Main Paineframe posted:

Is it actually at historic levels? I didn't see that in the article. I'm not finding any stats on subway track pushings, but I'm also not finding any reporting about a rash of NYC track-pushings. I just see one other one in January, someone arrested in NYC for a track-pushing in Baltimore, and a bunch of articles complaining about homeless people hanging out on or near the tracks.

I'm inclined to be wary here, because our perceptions of extremely rare problems like this are very heavily influenced by media coverage. And not only does the NYC media have an outsized presence in our national media industry, but it also absolutely loving loves crime reporting that portrays public spaces as far more unsafe than they actually are.

And this story clearly falls right into that category. Just look at that tweet. It frames the attack as "embod[ying] New Yorkers' persistent fear of such violence underground" - implying not only that New Yorkers are widely terrified of subway attackers, but also that they're right to be so afraid.

On top of that, even though that NYT story is about subway shovings in general, it's noticeably selective about the cases it chooses. They chose to focus exclusively on cases of women being pushed by non-white homeless men. There aren't even any mentions of cases of men being pushed by homeless men, let alone cases where men got into fights that ended up with one of them on the tracks.

It almost looks to me like the NYT (along with right-wing media like the NY Post) is encouraging readers to fear homeless people on the subway. It's portraying them as dangerous and prone to sudden unprovoked assaults on the vulnerable, and portraying the subway as a dangerous place where New Yorkers ought to live in constant fear of random attacks. And in my opinion, that's a really loving irresponsible thing to be doing less than a month after non-white homeless man Jordan Neely was murdered on the subway for being loud and unruly.

Uncle Boogeyman posted:

As I mentioned earlier, the trains in Boston are nowhere near reliable enough to commit murder by pushing someone in front of them.

They will, however, drag you to a horrible death if you get caught in the door by accident.

Enfys posted:

NOAA is trying to get this area designated as a marine sanctuary to protect it, and public comments are allowed (and encouraged) in case anyone wants to get involved in some small way.

quote:

You have through June 2, 2023, to add your voice on the proposed Pacific Remote Islands National Marine Sanctuary!

U.S. waters surrounding Kingman Reef and Palmyra Atoll are home to some of the most pristine marine ecosystems on Earth and the region was recently proposed to become a national marine sanctuary. As E/V Nautilus explores the deep sea and ancient seamounts within the proposed sanctuary area, our audiences have the unique opportunity to get involved and share their comments with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on the proposed Pacific Remote Islands National Marine Sanctuary.

While recent expeditions have increased our baseline knowledge of the Pacific Remote Islands Region, large areas remain completely unexplored. Ocean Exploration Trust aims to provide a rich foundation of publicly-accessible data to enable follow-on exploration, research, and management activities. Exploration of the deep sea here is urgently needed to address management and science needs, including a better understanding of the natural and cultural resources, biogeographic patterns of species distributions, and the geological context of the region.



About The Proposal

In April, NOAA launched the designation process to consider a new sanctuary in waters around the U.S. Pacific Remote Islands, which include Palmyra, Kingman, Baker, Howland, Jarvis, Johnston, and Wake. The proposed national marine sanctuary would include the marine areas within the existing Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument, as well as those currently unprotected submerged lands and waters to the full extent of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, an area totaling about 770,000 square miles.

The atolls, shoals, seamounts, banks, and reefs surrounding the U.S. Pacific Remote Islands are home to some of the most diverse and remarkable tropical marine ecosystems on the planet, but are becoming increasingly vulnerable to impacts from climate change, invasive species, and marine debris.

The proposed sanctuary would not only protect a rich and unique marine biodiversity, but also honor the ancestral, historical, and cultural connections of this remote region. Native Hawaiian, Samoan, Chamorro, Carolinian, and many other Pacific Island Indigenous Peoples, have voyaged across this vast expanse of the Central and Western Pacific Ocean over thousands of years.

How to Get Involved

Public input is a key part of the national marine sanctuary designation process. The public is invited to comment on the proposed sanctuary designation through June 2, 2023, through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, https://www.regulations.gov by searching for docket number NOAA-NOS-2023-0052, and click the "Comment Now!" icon.

The process to designate a new sanctuary is highly public and participatory, with steps including scoping and public input, sanctuary proposal development with environmental impact statements and draft management plan development, further public review, and finally NOAA decision on designation based on the process which will outline protections and regulations for Congressional review.

Through this public comment, NOAA will gather input on the proposed Sanctuary as described in the Notice of Intent published in the Federal Register, including on boundaries, compatible uses, threats, science, and education initiatives, among others. Public comments that are received will assist the agency with drafting designation documents, including formulating potential alternatives and an environmental impact statement.

