#their closure is not just holding the big bad accountable. its also the community effort of forging a better future together
Note
hiiii really enjoyed your chenglingposting i was thinking about how sometimes the kids in adult stories function as a sort of barometer for optimism about the future in their views and options in life... obviously the alliance wants to continue the cycle of antagonizing and vengeance and conflict with the veneer of "honor" but. zcl gets to choose not to. its been a while since I either read or watched, do you know if zcl was ever onboard with actually wanting vengeance or if that was just being pushed on him? Obv its not super in line w his personality but grief could be a factor. i just thought it'd make a lot of sense if he changed his mind on that due to the influence of wenzhou and how they prioritize enjoying life w your people and following your own path over expectations. priest really took one more chance to emphasize breaking cycles/"if it sucks hit the bricks"
hi!! omg!!! thank you and im glad you enjoyed it! honestly this is a question i have been thinking about since at least two rereads ago. the show and the novel are handling this issue of zcl picking up his legacy / giving in to external expectations / finding out what he really wants in life a little differently, i think, as befitting of what they both focus on. ive said in my chenglingpost that the show is about legacy and inheritance in my eyes, while the novel is about martial arts and freedom of choice. obvs freedom of choice is a high priority in word of honor as well, but word of honor seems to have an overarching look, kind of focusing on the big picture and what a generation / a community needs rather than a few individuals, while the novel focuses exclusively on wenzhou and their little group and seems to handle the rest of the themes in priest's usual style. the show is about something "grand", the novel is about the mundane, almost boring human experience. martial arts play a bigger role in the latter too because they are a stand-in for many things that are hard to grasp, like autonomy. in chengling's context, martial arts are irrevocably linked with seeking revenge. i think that is specifically in the novel the case, not so much in the show. in the show seeking revenge is pushed onto him by others as well as inheriting his sect's legacy and becoming worthy of being his father's son. in the novel, the idea of seeking revenge is first presented to him by gu xiang, and it is actually this huge contrast to how others treat him because others "generously" offer to take revenge for him, while gu xiang tells him he can do that himself. we see with wen kexing that getting revenge does not make u happy. it gives u closure but it does not make u happy. i think that is something chengling learns during the novel. he gets closure in the end but it does not look the way he had imagined it would. i think he imagined himself to get super strong and then single-handedly slay his foes. yknow, as u often see in wuxia and as wen kexing literally does. then he starts learning martial arts and realizes getting super strong is actually not that easy, and this chasm between what he expects of himself and what he is able to achieve gets wider and wider and he falls into depression spirals, because to chengling, seeking revenge was taking ownership of his life and his trauma, and what use does he have when he cant even do that? that is the path wen kexing walks and it hollowed him out and it would have him kill himself if he hadnt met zhou zishu; wen kexing viewed himself as an instrument for a very long time rather than as someone deserving of having his own life. so obvs, that path is rubbish by itself (wkx gets his revenge and his closure and his life, good for him!) and its far too much for a kid. and i think, that is what chengling learns here: he only needs to do as much as he can, only bite off what he can chew, and the rest should not be his concern. and there really turns out to be a way to get everything he needs without walking the same path as wen kexing, as the novel proves, because wen kexing had nobody when he was in the same situation while trying to survive the valley, while chengling has wenzhou who guide him and shield him and love him. (crying myself into a huddle over wen kexing and chengling and them being foils of each other.) so in that sense youre already putting it into words. chengling seems to have changed his mind over the course of the novel, he doesnt have that same outlook on vengeance as he as in the start. i think thats different for the show. in the show, there is this weighing of the concept of revenge against the concept of getting justice, and what both these things do and require of a person and what they can offer u as an individual, but also u as a collective, in the long run. they are seen as two different things and are explored and qestioned individually. i think that can be seen in the conflict with chengling and all these expectations everyone has of him and how he handles that.
#i cant say much more regarding the show rn. but i think it does something very similar to the novel#re: wen kexing and chengling getting their closure parallel to each other and being foils of each other#one walking a path the other doesnt have to or doesnt get to#chengling is kinda symbolically getting the kind of justice wkx would have deserved to and gets now through chengling#but for the show#their closure is not just holding the big bad accountable. its also the community effort of forging a better future together#aa this went off track. but i cant get into more detail re: chengling and vengeance for the show. still in my rewatch!#i hope this answers your question anyway!!!!#thank you for sending it to me i had a lot of fun!#i have a lot more to say but tumblr seems to impose a word limit on answering asks! >:(#something something martial arts are zzs's way of communication and he uses that rather than his words to give chengling what he needs#something something practising martial arts helps chengling discover the boundaries of his own body and reverts him back into a child#rather than the orphaned failure of a son who needs revenge to give himself meaning. like a tool.#something something martial arts is both chengling's cause of suffering and his tool of freeing himself#something something zzs knows for pretty much most of the novel that zcl has this grand potential inside him and simply ignores it#something something chengling's shifu (he has a shifu in the novel before zzs!) is an idiot who doesnt even see his disciple's potential#who blames chengling instead of reflecting upon himself (and how thats kinda like schools blaming neurodivergent and other kids for failing#and how zzs notices chengling's inert dormant potential / difficulty practically immediately and is probs uniquely qualified to teach him#drawing from his own experience with harsh teaching methods and surviving impossible tasks and breaking through body limits and difficultie#paired with being bamf at martial arts and probs having this vast pool of knowledge#something something zzs acting nasty but doing good (and nobody knows) and chengling turning out happier and more stable in the end#inbox#geneticcatalyst#tian ya ke#faraway wanderers#word of honor#meta#zhang chengling#zhou zishu#wen kexing
3 notes
·
View notes
Text
18/01/2019: Closing a chapter of my life
This is a post I’ve been dreading to write. Just a warning too, its going to be very, very long. This will also unfortunately be my last post on this account.
5 weeks and 1 day. That’s how long its been since everything changed, since L ended things with me, and I’ve been trying my hardest to make sense of it all. I’ve been trying my best to find the words to be able to write this post, but I’ve really struggled. All I’m going to start off with is that my heart is absolutely, completely and utterly broken.
This is not how I imagined things would be. This is not how I wanted to end the distance. I imagined us together in our own house, with a couple of dogs, happy and inlove... not like this. Never in a million years did I think we’d end up like this, not with how inlove I was with him. It still doesn’t feel real. When you give someone all of you, love them harder than anything else you’ve ever loved in your life, you never expect them to tell you that they don’t want it anymore. That it’s not enough for them. It’s so hard to accept; its just unfathomable really. I wanted to marry him. I was willing to move across the country for this boy. I was so ready, and so excited. It’s just disappointing. I feel like I sacrificed so much for him. Put his needs before my own. Accepted the heartbreaking challenge of doing long distance without getting a choice in the matter. Supported him in going out and achieving his dreams while I waited here for him. And for what? Him to turn around and say he’s changed his mind and that he doesn’t feel the same anymore? That he doesn’t have the passion for the relationship and that he loves me but he’s not inlove with me now? This whole thing has left me devastatingly broken. And it hurts, my god does it hurt...
It’s been extremely hard and confusing for me to understand too. December 8th he told me that I’m the love of his life and that he can’t wait to come home to me, then on December 13th, only 5 days later… he told me he couldn’t do this anymore. It was absolutely soul shattering to hear those words. Especially because we hadn’t been fighting or anything. I thought we had been perfectly fine, he made me believe that we were doing better. He even texted me that morning saying that he loves me. Then later that night he completely pulled the rug out from under me.
He messaged me that Thursday night saying he wasn’t doing very well mentally and that he needs to talk to me. Me being me I dropped everything and called him immediately, desperately wanting to help him and understand why he was feeling this way. He wouldn’t completely tell me the truth behind it until I kept asking questions. When I asked him if he could think of one thing that makes him happier than anything else in the world, and he answered saying he’s happiest when being on holiday at the lake… my stomach dropped and I immediately knew what was going on; because he didn’t say he was happiest when he was with me.
This lead into me asking a whole bunch of other questions where I discovered that he had been apparently feeling miserable for months because he doesn’t think he wants to be with me anymore, because he feels like he’s changed, we’ve changed. This phone call was 3 hours long, yet I couldn’t grasp what was going on. I couldn’t believe it was actually happening.
I was a mess after that phone call. I knew deep in my heart there was no coming back from that. I knew what he wanted, and it completely broke me. My best friend and my brother had to come and physically restrain me because of how inconsolable I was. I felt like my whole world was ending, especially because of how blindsided I felt. Eventually my mum had to literally medicate me to make me calm down. My heart couldn’t take it. I think I slept for 2 whole days after that.
Even though I knew it was over, a couple days later I had a very weak moment and called him and basically begged for him to just keep trying, at least until he comes home and we see each other (which was only a week away… I’d been looking forward to it for ages. I hadn’t seen him in 2 months... he was coming home for christmas on the 20th of december). But my god, it felt so degrading. No one should ever have to beg someone to not give up on them, or to try harder or love them back. I never wanted to stoop that low but I was in shock and I was desperate. And to my utter dismay- he said no. He didn’t want to try anymore. He said he’s been trying for months and it still just doesn’t feel right. This outraged me because 1, he hadn’t been completely honest and open with me about how he was feeling this way and 2, giving someone the bare minimum is NOT ‘trying’. He stopped meeting my needs a long time ago and I was too blinded by love to understand this. I deserved so much better than that. I deserve someone whose sure about me 100% of the time. I deserve someone whose consistent with their love and effort, which he very much lacked on and off throughout our whole relationship. His words rarely matched up to his actions. One day he’d say he loves me more than life itself and that he wants to marry me, the next he would hardly even speak to me. Complete head fuck right? But I stuck around because I loved him. Maybe that’s my own fault.
