+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 41
Latest: GWarnock
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 8447
Total Topics: 228
Most Online Today: 1
Most Online Ever: 52
(November 29, 2017, 04:04:44 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Author Topic: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field  (Read 1040 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences

09/14/2016 02:51 PM     
Monsanto and Bayer Merge into GMO Behemoth

SustainableBusiness.com News

After receiving the largest cash offer on record, Monsanto has agreed to be acquired by Bayer for an incredible $66 billion ($128 per share). 

Thus forms the largest agrichemical and seed company in the world, controlling over 25% of the market. Bayer hopes to close the deal by the end of 2017.

While Monsanto is known for glyphosate, Bayer's notoriety is around Imidacloprid, a neonic pesticide that's decimating pollinators.

Glyphosate use is so widespread (#1 herbicide in the world) that it's in the urine of 93% of Americans.

Quote
"Now the most evil company in Europe has absorbed the most evil company in America," Dave Murphy, Executive Director of Food Democracy Now!, told Ecowatch. Their new corporate motto should be 'Killing bees and butterflies for fun and profit."   

Read, How the National Academy of Sciences misled the public over GMO food safety.

On October 15-16, Monsanto faces a trial at The Hague for crimes against nature and humanity.   

Farmers are rightly concerned that fewer and fewer seed varieties will be available and that prices will rise. But that's what monopolies do ... and supposedly why we have anti-trust laws in the US and EU. 

Will regulators allow this to go through? Sign the petition against the merger.

Other major GMO producers would also like to merge - DuPont and Dow Chemical - and Syngenta and China National Chemical Corp. (ChemChina) have received approval.

Allowing monopolistic power among fewer and fewer multinationals is behind increasing income inequality and the decline of influence of everyone else. Multitudes of lobbyists and campaign contributions result in government policies and legislation that truly rigs the economy and threatens democracy. 

In Africa, Monsanto and Dupont have been pushing hard to introduce GMO crops, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and USAID has bought their propaganda. The African Centre for Biodiversity accuses them using "the guise of philanthropy" to infiltrate the continent. Companies donate GMO technology royalty-free to get the process rolling.

Take The Urgent Need to Protect Pollinators, For Example

Monsanto, Bayer and Syngenta have successfully lobbied to prevent strong regulations that would protect bees, butterflies and other pollinators, according to Buzz Kill, a report by Friends of the Earth (FOE).

 "The pesticide industry has weakened and delayed pesticide reforms and is shaping new pollinator 'protection' plans nationwide that do little to protect bees, but a lot to protect industry profits," they say.

44% of US bee colonies died this past year, up 3.5% from 2015. 

Lobbying on the state and federal levels has resulted in "pollinator protection plans" that "lack metrics to measure effectiveness, improvement, or failure" and often "provide more protections for pesticides and pesticide users than for bee keepers and bee colonies."

Also, there's the "revolving door," where public officials leave to work at the corporations they regulated or where private sector representatives "infiltrate" regulatory agencies. Private corps fund research and education initiatives in "public/private partnerships".

Another report by FOE shows that corporations can also have a beneficial impact. Since Home Depot and other big box stores were taken to task for selling "bee-friendly" garden plants pre-treated with neonics, the percentage of those plant sales has dropped dramatically. In 2014, more than half of plants were pre-treated, dropping to 23% this year.

Zika Virus 

Even though state and local officials are allowed to use chemicals "as needed" to spray mosquitoes as a response to Zika, Republicans in the House used it as an opportunity to loosen pesticide regulations. 

Democrats almost unanimously opposed the bill, which loosens environmental protections on pesticides and other chemicals under the Clean Water Act. 

Corporate Power    Exceeds Many Countries 

The world's 10 largest corporations have more wealth than most countries combined!, concludes a study by UK-based Global Justice Now. Their combined value is $2.9 trillion -larger than China's economy.

Out of the 100 wealthiest economic entities in the world, 69 are corporations and 31 are countries, they say, warning that "within a generation we will be living in a world entirely dominated by giant corporations."

Largest Entities and their Value


US: $3.3 trillion
 China: 2.4 trillion
 Germany: 1.5 trillion
 Japan: 1.4 trillion
 France: 1.3 trillion
 UK: 1.1 trillion
 Italy: 876 billion
 Brazil: 631 billion
 Canada: 585 billion
Walmart: $482 billion
 Spain: 473.6 billion
 Australia: 425.7 billion
 Netherlands: 336.5 billion
State Grid Corp of China: 329.6 billion
China National Petroleum: 299.3 billion
Sinopec Group: 294 billion
 South Korea: 291 billion
Royal Dutch Shell: 272.2 billion
 Mexico: 259.6 billion
 Sweden: 250.8 billion
Exxon Mobil: 246.2 billion
Volkswagen: 236.6 billion
Toyota: 236.5 billion
 India: 236 billion
Apple: 233.7 billion
 Belgium: 226.8 billion
BP: 225.9 billion

Other corporations in the top 50 entities are: Berkshire Hathaway (#32); McKesson (#35); Samsung Electronics (#37); Glencore (#39); Industrial & Commercial Bank of China (#40); Daimler (#41); UnitedHealth Group (#43); CVS Health (#44); EXOR Group (#45); General Motors (#46); Ford (#47); China Construction Bank (#48),  AT&T (#49) and Total (#50). 

