Republicans Could Be Heroes On Obamacare (And Liberals Should Let Them)

Posted by Rude One

Let me be honest: I'd rather have my prostate checked by Wolverine on a vengeance rampage than help an elected Republican in Congress. But if you are one, chances are you're either facing crowds of angry constituents (and, really, and, c'mon, you can lie to your Twitter followers all you want, but it's mostly your constituents who are showing up) at town hall meetings where they force you to defend the idiot president and your own campaign promises, the ones that really promise to hurt them or their familes, or you're cowering like a beaten puppy in a corner of your local office, avoiding anyone who might tell you to your face what you know is true: "You're full of shit."

Face it, GOP scum. Now that the black guy and that Clinton woman are out of the way as a lightning rod for all the misdirected hatred you could foster, you have nothing between you and the voters. There is no buffer. And anything you do is something you own. Yeah, motherfuckers, acting is a whole lot harder than obstructing. It's a lot easier to talk about killing something than to actually drown the cat or bludgeon the milk man.

But when it comes to the Affordable Care Act, you have painted yourself into a corner and then placed landmines all around the floor. For seven years, it's been a constant chant of "repeal," followed by "repeal and replace," which was already a retreat, an admission that you needed to do something about the uninsured in the United States, that the government had to be involved to some degree, even if it was just with bullshit tax credits.

Now, since the election and certainly in the town halls, what you're hearing, Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Rep. Jason "Little Rat-Faced Bitch" Chaffetz of Utah, Rep. Diane Black of Tennessee, and so many more, is that the ACA or, you know, Obamacare, is doing what it was supposed to do: give people who previously didn't have access to health insurance a chance to go to the doctor and get treatment without having to choose between medicine or food. People who previously didn't have that access, those who got policies through the exchanges and through expanded Medicaid, have learned that they like being treated like human beings whose lives have worth.

And when you, the GOP Congress men and women, tell them that you are gonna come up with a plan that'll be even better, that you can't give your constituents all the details because it's "still being worked out" or some such shit, that someone's cancer treatment might be interrupted while you attempt to figure out what "replace" is supposed to mean, that to get cancer treatment under the Affordable Care Act is to not want "freedom" or have "individual responsibility," as Vice President Mike Pence alluded to in a tweet, then you are telling those voters that they do not deserve to be treated like human beings. You're saying, senators and representatives, that their cancer treatments and medicine and other health care, their lives, aren't worth the effort to save.

So, yeah, they're pretty fuckin' angry. You've lost on this issue. You can be jerks about it and dick people over. Or you can admit you lost.

Here's the deal, though. I've got a solution. It's so easy that you will come out of the whole thing looking like the most democracy-loving motherfuckers in history, like goddamned heroes. Listen. No, shut the fuck up, GOP assholes, and listen:

You tell the voters that you heard them. Tell your constituents that you understand how important the Affordable Care Act has been. And tell them that because they have spoken so passionately and made so much sense that you are now going to listen to them. You can make a big fuckin' show about it. "Republicans want to take care of all Americans," you can say. Hell, you can even remind us all about how the ACA was a Republican idea to begin with (which, let's be honest, is the reason you can't come up with a replacement).

You don't have to admit error. You can say that you "evolved," which seems to be the term now for "Boy, I was a fucking prick about that. Sorry." And then you can say that instead of "repeal and replace," you're going to "reform and repair" Obamacare.

And you can essentially do nothing. No, really. You can do absolutely nothing except for a few tweaks that it needs to help out the marketplace in some states. Then you can say, "See? We fixed it. Republicans fix things." Hell, Democrats might go along with it, and you can claim a bipartisan victory, that phantom of something that we used to think was important. Your idiot president can make one of his barely coherent speeches about how he fixed the ACA and now it's "Trumpcare."

Now, sure, sure, you're wondering, "Won't people think we're liars and hypocrites?" To which I can only say, "What the fuck do you think people think you are now, GOP?" But, to put it another way, right now, Republican voters are fucking nuts. They honestly believes that millions of people voted illegally. They really think that Donald Trump is doing a good job. A good many of them are convinced that kids are being raped in the basement of a DC pizzeria because "cheese." You just say that this was what you wanted all along. You wanted to hear from your constituents and you listened. And if Trump tweets that out, you're golden. The stupidity of your voters will be your cover.

As for us liberals, we'll gnash our teeth. But, ultimately, we're liberals. We want people to have access to health care. Democratic members of Congress and candidates will likely campaign on, "Oh, c'mon, we were right all along." As well they should. And maybe they'll win with that. However, GOP, you will definitely be losing a lot of races if you take away Daddy's heart surgery and Mommy's chemo.