Discendo Vox posted:

Crossposting from SAL:



NOAA will consider and respond to novel or substantive comments on this matter, so it's worth taking the time to do so.

Federal Register notice:
https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...atement-for-the

There have also been a number of public meetings on the subject, with a couple virtual ones open for registration toward the bottom of this page:
https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/pacific-remote-islands/

Direct link to the commenting interface (click the blue "comment" button):
https://www.regulations.gov/document/NOAA-NOS-2023-0052-0001

quote:

Rahm Emanuel, the US Ambassador to Japan, took the unusual step of getting involved to make the case for the US, as a counterbalance to the Sunak effort. The former mayor of Chicago, who also worked in the White House and in investment banking, met with Son and his lieutenants more than a dozen times, according to the people. Emanuel repeatedly relayed the view that Arm would be “penalized, not rewarded” for a joint listing on LSE.

He worked with [Nasdaq Inc. Chief Executive Officer Adena] Friedman and Nasdaq staff on research to show that dual-listed stocks tend to underperform their peers over time. The report analyzed a group of more than 550 companies with valuations between $10 billion and $50 billion, drawing comparisons between stocks listed solely in the US, US ADRs with a foreign listing and US ADRs with a London listing. It concluded that stocks listed only in the US had 2.5 times greater trading volumes, about three times more liquidity and two times higher median price-to-equity valuation.

“US-listed peers have tighter spreads, higher valuation and greater liquidity than US American Depository Receipts with a foreign listing,” read the report produced for SoftBank, which was reviewed by Bloomberg. Plus, “there are additional costs to consider,” such as producing financial statements under US and UK standards, stated the document.

cr0y posted:

She's also a 30 something grandma who is in the middle of a divorce with some rumors swirling around of an affair with some maga country star dude.

Uncle Boogeyman posted:

As I mentioned earlier, the trains in Boston are nowhere near reliable enough to commit murder by pushing someone in front of them.

They will, however, drag you to a horrible death if you get caught in the door by accident.

small butter posted:

It's actually way more insidious than any polling can show you.

For example, even though I can afford it, I was thinking about not going to a follow-up with my ENT because it would cost like $300. It should not even be a consideration - the ENT thought I should follow up, so I should. Everyone is affected by the fact that we have deductibles, copays, etc., and obviously those without any healthcare have it the worst.

Nameless Pete posted:

My cousin got dragged for two blocks by a San Francisco MUNI train that closed its doors on his front sweatshirt pocket. He now has asymmetrical butt cheeks from where the pavement ground off part of his rear end.

Liquid Communism posted:

There's also how much insurance companies are practicing medicine without a license. It's common statistically, and anecdotally hit me recently with my insurer deciding not to cover the medication my doctor feels is correct due to not wanting to pay for something that isn't generic.

I make good money, but can't exactly swing $400 a month out of pocket, so have to deal with less effective medication with worse side effects.

Shooting Blanks posted:

Congress is starting to get involved with this, at least. I think we've seen a few other posts here, but hopefully it will go somewhere.

Neo Rasa posted:

Yeah it pisses me off because it should be news that this happened, but the idea that there's a people getting shoved in front of trains wave in NYC or that "New Yorkers" in general are terrified of the subway is some real horseshit.

And this is why, the weather's getting nicer so, sorry folks, you have to see more homeless people around later into the evening. And you'll see this little extra encouragement in the news every year about NYC as we go from spring to summer.

Willa Rogers posted:

So an ACA exchange like every other state? I'm trying to suss out what makes it more left-leaning than other states, as intimated by the post to which I was replying. Maybe I misunderstood that post.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Yeah, there are places that eliminate the coinsurance, deductibles, premiums, etc. But, most single-payer systems have some cost-sharing.

For example, here's the current cost-sharing info for Medicare Part B:

Premium: $164.90
Deductible: $226
Co-Pays: Generally none, but there are a few very specific circumstances.
Co-Insurance: 20% of cost after meeting deductible as co-insurance.
Prescription Drugs: Not included in part B and costs are variable depending on your Medicare Part D plan, type of drug, and pharmacy.

Other:

- Premium is based partially on your income, so higher-income individuals will pay a higher Medicare premium.

