Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

U.S. Budget Negotiations

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 32K
  • Politics 

A study by the University of North Carolina, commissioned by Senate Democrats, found that 338 rural hospitals will be at risk of closing thanks to the GOP bill. But it’s not just rural hospitals already feeling the pinch. Two of San Diego, California’s largest medical providers announced layoffs in the last week. UC San Diego Health is laying off 230 workers and cited “mounting financial pressures” as a result of “federal impacts to health care,” including poor reimbursement rates for Medicare and Medicaid, in a memo seen by the San Diego Union Tribune.

Sharp Healthcare, San Diego County’s biggest provider, also announced it was laying off 315 employees who will work through early September. Executives at Sharp are also taking pay cuts, with CEO Chris Howard asking the board to cut his pay by 25%, according to the San Diego Union Tribune.

Bea Grause, president of the Healthcare Association of New York State told the Times Union that hospitals are going to feel this. “It’s a fiscal pandemic,” Grause said. “Medicaid is an important funder for all hospitals, and so it will financially hurt almost every hospital across the state of New York—and hospitals are central to the economy of each community. That’s what the average New Yorker should be concerned about.”

Many Americans probably don’t even know they’re on Medicaid, given the fact that each state administers its own program and has a different name for it. In California it’s called Medi-Cal, in Massachusetts it’s called MassHealth, and in New Jersey it’s called NJ FamilyCare. But people also don’t seem to understand that Medicaid helps hospitals pay for things that help everyone more broadly and pulling the rug out from under them will have ripple effects.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates 11.8 million people will lose Medicaid coverage between now and 2034, according to the Washington Post, but the bill also abolishes other subsidies for the Affordable Care Act that the CBO estimates will dump another 4.2 million people. Another 1 million on top of that will lose their coverage because of other health provisions in the bill, bringing the grand total to somewhere around 17 million people over the next decade.

When people lose their health insurance it doesn’t mean that they’re not going to need help. As Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, a Democrat from Nevada, pointed out during a virtual roundtable this week, these cuts will “devastate health care in Nevada,” and people will go to the ER after they get sick enough.

“More people now are going to be showing up in our emergency rooms with acute care because they now have lost the health care that they need to even provide preventative care for them,” Cortez Masto said, according to the Nevada Current.
 
Many Americans probably don’t even know they’re on Medicaid, given the fact that each state administers its own program and has a different name for it. In California it’s called Medi-Cal, in Massachusetts it’s called MassHealth, and in New Jersey it’s called NJ FamilyCare. But people also don’t seem to understand that Medicaid helps hospitals pay for things that help everyone more broadly and pulling the rug out from under them will have ripple effects.

That many Americans probably don't even know they're on Medicaid............is an important point and may explain why some don't realize they are going to be hurt.
 
Explain how that leads to civil or criminal liability.

CBS could have given her a script to read, and edited afterwards if she screwed up the script, and put in all sorts of extra AI footage making her seem like a world historical genius . . . and they would have done nothing actionable.

The only reason this lawsuit settled was that CBS' billionaire owners wanted to sell it, and Trump could block that. It was use of government power to achieve a result that could not have been reached by lawful means.

I'm back to thinking you are not a lawyer. No lawyer could know so little
No one but you said criminal liability.
 
No one but you said criminal liability.
I said civil or criminal -- meaning that I don't think there would be any liability at all. Thought I'd cover my bases. Now, please explain how there can be liability for broadcasting an interview. You have two challenges. First, finding a cause of action. Second, overcoming the obvious First Amendment protections.

As I said, CBS could have never had Kamala in the studio, created an interview out of thin air with AI and broadcast it and there would be no liability. Certainly not to Trump. Care to explain why I'm wrong?
 
I said civil or criminal -- meaning that I don't think there would be any liability at all. Thought I'd cover my bases. Now, please explain how there can be liability for broadcasting an interview anywhere in the world. You have two challenges. First, finding a cause of action. Second, overcoming the obvious First Amendment protections.

As I said, CBS could have never had Kamala in the studio, created an interview out of thin air with AI and broadcast it and there would be no liability. Certainly not to Trump. Care to explain why I'm wrong?
Suit based upon election interference - CBS fraudulently editing the interview which was intended to help the Democratic candidate to the detriment to Trump. If it was so baseless why didn’t CBS file a 12b6 motion and dispose of it and move for Rule 11 sanctions?
 
Suit based upon election interference - CBS fraudulently editing the interview which was intended to help the Democratic candidate to the detriment to Trump. If it was so baseless why didn’t CBS file a 12b6 motion and dispose of it and move for Rule 11 sanctions?
Sigh.

1. "Election interference" is not actually a legal concept. There are no statutes that I know of addressing "election interference" and certainly not by a media outlet. There are laws against threatening voters, steering voters to the wrong polling places or telling them the wrong dates, political violence of course, etc. If you can find a statute addressing election interference

2. Where was the fraud? Do you even know the elements of fraud? And if anyone would have a case, it wouldn't be Trump.

3. Are you familiar with the First Amendment of the constitution? Are you familiar with New York Times v. Sullivan? Do you know anything?

4. CBS didn't file a motion to dismiss because it was trying to sell itself. It needs the permission of the FCC. Trump ALREADY used the FCC to block a merger -- Time Warner -- and Time Warner had to go to court to complete the merger (Trump got his ass kicked badly in that one).

CBS's owner (well, Paramount's owner, which owns CBS) is an old woman who wanted to sell her company. She didn't have any interest in fighting. So she paid a tribute and got on with things. It was a blatant act of corruption by Trump.

5. You might have noticed that Trump pulled all of his other "election interference" suits. Because they were all meritless. He just didn't have any means of shaking down the others.
 
Sigh.

1. "Election interference" is not actually a legal concept. There are no statutes that I know of addressing "election interference" and certainly not by a media outlet. There are laws against threatening voters, steering voters to the wrong polling places or telling them the wrong dates, political violence of course, etc. If you can find a statute addressing election interference

2. Where was the fraud? Do you even know the elements of fraud? And if anyone would have a case, it wouldn't be Trump.

3. Are you familiar with the First Amendment of the constitution? Are you familiar with New York Times v. Sullivan? Do you know anything?

4. CBS didn't file a motion to dismiss because it was trying to sell itself. It needs the permission of the FCC. Trump ALREADY used the FCC to block a merger -- Time Warner -- and Time Warner had to go to court to complete the merger (Trump got his ass kicked badly in that one).

CBS's owner (well, Paramount's owner, which owns CBS) is an old woman who wanted to sell her company. She didn't have any interest in fighting. So she paid a tribute and got on with things. It was a blatant act of corruption by Trump.

5. You might have noticed that Trump pulled all of his other "election interference" suits. Because they were all meritless. He just didn't have any means of shaking down the others.
That makes too much sense for him to ever accept.
 
That makes too much sense for him to ever accept.
It's not easy to whiff on a legal concept in every way. It's not actionable; even if it was plaintiff has no standing; even if it did, plaintiff cannot prove damages; even if it could, the First Amendment would be a complete defense; and even if it wasn't, Trump would be going to court with unclean hands.

It takes a special person to be that wrong.
 
It's not easy to whiff on a legal concept in every way. It's not actionable; even if it was plaintiff has no standing; even if it did, plaintiff cannot prove damages; even if it could, the First Amendment would be a complete defense; and even if it wasn't, Trump would be going to court with unclean hands.

It takes a special person to be that wrong.
The last one is the one that gets me.
 
Suit based upon election interference - CBS fraudulently editing the interview which was intended to help the Democratic candidate to the detriment to Trump. If it was so baseless why didn’t CBS file a 12b6 motion and dispose of it and move for Rule 11 sanctions?
Not only has Fox edited pre-taped Trump interviews, on numerous occasions the interviewer actively tried to guide Trump into the correct answer.
 
This took me straight out. 😂
The FCC does have some regulatory capacity under the broadcast distortion rule. Layman's terms, networks can't intentionally falsify the news. The rules seem pretty loose.

-It can't cause public harm but it doesn't explicitly state it applies to elections and is really more geared towards panicking people or sending police to the wrong place. That could really be argued by the attorneys.

-It can't infringe on first amendment rights and it can't prosecute differences of opinion which likely wouldn't apply.

-it has to be intentional and it has to be something more than a minor distortion. I would assume that this would be intentional and major but I'm sure it would be argued.

-It also doesn't really address selective editing. Obviously Harris said all those things so does that fall under broadcast distortion? That could be argued in Court too.

Based on my choice of overnight lodging yesterday evening, I suspect if it ever did go to court has an FCC enforcement action, CBS would win but not sure why they would really want to risk their broadcast license. Pay the fine and move on. They should have suffered a whole lot more reputational damage than they did but plenty of other networks are worse.

 
Last edited:
Back
Top