• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT3| 1,000 Years of Darkness and Nuclear Fallout

Status
Not open for further replies.

Aylinato

Member
There is no benefit for the GOP to fix the law. At this point the ACA is moving from failure to failure, media wise, and republicans are just watching it burn. I don't see why they'd want to change anything, especially the expansion of subsidies which is something they're completely opposed to.

Some plans are cheaper or slightly more expensive (for better coverage), but there are a lot of people who are stuck in a donut hole right now. Too much income for subsidies or Medicaid, stuck with higher cost options. I don't see how that can be fixed unless democrats take the house, which isn't happening.


The law is fine.


The website has glitches.


You need to stop hating on everything Obama does so much more than Republicans do.

Now drone strikes, gitmo, gitmo prisoners not having lawyers, not pushing mental health services, not pushing for better infrastructure building, willing to give up social safety net for barely anything in return, not getting rid of bush's race to the bottom(education reform), not getting rid of surveillance on American citizens, not really caring too much about food stamps, and being out of touch with poor people(frankly I only think LBJ and carter were the last two who actually did understand the poor). O, and not pushing for an individual mandate through reconciliation, or the public option, or single payer.

So yea, the website will be fixed. It's zzzzzzzzzz boring, and not hyper critical. However the law is fine.
 
The law is fine.


The website has glitches.


You need to stop hating on everything Obama does so much more than Republicans do.

Now drone strikes, gitmo, gitmo prisoners not having lawyers, not pushing mental health services, not pushing for better infrastructure building, willing to give up social safety net for barely anything in return, not getting rid of bush's race to the bottom(education reform), not getting rid of surveillance on American citizens, not really caring too much about food stamps, and being out of touch with poor people(frankly I only think LBJ and carter were the last two who actually did understand the poor). O, and not pushing for an individual mandate through reconciliation, or the public option, or single payer.

So yea, the website will be fixed. It's zzzzzzzzzz boring, and not hyper critical. However the law is fine.
Hm?
The Obama administration is freeing 10 states from the requirements of No Child Left Behind, responding to complaints from teachers and school administrators across the country that the nation’s main education law is outdated and punitive.

“We’ve offered every state the same deal,” President Obama told educators gathered at the White House on Thursday. “We’ve said: ‘If you’re willing to set higher, more honest standards than the ones that were set by No Child Left Behind, then we’re going to give you the flexibility to meet those standards. We want high standards, and we’ll give you flexibility in return.’ We combine greater freedom with greater accountability. Because what might work in Minnesota may not work in Kentucky, but every student should have the same opportunity to reach their potential.”

Obama said he was awarding waivers because Congress had failed to revamp the 10-year-old law, despite broad, bipartisan agreement on Capitol Hill that it is in need of an overhaul.

The waivers will free the states from some of the law’s toughest requirements, including that schools prepare every student to be proficient in math and reading by 2014 or risk escalating sanctions.

In exchange for relief, the administration is requiring a quid pro quo: States must adopt changes that include meaningful teacher and principal evaluation systems, make sure all students are ready for college or careers, upgrade academic standards and lift up their lowest-performing schools. Historically, the federal government has left such decisions to states and local communities.​
I disagree with some of your other points, mainly "pushing" for certain things as if that would help achieve said goals.
 
The law is fine.


The website has glitches.


You need to stop hating on everything Obama does so much more than Republicans do.

Now drone strikes, gitmo, gitmo prisoners not having lawyers, not pushing mental health services, not pushing for better infrastructure building, willing to give up social safety net for barely anything in return, not getting rid of bush's race to the bottom(education reform), not getting rid of surveillance on American citizens, not really caring too much about food stamps, and being out of touch with poor people(frankly I only think LBJ and carter were the last two who actually did understand the poor). O, and not pushing for an individual mandate through reconciliation, or the public option, or single payer.

So yea, the website will be fixed. It's zzzzzzzzzz boring, and not hyper critical. However the law is fine.