He was messaging me every day after that phone call- I don’t really know why, I think the guilt from hurting me was eating him up inside to be honest- but I just couldn’t reply to his messages. I needed space. I needed time to let it all sink in and to be able to reflect on it all. I eventually messaged him and asked him to give me the respect of ending things in person, where I can ask questions, get closure and say goodbye. He agreed and wanted that too.
It’s so painful having to say goodbye to someone you wanted forever with. But I did it. I went over to his house a couple days after he arrived home and I got say my peace and get the closure I needed.
And although I am hesitant to say, I also did end up seeing him a couple more times before he flew back home - alcohol and a broken heart dont mix well folks, trust me - but I surprisingly found that it didnt make things worse for me, because I had already accepted that this break up is probably for the best... dont get me wrong it was sad, and confusing but it was also nice to just be together, talk and take our time to say goodbye; our last goodbye, and the hardest one of all. It was especially hard seeing him cry along with me at the thought of it being the last time. But as I had time to reflect on it all leading up to seeing him each time, I came to the conclusion that this was for the best, and I told him that too. I knew I wasn’t being treated right, I knew I deserved better, I knew the distance had gotten to us too much, and I knew we both weren’t happy. But it was nice to end things on a good note and say goodbye in our own way.
During the past month I have rediscovered my worth and realized that I have so, so, SO much love to give, and if he doesn’t want it, then thats truely his loss. I put him on a pedestal for the longest time and forgot about myself through it all. I haven’t been fair to myself. So now, I think its time I put myself first- in every aspect of my life, not just through the break up. I’m going to try my best to leave all heartache in 2018, and begin to focus on my self worth, growth and all things positive in 2019.
As much as this hurts and as much as it killed me to do long distance this past year, I really have no regrets. I gave 110% of myself to this relationship and to L. I put my heart and soul on the line for someone I love and I think that’s something to be proud of- it’s actually admirable I think. Like a friend recently told me, I let someone know how it felt to be loved by me, and that’s beautiful. I love so damn hard too, and I deserve to get the same love back. Consistently. I also just want to make note that as much as this has hurt me, I don’t and will never wish ill upon him at all. I really just want him to be happy, and if that means not being with me anymore then so be it. I don’t think of him as a bad person- just someone whose young, and isn’t sure about what he wants. I’ve also realized that I can’t hate him for feeling a certain way. I don’t want to. That wouldn’t be fair. At the end of the day, as much as I tried to hold on, I think I always knew it wasn’t meant to be. There’s been too much hurt in the past, and the relationship was damaged from early on from certain things I think. The distance was also really, really difficult for both of us too; even though I felt like I could deal with it because I believed it would be worth it in the end, I guess he just couldn’t handle it, and that’s fair enough. Being away from the person you love constantly changes you. Its heart breaking.
I’ll always love the person he is, and forever cherish every amazing memory we ever shared. Our love was epic. The past 2/3 years have been some of the happiest moments of my life- despite it being a rollercoaster at times. And I owe a lot to Luke and will always respect him. I just know now that maybe we’re not meant to be, and that’s ok. As hard as it is to accept that it’s over, and that i’ll never see him again (that part tears me up inside ugh), I’ll always remember him as my first love, and I’ll always appreciate the beautiful times we had together. I still love him, I think I always will, but I’m a big believer in everything happens for a reason, and I know I’ll be stronger from this.
I just want to also say a big thank you to everyone who has gone on this journey with me, for all the love and support and advice shared. It’s helped more than you know. I don’t think I would’ve made it this far without you guys. I’m going to miss being apart of this beautiful little community of long distance and military couples. Even though it didn’t work out for me, I still believe long distance can work and that those who are willing to make it work, no matter the struggles, are some of the strongest and most noblest people around.
But just remember, if you’re giving more than you’re getting, if you’re beginning to question your worth, if you’re crying more than you are happy, if you’re the only one holding on and trying to make it work, then you need to be honest and fair to yourself and understand that you deserve so, so much better- and you will find that one day, I promise. A part of me wishes I had’ve realised sooner.
I’m closing a chapter of my life, only to begin a new one. I hope 2019 blesses all of you. Best of luck with everything, I really am rooting for you all!
(I’m also not going to delete this blog. It holds way too many incredible memories and posts of happier times that I would like to look back on in years to come. And although it makes me sad now, I just think its so special and it may also be able to help others to read. But, like I said earlier, this will unfortunately be my last post...
If you’d like to contact me in anyway from now on I will be using my main blog more regularly. You can find me at:
http://tr-anspar-ent.tumblr.com/)
Stay strong, keep fighting through the distance and for the ones you love. Always remember you’re not alone.
Love always,
Hayley x
#thelifeofhayleymarie#break up#long distance#long distance relationship#ldr#milso#heartbroken#heartbreak#heartache#love#self worth#military life#miltary couple#airforce couple#long distance couple#long distance struggles#ending the distance#closing a chapter#ex boyfriend#devastated#strong#deserve better#deserve more#ldr break up#new year#breaking up#broken heart
29 notes
·
View notes
Text
After the earthquake on the Amazon platform, where is the way out for cross-border e-commerce businesses?
As early as April this year, Amazon has already started its action, and it has continued to this day, and the vigorous store closure has not stopped. In the Amazon store closure incident, many well-known big sellers were affected by the turmoil, and the losses were very heavy. It made cross-border e-commerce sellers sit on pins and needles, for fear that they would be the next one to be dealt with.
The operations director of a major seller revealed that his company has been blocked more than 180 stores, more than 30 brands have been affected, the total frozen amount reached 85.2 million, and the blocked goods amounted to 140 million yuan. (CCTV Finance)
The main account of Amazon's big seller Paterson, known as the "first cross-border share of A shares," was severely punished. The registration of its brand Mpow was cancelled by the platform, funds were frozen, and the account was blocked.
Nearly 340 sites of the listed seller Tianze Information's "Youkeshu" have been blocked, and 130 million yuan of funds have been frozen.
Aoji, one of the “Four Young Masters of South China City”, has a large number of links to Amazon stores that have failed and his account has been blocked (China Observer).
At present, there has also been a "brand-sit" penalty system, which has made the sellers panic. After the account was blocked, all the inventory could not be cleared. In the past, it was possible to register an account to continue the clearing. Now this trick is also cut off. The big sales are helpless, let alone small and medium-sized sales with limited resources.
The once-popular Amazon platform has attracted a large number of people to jump into the river of cross-border e-commerce, and many people have indeed made money. However, as the threshold of the platform is getting lower and lower, a large number of sellers who do not abide by the rules of the platform have an opportunity to take advantage of it, which also paved the way for the subsequent series of turmoil and tragedies.
So how did all this happen? What can cross-border e-commerce companies do besides entering the Amazon platform? Independent station? Omni-channel development? Today, GOGO analysts will take you to start a chat.
The life and death of the Amazon platform
At first, the biggest feature of attracting sellers to stay on Amazon is that the platform has huge traffic, which is suitable for start-up cross-border entrepreneurs. Secondly, almost all Amazon customers place orders to complete their purchases. This has a lot to do with the platform's structure that emphasizes display over customer service. Compared with the domestic customer service that is available 24 hours a day, Amazon's customer service work is much easier, and the email rate is low, so the efficiency is high.
Furthermore, compared with domestic Golden Crown sellers who will get more traffic recommendations, Amazon does not care. Whether it is a fruitful old store or a new store that has just stepped into it, as long as your product description is complete and the introduction happens to be what consumers need, it will be strongly recommended to buyers by the platform to increase the exposure of the product and the store.
But in addition to these advantages, the disadvantages are also huge. The source of customers will never be in their own hands. For sellers, this is similar to how you can set up a stall with me. But the guests come at random, and you will never get the information of the guests. If new products are released, old customers cannot be notified, and the platform has all the information. If there is a better product, you will be replaced or even forgotten immediately, which will undoubtedly hurt the sellers who want to establish a brand.
Foreign customers prefer the Amazon platform instead of the Amazon brand. The big brands such as Nike and Louis Vuitton have also spotted the characteristic of Amazon's own large traffic. As a result, they withdrew soon after joining. What is the problem?
First, the issue of brand image impact. Big-brand products are plagiarized by copycat products. The so-called grouping of things, imagine that when you enter a high-end department store, all you see are luxury brands, and knockoffs are simply not available. If you have a good shopping on the official Amazon Nike page, suddenly a copycat brand called "Mike" pops up next to it. The products in it are plagiarized, which is too abrupt.
Secondly, as we all know, Amazon started out by selling books and then clearing the goods, so most of the products on the website are out of the circle with high cost performance. Nike was once inferior to other third-source individual sellers on Amazon, because their prices were too low. It is because of the existence of such malicious sellers who hold down prices and do not abide by the rules, which messes up the pool of clean water.
The big-name authentic brands have focused their efforts on product research, while sellers of other knockoff brands have begun to research black technology, desperately looking for loopholes in the platform. This is unfair to the big names.
Consumers on the Amazon platform value products more than platforms. They first compare a product, and then search and compare it across the entire platform, and buy whichever is the most cost-effective. These are no advantages for merchants who want to establish a brand on Amazon.
