Schultz wanted to avoid distractions and keep the "focus" on the candidates in the debate. Wasserman Schultz also said she had consulted with others in the party about the timing and number of debates.
Gabbard responded by accusing Wasserman Schultz of making statements "that aren't true."
Rybak on Thursday insisted he had never been consulted and also questioned Wasserman Schultz's judgment. Source
Not sure she ever stopped working for Hillary really. When O'Malley called out DWS at the debate it looked like it got Hillary's heart pumping a bit.
I can't believe people are still even remotely considering DWS isn't jibbing for Hillary.
|
On October 17 2015 03:27 notesfromunderground wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2015 03:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 17 2015 02:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2015 02:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Presidential campaigns released their fundraising totals for the third quarter of 2015 on Thursday. The results included a few surprises, as the pace of the 2016 presidential primary gets ready to pick up in the fall. Most notable were the stunning take from Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, the surprisingly low-budget campaign of Donald Trump and the continuing financial advantage that top Democratic candidates had over their Republican rivals.
The two Democratic frontrunners, Hillary Clinton and Sanders, each out-raised all of their Republican rivals. Clinton raised $29.4m, edging Sanders who had $26.2m. Both far outpaced Ben Carson, the top GOP fundraiser at $20.8m, in the past quarter and were even further ahead of other top Republicans as well.
Unsurprisingly the two Democratic candidates raised this in entirely different ways. An eye-popping 77% of Sanders’ contributions come from small donors and the frugal socialist’s campaign ended the quarter with $27.1m cash on hand. Sanders had more than 650,000 donors of whom only 270 have given the maximum amount of $2,700. Further, his campaign said it was keeping up its frenetic fundraising pace. Sanders has received 97,800 contributions totaling some $3.2m since the first Democratic debate on Tuesday.
The only candidate to end with more cash available than Sanders was Clinton, who had nearly $33m available. However the former secretary of state relied heavily on high-dollar donations with more than 80% of her donors giving over $200, the reverse of the ratio for Sanders.
Among their Democratic rivals, the former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley raised $1.28m – a disappointing total for a candidate with a professional campaign organization who was long pegged as a rising star on the left. In contrast former Virginia senator Jim Webb and former Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee posted numbers that jibed with their anemic campaign effort. Webb, who boasted of killing an enemy soldier in combat in Thursday’s debate, raised $696,972.18 and Chafee, a self-proclaimed “block of granite”, raised a laughable $15,457.90 including $4,121 that he gave his own campaign. In addition, Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig, who is running a campaign based on the promise to promptly resign after enacting campaign finance reform, raised just over $1m. Source Sanders is running the most cost effective campaign of any candidate. Hillary has already spent more than Sanders has raised. Hillary has doubled Bernie's fundraising but tripled his spending. It's important to note 99.9% of Bernie's supporters can legally give more while ~63% of Hillary's donors are already maxed out. To give an idea as to why Jeb is driving around instead of flying, over 80% of Jeb's donors are already maxed out. It appears that Republicans and Hillary were planning on advertising (citizens united) being far more effective than it seems to be this election. How is the maximum amount for a campaign donation calculated? Is it the same for every person, or is it dependent on tax brackets/ income? It's 2,700 dollars.
But isn't that limit also completely toothless in the days of untraceable millions through superPACs? Or am i misunderstanding something here?
|
On October 17 2015 03:55 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2015 03:27 notesfromunderground wrote:On October 17 2015 03:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 17 2015 02:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2015 02:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Presidential campaigns released their fundraising totals for the third quarter of 2015 on Thursday. The results included a few surprises, as the pace of the 2016 presidential primary gets ready to pick up in the fall. Most notable were the stunning take from Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, the surprisingly low-budget campaign of Donald Trump and the continuing financial advantage that top Democratic candidates had over their Republican rivals.
The two Democratic frontrunners, Hillary Clinton and Sanders, each out-raised all of their Republican rivals. Clinton raised $29.4m, edging Sanders who had $26.2m. Both far outpaced Ben Carson, the top GOP fundraiser at $20.8m, in the past quarter and were even further ahead of other top Republicans as well.
Unsurprisingly the two Democratic candidates raised this in entirely different ways. An eye-popping 77% of Sanders’ contributions come from small donors and the frugal socialist’s campaign ended the quarter with $27.1m cash on hand. Sanders had more than 650,000 donors of whom only 270 have given the maximum amount of $2,700. Further, his campaign said it was keeping up its frenetic fundraising pace. Sanders has received 97,800 contributions totaling some $3.2m since the first Democratic debate on Tuesday.
The only candidate to end with more cash available than Sanders was Clinton, who had nearly $33m available. However the former secretary of state relied heavily on high-dollar donations with more than 80% of her donors giving over $200, the reverse of the ratio for Sanders.