- Low-income Medicare beneficiaries can become "dual eligible" and qualify for both Medicaid and Medicare. In this scenario, Medicaid will pay for your Medicare premiums and co-insurance costs.

https://www.medicare.gov/basics/get-started-with-medicare/medicare-basics/what-does-medicare-cost

Here's some for France's national health insurance plan (which generally has the lowest cost-sharing in healthcare among major countries)

Premium: None
Deductible: None
Co-Pays: Minimum 1 euro + co-insurance.
Co-Insurance: 20% for inpatient stays, 30% for outpatient doctor and dentist visits.
Prescription Drugs: Variable rate for drugs, but a minimum of 15% co-insurance for drugs on the national formulary list and 100% coinsurance for drugs not covered under the national formulary list.

Other:

- There are means-tested exemptions to coinsurance based on income. Roughly 9% of France qualifies for the coinsurance exemption.

- 95% of French citizens have supplemental private insurance that covers the co-insurance of the national healthcare plan and elective procedures not covered by the national healthcare plan.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/international-health-policy-center/countries/france

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

A lot of things like this are explicable by suicide cluster mechanics. Dramatic violent event hits the news, gets covered, inspires copycats.

One good way to stop school shootings would probably be to stop news coverage of school shootings.

Shageletic posted:

Deductibles are a McKinsey invention stemming from the late 80s iirc. In any proper society, they should be banned.

Coinsurance and copays in a sane nation like France are actually pretty reasonable. I know ppl that had major medical issues there as tourist's visiting there and they managed to pay like 85 bucks for everything

karthun posted:

Medicare had a deductible when it was created in 1965.

quote:

As negotiators inched closer to a deal, hard-right Republicans on Thursday were becoming increasingly anxious that Mr. McCarthy would sign off on a compromise they viewed as insufficiently conservative. Several right-wing Republicans have already vowed to oppose any compromise that retreats from cuts that were part of their debt-limit bill.

“Republicans should not cut a bad deal,” Representative Chip Roy of Texas, an influential conservative, wrote on Twitter on Thursday morning, shortly after telling a local radio station that he was “going to have to go have some blunt conversations with my colleagues and the leadership team” because he did not like “the direction they are headed.”

Representative Ralph Norman, Republican of South Carolina, said he was reserving judgment on how he would vote on a compromise until he saw the bill, but added: “What I’ve seen now is not good.”

quote:

White House and G.O.P. Close In on Deal to Raise Debt Limit and Cut Spending

The details were not finalized, but negotiators were discussing a compromise that would allow Republicans to point to spending reductions and Democrats to say they had prevented large cuts.

Top White House officials and Republican lawmakers were closing in Thursday on a deal that would raise the debt limit for two years while imposing strict caps on discretionary spending not related to the military or veterans for the same period. Officials were racing to cement an agreement in time to avert a federal default that is projected in just one week.

The deal taking shape would allow Republicans to say that they were reducing some federal spending — even as spending on the military and veterans’ programs would continue to grow — and allow Democrats to say they had spared most domestic programs from significant cuts.

Negotiators from both sides were talking into the evening and beginning to draft legislative text, though some details remained in flux.

“We’ve been talking to the White House all day, we’ve been going back and forth, and it’s not easy,” Speaker Kevin McCarthy told reporters as he left the Capitol on Thursday evening, declining to divulge what was under discussion. “It takes a while to make it happen, and we are working hard to make it happen.”

The compromise, if it can be agreed upon and enacted, would raise the government’s borrowing limit for two years, past the 2024 election, according to three people familiar with it who insisted on anonymity to discuss a plan that was still being hammered out.

The United States hit the legal limit, currently $31.4 trillion, in January and has been relying on accounting measures to avoid defaulting since then. The Treasury Department has projected it will exhaust its ability to pay bills on time as early as June 1.

In exchange for lifting the debt limit, the deal would meet Republicans’ demand to cut some federal spending, albeit with the help of accounting maneuvers that would give both sides political cover for an agreement likely to be unpopular with large swaths of their base voters.

It would impose caps on discretionary spending for two years, though those caps would apply differently to spending on the military than to nondefense discretionary spending. Spending on the military would grow next year, as would spending on some veterans’ care that falls under nondefense discretionary spending. The rest of nondefense discretionary spending would fall slightly — or roughly stay flat — compared with this year’s levels.

The deal would also roll back $10 billion of the $80 billion Congress approved last year for an I.R.S. crackdown on high earners and corporations that evade taxes, though that provision was still under discussion. Democrats have championed the initiative, and nonpartisan scorekeepers have said the funding would reduce the budget deficit by helping the government collect more of the tax revenue it is owed. But Republicans have denounced it, claiming falsely that the money would be used to fund an army of auditors to go after working people.

