|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 25 2018 07:37 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2018 06:30 Plansix wrote:On July 25 2018 06:07 screamingpalm wrote:On July 25 2018 06:03 Plansix wrote:On July 25 2018 05:56 screamingpalm wrote:On July 25 2018 05:52 Plansix wrote: Medicaid for all at the state level is the only way to get the ball rolling. The federal government isn’t becoming functional in the next decade, so the state level is the only proving ground for universal healthcare available. And then when state budgets can't handle it because they are users of the currency and not the issuer, neolibs can point to it and say it won't work. This is the only plan you have right now. Or some magical way to take control of both chambers and win the white house again, while also signing everyone up for the healthcare fight of 2008 all over again. State level funding and then push for more federal dollars for the program. I wouldn't be totally against the idea, but I worry about how the political games would be played once state budgets are strained. The shit you are worried about is the same this that the traditional liberals worried about when the ACA. They were not wrong at the time, that no Republican buy in meant that they could attack the ACA for 3 full election cycles. But the difference is that our healthcare system has really started to rot under Republican governance. The mortality rate for women giving birth, the merit used for nearly a century to judge the quality of healthcare in a nation, has been going up for several years how. As long as progressive stick to the argument that its, A: The federal governments fault for playing political games with healthcare and B: Up to the states to fix the problem and the Federal government should just foot the bill, it could gain political traction. maybe the mortality rate is higher because median pregnancy age is higher? From what I have ready, the mortality rate increased in rural states with strained healthcare systems. Which is a lot of states.
|
On July 25 2018 07:37 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2018 06:30 Plansix wrote:On July 25 2018 06:07 screamingpalm wrote:On July 25 2018 06:03 Plansix wrote:On July 25 2018 05:56 screamingpalm wrote:On July 25 2018 05:52 Plansix wrote: Medicaid for all at the state level is the only way to get the ball rolling. The federal government isn’t becoming functional in the next decade, so the state level is the only proving ground for universal healthcare available. And then when state budgets can't handle it because they are users of the currency and not the issuer, neolibs can point to it and say it won't work. This is the only plan you have right now. Or some magical way to take control of both chambers and win the white house again, while also signing everyone up for the healthcare fight of 2008 all over again. State level funding and then push for more federal dollars for the program. I wouldn't be totally against the idea, but I worry about how the political games would be played once state budgets are strained. The shit you are worried about is the same this that the traditional liberals worried about when the ACA. They were not wrong at the time, that no Republican buy in meant that they could attack the ACA for 3 full election cycles. But the difference is that our healthcare system has really started to rot under Republican governance. The mortality rate for women giving birth, the merit used for nearly a century to judge the quality of healthcare in a nation, has been going up for several years how. As long as progressive stick to the argument that its, A: The federal governments fault for playing political games with healthcare and B: Up to the states to fix the problem and the Federal government should just foot the bill, it could gain political traction. maybe the mortality rate is higher because median pregnancy age is higher?
Nope. Median age of pregnancy is still low when compared to almost all other developed nations, and yet by basically every measurable index our healthcare system is horrendous.
The U.S. healthcare system is just objectively terrible, and infant mortality is only one of many measurements by which this is true. There really aren't many positives to say about our system unless you're well off.
|
On July 25 2018 04:35 ticklishmusic wrote:So, because farmers, etc. are getting boned as a result of these idiotic tariffs, the USDA is now tossing a few billions of aid to help them. This looks an awful lot like government welfare, but fiscal conservatives seem to be quiet about it (with some exceptions). Show nested quote +The U.S. Agriculture Department announced Tuesday a $12 billion package of emergency aid for farmers caught in the midst of President Trump’s escalating trade war the latest sign that growing tensions between the United States and other countries will not end soon.
Trump ordered Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue to prepare a range of options several months ago, amid complaints from farmers that their products faced retaliatory tariffs from China and other countries. The new package of government assistance funds announced Tuesday and will go into effect in September.
