RocCityRoller

So similar stuff that DJax just said. Should we cancel DJax too? Henry Ford also hired and fired black and brown folks the same as white folks in his factories. He was one of the first people to employee black people at a middle class wage. It set in motion one of the first, and largest, Black middle classes EVER in America. I find it really funny, when the left likes to select certain parts of a person from 100, 120, 150 years ago and hold it to the 'woke truth' of today. Yet when anyone points out the terrible history of the Democrat Party 100, 120, 150 years ago, it is discounted. Curious about your musings on canceling Woodrow Wilson like Princeton just did in a moment of 'Wokeness'.

I really dislike blanket statements like this. It feeds into the victimhood mentality continuously pounded into brown and black people's minds. I am brown btw, a Heinz 57 if you will. My mom never owned her own home. Last year I bought a house, in the suburbs with no help. Blanket statements like this poo all over my success. It tells me that a number of people, who supposedly are fighting my fight, are prejudiced. According the them, because I am brown I can't do certain things. Who keeps echoing these kind of statements? I notice that Asians aren't represented above, except I assume being lumped into 'other/ mixed race'. A lot of Asian folks are direct immigrants, or 1st or 2nd born Americans. How many were Cambodians who fled the Khmer Rouge, Vietnamese/ Laotians who fled during their civil war, colonial war with France and then the continuation war with the USA? How many Asian families are Koreans who fled their civil war and the following proxy war? How many are Chinese who fled the Maoist Revolution and the Great Leap Forward? These things happened from 1950-1980. Many of those Asians also faced the red-line practices of the 1950's and 1960's and came just before or after the the Civil Rights Act. Some of the Asian refugees were elites in their country, but most were poor peasants and rural farmers. They moved into inner city ghettos and hoods, it's what they could afford. How many times over the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s did my family watch these families work their way out of those neighborhoods, while my family continued to be renters barely making ends meet? Often the first generation would stay in 'the hood' because the house is paid off, or they have a neighborhood business they want to keep an eye on. But their kids learned a trade or graduated college, got good careers and moved out to the burbs, or moved into boom towns with better opportunities, or into an affluent part of the city. The Asians fleeing horrible situations in their home countries saw the USA inner cities as an opportunity. A place to start and get away from the chaos of their own countries. The first American born generation of kids went to the same schools as black and brown folks. Asians are the most successful or second most successful demographic in anything measured as success. Why is the Asian mentality different from the black or brown mentality? Same neighborhoods, same schools, a minority. Most of the time they don't even speak English when they arrive. Yet a generation or two later the family is mostly out of the 'hood'. Why? We could look at Latin-x families doing the same thing. Escaping civil wars, narco regimes, and generations of poverty and abusive governments. I looked at those folks and tried to figure out what they did to be successful. My family, despite our poverty, never allowed the victim mentality to set in. It took a while, and I had some bumps, but I got there. 'Because they can not' is simply not true, and it smacks of prejudice.

No one with 'Fasten your seat belts'? 'It's Fandemonium!' 'They are who we thought they are, we we let them go"

Almost 3 months have passed let's see if the crystal ball was correct on the stocks. TMO is at $386.63 up over $86 per share from $300.12 a 28% gain in about a quarter. RHHBY is $44.12 up a more modest $4.12 from $40.00, still a 10% gain in a very volatile quarter. Oil - WTI Crude today is $40.96, up $9.96 from $31. That would be a 33% gain. And this is with a lot of states still locked down, or partially locked down. not too shabby ?