“The president and his negotiating team are fighting hard for his agenda, including for I.R.S. funding so it can provide better customer service to taxpayers and crack down on wealthy tax cheats,” a White House spokesman, Michael Kikukawa, said in an email on Thursday in response to a question about the provision.

As the deal stood on Thursday, the I.R.S. money would essentially shift to nondefense discretionary spending, allowing Democrats to avoid further cuts in programs like education and environmental protection, according to people familiar with the pending agreement.

The plan had yet to be finalized, and the bargainers continued to haggle over crucial details that could make or break any deal.

“Nothing is done until you actually have a complete deal,” said Representative Patrick T. McHenry of North Carolina, one of the lead G.O.P. negotiators, who also declined to discuss the specifics of the negotiations. “Nothing’s resolved.”

The cuts contained in the package were all but certain to be too modest to win the votes of hard-line fiscal conservatives in the House. Liberal groups were already complaining on Thursday about the reported deal to reduce the I.R.S. funding increase.

But people familiar with the developing deal said that negotiators had agreed to fund military and veterans’ programs at the levels envisioned by President Biden in his budget for next year. They would reduce nondefense discretionary spending below this year’s levels — but much of that cut would be covered by the shift in the I.R.S. funding and other budgetary maneuvers. White House officials have contended those shifts would functionally make nondefense discretionary spending the same next year as it was this year.

All discretionary spending would then grow at 1 percent in 2025, after which the caps would lift.

Mr. McCarthy had nodded on Thursday to the idea that a compromise to avert a default would most likely draw detractors from both parties.

“I don’t think everybody is going to be happy at the end of the day,” he said. “That’s not how this system works.”

Another provision of the deal seeks to avert a government shutdown later in the year, and would attempt to take away Republicans’ ability to seek deeper cuts to government programs and agencies through the appropriations process later in the year.

The exact details on how such a measure would work remained unclear on Thursday evening. But it was based on a penalty of sorts, which would adjust the spending caps in the event that Congress failed to pass all 12 stand-alone spending bills that fund the government by the end of the calendar year.

Negotiators were still at loggerheads over work requirements for social safety net programs and a permitting overhaul for domestic energy and gas projects.

“We have legislative work to do, policy work to do,” Mr. McHenry said. “The details of all that stuff really are consequential to us being able to get this thing through.”

As negotiators inched closer to a deal, hard-right Republicans on Thursday were becoming increasingly anxious that Mr. McCarthy would sign off on a compromise they viewed as insufficiently conservative. Several right-wing Republicans have already vowed to oppose any compromise that retreats from cuts that were part of their debt-limit bill.

“Republicans should not cut a bad deal,” Representative Chip Roy of Texas, an influential conservative, wrote on Twitter on Thursday morning, shortly after telling a local radio station that he was “going to have to go have some blunt conversations with my colleagues and the leadership team” because he did not like “the direction they are headed.”

Representative Ralph Norman, Republican of South Carolina, said he was reserving judgment on how he would vote on a compromise until he saw the bill, but added: “What I’ve seen now is not good.”

Former President Donald J. Trump, who has said Republicans should force a default if they do not get what they want in the negotiations, also was weighing in. Mr. McCarthy told reporters he had spoken with Mr. Trump briefly about the negotiations — “it came up just for a second,” the speaker said. “He was talking about, ‘Make sure you get a good agreement.’”

After playing a tee shot on his golf course outside Washington, Mr. Trump approached a reporter for The New York Times, iPhone in hand, and showed a call with Mr. McCarthy.

“It’s going to be an interesting thing — it’s not going to be that easy,” said Mr. Trump, who described his call with the speaker as “a little, quick talk.”

“They’ve spent three years wasting money on nonsense,” he added, saying, “Republicans don’t want to see that, so I understand where they’re at.”

Shooting Blanks posted:

Congress is starting to get involved with this, at least. I think we've seen a few other posts here, but hopefully it will go somewhere.

Shooting Blanks posted:

Sounds like enough megadonors got through to McCarthy finally. I'd also be willing to believe that there are enough moderate Republicans pissed at the Freedom Caucus for holding the whole process hostage that they're willing to suck it up for a deal that like less - as long as it means a deal is done.

Mellow Seas posted:

Are the "strict spending caps" even relevant at all? Like... isn't that just preemptive budget negotiation? No spending was going to pass without McCarthy putting it on the floor anyway. It really feels like the $10 billion in IRS funding is the entire concession, with the rest just a fig leaf for McCarthy to claim he got real cuts.

Are there automatic increases that were already legislated for '24-'25 that are now not going to happen? If so, how much money does that represent?