In addition, what is even more outrageous is that Amazon's internal vicious battles, bad money expelling good money also happened. The real case is that some smart Chinese merchants have taken a different approach, opened up the blue ocean product market and have been in the top few of the Amazon category, but there are always people who look jealous and want to get a piece of the pie. What if you can't distribute the traffic on your own? He can make your things unsellable. Everyone knows that Amazon’s customers also look at evaluations in addition to sales. So individual merchants spend high prices to hire a large number of bad reviewers, naval forces and even a large number of low-priced follow-up products. In the end, the sales of those sellers who were successful at the beginning have plummeted. 'S products are rotten in overseas warehouses, unable to recover...
If you put the eggs in several baskets from the beginning, leaving a retreat may not end so miserably. Making a platform is like walking a single-plank bridge, and there is a cliff below! Thousands of people are walking, and you never know which one will come first. Whether it is the squeeze of the peers or the change of policy, the bridge will be shaken, and the final result will only be thrown off the cliff.
Stand-alone station-first difficult and then easy
According to the survey, whether it is in the United States or Japan, independent sites account for the majority of traffic, while e-commerce platforms like Amazon are still at a disadvantage. This is because foreign brands have their own independent websites no matter how big or small they are, because they know how to promote brand awareness. This is a complete communication chain: know the brand-accept the brand-buy the brand-believe in the brand-buy back the brand. They will not only buy but also help you spread, such as sharing with friends and relatives or posting on social media to let more people know the existence of the brand.
This model is suitable for foreign trade companies and foreign trade factories with relatively large scale and resources. Independent stations can achieve DTC. The most important thing is that all traffic can be introduced into independent stations, whether it is offline, online, or celebrity marketing, to directly realize traffic monetization. On the other hand, the platform cannot be realized, not only can it not be realized, it will even divide your traffic.
So in addition to the above-mentioned building brand awareness, what are the advantages of independent stations?
1. Merchants have greater autonomy. There are no product and category restrictions on the entire webpage. You can upload your own products and make your own rules.
2. Firmly grasp customer resources. Eliminates the need for middlemen, and directly grasps the customer's first-hand information, such as telephone number, address and mailbox, etc., to achieve secondary marketing and new product promotion.
3. Avoid risks. There is no need to worry about the various rules, constraints, and policy changes on the platform, which can effectively avoid the embarrassing situation of goods being seized and unable to be sold due to violations.
4. The method of building a website is quick and easy to use. With the rise of fast website building tools, such as Shopify, the threshold for enterprise website building has been greatly reduced, with simple operation and convenient product delivery.
5. A preferential system to attract consumers. Unlike on the platform, merchants can customize the strength of discounts, dates, and various preferential membership points systems, student discounts, etc., and more flexibility can attract more consumers.
I’ve heard a metaphor before. I think it’s very interesting. Merchants on Amazon and other platforms are like animals raised at home, giving you traffic support and platform promotion. You enjoy all this, as if you deserve rain and dew, and nourish your life. Every day. But forget that the business world is a dangerous place like the wild world. If you don't pay attention to it, it may be swallowed. Is the term "the weak and the strong" is rare? On the other hand, people who work as independent stations are like animals in the wild world. There is no flow and no resources, and everything needs to work hard to prey. After a long period of time, people who stand alone know where the food is, and the source of customers is tightly in their own hands, while those who are platforms are still waiting to be fed. If one day is fasted, I don’t know where to hunt, let alone ability, and I can only starve to death.
Back to the old saying that coins have pros and cons. What are the disadvantages of independent stations? The most worrying thing for everyone is, what should I do if the station is built but no one comes to see it? If there is no flow blessing, it is an empty body, and if there is no flow blessing, you have to go out for food by yourself. This is the first difficult and easy path. To be a platform is the opposite. It is easy first and then difficult. Don't worry about traffic, but all customers have to depend on others, and always give one to one. So how can we get traffic?
In response to this problem, I have summarized the following ways of drainage:
1. Internet celebrity marketing: mainly using foreign social media software, such as Facebook, Instagram, etc. This requires us to find suitable Internet celebrities, understand overseas cultures and current trends. The combination of appropriate content and matching celebrities can attract the attention of local consumers.
2. Optimize SEO: domestic platforms share search traffic, and overseas search behavior is still mainly focused on search engines, which can optimize SEO, improve the natural ranking of the website in search engines, attract more users to visit the website, and increase the number of visits to the website. Sales ability and publicity ability, thereby enhancing the brand effect of the website.
3. Use SEM: According to the way users use search engines, use the opportunity of users to retrieve information to deliver marketing information to target users as much as possible.
4. Increase exposure: Google shopping can be established as a new traffic channel.
5. Advertising: You can open Facebook and Google ads to directly purchase accurate traffic.
Drainage is also a science. By taking these steps, companies can see an increase in website traffic over time. The most important thing is to choose a drainage method that suits you according to the product characteristics of the brand, do a good job of research and then take action, and continue to move forward by trying various methods and analyzing the results.
Mature brand spread across all channels
If your price is low and you don't want to cooperate with others, then stand alone is the best choice. Secondly, if the profit is high, omnichannel development (Omnichannel) can also be done. This model is suitable for entrepreneurs with a certain scale and resources. The independent station is just one step, this is because overseas, especially in Europe, is still mainly offline. You can enter department stores, personal retail stores, and find suitable e-commerce platforms based on product positioning, such as low-end Asos, high-end Farfetch and Selfridges, etc. to sell goods through multiple channels, and the profit margin is also increased by multiples. .
Without Amazon, a company that builds its own independent station and develops offline can also be very successful. For example, in The Hut Group in Manchester, their company has a lot of products, beauty protein powder, etc. They have also made achievements step by step through omni-channel development. Currently, the company has more than 5,000 employees.
For brands, to capture omni-channel traffic, they must have two capabilities.
The first is omni-channel insight: consumers of different sales channels have completely different characteristics and needs. Online users can find suitable channels through big data and operational experience. Offline ones can use market research to ask customers' preferences and opinions and then follow-up market analysis to obtain retail stores and distributors suitable for their own brands.
The second is omni-channel service capabilities: supply chain capabilities can meet the needs of localized operations, such as overseas smart warehousing and logistics, which can be its own overseas warehouses or third-party overseas warehouses. In addition, it is necessary to have a service department in the local market, which can be a branch established by itself, or a third party can be entrusted to provide this service, such as local customer service, product display, and sales agent.
To sum up, the three stages are suitable for different people.
The first Amazon platform is suitable for entrepreneurs who are just starting out.
The second independent station is suitable for foreign trade companies and foreign trade factories with relatively large scale and resources.
The third omni-channel development is suitable for entrepreneurs with a certain scale and resources.
According to the ability to choose the development route that suits oneself, the horizon of the platform is indeed not broad enough. With the creation and development of overseas warehouses, a series of pre-sales and after-sales services such as delivery, return and even maintenance can be realized. Independent station is just a channel, you can control yourself. If we do omni-channel development, we can ensure that the supply chain, warehousing and logistics can keep up without losing the chain. Offline activities can also be entrusted to a local third-party organization to help you handle them. All the facilities are complete. Although the people are in China, the difference between your brand and overseas local brands is gradually becoming smaller. Because of the development of the Internet, you can do everything they can do, and even more than they can do. Better to be more successful.
Are you still worried about not finding a professional and reliable team to help you develop overseas local markets?
IGM Beehive Entrepreneurship Bootcamp is a subsidiary of IGM Beehive Entrepreneurship Bootcamp, and its full name is IGM Beehive Entrepreneurship Bootcamp. Yingpai Ruifeng Chuangying is an entrepreneurial incubation center established in Manchester, UK. It mainly helps startup companies or individuals in Europe and China to solve problems related to starting a business. At the same time, it gathers various social resources to help companies achieve business profit growth and corporate upgrades. , Provide professional services for cross-border e-commerce brands, truly realize the freedom of localization, and completely solve your worries!
ferrite sheet:https://www.goodsmaterial.com
0 notes
Text
Another Soda Tax Bill Dies. Another Win for Big Soda.
SACRAMENTO — A rogue industry. A gun to our head. Extortion.
This story also ran on San Francisco Chronicle. It can be republished for free.
That’s how infuriated lawmakers described soft drink companies — and what they pulled off in 2018 when they scored a legislative deal that bars California’s cities and counties from imposing taxes on sugary drinks.
Yet, despite its tarnished reputation, the deep-pocketed industry continues to exert its political influence in the nation’s most populous state, spending millions of dollars on politically connected lobbyists and doling out campaign contributions to nearly every state lawmaker.
The result? Bills long opposed by Coca-Cola Co., PepsiCo and other beverage companies continue to flounder. Just two weeks ago, a measure that would have undone the 2018 deal that lawmakers so vehemently protested was shelved without a hearing.
“Big Soda is a very powerful lobby,” said Eric Batch, vice president of advocacy at the American Heart Association, which has petitioned lawmakers nationwide to crack down on sugar-laden drinks that health advocates say contribute to diabetes, obesity and other costly medical conditions.
“They’ve spent a lot of money in California to stop groups like ours from passing good policy,” Batch added. “And they’ve been doing it for a long time.”
In the past four years, soft drink companies spent about $5.9 million lobbying California lawmakers and giving to their campaigns or favorite charities. A California Healthline analysis of campaign finance records from Jan. 1, 2017, to Dec. 31, 2020, found that the American Beverage Association, Coca-Cola and Pepsi have given to nearly every state officeholder — from Gov. Gavin Newsom to roughly five-sixths of the 120-member legislature.
