See how much student loan debt Biden has canceled | CNN Politics
Ranvier @ Ranvier @sopuli.xyz Posts 9Comments 928Joined 2 yr. ago
Ranvier @ Ranvier @sopuli.xyz
Posts
9
Comments
928
Joined
2 yr. ago
While Mr. Biden included the minimum wage increase in his stimulus proposal and the House passed it as part of its version of the package, a top Senate official, Elizabeth MacDonough, ruled that it could not be included in the bill under the strict rules governing the reconciliation process, which protects legislation from filibusters and allows it to pass with a simple majority. Democrats are using reconciliation to fast-track the bill through the Senate.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/05/us/minimum-wage-senate.html
Literally what they're doing right now. Stop spreading misinformation saying they're not.
It's a new rule though, so has to go through the rule making process including public comments and wait period, again. Also has to be more specifically tailored so there isn't a repeat of the supreme court just striking it down again. If they don't go through the proper rule making process as laid out by law it'll also get struck down by the courts (just like all of trump's stuff did that didn't follow these rules, mostly because he appointed a bunch of hacks who don't know how any of this works).
And saying he only did one thing for student loans that got shot down is very wrong. Besides extending the student loan pause for quite some time, made changes from top to bottom including multiple rounds of new forgiveness and new policies for forgiveness, making pslf forgiveness easier and apply to more people, creating new payment plans that effectively lower interest (without technically changing the rate since that would have to be changed by law), lowering monthly payments, and even automatic granting of forgiveness people are owed but don't realize (instead of having to sometimes sue to get forgiveness like many people were under the Trump admin).
It's not as far off as you might think, screen size can be misleading for phone size as aspect ratios and bezels change:
S7 dimensions: 142.4 x 69.6 x 7.9 mm
S24 dimensions: 147.0 x 70.6 x 7.6mm
Mostly it's slightly taller than the S7, otherwise about the same.
You could also argue the lack of bezels now makes cases more necessary and adds to the bulk too though.
The problem is there is no recourse like in a normal job. It's not like you can just say, working conditions here are bad I'm going somewhere else. Working conditions are miserable everywhere for residents, 80 hour weeks are a norm not an exception, and switching to other programs is near impossible. There's a specific exception in US anti trust law that helps keep this all going and make it so programs effectively don't need to compete with each other on things like pay and benefits. If a resident were to leave their program, they'd be saddled with 6 figure student loan debt, be unable to use their degree for the most part, and be very unlikely to be picked up by any other program. And if they did, it'd likely be an even worse situation (why else would the position be open?). Though some programs may be better than others, even the best case scenarios are ridiculous and unsafe to any reasonable person looking at them. It's this bizarre case of group insanity where people figure it must be reasonable if so many people put up with it, but anyone outside of medicine would be horrified. The entire residency system is broken, has been from the start, and all the external incentives on the residency system are pushing it to get even worse, not better. Need change forced by law from above, the monopoly ended, or resident unions, all three really.
I understand the sentiment but it's not really helpful. They're still the ones on call, they need to talk to you, and will be writing your orders and things anyways. Not really like they can just say, oh yeah I am tired I'll just go home and sleep and abandon all these patients here, why didn't I think of that?
Helpful things would be writing congressmen and senators about reform to the residency system, supporting unionization efforts. Change will only come if forced from above or if residents get more of a say. Ideal situation in my mind would be a more typical work schedule capped at closer to 50 hours a week, maybe with increased residency training time overall and increased pay during that time to compensate (need to keep up with cripplingly high student loan debt for those who didn't have wealthy parents who payed for medical school).
Even attending physicians will really need to start unionizing if they don't want to get totally lost in the shuffle, since they're mostly employed directly now instead of running their own practices or specialty group, they get very little say in how things are done.
Or most likely of all for a wait of that magnitude: their employer forces them to cram more patients than they should into a short time, and it turns out not every medical issue falls into nice little predictable fifteen minute block, and someone or multiple people earlier than you had major issues to be sorted.
Also common: patients earlier than you showing up late but their employer forces them to see patients even if they got there with only a minute of their appointment left and now it throws off everyone's appointments for the entire rest of the day
Also who's actually charging late fees? Most places the policy is to fire you from the clinic for ~3 no shows
People here acting like a doctor is just sitting in the back twiddling their thumbs laughing while you wait. They just want to see everyone and get home, they don't want to be seeing people late either, but stuff happens.
Unfortunately a common experience. While they don't tell you to lie, the system is set up to make that the only reasonable option. And even if they were holding to 80 hour max (open secret this limit is broken many places) it would still be too much for any job, let alone something high risk like a doctor in training. If you were on a plane with a pilot in training who'd worked almost 80 hrs and been up for 20 hours straight already, you'd rightfully be very concerned.