The aid package will target soybean farmers, dairy farmers, and pork producers, among others. White House officials hope it will temporarily quiet some of the unease from farm groups, but the new plan could revive debates about taxpayer-funded bailouts and the degree to which Trump’s trade strategy is leading to unforeseen costs. SourceMaybe this is how we get to socialism, Trump blows things up and then bails em out. It will be interesting to see if republicans sell out and accept a welfare program instead of forcing Trump to stop his trade war shenanigans. Is the fear of Trumps wrath larger than their beliefs?
|
5930 Posts
They're not scared of Trump exactly, they just have no control over their base.
Also, if it isn't clear by now Republicans aren't against subsidies or government spending. I don't know what exactly is conservative about Republicans anymore except for the whole Dominion theology angle.
|
On July 25 2018 09:41 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2018 04:35 ticklishmusic wrote:So, because farmers, etc. are getting boned as a result of these idiotic tariffs, the USDA is now tossing a few billions of aid to help them. This looks an awful lot like government welfare, but fiscal conservatives seem to be quiet about it (with some exceptions). The U.S. Agriculture Department announced Tuesday a $12 billion package of emergency aid for farmers caught in the midst of President Trump’s escalating trade war the latest sign that growing tensions between the United States and other countries will not end soon.
Trump ordered Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue to prepare a range of options several months ago, amid complaints from farmers that their products faced retaliatory tariffs from China and other countries. The new package of government assistance funds announced Tuesday and will go into effect in September.
The aid package will target soybean farmers, dairy farmers, and pork producers, among others. White House officials hope it will temporarily quiet some of the unease from farm groups, but the new plan could revive debates about taxpayer-funded bailouts and the degree to which Trump’s trade strategy is leading to unforeseen costs. SourceMaybe this is how we get to socialism, Trump blows things up and then bails em out. It will be interesting to see if republicans sell out and accept a welfare program instead of forcing Trump to stop his trade war shenanigans. Is the fear of Trumps wrath larger than their beliefs? since when do they have beliefs? also, farm aid never really counts as "welfare" in their minds, and there's been a LOT of it over the years. I imagine many corporate subsidies don't either.
|
Idk if anybody has mentioned this but the IRS has made changes to the new 1040 form as it is more shorter and combined the 1040 the 1040A and the 1040ez into 1 aggregate form. The claiming of non children as dependents. There are also limits capped off as far as what you can claim for property taxes as well ($10k it seems). Along with other changes too. The middle class is about to get destroyed in 2018.
And this is my friend who recently had a child no more than a month ago, and went to the hospital because the kid got a cold.
Little guys trip to the hospital some weeks ago consisted of two over the counter medications and we got to take home with us three super awesome pacifiers.
Grand total: $13,000..
The system is broken, and it's only going to get worse it seems.
|
On July 25 2018 09:29 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2018 07:37 IgnE wrote:On July 25 2018 06:30 Plansix wrote:On July 25 2018 06:07 screamingpalm wrote:On July 25 2018 06:03 Plansix wrote:On July 25 2018 05:56 screamingpalm wrote:On July 25 2018 05:52 Plansix wrote: Medicaid for all at the state level is the only way to get the ball rolling. The federal government isn’t becoming functional in the next decade, so the state level is the only proving ground for universal healthcare available. And then when state budgets can't handle it because they are users of the currency and not the issuer, neolibs can point to it and say it won't work. This is the only plan you have right now. Or some magical way to take control of both chambers and win the white house again, while also signing everyone up for the healthcare fight of 2008 all over again. State level funding and then push for more federal dollars for the program. I wouldn't be totally against the idea, but I worry about how the political games would be played once state budgets are strained. The shit you are worried about is the same this that the traditional liberals worried about when the ACA. They were not wrong at the time, that no Republican buy in meant that they could attack the ACA for 3 full election cycles. But the difference is that our healthcare system has really started to rot under Republican governance. The mortality rate for women giving birth, the merit used for nearly a century to judge the quality of healthcare in a nation, has been going up for several years how. As long as progressive stick to the argument that its, A: The federal governments fault for playing political games with healthcare and B: Up to the states to fix the problem and the Federal government should just foot the bill, it could gain political traction. maybe the mortality rate is higher because median pregnancy age is higher? Nope. Median age of pregnancy is still low when compared to almost all other developed nations, and yet by basically every measurable index our healthcare system is horrendous. The U.S. healthcare system is just objectively terrible, and infant mortality is only one of many measurements by which this is true. There really aren't many positives to say about our system unless you're well off.
