EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 343
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
Falling
Canada11368 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18835 Posts
 )In other news, nothing warms the heart like seeing a hedge fund manager take some heat. Steven Cohen, the billionaire manager of one of the largest and most successful hedge funds, was hit with a civil action by federal regulators Friday for allegedly failing to supervise two financial lieutenants accused of insider trading. The action filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission stopped short of accusing the famed founder of SAC Capital and one of the nation's wealthiest individuals of insider trading himself. But it seeks to bar Cohen from handling investor funds, a penalty that could force him to shutter portfolios that the agency said until recently totaled more than $15 billion. In a relatively rare legal step, the SEC also filed administrative charges against Cohen, rather than a federal lawsuit. That means the case will be handled by an SEC administrative law judge, an employee of the regulatory agency. That gives the agency potentially valuable "home court advantage" because the rules of evidence are somewhat less strict than those in federal court, said John Coffee, a Columbia University law school professor with expertise in securities law. The action came roughly one week before the legal statute of limitations would have expired for some of the alleged insider trading offenses. It also follows the record $615 million in penalties that SAC Capital and CR Intrinsic, another Cohen affiliate, agreed to pay the SEC to resolve insider trading charges against the firms. In the new case, the SEC charged that Cohen received "highly suspicious" non-public information in 2008 from portfolio managers, Mathew Martoma and Michael Steinberg, who have pleaded not guilty to insider trading charges and face separate trials later this year. Instead of heeding his supervisory responsibility to investigate, the SEC charged that Cohen "ignored red flags" and allowed trading on the information to proceed, earning profits and avoiding losses totaling more than $275 million. "Hedge fund managers are responsible for exercising appropriate supervision over their employees to ensure that their firms comply with the securities laws," said Andrew Ceresney, co-director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement. "After learning about red flags indicating potential insider trading by his employees, Steven Cohen allegedly failed to follow up to prevent violations of the law." SEC: Cohen failed to prevent insider trading | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On July 20 2013 02:36 Falling wrote: I imagine this has already played itself out in this thread, but I've been reading a little on this so-called IRS Scandal over Tea Party applications. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/14/lets-back-up-how-is-the-irs-supposed-to-scrutinize-501c4s-anyway/ I'm less interested in whether or not there was anti-Tea Party targetting or whether Obama had anything to do with it (doubtful imo.) I'm more curious as to how what they are applying for works. I believe this is the 501c they using to apply Now it seems strange to me that ANY political organization is able to apply under this paragraphy as it says "exclusively for the promotion of social welfare..." Now I don't know too much about Priorities USA and Crossroads GPS, but it seems they also have been heavily engaged in politics. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/10/the-irs-was-wrong-to-target-the-tea-party-they-shouldve-gone-after-all-501c4s/ I don't understand how any of these organizations whether or Tea Party, Republican, or Democrat fit under 501c4. This seems a cop out to fit under the heading of "social welfare." Under this line of thinking, I could call any of my pet political views as being good for all America, that without it, America is heading in the wrong direction, and that promoting my pet political view is promoting social welfare. Seems to me that there is a heavy distortion in IRS policy in interpreting 501c4 to allow any of these organizations tax exemptions. (And perhaps more importantly, by applying under 501c4, the donor list is kept anonymous instead of filing with the FEC.) Or am I reading this wrong? What you've described is pretty much how it works. You devote money to social causes, the importance of political participation (lot of get out the vote operations) and its 501c4. Now if only one political party can get this status for their organizations, there's the scandal. Name it one thing, 14 months and waiting, swap it to a different name, 3 weeks approved. 7.25.4.6 (02-09-1999) Exemption Under IRC 501(c)(4) v. Exemption Under IRC 501(c)(3) Organizations exempt under IRC 501(c)(4) are generally allowed greater latitude than that allowed to organizations exempt under IRC 501(c)(3). There is no organizational test and there is no deadline on applying for exemption. Organizations exempt under IRC 501(c)(4) may engage in germane action organization activities described in Reg. 1.501–1(c)(3) other than intervention in a political campaign, without the restrictions imposed on IRC 501(c)(3) organizations. Since the test for exemption under IRC 501(c)(4) is one of primary activities, an organization exempt under IRC 501(c)(4) may engage in substantial non-exempt activities. That's how the IRS puts the greater latitude. They can engage in political activities so long as their primary activity is social welfare. During the height of the scandal discussion, I can't mention how many times I heard people mention tax deductible donations to 501(c)(4). Those donations are generally not tax deductible. The organization just doesn't get them double taxed in a way (The person that earned them was taxed once on the income, the nonprofit listing it as income would be the second time it was taxed). 501(c)(4) donations are not tax deductible, 501(c)(3) are and are subject to more restrictions. The real controversy is how left-wing groups like Media Matters continue to be allowed 501(c)(3) status, all donations tax deductible. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