The US political systems abandonment of the poor is one of the saddest stories in the last half century. They literally don't care. I remember reading a study that said the policy preferences of the poor and policies proposed in the political system almost never line up while the upper middle and upper class get something like 90% of what they want.
 
That DDoS thingy in healthcare website sounds fishy...I don't buy it. No one will write in such a nice, proper phrasing the evil of obamacare in a txt file.
 

Piecake

Member
Now, in a perverse twist, many of the poor people who rely on safety-net hospitals like Memorial will be doubly unlucky. A government subsidy, little known outside health policy circles but critical to the hospitals’ survival, is being sharply reduced under the new health law.

The subsidy, which for years has helped defray the cost of uncompensated and undercompensated care, was cut substantially on the assumption that the hospitals would replace much of the lost income with payments for patients newly covered by Medicaid or private insurance. But now the hospitals in states like Georgia will get neither the new Medicaid patients nor most of the old subsidies, which many say are crucial to the mission of care for the poor.

“We were so thrilled when the law passed, but it has backfired,” said Lindsay Caulfield, senior vice president for planning and marketing at Grady Health in Atlanta, the largest safety-net hospital in Georgia.

It is now facing the loss of nearly half of its roughly $100 million in annual subsidies known as disproportionate share hospital payments.


Traditionally, safety-net hospitals have played a special role in caring for poor people. They make up just 2 percent of acute care hospitals in the country, but provide about a fifth of all uncompensated care, according to Dr. Arthur Kellerman, dean of the F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine in Bethesda, Md. The subsidy was created in the 1980s to help hospitals with large shares of patients who were uninsured or had government insurance that did not pay very much. Many hospitals came to depend on it.

A full third of Grady’s patients have no insurance, and, if that does not change, the hospital will have no choice but to cut services, said John M. Haupert, Grady’s chief executive. The hospital’s large outpatient mental health program, which handles 58,000 visits a year and is critical to keeping poor patients with behavioral problems from seeking treatment in the emergency room, would most likely be hit, Mr. Haupert said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/09/health/cuts-in-hospital-subsidies-threaten-safety-net-care.html

So not only are those states not getting medicaid dollars to cover poor patients, they are also getting less subsidy dollars to cover poor patients because it was assumed that they would be on medicaid.

This results in safety net hospitals reducing services or closing down all together, forcing more poor people who are stuck in medicaid limbo to go to an expensive ER for care.

This likely means that it will be even more expensive for the state to cover poor people's medical care than before while providing much worse service. Good job Republican states.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/09/health/cuts-in-hospital-subsidies-threaten-safety-net-care.html

So not only are those states not getting medicaid dollars to cover poor patients, they are also getting less subsidy dollars to cover poor patients because it was assumed that they would be on medicaid.

This results in safety net hospitals reducing services or closing down all together, forcing more poor people who are stuck in medicaid limbo to go to an expensive ER for care.

This likely means that it will be even more expensive for the state to cover poor people's medical care than before while providing much worse service. Good job Republican states.
But they can spin it as: Look how bad Obamacare is!
 

bonercop

Member
The subsidies reduce costs to a max 9% of your income. And if its above that you don't get penalized.

I'm aware. But if you're in a bad spot(think: having to pay off massive debts, being ripped off with rent, going through a divorce etc. etc.) 8% of your income can be a lot. I'm not saying this law isn't going to help the poor -- it's going to help a lot -- but the protections built in aren't strong enough to cover everyone. Sadly, there are going to be people who will be negatively impacted, no matter how small a percentage that may be.

The US political systems abandonment of the poor is one of the saddest stories in the last half century. They literally don't care. I remember reading a study that said the policy preferences of the poor and policies proposed in the political system almost never line up while the upper middle and upper class get something like 90% of what they want.