@Tiberius @SlimShady'sSpaceForce Tibs - DC is already the exception to the EC rule. In all 50 states the EC count is decided by the number of Senators and Congresspeople a state has. Even though DC has 0-0 it has 3 Electoral College votes. At best DC picks up 1 EC vote by population, and that may be negligible. As for PR, why would a territory that effectively pays no taxes, but offers citizens the rights of a US Citizen agree to start paying taxes? PR has regularly vetoed statehood. I am all for a one time, winner takes all vote. Become a tax paying state, or forfeit your special status and become a sovereign nation. Flimsy argument at best. As for the 'Hot Headlines' about the 9-0 Supreme Court Decision. This may not be the 'big victory' you were thinking of SlimShady. The Supreme court ruled in favor of states being able to legally penalize Electorates in the EC for not voting the way the popular vote went. On November 16, 2016, journalist Bill Lichtenstein published an article entitled, "The Way Out of Trumpland: Hail Mary Pass to Save the Nation" in the Huffington Post, detailing the plans by presidential elector Micheal Baca to seek to derail Trump's ascent to the presidency by convincing Democratic and Republican presidential electors to vote for a more moderate candidate on December 19, 2016, when the Electoral College voted. Lichtenstein's article soon went viral, and on December 5, 2016, several members of the electoral college, seven from the Democratic Party and one from the Republican Party, publicly stated their intention to vote for a Republican other than the nominee Donald Trump at the Electoral College vote on December 19, 2016. Texas Republican elector Christopher Suprun publicly pledged to not cast his vote for Donald Trump as allowed by Texas state law. Suprun indicated that he had also been in confidential contact with several Republican electors who planned to vote faithlessly, stating that they would be "discussing names specifically and see who meets the [fitness for president] test that we could all get behind." A number of Democrat EC voted for Colin Powell instead of Hillary in protest in Washington state, long after Trump had the Election tied up. Two EC in Texas voted against Trump and for a Kasich and for Paul. Over 58 elections, 165 electors have not cast their votes for president or vice president as prescribed by the legislature of the state they represented. Of those: 71 electors changed their votes because the candidate to whom they were pledged died before the electoral ballot (in 1872 and 1912). 1 elector chose to abstain from voting for any candidate (in 2000). 93 were changed typically by the elector's personal preference, although there have been some instances where the change may have been caused by an honest mistake. in 2016 the number was 10. 10 of 93 by preference. The Supreme Court clearly ruled in favor of strengthening the integrity of the EC, not against it. 2016 showed the worst discipline among the EC for voting for the candidate of choice by a wide margin. 9-0 is a pretty strong ruling IMO to maintaining the institution and its integrity. But hey, that doesn't generate clicks.

I appreciate us having a civil conversation. We are clearly going to argue different points of view. That is both of our rights. Since I am 'red-pilled' only in the last few years, I can appreciate the anti-EC point of view. On the surface it looks unfair. Gerrymandering is terrible, and both parties have used it to their advantage. I will agree with you in principle there. Gerrymandering is an issue in determining who is elected for a defined Congressional seat or Senatorial seat. It does not however determine how many Congressional seats a state has. Let's agree that all states have 2 Senators for the same reasons noted above (big and small states wanted an equal say in one of the chambers of Congress) so every state has 2. Every state has to have at least 1 Congressperson. This means at minimum, each state will have 3 Senators & Congresspeople. By that same math every state will have at least 3 EC electors. (EC count = Congresspersons and Senators count) The biggest thing to wrap ones head around is that the EC is effectively a state level authority. The population of the state, determines the number of Congressional seats. The make up of the districts in 48 states are irrelevant. The EC actually benefits voters, in that a Democrat vote in a highly Republican district, or a Republican vote in a highly Democrat district has equal weight in the state level election. In most states the winner of the popular vote in the entire state carries all of the EC votes. Winner take all. It doesn't matter what gerrymandering district the vote comes from. Two states: Nebraska and Maine do have split EC representation. Using the 'congressional district method', these states allocate two electoral votes to the state popular vote winner, and then one electoral vote to the popular vote winner in each Congressional district (2 in Maine, 3 in Nebraska). This creates multiple popular vote contests in these states, which could lead to a split electoral vote. I think it leads to higher voter turn out as well. This is where, your question about gerrymandering holds up. Since Maine has 4 EC, and Nebraska 5 EC, no one has looked at it yet. If more states took the 'split EC' approach, this would be a big political topic. Then things would get hot in the Gerrymandering debate. If there is to be a conversation about EC reform, it won't be about throwing away the EC. Small states would never go for that. I think an interesting avenue would be to look at reform along split EC lines instead. I hope I addressed your question in a respectable and civil manner. I need to read more about the Supreme Court ruling, I am ignorant to that as of the moment, but thank you for bringing it up. I have a feeling the media may not be telling us the simple facts.