Oh, dear, sweet, terrible GOP, you have lost Obamacare as an issue. Because Obamacare without "Obama" is just "care," and do you want to be the party that takes that away from millions of Americans?

(Note: Yeah, they probably do.)

GOP Rep tries the "death panel" line at town hall

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R) fields questions at a healthcare reform listening session in New Port Richey, Florida. The false claim of 'death panels' in the ACA was PolitiFact's "Lie of the Year" in 2009.



"..The point is that we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield."

George Orwell

Revealing Video Proves Why Democrats Are Full Of Shit

Single payer healthcare has been on the tongues of Democratic politicians for decades, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. They've never delivered.

Jimmy Dore breaks it down.

Paul Ryan Promises 'Unified Republican Government' Will Destroy America in 2017

Take away healthcare because it's hurting you. Take away corporate taxes (and raise yours). Take away regulations that protect you from clean air, water, and food.

By Hrafnkell Haraldsson


Paul Ryan promises, “In 2017, we’ll deliver results.” The results, unfortunately, if Republicans can be bothered to do anything at all, will be uniformly bad for Americans.

We’ve heard this song and dance before. The changes are being billed as an improvement, a “better way” and they even have a fancy new website full of lies to back it up. But the Republican-controlled House of Representatives has never been about anything but empty talk while they do literally nothing, at best, solutions in search of problems.

The real actions Ryan plans to take are attacks on the American people on behalf of big corporations.

“Relief from Obamacare—this law is hurting families and it’s only going to get worse. Relief from this broken tax code that is costing us jobs, competitiveness, and growth. Relief from overreach and needless regulations that are crushing livelihoods and industries across this country.”

In other words, Take away healthcare because it’s hurting you. Take away corporate taxes (and raise yours). Take away regulations that protect you from clean air, water, and food. Livelihoods aren’t being hurt – yet. But they will be if Ryan gets his way.



“At the start of this year, we as House Republicans made a number of commitments to the American people.

“First, we pledged to open up the process—to find common ground for the good of the country. If you look at how we are wrapping up our work for the end of the year here, we’ve done just that: 21st Century Cures. The National Defense Authorization Bill. The water resources bill.

“These initiatives all went through the committees. They are all bipartisan. And they are all House-Senate agreements.

“That is how we should do things here. It’s important, because that’s exactly how things should work.

“The most overarching thing we set out to do—going all the way back to our retreat in Baltimore almost a year ago—was that we would raise our gaze. We would go from being seen as simply being an opposition party to being a proposition party. And with 7 out of 10 Americans unhappy with the direction our country is headed, we felt we had a duty—a moral obligation—to offer our fellow citizens a better way forward. And that’s exactly what we did.

“We did not just check the box to win an election, or we didn’t do this so I could just [promote] a website—better.gop—a thousand times with you. The idea was, if we actually won the election by campaigning on solutions and ideas, we would be ready to govern.

“And here we are. We are ready to hit the ground running, and we need to hit the ground running. We gave the people a very clear choice, and now the people have given us very clear instructions: deliver results and deliver relief.

“Relief from Obamacare—this law is hurting families and it’s only going to get worse. Relief from this broken tax code that is costing us jobs, competitiveness, and growth. Relief from overreach and needless regulations that are crushing livelihoods and industries across this country.

“That is what a unified Republican government will be about. It will be about helping our people reach their potential, and making America great again.

“So 2016 was about raising our gaze. 2017 is going to be about doing big things for our country.”

The words “unified Republican government” ought to throw fear into the hearts of every American. The Republican plan for 2017 is a disaster. The Republican plan is a mockery.

The real burden, from Ryan’s perspective, is that placed by government on corporations to prevent them from poisoning and killing us all in search of a profit.

Sarah Palin To Lead VA - WTF!!!!

Trump is rumored to appoint Sarah Palin to lead a very important government agency. Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian, hosts of The Young Turks, break it down. Tell us what you think in the comment section below. https://www.tytnetwork.com/join



“Trump eyeing Sarah Palin for Veterans Affairs?

The Department of Veterans Affairs’ massive network of hospitals and clinics has been under a microscope since scandalously long waiting lists and allegations of cover-ups burst into public. The management morass seemed so intractable that in 2014, President Obama pushed out a decorated former general, Eric Shinseki, and hired a former chief executive of Procter & Gamble, Robert A. McDonald, to sort it out.

