|
|
Post by Ovinomancer on Jun 26, 2020 0:27:21 GMT
Proof that Trump doesn't give a rat-fuck about people in general. He's cut funding for Covid-19 testing in the mistaken belief that less testing will result in less cases of Covid-19. So how's that wonderful Covid-19 response going for ya?! Yes, I know it's originally from Rolling Stone. Doesn't make it any less true though. www.yahoo.com/entertainment/trump-follows-threat-slow-testing-163220493.html100% true that 13 testing sites in 5 states are seeing their federal control ended. 100% false the claim that Trump has cut funding. All you have to do is click through on the Rolling Stone article to the source article which is on Politico. That article clearly explains that the Feds are transferring the testing stations to State control because they're the last remaining under an old program, which has since been replaced by one that directly funds states to establish and maintain testing centers. These centers are eligible for that funding. So, no testing centers are being closed, they're just being transferred from Federal to state control. Federal funding is still available for these sites, just from a different stream. I know you're a credulous idiot who's gone days without uncritically posting copypasta, but that's not enough of an excuse for not at least doing a slight bit of diligence when you saw a headline that confirms your worldview. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Jun 26, 2020 0:43:29 GMT
Nice spin. Here's another article explaining that: www.cnbc.com/2020/06/24/coronavirus-federal-government-to-end-funding-some-covid-19-test-sites.html. The Trump administration could extend that funding, but chose not to. Instead, he's pushing responsibility to states and private companies. Considering that six of those testing sites are in places where Covid-19 cases are spiking, it's pretty irresponsible. Once again, he's dodging responsibility and leadership and once again, you think it's wonderful. |
|
|
|
Post by Ovinomancer on Jun 26, 2020 1:40:38 GMT
Nice spin. Here's another article explaining that: www.cnbc.com/2020/06/24/coronavirus-federal-government-to-end-funding-some-covid-19-test-sites.html. The Trump administration could extend that funding, but chose not to. Instead, he's pushing responsibility to states and private companies. Considering that six of those testing sites are in places where Covid-19 cases are spiking, it's pretty irresponsible. Once again, he's dodging responsibility and leadership and once again, you think it's wonderful. Again, the administration is ending the program under which the 13 sites were originally created and have been running. Not because they want fewer stations, but because that program has been superseded by another program. These 13 sites are being transferred to state control and are eligible for funding under the new program, which provides the states funding for testing locations instead of the Feds running them. I mean, seriously, only motivated reasoning could fail to grasp this. No sites are closing unless the states want them to, the Feds are still funding any sites the states want to keep open under a new, different programs. There's no "closing" or "defunding". Things are moving off old program A and onto new program B. |
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Jun 26, 2020 2:59:50 GMT
I mean, seriously, only motivated reasoning could fail to grasp this. But, but ORANGEMANBAD. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Jun 26, 2020 12:15:24 GMT
And you two have your heads so firmly lodged into his backside you can't see he's terrible.
And he still doesn't really give a rat-fuck about your health and well-being.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Jun 26, 2020 13:29:00 GMT
Nice spin. Here's another article explaining that: www.cnbc.com/2020/06/24/coronavirus-federal-government-to-end-funding-some-covid-19-test-sites.html. The Trump administration could extend that funding, but chose not to. Instead, he's pushing responsibility to states and private companies. Considering that six of those testing sites are in places where Covid-19 cases are spiking, it's pretty irresponsible. Once again, he's dodging responsibility and leadership and once again, you think it's wonderful. Again, the administration is ending the program under which the 13 sites were originally created and have been running. Not because they want fewer stations, but because that program has been superseded by another program. These 13 sites are being transferred to state control and are eligible for funding under the new program, which provides the states funding for testing locations instead of the Feds running them. I mean, seriously, only motivated reasoning could fail to grasp this. No sites are closing unless the states want them to, the Feds are still funding any sites the states want to keep open under a new, different programs. There's no "closing" or "defunding". Things are moving off old program A and onto new program B. How much Covid funding was given to the States via A, and how much is now being given via B? Switching over funding from A to B can increase funding, decrease funding or have the funding remain the same. It's not automatically the same. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Jun 26, 2020 14:17:40 GMT
With Trump, you can bet it's less funding.Most of his 'big beautiful plans' generally mean crumbs for normal people.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ovinomancer on Jun 26, 2020 21:35:57 GMT
Again, the administration is ending the program under which the 13 sites were originally created and have been running. Not because they want fewer stations, but because that program has been superseded by another program. These 13 sites are being transferred to state control and are eligible for funding under the new program, which provides the states funding for testing locations instead of the Feds running them. I mean, seriously, only motivated reasoning could fail to grasp this. No sites are closing unless the states want them to, the Feds are still funding any sites the states want to keep open under a new, different programs. There's no "closing" or "defunding". Things are moving off old program A and onto new program B. How much Covid funding was given to the States via A, and how much is now being given via B? Switching over funding from A to B can increase funding, decrease funding or have the funding remain the same. It's not automatically the same. Zero funding was given to states in A, funding is provided under B. So, infinitely more funding. Seriously, though, learn to better phrase questions. I don't know how much A cost, but since A was stood up there've been a lot of cost saving improvements to testing, so B definitely costs less to run. Further add in Federal overhead, which isn't cheap, and A is, by far, the more costly program. Whether or not A spent more money than B is not an interesting questions at all. It's whether B is more efficient than A at providing testing. Given experience, the answer is likely yes, but not always. Still, none of the articles, nor kirinke, was remotely interested in asking that question, so for the point I was making, this line of questioning is a dramatic improvement over credulous OMB. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Jun 26, 2020 22:16:01 GMT
My general point is, he's cut funding and pushed it off on the states to handle, like the rest of the Covid-19 crisis. He could have kept the federal funding intact. He didn't. Then he can point fingers when there are spikes in cases and deaths and say "It's not my fault". When it totally is his fault for his totally incompetent handling of the entire situation.