Here's the full list.

Quote
Monopolies deprive governments of revenue by stashing profits in offshore accounts and push for trade deals where private tribunals nullify judicial systems. They are behind the drive to privatize everything so they can make endless, short-term profits - literally tearing the world apart through environmental destruction and climate change. 

Read, The Complete History of Monsanto, The World's Most Evil Corporation:
 
Website: www.globalresearch.ca/the-complete-history-of-monsanto-the-worlds-most-evil-corporation/5387964

http://www.sustainablebus.../go/news.display/id/26668
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Food| Sep. 14, 2016 01:36PM EST

Sugar Industry Paid Harvard Scientists to Shift Blame to Fat

By Union of Concerned Scientists


By Genna Reed

It might not shock you to know that the sugar industry doesn't have our best interests in mind.
Quote
But would you be alarmed to find out that they consciously manipulated science in order to increase sugar consumption? And that they did so in the face of scientific evidence that sugar consumption was associated with chronic disease?

Quote
Next year will mark 50 years since the sugar industry initiated and funded a literature review absolving sugar of its association with chronic heart disease, without disclosing the industry's role in the study.

What we now know as the Sugar Association began as the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) in 1943. Researchers Cristin Kearns, Laura Schmidt and Stanton Glantz of the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) combed through hundreds of SRF documents and found evidence that the sugar industry had manipulated the science to exonerate sugar as a dominant cause of heart disease—an action that shifted the direction of scientific research for decades.   

One particularly jarring quote they found was from the president Henry Hass's 1954 speech to the American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists in which he said, "if the carbohydrate industries were to recapture this 20 percent of the calories in the US diet (the difference between the 40 percent which fat has and the 20 percent which it ought to have) and if sugar maintained its present share of the carbohydrate market, this change would mean an increase in the per capita consumption of sugar more than a third with a tremendous improvement in general health."

The sugar industry was interested in increasing sugar consumption by funding science that would urge Americans to decrease calories from saturated fats and hopefully replace them with sugar.

The UCSF analysis reveals that SRF employed the following tactics the Union of Concerned Scientists previously identified in Added Sugar, Subtracted Science in order to undermine public health policy on sugar. Our work shows that SRF's successor the Sugar Association and its counterpart in the corn syrup industry, the Corn Refiners Association, took pointers from SRF:

Attacking the Science

Just as the Corn Refiners Association planned to "bury the data" when it was inconvenient, when the sugar industry got word that researchers like John Yudkin at Queen Elizabeth College were challenging the maxim that sugar calories were more desirable than fat calories, the SRF's vice president and director of research called on the organization in 1964 to "embark on a major program" to counter the science coming from Yudkin and others representing "negative attitudes toward sugar."

This program would include issuing a public opinion poll to find out what messages would resonate with consumers and decision makers, opening up a venue to publicly call out scientists for their undesirable results regarding sugar, and finally, pushing out studies funded by the sugar industry that look at the causes of chronic heart disease.


Spreading Misinformation 


Similar to the sugar industry's recent misinforming in order to fight labeling policies, as a part of its campaign to increase sugar consumption in the 1960s, it began to fund its own literature review on sugars, fats, and chronic heart disease in an obvious attempt to dispel the rumors that calories from sugar were at least part of the problem. The SRF paid Dr. Mark Hegsted and Dr. Robert McGandy, under the supervision of Harvard University's Fredrick Stare, a total of nearly $50,000 (in 2015 dollars) for their work. And the SRF was heavily involved throughout the review process, urging the scientists to focus on the perils of fat consumption.

The SRF vice president and director of research, John Hickson, emphasized in 1965, "Our particular interest had to do with that part of nutrition in which there are claims that carbohydrates in the form of sucrose make an inordinate contribution to the metabolic condition, hitherto ascribed to aberrations called fat metabolism. I will be disappointed if this aspect is drowned out in a cascade of review and general interpretation."