I remember seeing that study. They concluded that if you're in the bottom 70%, you have pretty much zero influence.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_top
 
I'm aware. But if you're in a bad spot(think: having to pay off massive debts, being ripped off with rent, going through a divorce etc. etc.) 8% of your income can be a lot. I'm not saying this law isn't going to help the poor -- it's going to help a lot -- but the protections built in aren't strong enough to cover everyone. Sadly, there are going to be people who will be negatively impacted, no matter how small a percentage that may be.

Yeah, the sad thing this will always be true with private insurance requiring a premium instead of a system of social insurance, the only solution would be to expand subsidies.

BTW the whole subsidies thing is annoying. The government is paying for your care but they're doing it through a middle man, its so frustrating they can't just pay the provider themselves....
 

Fuchsdh

Member
I don't see why people are surprised the poor are shafted by the political system. They neither have numbers or money.

No Child was sort of screwed the second they didn't create a larger board that would prevent states from tinkering with the achievement tests rather than being held to similar standards.
 
Edit -
Sawant Surges in Latest Ballot Drop, SeaTac Prop 1 Bleeding Slows

Goldy and the slog can get carried away at time, so take it with a grain of salt, but -
FFsB0E4.png


JsstmU7.gif

I really hope this is the start of something.

Well, it makes sense. Putting a bunch of black folks in prison is just the price we have to pay to cure cancer.

If you want a twist the person who initiated and defended the argument vigorously was black.
 
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/n...um=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+tpm-news+(TPMNews)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- It's final: Health insurance companies must cover mental illness and substance abuse just as they cover physical diseases.

The Obama administration issued new regulations Friday that spell out how a 5-year-old mental health parity law will be administered.


Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the rule should put an end to discrimination faced by some mental health patients through higher out-of-pocket costs or stricter limits on hospital stays or visits to the doctor.

The law, signed by President George W. Bush, was designed to prevent that. But mental health advocates said health insurers at times sidestepped lawmakers' intentions by delaying requests for care and putting in place other bureaucratic hurdles. They described the new Obama administration rule as necessary to ensure patients get benefits they are entitled to receive.

The administration had pledged to issue a final mental health parity rule as part of an effort to reduce gun violence. Officials said they have now completed or made significant progress on 23 executive actions that were part of a plan announced in response to the school massacre in Newtown, Conn., last December.
 
The law is fine.


The website has glitches.


You need to stop hating on everything Obama does so much more than Republicans do.

Now drone strikes, gitmo, gitmo prisoners not having lawyers, not pushing mental health services, not pushing for better infrastructure building, willing to give up social safety net for barely anything in return, not getting rid of bush's race to the bottom(education reform), not getting rid of surveillance on American citizens, not really caring too much about food stamps, and being out of touch with poor people(frankly I only think LBJ and carter were the last two who actually did understand the poor). O, and not pushing for an individual mandate through reconciliation, or the public option, or single payer.

So yea, the website will be fixed. It's zzzzzzzzzz boring, and not hyper critical. However the law is fine.

My concern is what impact the website and general negative news will have on signups, specifically among younger people. I could be completely wrong, and I have seen the polls that continue to show younger people are interested in signing up. Still, this is an important junction of the law's life, of course I'm concerned. I'm me.

I agree with your other points, although I do think Obama cares about food stamps. I'd argue he doesn't seem to "get" entitlements, given his ridiculous position on chained CPI, but he's fine on food stamps.

BTW dude, what do you think of your new mayor? I did some intern work at the Detroit Medical Center and met him a few years ago, seems like a nice guy. Still, his corporate ties and apparent Snyder support makes me wary.
 
The administration had pledged to issue a final mental health parity rule as part of an effort to reduce gun violence. Officials said they have now completed or made significant progress on 23 executive actions that were part of a plan announced in response to the school massacre in Newtown, Conn., last December.
JEEZ, WHY WOULD OBAMA EVEN FOCUS ON GUN CONTROL
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
http://arstechnica.com/security/201...vice-attack-aimed-directly-at-healthcare-gov/

People are really DDoSing healthcare.gov? Wow, talk about taking things a little too far.