@SlimShady'sSpaceForce @Tiberius The establishment of an electoral college is found in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution: 'Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.' Individual citizens vote for candidates they want the state electors who represent their state to vote for. The States elect presidents in this way. The number of electors each state has is based on the total number of senators and congresspersons the state has, a minimum of 3. That is how it is representative. 'The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President.' Back in the day there were not pairings of President and Vice President tickets. Candidates ran for the presidency. This meant no one ran as a 'Vice Presidential running mate paired to a Presidential nominee'. The candidate with the most electoral votes was president, the candidate with the second most was VP. As you can tell, this led to some messy situations. Originally, electors cast votes for two candidates on the same ballot for president; the candidate who finished second place in the tabulation became vice president. Starting in 1804, the president and vice president were elected on separate ballots as specified in the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution which was adopted in that year. Candidates began to realize they could run together as a team for president and vice president instead of running completely separately for each office. So why was this was set up? The largest reason in my opinion is because the United States is a Federal Union. It is right there in our name, United States. By definition a state is a political body with a defined border and independence in rule of law. The several states composing the United States are sovereign and independent, in all things not surrendered to the national/Federal government by the constitution, and are considered, on general principles, by each other as foreign states, yet their mutual relations are rather those of domestic independence, than of foreign alienation. The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. It expresses the principle of federalism and states' rights, which strictly supports the entire plan of the original Constitution for the United States of America, by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution; all remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people. This actually used to mean something. The amendment was proposed by the 1st United States Congress in 1789 during its first term following the adoption of the Constitution. It was considered by many members as a prerequisite to many state ratifications of the Constitution and particularly to satisfy demands of Anti-Federalists who opposed the creation of a stronger federal government. During the Revolution, each colony was effectively its own state. It printed its own money, had a separate and unique history, had opposing territorial claims, raised its own military regiments and had its own law and governance. After the revolution, each state was effectively its own country. An independent state in all senses. As late as the Civil War, most regiments were called things like 'the New York 140th Volunteer Infantry regiment'. This is why. The states had the right to create their own military units. To ratify the Constitution, all states, large and small in size and population needed assurances of an equal voice. Why would an independent country give up its power to be subordinate in a larger country? (Anti-Federalists) They wouldn't. This is why states (Electors) vote for the president, based on the popular vote in its borders, by its citizens. The Electors are supposed to represent the will of the people, in their state, not on a Federal level.

I sometimes wonder if tearing down the Confederate statues and glossing over Jim Crow for theories like 'the big switch' is a way for Democrats/ and the left to erase their own embedded, factual racist history, and not confront it. It's easier to package a bunch of lies and empty promises to minorities when their own misdeads are erased, and reminders of questions that should be asked are 'canceled'. If it's not taught in school in any factual or meaningful way, then what sparks that conversation? What is lost is the chance to have an honest conversation with the next generation when a little boy or girl of any color points to a confederate statue and asks 'Who was that?' Same when a name is removed from a building or program. What did they do to have a building or program after him (or her). What did they believe in? Woodrow Wilson and what happened to him at Princeton is another new example. https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/06/27/president-eisgrubers-message-community-removal-woodrow-wilson-name-public-policy

UPS must be next. 'What can brown do for you?' is clearly a master slave relationship /s

Obviously those bubbles are made from hand sanitizer /s Why else would a Congressperson blow her breath and saliva particles (which carry COVID) into the face of a toddler? Do as I say, not as I do. Imagine if that was an conservative, or Republican? We would have stories of 'Death Bubbles' blown into face of innocent toddler.....

Dear Shelby's tweets seem to be 'protected' by Twitter, what a surprise. She also seems to be 'formerly' of a lot of places..... Shelbie Bostedt @ShelbieLBostedt formerly @rewire_news @foreignpolicy @chicagotribune , @medillschool grad Washington, DChorsford.house.gov Joined July 2008 1,543 Following 1,627 Followers These Tweets are protected Only approved followers can see @ShelbieLBostedt’s Tweets. To request access, click Follow. Learn more ********************************************************************************************************************** As for you, did you, or did you not ask me directly what I thought of 'White Power' after you felt emboldened by Penfield45 going on his little KKK kick the other night? That was a direct question to me from you. Not some 'Rando on the internet' And now less than a week later we have TH3 posting about 'WhitePower' multiple times. Why are you on TBD now? The sun is going down, don't you guys have cross burning rallies to attend? Keep talking. Keep defending bigots. I love showing these to my friends and family. You help the red pill get sweeter and sweeter.