He has not led a single damned thing in this crisis. He has not stuck with a single policy his own medical advisors laid down. He doesn't even wear a mask in public. Nor has he taken responsibility for his actions. Nor will he. Hell, he's not even required people wear masks and practice social distancing at his own stupid rallies, which he was advised not to have.
Here's another whopper of a lie by the Trump administration:
|
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Jun 27, 2020 0:01:59 GMT
My general point is, he's cut funding and pushed it off on the states to handle, like the rest of the Covid-19 crisis. you absolute lunatic. This is only a "story" because you're allowing the lefty news to lie to you and get away with it. The states don't want to take over these sites because it puts the onus of paperwork and payment on them, meaning they initially fund and then seek reimbursement, as per normal through FEMA Disaster Relief Grants and the CARES Act, rather than having the CDC keep running those emergency sites that were set up in March. Sites that were always meant to be temporary as that was the HHS's mandate at the time (ie not to provide permanent sites forever run by the CDC which the states would prefer). Pull your head out of MSNBC's ass and get some fresh air. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Jun 27, 2020 1:11:21 GMT
What FEMA says and wants and what Trump says and does are two totally unrelated things. You fail to mention that Trump wanted to slow down testing because the number of cases made him look bad. There is also the fact that they are still transitioning to state control instead of Federal control. There's that responsibility thing and the ability to finger point again. We are still in a state of emergency, in case you haven't noticed. The Federal government should least be on point on this. Instead we have a decentralized, fucking mess of a response. That's on Trump.
He doesn't give a rat's ass about us. He only cares about his election chances. Otherwise, he'd support wearing masks, wear masks himself and avoid holding rallies in Covid-19 hotspots. Hell, avoid rallies entirely. He should lead by example, not by tweet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Jun 27, 2020 6:11:11 GMT
How much Covid funding was given to the States via A, and how much is now being given via B? Switching over funding from A to B can increase funding, decrease funding or have the funding remain the same. It's not automatically the same. Zero funding was given to states in A, funding is provided under B. So, infinitely more funding. Seriously, though, learn to better phrase questions. I don't know how much A cost, but since A was stood up there've been a lot of cost saving improvements to testing, so B definitely costs less to run. Further add in Federal overhead, which isn't cheap, and A is, by far, the more costly program. Whether or not A spent more money than B is not an interesting questions at all. It's whether B is more efficient than A at providing testing. Given experience, the answer is likely yes, but not always. Still, none of the articles, nor kirinke, was remotely interested in asking that question, so for the point I was making, this line of questioning is a dramatic improvement over credulous OMB. You may not find it an interesting question, but if B is more efficient, but despite those efficiencies only supplies enough money to test half of the people that A managed to test, it's a cut. That's why I want to know. You may not care or find it interesting, but I'm not going to assume that there is equivalence or improvement. |
|
|
|
Post by Ovinomancer on Jun 27, 2020 10:41:33 GMT
Zero funding was given to states in A, funding is provided under B. So, infinitely more funding. Seriously, though, learn to better phrase questions. I don't know how much A cost, but since A was stood up there've been a lot of cost saving improvements to testing, so B definitely costs less to run. Further add in Federal overhead, which isn't cheap, and A is, by far, the more costly program. Whether or not A spent more money than B is not an interesting questions at all. It's whether B is more efficient than A at providing testing. Given experience, the answer is likely yes, but not always. Still, none of the articles, nor kirinke, was remotely interested in asking that question, so for the point I was making, this line of questioning is a dramatic improvement over credulous OMB. You may not find it an interesting question, but if B is more efficient, but despite those efficiencies only supplies enough money to test half of the people that A managed to test, it's a cut. That's why I want to know. You may not care or find it interesting, but I'm not going to assume that there is equivalence or improvement. Seems like we're in 100% agreement that $A > $B isn't interesting. Or, would you like to make the case that $A > $B is interesting without the qualifiers? You can have another go, if you want. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Jun 27, 2020 10:54:39 GMT
So is pushing it on the state going to help people or hurt them? My take on this, is it is a smoke and mirrors game in the end. In general, Republicans hate to spend money on healthcare, hell, they're trying to end ACA during this crisis. In particular, Trump wants Covid-19 to be swept under the rug. With less testing, that means less reporting, which means his numbers look better than they should. So by pushing it on the states, that will result in a funding cut and confusion, which will get him what he wants.
The ability to point fingers and say 'it wasn't my fault."
|
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Jun 27, 2020 12:02:17 GMT
So is pushing it on the state going to help people or hurt them? My take on this, is it is a smoke and mirrors game in the end. In general, Republicans hate to spend money on healthcare, hell, they're trying to end ACA during this crisis. In particular, Trump wants Covid-19 to be swept under the rug. With less testing, that means less reporting, which means his numbers look better than they should. So by pushing it on the states, that will result in a funding cut and confusion, which will get him what he wants.
The ability to point fingers and say 'it wasn't my fault."
You stupid fuckin' cunt. ACA isn't healthcare. It's a poorly run, overly expensive for consumers health insurance. You really think trying to enact healthcare of any kind on a Federal level is going to be more effective than on a State of local level? It's just as poorly managed as everything else the federal government does. Not because orange man bad; because entrenched federal employees. |
|