maybe. but even if median pregnancy age is still low compared to other developed nations maybe our birthing mortality has also always been higher compared to other developed countries. maybe our healthcare seemed artificially better for a while because we had a much lower median pregnancy age than those countries and now that the age is creeping up the "quality" has only seemed to drop because now there are more age related complications to deal with
in other words you arent making the right comparison here: age-adjusted birthing mortality within the US over time
|
On July 25 2018 10:11 ShoCkeyy wrote:Idk if anybody has mentioned this but the IRS has made changes to the new 1040 form as it is more shorter and combined the 1040 the 1040A and the 1040ez into 1 aggregate form. The claiming of non children as dependents. There are also limits capped off as far as what you can claim for property taxes as well ($10k it seems). Along with other changes too. The middle class is about to get destroyed in 2018. And this is my friend who recently had a child no more than a month ago, and went to the hospital because the kid got a cold. Show nested quote +Little guys trip to the hospital some weeks ago consisted of two over the counter medications and we got to take home with us three super awesome pacifiers.
Grand total: $13,000.. The system is broken, and it's only going to get worse it seems.
did they take an ambulance and stay in the hospital over night or something?
|
I know the baby stayed overnight for monitoring, but is that still really $13k worth? No ambulance.
|
On July 25 2018 10:11 ShoCkeyy wrote:Idk if anybody has mentioned this but the IRS has made changes to the new 1040 form as it is more shorter and combined the 1040 the 1040A and the 1040ez into 1 aggregate form. The claiming of non children as dependents. There are also limits capped off as far as what you can claim for property taxes as well ($10k it seems). Along with other changes too. The middle class is about to get destroyed in 2018. And this is my friend who recently had a child no more than a month ago, and went to the hospital because the kid got a cold. Show nested quote +Little guys trip to the hospital some weeks ago consisted of two over the counter medications and we got to take home with us three super awesome pacifiers.
Grand total: $13,000.. The system is broken, and it's only going to get worse it seems. most of that tax stuff is a result of that terrible tax law they passed last year; so it was discussed then.
medical billing is a well known problem. unfortunate that your friend got hosed by it. I wish them good luck fighting the ridiculous bill.
|
If you want to look for stories of hospitals providing something you could've bought for $20, and charging them 5 or 6 figures, it's an endless rabbit hole. We've already reached the end-game of fully capitalistic healthcare, it's only a matter of how dramatic it gets before things somehow change.
|
On July 25 2018 08:07 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2018 07:37 IgnE wrote:On July 25 2018 06:30 Plansix wrote:On July 25 2018 06:07 screamingpalm wrote:On July 25 2018 06:03 Plansix wrote:On July 25 2018 05:56 screamingpalm wrote:On July 25 2018 05:52 Plansix wrote: Medicaid for all at the state level is the only way to get the ball rolling. The federal government isn’t becoming functional in the next decade, so the state level is the only proving ground for universal healthcare available. And then when state budgets can't handle it because they are users of the currency and not the issuer, neolibs can point to it and say it won't work. This is the only plan you have right now. Or some magical way to take control of both chambers and win the white house again, while also signing everyone up for the healthcare fight of 2008 all over again. State level funding and then push for more federal dollars for the program. I wouldn't be totally against the idea, but I worry about how the political games would be played once state budgets are strained. The shit you are worried about is the same this that the traditional liberals worried about when the ACA. They were not wrong at the time, that no Republican buy in meant that they could attack the ACA for 3 full election cycles. But the difference is that our healthcare system has really started to rot under Republican governance. The mortality rate for women giving birth, the merit used for nearly a century to judge the quality of healthcare in a nation, has been going up for several years how. As long as progressive stick to the argument that its, A: The federal governments fault for playing political games with healthcare and B: Up to the states to fix the problem and the Federal government should just foot the bill, it could gain political traction. maybe the mortality rate is higher because median pregnancy age is higher? From what I have ready, the mortality rate increased in rural states with strained healthcare systems. Which is a lot of states. Rural counties and states that did not expand medicaid are in rough shape financially. Not surprised if that has an impact on patient care.