Now, according to people close to the transition, Mr. Trump is thinking of taking Veterans Affairs in a new direction, handing its reins to former Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska.

Given Mr. Trump’s passionate campaign pledges to the nation’s veterans, the response — if she is chosen — would be ... interesting.”

Read more here:
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/sarah-palin-isn-qualified-lead-va-article-1.2894189

Hosts: Cenk Uygur, Ana Kasparian

Cast: Cenk Uygur, Ana Kasparian

Bernie Sanders Goes On The Warpath As Trump Nominee Signals Cuts To Social Security

By Jason Easley on Tue, Nov 29th, 2016 at 5:40 pm

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) blasted Donald Trump for lying about protecting Social Security after the president-elect nominated a man who is dedicated to killing Social Security and Medicare to run HHS. 

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) blasted Donald Trump for lying about protecting Social Security after the president-elect nominated a man who is dedicated to killing Social Security and Medicare to run HHS.

Sen. Sanders reacted to Trump nominated Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) to run HHS in a statement, “Donald Trump asked workers and seniors to vote for him because he was the only Republican candidate who would not cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid – programs that are of life-and-death importance for millions of Americans.

Now, he has nominated a person for secretary of Health and Human Services, Rep. Tom Price, who has a long history of wanting to do exactly the opposite of what Trump campaigned on. Rep. Price has a long history of wanting to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

What hypocrisy! Mr. Trump needs to tell the American people that what he said during the campaign were just lies, or else appoint an HHS secretary who will protect these programs and do what Trump said he would do.”

Sanders is correct. There is no way that Trump would nominate a man who is deeply committed to cutting Social Security and Medicare if he had any intention of keeping the programs fully funded and in place. The nomination of Rep. Price to HHS indicates that the Trump administration is going to be targeting two programs that are beloved by the American people.

Trump has signaled that he is about to make the one move that will turn Bernie Sanders into an immediate and lifelong political enemy of the incoming administration. Sen. Sanders will fight tooth and nail to protect Social Security and Medicare.

Donald Trump is coming for the Social Security and Medicare of those who voted for him. 

Democrats tried to warn seniors that this would happen if they voted for Trump, and it looks like all of their warnings are about to come true.

Tom Price isn’t coming to HHS to save Social Security. Price is coming to destroy it.

Why Is The USDA Dumping Millions Of Pounds Of Fatty Cheese On Poor People?

By Lorraine Chow

Here’s a problem that may have slipped under your radar: The United States is in the midst of an epic 1.25 billion pound cheese glut. Low world market prices, increased milk supplies and inventories, and slower demand have pushed the country’s cheese surplus to its highest level in 30 years, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said. Blocks, crumbles and curds are sitting in cold storage stockpiles around the nation; a mountain of cheese so large that every American man, woman and child can eat an extra 3 pounds of cheese this year.

You might have noticed that the cost of dairy products has fallen across the board at the supermarket, and while that’s good news for cheese lovers, dairy farmers and producers have seen their revenues drop 35 percent over the past two years. With more cheese than it knows what to do with, the USDA decided to make two $20 million purchases of surplus cheese in August and October and donated them to food banks. Critics say that the government is simply waving money—ahem, taxpayer funds—at the problem.

This handout abets large-scale dairy producers, who despite the glut, are on their way toward churning out a record 212 billion pounds of milk this year. Michigan dairy farmer Carla Wardin told the Wall Street Journal that she and her colleagues plan to deal with the situation by “doing the same thing … you milk more cows.”

The problems don’t end there. Cheap dairy is not only bad for the health of the environment (from methane-burping cows to water pollution), it’s bad for public health. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine criticized the USDA and its decision-maker Tom Vilsack for effectively dumping artery-clogging food products on poor people. “Please take a moment to ask Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack to reconsider the USDA's plan to distribute the fatty cheese to programs that are already struggling to provide participants healthful foods that fight disease,” the group writes in an online petition.

Although cheese has some healthy properties such as bone-building calcium, cheese is loaded with fat and sodium, and even low-fat varieties can contribute to “bad” cholesterol levels. And let’s face it, the way we usually eat cheese is slapping it generously on top of pizza or nachos, making it a delicious but unhealthy treat.

“Typical cheeses are 70 percent fat and are among the foods highest in cholesterol and sodium, exacerbating obesity, heart disease, and diabetes," says PCRM. "Cheese is the number one source of saturated fat in the American diet."

PCRM's petition concludes that the USDA should help food banks and food assistance programs by providing healthier fare such as fruits, vegetables, beans and whole grains. The diabetes epidemic has risen in poor populations, and sending highly processed, high-fat cheese to food banks isn’t going to make things any better.