Don't forget mandatory resiliency lectures after your 24 hr shift to really rub it in and gaslight you that all of this is somehow your fault.
Well they can buy puts without margin accounts, since those have a cap on the losses, which would also get more valuable if the stock price decreases. While technically a side bet, the options sellers often want to remain neutral in their risk with respect to movements of the underlying stocks, so buying options may influence stock price as well because of the downstream effects the options seller may undertake.
The expanded leverage of short term calls, though not directly buying the stock, may have been one thing that helped explode the GameStop share prices, as options sellers had to buy more shares to limit the losses on calls they had sold as the price increased (a gamma squeeze).
That clause is at the very end of the 14th amendment, section 5, and they are cherry picking, this is extra power for congress if they want to make additional laws to help enforce it. However the 14th amendment has four sections prior to this (not just the section on insurrectionists) and these are often enforced even without specific additional laws, such as equal protection, through the courts. Sure congress can make specific laws helping to enforce equal protection, but they don't have to, you could always sue in the court if your constitutional rights were violated.
The clause about congress may make laws is also included in other portions of the constitution. The reason it's added is without it, it might be unclear if federal congress would be able to make any additional law pertaining to this beyond what is already written in the amendment, due to the tenth amendment which states that any powers not specifically delegated to the federal government fall to the states. This reasoning is present in the still recorded debates to get the amendment passed in the first place, when someone brought up is it necessary to even add that clause at the end. So if say congress wants to make more laws to help protect voting rights (also protected in the 14th amendment), they now have the power to do so and can cite that clause for why they are able to make this law under the constitution, but what is already written in the amendment does not vanish without more laws, it's nonsensical.
The liberal justices argue (correctly imo) that limiting just this portion of the amendment to be non active at all unless congress makes a specific law makes no sense, is not how it was used historically, and goes too far. The conservative justices are willfully misreading this to try and shut off any potential route to using the 14th amendment as intended here, such as through the federal courts.
Your argument (and the conservatives on the supreme court) would be saying because of this clause the entire fourteenth amendment, sections 1 through 4, (and any other part of the constitution that uses this language, including the thirteenth amendment banning slavery) are totally inactive unless congress decides to make a specific law about it. So no ability to sue for violation of equal protection? No protection of voting rights unless congress decides to make a law about it? No ban on slavery if congress doesn't get around to passing something? What kind of constitutional protection is that, if it can just be stripped away simply by congressional inaction? And how does that make any sense when for this specific clause it goes out of its way to say a 2/3rds majority of congress is needed to override it? The conservatives arugment effectively totally nullifies this and makes it a simple majority to over ride it.
There's no reason to isolate just this portion of the amendment, and say this part is inactive without a specific law, unless they're a partisan hack like most of the supreme court, trying to provide cover for individuals who made an attempted coup. Or more lazily just side stepping the responsibilities of the court. Even Barrett thought the other conservative justices were going too far.
Residents in the US have 80 hours with maximum of 28 hour shifts, not a ton better. Though average salary is better at 58,000. Still, considering the hours worked and 8 years of schooling up to that point, ugh.
Residency is just a terrible idea through and through, absolutely insane. Where else could you start a job and be told "right so you're new here, this is life and death decision making, we'd like you to stay up working for 28 hrs straight doing this. Alright, get to work!"
If a resident gets two days off, it's called a "golden weekend." What most people refer to as, a weekend. It's just exploitation. Even more so when you consider Medicare pays for residents (and they even pay the hospitals more than the resident's actual salary! So the hospital pockets that difference and benefits from all the direct value the residents generate too). There's even an exception in US anti trust law to make the system legal. Glad more residents are unionizing here as well. Residency is horrible and needs to go.
https://www.acgme.org/globalassets/pfassets/programrequirements/cprresidency_2023.pdf
There's even this lovely line:
The program, in partnership with its Sponsoring Institution, must ensure adequate sleep facilities and safe transportation options for residents who may be too fatigued to safely return home
So, so tired not even safe to return home (which I mean they're right, it is not safe to be driving after staying up 24 hours straight) but continue doing patient care while you're that impaired, it's fine.
In a prospective study, new medical interns went from 3.9% meeting criteria for major depressive disorder to 25% after starting. And depression was linked with increased medical errors to boot. Of course mean work hours was a major association of depression too.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/210823
Totally asinine, a whole enormous meat grinding machine that needs to go, but is stuck in place by historical inertia and current profits for large hospitals.