Among their Democratic rivals, the former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley raised $1.28m – a disappointing total for a candidate with a professional campaign organization who was long pegged as a rising star on the left. In contrast former Virginia senator Jim Webb and former Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee posted numbers that jibed with their anemic campaign effort. Webb, who boasted of killing an enemy soldier in combat in Thursday’s debate, raised $696,972.18 and Chafee, a self-proclaimed “block of granite”, raised a laughable $15,457.90 including $4,121 that he gave his own campaign. In addition, Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig, who is running a campaign based on the promise to promptly resign after enacting campaign finance reform, raised just over $1m. Source Sanders is running the most cost effective campaign of any candidate. Hillary has already spent more than Sanders has raised. Hillary has doubled Bernie's fundraising but tripled his spending. It's important to note 99.9% of Bernie's supporters can legally give more while ~63% of Hillary's donors are already maxed out. To give an idea as to why Jeb is driving around instead of flying, over 80% of Jeb's donors are already maxed out. It appears that Republicans and Hillary were planning on advertising (citizens united) being far more effective than it seems to be this election. How is the maximum amount for a campaign donation calculated? Is it the same for every person, or is it dependent on tax brackets/ income? It's 2,700 dollars. But isn't that limit also completely toothless in the days of untraceable millions through superPACs? Or am i misunderstanding something here?
SuperPac's $$ can't be used for/by the campaign directly. They are primarily for commercials.
Hence why Jeb's on the road instead of in the air, his super pac has tons of money (~$100 million) but they can't use that money for travel and such.
One reason this isn't as effective as usual is that both Sanders and Carson are breaking small donor records. Sanders has over 200,000 more contributors than Clinton and more than even Obama had far later in the campaign. Another reason is that commercials don't seem to be helping as much as they have in the past.
It also didn't help that Bush accidentally admitted to election fraud when he called his superPac's commercials as his own though he quickly corrected the statement.
|
Rick Perry had SuperPAC money, but no campaign money. That's one example. You need more than SP $$$
|
On October 17 2015 03:55 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2015 03:27 notesfromunderground wrote:On October 17 2015 03:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 17 2015 02:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2015 02:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Presidential campaigns released their fundraising totals for the third quarter of 2015 on Thursday. The results included a few surprises, as the pace of the 2016 presidential primary gets ready to pick up in the fall. Most notable were the stunning take from Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, the surprisingly low-budget campaign of Donald Trump and the continuing financial advantage that top Democratic candidates had over their Republican rivals.
The two Democratic frontrunners, Hillary Clinton and Sanders, each out-raised all of their Republican rivals. Clinton raised $29.4m, edging Sanders who had $26.2m. Both far outpaced Ben Carson, the top GOP fundraiser at $20.8m, in the past quarter and were even further ahead of other top Republicans as well.
Unsurprisingly the two Democratic candidates raised this in entirely different ways. An eye-popping 77% of Sanders’ contributions come from small donors and the frugal socialist’s campaign ended the quarter with $27.1m cash on hand. Sanders had more than 650,000 donors of whom only 270 have given the maximum amount of $2,700. Further, his campaign said it was keeping up its frenetic fundraising pace. Sanders has received 97,800 contributions totaling some $3.2m since the first Democratic debate on Tuesday.
The only candidate to end with more cash available than Sanders was Clinton, who had nearly $33m available. However the former secretary of state relied heavily on high-dollar donations with more than 80% of her donors giving over $200, the reverse of the ratio for Sanders.
Among their Democratic rivals, the former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley raised $1.28m – a disappointing total for a candidate with a professional campaign organization who was long pegged as a rising star on the left. In contrast former Virginia senator Jim Webb and former Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee posted numbers that jibed with their anemic campaign effort. Webb, who boasted of killing an enemy soldier in combat in Thursday’s debate, raised $696,972.18 and Chafee, a self-proclaimed “block of granite”, raised a laughable $15,457.90 including $4,121 that he gave his own campaign. In addition, Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig, who is running a campaign based on the promise to promptly resign after enacting campaign finance reform, raised just over $1m. Source Sanders is running the most cost effective campaign of any candidate. Hillary has already spent more than Sanders has raised. Hillary has doubled Bernie's fundraising but tripled his spending. It's important to note 99.9% of Bernie's supporters can legally give more while ~63% of Hillary's donors are already maxed out. To give an idea as to why Jeb is driving around instead of flying, over 80% of Jeb's donors are already maxed out. It appears that Republicans and Hillary were planning on advertising (citizens united) being far more effective than it seems to be this election. How is the maximum amount for a campaign donation calculated? Is it the same for every person, or is it dependent on tax brackets/ income? It's 2,700 dollars. But isn't that limit also completely toothless in the days of untraceable millions through superPACs? Or am i misunderstanding something here?
