SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Alighieri who wrote (922904)2/24/2016 1:19:50 PM
From: combjelly  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1570684
 
I am speechless..

Amazing, isn't it? Makes you wonder exactly what dictionary he got the word from...



To: Alighieri who wrote (922904)2/24/2016 1:23:24 PM
From: bentway  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1570684
 
Dave may actually BE 'moderate', where he lives, in rural Arkansas.



To: Alighieri who wrote (922904)2/24/2016 1:54:49 PM
From: Broken_Clock  Respond to of 1570684
 
Obama’s Russian Rationale for $1 Trillion Nuke Plan Signals New Arms Race

Alex Emmons
Feb. 23 2016, 5:00 a.m.

The Obama administration has historically insisted that its massive $1 trillion nuclear weapons modernization program does not represent a return to Cold War-era nuclear rivalry between Russia and the United States.

The hugely expensive undertaking, which calls for a slew of new cruise missiles, ICBMs, nuclear submarines, and long-range bombers over the next three decades, has been widely panned by critics as “ wasteful,” “ unsustainable,” “ unaffordable,” and “ a fantasy.”

The administration has pointed to aging missile silos, 1950s-era bombers, and other outdated technology to justify the spending, describing the steps as intended to maintain present capabilities going forward — not bulking up to prepare for a future confrontation.

Last year, speaking to NATO allies, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter insisted that “the Cold War playbook … is not suitable for the 21st century.”

But President Obama’s defense budget request for 2017 includes language that makes it clear that nuclear “modernization” really is about Russia after all.

The budget request explicitly cites Russian aggression, saying, “We are countering Russia’s aggressive policies through investments in a broad range of capabilities … [including] our nuclear arsenal.”

In December, Brian McKeon, principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy, testified before Congress: “We are investing in the technologies that are most relevant to Russia’s provocations … to both deter nuclear attacks and reassure our allies.”

The public acknowledgement that Russia is the impetus for U.S. modernization has critics concerned the Cold War-era superpowers are now engaged in a “modernization” arms race.

“Both Russia and the United States are now officially and publicly using the other side as a justification for nuclear weapons modernization programs,” said Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project, in a statement emailed to The Intercept.

Early in his presidency, Obama was an outspoken advocate of nuclear disarmament. In April 2009, he pledged his commitment “to achieving a nuclear free world,” together with former Russian President Dimitri Medvedev. Later that month, Obama delivered a celebrated speech in Prague, saying he sought “the security of a world without nuclear weapons.” And he negotiated a 2011 nuclear treaty with Russia, which required both countries to reduce their arsenals to 1,550 operational warheads each.

But according to Obama’s advisers, Russia’s invasion of Crimea halted his disarmament efforts. In a 2014 interview with the New York Times, Gary Samore, one of Obama’s top first-term nuclear advisers, said, “The most fundamental game changer is Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. That has made any measure to reduce the stockpile unilaterally politically impossible.”

Former officials have proposed ways of trimming the trillion-dollar budget. In December, former Defense Secretary William Perry called for the Pentagon not to replace its aging ICBMS, arguing that submarines and bombers were enough to deter nuclear threats.

Retired Gen. Eugene Habiger, the former head of U.S. Strategic Command, which overseas the Pentagon’s nuclear weapons, has argued that U.S. nuclear forces have little to no deterrent effect on Russia and China, and that the U.S. can safely reduce its active arsenal to 200-300 weapons.

Last year, in an effort to cut the costs of nuclear modernization, Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., introduced a bill that would reduce the number of planned missile-bearing submarines from 14 to eight. The bill, which would save an estimated $4 billion per submarine, was co-sponsored by Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont Democrat who is now running for president.

When asked about nuclear modernization at a campaign event in Des Moines, Iowa, Hillary Clinton responded, “Yeah, I’ve heard about that, I’m going to look into that, it doesn’t make sense to me.” Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio, on the other hand, supported the expense, saying, “Deterrence is a friend to peace.”

Religious groups have also voiced opposition to nuclear modernization. “We were pleased with the president’s statement calling for a world without nuclear weapons,” said Mark Harrison, director of the Peace with Justice program at the United Methodist General Board of Church and Society.

David Culp, a legislative representative at the Quaker-affiliated Friends Committee on National Legislation, said, “The increased spending on U.S. nuclear weapons is already provoking similar responses from Russia and China. We are slowly slipping back into another Cold War, but this time on two fronts.”

Contracts are already being signed. In October, the Pentagon awardedNorthrop Grumman the contract for the new long-range bomber. The total cost is secret, but expected to exceed $100 billion.




To: Alighieri who wrote (922904)2/24/2016 4:49:58 PM
From: i-node  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1570684
 
A type of pain that hospitals thought they had relieved has come back with a vengeance: it’s called bad debt.

