Biden Presidency

[Legacy]

Despite the economic fallout from the pandemic and the loss of employer sponsored insurance for millions, one federal program is providing the safety net as designed - the Affordable Care Act - unlike the 2008-09 impact when Obamacare was not in place.

Obamacare, in Its First Big Test as Safety Net, Is Holding Up So Far
Job losses and the loss of insurance have typically gone hand in hand. This year, more Americans are staying covered. (NYT)

In past recessions, the uninsured rate would surge. Now, for the first time, Americans are experiencing a recession with the Affordable Care Act in place.

The health law’s expansion of Medicaid and its offer of subsidized health plans have provided a new safety net for those who have lost their jobs and their health insurance.

The Affordable Care Act gave states the option to cover poor residents through Medicaid, and it offered tax credits to help low- and middle-income Americans buy health insurance. Since the coronavirus pandemic set off job losses this spring, enrollment in both programs has been growing. Experts say sign-ups would probably be higher still if not for Trump administration moves that included slashing the A.C.A.’s advertising budget and declining to have an additional sign-up period when the pandemic hit.

State Medicaid enrollment, according to one report, had an 11 percent increase between February and September in the 36 states that have released data. Another paper, from Manatt Health, shows those gains concentrated in states that have participated in the health law’s Medicaid expansion, with an enrollment growth rate of 22.2 percent between February and November.

Sign-ups for plans in marketplaces run by the federal government are up 6.6 percent compared with last year, according to a new federal tally. It is the only year during the Trump administration when enrollment increased, and amounts to a half-million more people seeking coverage from the federal marketplace. The total is still down compared with 2016, the last year the Obama administration was running the program.

Final government estimates of the uninsured rate are months away, but at least one survey, from the research group the Commonwealth Fund, shows the share of Americans without coverage was holding steady through the spring. The Affordable Care Act is a crucial reason for that.

“We’ve seen both the important security that it provides and a lot of the remaining holes in the safety net cast into stark relief in this twin crisis of dire health need and economic recession,” said Kate Baicker, the dean of the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago.

Charts based on an analysis of census data by Matt Bruenig, the president of the People’s Policy Project, show how the overall health insurance landscape has changed since the Affordable Care Act took effect. In 2009, 16.7 percent of Americans lacked health insurance, and, for those of working age, the poorer you were, the more likely you were to fall in that category.

Medicaid enrollment among low-income Americans has since surged, particularly in states that expanded their programs, reducing the disparities. Enrollment in subsidized private coverage has also grown among those earning slightly more. As the population has aged, more people have also become eligible for another public program: Medicare. The 2020 chart shows survey results collected early in the year, so these numbers do not reflect the impact of the Covid recession. (There have been slight changes in census methodology in the intervening years, but they should not skew the patterns in a major way.) (cont)

While the impact on state costs for the uninsured that are flooding hospitals and leading to long and expensive hospital stays, at least initial results with this federal program those have been lessened for them and the Biden Presidency. The breakdown does not include an analysis of states who chose to expand their Medicaid programs vs those that did not.

Special Trends Report: Enrollment Data and Coverage Options for Consumers During the
COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (CMS, Nov 2020)

 

[drayer54]

The media is prepping people for the partisan shift ahead as they conclude the four-year obligation to 'Democracy dies in darkness' and resume trying out for the White House Comms team.

Few reporters have been at the center of more high-profile spats with the Trump White House than CNN’s Jim Acosta. A veteran TV newsman with salt-and-pepper hair and a concerned-dad demeanor, Acosta has spent the past four years picking fights with Trump flacks in the briefing room. Once, he walked out of a press conference after then–Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders refused to say reporters weren’t enemies of the people; on another occasion, the White House temporarily revoked his press credentials. Detractors have accused Acosta—who published a book in 2019 titled The Enemy of the People: A Dangerous Time to Tell the Truth in America—of showboating. But he insists that his on-air indignation has always been genuine. “You can’t just go and trash the press and totally lie to the American people and tell them real news is fake news,” Acosta told me. “I couldn’t stomach it.”

The drama has made him famous, but Acosta said he doesn’t expect to bring the same crusading style to his coverage of the next administration. “I don’t think the press should be trying to whip up the Biden presidency and turn it into must-see TV in a contrived way,” he said.