The study authors discounted research showing sugar's impact on chronic heart disease in a number of ways, focusing especially on possible bias within individual studies instead of looking at the consensus across studies. The conclusion of the literature review was that there was "no doubt" that the one way to prevent chronic heart disease was through a reduction of dietary cholesterol and replacing saturated fats with unsaturated fats. And the SRF was content with these findings, telling the lead authors, "this is quite what we had in mind."


Deploying Industry Scientists   /Influencing Academia

Just as the Sugar Association and Corn Refiners Association today work with academic scientists to advance their talking points, when the literature review was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1967, the authors did not disclose the funding or close involvement of the SRF in the review. Dr. Fredrick Stare, the founder and chairman of the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health, had an extended history of funding from the sugar and food industry: over 30 papers authored by members of his department were funded by the SRF just between 1952 and 1956. Stare's department at Harvard is a key example of how industry funding can influence academic science, with dangerous consequences for public discourse and public policy.


Undermining Policy

The manipulation of science doesn't happen in a vacuum. Often, it serves to change the conversation and impact policy, as well. Similar to today's efforts by the sugar industry to undermine public health policies, in 1986, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Sugars Task Force assessed the scientific evidence around sugar, leaning heavily upon the industry's 1976 review, titled "Sugar in the Diet of Man." The FDA report said that "no conclusive evidence on sugars demonstrates a hazard to the general public when sugars are consumed at the levels that are now current." The agency's study was influenced by industry sponsorship, as the chair of the study later went on to work at the Corn Refiners Association, a trade group that represents the interests of high-fructose corn syrup manufacturers.

This agency study, which had clear influence form the sugar and food industry, has been responsible for the determination of GRAS status for several added sugars, and has largely set the precedent for the resulting years of denial about the health impacts of sugar-laden diets.

The Sugar Industry's Role in Today's Chronic Disease Epidemic

It is no wonder that even today, our food policies are only just beginning to adequately address the association between added sugars and chronic disease. The sugar industry has magnificently managed to delay the inevitable knowledge about the dangers of excessive sugar consumption for a half century. And they are still employing this same behavior. Just last month, the American Heart Association released added sugar consumption guidelines for children, recommending that children under two consume no added sugars and that all other children consume less than 10 percent of calories from sugars, because "there is minimal room for nutrient-free calories in the habitual diets of very young children." The Sugar Association responded by accusing the American Heart Association of a lack of scientific integrity.

Luckily the tide is beginning to turn in spite of the industry's best efforts. FDA's label will soon include added sugars information on food packages. More and more local resolutions are popping up to place taxes on sugary beverages. School meal policies are adding variety and improving the nutritional quality of kids' diets. And exposés like this one are revealing the truth about how the food industry has manipulated science to influence our diets for the worse.

Still, the aforementioned research points to some interesting scientific integrity issues that remain today, including the rigor of conflict-of-interest policies at scientific journals and the ethical questions involved with the ability of decision makers to use industry-funded research to shape policies. My colleague, Gretchen Goldman, explains more about how we should be dealing with conflicts of interest in science funding here. We need greater transparency around the sugar industry's role in scientific studies, including funding but also identification of the nature of the relationship between the industry and the science. Independent science should inform policies that protect public health from the adverse impacts of added sugar.

Genna Reed is a science and policy analyst in the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

http://www.ecowatch.com/s...-industry-2004899240.html
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
The FDA and Big Pharma Are Too Cozy  >:(

October 11, 2016 | 13,131 views

By Dr. Mercola

One of the primary roles of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is to review the safety and efficacy of new drugs before approving them for the U.S. market.

Clearly an objective, unbiased review is needed for this system to work, but a new study published in The British Medical Journal (BMJ) suggests conflicts of interest are rampant.

A much-used revolving door exists between the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry, which is putting Americans' health at jeopardy for the sake of the drug industry's (and individuals') monetary pursuits.

Such cozy ties have been revealed before, but for the new study the researchers, from Oregon Health and Science University, wanted to find out just how prevalent they actually are.

Concerning Numbers of FDA Employees Leave Agency to Work for Drug Industry

The researchers analyzed data on FDA hematology-oncology drug approvals from 2006 to 2010 along with medical reviews conducted from 2001 to 2010. They then found out the subsequent jobs of the former FDA medical reviewers that worked on those drug approvals.1

Out of 55 people, 15 left their job at the FDA to work or consult for the biopharmaceutical industry (another 29 continued working at the FDA in some capacity while the rest of the jobs could not be determined).2

Study author Dr. Vinay Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist and assistant professor of medicine at the Oregon Health and Science University, cited a need to understand why so many people are leaving the FDA.

