EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 7637
| 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. | ||
KwarK
United States43967 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Jason Cisneroz, a community service officer in Houston, is troubled. His job in the nation's fourth largest city is to forge good relations between the police and Hispanic immigrants, a population typically wary of blue uniforms. "A couple of days ago there was a witness to a burglary of a motor vehicle," he said. "She saw the suspects run to a certain place and with items they stole from a car, but she was afraid to come to police, she was in fear they would ask for her papers." Police officials have been warning about the unintended consequences of Trump's immigration dragnet. They caution it will further isolate immigrants who are in the country illegally and are victims of crimes like sexual assault. In Houston and in other U.S. cities, police and immigrant advocates say: it's already happening. Unauthorized immigrants living in Texas have a double whammy. Under President Trump, federal agents have stepped up the arrests of immigrants, even those without a criminal record. And a brand new state law further tightens up immigration enforcement in Texas. The numbers Cisneroz's partner, Officer Jesus Robles, has a unique perspective. Robles came to Texas from Mexico as a child without papers, and later got citizenship. He also notices the chill. "People are afraid to talk to the police, and how does that help us as police do our job?" Robles asked. Their boss, Chief Art Acevedo, citing Houston Police Department data, says Hispanics reporting sexual assault have dropped nearly 43 percent in the first three months of this year, compared to last year. And the number of Hispanic-reported robberies and aggravated assaults are each down 12 percent. "What we've created is a chilling effect that we're already starting to see the beginning of," Acevedo said. "They're afraid that we're more interested as a society in deporting them than we are in bringing justice to the victims of crime." Earlier this month, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed the so-called "sanctuary cities" bill. It orders local jail officials to cooperate with federal immigration agents, and authorizes any Texas peace officer to check the immigration status of any subject they detain. Latino lawmakers are furious. Activists have vowed a "summer of resistance" of lawsuits and more demonstrations. Abbott defends the new law, saying it's meant to catch criminals and that he can't be racist because his wife is Mexican-American. "If you are not someone here who has committed a crime, you have absolutely nothing to worry about. There are laws against racial profiling, and those laws will be strictly enforced," Abbott told a reporter for Univision last week at a memorial service for state troopers. Houston, like many cities, has a policy discouraging its officers from inquiring about a subject's legal status. Now with the new state law, Acevedo says any officer may ask about a subject's citizenship but they cannot act like it's open season on immigrants. He says his officers shouldn't think, " 'I'm gonna go out to the Home Depot and start going after those day laborers that may be undocumented immigrants,'" the chief says. "We're going to make sure we provide plenty of training to those who might be inclined, to make them understand that racial profiling is not going to be tolerated." In an emailed statement to NPR, Patrick Contreras, Houston field office director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), says foreign nationals who are victims of sex crimes, trafficking or domestic violence may qualify for special visas that allow them to stay in the country. He stresses that ICE's mission is to combat crime and protect the public, and to suggest otherwise is "reckless," and creates "fear within communities." Yet, fear of deportation has long complicated relations between Latinos and law enforcement, and lately it's gotten worse. Afraid to get involved Palmira is a 43-year-old house cleaner and babysitter from Guanajuato, Mexico, who lives in Houston with her two teenage daughters. She asked that her last name not be used because she's here illegally. Sitting outside of a Starbucks, she describes how there are drug dealers in her apartment complex. They get in fights, and their customers come day and night, but she won't report them. "I was always afraid to deal with the police because I'm illegal, and I feared they'd take me away," Palmira said, "but now I'm even more scared." Houston is not alone. In Los Angeles, Police Chief Charlie Beck says reports of sexual assault this year have dropped 25 percent among the city's Latino population compared to the same period last year. A new survey of hundreds of victim's advocates and legal service providers in 48 states finds that immigrants are afraid to call police, afraid to press charges and afraid to testify at trial because ICE is making arrests at courthouses. Moreover, this trend is not new. A study published in 2013 by the University of Illinois at Chicago asked Hispanics in major cities their perceptions of police. At the time, the Obama administration was pushing a program to get local officers to work with federal immigration agents. Around 45 percent of Latinos surveyed said they were unlikely to report a crime to police, fearing deportation. Supporters of stricter immigration enforcement are not convinced, especially with only three months of crime-reporting data under the new president. "Well, color me skeptical. I don't believe it, and I'd really be curious to see how they got that data considering that supposedly you're dealing with people living in the shadows, living in fear," said Liz Theiss, founder of Stop the Magnet in Houston. With the immigration crackdown coming from Washington, and now Austin, law enforcement has to balance what can be two very different goals: enforcing federal law and policing the community. Along with the theme of the week, everything is a trade off. Deporting illegal immigrants via a drag net makes it harder for police to do their job effectively. | ||
ZeromuS
Canada13407 Posts