The American Beverage Association declined an interview request to discuss its political giving and this year’s bill that would have upended the soda tax moratorium it helped orchestrate. Coca-Cola and Pepsi did not return requests seeking comment.
In 2018, the industry spent $8.9 million to boost a statewide ballot measure sponsored by the California Business Roundtable that would have made it more difficult for cities and counties to levy taxes — not just taxes on sugary drinks — by requiring them to be approved by two-thirds of voters instead of a simple majority. Fearful that local governments could face a higher voting threshold for taxes and fees that would fund libraries, public safety and other services, lawmakers at the time said they had no choice but to negotiate with the industry.
In a deal that several lawmakers described as “extortion” and a “Sophie’s Choice,” the legislature agreed to pass a bill banning new local taxes on sugary drinks until Jan. 1, 2031, if the industry and other supporters dropped the ballot measure. Then-Gov. Jerry Brown, who had dined with industry executives several weeks before, signed the bill.
The California deal was a coup for Big Soda, which doesn’t appear to have paid a political price: Legislation that would have imposed a state tax on sugary drinks died a year later, as did a bill that would have required health warning labels on sugary drinks and another that would have banned sodas in grocery store checkout aisles.
This year’s bill, which would have reinstated cities and counties’ ability to put soda taxes before voters, is all but dead.
“They’re gaming the political system,” said Assembly member Adrin Nazarian (D-North Hollywood), the author of AB 1163. Nazarian said he hopes to revive the measure before April 30, the deadline for policy committees to hear legislation for the year.
“It’s one thing for us to make a bad policy decision once,” he said. “It’s another thing to give a signal to all the industries that will then utilize this loophole against us. How many more times are we going to be doing this?”
Public health advocates point to such taxes as a way to cut consumption of soda, sports drinks, fruit juices and other sweet beverages, citing studies that show the more they cost, the less people buy them. On average, a can of soda contains 10 teaspoons of sugar, nearly the entire recommended daily amount for someone who eats 2,000 calories a day. Some energy drinks contain twice that.
Four California cities — Albany, Berkeley, Oakland and San Francisco — had soda taxes in place before the 2018 legislative deal that were allowed to remain. Boulder, Colorado; Philadelphia; Seattle; and the Navajo Nation also have soda taxes, with proposals under consideration in Rhode Island and Washington, D.C.
The revenue stream from the taxes could help fund financially strapped public health departments depleted by the covid pandemic, health advocates say.
For example, last year San Francisco directed $1.6 million of its soda tax revenue to local programs that feed residents affected by school closures and job losses. Seattle tapped its soda tax revenue to give grocery vouchers to its hardest-hit residents.
Nazarian said he expected his attempt to undo the soda tax moratorium to be an uphill battle, but he is frustrated the bill was denied even one hearing.
Nazarian, like lawmakers before him, is butting up against a strong anti-tax environment in U.S. politics, said Tatiana Andreyeva, director of economic initiatives at the University of Connecticut’s Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity. So, while more than 40 countries have imposed national taxes on sugary drinks — including the United Kingdom, Mexico, Portugal and South Africa — national and state efforts have stalled here.
There’s also the political might of the soda industry.
“Look at how much money they spend fighting all these bills that have been proposed,” said Andreyeva, who has studied the soda industry since 2007. “We have seen dozens and dozens of bills at the state and local level. There’s always a lot of opposition by the industry. They are well-funded, they will organize and it’s very hard.”
In California, soft drink companies spent $4.4 million in the past four years lobbying lawmakers and state officials, treating them to dinners and sporting events. They hired veteran political firms staffed by former government employees who know how the Capitol works and often already have relationships with lawmakers and their aides.
For instance, until earlier this year the American Beverage Association had Fredericka McGee on its payroll as its top California lobbyist. She had worked for five Assembly speakers. Now, McGee is chief of staff to Los Angeles County Supervisor Holly Mitchell, a former state legislator who in 2018 was the chair of the powerful Senate Budget Committee, which oversaw the deal banning new local soda taxes.
In addition to lobbying, the industry spent just over $1.5 million on contributions to lawmakers, including big checks written to charities on their behalf.
The largest contributions flowed to the lawmakers with the most influence.
Pepsi and Coca-Cola gave a total of $25,000 to charities in the name of Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, according to the state Fair Political Practices Commission, which tracks the donations, known as “behested payments.” That’s on top of the $35,900 Rendon collected in his campaign account from the industry over the past four years.
Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins cashed $26,000 in campaign checks from Coca-Cola and Pepsi, and accepted a $5,000 donation to one of her charities from Coke’s bottling plant in her San Diego district.
In an emailed statement, Rendon described the issue of sugary drinks as complex and said he co-authored legislation in 2015 that would have imposed a tax on distributors of sugary drinks. It died in committee.
“I want us to do something to reduce the consumption of sweetened beverages,” Rendon said. “These bills have been hard to pass, but I think it’s simplistic to pin it on contributions.”
Atkins did not comment on Big Soda’s political power but said in an emailed statement she would review Nazarian’s bill “on its merits” if it comes before the Senate.
Nazarian’s bill is on hold in the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee, led by Autumn Burke (D-Inglewood). A spokesperson for Burke did not return calls and emails requesting comment.
Burke also received money from soda companies, collecting about $22,000 from Coca-Cola, Pepsi and the American Beverage Association from 2017 through 2020.
Public health groups aren’t willing to admit defeat and are mobilizing a grassroots effort to get a hearing for Nazarian’s bill. They say California must address the disproportionate health effects of sugary drinks on Black and Latino communities, which covid-19 only exacerbated.
“If the members of the legislature were looking at data and using data as the decision-making criteria for whether we should allow a ban on local taxes to be lifted, they would have to support that,” said Michael Dimock, president of Roots of Change, a program of the Public Health Institute. “But they are not looking at the data. Something else is influencing them.”
Elizabeth Lucas of KHN contributed to this report.
Methodology
How California Healthline compiled data about soda companies’ political spending
Among the ways soft drink companies exert influence on the political process are contributing money to campaigns; hiring lobbyists; plying elected officials with drinks, meals and event tickets; and making charitable contributions on the behalf of lawmakers.
Using the California secretary of state’s website, California Healthline downloaded campaign contributions made by the American Beverage Association PAC, Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo — the three largest contributors from Jan. 1, 2017, to Dec. 31, 2020.
To track lobbying, we created a spreadsheet of expenses reported on lobbying disclosure forms, also available on the secretary of state’s website, by the American Beverage Association, Coca-Cola and Pepsi. We found details about how much the industry paid lobbying firms and which lawmakers, or members of their staff, accepted gifts.
To find how much these entities gave in charitable contributions, California Healthline pulled data on “behested payments” from the California Fair Political Practices Commission website. These are payments special interests can make to a charity or organization on behalf of a lawmaker. Sometimes, a few of these payments also show up on lobbying forms. We compared the behested payments with the lobbying reports to ensure we did not double-count money.
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
USE OUR CONTENT
This story can be republished for free (details).
Another Soda Tax Bill Dies. Another Win for Big Soda. published first on https://nootropicspowdersupplier.tumblr.com/
0 notes
Text
11 ways to fix America’s fundamentally broken Democracy This is a Great, Easy To Understand Explanation of Our Rigged System and How We Can Re-Imagine America...
The United States has a president who received nearly 3 million fewer votes than his Democratic opponent. Currently, over half the country lives in just nine states, which means that less than half of the population controls 82 percent of the Senate. It also means that Republicans hold a majority in the Senate despite the fact that Democratic senators represent more than half of the American people.
Intentional efforts to make it harder to vote, such as voter ID laws, are increasingly common throughout the states — and the Supreme Court frequently approaches such voter suppression with indifference. Gerrymandering renders many legislative elections irrelevant — in 2018, Republicans won nearly two-thirds of the seats in the Wisconsin state assembly, even though Democratic candidates received 54 percent of the popular vote. Wealthy donors flood elections with money, as lawmakers spend thousands of hours on “call time,” dialing the rich to fund the next campaign.
And looming over all of this is the problem of race. In some states, Republican lawmakers write voter suppression laws that target voters of color with, in the word of one federal appeals court, “almost surgical precision,” knowing that a law that targets minority votes will primarily disenfranchise Democrats.
Congressional Democrats are acutely aware of many of these problems. And they’ve devised some fairly aggressive plans to combat these attacks on the franchise.
The first bill House Democrats rolled out after they took charge of the House in 2019 was the “For the People Act,” which would be the most significant voting rights legislation since the Voting Rights Act of 1965 if it were to become law (that bill is often referred to as “HR 1,” its official designation in the House’s internal system for keeping track of bills). A companion bill, HR 4, would strengthen the Voting Rights Act and restore many parts of the law that were neutralized by the Supreme Court.
As several voting rights advocates told me, these two bills represent a hard-won consensus among Democrats, and among the voting rights community more broadly, on what must be done to shore up American democracy. It’s “taken a long time to build consensus” around this package of proposals, according to Wendy Weiser, head of the democracy program at the Brennan Center for Justice and one of the advocates who helped build that consensus. And the two House bills that emerged would likely be the most comprehensive voting rights legislation ever enacted by Congress.
And yet, if enacted, House Democrats’ voting rights legislation would still fall short of addressing the major challenges facing our democracy. The bills do little, for example, to address Senate malapportionment. And nothing to prevent the Electoral College from handing the presidency to popular vote losers.