Manel Kappagoda, senior staff attorney and program director at ChangeLab Solutions, wrote in a 2014 article that food banks are “a lifeline” for the 50 million Americans who live in food-insecure households and lack access to affordable, nutritious food."

Food pantries, she noted, are critical in maintaining and improving the health of food-insecure Americans. For this reason, many food banks across the country have implemented nutrition standards that eliminate unhealthy products such as candy, sugary drinks and other junk foods. Citing a survey from the Alameda County Community Food Bank in San Francisco, Kappagoda said that families and individuals who go to food banks don’t just want any food—they want fresh produce, low-fat items and other healthy staples.

As Kappagoda wrote, “to help improve the health of the people they serve, food banks can’t just offer food—they must offer good food.”

Lorraine Chow is a freelance writer and reporter based in South Carolina.

They're Coming For Medicare - Be Ready

By Karoli Kuns

 

One of the best ways we can fight Trump right now is on the battlefield of Medicare. I'm sure everyone remembers how angry and stirred up Republican masses got at the idea of even one small change to Medicare.

Throughout his campaign, Trump assured his adoring followers that there would be no cuts to Medicare and Social Security. He tried to run to the left of Clinton on it, saying he would save it and make it better for everyone.

Those of us familiar with such empty promises knew that "make it better" was code for cuts, but his followers were having no part of it. Now is the time for battle, and the first battleground is going to be Medicare.

As I write, Paul Ryan is drafting his legislation to privatize Medicare and cut benefits. The Republican Congress has promised they will shovel this legislation through using budget reconciliation as their goal.

To make it palatable for today's seniors, Ryan has also promised that the current Medicare system will remain in place for people age 55 and above. That's a terrible idea, as Jonathan Cohn explains:

If at the same time Republicans shrink Medicaid, those seniors will suffer even more, since today the poorest seniors can use the program to pay for whatever medical bills Medicare does not.

Ryan promises that the proposal would not affect seniors who are 55 or older, since the new system wouldn’t begin operating for 10 years. But realistically the entire Medicare program would change once premium support took effect ― private plans would almost certainly find ways to pick off the healthiest seniors, for instance ― and, at best, the damage would simply take longer to play out.

Ryan’s Medicare scheme includes one other element ― a provision to raise the eligibility age gradually, so that seniors would eventually enroll at 67, rather than 65. Particularly in a world in which the Affordable Care Act no longer exists, 65 and 66 year olds searching for private coverage would find it harder to obtain, more expensive and less generous than what they’d get from Medicare today.

There are two things to keep in mind here.

First, our response must be swift and vocal. That means that you must have the telephone numbers of your elected representatives at hand and be prepared to call them and register your opposition to any cuts to Medicare. No slacktivism. No online petitions. In-person telephone calls to your representatives, personal visits, and visible opposition.

Second, health policy is always complex. Always. People don't understand it. One of the reasons Medicare is so popular is because it's simpler than any private insurance plan. People pay a payroll tax and when they're 65 they enroll in a Medicare plan that covers most of their costs. They can buy a supplemental plan at low cost to cover what traditional Medicare doesn't. It's simple, and it's elegant, and it works. It's going to be up to us to keep this message clear and plain everywhere. When we talk to people, when we post on social media, and when we comment on blogs.

Do not let them use muddy terms and oversimplify their plans, like they did with the Affordable Care Act. They are the ones slogging through complex policy. Know your facts, be armed with them, and be prepared to fire a volley at anyone lying about their plans.

Make no mistake. This is the battleground. Gear up for it. Forget the distractions with outrageous claims and just stay focused on fighting. If we fight, we will win.

Now we know the real reason Aetna bailed on the Affordable Care Act

By Bob Bryan

On Monday night, news broke that one of the five largest insurers in the US, Aetna, was leaving 70% of the counties in which it offers insurance through the Affordable Care Act's public healthcare exchanges.

The move was seen as a huge blow to the future of the act, making Aetna the third large insurer, after United Healthcare and Humana, to significantly reduce its Obamacare business.

Aetna cited the large losses that the company has incurred from the exchange business — $200 million in the second quarter alone — when explaining its decision to roll back its business.

These statements, however, appeared to be a dramatic turnaround from the company's first-quarter earnings call in April, when CEO Mark Bertolini said the firm planned to stay in the exchanges and that the company was "in a very good place to make this a sustainable program."

Now, however, it appears a large reason for the shift in tone was the Department of Justice's lawsuit to block Aetna's merger with rival Humana.

