|
Fuschia tude posted:Caro was a political chess piece between Russia and the US? I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but The article only mentions the US floated out the idea of trading for Tice, not Caro, which lends credibility to the story.
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 20:49 |
|
|
PT6A posted:You do realize Borowitz is the New Yorker's version of the Onion? Right? you're not familiar with this cultural thing so obviously you have no authority to point out my logical shortcomings and impotent whining 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
the "humor" part of the link should probably have tipped you off, it was even on the link: http://www.newyorker.com/humor/boro...hrough-nepotism
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
PT6A posted:You do realize Borowitz is the New Yorker's version of the Onion? Right? Please stop this. You're upset, we get it, that doesn't require going on a roaring rampage of bad posting. Believe it or not, most of the posters in this thread are more victimized by the terrible racist people in that article than you are; all you have to deal with are the foreign policy ramifications. I, and many like me, get to deal with their insistence on ensuring that I can't marry a man I love or adopt a child with him. Their terror that people as young as I am, or with darker skin than they have, should ever be allowed to vote. Their slavish support of policies that keep me personally in debt and at the mercy of insufficient employment protections. So don't march in here and pretend you're some kind of special victim. We feel the petty tyranny of little men every day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Actually that's precisely what the study said. It makes a basic amount of sense: the basic moral problem with healthcare in America is that about 25 million people don't have it at all. Giving those 25 million people healthcare costs money. Sure, there are savings elsewhere, but the care for that 25 million isn't free. Ok, thanks! I assumed it was some back-of-the-envelope $10k per person per year X population. I'll read that study, I'm interested in robust estimates of what it would cost.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
So why did the SCOTUS so conclusively allow the travel ban back (with some reservations) while they wait to actually decide on it? Doesn't it make more sense for them to go by the two circuit court rulings in the meantime? Is the answer a bunch of procedural bullshit?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/paleofuture/status/879345777721528322
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:So why did the SCOTUS so conclusively allow the travel ban back (with some reservations) while they wait to actually decide on it? Doesn't it make more sense for them to go by the two circuit court rulings in the meantime? The answer is that they have 4 votes, enough for a stay and they want time to get a 5th before they hear the case.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I believe the source of the figure is that it would "raise government spending" by that much. So you can't credit existing medicaid/medicare/obamacare spending to that number: it would be $32t on top of that. However, a good chunk of that is, as people correctly assume, everyone else's spending on heath care that would be shifted to the federal government. However, there would still be a considerable net increase in health care spending overall by about $6.6 trillion over the same time period (2017-2026) as the $32t number. I'm pretty sure the $32 trillion source is this: http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/2000785-The-Sanders-Single-Payer-Health-Care-Plan.pdf Still sounds like a great deal to me -- taking into account what people will save on co-pays and deductibles, the multiple layers of administrative overhead from company human resource divisions to the disparities in overhead between Medicare/Medicaid and private insurance companies, the increased worker productivity from improved preventative disease, and so forth, that additional $6.6T over a decade is nothing compared to the economic shot in the arm universal healthcare provides by freeing up employer finances to hire and employee finances to spend. And that's just the cold neoliberal return-on-investment take.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/879411199934443520 FACT: The White House looks like it's really fuckin' bad at math.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Xae posted:The answer is that they have 4 votes, enough for a stay and they want time to get a 5th before they hear the case. What?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Only the finest political fan fiction bullshit in my feed https://twitter.com/RoguePOTUSStaff/status/879346461267427328
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Pebble and the Penguin posted:https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/879411199934443520 Also, that estimate was done before scotus neutered the Medicaid expansion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
I'm getting really sick of these unoriginal parody accounts
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:Only the finest political fan fiction bullshit in my feed It won't be the finest fan fiction until it includes bullshit Mary Sue self inserts. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
Pebble and the Penguin posted:https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/879411199934443520 Clearly the solution is to kick all those people off the insured rolls and start over 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
My that logic, only 10.3M would lose insurance and probably die, right? Oh wait, that would be like applying the CBO score from the House bill to the Senate one and demanding that it be the same.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Definitely not bots in the replies. Does Twitter just not give a poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:What? I don't know what that guy's talking about. Basically they felt the injunctions from the lower courts were too broad, so they narrowed it pending a final resolution
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Ague Proof posted:Definitely not bots in the replies. Correct
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
tetrapyloctomy posted:Still sounds like a great deal to me -- taking into account what people will save on co-pays and deductibles, the multiple layers of administrative overhead from company human resource divisions to the disparities in overhead between Medicare/Medicaid and private insurance companies, the increased worker productivity from improved preventative disease, and so forth, that additional $6.6T over a decade is nothing compared to the economic shot in the arm universal healthcare provides by freeing up employer finances to hire and employee finances to spend. And that's just the cold neoliberal return-on-investment take. Yeah I'm not saying it's a bad idea, more just explaining what the study says/doesn't say. I do think though that it's a much more difficult problem to redirect the existing $25.4 trillion in spending through the federal government and back out again than people think, but that's not a reason not to do it it's just a reason that it's going to be more difficult.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:the "humor" part of the link should probably have tipped you off, it was even on the link: ya i dun goofed Quorum posted:Please stop this. You're upset, we get it, that doesn't require going on a roaring rampage of bad posting. Believe it or not, most of the posters in this thread are more victimized by the terrible racist people in that article than you are; all you have to deal with are the foreign policy ramifications. I, and many like me, get to deal with their insistence on ensuring that I can't marry a man I love or adopt a child with him. Their terror that people as young as I am, or with darker skin than they have, should ever be allowed to vote. Their slavish support of policies that keep me personally in debt and at the mercy of insufficient employment protections. So don't march in here and pretend you're some kind of special victim. We feel the petty tyranny of little men every day. a good post.