Be kind, he had a rough week: https://www.rochesterfirst.com/news/local-news/developing-police-bomb-squad-on-scene-in-penfield/ Penfield standoff ends peacefully after 24 hours, no injuries reported, charges announced Wednesday PENFIELD, N.Y. (WROC) — Monroe County Sheriff’s Office Chief Deputy Michael Fowler said a standoff in Penfield ended peacefully Tuesday after 24 hours. “We finally have resolution, we’ve been able to achieve a peaceful outcome in this case with no injuries and we’re very thankful for that,” Fowler said. What started as a mental health crisis Monday resulted in a standoff — involving Molotov cocktail setting a vehicle on far and xxx launching arrows from a bow at officer — that lasted more than a day. Fowler said xxx has a criminal history and was previously convicted of third degree arson. Fowler said xxx was distressed Monday afternoon and began threatening his parole officer and it turned into a request for the sheriff’s office to assist on a welfare check. When deputies arrived, they confirmed there was a mental health crisis and the suspect was being threatening. “He is absolutely threatening our deputies and threatening his own life,” Fowler said. Fowler says the suspect was launching arrows at officers from the house and at one point threw a Molotov cocktail into the driveway that set a vehicle on fire. “In the middle of the night after the Molotov cocktail and arrows had gone on, we did get some consultation from the mental health department and they suggested we allow him to calm down and get some rest and see if he approaches the situation differently in a couple of hours,” Fowler said. Fowler also said xxx’s mother was able to exit the house without incident as the standoff was going on. Sheriff Baxter said his mother was cooperative throughout the standoff. The chief deputy says there’s a possibility that this incident might not qualify for bail under New York state criminal justice reform laws. *************************************************************************************************** Mental Health crisis - check Lives with mom - check (probably in basement) Molotov Cocktail - check (Antifa loves em) Bows and Arrows - check, lefties hate guns and the 2nd amendment Needed mental health professional instead of police - check Convicted of bad things, but let off with a slap of the hands by Cuomo - check

Nope. Actions and inactions have consequences. Democrat led city and PD for over 40 years. Reap what your 'like minded leadership' has sewn and eat it. And say good bye to Target while you are at it. This seems to be popular here too with @Penfield45 , @BillStime and @TH3 recently with all of their pro KKK and White Power posts.

I think this is a sneaky good move by the Pats. That said the media just can't help itself these days.... https://sports.yahoo.com/welcome-to-boston-cam-newton-he-can-already-hear-the-dog-whistles-and-trite-criticism-204248832.html Whether his career lasts one more game, one more season or a dozen more years, I hope Cam Newton never stops doing his “Superman” routine after big plays. Because among all of his talents, Newton’s one true super power is getting people to tell on themselves. It’s happening already in Boston. News of Newton’s contract agreement with the New England Patriots broke on Sunday night, and by Tuesday afternoon, without Newton having touched down in Massachusetts yet — he was in Los Angeles working with one of his new teammates, Mohamed Sanu — local sports radio hosts were already pulling out the tired, lacking-in-reality, dog-whistle tropes many NFL media types have used with Newton throughout his career. In the span of 2 minutes and 20 seconds, 98.5 The Sports Hub hosts Michael Felger and Tony Massarotti said Newton won’t go along with the Patriots’ “culture,” and Newton’s “dabbing” and “showboating” will be a problem. They intimated that a 31-year-old man won’t be able to “contain” himself on the field, took a shot at Newton’s wardrobe, said coach Bill Belichick won’t “allow” Newton’s celebrations, and for good measure brought up the brief and unsuccessful New England tenure of Chad Ochocinco and confused Brandin Cooks and Phillip Dorsett II. Welcome to Boston, Cam....

Still not clear on title. Is AB interested in playing again this year? or Are teams interested in AB's services? A shame really, AB deep sixed his own career.

From Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease, pulled from Elseveir. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477893920302179 Volume 35, May–June 2020, 101738 Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: A retrospective analysis of 1061 cases in Marseille, France MatthieuMillionab1Jean-ChristopheLagierab1PhilippeGautretac1PhilippeColsonabPierre-EdouardFournieracSophieAmraneabMarieHocquartaMorganeMailheaVeraEsteves-VieiraaBarbaraDoudieraCamilleAubryaFlorianCorrearddeAudreyGiraud-GatineauacfgYanisRousselabCyrilBerengeracNadimCassirabPisethSengabChristineZandottia…DidierRaoultab Methods We retrospectively report on 1061 SARS-CoV-2 positive tested patients treated for at least three days with the following regimen: HCQ (200 mg three times daily for ten days) + AZ (500 mg on day 1 followed by 250 mg daily for the next four days). Outcomes were death, clinical worsening (transfer to ICU, and >10 day hospitalization) and viral shedding persistence (>10 days). Results A total of 1061 patients were included in this analysis (46.4% male, mean age 43.6 years – range 14–95 years). Good clinical outcome and virological cure were obtained in 973 patients within 10 days (91.7%). Prolonged viral carriage was observed in 47 patients (4.4%) and was associated to a higher viral load at diagnosis (p < .001) but viral culture was negative at day 10. All but one, were PCR-cleared at day 15. A poor clinical outcome (PClinO) was observed for 46 patients (4.3%) and 8 died (0.75%) (74–95 years old). All deaths resulted from respiratory failure and not from cardiac toxicity. Five patients are still hospitalized (98.7% of patients cured so far). PClinO was associated with older age (OR 1.11), severity of illness at admission (OR 10.05) and low HCQ serum concentration. PClinO was independently associated with the use of selective beta-blocking agents and angiotensin II receptor blockers (p < .05). A total of 2.3% of patients reported mild adverse events (gastrointestinal or skin symptoms, headache, insomnia and transient blurred vision). Conclusion Administration of the HCQ+AZ combination before COVID-19 complications occur is safe and associated with a very low fatality rate in patients.

