Here are two quotes from a ZeroHedge article that discusses the "cozy" relationship between $60 Billion Monsanto and their controversial herbicide, Roundup, and the EPA, the "watchdog" government agency that is supposed to protect the public from dangerous chemical products.
"Newly unsealed court documents released earlier today seemingly reveal a startling effort on the part of both Monsanto and the EPA to work in concert to kill and/or discredit independent, albeit inconvenient, cancer research conducted by the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer."
"And that's where Jess Rowland, the EPA's Deputy Division Director for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention and chair of the Agency's Cancer Assessment Review Committee, comes in to assure you that he's fully exploiting his role as the "chair of the CARC" to kill any potentially damaging research..."if I can kill this I should get a medal."
Read the full article here:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-14/court-docs-prove-monsanto-collusion-epa-kill-cancer-study-admits-cant-say-roundup-doOrganic Anyone???????
JFlorio wrote:
You may like the new plan. You may hate the new pl... (show quote)
------------
I think you may be a bit hard on the CBO. Yes, they were off on the Obamacare estimates. In fact, way off. But that does not lessen the need for some type of critical financial analysis on any type of new government plan. (Irrespective of the fact that most government plans probably should not be implemented in the first place).
You tell me what the stock market will be a year from now, based upon all the analytical data that you want to utilize. Let's see how accurate that prediction turns out to be.
The two takeaways that I got from the CBO report are as follows:
1. 14 million more people will be uninsured by 2018. ( Probably correct. Young people will voluntarily choose to defer purchasing insurance because A) there is no penalty, and B) If they find they need it because, say, they contract cancer 10 years from now, the 30% surcharge penalty is peanuts when they saved 10 years of premiums).
2) The legislation would reduce federal deficits by $337 billion over the next decade, with the largest savings coming from reductions in Medicaid outlays and the reduction of Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies. Also, less people electing coverage means less federal subsidies.
Obamacare was bad Healthcare policy. Ryancare is bad Healthcare policy. Repeal Obamacare effective 6 months from now, and put the burden on both parties to work together and get it right. Hold open hearings with the public and healthcare professionals. Don't have pharmaceutical and insurance lobbyist groups write legislation behind closed doors which is how Obamacare and Ryancare were created.
There are plenty of good ideas out there to reduce the cost of healthcare, allow price discovery, and to put the consumer in charge of his or her healthcare. The biggest impediment to good healthcare policy is corporate greed and political corruption that feed each other.
eagleye13 wrote:
"I became enraged after reading your first sentence,.... but regained my composure after reading the next line." - ACP45
Were you thinking of a pistol whipping, or a leadifying?
-----------------
I was thinking more about missing the bouncing Betties!
F.D.R. wrote:
Can you take out the part about junk food? I'm 75 and still work. My 3 food groups are sugar, salt & carbs in that order. "One man's junk is another man's treasure".
--------------------
You are one lucky dude! Chalk it up to good genes. The rest of us are not so lucky.
eagleye13 wrote:
Dr. Calvin Rickson, a scientist from Texas A&M University has invented a bra that keeps women's breasts from jiggling, bouncing up and down, and prevents the nipples from pushing through the fabric when cold weather sets in.
At a news conference, after announcing his invention, a large group of men took Dr. Rickson outside and beat the shit out of him.
--------------------
I became enraged after reading your first sentence,.... but regained my composure after reading the next line.
----------------
I truly believe that we have just scratched the surface on this issue. I am hoping that in the very near future, the extent of the child sex traffacking/pedophile problem is exposed, and those political figures are indicted and put on public display.
https://youtu.be/GvAv-114bwMPublished on Mar 13, 2017
In August of 2016, a former employee of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) began looking into the reports his agency had released years earlier on the collapse of the World Trade Center. What he found shook him to the core.
In this poignant half-hour interview, Peter Michael Ketcham tells his story of discovering that the organization where he had worked for 14 years had deliberately suppressed the truth about the most pivotal event of the 21st century.
Through his willingness to look openly at what he failed to see in front of him for 15 years, Mr. Ketcham inspires us to believe that we can all muster the courage to confront the truth — and, in so doing, finally heal the wounds of 9/11.
We hope this interview will serve as a powerful “red pill” for viewers who are new or resistant to this information. To that end, we encourage you to share the video with your friends, family, and colleagues.
By now, everyone should be aware of the release of documents by Wikileaks known as "Vault 7". What was the MSM's response to this release of information?
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts sums it up nicely by stating: "The media’s response was not outrage over the CIA’s criminal behavior, compounded by its incompetence in failing to keep the package from escaping. Rather, the US media turned on Julian Assange for making known what we need to know."