The Federal Reserve said late Friday it is revisiting a landmark ruling that allowed big banks to enter the lucrative commodities business, raising the specter that banks may be banned from the highly profitable activity. Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase and other large financial institutions have the most to lose, given their revenues from investing in and trading commodities, such as oil and aluminum. Representatives for the three banks declined to comment. The Fed's statement follows a Huffington Post story this week that detailed how a coalition of beer brewers, automakers, Boeing and Coca-Cola has accused big banks, including Goldman and JPMorgan, of anti-competitive behavior in the aluminum market, fueling regulatory concerns on both sides of the Atlantic. The allegations also have prompted a Senate probe into Wall Street's expansion into the commodities business, as concerns multiply over whether the broader economy is being hurt by banks using important raw materials for trading. "The Federal Reserve regularly monitors the commodity activities of supervised firms and is reviewing the 2003 determination that certain commodity activities are complementary to financial activities and thus permissible for bank holding companies," the central bank said in a one-sentence statement. That 2003 ruling, which involved Citigroup and its Phibro commodities trading unit, ushered in a decade of bank-friendly rulings from the Fed that allowed an increasing number of large financial groups to enter and dominate commodities trading. Approved in part by then-Fed governor Ben Bernanke, who now serves as chairman, the ruling allowed bank holding companies for the first time to trade physical commodities. Source | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
Oklahoma City hospital posts surgery prices online; creates bidding war OKLAHOMA CITY – An Oklahoma City surgery center is offering a new kind of price transparency, posting guaranteed all-inclusive surgery prices online. The move is revolutionizing medical billing in Oklahoma and around the world. Dr. Keith Smith and Dr. Steven Lantier launched Surgery Center of Oklahoma 15 years ago, founded on the simple principle of price honesty. “What we’ve discovered is health care really doesn’t cost that much,” Dr. Smith said. “What people are being charged for is another matter altogether.” Surgery Center of Oklahoma started posting their prices online about four years ago. The prices are all-inclusive quotes and they are guaranteed. “When we first started we thought we were about half the price of the hospitals,” Dr. Lantier remembers. “Then we found out we’re less than half price. Then we find out we’re a sixth to an eighth of what their prices are. I can’t believe the average person can afford health care at these prices.” Their goal was to start a price war and they did. ... News Channel 4′s Ali Meyer obtained bills from the metro’s three largest medical centers: Mercy Medical Center, Integris Baptist Medical Center and OU Medical Center. Mercy Hospital charged $16, 244 for a breast biopsy; the procedure will cost $3,500 at Surgery Center of Oklahoma. OU Medical Center billed $20,456 for the open repair of a fracture; the procedure will cost $4,855 at Surgery Center of Oklahoma. OU Medical Center billed $21,556 for a gall bladder removal surgery; the procedure will cost $5,865 at Surgery Center of Oklahoma. OU Medical Center billed $23,934 for an ankle arthroscopy; the procedure will cost $3,740 at Surgery Center of Oklahoma. Integris Baptist billed $37,174 for a hysterectomy; the surgery costs $8,000 at Surgery Center of Oklahoma. ... As patients are demanding price-matching, some hospitals relent. “Hospitals are having to match our prices because patients are printing their prices and holding that in one hand and holding a ticket to Oklahoma City in the other hand and asking that hospital to step up,” Dr. Smith said. “So we’re actually causing a deflationary effect on pricing all over the United States.” Link Laws and regulations should be much more supportive of this. | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
On July 20 2013 10:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Link Laws and regulations should be much more supportive of this. That's pretty cool. It blows my mind that it costs $20k for a gall bladder removal O_O. Even the private services in Canada (which are few and far between) peg that at around ~$7500. I'm glad it's deflating prices, though. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On July 20 2013 10:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Link Laws and regulations should be much more supportive of this. Yes please! More of this! Shop around with prices and ratings. Choose to buy a scan your doctor recommends, instead of having your doctor say that he thinks its a good idea, but you legally can't pay out of pocket for it and the HMO says it can't be given. Then, if health care costs skyrocket from government intervention, it's very visible in the price sheet and not the lagging and spread-effect insurance rates. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On July 20 2013 10:53 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So Nate Silver is leaving the NYT for ESPN... That's new. Wasn't he originally a sports statistician anyways? | ||
|
kmillz
United States1548 Posts
On July 20 2013 11:52 aksfjh wrote: Wasn't he originally a sports statistician anyways? He was the guy who was remarkably accurate in his prediction for the Presidential election right? | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14041 Posts
On July 20 2013 11:52 aksfjh wrote: Wasn't he originally a sports statistician anyways? a really really bad one. to be fair statistics doesn't work very well in sports. to be fair ESPN is apart of disney and pays a fuckton of cash. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On July 20 2013 12:01 Sermokala wrote: a really really bad one. to be fair statistics doesn't work very well in sports. to be fair ESPN is apart of disney and pays a fuckton of cash. get a load of this guy. you are calling nate silver a really bad baseball analyst based on what | ||
|
DeltaX