Locked Removed
Unanimous Supreme Court restores Trump to Colorado ballot
Jump
Close, it sounds like they all agreed it should be enforced federally. The liberal justices plus Barrett didn't agree with saying congress was the only federal institution that could enforce it. So the liberal justices plus Barret may have opened a path for a federal lawsuit to prevent him from taking office or being on ballots. As it is with the current ruling, only congress would be able to stop him, either by passing a new bill specifically laying out how insurrectionists will be barred from ballots, or possibly by refusing to certify his electoral votes after the election.
Yes the ruling was "per curiam." My understanding is the main ruling doesn't technically have one author and is supposed to be from the entire court. Individual justices have written concurring opinions though with more thoughts or where they might differ on some points from the others.
At least the dumb "doesn't apply to the president argument" is dead.
“President Trump asks us to hold,” the majority wrote in an unsigned opinion, “that Section 3 disqualifies every oath-breaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one and that it bars oath breakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land. Both results are inconsistent with the plain language and history of Section 3."
Multiple hands and fingers are messed up in these pictures which gives them away. We'll really be screwed whenever AI gets the hang of fingers. Or if people generating them become smart enough to fix it afterwards.
I assume you're alluding to the United States, though a little different than what this article is suggesting they're actually in on the global corporate minimum tax rate deals, Biden backed it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_minimum_corporate_tax_rate
Still has to be ratified of course, and uh, easier said than done with congress the way it is at the moment.
https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/global-tax-deal-risk-first-pillar-teeters-2023-06-16/
They are, well legally speaking at least, and Lambda Legal and the ACLU are defending them.
While I'm definitely not suggesting anyone go against the recommend interval of every ten years, as how long the protection lasts in any one person is variable and there are other pathogens it protects against too, most in the US have had six vaccinations against it by the time they are an adult. In some cases especially after six or more doses and in adults, protection can potentially persist longer then ten years, sometimes decades, giving people like the commenter you're replying to who may skip a dose the false impression that they didn't need a vaccine in the first place. But again, do not deviate from the every ten year schedule for lots of good reasons. It's a quick and easy way to ensure you do not have a very horrific and life changing experience after a minor scrape.
In 2015, there were 34,000 newborns who died of neonatal tetanus as estimated by the WHO. This number is actually a 96% reduction from the amount that died in 1988 after many programs to help improve vaccine access. The tetanus vaccine induces antibodies in a mother which help protect the infant after birth.
Tetanus, without an anti toxin (a form of passive vaccination) and other extensive medical interventions in an intensive care unit, approaches a 100% fatality rate. Treatment includes the active vaccination as well.
Vaccines are a victim of their own success. We've had tetanus vaccines since 1924, and the people privileged enough to have had them for multiple generations don't appreciate what it would be without them. Clostridium tetani is not rare, and is widespread across the entire world in dirt. The disease tetanus is rare only because of widespread access to vaccines.
Get your tetanus shots people.
Kind of? They call it that sometimes but it doesn't look like a true no first use policy in the same vein as China's and India's. Putin also threatens nuclear weapons if NATO troops were to get involved in Ukraine, and openly questions the policy.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/09/europe/russia-putin-nuclear-weapons-intl/index.html
I'm not sure any nuclear country would stick to these policies if they truly faced an existential threat, whether that threat was nuclear or not. Russia's policy has a carve out for any existential threat including conventional weapons. US and Russian policies are pretty close, basically okay to use for any existential threat. Doesn't hurt to try and negotiate more no first use policies and reinforce the norm though.
Looks like the UK, France, and Pakistan also lack no first use policies.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use
As far as I can tell the article is correct, China and India are the only current nuclear powers with true no first use policies. If that's incorrect happy to learn more though. Israel not on here cause officially not a nuclear power, but hey we weren't born yesterday.
Yes he says that in the article that that's a concern too. Concerns from US manufacturers and auto unions.
The measures stemmed from conversations with Detroit automakers, union autoworkers and the E.V. giant Tesla, which was recently supplanted by Chinese company BYD as the world’s biggest seller of electric cars.
“China is determined to dominate the future of the auto market, including by using unfair practices,” Mr. Biden said in a statement accompanying the announcement. “China’s policies could flood our market with its vehicles, posing risks to our national security. I’m not going to let that happen on my watch.”
Thursday’s action did not immediately impose new barriers on Chinese electric vehicles, which already face high tariffs and have not yet penetrated the growing American market for clean energy cars
Wtf does the parliamentarian of the senate have to do with Biden? Do you honestly think Biden can fire her? They aren't even in the same branch of government. Get it together.
Assuming you're just a troll at this point, but if you really don't know the senate decides who the senate parliamentarian is, of course, just like everyone else who works for the senate, and she was appointed in 2012 by Harry Reid.