So why did I bring up the post above again? I have been banging on about the veracity of COVID counts for months now. There is no point in arguing 'COVID numbers increasing or decreasing' when no one knows: what is a COVID infection? What is a COVID hospitalization? What is a COVID death? The media now says COVID is on the rise. What COVID numbers? I've done a poor job framing my concerns about the 'stats'. Each state is allowed to determine its own metrics. This makes comparisons difficult at best. States such as NY and CO have been reported in multiple sources as adjusting their numbers as testing ability has improved, as methodology has improved, as definitions have improved and adjusted. That is fair and just. I'm not sure I've seen a comprehensive report as to what a COVID positive is, a COVID Hospitalization is, or a COVID death is. I would like to see how each state defines these terms without any spin. If a man has a heart attack after years of eating bad food, and no exercise, but tests positive for COVID at the hospital is that a COVID hospitalization? If a woman overdoses on sleeping pills, tests positive for COVID in her system, and dies in the hospital is that a COVID death? Different states will tell you different answers. Why? I work for a University/Health System in NY State. As of our last staff call last week, we are now facing a $350,000,000 shortfall due to suspension of elective procedures. This does not include $21,000,000 in University refunds and fees lost. 4/10 of a billion dollars is a lot of money to lose, when definitions are not clearly applied. Full furloughs and rotating furloughs have been in place since May, including all medical staff. Ironic given the suspended elective procedures were intended to provide more medical staff and resources for COVID. Let me also state that our ICU ward, the common measure of the hospital 'stress test', was regularly 'stressed' at 75-110% capacity before COVID. When extra emergency beds in NYC were made available on a naval ship, and a 'medical tent unit' in NYC were barely used, but 'COVID Hospitalizations were on a dramatic rise', I started to have some doubts regarding 'the numbers'. How could any politician, Democrat or Republican, vote against the Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic Security Act? That would be political suicide. Here is the rub, CARES included an edit to the Medicare payments received by medical systems for COVID patients. When I call into question the reporting of statistics, especially in states hit early by COVID, I have some questions about ill defined numbers. I don't think that a huge number of NY hospitals would willingly post irresponsible numbers. However the fact remains that NY hospitals, like mine, are $350 million in the hole due to suspension of elective care by the governor, and were at the same time monetized to report COVID numbers. Que Bono? Who benefits? Follow the money. Some NYC ICU's were severely taxed early on. No doubt, but why was there no huge overflow to the Medical ship in NY harbor, or to the other temporary units? Why was there a dramatic increase in 'COVID numbers' after the Governors ban on elective medical treatment, but not in actual ICU beds needed?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/04/24/fact-check-medicare-hospitals-paid-more-covid-19-patients-coronavirus/3000638001/ Fact check: Hospitals get paid more if patients listed as COVID-19, on ventilators Michelle Rogers USA TODAY Network The claim: Hospitals get paid more if patients are listed as COVID-19, and on ventilators Sen. Scott Jensen, R-Minn., a physician in Minnesota, was interviewed by "The Ingraham Angle" host Laura Ingraham on April 8 on Fox News and claimed hospitals get paid more if Medicare patients are listed as having COVID-19 and get three times as much money if they need a ventilator. The claim was published April 9 by The Spectator, a conservative publication. WorldNetDaily shared it April 10 and, according to Snopes, a related meme was shared on social media in mid-April. Jensen took it to his own Facebook page April 15, saying, in part: "How can anyone not believe that increasing the number of COVID-19 deaths may create an avenue for states to receive a larger portion of federal dollars. Already some states are complaining that they are not getting enough of the CARES Act dollars because they are having significantly more proportional COVID-19 deaths." On April 19, he doubled down on his assertion via video on his Facebook page. Jensen said, "Hospital administrators might well want to see COVID-19 attached to a discharge summary or a death certificate. Why? Because if it's a straightforward, garden-variety pneumonia that a person is admitted to the hospital for – if they're Medicare – typically, the diagnosis-related group lump sum payment would be $5,000. But if it's COVID-19 pneumonia, then it's $13,000, and