United States287 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Whether it’s immigration reform, the budget, or President Obama’s nominees, a faction of more moderate Republican senators are increasingly splitting from both their leadership and the tea party and partnering with Democrats on key issues. The growing signs of division are remarkable after years of exceptional Senate GOP unity under the reign of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), during which minority use of the filibuster to thwart governance has soared to unprecedented heights. This week, large numbers of Republicans, led by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), broke with McConnell and voted with Democrats to secure the confirmation of controversial Obama nominees to the Labor Department, Environmental Protection Agency and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In all eight cloture and confirmation votes, McConnell voted “no.” The most controversial nominee so far, Tom Perez for labor secretary, overcame a GOP filibuster by the thinnest of margins, 60-40. The six Republicans who joined Democrats in his favor, whom Democrats will look to for cooperation on other matters, were Sens. McCain, Bob Corker (TN), Lamar Alexander (TN), Susan Collins (ME), Mark Kirk (IL) and Lisa Murkowski (AK). In a clear sign of boiling rank-and-file frustration, Corker reportedly cried “bullshit” loudly while McConnell was discussing the issue of nominations and Democrats’ nuclear option threat during a closed-door GOP meeting on Wednesday. He later declined to apologize for it and said he’s “glad that that occurred.” On immigration, 14 Republicans joined every Democrat in voting to comprehensively overhaul the system and offer unauthorized immigrants a path to citizenship. On the budget, numerous Republican senators are urging conservative colleagues to stop blocking conference negotiations with the House, and are pushing for a long-term budget agreement with Democrats that includes new revenues — anathema to the tea party. McCain has led the dissent in each of these cases, earning effusive praise from leading Democratic senators and prompting jokes this week by Democratic aides that he is the new minority leader. Source | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
I wonder how much of that is attempting to "save the party" and how much it is finally getting tired of being an obstructionist. | ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On July 21 2013 11:21 aksfjh wrote: I wonder how much of that is attempting to "save the party" and how much it is finally getting tired of being an obstructionist. I would assume they see the two as the same thing: after all, something's gotta give sooner or later, and it's probably better for the uppercase-R Republican Party to buckle before lowercase-r republican government does. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
The avowed purpose of the immigration bill passed by the Senate and pending in the House is to provide a "path to citizenship" for the illegal immigrants in exchange for tough new enforcement measures that would prevent other such incursions in the future. But buried deep within the immigration bill are hidden multimillion-dollar slush funds for left-wing nonprofit groups to provide services to the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants now in the U.S. Once enacted, the slush funds would total almost $300 million over three years and grow over time. Reviewing the massive legislation, it's obvious that lawyering would be needed. The 1,100-page proposal is a network of legal requirements and protections, waivers and exceptions, including a new "provisional immigrant" status (the first phase of legalization for illegals), appeals of adverse rulings, stays of deportation, applications for work visas, and countless other such guarantees. Super bipartisan: at least we can all agree on pork barrel spending. Just throw out enough "comprehensive"ies and "overhaul"s and suddenly we don't have to talk about a bill but about abstract ideas that everyone can feel good about! | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
Pricey hip, knee surgery no guarantee of better results You often don't get what you pay for—at least when it comes to hip- or knee-replacement surgeries. A new study of 2,750 hospitals across the U.S. found a staggering disparity between what the hospitals officially charge for hip- and knee-replacement surgeries before any insurance adjustments. One low-volume hospital in California officially charges a whopping $223,373 for such surgeries, while a high-volume hospital in Akron charges just $15,465, according to a survey by the NerdWallet Health cost-comparison Web site. And hospitals that performed more than 200 of those surgeries annually tended to have lower rates of patients readmitted for complications such as infections than hospitals that did fewer procedures, the survey found. Those high-volume hospitals also tend to charge less for those surgeries than hospitals that did 25 or fewer per year. Despite that, hospitals that do less than 25 of those surgeries per year officially charge 14 percent more than that ones that do 200 or more such procedures, the survey found. And those low-volume hospitals are compensated by Medicare for those surgeries at a rate that is 9 percent higher than what Medicare pays the high-volume hospitals. ... Link Other than the incredibly broken pricing schemes, hospital operations sound strikingly similar to other businesses (ex. economies of scale exist). | ||
|
HellRoxYa
Sweden1614 Posts
On July 22 2013 01:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Link Other than the incredibly broken pricing schemes, hospital operations sound strikingly similar to other businesses (ex. economies of scale exist). Now imagine if it wasn't run like a business, but in the public interest without any profit goal. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On July 22 2013 02:55 HellRoxYa wrote: Now imagine if it wasn't run like a business, but in the public interest without any profit goal. They aren't run like a business. At least not in any modern sense of the word. Many aren't for profit too. | ||
| ||