The stark difference in hospital closures between states that did—and didn't—expand Medicaid 7:30 AM - January 10, 2018 Hospitals in states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) were less likely to close than hospitals in non-expansion states, according to a study published Monday in Health Affairs. + Show Spoiler +Study details For the study, researchers at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus examined hospital closure and financial performance data from 2008 to 2016. The researchers compared how hospitals performed from 2008 to 2012—the four years before the ACA's coverage expansions took effect—with how the hospitals performed from 2015 to 2016—the year after the ACA's coverage expansions took effect. The researchers also analyzed local market conditions and national hospital data.
Findings According to the study, hospitals in Medicaid expansion states were more likely than hospitals in non-expansion states to experience an improvement in finances. As such, the researchers found that hospitals in Medicaid expansion states were about six times less likely to close than hospitals in non-expansion states.
The researchers found that the effects of states expanding Medicaid were more pronounced for health care providers that had a larger share of uninsured patients before the ACA's coverage expansions took effect. For example, the researchers found that, in Medicaid expansion states:
Rural hospitals that had an uninsured patient rate of at least 30% before the ACA's coverage expansions took effect were 91% less likely to close than they had been before the coverage expansions; and Urban hospitals that had an uninsured patient rate of at least 30% before the ACA's coverage expansions took effect were more than 92% less likely to close than before the coverage expansions.
Overall, the closure rate per 100 hospitals rose from 0.39 for 2008-2012 to 0.81 for 2015-2016 in non-expansion states, while the closure rate per 100 hospitals fell from 0.51 for 2008-2012 to 0.18 for 2015-2016 in expansion states, according to the study. In addition, the researchers found that total margins for hospitals in non-expansion states improved by 0.005 in non-expansion states, while total margins for hospitals in expansion states improved by 0.011. Further, hospitals' Medicaid and uncompensated care margins—which is defined as hospitals' net income related to treating Medicaid and uninsured individuals divided by the net revenue they receive from treating such patients—decreased by 0.12 in non-expansion states, and increased by 0.106 in expansion states.
Discussion Richard Lindrooth, the study's lead author and a professor at the Colorado School of Public Health, said hospitals saw more patients with Medicaid coverage after the ACA's coverage expansions took effect, which increased Medicaid payments to the hospitals and helped them perform better financially. Lindrooth said, "It's not as though Medicaid is an extremely profitable form of reimbursement, but it is something," adding "On the margins, it certainly helps the hospitals' cash flow." Lindrooth continued, "We found that really about half of the closures that did occur in non-expansion states could have been averted through the expansion."
Jason Cleckler—CEO of Delta Memorial Hospital, which is located in a rural part of Colorado, which expanded Medicaid—said Delta Memorial's Medicaid population increased from 10% in 2011 to 20% in 2016—which resulted in less uncompensated care and saved the hospital more than $3 million. "I think that really speaks to what the researchers found," Cleckler said, adding, "So Medicaid doubled, our bad debt decreased significantly, and the uninsured rate decreased significantly."
Brock Slabach, SVP of the National Rural Health Association (NRHA), said the study's results correlate with data NRHA has reviewed. He said, "If state legislatures and Congress want to cure the rural hospital closure problem, expanding Medicaid and not block-granting this important program would be the answer" (Daley, "Shots," NPR, 1/8; Gooch, Becker's Hospital CFO Report, 1/8; Ross Johnson, Modern Healthcare, 1/8; Baker, "Vitals," Axios, 1/9; Lindrooth et al., Health Affairs, January 2018). www.advisory.com <-- paywall, sorry. www.cnbc.com <-- CNBC had a recent story on rural hospital closures.
|
Canada11279 Posts
On July 25 2018 01:30 Plansix wrote: You should look at regional numbers, rather than the US as a whole. The national average of any specific demographic nation wide isn't helpful given the wide variance of economic environments across the US. Tennessee is not New York. Hell, New Hampshire and Maine are not even close to Massachusetts, even though we are right next to each-other.