Hospitals have long struggled to collect bills when patients aren’t covered by insurance -- creating delinquent accounts. The Affordable Care Act was supposed to relieve some of that strain by helping pay for coverage for millions of Americans and expanding Medicaid in some states to cover the poor.

Yet while millions of people have gained coverage since Obamacare became law in 2010, there’s also been an increase in insurance that comes with high deductibles and cost-sharing. Under those plans, the first few thousand dollars of annual medical expenses come out of patients’ wallets. That’s money that hospitals like Childress Regional Medical Center in the Texas Panhandle region are unlikely to collect.

“It feels like a sucker punch,” said John Henderson, the nonprofit hospital’s chief executive. “When someone has a really high deductible, effectively they’re still uninsured, and most people in Childress don’t have $5,000 lying around to pay their bills.”

The rate of uninsurance in the U.S. has fallen to 9.1 percent from 15.7 percent in 2009. Yet in the first nine months of 2015, about 36 percent of the U.S. insured were covered by high-deductible or consumer-directed health plans that can require considerable out-of-pocket payments, compared with about 25 percent in 2010, according to a CDC survey.

For-Profit Hospitals

Hospitals are feeling the pressure from those patients. Community Health Systems Inc. operates 195 hospitals in 29 states and is the U.S.’s second-biggest for-profit U.S. hospital chain. This month, it revised its fourth-quarter 2015 provision for bad debt up by $169 million -- and said that 40 percent, or about $68 million of that amount, was from patients being unable to pay deductibles and co-payments. Patient bankruptcies also contributed, the company said. A Community Health spokeswoman didn’t respond to requests for comment.

“I’m surprised it’s not bigger,” Sheryl Skolnick, an analyst with Mizuho Securities USA who rates the stock underperform, said of Community’s bad-debt figure. “They need to fill the beds and collect the cash.”

HCA Holdings Inc., the biggest U.S. hospital company, also reported increasing rates of bad debt in the second and third quarters of 2015, although the chain attributed the trend to dropped insurance coverage, rather than unpaid bills from insured patients. Another major chain, Tenet Healthcare Corp., reported fourth-quarter results Monday. Stocks of all three companies have struggled in the last year.

While higher out-of-pocket charges can lower what insurance cots up front, it means more costs for patients on the back end. Under individual Obamacare mid-level “silver” plans, the annual deductible was $2,556, and under less expensive, low- level “bronze” plans it was $5,328 in 2015, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Outside of Obamacare, deductibles are becoming more common, as well. Last year, 81 percent of coverage people got through work came with a deductible, up from 70 percent in 2010, according to Kaiser. The average deductible in a high- deductible, individual plan gained through work was $2,099 last year.

Financial Threshold

Patients are unlikely to pay medical bills that are greater than 5 percent of household income, according to the Advisory Board, a consulting firm to hospitals. Median household income in the U.S. is at about $53,000, suggesting that when out-of- pocket charges exceed $2,600 hospitals can forget about collecting, said Spencer Perlman, an analyst with Height Securities in Washington.

“It’s a major issue,” said Chip Kahn, president of the Federation of American Hospitals, an industry group of for- profit chains. Patients expect to get care when they show up at the emergency room -- and they do -- yet consumers still need education in how to control their medical costs, Kahn said. Member companies have discussed solutions, including pushing for insurers to collect the payments, he said.

Focusing on deductibles alone gives a misleading picture of patients’ total out-of-pocket costs, and the share of health spending that consumers paid out-of-pocket reached its lowest level on record in 2014 at 10.9 percent, the U.S. Health and Human Services Department said in an e-mail. The agency is working on the issue and trying to educate consumers about how much to expect to pay for plans that provide needed services, the agency said.

Acquisition Risk

Community Health’s unpaid bills from patients may add to burdens the company has taken on to do deals, especially following its acquisition of Health Management Associates Inc. for about $3.9 billion in 2014, Mizuho’s Skolnick said.

Community’s net-debt-to-Ebitda ratio, a measure of how much the company owes from corporate borrowings compared to its cash flow, was 6.7 in the fourth quarter, more than three times the ratio on the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index, or 2.1. Ebitda stands for earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization.

Rural hospitals have been hit particularly hard. Minnesota has long had high rates of care coverage, and many employers have switched to high deductible offerings, according to Joe Schindler, vice president of finance for the Minnesota Hospital Association. Last year, bad debt rose by 20 percent to $425 million at the association’s 140 member hospitals.

“We have 39 hospitals that have negative margins and the majority of them are rural,” he said in a telephone interview. “They have less of a financial cushion to absorb the losses of bad debt.”



© Copyright 2016 Bloomberg News. All rights reserved.