A July letter, acquired by Huffington Post reporters Jonathan Cohn and Jeffrey Young, outlined Aetna's thinking on the public exchanges if the deal with Humana were blocked. The letter from Bertolini to the DOJ outlined the effect of a possible merger on its Affordable Care Act business.

For one thing, Bertolini notes that the cost savings from the Humana deal would allow the companies to further expand coverage into parts of the US.

"As we add new territories, given the additional startup costs of each new territory, we will incur additional losses," the letter said. "Our ability to withstand these losses is dependent on our achieving anticipated synergies in the Humana acquisition."

Additionally, the letter seemed to foretell the move on Monday. Here's the key passage (emphasis added):

"Our analysis to date makes clear that if the deal were challenged and/or blocked we would need to take immediate actions to mitigate public exchange and ACA small group losses. Specifically, if the DOJ sues to enjoin the transaction, we will immediately take action to reduce our 2017 exchange footprint.

 

"We currently plan, as part of our strategy following the acquisition, to expand from 15 states in 2016 to 20 states in 2017. However, if we are in the midst of litigation over the Humana transaction, given the risks described above, we will not be able to expand to the five additional states. 

"In addition, we would also withdraw from at least five additional states where generating a market return would take too long for us to justify, given the costs associated with a potential breakup of the transaction. In other words, instead of expanding to 20 states next year, we would reduce our presence to no more than 10 states."

 

In other words, the cost of fighting the DOJ would make Aetna unable to sustain the losses incurred from the public exchanges.

According to a letter from the DOJ provided by Aetna, the DOJ asked the company what the effect would be on the firm's Affordable Care Act business if the merger were not completed. Thus, Aetna responded with its letter.

A spokesperson for Aetna said the decision to roll back the coverage was not because of the DOJ's lawsuit, but rather realizing the full details of the losses. The statement from the spokesperson reads, in part:

"In the time since we submitted our written response to DOJ and provided a courtesy copy to [the Department of Health and Human Services], we gained full visibility into our second quarter individual public exchange results, which — similar to other participants on the public exchanges — showed a significant deterioration. That deterioration, and not the DOJ challenge to our Humana transaction, is ultimately what drove us to announce the narrowing of our public exchange presence for the 2017 plan year. 

"If the Humana transaction is eventually blocked, which we don't believe it will be, the underlying logic of our written response to DOJ would still apply with regard to the public exchanges where we will participate in 2017." 

In the original letter from Aetna to the DOJ, Bertolini said that if the company lost the lawsuit and the deal were eventually scuttled, Aetna would drop its remaining Affordable Care Act business and leave the public exchanges entirely.

The DOJ declined to comment.

The DOJ blocked the merger between Aetna and Humana, along with the merger of fellow big-five insurers Anthem and Cigna, on the grounds that consolidating the industry would lead to lower competition and higher costs for consumers.

"They would leave much of the multi-trillion health insurance industry in the hands of just three mammoth companies, restricting competition in key markets," Attorney General Loretta Lynch said when announcing the lawsuit to block the mergers.

Typically the number of independent options available to consumers is correlated with lower costs.
"If the big five were to become the big three, not only would the bank accounts of the American people suffer, but the American people themselves," Lynch said.

The companies countered that the merger would not affect consumers and would allow the combined firms to be more cost-efficient and sustainable.

Read the full letter from Bertolini, via The Huffington Post, here »

Brazilian Doctor’s Chilling Warning To Olympic Visitors: ‘Don’t Get Sick’

By Joe DePaolo 

Add a public healthcare crisis to the ever-growing list of problems plaguing this summer’s Olympics in Rio.

As part of an episode of HBO’s Real Sports set to air Tuesday at 10:00 p.m. ET/PT, the network examined the condition of Brazil’s public hospitals. What they found wasn’t pretty.

Denied permission to tour a hospital by Brazilian officials, HBO managed to sneak a hidden camera inside for their investigation. Watch the disturbing footage below of patients lined up along hospital walls, with some even forced to lay on the floor.

Dr. Jorge Darze, President of the Rio De Janiero Doctor’s Union, called the images “revolting.” He alleges criminal negligence on the part of Brazilian officials who’ve allowed the healthcare crisis to escalate by wasting money on Olympic-related projects unlikely to provide much benefit to residents after the Games conclude.

“I would say it’s a criminal situation,” Darze told Vice News earlier this year. “One that breaches basic human rights.”

His chilling advice for Olympic visitors?

“Don’t get sick.”