If that sounds like a double standard, Acosta told me it’s not partisan—it’s a matter of professional solidarity. In his view, Trump’s campaign to discredit the press has constituted a “nonstop national emergency,” one that required a defiant response. “If being at the White House is not an experience that might merit hazard pay,” he said, “then perhaps it is going to be approached differently.”

Wait, differently? So how differently does Acosta treat Democrats?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Wait for it... <a href="https://t.co/tz8cuPO5lZ">pic.twitter.com/tz8cuPO5lZ</a></p>— Ethal Merman (@MermanEthal) <a href="https://twitter.com/MermanEthal/status/1344119293324259329?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 30, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I guess we're headed towards darkness.

 

[NorthDakota]

The media is prepping people for the partisan shift ahead as they conclude the four-year obligation to 'Democracy dies in darkness' and resume trying out for the White House Comms team.



Wait, differently? So how differently does Acosta treat Democrats?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Wait for it... <a href="https://t.co/tz8cuPO5lZ">pic.twitter.com/tz8cuPO5lZ</a></p>— Ethal Merman (@MermanEthal) <a href="https://twitter.com/MermanEthal/status/1344119293324259329?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 30, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I guess we're headed towards darkness.

Journalism as a field has been worse for the United States than any other "career" or any country.

 

[Legacy]

Acosta? You must realize most people do not get their news from network news, especially younger age groups. Family and friends (63% are important source), social media platforms, websites (38%), etc. Methods used are mostly through mobile devices (72%). One in three Americans get their news from news organizations. The watchers of new organizations on TV are mostly people older - 50-64 (72%), 65+ (85%) - who are generally more conservative. Only 27% of the 18-29 age group get their news from TV. How many times do you think someone who even visits CNN.com watch an Acosta video? More people who go to Fox News website look at the videos than those who do that on CNN. Viewers who are more liberal go more to multiple sources than do conservatives. If you rely on one conservative source for news, you would probably assume that those who are liberal rely more on one source.

Google and Instagram News. Sharing Tweets over Social media. Friends and family. Mobile devices.

** Apologies for the percentages from 2016. 2020 figures would follow the trend for news sources, readership.

 

[NorthDakota]

Acosta? You must realize most people do not get their news from network news, especially younger age groups. Family and friends (63% are important source), social media platforms, websites (38%), etc. Methods used are mostly through mobile devices (72%). One in three Americans get their news from news organizations. The watchers of new organizations on TV are mostly people older - 50-64 (72%), 65+ (85%) - who are generally more conservative. Only 27% of the 18-29 age group get their news from TV. How many times do you think someone who even visits CNN.com watch an Acosta video? More people who go to Fox News website look at the videos than those who do that on CNN. Viewers who are more liberal go more to multiple sources than do conservatives. If you rely on one conservative source for news, you would probably assume that those who are liberal rely more on one source.

Google and Instagram News. Sharing Tweets over Social media. Friends and family. Mobile devices.

The problem with this analysis is you assume Jim Acosta (or similarly awful media types) aren't present on social media. The journos on social media are often worse than the network ones.

The point remains the same. Prominent journalists are not going to hold the Biden Administration's feet to the fire at all. It won't matter if liberal folks go to more sources than conservative people do if the journalists are just writing fluff pieces.

Let's analyze the "family and friends" angle here. If I get my news from my old man, and he gets his news from Fox News, I'm getting my news from Fox News. If Fox isn't talking about something, then its far less likely that I am ever going to hear about it.

The networks are still driving the ship. Thr Washington Post and NY Times probably still do to a lesser extent. The big names people get their news from on social media are probably affiliated with a network anyway as an analyst, anchor, contributor, etc.

The PRIME example of the lib media taking a holiday during a dem admin is the "kids in cages" nonsense. That was barely mentioned during the prior administration and if it was, it was definitely covered in a softer light. When a Republican is in office though.. its covered like it is a crime against humanity and I think the word genocide may have even been thrown around.

TLDR: it really doesn't matter if you get your news from a network, internet sites, or social media, because the networks (and major newspapers still around) are still going to drive the discussion.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Wait, differently? So how differently does Acosta treat Democrats?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Wait for it... <a href="https://t.co/tz8cuPO5lZ">pic.twitter.com/tz8cuPO5lZ</a></p>— Ethal Merman (@MermanEthal) <a href="https://twitter.com/MermanEthal/status/1344119293324259329?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 30, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

LOL! This is what's wrong with the media, all summed up in one little clip. Acosta went down on Obama so hard in this clip that it almost qualifies as gay porn. He's really the poster child for unbiased journalism, huh?