You should think of a superPAC as a very focused Fox News/MSNBC. There are only cosmetic differences between those two orgs and a superPAC, namely that superPACs can't interview candidates they like, and don't try to bring in profits.
|
On October 17 2015 04:02 Introvert wrote:
Rick Perry had SuperPAC money, but no campaign money. That's one example. You need more than SP $$$
I'm still pretty surprised his campaign didn't try to do some ultra-funky finance magic with "gifts" being made by the SuperPACs to his employees. Maybe they didn't think they could do it without being caught, or that they just realized the risk wasn't worth it.
|
Here's an interesting article on how Super PACs work in practice:
www.newyorker.com
Basically the law is very loosely enforced because the FEC is often deadlocked. An objective observer might reasonably conclude that the Republicans on it don't want fundraising limits to be enforced, though the author notes that at least they don't bother to enforce the law when Democrats behave badly either.
The article focuses on some of Fiorina's antics, like having Super PAC personal set up for her campaign events and pass out fliers during them, all while pretending they aren't coordinating with the campaign.
|
Remember the Twitter data dead drops? I thought that was clever, but this... this is something else.
|
On October 17 2015 04:25 Mercy13 wrote:Here's an interesting article on how Super PACs work in practice: www.newyorker.comBasically the law is very loosely enforced because the FEC is often deadlocked. An objective observer might reasonably conclude that the Republicans on it don't want fundraising limits to be enforced, though the author notes that at least they don't bother to enforce the law when Democrats behave badly either. The article focuses on some of Fiorina's antics, like having Super PAC personal set up for her campaign events and pass out fliers during them, all while pretending they aren't coordinating with the campaign.
CARLY for America is practically self-parody when it comes to super PACs.
True story:
"CARLY for America" used to be "Carly for America", The FEC said they couldn't have their candidates name in their own name.
So..
The super PAC supporting Carly Fiorina for president changed its name Monday from Carly for America to CARLY for America super PAC, which stands for:
Conservative
Authentic
Responsive
Leadership for
You and ...
... for America ... super PAC.
This is what's known as a "backronym" -- an acronym made after-the-fact, a string of words chosen to fit the five letters of Fiorina's first name. It could have been
Source
Try to find the expanded version on the website/merch though lol. Gotta be unrecognizable when you start running all those attack ads later 
|
Four companies running urgent care centers in New York have agreed to disclose more fully which insurance plans they accept, following an inquiry by the state's attorney general that found unclear or incomplete information on their websites that could result in larger-than-expected bills for consumers.
The agreements mark the first enforcement action brought under New York's new law that targets surprise medical bills, seen as one of the broadest in the nation. The law aims to reduce the number of consumers who get such bills when they unknowingly see providers who are not part of their insurance plan networks.
Although many consumers don't realize it, visits to urgent care clinics can lead to such out-of-network bills.
In July, New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman sent strongly worded letters to about 20 urgent care clinics, asking for more information. Some of their websites, the letters noted, could be improperly listing which health plans they were part of, potentially a deceptive business practice. Similar concerns have been raised by advocates in other states, who note that urgent care centers often say they "work with" or "accept" insurance, but don't clearly say whether they are part of particular insurers' networks.
Such statements "may lead consumers to believe that an out-of-network urgent care center is ... 'in network' with their health plan," the July 2 letters said.
That's important because consumers who go to clinics that aren't part of their plans' networks might owe the balance between clinic charges and what their insurers pay toward out-of-network visits, sometimes resulting in large bills.
Those bills, also known as balance bills, are part of the complex way that health care is paid for in the U.S. They occur because insurers form networks of doctors, hospitals and other providers who have agreed to negotiated rates, which are generally lower than their usual fees.
Source
|
|
|
On October 17 2015 03:27 notesfromunderground wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2015 03:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 17 2015 02:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2015 02:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Presidential campaigns released their fundraising totals for the third quarter of 2015 on Thursday. The results included a few surprises, as the pace of the 2016 presidential primary gets ready to pick up in the fall. Most notable were the stunning take from Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, the surprisingly low-budget campaign of Donald Trump and the continuing financial advantage that top Democratic candidates had over their Republican rivals.
The two Democratic frontrunners, Hillary Clinton and Sanders, each out-raised all of their Republican rivals. Clinton raised $29.4m, edging Sanders who had $26.2m. Both far outpaced Ben Carson, the top GOP fundraiser at $20.8m, in the past quarter and were even further ahead of other top Republicans as well.