People were DDoSing Extra Life's website during their major charity event week. Of course healthcare.gov was going to be attacked. I've always figured it's been attacked from day one, though I'm not sure if those attacks are what caused the website's problems. Surely they probably prepared for it much more than a tiny site like Extra Life.
 

Aylinato

Member
My concern is what impact the website and general negative news will have on signups, specifically among younger people. I could be completely wrong, and I have seen the polls that continue to show younger people are interested in signing up. Still, this is an important junction of the law's life, of course I'm concerned. I'm me.

I agree with your other points, although I do think Obama cares about food stamps. I'd argue he doesn't seem to "get" entitlements, given his ridiculous position on chained CPI, but he's fine on food stamps.

BTW dude, what do you think of your new mayor? I did some intern work at the Detroit Medical Center and met him a few years ago, seems like a nice guy. Still, his corporate ties and apparent Snyder support makes me wary.


I interned under his son in Lansing in the house speakers office. His son was super nice, and seems to really care about the people.

I'm pleased. as Benny Napoleon is shit and has wasted 450,000 of wayne county's money just by fucking up his budget. His brother is also in charge of inkster, which has had a lot of problems because their police don't want to, well police anymore.

I would rather have kenneth crockel from city council though, the really only good political family in these city. He also knows how to run a city. Shame he lost to the basketball player.


Also I think the ties to Snyder are overstated in his case. Snyder has already burned the bridge with the moderate democrats in the state(like Andy Dillon who turned on him in the court case saying he didn't negotiate in good faith because they had already made up their minds to force detroit into bankruptcy before any negotiation happened.) I would say Duggan gets along with the Oakland county republicans better though, and probably have better relations with the racist L brooks patternson.

The city needs a lot of infrastructure built, and money from the state. I dunno if the state is willing to not destroy itself. Whatever happens to detroit happens to the state.
 

Piecake

Member
https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/...ue1/Segall14U.Pa.J.L.&Soc.Change159(2011).pdf

Interesting paper on felony discrimination in employment. I only skimmed it, but one think that was surprising was that 70% of the prison population was white in 1950, while it is 30% today. Apparently the explosion in arrests and prisons in the 70s/80s to today only really targeted minorities

What is interesting is that they mention that the unemployment disparity is huge if you include the prison population as unemploed

In 1982, a young unskilled white man was about 50% more likely to hold a job
than a young unskilled black man. By 1996, young white high school dropouts
were more than twice as likely to hold jobs as were their African American
counterparts
.53

Pager discovered that regardless of race, a criminal record drastically reduced the chance of receiving a callback from an employer. A criminal record reduced the likelihood of a callback by fifty percent for whites. Blacks, however, fared much worse; Pager reported that the effect of a criminal record was forty percent larger for blacks than for whites.61 Pager also collected qualitative evidence to suggest that employers anticipated black criminality. On at least three occasions, black auditors were asked preemptively about their criminal records. No white auditor had the same experience.
Plea-bargaining is in the short-term interest of criminal defendants because it yields
substantially lower sentences than sentences that follow jury trials. But by increasing the
proportion of criminal defendants who end up with criminal records, the plea system amplifies the long-term collateral consequences of an encounter with the criminal justice system on life chances—and especially on employability.
And the burden is likely to be particularly heavy for minority defendants, for three reasons

In many states, discrimination against ex-felons is legally mandated. In the 1980s, the popularity of tough-on-crime policies resulted in a wave of new laws restricting the ability of felons to seek public employment.71 Today, all fifty states restrict felons from public employment to some degree. Some states narrowly apply the restrictions to ex-felons who commit certain types of crimes (such as Delaware’s limitation of the public employment ban to felons convicted of an “infamous crime”), or make public employment rights restorable after a period of time, but seven states have a blanket lifetime ban on ex-felons working in the public sector.72 Only six states require a relationship to exist between the character of the criminal conduct and the job sought; the majority of states treat “felons” as an undifferentiated group for the purposes of restricting access to unemployment.73 Most ex-felons are also barred from military employment without a special waiver.74