He pointed out that while working at the FDA "they're certainly earning less than what they can make in the [pharmaceutical] industry." He continued in Time:3


"I don't think there is overt collusion going on, but if you know in the back of your mind that a major career opportunity after the FDA is going to work on the other side of the table, I worry it can make you less likely to put your foot down


… Regulators may be less willing to be very tough, and I worry that is happening."


The FDA Is Supposed to Stop Harmful Drugs From Reaching the US Public

The revolving-door trend is particularly troublesome in the hematology-oncology field, an area of medicine where the drugs may be highly toxic with only minimal benefits. The researchers noted much room for "interpretation" when reviewing such drugs.

For instance, many cancer drug studies use surrogate endpoints, which means the study may not reveal whether the drug improves survival or quality of life, but instead may evaluate a different outcome, such as tumor shrinkage.

The problem is that it's often unknown whether the surrogate endpoint, such as tumor shrinkage, leads to better health outcomes.

The end result, as Kaiser Health News reported, is that FDA-approved drugs may appear to be more beneficial than they really are. And, once FDA-approved, these drugs must be covered by Medicare and Medicaid programs, and the agencies are unable to negotiate prices.4

Further, when a reviewer is poised to work for the drug company manufacturing a borderline drug, he's likely to be more lenient. If a reviewer plans to someday work for the drug company in question, for instance, Prasad told Kaiser Health News:5


"Are you more likely to give [companies] the benefit of the doubt? Are you less likely to beat them up hard over [using bad comparisons in drug studies]?"


… Sometimes, the public needs [the FDA reviewers] to be firm. If they're not, no one else in the health care sector is going to be … The FDA is often the only real wall between ineffective, harmful drugs and patients."

Former FDA Commissioner Says She Won't Consider Big Pharma Work for a 'Couple of Years' 

In what she described as a "cooling-off period," former FDA commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg said she would not consider working for companies regulated by the FDA for "a couple years."6

The FDA requires a waiting period of this type from former senior employees, although the featured study pointed out numerous anecdotal reports of employees going directly to work for the pharmaceutical industry.

Even a couple-year lag time added in to the revolving door does little to assuage concerns of cozy ties between regulators and industry.

In Hamburg's case, the revolving door worked both ways, as she was previously employed by industry before joining the FDA. She stepped down as commissioner at the end of March 2015.

Hamburg entered the FDA through the revolving government/private industry door after allegedly making millions as the director of Henry Schein Inc., the largest seller of dental amalgam (mercury fillings). Schein is a flu vaccine seller as well.7

Dr. Michael Carome, director of the health research group at Public Citizen, has been more critical, calling her tenure a period of "weak and ineffective leadership." He said in a statement in 2015:8

Quote

"Too often, the FDA has succumbed to industry and political pressures, implementing policies and taking actions that tilt too far toward the bottom-line interests of pharmaceutical and medical-device companies, and away from protecting public health …


Throughout Hamburg's   tenure, the FDA has grown even more cozy with the industries that it regulates."


2015 Was a Banner Year for New Drug Approvals   

There is perhaps no better evidence of where the FDA's loyalty lies than in the sheer number of new drug approvals granted in 2015 — 45 in all, which is the most new drug approvals granted in one year since 1996.9

Chemistry & Engineering News reported that "few products approved in 2015 stood out as major breakthroughs," and continued:10

"Rather, many of the new drugs were notable more for their breathtaking price tags and how swiftly they moved to the market than for their ability to transform lives."


About 60 percent of the new drug approvals were also granted some type of expedited review process, allowing them to come to market faster. Many believe the speedy drug approvals come at the expense of safety.

An increasing number of New Drug Applications are also getting approved on their first attempt, meaning the FDA did not ask for any additional testing or information. Eighty-seven percent of new drug applications were approved on the first go-around in 2015 compared to just 56 percent in 2010.11

Also of note, 12 of the drugs approved in 2015 come with a more than $100,000 price tag per year, while others must be taken in combination with other exorbitantly priced drugs, "easily bringing the combined annual cost of treatment into the six figures," according to Chemistry & Engineering News.


How Financial Interests Affect FDA Member Voting Behaviors

It goes without saying that researchers and policy makers with financial ties to industry should not be permitted to participate in public health recommendations relating to said industry. Unfortunately, this blatant conflict of interest happens all the time.

In 2014, for instance, a study published in the Milbank Quarterly journal revealed how financial interests affected the voting behavior of nearly 1,400 FDA advisory committee members who took part in drug approval decisions between 1997 and 2011.12

On average, 13 percent of the members in any given committee had financial interest in the company whose drug was up for a review by that committee. About one-third of financial interests involved consulting for a drug maker, 25 percent involved ownership interest and 14 percent involved serving on an industry advisory board or steering committee.