Health Providers Spill Patient Secrets On Yelp

The vast majority of reviews on Yelp are positive. But in trying to respond to critical ones, some doctors, dentists and chiropractors appear to be violating the federal patient privacy law known as HIPAA.

 https://www.propublica.org/article/stung-by-yelp-reviews-health-providers-spill-patient-secrets

Monsanto's Cancer Linked Pesticide Is Being Sprayed In New York City Parks

By Reynard Loki

 

Over 2,000 locations across NYC have been sprayed.

 

New Yorkers who visit their local parks have likely been exposed to glyphosate, the controversial, cancer-linked main ingredient in Monsanto's popular herbicide Roundup. But the data about herbicide and pesticide spraying projects across the city isn’t adding up.

In May 2015, in response to the concerns of community activists and public health advocates, the city government released a report, “Pesticide Use by New York City Agencies in 2014,” detailing the use of pesticides by city agencies in 2014. According to that report, the city applied glyphosate 2,748 times.

However, according to data procured by a Freedom of Information Law request, the city has revealed only 2,000 locations of glyphosate use in 2014. Pesticide information related to Central Park and other areas that are managed not by the city government, but by nonprofit conservancies has not been made public.

Several environmental and community activist groups, including Reverend Billy and the Stop Shopping Choir, Stop the Spray, and members of the Coalition Against Poison Parks, are pursuing legal action to “force the City to reveal all locations where it has been used."

According to the parks report, the city applied pesticides 162,584 times in 2014. Various city agencies used nearly 8,000 gallons ans more than 100,000 pounds of pesticides. Compared to 2013 levels, there was a 21 percent increase in insecticides by volume in 2014. What is of particular concern is the fact that, as the report states, "there was a 16 percent increase in herbicide use by volume, reversing a declining trend. Much of the change was due to a 9 percent increase in glyphosate products used.”

In March 2015, the World Health Organization, the U.N.'s public health agency, said glyphosate, which is widely used on genetically modified crops such as corn and soybeans, likely causes cancer. 

In its report, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, WHO’s cancer arm, classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans." IARC scientists found that the chemical "induced DNA and chromosomal damage in mammals, and in human and animal cells in vitro."

They concluded that there was "sufficient evidence" that the herbicide causes cancer in non-human animals and "limited evidence" that it also causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma in humans. They said that the primary exposure to glyphosate comes through diet, home use—Roundup is a popular consumer gardening spray for people who are not informed about effective nontoxic methods—and living near sprayed areas.

A study published in February in the journal Environmental Health found that glyphosate persists in soil and water longer than previously thought, and that human exposure to the chemical is rising. The chemical also has harmful effects on birds, fish, and other wildlife.

While there was an increase in glyphosate use in New York City in 2014 as compared to 2013, the amount is much lower than it was in 2009, when, according to the Parks Department, it was used "to control invasive species in remote, often wooded, parkland.” The increase in glyphosate spraying in 2014 may have been due to “forest restoration work [which] was again done by Parks and their contractors, accounting for a substantial proportion of the city’s glyphosate use."

(Above: graphic from “Pesticide Use by New York City Agencies in 2014,” report by New York City Parks Department.)

To help residents steer clear of the toxic areas, Reverend Billy and the Stop Shopping Choir, a performance-based activist group based in New York City, created a map charting the parks and public areas across the city that have been sprayed with glyphosate. The map was created using data provided by the New York City Parks Department.

New York isn't the only major U.S. city that sprays glyphosate. San Francisco, Oakland, Portland, Seattle and Philadelphia also use the controversial herbicide. Some big cities, like Chicago and Boulder, as well as smaller cities like Richmond, California, and Takoma Park, Maryland, have instituted glyphosate bans.

The NYC Parks Department notes in its report that the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene “encourages the pursuit of alternative weed control methods that would reduce the need for these herbicides.” The city should follow its own advice and protect its citizens from this cancer-linked chemical.

Related Stories

• Glyphosate, Monsanto's Widespread 'Probable Carcinogen' Weedkiller Is in More Food Than You'd Care to Know
• Monsanto's Highly Controversial Herbicide Is Currently Being Sprayed in Five of America's Largest Urban Areas
• Monsanto's Controversial Glyphosate Herbicide Is Being Sprayed in New York, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle and Portland

Conservative Plan To Fix The VA Has Vets Hopping Mad

Why is a commission charged with fixing the problems hoping to close down its hospitals?

—By AJ Vicens

Veterans commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Vietnam War on March 29 in West Palm Beach, Florida. Bruce R. Bennett/Zuma

 

Some members of the commission established by Congress to evaluate the Department of Veterans Health Administration have proposed drastically reducing the size of the VHA by closing its health facilities and transferring the care of the nation's millions of military veterans to the private sector.