Willa Rogers posted:

I'm delighted to hear that Congress is starting to take action against insurance denials-by-algorithm; I haven't heard of anything up to now, and the ProPublica piece & a follow-up only mention a congressional hearing & a DoL official expressing "concern."

But I haven't heard of any legislation introduced at the federal level to rein in private insurers; do you know of any?

Shageletic posted:

Deductibles are a McKinsey invention stemming from the late 80s iirc. In any proper society, they should be banned.

Coinsurance and copays in a sane nation like France are actually pretty reasonable. I know ppl that had major medical issues there as tourist's visiting there and they managed to pay like 85 bucks for everything

Mellow Seas posted:

If that is the final deal I have to imagine that McCarthy's speakership is over.

Blue Footed Booby posted:

Willa Rogers posted:

Leon also didn't mention that Part A Medicare covers hospitalization (and subsequent rehab, in most cases) in the U.S. with absolutely no costs for up to 90 days per year, and there's no premium to carry.

Regulatory capture & donor-driven politics have allowed Medicare pricing to recipients to climb over the past couple decades--especially while incentivizing & subsidizing "Medicare" "Advantage" at insurers' behest--but it's hands-down still a bargain compare to any employer-provided or ACA exchange insurance.

I pay a total of around $3200/year (the standard for everyone + a gap plan) and aside from that puny deductible everything is 100 percent covered for any provider for any state in the country who accepts Medicare (about 98 percent of them, including places like Mayo & MD Anderson).

I doubt there's a comparable policy for comparable prices for anyone under 65.

Willa Rogers posted:

Who would you rather see as speaker? McCarthy seems pretty mild for a GOP leader these days.

Gumball Gumption posted:

There seems to be no proof it's at historical levels and the closest thing we can look at, crime rates in the subway system, are not at their historical highs of the 70's and 80's. Violent crime on the subway system also is not near any of it's historical highs. If we isolate it down to just murders than you did see a real jump in 22 with I believe 7 but I can't find a lot of historical data on specifically subway murders during the high point of NYC crime.

I think a sane country would look at this problem and make it harder to be pushed into the subway hole. Instead we're doing this.

Willa Rogers posted:

Who would you rather see as speaker? McCarthy seems pretty mild for a GOP leader these days.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Part A does have a premium, but you get exempt from it if you have 10 years of employment where you pay at least $X amount in FICA taxes.

There are definitely better plans than Medicare out there for people, they are just very rare.

Medicaid is explicitly better than Medicare from a cost-sharing perspective. Tricare also has lower cost-sharing requirements than Medicare. There are some very generous employer Cadillac plans, but they are generally reserved for highly compensated/non-profit/local government/collective bargaining agreement positions. When I worked for a major union, I had a healthcare plan with a $250 deductible and my premium was only $41 per month. If you worked there for 30 years, then you could keep your healthcare benefits after you retire and they would cover everything that Medicare didn't.

So, not accurate to say better than "any" other plan. But, for the average person, it is usually going to be better than plans you have access to under 65.

And many other countries have similar single-payer systems with lower cost-sharing than Medicare as well. But, that is sort of a different scope.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Why are New Yorkers suddenly pushing people into the subway tracks at historic levels in the past year?

This particular person who shoved her was a homeless man and likely mentally ill, but there have been almost a dozen other cases of this happening and most of them were not mentally ill or homeless.

This is America. You're supposed to use guns for your senseless public violence (there was a mass shooting in the NYC subway not too long ago, so I guess they have that covered).

And why aren't any other cities throwing people onto the tracks besides New York?

A quick google says that nobody has been killed by being pushed into the subway by another person in Boston, LA, or Atlanta in the last year.

It's still less than a dozen people, but going from 0 for decades to multiple in a year (and it not happening anywhere else in the country) is weird.

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1661780448706535424

Gumball Gumption posted:

Ok but seriously why did you add a bunch of wrong data to this that isn't even in the article? You can find NYC subway attacks going back decades. There was a push in Boston a few months ago. It's happened in the past year in Chicago. Portland had a case last year where a woman pushed a 3 year old into tracks.

quote:

In the first incident, Perry-Marshall, a 23-year-old, is suspected of kicking a person into the train pit at State Street Station about 2 p.m., according to MBTA Transit Police, who arrested Perry-Marshall Wednesday afternoon. The victim wasn't hurt.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

I can't find anyone actually being injured/killed in Boston by being pushed into a train in the last year via google. What case are you using?

The only one I can find in the past year is one with no injuries.

https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/attempted-murder-charge-for-mbta-subway-kick-suspect/3009975/