Church shooting - Sutherland Springs, Texas

[Super]

Thank God Mr. Willeford was able to purchase his rifle and afford the ammunition it was loaded with.

and THANK GOD we have so many guns in this country that it's easy to get one, legally or illegally. I have a feeling that when the proliferation of guns in the US was getting started (whenever it was) that you and people like you would've been against keeping it in check. So your only "solution" to this type of thing is saying "NO! IT'S MENTAL HEALTH!" while voting for and supporting a guy who wants to de-fund social programs aiming to help it, and pushes a "healthcare" plan that only harms the mentally ill. So you, effectively, want to do nothing. So how much do you actually care? When it happens again, will you continue not to care? Continue to not do ANYTHING to help solve it, mental health-wise or otherwise? +

What's your plan? How do you propose we stop this? What mental health changes would you like to make? Do you support trump and his plans that will only make those things worse? If so, how can you claim to care about the mental health aspect?

[Hawk]

Lol

[sturg33]

I'm also not sure if anyone has posted how the killer was stopped, so I'll leave this here. Apologies if it was already pointed out.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...elped-prevent/
Stephen Willeford, who lives near the Texas church targeted yesterday, grabbed his own rifle and rushed to confront Devin Kelley after being told an attack was under way by his daughter.

As the 55-year-old arrived outside the church he came face-to-face with Kelley.

Mr Willeford, a plumber with no military experience, shot him in the side through a gap in his body armour, forcing the killer to flee.

Mr Willeford and another passing resident, Johnnie Langedorff, then chased him at almost 100 miles per hour in a car as the wounded killer tried to make a getaway after taking a hostage.

Thank God Mr. Willeford was able to purchase his rifle and afford the ammunition it was loaded with.

Oddly no responses to this

edit - I see someone did respond with... a point

[Super]

and as far as the WELL WHAT ABOUT CHICAGO?!?! tired rhetoric - yeah, the main cause of the violence is poverty (which as well know leads to drugs, gang violence, etc). some people fight for a stronger safety net & drug legalization to help combat those things. others think these people just need to work harder to avoid selling drugs. not to mention the stats surrounding chicago have very lax gun laws. i'm totally down to try and solve that problem, too. but some people prefer the "do nothing" approach, just like in this situation.

[goldfly]

Add in anti fa and it's undeniable where the violence is originating in the US.

I just was browsing the radio in this drive and see y'all are just echoing what Rush is talking about today

Lol

[Super]

i have no idea how someone can support trump while also solely blaming mental illness for this type of thing. is it a question that his intended plans would only hurt those with mental illness? nothing he's done or has set out to do would help the mental illness problem - NOTHING. is that debatable?

[thethe]

I just was browsing the radio in this drive and see y'all are just echoing what Rush is talking about today

Lol

I've never listed to 1 second of rush radio but nice way to deflect from the truth.

The left is the party of violence and it needs to be stopped.

[sturg33]

i have no idea how someone can support trump while also solely blaming mental illness for this type of thing. is it a question that his intended plans would only hurt those with mental illness? nothing he's done or has set out to do would help the mental illness problem - NOTHING. is that debatable?

I don't understand why we spend more time on the object used than person using it.

[sturg33]

I've never listed to 1 second of rush radio but nice way to deflect from the truth.

The left is the party of violence and it needs to be stopped.

That's his go-to

[chop2chip]

For those who advocate the right to carry so strongly, why?

Spare me references to the Constitution, I want to hear your analysis why gun ownership is so important to you.

[thethe]

For those who advocate the right to carry so strongly, why?

Spare me references to the Constitution, I want to hear your analysis why gun ownership is so important to you.

I don't rely on anyone for my protection.

[Jaw]

and THANK GOD we have so many guns in this country that it's easy to get one, legally or illegally. I have a feeling that when the proliferation of guns in the US was getting started (whenever it was) that you and people like you would've been against keeping it in check. So your only "solution" to this type of thing is saying "NO! IT'S MENTAL HEALTH!" while voting for and supporting a guy who wants to de-fund social programs aiming to help it, and pushes a "healthcare" plan that only harms the mentally ill. So you, effectively, want to do nothing. So how much do you actually care? When it happens again, will you continue not to care? Continue to not do ANYTHING to help solve it, mental health-wise or otherwise? +

What's your plan? How do you propose we stop this? What mental health changes would you like to make? Do you support trump and his plans that will only make those things worse? If so, how can you claim to care about the mental health aspect?

Perhaps the healthcare plan that the previous regime pushed down our throats while they had filibuster proof control of Congress should have taken steps to address mental health. Perhaps if the "Affordable Care Act" did more to provide affordable care, and less to provide billions in profit to the insurance companies that co-wrote the plan, perhaps if our elected officials had decided to read the bill prior to "passing it to find out what's in it", perhaps then we would have a healthcare system in place that addresses the mental health issues you are now so concerned about. But let's be honest, it's much easier to blame Trump and his voters than to hold accountable the empty suits you supported.

[Jaw]

i have no idea how someone can support trump while also solely blaming mental illness for this type of thing. is it a question that his intended plans would only hurt those with mental illness? nothing he's done or has set out to do would help the mental illness problem - NOTHING. is that debatable?

Absolutely. The existing healthcare landscape is in-affordable and ineffective. His plan is to blow it up. After that, we have a new chance at fixing it.

[Julio3000]

Perhaps the healthcare plan that the previous regime pushed down our throats while they had filibuster proof control of Congress should have taken steps to address mental health. Perhaps if the "Affordable Care Act" did more to provide affordable care, and less to provide billions in profit to the insurance companies that co-wrote the plan, perhaps if our elected officials had decided to read the bill prior to "passing it to find out what's in it", perhaps then we would have a healthcare system in place that addresses the mental health issues you are now so concerned about. But let's be honest, it's much easier to blame Trump and his voters than to hold accountable the empty suits you supported.