But in a letter sent to the chair of the Commission on Care, leaders of eight of the country's most prominent veterans' advocacy organizations blasted the proposal.

"We are greatly alarmed by the content of [the proposal] that was developed and drafted outside the open Commission process by seven of the Commission's fifteen members—without the input or even knowledge of the other Commissioners," they wrote in a letter signed by senior leaders of the Disabled American Veterans, the American Legion, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, the Vietnam Veterans of America, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, AMVETS, and the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.

The plan—known as the "Strawman Document"—was floated in March by seven members of the 15-member Commission on Care, an oversight group that was established by Congress in 2014 in the wake of the national scandal surrounding the lengthy wait times for healthcare at VA facilities. The commission is charged with evaluating veterans' access to health care and with offering proposals for how the Veterans Health Administration should be organized over the next 20 years.

The "Strawman" report, which echoes VA privatization efforts that have been backed by the Koch brothers, says "bold transformation" is needed for the VA to address the needs of its enrolled veterans, and that the system is "seriously broken" with "no efficient path to repair it." The plan calls for closing many "obsolete" VA facilities and moving toward a model where veterans can seek taxpayer-funded care at private health care facilities. A process similar to the Base Realignment and Closure system—used by the military since the end of the Cold War to decide which bases to close—would be used to evaluate which VA medical facilities would close. Under the plan, there would be no new facilities or major renovations of the existing VA facilities.

The plan also called for private doctors to be reimbursed at 5 to 10 percent higher than the Medicare rate, so they would have a greater incentive to participate.

The authors wrote that eventually the VA would become a broad-based payer system, "though it will continue to pay for the veteran care provided by the community system."

Those who opposed the plan agree the VA needs to be improved, but they argue that essentially privatizing it would force veterans to search for care at private facilities that might not be trained or equipped to serve veterans suffering from the long-range effects of combat, such as spinal cord injuries "and the Polytrauma System of Care." The authors add that the proposal ignores recent research, some commissioned by Congress itself, that found that VA care is often better than care in the private sector.

Louis Celli, the national director of veterans affairs and rehabilitation for the American Legion, told the Arizona Republic that he was "angered and insulted" by the "strawman" plan, and that the commission is now "absolutely divided" between those who want to privatize VA care and those who don't.

The plan lines up with ideas from Concerned Veterans for America, a group that's backed by the Koch brothers. The group has called for more choice for veterans seeking health care and for the VA and its health functions to be partly privatized. Suzanne Gordon, a health care writer who has covered the VA, notes in her personal blog and in the American Prospect that the supporters and drafters of the "strawman" proposal include conservatives and several hospital executives "who stand to benefit financially from [VA medical] privatization."

Dan Caldwell, a spokesman for the Koch-backed group, told the Arizona Republic that the "Strawman" proposal has been "completely distorted by opponents," and that there is no call to abolish the VA health care system. "We are not proposing to abolish the [VA health care system] or to end government funding of veterans' health care," Caldwell said.

According to the Arizona Republic, the commission will have two public meetings before issuing a report on its proposal June 30. The report was due in February, but the commission asked for and received an extension.

Single Payer Universal Health Care Explained

There’s been a lot of fear mongering about the cost of Bernie Sanders’s health care plan. Time to set the record straight. Cenk Uygur, host of the The Young Turks, breaks it down. Tell us what you think in the comment section below.

"Single-payer national health insurance, also known as “Medicare for all,” is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health care financing, but the delivery of care remains largely in private hands. Under a single-payer system, all residents of the U.S. would be covered for all medically necessary services, including doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, mental health, reproductive health care, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs.

The program would be funded by the savings obtained from replacing today’s inefficient, profit-oriented, multiple insurance payers with a single streamlined, nonprofit, public payer, and by modest new taxes based on ability to pay. Premiums would disappear; 95 percent of all households would save money. Patients would no longer face financial barriers to care such as co-pays and deductibles, and would regain free choice of doctor and hospital. Doctors would regain autonomy over patient care.”

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what-is-single-payer

Flint Residents Told That Their Children Could Be Taken Away If They Don’t Pay For City's Poison Water

By John Vibes, The Free Thought Project

Not only is the Michigan government poisoning residents, but now they are threatening to take their children for not paying for it. 