 

[TorontoGold]

LOL! This is what's wrong with the media, all summed up in one little clip. Acosta went down on Obama so hard in this clip that it almost qualifies as gay porn. He's really the poster child for unbiased journalism, huh?

Media scrums in both sports and politics are complete nonsense and of the most cringe. The only time you get an entertaining answer is from someone unhinged.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Media scrums in both sports and politics are complete nonsense and of the most cringe. The only time you get an entertaining answer is from someone unhinged.

I really just want an honest, factual, unbiased media that has some integrity and character. I want the facts, not propaganda from either side. The press gets a lot of protection, special access, and are given a lot of leeway in order to better serve truth and be the eyes, ears, and voice of The People. That should come with some responsibility, though, which they've completely abrogated. They don't serve the public anymore. They serve only themselves, their ratings, and their political agenda. Journalism used to be a respectable field. Now it's viewed by many as being no more respectable or honorable than being a New Jersey crack ho... and for good reason.

 

[tadman95]

I really just want an honest, factual, unbiased media that has some integrity and character. I want the facts, not propaganda from either side. The press gets a lot of protection, special access, and are given a lot of leeway in order to better serve truth and be the eyes, ears, and voice of The People. That should come with some responsibility, though, which they've completely abrogated. They don't serve the public anymore. They serve only themselves, their ratings, and their political agenda. Journalism used to be a respectable field. Now it's viewed by many as being no more respectable or honorable than being a New Jersey crack ho... and for good reason.

Agree 100%. It would help if we the people would listen objectively and use some reason in deciding what is real. What people believe without any facts s is beyond me. Reps

 

[Bishop2b5]

Agree 100%. It would help if we the people would listen objectively and use some reason in deciding what is real. What people believe without any facts s is beyond me. Reps

There's the problem. Most people just want to hear confirmation of what they already believe or want to believe. The media panders to this human weakness.

 

[Legacy]

I really just want an honest, factual, unbiased media that has some integrity and character. I want the facts, not propaganda from either side. The press gets a lot of protection, special access, and are given a lot of leeway in order to better serve truth and be the eyes, ears, and voice of The People. That should come with some responsibility, though, which they've completely abrogated. They don't serve the public anymore. They serve only themselves, their ratings, and their political agenda. Journalism used to be a respectable field. Now it's viewed by many as being no more respectable or honorable than being a New Jersey crack ho... and for good reason.

In that media breakdown I quoted figures from, the audience surveyed identified as 35% Rep, 35% Dem, and 24% Independent (and change with each). I want sources with the criteria you have identified. Often, I go to multiple websites to confirm or expand on stories. If sites omit major stories I find on multiple other places, I tend to avoid them. What I find sad is the brevity associated with many articles as well as the lack of breath of coverage. While there are fewer locally owned media sites. Many are now owned by USA Today and reprint articles on their national site while the corporation has made severe cutbacks in local staffing. Readers are drawn to the dramatic, so pandering to those for new or independent readers/watchers is what drives media companies. Murdoch's sensationalism and advocacy has drawn a huge readership and lessened objective and responsible journalism. Politicians have been using that approach for decades.

Check out the Pulitzer Prize winners to see if this is the type of unbiased but insightful coverage you miss.
https://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by-year/2020

This site has 800 sources rated for bias, but the front page has about 40. Media Bias Ratings

 

[BilboBaggins]

LOL! This is what's wrong with the media, all summed up in one little clip. Acosta went down on Obama so hard in this clip that it almost qualifies as gay porn. He's really the poster child for unbiased journalism, huh?

That account joined twitter in December 2020 and sent out 1,500 tweets in one month alone, right off the bat. So, safe to say that's a fake propaganda account. I think a big problem with consumers of media is they don't realize they're being played by fake actors in the media landscape.

On Acosta, is it really awful to say to the President "hey a lot of things are going your way right now, do you intend to use that momentum to pursue goals to finish out the term?" Yeah, it's a softball question. It's also not the end of the world.

Meanwhile Fox News and OANN are functioning as shameless propaganda outlets for the GOP. If you're going to pretend to be upset with "media," share the criticism in all directions.