I'm sure you'd have been in favor of a bill that provided widespread access to coverage without the buy-in of private insurers, then? Good to know.

[Jaw]

For those who advocate the right to carry so strongly, why?

Spare me references to the Constitution, I want to hear your analysis why gun ownership is so important to you.

Why on earth should we spare you the references to the Constitution? Why should we give up any right?

[Julio3000]

Absolutely. The existing healthcare landscape is in-affordable and ineffective. His plan is to blow it up. After that, we have a new chance at fixing it.

Honestly not sure if this is genuinely naive or profoundly dishonest.

[Jaw]

I'm sure you'd have been in favor of a bill that provided widespread access to coverage without the buy-in of private insurers, then? Good to know.

I won't be in favor of anything without having a fair amount of knowledge of what is in it. That's kinda how we got into our current catastrophe.

[AerchAngel]

This goes along with what has been, consistently, my fairly quiet plea in the aftermath of all of these events. People who otherwise appeal to logic and reason seem to be immune from it in this conversation.

To the extent that the issue has been studied--which is limited because the gun lobby has shut down federal study of the issue--the data says that a gun in the household is more likely to harm someone in the household than to protect them. If this incident--where 26 people were killed by one assailant--is held up as an advertisement for gun ownership because an armed citizen chased the shooter away, I'm at a loss to understand why this is an advertisement for more guns in our society.

A place of worship (if you aren't in Wisconsin) usually don't have members packing heat. I know they do in the Catholic church I go to, I can see them visually. If a gunman knows you aren't going to shoot back, it is like a carnival event for them. Fortunately there were peeps outside with guns and ran his ass down and eventually led to his death.

I know we can't keep guns off the street illegally and we can ban them, but we will still see mass shootings or worse, home made bombs used instead. But if other members of society carried weapons it would give some people a pause in starting to shoot places up. The nightclub incident, the suspect took out the few members that would have weapons, like security first because he knew no one had any heat on them.

So I bet you now that an usher or two in these churches will have a member packing heat now, just like most schools.

[Julio3000]

Not to sidetrack the discussion, but if you are aware of a way to provide widespread, affordable comprehensive health coverage without either co-opting (i.e. paying off) the current private system stakeholders OR creating a robust public option, your input is desperately needed in Washington.

[Jaw]

Honestly not sure if this is genuinely naive or profoundly dishonest.

Discussion of the problem from the right wing LA Times -

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...101-story.html

Overall, Medicaid insurers in the Golden State made $5.4 billion in profits from 2014 to 2016, in part because the state paid higher rates during the inaugural years of the nation’s Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. Last year, they made more money than all Medicaid insurers combined in 34 other states with managed care plans.
...
“Those profits are gigantic — wow,” said Glenn Melnick, a health economist and professor at USC.

Alan Sager, a health-policy professor at Boston University, was surprised — and dismayed.

“California is being wildly open handed and excessively generous with insurers,” he said.

Jennifer Kent, California’s Medicaid director, said that health plan profits were higher than anticipated during the ACA expansion. But she said the state expects to recoup a significant amount of money within the next year once audits are complete and other retroactive rate adjustments are made.

“We’re going to be taking a lot of money back. We’re talking billions of dollars,” Kent said in an interview Friday. No one should think “these plans just made off like bandits and we’re not going to see them again ... We are very mindful we use taxpayer money.”

Health insurers that profited substantially from Medicaid, known as Medi-Cal in California, defend their good fortune. They say these surpluses follow losses in earlier years, and they always run the risk of red ink if medical costs jump.

“The expansion may have been a little rich in the beginning,” said Jeff Myers, chief executive of the Medicaid Health Plans of America, an industry trade group. But “you are starting to see margins come back down.”
...
In anticipation of the Obamacare rollout, officials in California and elsewhere boosted their payments to managed-care companies because they expected Medicaid costs to increase as newly insured patients rushed to the doctor or emergency room after going years without coverage. But those sharply higher costs didn’t materialize — and insurers pocketed more money as a result, especially in California.

Moreover, California’s payments keep flowing steadily even when patients fare poorly. Two of the most profitable insurers in California — Centene and Anthem — run some of the worst-performing Medicaid plans, according to medical quality scores and complaints in government records.

“If there is that much extra money sloshing around in California, then it’s worth asking whether you could expect more in terms of performance,” said Andy Schneider, a research professor with Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families.

California officials acknowledge they need to do a better job of connecting money and quality.

“We are looking at alternative payment methods and those types of things that we can do to help improve and to tie quality to payment,” said Lindy Harrington, a deputy director at the California Department of Health Care Services, which runs Medi-Cal. “But as you can imagine, it’s a difficult ship to turn.”
Before the ACA expansion, California’s Medicaid plans collectively were barely in the black, with $226 million of net income for 2012 and 2013 combined. Traditionally, these insurance contracts have yielded slim profit margins of 2% to 3%. California said it aims for 2% when setting rates, based on prior claims experience and projected costs.

But in the years since the health law took effect, many health insurers have posted margins two or three times that benchmark.

Centene’s Health Net unit in California enjoyed a profit margin of 7.2% from 2014 to 2016. (Centene acquired Health Net for $6.3 billion in March 2016.) Anthem’s profit margin in California’s Medicaid program was 8.1% for 2014 to 2016.

Investors have cheered those results. Shares in Anthem have more than doubled since January 2014, when the Medicaid expansion began. Centene shares are up 50% since the company purchased Health Net last year.




Things don't appear to be trending well for the taxpayers.