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Actually that's precisely what the study said. It makes a basic amount of sense: the basic moral problem with healthcare in America is that about 25 million people don't have it at all. Giving those 25 million people healthcare costs money. Sure, there are savings elsewhere, but the care for that 25 million isn't free. But doesn't that ignore the huge costs associated with the current US market that would be removed with a single-payer system, specifically. administrative costs related to insurance billings, drug prices due to inability to negotiate a state-level or federal-level drug formulary, decreased health costs via increased uptake of preventative health services in high risk groups, control of hospital fees for services (e.g., no more overpriced ibuprofen) and so on and so on? My understanding was that ultimately, switching to a single-payer system decreases the overall healthcare costs and expands coverage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
Paying for it will also be difficult- in terms of tax policy. But it has to be figured out and it must be done.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
Ague Proof posted:Definitely not bots in the replies. @realDonaldTrump is responsible for a significant percentage of Twitter's valuation st this point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
Ague Proof posted:Definitely not bots in the replies. Good ol' Jeff! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
Koyaanisgoatse posted:I don't know what that guy's talking about. Basically they felt the injunctions from the lower courts were too broad, so they narrowed it pending a final resolution Even the liberal justices thought so too though. Which upsets me even if it may be the technically correct thing to do by the law.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Ague Proof posted:Definitely not bots in the replies. Twitter cares a lot, in fact. Bots help boost ad revenue by making it more difficult to gauge how many people actually use it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
KickerOfMice posted:Good ol' Jeff! "Please love me"
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
Goosed it. posted:But doesn't that ignore the huge costs associated with the current US market that would be removed with a single-payer system, specifically. administrative costs related to insurance billings, drug prices due to inability to negotiate a state-level or federal-level drug formulary, decreased health costs via increased uptake of preventative health services in high risk groups, control of hospital fees for services (e.g., no more overpriced ibuprofen) and so on and so on? People can and do disagree with that study and I'm not really qualified to say who is right and who is wrong, but I am qualified to say what that study says  It is likely a given that single-payer would decrease per capita health care costs for those who are already insured, but by how much relative to the cost of expanding coverage is the big issue. That study suggests the decrease is overestimated by supporters of single-payer. My response to your points would be (a) you're still going to have administrative costs no matter what, it's the level of them that will change; (b) drug price negotiation isn't necessarily linked with single-payer. Hospital fees for services is sort of a red herring: the facility costs a certain amount to operate, and different ways of splitting that cost up will lead to seemingly odd results like the ibuprofen being so much - that's basically the overhead costs of the hospital being buried in each line item. It's not like there's someone getting rich off each line item that is seemingly overcharged, if the ibuprofen is suddenly at cost that overhead will go somewhere else. But I'm completely unqualified to actually quantify all of the real effects, I can just sort of offer thoughts on what makes sense to me vs not. Preventative care will definitely lower costs, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
KickerOfMice posted:Good ol' Jeff! He's verified, that does appear to be Jeff
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Even the liberal justices thought so too though. Which upsets me even if it may be the technically correct thing to do by the law. My best guess on that is that Roberts and Kennedy made clear that if they didn't get a partial stay reduction in a per curiam opinion they were siding with Thomas/Gorusch/Alito, so the liberals signed on to keep part of the stay intact. The right decision was to leave the stay intact entirely on the terms set by the 9th (allowing them to do their review, but not any part of the ban).
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
I love when bots somehow get verified. Twitter is such a stain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:My best guess on that is that Roberts and Kennedy made clear that if they didn't get a partial stay reduction in a per curiam opinion they were siding with Thomas/Gorusch/Alito, so the liberals signed on to keep part of the stay intact. The right decision was to leave the stay intact entirely on the terms set by the 9th (allowing them to do their review, but not any part of the ban). Should we take this a sign that in the end the ban will likely be upheld?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
That's definitely not a bot, it's one of Trumps alt accounts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Should we take this a sign that in the end the ban will likely be upheld? The most likely scenario is that portions of the ban will be struck down but some of it will remain. Technically the president has the right to do certain things but the issue was the intention of certain provisions. In other words that are likely to cut down certain provisions that overstepped the boundaries but keep the rest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Should we take this a sign that in the end the ban will likely be upheld? No. The ban is likely to be struck down at least in part because upholding even part of the stay requires a finding that the plaintiffs are likely to prevail on that part. What I strongly suspect is happening, however, is that the case will be punted in October as moot because the 90 days have elapsed where they can do their idiot review so they don't have to uphold the ban but Roberts and Kennedy don't have to admit the President is a very, very bad liar and is lying to them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:No. The ban is likely to be struck down at least in part because upholding even part of the stay requires a finding that the plaintiffs are likely to prevail on that part. So Trump can boast about winning even if in the end he lost. Typical.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:He's verified, that does appear to be Jeff That is somehow even more pathetic. Jeeesus lol
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 20:49 |
|
|
It's getting hard for me to follow politics because current events make me so angry, especially around the healthcare bill. There is sincere murder in my heart for Paul Ryan, and while I don't think it's wrong (if he has his way, he will knowingly be responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people), it's not really a place I want to be. Other than just tuning out for a bit, what are some strategies people have for coping with this level of anger?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 20:25
|
|