if that COVID-19 pneumonia patient ends up on a ventilator, it goes up to $39,000." Jensen clarified in the video that he doesn't think physicians are "gaming the system" so much as other "players," such as hospital administrators, who he said may pressure physicians to cite all diagnoses, including "probable" COVID-19, on discharge papers or death certificates to get the higher Medicare allocation allowed under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act. Past practice, Jensen said, did not include probabilities. He noted that some states, including his home state of Minnesota, as well as California, list only laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 diagnoses. Others, specifically New York, list all presumed cases, which is allowed under guidelines fro Provision in the relief act The coronavirus relief legislation created a 20% premium, or add-on, for COVID-19 Medicare patients. There have been no public reports that hospitals are exaggerating COVID-19 numbers to receive higher Medicare payments. Jensen didn't explicitly make that claim. He simply suggested there is an "avenue" to do so now that "plausible" COVID-19, not just laboratory-confirmed, cases can be greenlighted for Medicare payment and eligible for the 20% add-on allowed under the relief act. m the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as of mid-April and which will result in a larger payout. Jensen said he thinks the overall number of COVID-19 cases have been undercounted based on limitations in the number of tests available. The initial $30 billion – out of $100 billion – in the grants dedicated to health care providers to address the pandemic was disbursed according to 2019 Medicare reimbursements. The second wave will focus on providers in areas more heavily affected by the outbreak, according to Kaiser Health News, giving rise to Jensen's concern that hospitals could exploit the CDC's guidelines allowing presumed cases. Jensen did not return an email request from USA TODAY for comment about his claim. USA TODAY reached out to Marty Makary, a surgeon and professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, about the claim. Makary said in an email April 21 that "what Scott Jensen said sounds right to me." Makary did not elaborate, answer additional questions or respond to a request for an interview. USA TODAY reached out to the American Hospital Association and Federation of American Hospitals on April 22, but as of publication had not received a response. How does Medicare pay? Snopes investigated the claim, finding it's plausible Medicare pays in the range Jensen mentions but doesn't have a "one-size-fits-all" payment to hospitals for COVID-19 patients. As explained by nurse Elizabeth Davis in her piece for verywellhealth.com, each hospital has a base payment rate assigned by Medicare. It takes into account nationwide and regional trends, including labor costs and varying health care resources in each market. Then, each diagnosis-related group, which classifies various diagnoses into groups and subgroups, is assigned a weight based on the average amount of resources it takes to care for a patient. Those figures are multiplied to determine the payment from Medicare. A hospital in one city and state may be paid more or less for treating a patient than a hospital in another. PolitiFact reporter Tom Kertscher wrote, "The dollar amounts Jensen cited are roughly what we found in an analysis published April 7 by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a leading source of health information." Ask FactCheck weighed in April 21: "The figures cited by Jensen generally square with estimated Medicare payments for COVID-19 hospitalizations, based on average Medicare payments for patients with similar diagnoses." Ask FactCheck reporter Angelo Fichera, who interviewed Jensen, noted, "Jensen said he did not think that hospitals were intentionally misclassifying cases for financial reasons. But that’s how his comments have been widely interpreted and paraded on social media." Ask FactCheck's conclusion: "Recent legislation pays hospitals higher Medicare rates for COVID-19 patients and treatment, but there is no evidence of fraudulent reporting." Julie Aultman, a member of the editorial board of the American Medical Association’s Journal of Ethics, told PolitiFact it is “very unlikely that physicians or hospitals will falsify data or be motivated by money to do so.” Our ruling: True We rate the claim that hospitals get paid more if patients are listed as COVID-19 and on ventilators as TRUE. Hospitals and doctors do get paid more for Medicare patients diagnosed with COVID-19 or if it's considered presumed they have COVID-19 absent a laboratory-confirmed test, and three times more if the patients are placed on a ventilator to cover the cost of care and loss of business resulting from a shift in focus to treat COVID-19 cases.