It all begins with securing our right to vote
The first batch of ideas all aim to do one thing: secure our right to vote. Voter suppression — from voter ID laws to polling place closures to voter roll purges — have compromised many Americans voters’ rights. Strengthening our democracy begins with restoring and bolstering those rights.
1) First things first: Get rid of the filibuster
If elected president, Biden could potentially do more to protect the franchise than any chief executive since Lyndon Johnson. Or, Biden could end up with few, if any, legislative accomplishments.
It all comes down to what a Democratic Congress could pass. Should Democrats win a majority in both houses, eyes will turn to the Senate, which will have to choose between unraveling the filibuster — which typically prevents any legislation from becoming law unless it is supported by 60 senators — and unraveling hope that major voting rights legislation, or any other big progressive legislation, will become law.
To win a filibuster-proof majority, Democrats would need to get to 60 seats from the 47 they currently have — and even if they get that (which is highly unlikely), that would only mean that they had enough votes to pass legislation supported by the most conservative Democrat in the Senate. Barring a historic electoral calamity for the GOP, the Republican Party will have enough votes to filibuster any voting rights bill that reaches the Senate floor, unless Democrats vote to strip away the filibuster.
RELATED
Obama: The filibuster is a “Jim Crow relic”
There are signs that Democrats are starting to understand this problem. At Rep. John Lewis’s (D-GA) funeral in July, former President Barack Obama called for eliminating the filibuster, which he called a “Jim Crow relic,” if necessary to enact voting rights legislation. Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), once one of the most vocal Democratic defenders of the filibuster, now appears likely to vote to kill it if Republicans use it to sabotage a Biden administration. Biden himself signaled support in July for filibuster reform if Senate Republicans are too “obstreperous,” although his advisers have cast doubt on the prospect.
The success of a Biden presidency could rest on whether the Senate has the votes to make Republican obstreperousness irrelevant.
2) Stop voting rights violations before they happen
A perennial problem in voting rights litigation: When a state enacts an illegal restriction on the franchise, it takes courts several years to strike that law down. In Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill (2019), for example, the Supreme Court allowed a lower court decision invalidating an unconstitutional racial gerrymander to go into effect. But that was after the state held several elections using these illegal maps.
As Lisa Cylar Barrett, director of policy for the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund told me, we need a “mechanism that allows for the screening” of voting laws “before elections happen.”
Which brings us to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 5 required states and localities with a history of racial voter suppression to “preclear” any new voting rules with the Justice Department or with a federal court in Washington, DC. The idea was to catch efforts at voter suppression before they disenfranchise voters, and before a state can run an election using racist rules.
But the Supreme Court effectively deactivated Section 5 in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). Though the Court’s 5-4 decision in Shelby County did not strike down Section 5’s pre-clearance regime altogether, it did invalidate the formula the Voting Rights Act used to determine which states are subject to pre-clearance.
HR 4 is the House Democratic proposal to address Shelby County. It lays out a new formula: jurisdictions with “fifteen or more voting rights violations” in the previous 15 years, or states with “ten or more voting rights violations” if at least one was committed by the state itself, will be subject to pre-clearance under the regime laid out in the bill.
One problem with this regime is that pre-clearance is only as good as the officials who oversee it. A Justice Department led by Attorney General Bill Barr is likely to rubber stamp voter suppression laws that benefit Republicans, as could Trump-appointed judges.
Yet, as Franita Tolson, a law professor and vice dean at the University of Southern California, told me, “there have always been bad actors.” And yet, she argues, ”pre-clearance was still effective in the Reagan years” and “it was still effective in the Bush years.”
Tolson says the fact that states have to submit new voting laws for approval has a “substantial deterrent effect,” because they are less likely to even attempt to obtain pre-clearance for the most egregious acts of racial voter suppression. And even if states do obtain pre-clearance for a bad law, the pre-clearance process is burdensome in and of itself.
Which raises another important aspect of HR 4 — in addition to laying out a formula governing jurisdictions that are automatically subject to pre-clearance, the bill also makes it easier for federal judges to require states to pre-clear new laws if states or localities are caught violating voting rights.
Currently, judges may only do so if a jurisdiction violates the 14th or 15th Amendment rights of voters — violations that typically can only be established if the state intentionally engaged in racial voter discrimination. HR 4 allows judges to impose pre-clearance on states and localities that commit “violations of the 14th or 15th Amendment, violations of this Act, or violations of any Federal law that prohibits discrimination in voting on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.”
In practice, that means that a jurisdiction could be subject to pre-clearance if it enacts a law that “results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color,” even if the plaintiffs challenging this law cannot prove intentional discrimination.
Just as significantly, the possibility that a jurisdiction might be subjected to a burdensome pre-clearance regime if it engages in racial voter suppression may deter it from attempting to do so.
3) Eliminate registration as an obstacle to voting
At least 21 states plus the District of Columbia permit voters to register to vote on the same day that they cast their ballot — thus effectively eliminating the need to register in advance as an obstacle to the franchise. Nor is same-day registration a particularly new reform. Maine, Minnesota, and Wisconsin adopted it in the 1970s. Three more states — Idaho, New Hampshire, and Wyoming — adopted same-day registration in the mid-’90s.
One benefit of eliminating registration as an obstacle to voting is that it prevents voter purges that can change the outcome of an election. In the lead-up to the 2000 election, for example, Florida hired a private contractor to identify ineligible voters on the state’s rolls. The contractor eventually came up with about 100,000 names that it claimed were names of dead voters or voters who were ineligible because of a felony conviction.
But the list was deeply flawed and misidentified many eligible voters. One local election supervisor realized just how flawed the list was when he recognized the name of three voters who were wrongly flagged as ineligible: one of his co-workers, the husband of a different co-worker, and his own father. African Americans, a group that preferred Democrat Al Gore over Republican George W. Bush by more than 9 to 1, were particularly likely to appear on the flawed purge list.
Bush would go on to win Florida — and with it, the presidency — by just 537 votes, according to official tallies.
The HR 1 legislation contains several provisions that would help prevent a repeat of this incident, and that would otherwise prevent registration from being an obstacle to the franchise. Among other things, it requires states to offer same-day registration in federal elections. It automatically registers voters who provide relevant information to their local Department of Motor Vehicles or other agencies listed in the bill. And it forbids certain types of voter purges.
4) Make it as easy as possible to vote
Thirty-nine states plus the District of Columbia allow early voting — meaning that voters can vote in-person prior to Election Day. All but nine states either automatically mail ballots to all registered voters, or allow any voter who wishes to vote absentee to request a ballot.
In ordinary times, these reforms help ensure that voters are not disenfranchised because they cannot take time off work on Election Day, or because they will be away from home on that day. And in the midst of a pandemic, they help ensure that polling places do not become vectors for the spread of Covid-19. They limit the number of voters who vote in person, and spread out those voters who do cast an in-person ballot over several days.
HR 1 would require all states to offer early voting for at least 10 hours a day, and for at least 15 days prior to Election Day. Notably, this includes weekends — some states have attempted to cut Sunday voting, a day that is particularly popular with African American voters, because Black churches frequently organize voting drives immediately after Sunday services.
The legislation also requires states to allow all voters to vote absentee.
Additionally, HR 1 says states that require voters to present ID at the polls generally must also accept “a sworn written statement, signed by the individual under penalty of perjury, attesting to the individual’s identity and attesting that the individual is eligible to vote in the election.”
Voter ID laws are a common obstacle to the franchise, but they serve no legitimate purpose. Although proponents of such laws often argue they are necessary to prevent voter fraud, voter impersonation at the polls is so rare that it is virtually nonexistent.
5) Stop running elections on the cheap
Many state election officials face a “dramatic funding gap” thanks to the pandemic, Weiser, the lawyer with the Brennan Center, told me. Numerous states expect a crush of absentee ballot requests from voters who wish to avoid physically going to polling places where they could contract Covid-19. And the workers who staff polling places tend to be older retired voters, who are especially likely to stay at home out of fear of becoming sick.
Solving these problems requires money — money to hire staff to process absentee ballot requests, money to hire people to sort and count those ballots once they are cast, and money to pay poll workers enough that people actually want to take the job. And right now, that money isn’t there.
Even after the pandemic is over, however, Weiser warns that the United States has ”always run on a shoestring.” Especially now that we are facing “more and more hostile foreign government affiliated actors,” states need adequate funding to secure our elections.
A Democratic Congress, which has few constraints on its ability to borrow money during a period of low inflation and even lower interest rates, would be well-positioned to provide those funds.
6) A tax credit for all voters
In Australia, over 90 percent of eligible voters typically cast a ballot in federal elections. The nation achieves this feat by turning Election Day into a celebration, where voters gather at community barbecues to eat what are often referred to as “democracy sausages.” But Australia also uses a stick to encourage voting — nonvoters can be fined about $80 Australian dollars (about $60 in US currency) if they do not cast a ballot.
If a similar proposal were enacted here, according to a recent report by the Brookings Institution and the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard Kennedy School, it would enhance the voice of Americans who are often underrepresented in US democracy.
“The country’s politics typically places the interests of older Americans over the interests of the younger generations,” for example, because older, more financially stable voters are more likely to cast a ballot. Similarly, a universal duty to vote “would also help ensure increased political participation in communities of color that have long confronted exclusion from our democracy.”