"Brian Ross, the chief presstitute at ABC, wanted to know if WikiLeaks took money from Russia. Andrea Mitchell, faithful to the CIA, quickly got former CIA director Michael Hayden on TV to agree with her that “Wikileaks has struck again” and revealed information damaging to the US about the CIA’s foreign intelligence operations. You can see what a great lie Andrea and Hayden have conspired to tell by listening to Assange explain the information delivered into his hands."
https://youtu.be/aha8bicPN88
robmull wrote:
I'm beginning to think Ron Paul is attempting to o... (show quote)
--------------
What gives the United States the right to send troops into a foreign country against the will of that country and it's leader?
What if Syria were to send it's army into the USA to combat a perceived enemy of Syria? How would you feel?
We as a nation espouse the belief that each country is a sovereign nation, and should be allowed to take care of it's own affairs. They have asked for assistance from Russia and Iran to combat their ISIS threat. They did not ask for our help, and do not want our help.
On December 9, 2016, the permanent mission of the Syrian Arab Republic to the United Nations presented a panel of speakers who explained in detail what is really happening right now in Aleppo, Syria, and how the western media has intentionally distorted events in Syria over the last 5 years. Panels members include Dr. Bahman Azad, member of the coordinating committee for the Hands Off Syria and Organization Secretary of US Peace Council, and Eva Bartlett, independent Canadian journalist, Donna Nassor, professor and lawyer also part of US Peace Council, and Sara Flounders cofounder of the International Action Center.
I suggest that you watch this Press Conference
Aleppo Truth: Incredible Press Conference at the United Nations
https://youtu.be/ebE3GJfGhfA
Last week President Trump significantly escalated the US military presence in Syria, sending some 400 Marines to the ISIS-controlled Raqqa, and several dozen Army Rangers to the contested area around Manbij. According to press reports he will also station some 2,500 more US troops in Kuwait to be used as he wishes in Iraq and Syria.
Not only is it illegal under international law to send troops into another country without permission, it is also against US law for President Trump to take the country to war without a declaration. But not only is Trump’s first big war illegal: it is doomed to failure because it makes no sense.
President Trump says the purpose of the escalation is to defeat ISIS in Raqqa, its headquarters in Syria. However the Syrian Army with its allies Russia and Iran are already close to defeating ISIS in Syria. Why must the US military be sent in when the Syrian army is already winning? Does Trump wish to occupy eastern Syria and put a Washington-backed rebel government in charge? Has anyone told President Trump what that would to cost in dollars and lives – including American lives? How would this US-backed rebel government respond to the approach of a Syrian army backed up by the Russian military?
Is Trump planning on handing eastern Syria over to the Kurds, who have been doing much of the fighting in the area? How does he think NATO-ally Turkey would take a de facto Kurdistan carved out of Syria with its eyes on Kurdish-inhabited southern Turkey?
And besides, by what rights would Washington carve up Syria or any other country?
Or is Trump going to give up on the US policy of “regime change” and hand conquered eastern Syria back to Assad? If that is the case, why waste American lives and money if the Syrians and their allies are already doing the job? Candidate Trump even said he was perfectly happy with Russia and Syria getting rid of ISIS. If US policy is shifting toward accepting an Assad victory, it could be achieved by ending arms supplies to the rebels and getting out of the way.
It does not appear that President Trump or his advisors have thought through what happens next if the US military takes possession of Raqqa, Syria. What is the endgame? Maybe the neocons told him it would be a “cakewalk” as they promised before the 2003 Iraq invasion.
Part of the problem is that President Trump’s advisors believe the myth that the US “surge” in Iraq and Afghanistan was a great success and repeating it would being the victory that eluded Obama with his reliance of drones and proxy military forces. A big show of US military force on the ground – like the 100,000 sent to Afghanistan by Obama in 2009 – is what is needed in Syria, these experts argue. Rarely is it asked that if the surge worked so well why are Afghanistan and Iraq still a disaster?
President Trump’s escalation in Syria is doomed to failure. He is being drawn into a quagmire by the neocons that will destroy scores of lives, cost us a fortune, and may well ruin his presidency. He must de-escalate immediately before it is too late.
Copyright © 2017 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Tell me what you think about these specific ideas on how to reduce the cost of healthcare in this country. Do you think they should be incorporated into whatever governmental policy emerges from either Obamacare, Ryancare, or some as yet healthcare program to be proposed.
1) Higher co-payments for patients. We already have them and we accept them. I would make them higher so that we begin to pay a significant portion of our care out of our own pockets. Raising co-pays would make us all think about what tests, treatments and other procedures we really need. For the first time, we’d think about the cost of our care. The level of co-pay would be subject to a means test and scaled to income. Those with more would pay more, those without would pay less. The irony is that right now we all pay out of pocket without any kind of adjustments or means testing – a multi-millionaire can have the same co-pay as an assembly line worker. We should change that. People need to become consumers of health care so that they, not insurance companies, not the government, actually see, feel and pay the bills. That will force producers of health care – doctors and hospitals – to push down prices and drive up quality. That's what happens with groceries or television sets or computers.