In the private sector, occupational licensing restrictions that apply to ex-felons
nationwide constitute de facto bars to entry in many instances.
Professional licensing is a primary method of ensuring uniformity of service and regulatory control over qualifications and occupational entry in the modern workforce. Licensing requirements exist in occupations at all wage levels: among many others, attorneys, accountants, general contractors, barbers, and gas station operators are subject to licensing requirements.75 Ex-felons are barred from more than eight hundred discrete occupations by laws regulating public-employment hiring or licensing.76

Statutory discrimination against ex-felons affects only public employment and those jobs that are subject to licensing requirements. Discrimination against ex-felons in the manner that Devah Pager observed in her audit-pair study—employers systematically disfavoring applicants with criminal records—can exist in any sector. Efforts to use conventional antidiscrimination law to remedy the disparate impact of ex-felon discrimination on minorities have produced mixed, but mostly poor, results. Title VII does not categorically prohibit employers from using criminal records as a basis for hiring decisions.99 To win an antidiscrimination suit against an employer for using criminal records in hiring, a plaintiff must either demonstrate that the employer was intentionally using criminal records as a proxy for race or that the employer’s practice had a disparate impact on a class of persons protected under the statute. Employers may defeat the latter argument with a showing of business necessity.100

https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/...ue1/Segall14U.Pa.J.L.&Soc.Change159(2011).pdf

Jesus, seems like a whole lot of obstacles are being put in place to fuck over ex-felons, especially minority ex-felons.

I never thought of the plea system exacerbating this problem. Interesting
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Because we have tons of big cities and states run by Republicans? Hell, this is the first time NYC has had a Democrat mayor in 20 years. I mean, NYC!

To be fair de Blasio is the first good candidate Dems have run for Mayor in that time frame.
 
https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/...ue1/Segall14U.Pa.J.L.&Soc.Change159(2011).pdf

Interesting paper on felony discrimination in employment. I only skimmed it, but one think that was surprising was that 70% of the prison population was white in 1950, while it is 30% today. Apparently the explosion in arrests and prisons in the 70s/80s to today only really targeted minorities

What is interesting is that they mention that the unemployment disparity is huge if you include the prison population as unemploed













https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/...ue1/Segall14U.Pa.J.L.&Soc.Change159(2011).pdf

Jesus, seems like a whole lot of obstacles are being put in place to fuck over ex-felons, especially minority ex-felons.

I never thought of the plea system exacerbating this problem. Interesting

yeah the plea system is abused. scare the defendant to admitting guilt. A lot of public defenders push it because they're so over worked and see it as better than nothing.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Jay Leno's kind of a douche, but he had a pretty decent interview with Ted Cruz the other day.

Cruz said his daughter was impressed with his reading of Green Eggs and Ham on the senate floor.
 

Tamanon

Banned
Jay Leno's kind of a douche, but he had a pretty decent interview with Ted Cruz the other day.

Cruz said his daughter was impressed with his reading of Green Eggs and Ham on the senate floor. So she's an idiot too, it seems.

Or just a daughter. Stay away from insulting kids.
 

Piecake

Member
"I'm not sure what would be worse. Millions of elderly unable to house and feed themselves … or the intergenerational strife that surely would erupt if young people are forced to lower their standard of living to pay for our failure to act in a timely manner to avert this crisis."

Ronald O'Hanley, president, Fidelity Investments, in 2013 remarks

Hey, Ron. Here's what will be worse. Millions of seniors unable to pay their own expenses — and — younger family members financially saddled with their parents' long-term care.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/busine...ill-we-just-kick-it-down-the-road-too/2149193

Its going to be fun when this blows up in our face.

New NIRS research finds retirement savings are dangerously low, and the U.S. retirement savings deficit is between $6.8 and $14.0 trillion.