One possible argument against fining nonvoters it that such fines could impose a hardship on the poorest Americans (although, in the long run, federal policy would likely grow much more favorable to low-income Americans if voting were mandatory). Realistically, moreover, the current Supreme Court is unlikely to allow a mandatory voting law in the United States. In NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), the first major Obamacare case to reach the justices, the Court famously invented a distinction between laws that regulate people already engaged in a particular activity, and laws that regulate “inactivity” — that is, laws that compel passive individuals to act in a way they would prefer not to act.
With five Republican justices, the Court could easily import this distinction into the voting rights context.
But NFIB also provides a potential path forward if Congress wants to incentivize voters to show up at the polls without relying on fines. NFIB upheld a provision of Obamacare that required most Americans to either carry health insurance or pay higher taxes as a valid exercise of Congress’s power to tax. And Congress’s power to reward certain behavior with favorable tax treatment is extremely broad. It can use tax credits to encourage people to drive hybrid cars, or even to encourage them to have more children. Barring an extraordinarily partisan decision from the Supreme Court, Congress should also be able to use tax credits to encourage people to vote.In that vein, instead of fining voters $60 for not voting (or whatever amount Congress deems appropriate), Congress could provide a refundable tax credit of $60 to everyone who casts a vote. As a bonus, Congress could make this a renewable tax credit — meaning it would be available to the poorest Americans who pay little or no income tax.Making American democracy more democratic Beyond protecting our right to vote, policymakers need to think bigger to ensure that every voter has an equal say in shaping our government. There are major structural reasons why America’s political system has ground to a halt and produced outcomes that don’t seem to reflect public will. What follows are ambitious solutions, but we need ambitious thinking to fix a democracy in serious disrepair.
7) Fix Senate malapportionment
The United States Senate is simultaneously one of our most anti-democratic institutions, and one of the most powerful bastions of systemic racism in our political system. According to 2019 census population estimates, the state of California has nearly 40 million residents. The state of Wyoming, meanwhile, has fewer than 600,000 residents. Yet each state receives two senators. In practice, that means that each resident of Wyoming has 68 times more representation in the Senate than each Californian. This malapportionment has profound partisan implications and profound racial implications. In the current Senate, Democrats control a majority of the Senate seats (26-24) in the most populous half of the states. Republicans owe their majority in the Senate as a whole to their crushing 29-21 lead in the least populous half of the states.Meanwhile, white voters are over-represented in the smaller states that benefit from Senate malapportionment, and non-college educated whites — a demographic that is trending rapidly toward Republicans — are especially over-represented in these states. The Senate, in other words, effectively gives additional representation to white Americans, and dilutes the voting power of people of color.Democrats have rallied behind a partial solution to this problem — statehood for the District of Columbia. The Democratic House voted to make DC a state in June, and Congress has the power to make DC a state through ordinary legislation. Accordingly, if Democrats control the House, the White House, and a (filibuster-free) Senate, DC statehood is likely to happen fairly quickly.Yet, while admitting a heavily Democratic, majority-minority city like DC into the union would help mitigate many of the problems with the Senate, it would hardly overcome them. Among other things, while admitting DC would reduce Black under-representation in the Senate, it would also increase the power of white college grads.
More radical solutions are possible, for example, breaking up larger states such as California into smaller states. Absent such solutions, the Senate will continue to over-represent white conservatives and potentially even become a permanent bastion of Republican Party power.
8) Allow the states to neutralize the Electoral College
The popular vote loser has become president in two of the last five presidential elections.
Nor is this problem likely to fix itself. A recent study by three University of Texas researchers found that a Democrat who wins the presidential popular vote by 3 percentage points still has about a one in six chance of losing the Electoral College. There is a small chance that a Republican president will be elected even if the Democratic candidate wins the popular vote by as much as 6 points.
Congress cannot abolish the Electoral College on its own — the college itself is written into the Constitution — but it can help hasten its irrelevance.
A proposal known as the National Popular Vote Compact would allow the states to effectively neutralize the Electoral College. It works like this: A bloc of states that control a majority of electoral votes all agree to allocate those votes to the winner of the national popular vote. That way, no matter who wins each individual state, a majority of the Electoral College will always vote for the popular vote winner.
Currently, 15 states plus the District of Columbia, which combined control 196 electoral votes, have signed onto the compact. The compact will take effect once a bloc of states that control at least 270 votes sign on.
But there is a catch. The Constitution provides that no state may enter into a compact with another state “without the consent of Congress.” Though there is a plausible argument that the National Popular Vote Compact does not require such consent, it is uncertain how this argument will fare in court.
Congress could avoid this problem altogether, however, by preemptively giving consent to any compact that seeks to neutralize the Electoral College’s ability to place popular vote losers in the White House.
9) Stop gerrymandering
States must redraw their legislative districts at least once every decade, to ensure that each district has roughly the same number of people. That means the party that dominates the election prior to a redistricting cycle can often entrench its own power by drawing maps that neutralize many of the other party’s voters.
That’s more or less what happened in many states after Republicans had an unusually strong performance in the 2010 elections. In Pennsylvania, for example, President Obama won the state by more than 5 percentage points in 2012 — the first election held under the new Republican gerrymanders — but Republicans still won 13 of the state’s 18 US House seats. In Michigan, Obama won by nearly 10 points, but Republicans won nine of 14 House seats.
Unlike the problems of Senate malapportionment and the Electoral College, however, congressional Democrats have rallied behind a potent solution to gerrymandering, at least in federal elections.
The HR 1 legislation would require nearly every state to use a 15-member redistricting commission to draw US House districts. This commission must include equal numbers of Democrats, Republicans, and independents, and at least one member of each party and one independent must approve final maps. If the commission cannot draw maps or if a state refuses to appoint such a commission, then congressional maps will be drawn by a panel of three federal judges.
It’s not a perfect solution. It’s possible that, despite considerable safeguards written into the legislation, commissioners sympathetic to one party or the other may gain control of the commission. It’s also possible that a state may decide to forgo the commission and take its chances with the courts — especially if the majority party in that state believes that the local federal judges are loyal partisans.
But it’s a much better solution than leaving redistricting to state legislatures, bodies that, by their very nature, will very often be captured by a single political party.
10) Public financing for candidates
Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United v. FEC (2010) have largely gutted our ability to keep wealthy donors from having a disproportionate impact on elections. The most commonly cited concern about money in politics is corruption, because the need to raise money forces politicians to ingratiate themselves to big donors if they wish to remain in office. But money in politics also has an equally pernicious effect on how lawmakers spend their time.
As former Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY) wrote shortly before he retired from Congress in 2016, “I’ve spent roughly 4,200 hours in call time, attended more than 1,600 fund-raisers just for my own campaign and raised nearly $20 million in increments of $1,000, $2,500 and $5,000 per election cycle. And things have only become worse in the five years since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.” Members of Congress spend a simply astonishing amount of time raising money, and that’s time they can’t spend doing their actual job of informing themselves about the bills they will vote into law.
One way to mitigate this problem is public financing, which provides additional funds to candidates who agree to certain restrictions on their ability to raise money from large donors. HR 1 would create such a regime for House candidates.
Under the legislation, qualified candidates receive six dollars for every one that they raise from most donors who give $200 or less. Thus, the bill makes it easier for candidates to get elected to Congress without relying on the wealthiest individuals to fund their campaigns. It also potentially allows them to spend less time on fundraising, freeing them to actually do their job.
11) Prevent Trump’s judges from sabotaging voting reforms
Any voting rights law is likely to receive a tough hearing from a Supreme Court that has only gotten more conservative since Shelby County. And any law enacted by a Democratic Congress could be struck down by overly partisan federal judges. Republicans have proven quite adept in shopping for federal trial judges who will strike down progressive laws on the thinnest legal arguments. And Trump has filled the federal bench with hardline conservatives, many of whom would be happy to strike down a law that makes it easier for voters of color — and for Democratic-leaning voters in general — to cast a ballot.
But Congress is hardly powerless against such judges.
While the Constitution created the Supreme Court, it only provides for “such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Thus, because lower federal courts are entirely creations of Congress, Congress may determine the scope of any lower court’s jurisdiction.
0 notes
Text
Scrubbed from the system
Why Medicaid enrollment has dropped by almost 60,000 people in 18 months.
Last September, a few months after she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, Kyla Brakebill's insurance coverage was canceled by the Arkansas Department of Human Services. Almost a year later, she remains uninsured.
Brakebill, 43, first began having headaches and dizzy spells in November 2016. After an especially intense episode, she was taken to the emergency room at Baptist Health Medical Center in North Little Rock, where a doctor ordered a series of tests. "She thought at first I might have had a stroke, because she tested that," Brakebill said in an interview. "They were going to see about an aneurysm, but that came back negative. ... After my MRI, she came in and said, 'I can tell you don't have this, this or that, but I'm worried.' " The doctor told Brakebill the scan showed "that my brain was like the brain of a 64-year-old woman."
Frightening as the news was, Brakebill thought she at least wouldn't have to worry about paying for medical care: She was on Arkansas Works, the state's Medicaid-funded insurance program for low-income adults established under the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. (Arkansas Works is also sometimes called "Medicaid expansion" or "the private option.") Like most on the program, her policy was provided through a private carrier, Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield. "It covered everything, and that was great," Brakebill said. The hospital helped her find a primary care doctor, who gave her a probable MS diagnosis and sent her to a neurologist, who in turn scheduled Brakebill for another round of brain scans.