I'm not 'blaming the media' for how the USA is 'handling the virus'. Nowhere did I say that. I did say that the media, by the language it uses, forms and shapes opinions of the public. Given how much we the GP are at each other's throats and don't trust anything, I would say it has been a colossal failure. Read the posts above, read them. Look at the difference in language used in the CNN article, and the published medical journal.

I can't help but notice the difference in the use of language in a scientific journal's abstract (Elsevier and Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease) and CNN's 'reporting' on an article published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases. I'm trying to find a way to access the article, or at least the abstract of the Detroit team's article published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases. Let's face it, most people are not accessing Elsevier or scholarly journals for facts. They rely on the media for a summary of facts to inform and form opinion on pressing topics.

Fully Attributed to CNN: Study finds hydroxychloroquine may have boosted survival, but other researchers have doubts By Maggie Fox, Andrea Kane, and Elizabeth Cohen, CNN Updated 1:31 PM ET, Fri July 3, 2020 (CNN)A surprising new study found the controversial antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine helped patients better survive in the hospital. But the findings, like the federal government's use of the drug itself, were disputed. A team at Henry Ford Health System in southeast Michigan said Thursday their study of 2,541 hospitalized patients found that those given hydroxychloroquine were much less likely to die. Dr. Marcus Zervos, division head of infectious disease for Henry Ford Health System, said 26% of those not given hydroxychloroquine died, compared to 13% of those who got the drug. The team looked back at everyone treated in the hospital system since the first patient in March. "Overall crude mortality rates were 18.1% in the entire cohort, 13.5% in the hydroxychloroquine alone group, 20.1% among those receiving hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin, 22.4% among the azithromycin alone group, and 26.4% for neither drug," the team wrote in a report published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases. It's a surprising finding because several other studies have found no benefit from hydroxychloroquine, a drug originally developed to treat and prevent malaria. President Donald Trump touted the drug heavily, but later studies found not only did patients not do better if they got the drug, they were more likely to suffer cardiac side effects. The US Food and Drug Administration withdrew its emergency use authorization for the drug earlier this month and trials around the world, including trials sponsored by the World Health Organization and the National Institutes of Health, were halted. Researchers not involved in the Henry Ford study pointed out it wasn't of the same quality of the studies showing hydroxychloroquine did not help patients, and said other treatments, such as the use of the steroid dexamethasone, might have accounted for the better survival of some patients. "Our results do differ from some other studies," Zervos told a news conference. "What we think was important in ours ... is that patients were treated early. For hydroxychloroquine to have a benefit, it needs to begin before the patients begin to suffer some of the severe immune reactions that patients can have with Covid," he added. The Henry Ford team also monitored patients carefully for heart problems, he said. "The combination of hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin was reserved for selected patients with severe COVID-19 and with minimal cardiac risk factors," the team wrote. The Henry Ford team said they believe their findings show hydroxychloroquine could be potentially useful as a treatment for coronavirus. "It's important to note that in the right settings, this potentially could be a lifesaver for patients," Dr. Steven Kalkanis, CEO of the Henry Ford Medical Group, said at the news conference. Kalkanis said that their findings do not necessarily contradict those of earlier studies. "We also want to make the point that just because our results differ from some others that may have been published, it doesn't make those studies wrong or definitely a conflict. What it simply means is that by looking at the nuanced data of which patients actually benefited and when, we might be able to further unlock the code of how this disease works," he said. "Much more work needs to be done to elucidate what the final treatment plan should be for Covid-19," Kalkanis added. "But we feel ... that these are critically important results to add to the mix of how we move forward if there's a second surge, and in relevant other parts of the world. Now we can help people combat this disease and to reduce the mortality rate." Zervos said hydroxychloroquine can help interfere with the virus directly and also reduces inflammation. Researchers not involved with the study were critical. They noted that the Henry Ford team did not randomly treat patients but selected them for various treatments based on certain criteria. "As the Henry Ford Health System became more experienced in treating patients with COVID-19, survival may have improved, regardless of the use of specific therapies," Dr. Todd Lee of the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal, Canada, and colleagues wrote in a commentary in the same journal. "Finally, concomitant steroid use in patients receiving hydroxychloroquine was more than double the non-treated group. This is relevant considering the recent RECOVERY trial that showed a mortality benefit with dexamethasone." The steroid dexamethasone can reduce inflammation in seriously ill patients. The Henry Ford team wrote that 82% of their patients received hydroxychloroquine within the first 24 hours of admission, and 91% within the first 48 hours of admission. They wrote that in comparison, a study of patients at 25 New York hospitals started taking the drug "at any time during their hospitalization." But patients in that New York study, published in May in the Journal of the American Medical Association, started taking hydroxychloroquine on average one day after being hospitalized. "Maybe there's a little bit of a difference, but it's not like patients in New York were being started on day seven. That's not what happened," said Eli Rosenberg, lead author of the New York study and an associate professor of epidemiology at the University at Albany School of Public Health. Rosenberg also pointed out that the Detroit paper excluded 267 patients -- nearly 10% of the study population -- who had not yet been discharged from the hospital. He said this might have skewed the results to make hydroxychloroquine look better than it really was. Those patients might have still been in the hospital because they were very sick, and if they died, excluding them from the study made hydroxychloroquine look like more of a lifesaver than it really was. "There's a little bit of loosey-goosiness here in all this," he told CNN. Both the Detroit and New York studies were observational: they looked back at how patients did when doctors prescribed hydroxychloroquine. While helpful, observational studies are not as valuable as controlled clinical trials. Considered the gold standard in medicine, patients in a clinical trial are randomly assigned to take either the drug or a placebo, which is a treatment that does nothing. Doctors then follow the patients to see how they fare. Two clinical trials on hydroxychloroquine for Covid-19, one in the US and one in the UK, were stopped early because their data suggested hydroxychloroquine wasn't helpful. The US trial, run by the National Institutes of Health, enrolled more than 470 patients. The UK trial, run by the University of Oxford, enrolled more than 11,000 patients. "We have concluded that there is no beneficial effect of hydroxychloroquine in patients hospitalized with COVID-19," the Oxford doctors concluded. Get CNN Health's weekly newsletter. But a White House official praised the Henry Ford team's study. Peter Navarro, the White House trade adviser, said the study shows hydroxychloroquine works if given early enough. "This is a big deal," he told CNN. "This medicine can literally save tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of American lives and maybe millions of people worldwide."