It would be nice if we could have an economic study on how best divide and discuss regions of the US economically.
Well in regards to that, when I poking around for my post, I came across this article:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/petesaunders1/2017/12/08/where-african-american-incomes-are-rising-and-where-theyre-not/#5c672abc29ac
Which basically tried to divide regions by whether African Americans had a High/Low Median Household Income and whether they were gaining ground/ losing ground.
It starts with the top and bottom ten cities for household incomes for all of America and for African Americans and from there starts trying to cluster regions. I don't know if it's enough cities to establish a regional pattern, but I thought it was an interesting attempt.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/y9PmpUU.jpg)
|
Sounds like Trump knew about the campaign finance violation. Cohen's lawyer gave the tape to CNN
(CNN)Presidential candidate Donald Trump is heard on tape discussing with his attorney Michael Cohen how they would buy the rights to a Playboy model's story about an alleged affair Trump had with her years earlier, according to the audio recording of the conversation aired exclusively on CNN's "Cuomo Prime Time."
The recording offers the public a glimpse at the confidential discussions between Trump and Cohen, and it confirms the man who now occupies the Oval Office had contemporaneous knowledge of a proposal to buy the rights to the story of Karen McDougal, a woman who has alleged she had an extramarital affair with Trump about a decade ago. https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/24/politics/michael-cohen-donald-trump-tape/index.html + Show Spoiler +
|
That is far more serious than perjury and look what happened to the guy who did that.
|
So that's a pretty openly hostile move from Cohen against Trump, especially leaking it to CNN of all places. What could be the motivators behind that decision?
|
On July 25 2018 12:55 Tachion wrote: So that's a pretty openly hostile move from Cohen against Trump, especially leaking it to CNN of all places. What could be the motivators behind that decision? Cohen entire office was raided and most of the things in it were “stripped” of attorney client privilege by a judge. Which is fucking crazy. Cohen is ruined and will likely lose his license. He has every reason to make sure Trump gets burned too.
|
On July 25 2018 12:59 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2018 12:55 Tachion wrote: So that's a pretty openly hostile move from Cohen against Trump, especially leaking it to CNN of all places. What could be the motivators behind that decision? Cohen entire office was raided and most of the things in it were “stripped” of attorney client privilege by a judge. Which is fucking crazy. Cohen is ruined and will likely lose his license. He has every reason to make sure Trump gets burned too. Technically Trump waived privilege as it pertains to the tapes. The judge didn’t strip it. However, depending upon what’s on the tapes, the judge may have been able to strip the privilege under the crime-fraud exception.
And yes, Cohen is going to lose his license, Surreptitiously recording clients is a big no-no.
|
On July 25 2018 12:59 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2018 12:55 Tachion wrote: So that's a pretty openly hostile move from Cohen against Trump, especially leaking it to CNN of all places. What could be the motivators behind that decision? Cohen entire office was raided and most of the things in it were “stripped” of attorney client privilege by a judge. Which is fucking crazy. Cohen is ruined and will likely lose his license. He has every reason to make sure Trump gets burned too. "Cause fuck you too"?. Is it really that simple? What happened to taking a bullet for him?
|
On July 25 2018 13:23 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2018 12:59 Plansix wrote:On July 25 2018 12:55 Tachion wrote: So that's a pretty openly hostile move from Cohen against Trump, especially leaking it to CNN of all places. What could be the motivators behind that decision? Cohen entire office was raided and most of the things in it were “stripped” of attorney client privilege by a judge. Which is fucking crazy. Cohen is ruined and will likely lose his license. He has every reason to make sure Trump gets burned too. "Cause fuck you too"?. Is it really that simple? What happened to taking a bullet for him? Why take a bullet for an ungrateful asshole who has doing nothing for you? Trump likes loyalty, but doesn’t reward it when it could cost him anything.
|
|
|
|