Nicholas BagleyOvjeren akaunt

@nicholas_bagley

Law professor at the University of Michigan. Contributor at the Incidental Economist.

Ann Arbor, MI
law.umich.edu/FacultyBio/Pag…
Vrijeme pridruživanja: studeni 2013.
655 fotografija ili videozapisa Fotografije i videozapisi

Tweetovi

Blokirali ste korisnika/cu @nicholas_bagley

Jeste li sigurni da želite vidjeti te tweetove? Time nećete deblokirati korisnika/cu @nicholas_bagley

  1. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    prije 4 sata

    Preston Brooks: “Hold my cane.”

    0:02
    And there it is. The most classless act ever conducted in Congress, by Nancy Pelosi.
    Prikaži ovu nit
    13 proslijeđenih tweetova 93 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
    Poništi
  2. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    prije 13 sati

    in 1856 congressman Preston Brooks beat a senator nearly to death for criticizing slavery

    0:02
    And there it is. The most classless act ever conducted in Congress, by Nancy Pelosi.
    Prikaži ovu nit
    178 replies 14.190 proslijeđenih tweetova 76.965 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
    Poništi
  3. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    prije 6 sati

    Why are Trump's nonstop lies to Congress during his SOTU speech being treated as less of a breach of "decorum" than 's ripping up of his speech is?

    2.903 proslijeđena tweeta 7.819 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
    Poništi
  4. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    prije 15 sati

    On this day that Trump will once more lie about protecting pre-existing conditions, and coauthors also published an article in estimating that ONE-SIXTH of the access gains under the ACA were erased in 2017 alone.

    So there are false claims even in the *advance excerpts* of Trump's State of the Union. One big one: "We will always protect patients with pre-existing conditions." Fact check:
    45 proslijeđenih tweetova 62 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  5. prije 15 sati

    Oh sweet lord. This is a lie, and it’s the one that probably matters most to the American public. Yet he’ll get a pass on the front page: “Trump Delivers Defiant State of the Union” or some other such nonsense.

    So there are false claims even in the *advance excerpts* of Trump's State of the Union. One big one: "We will always protect patients with pre-existing conditions." Fact check:
    56 proslijeđenih tweetova 118 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
    Poništi
  6. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    prije 18 sati
    Odgovor korisniku/ci

    Also looking at language of guidance & what CMS said after rollout event, seems clear that waiver guidance could apply well beyond expansion group including some low-income parents that could & were covered pre-ACA expansion & could be shifted into block grant/cap waiver.

    1 reply 4 proslijeđena tweeta 7 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
    Poništi
  7. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    prije 19 sati

    25 replies 2.925 proslijeđenih tweetova 14.503 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
    Poništi
  8. prije 19 sati

    This is wonky, even by my standards. But it's really important if you care about the uses and abuses of Medicaid waivers.

    One small point about 's thoughtful and contrarian take on the new quasi-block grant rules. He says that "the proposed rule is still bound by a web of statutory restrictions." That's not quite right.
    Prikaži ovu nit
    3 proslijeđena tweeta 9 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
    Poništi
  9. prije 19 sati

    /fin

    2 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  10. prije 19 sati

    It's basically a message from HHS to Congress that all the rules it set up for the expansion population are nice, but they're not really binding, and they agency will ignore them as it sees fit -- even as it dispenses billions in governmental dollars.

    5 proslijeđenih tweetova 10 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  11. prije 19 sati

    And the legal move is in serious tension with conservatives' professed concern about the legal discretion of federal administrative agencies. If that concern is genuine, and not just a cloak for deregulation, this block grant proposal is an extraordinary abuse of legal power.

    1 reply 5 proslijeđenih tweetova 9 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  12. prije 19 sati

    If you think that's an extraordinary legal position, well, it is. And while it's clever, it's not remotely tenable. In the past, courts have allowed HHS to stretch its "expenditure authority" to cover small populations of childless adults. But this? It's categorically different.

    1 reply 2 proslijeđena tweeta 6 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  13. prije 19 sati

    The implication is that HHS has untrammeled legal authority over the entire ACA-expansion population. It could set new eligibility rules, change the match rate, strip away EHB protections -- it could do ANYTHING.

    5 proslijeđenih tweetova 9 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  14. prije 19 sati

    If they were covered under the state plan, as people in the ACA-expansion are, they'd be subject to statutory rules. But if they're treated as the objects of "expenditure authority," they're not. I know. It's complicated. But bear with me.

    1 reply 1 proslijeđeni tweet 3 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  15. prije 19 sati

    The reason is complicated, but basically the administration thinks that the individuals covered under these quasi-block grants can be treated as beneficiaries who otherwise would be ineligible for Medicaid -- much like childless adults have been included in some waivers pre-ACA.

    1 reply 2 proslijeđena tweeta 3 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  16. prije 19 sati

    Though it's hard to discern from the letter itself, the legal theory on which the administration is operating is *not* that those rules are imposed *as a matter of statute.* They're imposed as a matter of the agency's discretion.

    1 reply 1 proslijeđeni tweet 2 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  17. prije 19 sati

    One small point about 's thoughtful and contrarian take on the new quasi-block grant rules. He says that "the proposed rule is still bound by a web of statutory restrictions." That's not quite right.

    5 replies 4 proslijeđena tweeta 15 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  18. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    4. velj

    We don't know the Iowa results. But we do know this: The most caucus-goers said health-care is their No. 1 issue. And they favor and

    1 reply 3 proslijeđena tweeta 4 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
    Poništi
  19. 3. velj

    No disease outbreak is identical to the last one. But they do rhyme.

    5 proslijeđenih tweetova 11 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
    Poništi
  20. 3. velj

    Sweet lord this From is powerful. Bureaucracy matters for pandemic control—and Trump has dismantled the bureaucracy. It’s Michael Lewis’s Fifth Risk come to horrible life.

    10 replies 50 proslijeđenih tweetova 73 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
    Poništi

@nicholas_bagley još nije objavio nijedan Tweet.

Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.

    Možda bi vam se svidjelo i ovo:

    ·