Since any study in the USA is bound to have a knee jerk political reaction from either 'side' let's look at a study of over 1000 people in Marseilles France. Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477893920302179 This is from the Elsevier service, a source of stringent academic research. Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease Volume 35, May–June 2020, 101738 hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: A retrospective analysis of 1061 cases in Marseille, France Author links open overlay panelMatthieuMillionab1Jean-ChristopheLagierab1PhilippeGautretac1PhilippeColsonabPierre-EdouardFournieracSophieAmraneabMarieHocquartaMorganeMailheaVeraEsteves-VieiraaBarbaraDoudieraCamilleAubryaFlorianCorrearddeAudreyGiraud-GatineauacfgYanisRousselabCyrilBerengeracNadimCassirabPisethSengabChristineZandottia…DidierRaoultab https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101738Get rights and content Abstract Background In France, the combination hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and azithromycin (AZ) is used in the treatment of COVID-19. Methods We retrospectively report on 1061 SARS-CoV-2 positive tested patients treated for at least three days with the following regimen: HCQ (200 mg three times daily for ten days) + AZ (500 mg on day 1 followed by 250 mg daily for the next four days). Outcomes were death, clinical worsening (transfer to ICU, and >10 day hospitalization) and viral shedding persistence (>10 days). Results A total of 1061 patients were included in this analysis (46.4% male, mean age 43.6 years – range 14–95 years). Good clinical outcome and virological cure were obtained in 973 patients within 10 days (91.7%). Prolonged viral carriage was observed in 47 patients (4.4%) and was associated to a higher viral load at diagnosis (p < .001) but viral culture was negative at day 10. All but one, were PCR-cleared at day 15. A poor clinical outcome (PClinO) was observed for 46 patients (4.3%) and 8 died (0.75%) (74–95 years old). All deaths resulted from respiratory failure and not from cardiac toxicity. Five patients are still hospitalized (98.7% of patients cured so far). PClinO was associated with older age (OR 1.11), severity of illness at admission (OR 10.05) and low HCQ serum concentration. PClinO was independently associated with the use of selective beta-blocking agents and angiotensin II receptor blockers (p < .05). A total of 2.3% of patients reported mild adverse events (gastrointestinal or skin symptoms, headache, insomnia and transient blurred vision). Conclusion Administration of the HCQ+AZ combination before COVID-19 complications occur is safe and associated with a very low fatality rate in patients.

Is this a direct threat to me as a mixed American? Am I too dumb to make my own decisions? I think this clearly goes into the borders of a 'Hate Speech' felony as defined by NYS. What are you trying to say to me? Are you a white supremacist? What is White Power?

Is this a direct threat to me as a mixed American? I think this clearly goes into the borders of a 'Hate Speech' felony as defined by NYS. Did you not post a couple of KKK images earlier? What are you trying to say by posting KKK images and this kind of speech toward a brown person?

Cuomo and other Democrats love the modern plantation. It's how they stay in power. This is why nothing ever improves. 'We vote anther Democrat into power, but nothing changes.' No kidding, it took Teddy Roosevelt back in the day, and Giuliani more recently to clean things up in NYC. The plantation switched to the the Ghetto in most cities. Picking cotton became picking Democrats after 1964, and now the cities are Democrat controlled. You are a clear bigot, with no answers. Why would you need them? You have your slaves. PS - Some of us escape the plantation, you hate us the most. Am I an Uncle Tom, an Oreo or a coconut to you??? I'd like to know. I have to admit. I love your sticking to the typical Democrat racism, despite being given all of the hints. You hate me, a brown person who thinks for himself, almost as much as a white person. Equality! You really are 'special'.