But people probably shouldn't be watching any cable news network for very long. They cater to ratings because that's their business.

 

[Legacy]

Looking forward to a President who does not spend like crazy or drain the Treasury. Dems are usually faced with the habits of a Rep Prez. How's the supply side economics working? Reagan/Bush, W, Trump. Biden will have to climb that mountain of debt. Imagine four more years of what Trump would have brought.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Looking forward to a President who does not spend like crazy or drain the Treasury. Dems are usually faced with the habits of a Rep Prez. How's the supply side economics working? Reagan/Bush, W, Trump. Biden will have to climb that mountain of debt. Imagine four more years of what Trump would have brought.

You're probably going to be disappointed on this one, Legacy. The president asks for money for various things and sets a lot of the agenda for where money gets directed, but it's Congress who doles the money out and controls the purse strings. We're about to have a Democrat president and a Democrat-controlled Congress. They aren't going to deny him much. Every pet Dem project is likely to get a blank check. Let's look at spending a year from now and see whether it's gone up or down.

 

[NDRock]

You're probably going to be disappointed on this one, Legacy. The president asks for money for various things and sets a lot of the agenda for where money gets directed, but it's Congress who doles the money out and controls the purse strings. We're about to have a Democrat president and a Democrat-controlled Congress. They aren't going to deny him much. Every pet Dem project is likely to get a blank check. Let's look at spending a year from now and see whether it's gone up or down.

Well it always goes up, no matter who is in charge.

I'm personally looking forward to the Georgia election being over. It is unbelievable how many commercials have aired. I can't stand any of them at this point. It's worse because I live in Tennessee.

 

[irishff1014]

Looking forward to a President who does not spend like crazy or drain the Treasury. Dems are usually faced with the habits of a Rep Prez. How's the supply side economics working? Reagan/Bush, W, Trump. Biden will have to climb that mountain of debt. Imagine four more years of what Trump would have brought.

They re going to raise taxes on everything before it's over. I like my hard earned money but I guess that'll get ruined too.

 

[NDRock]

They re going to raise taxes on everything before it's over. I like my hard earned money but I guess that'll get ruined too.

The last 3 posts I've seen from you:

-the transfer portal will be bad for college football
-schools are going to start paying players and it will ruin college football
-they're going to screw me by raising taxes

Do you ever actually wait until something happens before bitching about it or do you just like getting out in front of it? Take a little advice from the great Tom Petty "... most things I worry about, never happen anyway..."

 

[Irish#1]

In that media breakdown I quoted figures from, the audience surveyed identified as 35% Rep, 35% Dem, and 24% Independent (and change with each).

Amazing how they take a poll and the respondents balance out like that.

 

[Irish#1]

Well it always goes up, no matter who is in charge.

True. The key will be to see how much in comparison to previous presidents.

 

[IrishRazor82]

I'm for increased taxes. The government can help people more than they can help themselves, everyone knows that. There's definitely no diminishing returns when you layer program upon program and continue to dictate regulation and the way of life.

American way!

 

[Bishop2b5]

 

[SonofOahu]

This is solid gold.

 

[drayer54]

That comparison is a disservice to the kid.

 

[arahop]

That comparison is a disservice to the kid.

Kid sure could pluck a banjo like a ringing a bell.

Rumors are this was played as outro to the stop the steal rally as loyalists marched onward to the Capitol?
Cannot confirm.

 

[Blazers46]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-55694415

Surprised but not surprised nobody is talking about Biden’s day 1 executive orders.

 

[Rogue219]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/16/opinion/sunday/biden-america-plan-poverty.html

This is good news. Our child poverty numbers are embarrassing, quite frankly.

 

[arahop]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-55694415

Surprised but not surprised nobody is talking about Biden’s day 1 executive orders.

I'm on board with all those things. Keeps small business running. Tough challenges for sure.

 

[irishff1014]

American United is his theme. Lol what joke. Glad to say I won’t be visiting this tread anymore. And that’s all I will say.

 

[Irish#1]

Is that his real account? Did he really respond to that?

 

[Irish#1]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-55694415

Surprised but not surprised nobody is talking about Biden’s day 1 executive orders.

Looks like he's coming out with guns blazing. Curious to see how the stock market responds with all of that spending he's going to do.