Committee members with financial ties to the company sponsoring the drug under review voted in favor of approval 63 percent of the time while members who did not have financial ties had a 52 percent chance of favoring approval. Committee members who served on a sponsoring firm's advisory board, meanwhile, voted in favor of the drug's approval 84 percent of the time.


FDA Lets Fraud and Misconduct in Clinical Trials Slide

The FDA reviews several hundred sites that conduct research on human participants each year in order to be sure they're engaging in good clinical practice. But what happens when they find evidence of questionable procedures or practices?

In the most serious of cases, the FDA can classify it as "official action indicated," or OAI. This is reserved for "severe" forms of clinical trial violations, including "objectionable conditions or practices" that warrant compulsory regulatory action, as opposed to "voluntary action indicated" for lesser violations."13

Now, if a trial had been deemed OAI by the FDA, you might assume that you'd see evidence of that when reading the results of studies based on said data. But that would be a liberal assumption. Researchers conducted a review of FDA inspection reports between 1998 and 2013.14

They found 60 clinical trials that had been classified as OAI, and these trials had been used for data in 78 published articles. Out of those 78 studies, only three included mentions of the violations found by the FDA.

The violations included fraud, incompetence and misconduct. This means that anyone browsing a medical journal (such as your physician) might be making decisions based on fraudulent or heavily flawed published studies — and have no way of knowing that this is the case.

Of the 57 OAI trials:15

•22 had falsified information

•14 trials had researchers who failed to report adverse events

•42 trials had violations of the trial's protocols

•35 trials had record-keeping errors

•30 trials had researchers who failed to protect patient safety or acquire informed consent


Increased Transparency Might Help

The FDA devotes an entire section of its website to transparency and says they're engaged in an "agency-wide effort to open the doors of the agency."16 Whether this is occurring in practice is questionable. In the above-referenced OAI study, for instance, most of the documents obtained by students were heavily redacted.

In some cases, they couldn't even tell what drug was being tested, and they believed they would have uncovered even more violations if not for the redaction.17

Ultimately, you are responsible for your and your family's health, so be sure you feel completely comfortable with any related decisions you make. If you're facing a health challenge, choose health care practitioners who really understand health at a foundational level and have extensive experience helping others (and don't be afraid to ask for references and seek corroboration).

Unfortunately, you simply cannot place your blind faith in agencies like the FDA, as they are currently too embroiled with industry to at the same time be an effective watchdog for public health.

http://articles.mercola.c...10/11/fda-big-pharma.aspx
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
There goes Medicare, something Trump PROMISED "he would not touch but would defend".          Ryan speaks AFTER meeting with Trump.

Paul Ryan just announced his plans to phase out Medicare with privatization using vouchers   
Friday Nov 11, 2016

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/11/11/1596527/-Paul-Ryan-just-announced-his-plans-to-phase-out-Medicare-with-privatization-using-vouchers

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Politics| Nov. 21, 2016 12:06PM EST

CDC Scientists Expose Agency Corruption


Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

SNIPPET:

The group, which claimed to represent scientists across the CDC's diverse branches, calls itself SPIDER (Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research). The letter to CDC Chief of Staff, Carmen Villar, expressed alarm "about the current state of ethics at our agency."

The scientists complained that "our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests" and "circumvented by some of our leaders."

http://www.ecowatch.com/c...ennedy-jr-2096438139.html
« Last Edit: December 29, 2016, 01:40:05 pm by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences


The true story of America’s sky-high prescription drug prices

Updated by Sarah Kliffsarah@vox.com   Nov 30, 2016, 2:00pm EST

http://www.vox.com/scienc...ion-drug-prices-explained
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
VAXXED: From Cover-up to Catastrophe (Stowe)

January 14, 2017 @ 10:30 am - 12:30 pm

« Member Night in Catamount Country Screening & Community Conversation: “Vermont Speaks for Itself” »


Description: VAXXED: From Cover-up to Catastrophe is a story of collusion, corruption, and fraud at the very agency that claims to be protecting “the public health.” Interviews with pharmaceutical insiders, doctors, politicians, and parents of vaccine-injured children reveal an alarming deception that has contributed to the skyrocketing increase of autism and potentially the most catastrophic epidemic of our lifetime.

Purchase tickets ($12) online: https://www.eventbrite.co...we-vt-tickets-30283726441


Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
The GOPs Plot To Kill Medicare Starts Jan. 3rd! (Guest Host Alex Lawson w/ Nancy Altman)

Guest Host Alex Lawson talks with Social Security Works co-Director Nancy Altman about the GOP plot to steal our Social Security and Medicare - starting January 3rd!  >:(
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Paul Ryan/Tom Price/GOP *do* plan to throw grandma off a cliff...after picking her pocket.