On May 26 2017 00:28 brian wrote: i mean i have no doubt he's insinuated it before but nowhere in that speech did i hear him suggest any member owes the united states money. just because there's no 2% rules doesn't make it an unreasonable goal? and again, he didn't suggest member nations match the US by any metric? like i said, i'm working from this one video alone. so if this happened else wise i understand. but i'm definitely not seeing any of this here. He said they owe a debt... and he said they aren't living up to their obligations of 2% ... How is that not implying theres a goal/debt/issue and he compared their spending to the US spending Its like you've completely ignored the words he used and thought he said something like "everyone should contribute more to strengthen NATO" and not "we spend too much, so much, you all aren't pulling your weight like the US is. You owe us" -- which is in short what the speech was actually about. In public. Throwing his ALLIES under a bus. This amid reports that the US does not agree with the rest of NATO on Russia coming out of this meeting. And also amid reports that Trump has not actually recommitted to Article 5 of NATO and hasn't every actually supported it publicly. You know, the whole thing that implies that if one member of NATO is attacked, effectively all of them have been? You know, the thing that Russia is most vehemently against with regards to the way NATO is structured and why they don't want any of their border states to join NATO? | ||
|
jcarlsoniv
United States27922 Posts
As someone who hasn't ever had to deal with non-employer provided healthcare, isn't part of the idea (whether just in theory or actual practice) of AHCA to reduce the cost of things like COBRA? I'm pretty ignorant of how it all works since I've fortunately never had to go through any part of that process. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23930 Posts
Like I said, they are just going through the motions because we have two privileged classes bumping into each other. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43967 Posts
On May 26 2017 02:11 GreenHorizons wrote: I love how the reports from polling places are that everyone knows about the choke slam but no one is changing their vote. Like I said, they are just going through the motions because we have two privileged classes bumping into each other. The Democratic candidate for Montana looks like someone for whom the word privileged very much should not apply. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43967 Posts
On May 26 2017 02:07 jcarlsoniv wrote: As someone who hasn't ever had to deal with non-employer provided healthcare, isn't part of the idea (whether just in theory or actual practice) of AHCA to reduce the cost of things like COBRA? I'm pretty ignorant of how it all works since I've fortunately never had to go through any part of that process. Your employer negotiates a bulk rate with the insurance companies with risk pooling. They then charge all their employees the same (socialism!) by putting them all in the same risk pool with the same terms (deductible, annual max etc) in their contracts. How COBRA works is it gives the individual who has lost his employment the right to take over that contract on a temporary basis, paying the premiums the employer used to pay on his behalf. So they don't get assessed on their own individual risks but rather continue membership of that risk pool. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7328 Posts
On May 26 2017 02:07 jcarlsoniv wrote: As someone who hasn't ever had to deal with non-employer provided healthcare, isn't part of the idea (whether just in theory or actual practice) of AHCA to reduce the cost of things like COBRA? I'm pretty ignorant of how it all works since I've fortunately never had to go through any part of that process. COBRA as i know it allows you the option to stay on your previous employers insurance plan if you lose your job. The thing is in the USA your employer pays all or part of your premium pre tax. You do the same if you are responsible for part of the premium. The thing is the cost of healthcare insurance that your employer pays is pretty much invisible to most americans. Its also pretty expensive. For example. Your employer might pay a $500 premium for your insurance pre tax. You may pay $100 so the total cost is $600. With Cobra you can buy the same coverage for $600 + a fee but its out of pocket after taxes. So you get double fucked. You are responsible for the employers portion of the premium plus your portion but its after taxes instead of before. So you lost your job but pay way more premium in cost + get fucked by taxes. Unemployment is $362 /week if you cap out so about half of your unemployment goes to your premium. I think you can recoup some of the premium on your taxes but im not sure. You can get insurance on the exchanges instead if you want. It really becomes apparent why health insurance should not be related to employment at all when you look at this stuff | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43967 Posts
On May 26 2017 02:20 Sadist wrote: COBRA as i know it allows you the option to stay on your previous employers insurance plan if you lose your job. The thing is in the USA your employer pays all or part of your premium pre tax. You do the same if you are responsible for part of the premium. The thing is the cost of healthcare insurance that your employer pays is pretty much invisible to most americans. Its also pretty expensive. For example. Your employer might pay a $500 premium for your insurance pre tax. You may pay $100 so the total cost is $600. With Cobra you can buy the same coverage for $600 + a fee but its out of pocket after taxes. So you get double fucked. You are responsible for the employers portion of the premium plus your portion but its after taxes instead of before. So you lost your job but pay way more premium in cost + get fucked by taxes. Unemployment is $362 /week if you cap out so about half of your unemployment goes to your premium. I think you can recoup some of the premium on your taxes but im not sure. You can get insurance on the exchanges instead if you want. It really becomes apparent why health insurance should not be related to employment at all when you look at this stuff If you're itemizing then the tax deductibility of the insurance premiums is unchanged. You were always allowed to deduct health insurance costs on the Schedule A as long as they were paid with post-tax money (because a deduction is essentially claiming back the tax you paid on an expense and if you pay with pre-tax money then you never paid any tax on that money in the first place so you can't get it back). It's one of those things where if you're one of the poorer Americans who doesn't itemize then you're fucked but if you're itemizing (middle class/homeowners with expensive houses etc) then you're fine. TLDR: You can claim back the taxes on your premiums if you already had $12,600 of deductible expenses to make itemizing worth it. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7328 Posts