Brakebill never had the scans performed. Late last summer, while taking out the trash at her house, she lost her balance on a rough patch of earth at the edge of the carport. "All of my weight went on my right big toe, and I broke my toe," she recalled. "And when that happened, my body swung around and my mouth hit the post that holds the carport up and knocked one of my front teeth out. It was horrible." A dentist prescribed antibiotics to stave off an infection, and shortly thereafter, Brakebill attempted to fill it.
"I was in Memphis for work and my mouth was hurt really bad," she said. "I get to Walgreens and I find out they won't fill my prescription because my insurance had ended." Baffled, she called Blue Cross and DHS as soon as she returned home. "After a million phone calls and finally getting to talk to someone, they said it was because I didn't send a change of address."
Brakebill had recently lost her home to a foreclosure and had moved several times. However, she had filled out a change of address form at the post office and had her mail forwarded to a P.O. box. She had no idea, she said, that DHS required beneficiaries to directly notify the agency of any physical address change. And because her insurance was provided through Blue Cross rather than directly through the state — a feature born of Arkansas's unusual privatized approach to Medicaid expansion — she wasn't used to communicating with DHS about her coverage. "I never had another conversation with DHS about insurance after that initial application," she said.
DHS requires beneficiaries to notify it of any address change within 10 days of a move, agency spokeswoman Amy Webb said. If mail sent to a beneficiary is returned to DHS and the agency hasn't received notification of an address change, it will close that person's case.
***
Over the past 18 months, Arkansas Works enrollment decreased by almost 60,000 people, DHS numbers show. Enrollment peaked near 330,000 sometime in January 2017. By July 1 of this year, it had fallen to 271,000 — a 15 percent drop.
The state is shedding beneficiaries at a faster rate than any other state that chose to expand Medicaid, according to data from the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Arkansas saw a 6 percent decline in its overall Medicaid enrollment between January 2017 and May 2018. The shrinking Arkansas Works program evidently accounted for most of the drop. (The CMS data combines the expansion population and the larger, more expensive "traditional" Medicaid population, which includes children on ARKids, elderly people, disabled people and other groups.) Only three non-expansion states — Texas, Idaho and Tennessee — saw a larger percentage decrease in Medicaid overall.
Arkansas has lately come under national scrutiny for its new work requirement for some Arkansas Works enrollees, with many health researchers and advocates warning the policy could lead to thousands losing coverage. Yet little attention has been paid to the steady monthly reduction in Medicaid enrollment figures predating the work requirement, which began in June. The work rule won't trigger terminations of coverage until September at the earliest. That means the almost 60,000 people pared from Arkansas Works over the last year and a half dropped away for other reasons.
Governor Hutchinson has given two explanations. The first is a strong economy. Because Medicaid expansion is open only to those whose incomes fall below 138 percent of the federal poverty line (in 2018, that's $16,753 for an individual or $34,638 for a family of four), getting a better job often makes a beneficiary ineligible for Arkansas Works. He or she might then gain insurance through an employer — or, if that's not an option, purchase a plan on the individual marketplace with the help of a federal subsidy.
Though such coverage would likely cost more than Arkansas Works (which costs little to nothing for beneficiaries), more people moving up the income ladder would be clearly positive news.
"I would emphasize that this is not a change in services," Hutchinson said at a recent session with the press at which he touted savings in the Medicaid budget. "This is simply the result of people that are working. ... If they got a better job and they just don't bother telling us about it, and they no longer qualify, that's a good thing, because nobody's losing services. It's just that they no longer qualify and we're not wasting our taxpayers' money. If it's because their spouse got insurance and they no longer need Arkansas Works, then that's a good thing as well."
Jennifer Wagner, a senior policy analyst at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning think tank in Washington, D.C., said the picture was more complicated.
"I'm sure some portion is attributable to the improving economy," Wagner said. "The thing that we tend to see, though, is that even when people are able to find employment, often their income does not go up high enough to make them no longer eligible. And often the low-wage work they get does not include health insurance. As we know, a lot of people on Medicaid are working families — they're just not making enough [money] and they're not getting employer-sponsored insurance. So, I wouldn't assume that all drop-off is because of that."
The fact that Arkansas's 18-month decline in Medicaid enrollment outpaced most other states also suggests there's more at play than economic factors. Arkansas's unemployment rate is low, but so are those of other states that haven't seen a similarly steep dip in Medicaid rolls. And while Medicaid enrollment has fallen fairly steadily from January 2017 to June 2018, the unemployment rate over that period ticked slightly upward, from 3.7 percent to 3.8 percent. The Arkansas jobless rate in June ranked 21st in the nation, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.
In July, DHS released a graph breaking down the reasons behind the approximately 14,000 Arkansas Works case closures the previous month. Only 11 percent of the cases closed in June were attributed to an increase in household income. However, Wagner said that figure likely understates the percentage of people who left the program because of rising wages. Many beneficiaries who no longer need Arkansas Works may simply stop corresponding with DHS, rather than contacting the agency to explicitly request closure.
The governor's second explanation for the reduced enrollment is an improved effort at DHS to "scrub" the Medicaid rolls by removing people who are no longer eligible. That includes many situations: individuals who are making too much money, who have moved out of state, who are incarcerated, who have turned 65 (and are therefore receiving Medicare) or who are dead. But it also includes many people such as Kyla Brakebill, who lost coverage because of a problem communicating with DHS.
DHS figures suggest that changes of address and communications issues are a major reason for coverage losses. Sixty percent of cases closed in June were terminated for one of two reasons: "failed to return requested information" or "unable to locate client or moved out-of-state."
The latter category includes cases in which DHS receives any piece of returned mail, agency spokeswoman Webb said in an email. Webb said the agency couldn't distinguish between clients who moved out of state and those who moved within the state.
Wagner, who studies Medicaid policy across the country, said the DHS approach to returned mail was "a very aggressive stance for the state to take."
It's not uncommon, she said, for Medicaid recipients in all states to lose coverage at "recertification," the annual update of personal information mandated for every beneficiary. "People are often sent a letter and are required to send that back. They may also be required to send additional verification, like pay stubs," Wagner said. "No matter what, there's going to be some degree of fall-off at recertification."
In Arkansas, though, any returned mail — not just at recertification — automatically triggers a closure. That creates more opportunities for a beneficiary to lose coverage. Mary Franklin, director of DHS' Division of County Operations, wrote in an email that "if the information is not returned by the deadline, the case is closed. Many of these closures are automated, and there is an extra 5 days built in to our automated process to make sure that any information that is received has been logged into the system."
Wagner said, "I don't know that other states would necessarily take action to close a case just because of returned mail.That's concerning, especially because this population often moves a lot ... staying with friends or family or things like that. So that's kind of a lot to expect — for it to be constantly updated." The state could take more proactive steps to find a beneficiary, Wagner added, such as cross-checking with the postal service's National Change of Address system. Franklin said DHS does not check that database before closing a case.
"Federal regulations do require Medicaid recipients to report changes that affect eligibility," Wagner acknowledged, "and I'm sure Arkansas could make an argument that they don't know if someone has moved out of state if they didn't report an address change. But that is an aggressive stance, and I wonder how frequently mailings are going out over the year."
In fact, DHS has been sending out frequent mailings to many Arkansas Works recipients to inform them of the new work requirement. Webb said DHS didn't have information on how many Arkansas Works closures occurred at annual recertification and could not provide a breakdown of the reasons for closures during previous months.
***
Many Arkansas Works beneficiaries who lose coverage quickly regain it. Brakebill did not, seemingly due to a combination of bad timing and bad information.
She said she thought she had to wait until November to reapply for coverage. That's likely because of widespread public confusion about the difference between Arkansas Works (which can be applied for at any point during the year) and the individual insurance marketplace (which can typically only be accessed during a brief open enrollment period at the end of the year). People whose income is above 138 percent of poverty can get coverage on the marketplace subsidized by the federal government.
It's not clear which group Brakebill should have been in at that point in time, because her income fluctuated significantly from month to month. (In January 2017, she started working as a marketing manager for a home improvement company that sets up booths at public events. She earns a few hundred dollars each week in base pay and — depending on the season — an additional amount in commissions.) It may be that Brakebill could have simply re-enrolled in Arkansas Works last fall. It's also possible her annual income had exceeded the threshold for a single-person household, in which case she should have transitioned onto the marketplace. Assuming this was so, however, she shouldn't have had to wait for open enrollment: The individual marketplace allows for a 60-day "special enrollment" period after a person loses coverage from a different source.
When Brakebill finally went online to buy insurance at the end of the year, she said, she hit another snag: The marketplace website asked her for employer information she didn't have. That was right before open enrollment ended on Dec. 15. In 2018, based on the income information she provided a reporter, it appears Brakebill makes slightly too much to qualify for Arkansas Works — but she can't sign up for insurance on the marketplace until 2018 open enrollment begins again this November.
In the meantime, she's in limbo. "Just to know that I can't go in and see a doctor — it worries me," Brakebill said. Her multiple sclerosis symptoms come and go, but on bad days she finds it hard to function. "Like this week, my MS is pretty bad. Yesterday, I did everything backwards. Like my job, everything. ... So if I'm talking in circles, that's what's wrong with me. Sometimes I have a really great conversation, and sometimes I can't even speak."
In addition to MS, she suffers from high blood pressure and polycystic ovary syndrome, a hormonal disorder that causes weight gain and facial hair growth and has been linked to diabetes. Both conditions are controllable with drugs, but she does not have prescriptions for either. She'd like to find a better job, she said, but she feels constrained by her medical problems.