By Brainwrap 
Badges Trusted User Daily Kos Subscriber 
   
Thursday Dec 29, 2016 ·  6:09 PM EST



SNIPPET:

The Republican plot to devour retirees' nest eggs

...A great many medical providers adjust their prices based on how defenseless the patient is, and bleed the weakest ones for every last red cent, often with preposterously inflated charges for things like aspirin and bandages. A 2015 study looked at the worst price gougers in the country and found 50 hospitals that charged uninsured people roughly 10 times the actual cost of care.

Key to this practice is something called "balance billing," and it's why the American Medical Association is strongly supporting Donald Trump's pick of Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees Medicare. Balance billing is forbidden for Medicare enrollees, but Price wants to allow it — thus allowing doctors and hospitals to devour the nest eggs of thousands of American seniors.

So what is balance billing? It's the practice of billing the patient for the difference between the sticker price and what insurance will pay. So if a hospital visit costs $1,000, but your insurance will only cover $300, some providers will "balance bill" you for $700.

For unscrupulous providers, the method of exploitation is obvious: When doing any sort of expensive procedure, take a rough estimate of the absolute maximum the patient can pay, and jack up the price so the balance hits it. Or if you're short on time, just bill them into the stratosphere, and you'll get whatever the patient has during the bankruptcy proceeding.




http://www.dailykos.com/s...-after-picking-her-pocket


Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Flawed and Poor Quality Surgical Instruments Place Patients at Risk


December 31, 2016 | 131,005 views


http://articles.mercola.c...surgical-instruments.aspx

Agelbert NOTE: This is a video that everyone who is planning to submit to some type of endoscopy, either through the esophagus or the colon, should see.

MONEY QUOTE:
Quote
If you’re having a colonoscopy done, or any other procedure where a flexible endoscope will be used, be sure to ask how it is cleaned, and which cleaning agent is being used.

•If the hospital or clinic uses peracetic acid , your likelihood of contracting an infection from a previous patient is very slim.

•If the answer is glutaraldehyde  , or the brand name Cidex (which is what 80 percent of clinics use), cancel your appointment and go elsewhere.


http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/12/31/poor-quality-surgical-instruments.aspx


Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences


 

Senator Sanders gives it to Trump Nominated Crook Tom Price with Both Barrels  ;D

Quote
Tom Price’s long record seeking to destroy Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid would make him a disaster as Secretary of Health and Human Services. And his first Senate hearing did nothing to allay our concerns.

Price refused to say whether he’d honor Donald Trump’s pledge to protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Price confirmed that he, other members of Congress, and their families and staff received an exclusive deal in purchasing pharmaceutical stock at a “preferred price,” raising serious legal questions. Tom Price has no business serving as Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Alex Lawson, Social Security Works

Al Franken Lights Up Tom Price For His Ties To Tobacco, Corruption

Elizabeth Warren Exposes Tom Price's Unethical Dealings

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Elizabeth Warren RIPS Tom Price for Wanting to Cut Over a Trillion Dollars From Medicare, Medicaid

Published on Jan 18, 2017

In a contentious hearing Wednesday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) grilled Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) — Donald Trump’s nominee for Health and Human Services secretary — over his proposal to cut to cut funding for Medicare and Medicaid, as well as his introduction of legislation that directly benefitted a company he held stock in.

Noting that more than 100 million Americans receive healthcare through the federal programs Medicare and Medicaid, Warren asked Price if he hopes to cut Medicaid funding by more than $1 trillion dollars, as his 2017 budget proposal suggests.

Price did not directly answer whether he proposed the trillion dollar cut, instead arguing the “metrics” of success for Medicare and Medicaid are “not necessarily the amount of money” put into the programs. Warren refused to let Price dodge her question. “It’s a yes or no,” she pressed. “Did you propose to cut more than a trillion dollars out of Medicaid over the next ten years?” “You have the numbers before you,” Price shot back. “I’ll take it as a yes,” Warren replied.

The Massachusetts senator then referenced Donald Trump’s campaign pledge not to cut funding to Medicare and Medicaid, asking Price if he can “guarantee” he “will safeguard president-elect Trump’s promise” regarding funding for those programs.

Price, once again, dodged the question. “Your question presumes that money is the metric,” Price began. “I’m sorry to interrupt but we’re very limited on time,” Warren replied. “The metric is money.” “Frankly, the millions of Americans who rely on Medicare and Medicaid today are not going to be reassured by your notion that you have some metric other than the dollars that they need to provide these services,” she continued, noting “Americans will be watching” to see if Price reneges on Trump’s campaign promise. Warren then pressed Price about his stock holdings in Zimmer Biomet, a medical device manufacturer that made several contributions to Price’s reelection campaign.