Unsurprisingly the two Democratic candidates raised this in entirely different ways. An eye-popping 77% of Sanders’ contributions come from small donors and the frugal socialist’s campaign ended the quarter with $27.1m cash on hand. Sanders had more than 650,000 donors of whom only 270 have given the maximum amount of $2,700. Further, his campaign said it was keeping up its frenetic fundraising pace. Sanders has received 97,800 contributions totaling some $3.2m since the first Democratic debate on Tuesday.
The only candidate to end with more cash available than Sanders was Clinton, who had nearly $33m available. However the former secretary of state relied heavily on high-dollar donations with more than 80% of her donors giving over $200, the reverse of the ratio for Sanders.
Among their Democratic rivals, the former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley raised $1.28m – a disappointing total for a candidate with a professional campaign organization who was long pegged as a rising star on the left. In contrast former Virginia senator Jim Webb and former Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee posted numbers that jibed with their anemic campaign effort. Webb, who boasted of killing an enemy soldier in combat in Thursday’s debate, raised $696,972.18 and Chafee, a self-proclaimed “block of granite”, raised a laughable $15,457.90 including $4,121 that he gave his own campaign. In addition, Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig, who is running a campaign based on the promise to promptly resign after enacting campaign finance reform, raised just over $1m. Source Sanders is running the most cost effective campaign of any candidate. Hillary has already spent more than Sanders has raised. Hillary has doubled Bernie's fundraising but tripled his spending. It's important to note 99.9% of Bernie's supporters can legally give more while ~63% of Hillary's donors are already maxed out. To give an idea as to why Jeb is driving around instead of flying, over 80% of Jeb's donors are already maxed out. It appears that Republicans and Hillary were planning on advertising (citizens united) being far more effective than it seems to be this election. How is the maximum amount for a campaign donation calculated? Is it the same for every person, or is it dependent on tax brackets/ income? It's 2,700 dollars.
Okay, but why? I'm more curious about how that's calculated 
|
On October 17 2015 04:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2015 03:27 notesfromunderground wrote:On October 17 2015 03:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 17 2015 02:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2015 02:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Presidential campaigns released their fundraising totals for the third quarter of 2015 on Thursday. The results included a few surprises, as the pace of the 2016 presidential primary gets ready to pick up in the fall. Most notable were the stunning take from Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, the surprisingly low-budget campaign of Donald Trump and the continuing financial advantage that top Democratic candidates had over their Republican rivals.
The two Democratic frontrunners, Hillary Clinton and Sanders, each out-raised all of their Republican rivals. Clinton raised $29.4m, edging Sanders who had $26.2m. Both far outpaced Ben Carson, the top GOP fundraiser at $20.8m, in the past quarter and were even further ahead of other top Republicans as well.
Unsurprisingly the two Democratic candidates raised this in entirely different ways. An eye-popping 77% of Sanders’ contributions come from small donors and the frugal socialist’s campaign ended the quarter with $27.1m cash on hand. Sanders had more than 650,000 donors of whom only 270 have given the maximum amount of $2,700. Further, his campaign said it was keeping up its frenetic fundraising pace. Sanders has received 97,800 contributions totaling some $3.2m since the first Democratic debate on Tuesday.
The only candidate to end with more cash available than Sanders was Clinton, who had nearly $33m available. However the former secretary of state relied heavily on high-dollar donations with more than 80% of her donors giving over $200, the reverse of the ratio for Sanders.
Among their Democratic rivals, the former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley raised $1.28m – a disappointing total for a candidate with a professional campaign organization who was long pegged as a rising star on the left. In contrast former Virginia senator Jim Webb and former Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee posted numbers that jibed with their anemic campaign effort. Webb, who boasted of killing an enemy soldier in combat in Thursday’s debate, raised $696,972.18 and Chafee, a self-proclaimed “block of granite”, raised a laughable $15,457.90 including $4,121 that he gave his own campaign. In addition, Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig, who is running a campaign based on the promise to promptly resign after enacting campaign finance reform, raised just over $1m. Source Sanders is running the most cost effective campaign of any candidate. Hillary has already spent more than Sanders has raised. Hillary has doubled Bernie's fundraising but tripled his spending. It's important to note 99.9% of Bernie's supporters can legally give more while ~63% of Hillary's donors are already maxed out. To give an idea as to why Jeb is driving around instead of flying, over 80% of Jeb's donors are already maxed out. It appears that Republicans and Hillary were planning on advertising (citizens united) being far more effective than it seems to be this election. How is the maximum amount for a campaign donation calculated? Is it the same for every person, or is it dependent on tax brackets/ income? It's 2,700 dollars. Okay, but why? I'm more curious about how that's calculated
Through some quick googling, I can find several FEC links showing charts for different contribution amounts, but nothing explaining why $2,700 was the chosen amount. It seems kind of arbitrary, but I have to assume there's a reason behind it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