On May 26 2017 02:22 Plansix wrote: Punch. To. The. Throat. You get the paperwork for COBRA along with you unemployment paperwork. So you get to pay health insurance that is more expansive, while having reduced income based on your past income. And unemployment doesn't take into account the amount your employer was paying for health insurance. It is borderline insulting to receive the paperwork. Ya its fucked. I think like 50% or more of the country lives pay check to pay check regardless of income level. Let that sink in how fucked you are if you lose your job. Im sure lots of people dont take the cobra coverage if they are single because they cant afford to. That means gap in coverage. If you have a pre existing condition you could easily be fucked. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 26 2017 02:27 KwarK wrote: If you're itemizing then the tax deductibility of the insurance premiums is unchanged. You were always allowed to deduct health insurance costs on the Schedule A as long as they were paid with post-tax money (because a deduction is essentially claiming back the tax you paid on an expense and if you pay with pre-tax money then you never paid any tax on that money in the first place so you can't get it back). It's one of those things where if you're one of the poorer Americans who doesn't itemize then you're fucked but if you're itemizing (middle class/homeowners with expensive houses etc) then you're fine. TLDR: You can claim back the taxes on your premiums if you already had $12,600 of deductible expenses to make itemizing worth it. Kwark, my wife and I needed your magical accounting powers back in 2011-2012, or as I call them "The two year I vaguely remember as being Hell." | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
The moral of the story is that the only reasonable way to pay for healthcare is taxes. A percentage of your income, regardless of your medical situation. Any other way will always lead to the weakest being shat upon. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7328 Posts
On May 26 2017 02:27 KwarK wrote: If you're itemizing then the tax deductibility of the insurance premiums is unchanged. You were always allowed to deduct health insurance costs on the Schedule A as long as they were paid with post-tax money (because a deduction is essentially claiming back the tax you paid on an expense and if you pay with pre-tax money then you never paid any tax on that money in the first place so you can't get it back). It's one of those things where if you're one of the poorer Americans who doesn't itemize then you're fucked but if you're itemizing (middle class/homeowners with expensive houses etc) then you're fine. TLDR: You can claim back the taxes on your premiums if you already had $12,600 of deductible expenses to make itemizing worth it. It still means you have to eat the cost until tax season right? You eat the cost upfront but get it back later. Hopefully there is enough cash around to get a person through. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 26 2017 02:33 Sadist wrote: It still means you have to eat the cost until tax season right? You eat the cost upfront but get it back later. Hopefully there is enough cash around to get a person through. If you are middle class, it should work out and you should be able to swing it. But it is unnecessarily cumbersome and disenfranchises the poor. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7328 Posts
If you take the money already paid by employers and employees for premiums and gave that to medicare instead i would be very interested to see how the numbers came out. I feel like the criticism about having to raise taxes assumes its a tax on where you are currently. It doesnt take into account employers already paying for premiums as a part of compensation. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On May 26 2017 02:11 GreenHorizons wrote: I love how the reports from polling places are that everyone knows about the choke slam but no one is changing their vote. Like I said, they are just going through the motions because we have two privileged classes bumping into each other. I think the effects of the choke slam are less likely to be seen in people who go to the polls and more likely to be seen in the people who don't ("lesser of two evils" applies less to this kind of situation than ever, choke slamming someone doesn't win the opponent your vote generally). That said it's probably not going to change the results. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On May 26 2017 02:33 Sadist wrote: It still means you have to eat the cost until tax season right? You eat the cost upfront but get it back later. Hopefully there is enough cash around to get a person through. This is a problem. The average American household savings do not allow for this. Sure, people should save more, but they aren't. When people get these medical bills, it creates secondary costs and issues. When people can't afford care, or end up in too much debt, society as a whole suffers more secondary costs. At the end of the day, a policy which assumes people can cover some up front cost is illogical. It is based on a situation that has been shown does not exist. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43967 Posts
On May 26 2017 02:33 Sadist wrote: It still means you have to eat the cost until tax season right? You eat the cost upfront but get it back later. Hopefully there is enough cash around to get a person through. Yes and no. You can't get the tax back on those specific dollars until tax season. However what you can do is know what the tax on those dollars would be and then underpay tax on some different dollars to net it out. The real problem is the fact that itemizing basically sucks. Here's the process 1) A = how much you spent on medical costs 2) B = your adjusted gross income 3) C = A-(0.1*B) = medical costs in excess of a 10% floor of your income 4) D = C+ a bunch of other deductible expenses = how much you can deduct 5) E = D - $12,600 = how much more you can deduct than you could have anyway had you not itemized So let's plug some numbers in. A family earns $50,000 in 2016. They had to pay $6,000 in medical fees/health insurance etc on a post-tax basis. $6,000 minus ($50,000*0.1) = $1,000. They have a $1,000 medical deduction. If they can come up with another $11,601 in deductions then this whole process will save them the taxes they would have paid on one dollar. So maybe 10 cents. There are ways to deduct on a for AGI basis rather than a from AGI basis but you basically need to be me to manage that shit. PM for details if interested. | ||
| ||