2) Price transparency. We can go online and shop for cars, vacuum cleaners, bicycles. We can compare prices, repair records, user opinions. Try that for the colonoscopy or the knee operation you are told you need. It is not possible. We need to move quickly towards easily available published costs for common medical procedures and hospital stays. We need to know what we are paying for, what the costs will be, and whether we would be better off going to a different, less costly hospital or doctor. Singapore does it, as do other East Asian nations. In fact, their systems demand it. We should as well.
3) Take health care out of the job. Everyone should be buying health care on their own. Level the playing field. Expand the use of Flexible Spending Accounts and Health Savings Accounts. Allow federal tax credits for the purchase of catastrophic health insurance.
4) Change the focus from sick care to preventative care. Realize that physicians cannot heal. Pills or treatments only synthetically enhance or suppress a natural bodily function in an attempt to speed the recovery process. The artificial environment created in the body by these medicines, however, often leads to an extensive list of harmful side effects associated with a so-called “cure.” This all comes back to cause and effect. Most sickness is unnecessary. If you participate in high-risk behaviors such as sexual promiscuity, illicit drug use, eating only junk food—the causes—you will be more prone to sexually transmitted diseases, HIV and obesity-related illnesses—the effects. The opposite is also true. If you eat nutritious foods and make sure to have appropriate balances of vitamins and minerals—the causes—you can avoid many unnecessary illnesses and overall have more energy and vibrancy—the effects. A healthy human body is able to naturally fight off many viruses and bacteria. If a person does contract an illness, a strong immune system will often mean the symptoms are very slight. Benefits of a healthy diet include a reduction in the risk of stroke, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, certain cancers, and coronary artery disease. These five maladies alone account for 74 percent of the total fatalities attributable to the U.S.’s top 10 “leading causes of death” (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).
5) Replace the Fee for Service model (medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance) with an "accountable health care organization" or an "integrated care provider." Instead of being paid a fee for each service, the provider is paid a fixed annual price to do everything for the patient (with limited exceptions for catastrophic care). Instead of making more money by dialysis and amputation of limbs of patients with diabetes, the provider now has an incentive to keep the patient healthier by nudging them towards better lifestyles. The provider hires social workers in lieu of more surgeons.Comprehensive providers are not a radical concept. The Kaiser health system in California works this way. The Veterans Health Administration (VA) is a public model. Several states, including Texas and New York, are moving to integrated care providers for all Medicaid recipients.
6) Allow Medicare to negotiate Drug prices with the Pharmaceutical companies. In 2006, when Democrats wanted to change the fledgling law to let Medicare use its enormous leverage to bargain with drug makers, we thought such a step was premature. Eight years later, however, the rosy stories about how well private insurers were keeping prices down turn out to have been exaggerated.
Part D has cost less than predicted because fewer people signed up than projected and because drug prices fell as fewer blockbuster medicines came to market and expensive drugs came off patent, allowing inexpensive generics to replace them.
The discounts available to private insurers pale beside the ones the government gets for Medicaid. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, Medicaid's practice of setting minimum discounts, and bargaining for more, yields savings three times bigger than the ones private insurers get for Medicare Part D. When the government is spending taxpayer money, that's just too big a discrepancy to ignore.
How much could Part D save? The Congressional Budget Office says that simply giving Medicare's low-income beneficiaries the same discount available under Medicaid would save $116 billion over 10 years — serious savings that could cut the cost of the program by roughly 10% a year. By some calculations, extending Medicaid-style savings to all 35 million of Medicare's Part D beneficiaries could save an additional $39 billion over 10 years.
Drug makers give the familiar argument that cutting prices will reduce research and development, stunting the supply of new drugs. But Part D is already a windfall for drug companies, which spend more on marketing medicines than they do on basic research anyway.
Although Congress could get a better deal for taxpayers by letting Medicare bargain, proposals to do so are going nowhere on Capitol Hill, where drug makers wield considerable clout. That's something to ask candidates about the next time they complain that government spends too much on health care.
maryla wrote:
Last night I heard Barry Loudermilk (R- GA) explai... (show quote)
--------------
I'm not following what you are saying. Does that mean Ryan's plan gets passed, or dropped? If it gets passed, how do we know what Price's regulatory reform will entail, and that it goes far enough? Is this another case of pass it so we can see what Price puts in it?
Is Obamacare repealed, and if so, when? Before phase 1?