quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
I can tell you for a fact that a young woman called 911 each day for nearly two months (about 5-6PM each day) feeling suicidal. She was transported by ambulance to the hospital each time. The hospital admits her and then releases her after only a few hours. The ambulance and hospital get the Medicare amount, and write off several thousand dollars. Each day. Multiple that by a couple of hundred (or more) people a week. That’s where they are losing money.

They have no choice. EMTALA (the government) requires that they see her and they can only accept what CMS pays (generally speaking). Again, the government is the reason for that. They have no choice but to write off a ton of money. Can't get blood out of a turnip.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
They have no choice. EMTALA (the government) requires that they see her and they can only accept what CMS pays (generally speaking). Again, the government is the reason for that. They have no choice but to write off a ton of money. Can't get blood out of a turnip.

quote:

If playing the system (and getting taxpayer funded bailouts) isn’t profitable, why are all the “rural hospital” being bought up by the larger chains like Mercy Health, Mission Hospitals, and Deconess?

quote:

we are seeing a rise of the independent practices, many of which do not accept any insurances.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
"Concierge medicine" is becoming more and more popular. Of course, the term means different things to different providers. My wife's doctor went that route. It would have cost her a $250/month fee above and beyond insurance to stay with her.

Personally, I've dropped my health insurance altogether. I never used it except for an annual checkup and it was getting outrageously expensive. I hope nothing catastrophic happens, because insurance used to be for catastrophe but that type of coverage really isn't available anymore.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
Personally, I've dropped my health insurance altogether. I never used it except for an annual checkup and it was getting outrageously expensive. I hope nothing catastrophic happens, because insurance used to be for catastrophe but that type of coverage really isn't available anymore.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:

Then there is that additional $6,000 deduction no matter which deduction you use.

For both over 65, the new standard deduction will be $46,700.

For one spouse over 65, the new standard deduction will be $39,100.

If you itemize as married joint, your total deduction will be Itemized+$12,000 if both are over 65, and will be Itemized+$6,000 if one is over 65.

quote:

Originally posted by tsmccull:

Not that simple. For high income couples, the $6K deductions begin phasing out at $150K and disappear completely at $250K (per couple).

quote:

Republicans’ righteous win on the ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ saved the party’s future

By Daniel McCarthy
Published July 7, 2025, 6:29 p.m. ET

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act — a massive package of tax relief, more funding for immigration enforcement, and savings from entitlement changes — is now law, and it’s a triumph not only for President Trump but for the whole Republican Party.

The GOP passed two make-or-break tests here: one of party discipline, the other of political principles.

And the party saved its life by getting this bill enacted.

The stakes were so high because most of the OBBBA’s tax cuts only continued the lower rates Trump shepherded through in his first term.

But that relief was temporary, and if Congress hadn’t made it permanent by passing the law, Americans would have seen their taxes go up.

This wasn’t just a vote about tax cuts — it was a vote against a tax hike.

Democrats wanted Republicans to commit suicide by letting taxes rise on their watch.

What would happen to a tax-hiking Republican Congress in next year’s midterms? Or to a Republican Congress that humiliated Trump by failing to deliver the legislation he promised?

The answers are obvious: This was an existential trial for the party.

Liberals played three cards to try to get Republicans to torpedo their own majority and president.

First, they used their media leverage to make the bill as unpopular as possible, though most people polled had no idea what the bill’s details were — or that their taxes were guaranteed to spike if it didn’t pass.

As always, Democrats tried to demonize spending reductions as attacks on the poor, though any voter who looks at what the bill actually says will find common-sense reforms, such as requiring that able-bodied recipients of Medicaid support work at least 80 hours a month to qualify for benefits.

Is working 10 days a month too much to ask of able-bodied beneficiaries between the ages of 18 and 64? And the law exempts parents who are raising children.

Democrats will scour the country for woeful anecdotes to promote ahead of next year’s midterms, but if Republicans campaign on the clear merits of the law they’ve passed, voters will reward them.

The other cards the bill’s opponents played came from dissident factions on the right, and put Republican principles to the test.

Ironically, these arguments against the OBBBA came from utterly opposed rival camps: the libertarians and the New New Dealers.

The libertarians had a champion in Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, one of only two House Republicans to vote against the bill in the end.

“I voted No on final passage because it will significantly increase US budget deficits in the near term,” he wrote on X.

But why would higher deficits be worse than higher taxes?

The more libertarian policy is actually to let Americans keep more of their own money, no matter what.

Even if someone like Massie disputes that, the practical upshot of defeating the OBBBA wouldn’t be to keep deficits down anyway, since the bill’s failure would hasten the return of Democrats to power.

The result would be higher taxes and more spending, the dead opposite of what libertarians want.

Antithetical to Massie, yet also opposed to the OBBBA, are those conservatives with high-profile media perches who want to conserve the New Deal.

These New New Dealers consider the welfare state as sacred as Democrats do — they prefer bigger government and imagine it can be used for socially conservative ends.

They don’t want tax cuts for all Americans, only for families, in the form of more expansive child tax credits.

Yet the OBBBA helps families tremendously, not only by lowering their taxes along with everyone else’s but also by creating “Trump accounts,” allowing parents and their employers to make tax-advantaged contributions for a newborn’s future needs, like college or buying a home.

quote:

The libertarians had a champion in Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, one of only two House Republicans to vote against the bill in the end.

“I voted No on final passage because it will significantly increase US budget deficits in the near term,” he wrote on X.

But why would higher deficits be worse than higher taxes?

The more libertarian policy is actually to let Americans keep more of their own money, no matter what.

quote:

Originally posted by 2BobTanner:
If these leftist judges want to keep playing these games, then it’s time to return the favor: file IMPEACHMENT charges against everyone of them for obstruction and exceeding their constitutional duties given what the SCOTUS said in the most recent cases. The Dems are going to scream anyway, so let them.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

Originally posted by 2BobTanner:
If these leftist judges want to keep playing these games, then it’s time to return the favor: file IMPEACHMENT charges against everyone of them for obstruction and exceeding their constitutional duties given what the SCOTUS said in the most recent cases. The Dems are going to scream anyway, so let them.

I don't disagree... but a conviction would be difficult.


Federal and state constitutions provide different mechanisms for impeachment of judges, but impeachment is generally a two-step process.

With respect to federal judges, under Article I of the U.S. Constitution, the House of Representatives has the power to impeach and the Senate the power to hold a trial to determine whether removal is appropriate. The House can impeach a judge with a simple majority vote. However, a judge may only be removed from office following a trial and a vote to convict by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.