In March 2016, six days after purchasing stock in Zimmer Biomet, Price introduced legislation in the House that directly benefited the company. Warren took issue with Price’s argument that he was not the one “making those decisions” to buy stock in the company, noting the HHS nominee did not use a blind trust or passively managed mutual fund. “So let’s just be clear, this is not just a stock broker, someone you pay to handle the paperwork,” Warren began. “This is someone who buys stock at your direction. This is someone who buys and sells the stock you want them to.” “Not true,” Price said. “Because you decide not to tell them” Warren asked. “Wink, wink, nod nod, and we’re all supposed to believe that?” The Massachusetts senator then asked Price directly if he took actions to benefit a company he owned stock in. “I’m offended by the insinuation, senator,” Price replied.

Elizabeth Warren GRILLS Tom Price at Senate Confirmation Hearing 1/18/17. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) blasted Donald Trump's nominee to become Secretary of Health and Human Services over his desire to drastically cut essential services, including Medicare and Medicaid. Warren reminded Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) that Donald Trump himself promised he would not cut those core safety net programs.

After informing Rep. Price "more than 100 million Americans now receive their healthcare through Medicare and Medicaid," Sen. Warren reminded Rep.

Price the budget he authored as chair of the House budget committee would have cut spending on Medicaid by $449 billion over the next decade, and would have cut Medicare by more than $1 trillion Price's response? The "metrics" used to determine success of these programs should not be dollars. That prompted a heated exchange, with Senator Warren slamming a combative Price, then reminded Rep. Price that "President-elect Trump was very clear about his views on Medicare and Medicaid." "Can you guarantee to this committee that you will safeguard President-elect Trump's promise and while you are HHS Secretary you will not use your authority to carry out a single dollar of cuts to Medicare or Medicaid eligibility or benefits?" Warren asked. "What the question presumes is that money is the metric," Price responded. "In my belief from a scientific standpoint, if patients aren't receiving care even though we're providing the resources, it doesn't work for patients."

Warren was not buying what Price was selling. "We're very limited on time," she reminded the nominee. "The metric is money. And the quote from the President-elect of the United States was not along this to cut dollars from this program.

So that's the question I'm asking you. Can you assure this committee you will not cut one dollar from Medicare or Medicaid should you be confirmed to this position?" "I believe that the metric ought to be the care that the patients are receiving," Price insisted. "I'll take that as a no," Warren retorted.

Agelbert NOTE:
Don't miss the end of the video when a POS fellow corrupted CROOK Senator Isakson (R-GA), indignantly huffing and puffing, tries to make Price's PLANNED stock purchases BASED on his PLANNED LEGISLATION appear innocuous by claiming "they jes' don't know what their brokers is buyin' and sellin'".  
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
How Repealing Portions of the Affordable Care Act Would Affect Health Insurance Coverage and Premiums

January 17, 2017 | Report


Quote
Summary

A little more than a year ago, the Congressional Budget Office and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated the budgetary effects of H.R. 3762, the Restoring Americans’ Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015, which would repeal portions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) eliminating, in two steps, the law’s mandate penalties and subsidies but leaving the ACA’s insurance market reforms in place. At that time, CBO and JCT offered a partial assessment of how H.R. 3762 would affect health insurance coverage, but they had not estimated the changes in coverage or premiums that would result from leaving the market reforms in place while repealing the mandate penalties and subsidies. This document—prepared at the request of the Senate Minority Leader, the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Finance, and the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions provides such an estimate.

In brief, CBO and JCT estimate that enacting that legislation would affect insurance coverage and premiums primarily in these ways:

•The number of people who are uninsured would increase by 18 million in the first new plan year following enactment of the bill. Later, after the elimination of the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid eligibility and of subsidies for insurance purchased through the ACA marketplaces, that number would increase to 27 million, and then to 32 million in 2026.

•Premiums in the nongroup market (for individual policies purchased through the marketplaces or directly from insurers) would increase by 20 percent to 25 percent—relative to projections under current law—in the first new plan year following enactment. The increase would reach about 50 percent in the year following the elimination of the Medicaid expansion and the marketplace subsidies, and premiums would about double by 2026.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52371

                                 

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
LBJ signs Medicare into Law - That was then. NOW it is under THREAT from Republican Fascists.

Quote

 Q: I’m already on Medicare. Could I really lose my coverage or see it radically altered?

For people currently on Medicare, there is no immediate threat to your coverage. The most widely discussed plan proposed by House Republicans would not go into effect until 2024. But at this point, the debate is just beginning, and there are other proposals that could reduce coverage and raise costs for today’s seniors. Current beneficiaries could also be affected if the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, is repealed, and the additional benefits that the law provided to Medicare recipients disappear.

Q: Reforming Obamacare seems to be an important early goal of the Trump administration. How could that affect my Medicare coverage?

The ACA made a number of improvements to Medicare—including closing the gap in drug coverage (the “doughnut hole”), adding free preventive benefits and cutting excess provider payments—that improved the financial stability of the program. Obamacare also took some steps to improve care coordination and reduce hospital readmissions. If the entire health care law is repealed, these improvements would be lost.

Q: Isn’t Medicare at risk of going broke within a few decades? For the sake of grandkids, don’t we have to make some changes?


Medicare is not going broke: The program can pay full hospital benefits through 2028. Beyond that, there are challenges, largely caused by a growing older population and skyrocketing health costs.

A number of proposals on the table could keep Medicare on a strong financial footing. Some would make older Americans shoulder more of the costs. Others would focus on lowering health care costs by tackling high drug prices, improving care coordination and cutting back on waste and inefficiencies in our health system.

Q: I’ve heard about the voucher-type plan that House Republicans    hope to implement soon. How would this plan change Medicare?

The “premium support” plan put forward by House Republicans represents a dramatic change:  It would move away from guaranteed benefits and instead provide older adults with a set amount of money (similar to what has been called a voucher) to buy health insurance from private companies. Supporters say this would stimulate greater price competition among insurers and ultimately cut down on costs.

But opponents — including AARP — say the amount of the voucher may not be enough to keep up with health care inflation, so older adults could end up paying more for care and for insurance that has fewer choices of doctors and other providers. 


Q: I’ve been paying payroll taxes for Medicare for many years and thought I was guaranteed coverage. Can the rules be changed now before I’m old enough for Medicare?

Current benefits are set in law for today’s beneficiaries. But Congress can revise the law at any time to change the benefit guarantee, raise the age of eligibility and require higher cost sharing. 


AARP is fighting to protect that benefit guarantee. We are also working to improve the care and coverage in Medicare, and to make sure that health costs stay as low as possible for those using the program.

http://www.aarp.org/polit...y-questions-answered.html
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Stop 28-Hour Shifts for New Doctors!

by: Lacey Kohlmoos

target: Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Board of Directors

22,625 SUPPORTERS

25,000 GOAL

Quote


In 2011, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) passed regulations stating that first-year resident doctors can work no longer than 16 hours during one shift and must be given at least eight hours off in between shifts. The regulations were designed to ensure both the safety of patients and the well-being of first year doctors, many of whom are under 30.

But last November, the ACGME announced a proposal to roll back the restriction on hours. If the proposal is passed, first-year resident doctors could be required to work the same number of hours as more experienced doctors. Shifts could be as long as 28 hours and scheduled back-to-back without a full eight-hour break in between.

As a patient, this terrifies me. There is no way that I want a 26-year-old first year resident performing any procedure on me after they have been on their feet for 28 hours. That is how accidents happen. That is how people die.

As the wife of a fourth-year medical student about to enter into his first year of residency, it also terrifies me. I have seen how long hours and sleep deprivation can change a young doctor. At best, they can become jaded and chronically tired. At worst, they can become completely disconnected from their friends and family, some even suicidal.

A 16-hour shift is already long and stressful, but a 28-hour shift is inhumane and dangerous for both patients and new doctors. Please sign my petition demanding that the ACGME Board of Directors reject the proposal to roll back restrictions on how long a first year resident doctor can work during one shift.

Stop 28-Hour Shifts for New Doctors!

Agelbert Comment when signing: Doctors cannot be expected to be compassionate if they are not treated with compassion. 12 HOURS should be the absolute maximum a doctor has to work a shift, PERIOD!
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
209 Replies
3643 Views
Last post December 12, 2017, 02:40:24 pm
by AGelbert
5 Replies
193 Views
Last post April 08, 2014, 08:49:13 pm
by AGelbert
75 Replies
3064 Views
Last post September 25, 2017, 09:26:33 pm
by AGelbert
3 Replies
175 Views
Last post May 21, 2015, 08:04:05 pm
by AGelbert
15 Replies
391 Views
Last post November 19, 2017, 05:16:20 pm
by AGelbert

+-Recent Topics

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 11:49:23 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 11:29:07 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 10:01:49 pm

Pollution by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 05:05:03 pm

Wind Power by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 04:34:29 pm

Future Earth by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 02:51:20 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 01:35:42 pm

Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution by AGelbert
December 14, 2017, 10:49:12 pm

Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF by AGelbert
December 14, 2017, 09:32:10 pm

Fibonacci Sequence: The Spiral of Life by AGelbert
December 14, 2017, 01:07:22 pm

Free Web Hit Counter By CSS HTML Tutorial