These findings are contained in a new research report, The Retirement Savings Crisis: Is it Worse Than We Think?, located here.

The average working household has virtually no retirement savings. When all households are included— not just households with retirement accounts—the median retirement account balance is $3,000 for all working-age households and $12,000 for near-retirement households.

The average family has 12k at retirement. Holy fucking shit.

http://www.nirsonline.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=768&Itemid=48
 

Chichikov

Member
The 401k model is a scam, it's brilliance is that it's to obfuscated for most people to realize how fucked they are, and when they finally do, they'll be too old to riot.

And man, if the solution end up being raising retirement age and forced saving into that broken ass model as this so called expert in this article suggests, I hope people fucking riot and do it while their bones are not frail.
 

Piecake

Member
woops, meant to create a topic

The 401k model is a scam, it's brilliance is that it's to obfuscated for most people to realize how fucked they are, and when they finally do, they'll be too old to riot.

And man, if the solution end up being raising retirement age and forced saving into that broken ass model as this so called expert in this article suggests, I hope people fucking riot and do it while their bones are not frail.

I believe that person was talking about working till 70 so that you can take the increased social security benefits, and was only considering 'realistic' options for people to choose from. Changing the system seems pretty unlikely thanks to republicans and some democrats being opposed to it
 

Chichikov

Member
woops, meant to create a topic



I believe that person was talking about working till 70 so that you can take the increased social security benefits, and was only considering 'realistic' options for people to choose from. Changing the system seems pretty unlikely thanks to republicans and some democrats being opposed to it
That person said we should keep the 401k model which for me suggests that she either don't understand basic economic principles like how insurance works and spreading risk or she's shilling for Wall Street.
Smart money is on the latter.
I really do wonder what will happen to us after the Baby Boomers are gone.
Maybe we'll adopt a more nuanced view of our population and stop talking about generations. ;p
 
Is anyone following the Iran talks in Geneva?

Looks like France torpedoed any kind of short term deal but I'm lost on specifics.

Really frustrated to hear the senate was ready to try and stop any progress from being made.
 

Piecake

Member
That person said we should keep the 401k model which for me suggests that she either don't understand basic economic principles like how insurance works and spreading risk or she's shilling for Wall Street.
Smart money is on the latter.

Maybe we'll adopt a more nuanced view of our population and stop talking about generations. ;p

Ah, indeed stupid. Personally, I wouldnt be opposed to a retirement account system so long as it is done correctly. Expanded Social Security though is clearly the best solution

I think this is a realistic 'solution' for the US. I think we will eventually switch to opt-out instead of opt-in and at 10% of salary. What we will opt into is low cost index funds and put a limit on 401k fees and eliminate 401k borrowing. That will help, but still will really suck

The best individual retirement account solution is to make it run by the government, make it a mandatory 10% of income, give people the option of only investing in index funds, and make borrowing from that account prohibited. People can invest more into there if they want to.
 

teiresias

Member
That person said we should keep the 401k model which for me suggests that she either don't understand basic economic principles like how insurance works and spreading risk or she's shilling for Wall Street.
Smart money is on the latter.

Maybe we'll adopt a more nuanced view of our population and stop talking about generations. ;p

While I agree the 401k model is a substandard retirement vehicle, the abysmal amount of savings that article talks about suggests pretty much no savings going on . . . period . . . regardless of what kind of instrument is being used to do it. That's a somewhat larger systemic problem that is the result of a combination of problems including wage stagnation.

Piecake said:
The best individual retirement account solution is to make it run by the government, make it a mandatory 10% of income, give people the option of only investing in index funds, and make borrowing from that account prohibited. People can invest more into there if they want to.

You've basically described the Federal Employees "401k" TSP plan. The only options you have for investing in it are basically index funds with fairly low costs (by private market standards I guess), though it doesn't prevent borrowing (which I'd prefer not to get rid of, I may want to pull about 5k out of mine just to help with closing costs next year).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom