The Trump Presidency – 2016

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Deficits shrink under Democratic Presidents.

I think that's basically a talking point attributable to the semi-random fact pattern of memorable history.

-Clinton happened to be in office when a tech bubble generated so much capital gains income that the treasury temporary swelled to actually cover its obligations. Clinton was indeed a fairly moderate Dem, but let's not pretend that the reason the federal deficit shrank was because of "welfare reform" or the like, it was the plastic economy of the moment.

-Bush 43 ended up presiding at a time when the hue and cry for expanded Medicare (especially for prescription drugs) reached a breaking point, and the GOP knew it has a weakness with older voters, so they knuckled under. It wasn't a deep philosophical commitment, it was political laziness and unwillingness to stand up to a strong lobby. They caved, the feds spend a ton more on Medicare now, and that's basically your story of expanding deficits during that era - coupled, admittedly, with the mantra that "deficits don't matter," which to any incumbent is basically scripture.

-Obama got to preside over a massive expansion, independent of his policies, and that's good for revenue. Like it or not, the health care package that they got passed under his watch had a variety of unpopular pay-fors designed to avoid blowing up the deficit... now we'll watch them go by the wayside, for sure, starting with the "Cadillac tax." He inherited TARP and the fallout from the 2008-09 fall-apart, but since a recovery was pretty obviously imminent after that dust settled, he gets credit (in this respect) for just not messing it all up.

-Trump's massive tax cut, and the unbelievable fiction surrounding it, was absurdly irresponsible and contributed to a massive underfunding now and for the next political generation. If all you care about is deficits, then this is the one place you draw the line... it was reckless, politically expedient, and ultimately probably did fairly little for the behaviors we claimed to be targeting. It will take a couple years for, say, the charity community to realize how royally fucked they got in all this. Maybe the same for realtors, too.

Anyway... if all we can look at are a tiny number of data point, we are at great peril to conclude that there's something about party philosophy there. It's an anomaly.

Democrats would prefer to increase spending. Republicans would prefer to reduce revenues. Neither once generally considers the relationship between the two to be important enough to counter these primary instincts. It's a built-in problem for anyone who cares about deficits and fiscal responsibility - the inherently most boring special interest in DC.

[QuikSand]

also ping drunk guy

[cuervo72]

I was mostly out over the weekend; did we cover this?

Man Dies After Being Deported To Iraq From Michigan : NPR

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

also ping drunk guy

Enjoying OC, eh?

(Caught a blurb on WAMU this morning)

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Democrats would prefer to increase spending. Republicans would prefer to reduce revenues. Neither once generally considers the relationship between the two to be important enough to counter these primary instincts. It's a built-in problem for anyone who cares about deficits and fiscal responsibility - the inherently most boring special interest in DC.

Obama also reduced government spending:

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-...nment-spending

(the 10 year view shows it)

Mostly by reducing military spending. Though spending was starting to trend up a bit after 2014 (likely due to health care costs).

Generally the recent Republican talk about reducing spending, but they mostly just shift it - to defense spending

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You said to look at this post for why it's not racist. ICE has a pretty big history of racism in this country.

Inside the Secret Border Patrol Facebook Group Where Agents Joke About Migrant Deaths and Post Sexist Memes — ProPublica

Under Trump, they hired an analyst from the Center for Immigration Studies. The former acting director hired many people from CIS and even spoke at their events.

They are also run by a white supremacist and rank and file heavily voted in favor of a white supremacist.

And yet ICE is 51-52% Hispanic.

Sure it happens and there are bad apples. But is ICE a cesspool of white supremacists and racists? Easier for me to believe they are acting on unauthorized immigration vs pure racism.

Fact Check: Are Half of All Border Patrol Agents Hispanic?

Townhall editor and Fox News contributor Katie Pavlich said in a tweet Wednesday that 52 percent of U.S. Border Patrol agents are Hispanic.

Verdict: True

Pavlich’s figure is in the ballpark. About half of all Border Patrol agents—51 percent—were Hispanic or Latino at the end of fiscal year 2016.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

And yet ICE is 51-52% Hispanic.

Sure it happens and there are bad apples. But is ICE a cesspool of white supremacists and racists? Easier for me to believe they are acting on unauthorized immigration vs pure racism.

Fact Check: Are Half of All Border Patrol Agents Hispanic?

ICE and Border Patrol are two separate entities. They're sister agencies under the DHS, but those numbers for Border Patrol Agents shouldn't have anything to do with the makeup of ICE.

The last numbers I saw on ICE was about 30% Hispanic.

[cuervo72]

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement - Wikipedia

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is a federal law enforcement agency under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, principally responsible for immigration enforcement, with additional responsibilities in countering transnational crime.[2][3]

ICE's mission is executed through the enforcement of more than 400 federal statutes and focuses on immigration enforcement, preventing terrorism and combating the illegal movement of people and goods.[4][5] ICE has two primary components: Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO).

ICE maintains attachés at major U.S. diplomatic missions overseas. ICE does not patrol American borders; rather, that role is performed by the United States Border Patrol, a unit of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which is a sister agency of ICE.[6][7][8]]

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I think that's basically a talking point attributable to the semi-random fact pattern of memorable history.

-Clinton happened to be in office when a tech bubble generated so much capital gains income that the treasury temporary swelled to actually cover its obligations. Clinton was indeed a fairly moderate Dem, but let's not pretend that the reason the federal deficit shrank was because of "welfare reform" or the like, it was the plastic economy of the moment.

-Bush 43 ended up presiding at a time when the hue and cry for expanded Medicare (especially for prescription drugs) reached a breaking point, and the GOP knew it has a weakness with older voters, so they knuckled under. It wasn't a deep philosophical commitment, it was political laziness and unwillingness to stand up to a strong lobby. They caved, the feds spend a ton more on Medicare now, and that's basically your story of expanding deficits during that era - coupled, admittedly, with the mantra that "deficits don't matter," which to any incumbent is basically scripture.

-Obama got to preside over a massive expansion, independent of his policies, and that's good for revenue. Like it or not, the health care package that they got passed under his watch had a variety of unpopular pay-fors designed to avoid blowing up the deficit... now we'll watch them go by the wayside, for sure, starting with the "Cadillac tax." He inherited TARP and the fallout from the 2008-09 fall-apart, but since a recovery was pretty obviously imminent after that dust settled, he gets credit (in this respect) for just not messing it all up.

-Trump's massive tax cut, and the unbelievable fiction surrounding it, was absurdly irresponsible and contributed to a massive underfunding now and for the next political generation. If all you care about is deficits, then this is the one place you draw the line... it was reckless, politically expedient, and ultimately probably did fairly little for the behaviors we claimed to be targeting. It will take a couple years for, say, the charity community to realize how royally fucked they got in all this. Maybe the same for realtors, too.

Anyway... if all we can look at are a tiny number of data point, we are at great peril to conclude that there's something about party philosophy there. It's an anomaly.

Democrats would prefer to increase spending. Republicans would prefer to reduce revenues. Neither once generally considers the relationship between the two to be important enough to counter these primary instincts. It's a built-in problem for anyone who cares about deficits and fiscal responsibility - the inherently most boring special interest in DC.

Clinton cut spending just like Obama. Reagan, HW, W, and Trump have increased spending. Not sure where the "Democrats only care about spending" comes from. Heck, their party leadership is still touting Pay-Go as the way forward.

Let's not forget W made massive tax cuts and then increased spending. Same with Reagan.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

ICE and Border Patrol are two separate entities. They're sister agencies under the DHS, but those numbers for Border Patrol Agents shouldn't have anything to do with the makeup of ICE.

The last numbers I saw on ICE was about 30% Hispanic.

Fair enough.

Below says 21%.

The Latino face of ICE | AL D�A News

Justiniano is one of the 4,214 Hispanic officers of ICE, 21.5 percent of the total force of that agency. Latinos are the second-largest "ethnic group in ICE, after US whites (11,673, 59.5 percent), nearly twice as many African-American officers and four times as many as those of Asian descent, according to figures collected by Univisión News.

[albionmoonlight]

There's a bit of "only Nixon could go to China" here, too. Voters think of the GOP as the fiscally responsible party, so they are given more leeway to expand the deficit. Voters think of Dems as the reckless party, so their feet are held to the fire.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Deficits shrink under Democratic Presidents.

Generally true but it also helps that congressional Republicans would rather block all legislation rather than give a Democratic president "a win".

[Edward64]

Don't really know how it will end but its either a violent crackdown, China giving some significant concessions, or protesters fading away.

Concessions is unlikely, losing too much face and setting a precedence for next time. Protesters fading away also seems unlikely, the protesters have been pretty successful in maintaining pressure. So some sort of crackdown is my guess.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/12/asia/...hnk/index.html

The sudden decision to shutdown the airport came as the city's protest movement entered its 11th week, with no sign of either side backing down.

Earlier on Monday, as crowds began to descend on the airport, Chinese officials called for the authorities to exercise an "iron fist" in tackling "violent crime" in Hong Kong.

"Hong Kong's radical demonstrators have repeatedly attacked police officers with extremely dangerous tools," Yang Guang, a spokesman for the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office, told reporters in Beijing.

"They have already constituted serious violent crimes and have begun to show signs of terrorism. This is a gross violation of the rule of law and social order in Hong Kong, which is endangering the lives and safety for Hong Kong citizens."

Use of the term terrorism to describe the Hong Kong protests, even in a somewhat backhanded way, is a major rhetorical shift in how China has described the protests.

In domestic propaganda, there has been a noticeable transition in recent weeks in how the protests are covered. State media reports initially refrained from mentioning the demonstrations, amid heavy censorship, as is usual for anti-government actions anywhere in China. But increasingly reports have moved to emphasize the violent side of the protests -- and sought to paint the protesters as separatists being controlled by the United States and other foreign "black hands."

[NobodyHere]

I'm sure there's good people on both sides.

[PilotMan]

Ever since China took possession of Hong Kong they have been pushing the agreed upon terms for possession of it. They change the rules little by little and take away freedoms that have been in place. Of course it's going to end badly somewhere along the way, but it's completely wrong, completely autocratic authority, completely China. It's like when trump says something outrageous and everyone says, oh he'll never do that, he meant this, but then they totally do it. China does that shit all the time.

[Lathum]

Curt Schilling 'absolutely considering' running for Congress

Schilling opened speculation about his political future after an interview Sunday with Armed American Radio’s Mark Walters.

He will fit right in.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Curt Schilling 'absolutely considering' running for Congress




He will fit right in.

Always room for one more tool in the shed, and he is a big one.

[Atocep]

I wonder why right wing extremist terrorism is up under Trump.

The Democrats have lost it.

Crazy Bernie, Sleepy Joe, and the rest of the 2020 Democrats are so out of touch with the American People that they’ve now fully aligned their views with the RADICAL SOCIALIST SQUAD, a group that truly doesn’t want America to succeed.

The Democrats’ constant personal attacks, vicious lies, and hateful commentary about our great country has never had anything to do with me...

Their goal has always been to silence YOU. The idea of you running our country TERRIFIES them.

The 2020 Democratic candidates and the Socialist Squad want to ruin our country and everything we hold sacred. It’s up to YOU to stop them.

There is no better way to stop the Democrats from ruining our country and to Keep America Great, than by contributing to become an Official Trump 2020 Presidential Founder.

There’s never been a better time to give your FIRST ever contribution, and I want to give you one LAST chance to mark your status as an Official Trump 2020 Presidential Founder.

[RainMaker]

Schilling is another Q guy running for office. Shame he doesn't try in Rhode Island.

[GrantDawg]

Enter the conspiracy theory zone: William Barr has said that there is going to be a full investigation of the Epstien suicide, and that his accomplices will be brought to justice. We already know he was buddies with Trump, but there is no way Barr is going to investigate Trump. We do know that Barr has no scruples what so ever, and has no qualms using his position for political purposes. So, when does the Clinton indictment come? How many enemies of Trump get indicted? Will there even be a token Republican?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Democrats would prefer to increase spending. Republicans would prefer to reduce revenues. Neither once generally considers the relationship between the two to be important enough to counter these primary instincts. It's a built-in problem for anyone who cares about deficits and fiscal responsibility - the inherently most boring special interest in DC.

If Dems didn't care about that relationship, then why would they constantly push for unpopular tax increase measures and/or oppose tax cuts?

[JPhillips]

Ken Cuccinelli changed the poem on the Statue of Liberty:

"give me your tired and your poor who can stand on their own two feet, and who will not become a public charge."

When asked about it text of the original poem later he said that it referred to people coming from Europe.

White nationalism rules everything around me.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

If Dems didn't care about that relationship, then why would they constantly push for unpopular tax increase measures and/or oppose tax cuts?

Look at what "tax increase measures" most Democrats are willing to say they support, in the abstract. It's almost universally "tax on the wealthy" or "roll back the [Republican] tax cuts for the rich" or the like. That polls pretty well, Dems understand that, and when not in crisis time, they stick to the playbook.

When there's an actual crisis (negotiation over the debt limit, most recently) you'd see some bickering over the ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases as part of a budget deal - with the GOP seeking some absurd ratio like 10:1 and the Dems starting at 1:1, and then settling on 3:1 or 5:1. But it is always the Democrats who have to push the issue of revenue increases being part of any solution. Republicans are reliably pro-cut right up until the moment when something of value to virtually anyone gets nicked.

Tax cuts are indeed popular, and I think it's generally a nod to the integrity of the Dems that they don't go for them every time, the way much of the GOP will. If you're reading my comments above as simply an indictment of the Dems, you're missing my point. I judge both parties to be substantially guilty of the fiscal impasse that has relegated "fiscal responsibility" as a back-burner issue, but if there's an apportionment to be had, I'd say the blind adherence to mantra of the GOP to bear the larger burden here.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Ken Cuccinelli changed the poem on the Statue of Liberty:



When asked about it text of the original poem later he said that it referred to people coming from Europe.

White nationalism rules everything around me.

Was just coming to comment on this. What a crock. Screw them. It's bad enough to put in policies that go against American ideals, but to revise our tradition and hiatory itself?

[RainMaker]

So much for the "it's not about race" argument some here have been saying. The administration is openly saying it is.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Ken Cuccinelli changed the poem on the Statue of Liberty:

When asked about it text of the original poem later he said that it referred to people coming from Europe.

Pretty weak IMO. Why even change the poem and deal with the uproar. Was the pro-immigration crowd really using this poem to effectively beat up Trump's immigration policies (as if anymore was really needed)? Or was it him thinking he could just slip this in quietly and make himself look good to the boss?

I'm all for greatly increased selective immigration of the highly educated. I also remember when I went through the process there was something I signed that said that I could support myself (F1, H1B).

So evaluation criteria that includes not being a "public charge" (which I think was already policy to a certain degree) to decide on candidacy is okay with me (i.e. its not the only evaluation criteria). However, the intent of the poem is pretty clear and to change it and pick a fight is pretty stupid.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So much for the "it's not about race" argument some here have been saying. The administration is openly saying it is.

I'll go more towards stupid bigotry & prejudice. My guess he would welcome anyone/most that had money regardless of race.

[Edward64]

Don't really know the game he is playing. It would seem that China would see this as a "blink" and therefore this will undercut him in future negotiations.

But maybe Trump is looking at 2020 and doing what he needs to get re-elected.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/13/trum...thers-say.html

In backing off on China tariffs Tuesday, President Donald Trump showed just how much pain the U.S. could tolerate — and China may use that to its advantage, key voices on Wall Street say.

Markets rallied on the announcement by the U.S. Trade Representative office that certain items were being removed from the new tariff list, while duties on others would be delayed until mid-December.

The short-seller Jim Chanos, who tweets under the alter ego “Diogenes,” hinted that Chinese President Xi Jinping may take this as a sign that the U.S. may cave with enough pressure.

“So then tell me why Xi should not continue to wait out The World’s Greatest Negotiator, who keeps ‘dealing’ with himself?” tweeted Chanos, founder and managing Partner of Kynikos Associates.

[CU Tiger]

Jumping back in the thread a bit to the conversation on healthcare costs..

Just read this this morning and it was topical and kind of mind blowing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/09/b...=pocket-newtab

Getting some pop up so i will cut/paste below.

A Mexican Hospital, an American Surgeon, and a $5,000 Check (Yes, a Check)

A novel twist on medical tourism to avoid the high cost of U.S. health care saves an employer money and even earns the patient a bonus.
ImageDonna Ferguson, of Ecru, Miss., traveled to a private hospital in Cancún, Mexico, to have her knee replacement in July.
Donna Ferguson, of Ecru, Miss., traveled to a private hospital in Cancún, Mexico, to have her knee replacement in July.CreditCreditRocco Saint-Mleux for Kaiser Health News

By Phil Galewitz

Aug. 9, 2019

Leer en español

CANCÚN, Mexico — Donna Ferguson awoke in the resort city of Cancún before sunrise on a sweltering Saturday in July.

She wasn’t headed to the beach. Instead, she walked down a short hallway from her Sheraton hotel and into Galenia Hospital.

A little later that morning, a surgeon, Dr. Thomas Parisi, who had flown in from Wisconsin the day before, stood by Ms. Ferguson’s hospital bed and used a black marker to note which knee needed repair. “I’m ready,” Ms. Ferguson, 56, told him just before being taken to the operating room for her total knee replacement. For this surgery, she would not only receive free care, but would receive a check when she got home.

The hospital costs of the American medical system are so high that it made financial sense for both a highly trained orthopedist from Milwaukee and a patient from Mississippi to leave the country and meet at an upscale private Mexican hospital for the surgery.

Ms. Ferguson gets her health coverage through her husband’s employer, Ashley Furniture Industries. The cost to Ashley was less than half of what a knee replacement in the United States would have been. That’s why its employees and dependents who use this option have no out-of-pocket co-pays or deductibles for the procedure; in fact, they receive a $5,000 payment from the company, and all their travel costs are covered.

Dr. Parisi, who spent less than 24 hours in Cancún, was paid $2,700, or three times what he would have received from Medicare, the largest single payer of hospital costs in the United States. Private insurers often base their reimbursement rates on what Medicare pays.
ImageMs. Ferguson’s surgery was Dr. Thomas Parisi’s first one in Cancún. He spent less than 24 hours there and was paid triple what Medicare would reimburse in the United States.
Ms. Ferguson’s surgery was Dr. Thomas Parisi’s first one in Cancún. He spent less than 24 hours there and was paid triple what Medicare would reimburse in the United States.CreditRocco Saint-Mleux for Kaiser Health News

Ms. Ferguson is one of hundreds of thousands of Americans who seek lower-cost care outside the United States each year, with many going to Caribbean and Central American countries. For many, a key question is whether the facility offers quality care.

In a new twist on medical tourism, a Denver company is tapping into this market. The company, North American Specialty Hospital, known as NASH, has organized treatment for a couple of dozen Americans at Galenia since 2017.

Dr. Parisi, a graduate of the Mayo Clinic, is one of about 40 orthopedic surgeons in the United States who have signed up with NASH, to travel to Cancún on their days off to treat American patients. NASH is betting that having an American surgeon will alleviate concerns some people have about going outside the country, and persuade self-insured American employers to offer this option to their workers to save money and still provide high-quality care. NASH, a for-profit company that charges a fixed amount for each case, is paid by the employer or an intermediary that arranged the treatment.

“It was a big selling point, having an American doctor,” Ms. Ferguson said.

The American surgeons work closely with a Mexican counterpart and local nurses. NASH buys additional malpractice coverage for the American physicians, who could be sued in the United States by patients unhappy with their results.

“In the past, medical tourism has been mostly a blind leap to a country far away, to unknown hospitals and unknown doctors with unknown supplies, to a place without U.S. medical malpractice insurance,” said James Polsfut, the chief executive of NASH. “We are making the experience completely different and removing as much uncertainty as we can.”

Medical tourism has been around for decades but has become more common in the past 20 years as more countries and hospitals around the world market themselves to foreigners.

There are, of course, risks to going outside the country, including the headache of travel and the possibility that the standards of care may be lower than at home. If something goes wrong, patients will be far from family and friends who can help — and it might be more difficult to sue providers in other countries.
Chasing Lower Costs

The high prices charged at American hospitals make it relatively easy to offer surgical bargains in Mexico: In the United States, knee replacement surgery costs an average of about $30,000 — sometimes double or triple that — but at Galenia, it is only $12,000, said Dr. Gabriela Flores Teón, medical director of the facility.

The standard charge for a night in the hospital is $300 at Galenia, Dr. Flores said, compared with $2,000 on average at United States hospitals.

The other big savings is the cost of the medical device — made by a subsidiary of the New Jersey-based Johnson & Johnson — used in Ms. Ferguson’s knee replacement surgery. The very same implant she would have received at home costs $3,500 at Galenia, compared with nearly $8,000 in the United States, Dr. Flores said.

Galenia is accredited by the international affiliation of the Joint Commission, which sets hospital standards in the United States. But to help doctors and patients feel comfortable with surgery here, NASH and Galenia worked to exceed those standards.

That included adding an extra autoclave to sterilize instruments more quickly, using spacesuit-like gowns for doctors to reduce infection risk and having patients start physical therapy just hours after knee- or hip-replacement surgery.

I. Glenn Cohen, a law professor at Harvard and an expert on medical tourism, called the model used by NASH and a few other similar operations a “clever strategy” to attack some of the perceived risks about medical tourism.

“It doesn’t answer all concerns, but I will say it’s a big step forward,” he said. “It’s a very good marketing strategy.”

Still, he added, patients should be concerned with whether the hospital is equipped for all contingencies, the skills of other surgical team members and how their care is handed off when they return home.

Officials at Ashley Furniture, where Ms. Ferguson’s husband, Terry, is a longtime employee, said they had been impressed so far.

“We’ve had an overwhelming positive reaction from employees who have gone,” said Marcus Gagnon, manager of global benefits and health at Ashley, a Wisconsin-based company that has 17,000 employees. Ms. Ferguson was the company’s 10th insured person to go to Cancún.

Ashley also has sent about 140 employees or dependents for treatments at a hospital in Costa Rica, and together the foreign medical facilities have saved the firm $3.2 million in health costs since 2016, he said.

“Even after the incentive payments and travel expenses, we still save about half the cost of paying for care in the United States,” Mr. Gagnon said. “It’s been a nice option — not a magic bullet — but a nice option.”

NASH’s strategy has its skeptics.

“Building a familiar culture in a foreign destination may be appealing to some American consumers, but I do not see it as a sustainable business,” said Irving Stackpole, a health consultant in Rhode Island. “It’s not unusual for people thinking about this to have doctors, family and friends who will see this as a high-risk undertaking.”

Mr. Stackpole said only a limited number of Americans were willing — even with a financial incentive — to travel abroad, because most perceive the care won’t be as good.
Image
Carlos Bauque, a physical therapist, helping Ms. Ferguson at Galenia Hospital. “Even if I had to pay, I would come back here,” she said.CreditRocco Saint-Mleux for Kaiser Health News
‘You Are Nuts for Doing This’

Ms. Ferguson’s knee started causing her trouble two years ago, and last autumn a doctor recommended replacing it. She is on her feet most of the day assembling furniture tool kits at her job at American Furniture Manufacturing in Ecru, Miss. Terry Ferguson mentioned the Cancún option he had heard about at work. The couple pay $300 a month in premiums for family health coverage.

“I had a friend say, ‘You are nuts for doing this,’ but Dr. Parisi trained at Mayo, and you can’t do any better than that,” Ms. Ferguson said before the surgery. Also, having an American doctor meant that if something went wrong, she could file a malpractice suit in the United States, she added.

IndusHealth, Ashley’s medical travel plan administrator, arranged for her to get a physical exam, X-rays and heart tests near her home to make sure she was a good candidate for surgery. It even had her see a dentist to make sure she didn’t have an infection that could complicate her recovery. Dr. Parisi reviewed some of those records before Ms. Ferguson headed to Cancún.

The company also coordinated her medical care and made travel arrangements, including obtaining passports, airline tickets, hotel and meals for the couple.

In Mexico, the day before surgery, Ms. Ferguson had more X-rays and had her blood drawn. After lunch, the couple met with Noemi Osorio, a nurse, who reviewed Ms. Ferguson’s schedule and showed her the physical therapy facilities. Later, they met Dr. Parisi and the rest of the medical team.

“My job is pretty easy,” Dr. Parisi told her. “How you do over the next five or 10 years depends on how well you work with the physical therapy.”

The surgery began at 8:20 the next morning. Dr. Daniel Rios, an orthopedic surgeon who practices full time in Cancún, worked with Dr. Parisi. Dr. Rios, who had done a fellowship at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, checked on Ms. Ferguson for several days after the operation.

By 9:30 a.m., the operation was over, and at 11 a.m. she left the recovery area. Dr. Parisi checked on her there. “Everything went great,” he told her before heading to the airport for his 2:30 flight home.

Dr. Parisi said that the lack of English proficiency among some surgical staff members created “momentary delays,” but that the bilingual surgical assistant helped.

A little more than three hours after the surgery, Ms. Ferguson was in her hospital room, and a physical therapist came and helped her out of bed. Using a walker, she gingerly took some steps to test her new knee. By the next morning, she was on crutches walking the hallway and was discharged before noon. She stayed at her hotel 10 additional days while having physical therapy twice a day at the hospital.

“It’s been a great experience,” she said two days after the surgery. “Even if I had to pay, I would come back here because it’s just a different level of care — they treat you like family.”

This article was produced in collaboration with Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation. The author is a reporter for Kaiser Health News.

A version of this article appears in print on Aug. 11, 2019, Section BU, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: Your Surgery in Mexico May Include a $5,000 Check. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

To me, this is when you know free market is dead in the healthcare world. When provider and customer can agree to a price and can travel to another country and rent facilities and still pay less and make more.

I am sure most will point to the potential for lawsuit as a major cost driver.
I wonder how many Americans would gladly pay 75% less if they waived their right to sue for errors?

[Edward64]

I wouldn't waive my right to sue for errors but love this idea. Anything to make US Healthcare more efficient and transparent. I've heard similar for other countries (e.g. Thailand) but first time I've read the patient gets a check.

The article said additional/extra malpractice insurance is bought for the Dr but it may be harder for a patient to sue so there is that. There will be inevitable lawsuits coming out of this sooner or later.


EDIT: Oh, we should fix the damn college costs while we are at it also

[PilotMan]

You realize that the system has failed if this is a good idea, or proposed solution on any level. How can you argue to keep the current insurance run industry while proposing going outside if it in order to achieve the ends? It's a workaround to a glaring problem. Fix the problem, don't exacerbate it.

[Edward64]

I think there is near consensus on this board that healthcare is screwed up and everyone wants to see it re-worked. From single-payer, to single-payer w/private combo; more transparency; reduce the middle-man; more interstate providers, exchanges etc. Across the Payer, Provider & Pharma markets etc.

With that all said, to get it re-worked (e.g. to fix the problem) where majority are happy will take time (e.g. even the Dems can't agree), a lot of time and its no sure thing. If the Dems can win the Presidency, House & Senate, maybe it'll happen but Senate is unlikely. So I'll settle for the low hanging fruit for now.

Yup, said state of affairs.

[Chief Rum]

We're getting fucked in healthcare, no two ways about it. The only thing that surprises me about CU's article was the innovative way the arrangement company is mitigating the concerns American patients may have. Everything else sounds just like what my friend and his in laws do. His in laws are from Mexico and they drive to TJ to do any major medical or dental work.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Don't really know the game he is playing. It would seem that China would see this as a "blink" and therefore this will undercut him in future negotiations.

But maybe Trump is looking at 2020 and doing what he needs to get re-elected.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/13/trum...thers-say.html

I was informed that we don't pay for the tariffs.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Clinton cut spending just like Obama. Reagan, HW, W, and Trump have increased spending. Not sure where the "Democrats only care about spending" comes from. Heck, their party leadership is still touting Pay-Go as the way forward.

Let's not forget W made massive tax cuts and then increased spending. Same with Reagan.

The best setup for deficit reduction is a democrat president and a republican congress. Republicans have shown they are extremely dedicated to blocking anything a democrat wants and there's usually massive gridlock in this setup. Gridlock = good for reducing spending.

Republican president and Democrat congress = more deals and higher spending. Democrats are more willing to give a republican tax cuts/his wishes if they can avoid the veto on some of their projects.

Democrats president and Dem congress = pretty high spending levels, but also higher taxes on everyone to slightly balance it (but still not great for the deficit). Usually not the best business environment short term, but there could be long term benefits if spending isn't completely out of control.

Republican president and Rep congress = tax cuts and slightly higher spending levels (esp on defense). Prob the worst combo for the deficit - but you could argue that decreasing tax revenue is better for businesses and the economy (atleast in the short term).

[Thomkal]

Sorry if this has been mentioned already, but looks like we might be able to put the conspiracy theories over Epstein's death to rest:


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/13/n...89tion=topNews

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Sorry if this has been mentioned already, but looks like we might be able to put the conspiracy theories over Epstein's death to rest:


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/13/n...89tion=topNews

But how did three fired afford to immediately move into apartments at Trump tower? (jk)

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Don't really know the game he is playing. It would seem that China would see this as a "blink" and therefore this will undercut him in future negotiations.

Trump bluffs and backs down. That's his M.O. and everybody around the globe knows it.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Trump bluffs and backs down. That's his M.O. and everybody around the globe knows it.

Except for Canada, Mexico & Guatemala apparently.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

But how did three fired afford to immediately move into apartments at Trump tower? (jk)

Severance pay for a job well done?

[Lathum]

It is an amazing coincidence that the Hong Kong situation has been going on for a while, yet on the day Trump delays tariffs he starts tweeting about it and how he wants to give them a chance to remedy it.

[miami_fan]

Can someone interpret what Steve King meant when he said this?

What if we went back through all the family trees and just pulled those people out that were products of rape and incest? Would there be any population of the world left if we did that?" he said at the event in Urbandale, Iowa.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Can someone interpret what Steve King meant when he said this?

Rape babies aren't bad and necessary to the survival of humans.

[DavidCorperial]

Well, I mean, like everyone on the planet is descended from Genghis Khan, so yeah?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Except for Canada, Mexico & Guatemala apparently.

?

He's certainly backed down from Mexico and Canada threats. How many times was he going to end Nafta or impose tariffs or make Mexico pay for it when he then didn't? I'm not sure the threat to Guatemala.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

?

He's certainly backed down from Mexico and Canada threats. How many times was he going to end Nafta or impose tariffs or make Mexico pay for it when he then didn't? I'm not sure the threat to Guatemala.

NAFTA 2.0/USMCA was a win for Trump. Was it everything he wanted, no. Did NAFTA need updating/modernizing, yes. Should Trump have approached it better, absolutely.

I think we can differ on how much of a win but Trump got a lot of what he wanted and not sure what he conceded other than some status-quo stuff (e.g. Canada dispute process to stay in place).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...eres-whats-it/

Notwithstanding "paying for the Wall", Mexico and Guatemala has been bullied on unauthorized immigration.

[stevew]

Imagine the furor if Israeli lawmakers were denied entry to the US

[Thomkal]

So Trump's latest flight of fancy-he wants the US to buy Greenland-which of course is under the control of Denmark and is self-ruled:


Trump Eyes a New Real-Estate Purchase: Greenland - WSJ

[stevew]

I’m listening

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

NAFTA 2.0/USMCA was a win for Trump. Was it everything he wanted, no. Did NAFTA need updating/modernizing, yes. Should Trump have approached it better, absolutely.

I think we can differ on how much of a win but Trump got a lot of what he wanted and not sure what he conceded other than some status-quo stuff (e.g. Canada dispute process to stay in place).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...eres-whats-it/

Notwithstanding "paying for the Wall", Mexico and Guatemala has been bullied on unauthorized immigration.

It hasn't been passed and isn't in effect. He must have threatened half a dozen times to walk and kill NAFTA, but never did. Everybody knows he's all bluster. China, short of getting the US to cave on a lot of things, has no reason not to wait until after the election.