"I'm in my 40s, but I can't have a breast exam or a colonoscopy or anything like that. I can't go for my yearly pap smear," she said. "Until I get the insurance to do all that again, I guess I'll just try to live until I don't live anymore."
The governor has praised DHS for taking steps to scrub the Medicaid rolls more aggressively and pushed back against the idea that the agency's rules may be stricter than necessary.
"That's called responsible management," he said at the recent press conference. "I don't think very many in Arkansas would want our taxpayer dollars paying for insurance for those that may be living out of state, may have moved, may have income that exceeds the limits. And if they are not giving us the information to verify that, then that's the responsible thing to do for the taxpayers."
Hutchinson suggested Arkansas Works enrollment in January 2017 was inflated with many thousands of people who weren't actually eligible. He pointed out the Medicaid expansion was originally predicted to serve about 250,000 people when Arkansas policymakers first considered implementing the program in 2013.
"I think you're seeing numbers now that are where they should be, based on the economy that we have and based on the management we have," he said.
The governor prefers to emphasize a different figure: the zero percent growth rate in Medicaid expenditures in the fiscal year that ended in June. Combined state and federal spending on Arkansas Medicaid (both Arkansas Works and traditional) was $7.105 billion in FY 2018, or $22 million less than the previous year. Because health care costs typically grow year over year, however, flat growth is effectively a reduction when compared to projected expenses.
Some of the savings resulted from "transformation" efforts by DHS to impose discipline on especially high-cost Medicaid program areas. But the majority of the savings (around 55 percent) was attributable to the decline in enrollment.
In any case, holding Medicaid costs flat is a major achievement for a conservative governor, and the reduced costs will help pay for tax cuts on high-income earners that Hutchinson and Republican legislators intend to pass in 2019. It also helps the governor defend his decision to continue the Arkansas Works program, which some hardline conservatives want to see defunded entirely.
***
The question is whether Brakebill is an outlier or part of a trend. Is Arkansas Works enrollment shrinking mostly because people have moved up the income ladder and found coverage elsewhere? Or has DHS' zealous approach to rules enforcement resulted in a growing number of low-income Arkansans going without insurance or experiencing periodic lapses in coverage?
Arkansas cut its uninsured rate in half in the three years after it first expanded Medicaid in 2013 — one of the largest percentage reductions in the country. If many of the 60,000 people scrubbed from the Arkansas Works rolls since last January are now uninsured, that metric may rebound. But the U.S. Census Bureau has yet to publish information on state-level uninsured rates in 2017.
Anecdotally, many Arkansas health care advocates say the address change issue hasn't been on their radar. Kevin De Liban, a lawyer for Legal Aid of Arkansas, is familiar with fighting DHS over Medicaid. (He represents a group of disabled beneficiaries engaged in a long-running lawsuit against the agency.) De Liban said Legal Aid has fielded calls from a handful of Arkansas Works beneficiaries who complained of losing coverage due to returned mail or an alleged failure to send in information, but the group hasn't heard back from those individuals.
Still, he was critical of the agency's strict rules for correspondence. "DHS sends them a letter and gives them 10 days to respond," he said. "It gets to them Day 8 ... and many times the client provides it timely, or close to timely, and DHS does not process it quickly enough."
Lainey Morrow is a grassroots advocate who founded a popular Facebook group, "Medicaid Saves Lives," to help beneficiaries and their families navigate the system. (It had over 3,600 members as of Aug. 6.) Morrow said she hadn't heard many complaints of lost coverage explicitly due to an address change. But, she pointed out that people who are terminated for such a reason would never receive a letter explaining why they were cut off.
"I don't think people know why, if that is why," Morrow said, "They may in some roundabout manner find out: They go to a provider, and the provider says their Medicaid number is inactive, and then they start trying to track it down." She's also heard of many people who lost coverage but were unsure of the reason why because they didn't understand the letter they received from DHS.
Many who unexpectedly lose their insurance simply begin the process of re-enrollment. But even when a beneficiary regains her insurance, temporary coverage gaps can cause hardships: prescriptions unfilled, bills left unpaid, appointments missed and hours spent on the phone.
Brittany Keeland, 22, is a single mother of two and the legal guardian of her 16-year-old sister. Her four-person household contains three different categories of Medicaid: Keeland is on Arkansas Works; her children, ages 1 and 2, are on ARKids; and Keeland's sister has disability Medicaid for a severe, exceedingly rare genetically based skin condition called lamellar ichthyosis.
In late July, Keeland received a notice from DHS that said her insurance, and her children's, would soon be terminated due to a failure to report additional income. In a recent interview, Keeland said DHS was mistaken. She didn't have any new income. She was continuing to work as a home health aide at the same company where she'd worked for the past three years. The misunderstanding arose because Keeland's pay stubs contained a different corporate name than the one she listed as her employer. (The company that directly employs her, she explained, is owned by a parent company that cuts her checks.) Someone at DHS saw the difference in names and assumed Keeland was missing information.
Ironically, the mistake occurred only after Keeland notified the agency of an address change. In March, Keeland moved her family from Crawford County to an apartment in Fort Smith. She updated her address and other personal information with DHS, enclosing her recent pay stubs with the mailing. All was well for several months, but then, in July, she received a notice that she needed to get a letter from her employer and that it had to be turned in by July 27 to maintain coverage for her family.
Keeland gritted her teeth, gathered the paperwork and submitted it to DHS on July 26. She called on Monday, July 30, to make sure everything had been processed.
"I asked if my stuff was going to be shut off, and they're like, 'Yeah, because you didn't turn in all your paperwork,' " she said. "I told them that I turned everything in ... so y'all did something with it, and we kind of got in an argument."
"Well, Tuesday or so, I got a letter in the mail saying all of our stuff was canceled due to lack of turning information in. And then Wednesday they called me and said they'd found my paperwork, that it was put in a different program and they're sorry they lost it and everything, and I asked them about my benefits being shut off." Keeland said she was told she'd have to wait on an action from her caseworker to resolve the issue.
"I still don't know if it's going to be on or not," Keeland said when she spoke to a reporter on Saturday. "I got a letter in the mail saying it was pending, so I don't know." As of this week, she was still unsure. In a text message Monday, she wrote, "I tried calling today sat on hold forever so I just hung up." She's also concerned her food stamps will be cut off.
Last fall, Keeland said, she temporarily lost insurance coverage due to another DHS paperwork issue. Though her insurance was reinstated, doctors' bills piled up in the interim. If her Medicaid is shut off again, she worries she'll accumulate more debt. "That's mainly what's on my credit, is medical bills I don't have money to pay ... and they get turned over to collection agencies," she said.
Keeland's family needs insurance. Her sister has appointments at Arkansas Children's Hospital twice a month for her skin condition. Her daughter, who is developmentally delayed and has multiple food allergies, also regularly visits Children's, she said. Her son has hearing problems, and both children see therapists. Keeland herself has prescriptions, too. "And then, regular doctors appointments and stuff. We use it almost every other day, it seems like, for at least one of us," she said.
Wagner, the policy analyst, said states can take steps to minimize disruptions in Medicaid coverage. "How many documents the client is required to send in can make a difference. If the state is using their data sources well, they shouldn't have to ask for a lot of pay stubs and other things," she said.
"There's a lot that the state can do at the recertification point to make it go better," she continued. For example, rather than putting the burden on beneficiaries, the state can use its own data sources to determine if a person appears to continue to be eligible. "They just send them a notice saying, 'We're going to renew you based on this information. If any of it's incorrect, contact us.' "
Instead, most of Arkansas's efforts seem to run in the opposite direction. While DHS doesn't check the National Change of Address database, it does check state wage data to look for unreported income and scans for the receipt of public benefits in other states. Also, a subset of Arkansas Works beneficiaries are now subject to the new work requirement, which adds another layer of bureaucracy to an already complex set of requirements. Unlike with many of the aforementioned situations, not complying with the work rule may eventually result in a beneficiary actually being locked out of coverage for a period of time. In June, about 10,000 people were required to submit additional information to DHS proving they were working or qualified for an exemption. Of those, about 7,000 did not.
Many of those who lost Arkansas Works coverage in the past year and a half surely did so because they failed to follow one rule or another. But some human error is a part of any program. One point of frustrations for beneficiaries is that while DHS seems to give so little leeway to their oversights and mistakes, the state's own oversights and mistakes must be accepted as a part of life.
Like many on Arkansas Works, Keeland is fed up with jumping through hoops. "I don't know what's going on up there and half the time they don't either," she said. "Whenever you ask to talk to your caseworker, they give you a voicemail and then they never call you back. Or you say, 'Hey, I'm working [but] I'm free at this time.' And then they call you while you're at work and then you miss it and it's your fault."
"They act as if we have no life outside their office," she said.
This reporting is made possible in part by a yearlong fellowship sponsored by the Association of Health Care Journalists and supported by The Commonwealth Fund. It is published here courtesy of the Arkansas Nonprofit News Network, an independent, nonpartisan project dedicated to producing journalism that matters to Arkansans. Find out more at arknews.org.
Scrubbed from the system
0 notes
Last Seen Blogs
deathscythe-doll
Lost But In My Place.
delevingnecollins-blog
models
racquetballlifelessons
Untitled
beverly-crusher
Doctor Beverly Crusher
binaryblast
Binary Blast