 

Flint, MI – As the water crisis in Flint deepens, it is becoming apparent that the effects of the lead-infested water are not just a health hazard, but the situation has the potential of ruining many more lives outside of the poison issue. There is no denying that the water in Flint is undrinkable and that it is contaminated with lead and other substances, and it is clear that the government of Flint is responsible for the problem.

However, the city’s government continues to charge people for the poison water and then threatening to foreclose their home or take their children if they refuse to pay. Michigan law states that parents are neglectful if they do not have running water in their home, and if they chose not to pay for water they can’t drink anyway, then they could be guilty of child endangerment. Activists in Flint say that some residents have already received similar threats from the government if they refuse to pay their bills.

Flint residents have recently filed two class action lawsuits calling for all water bills since April of 2014 to be considered null and void because of the fact that the water was poisonous.

“We are seeking for the court to declare that all the bills that have been issued for usage of water invalid because the water has not been fit for its intended purpose,” said Trachelle Young, one of the attorneys bringing the lawsuit said in court.

“Essentially, the residents have been getting billed for water that they cannot use. Because of that, we do not feel that is a fair way to treat the residents,” Young added.

Recent estimates have indicated that it could take up to 15 years and over $60 million to fix the problem, and the residents will be essentially forced to live there until the problem is solved. Despite the fact that the issue is obviously the government’s responsibility, they have made it illegal for people to sell their homes because of the fact that they are known to carry contaminated water.

Meanwhile, residents are still left to purchase bottled water on their own, in addition to paying their water bill.

Although this problem is finally getting national media attention in Flint, they aren’t the only city with contaminated water supplies. In fact, a recent report published by The Guardian showed that public water supplies across the country were experiencing similar issues.

This crisis highlights the many dangers of allowing the government to maintain a monopoly on the water supply and calls attention to the fact that decentralized solutions to water distribution should be a goal that we start working towards.

Federal charges for 'Pharma Bro'

Alex Wagner looks at the downfall of Martin Shkreli, the fool who jacked up the price of a life-saving AIDS drug by 5,000%.

5 vitamins and minerals that are actually worth your money

Science tells us that taking most vitamins is worthless - but here's a few that buck the trend

By Joseph Stromberg

(Credit: R_Szatkowski via Shutterstock)

Recently, a number of studies published in the Annals of Internal Medicine underscored a fact that scientists have become increasingly sure of: The vast majority of vitamins and mineral supplements are simply not worth taking. “Enough is enough: stop wasting money on vitamin and mineral supplements,” declared an editorial that was published in the issue.

This goes for a tremendous range of supplements that you might imagine to be beneficial. Multivitamins don’t reduce the chance of cancer or cardiovascular disease. Controlled, randomized studies—where one group of people take supplements and another takes placebos, and the groups are compared—have produced little evidence that antioxidants protect against cancer. Study after study has shown that vitamin C does nothing to prevent common cold, a misbelief that dates to a theoretical suggestion made by a scientist in the 1970’s.

Of course, our bodies do need these vitamins to live—it’s just that the diet of most people who live in developed countries in the 21st century already includes them in abundance. In many cases, taking high amounts of them in a refined form (especially vitamins A, C and E and beta carotene) can actually be harmful, increasing the risk of cancer and other diseases by excessively inflating the concentration of antioxidants in the body.

Nevertheless, there are a handful of vitamins and supplements that, studies suggest, are actually worth taking for people with specific conditions. Information is Beautiful, a data visualization website, has a thought-provoking interactive that shows supplements charted by the strength of evidence that indicates they’re beneficial. Here’s our rundown of some of the most promising.

​Vitamin D

Of all the “classic” vitamins—the vital organic compounds discovered between 1913 and 1941 and termed vitamin A, B, C, etc.—vitamin D is by far the most beneficial to take in supplement form.

A 2008 meta-analysis (a review of a number of studies conducted on the same topic) of 17 randomized controlled trials concluded that it decreased overall mortality in adults. A 2013 meta-analysis of 42 randomized controlled trials came to the same conclusion. In other words, by randomly deciding which participants took the supplement and which didn’t and tightly controlling other variables (thereby reducing the effect of confounding factors), the researchers found that adults who took vitamin D supplements daily lived longer than those who didn’t.

Other research has found that in kids, taking vitamin D supplements can reduce the chance of catching the flu, and that in older adults, it can improve bone health and reduce the incidence of fractures.

Of course, even though they’re widely recognized as the best way to test a treatment’s effectiveness, randomized controlled trials have limitations. In this case, the biggest one is that these studies can’t tell us much about the mechanism by which vitamin D seems to reduce mortality or provide other health benefits. Still, given the demonstrated benefits and the fact that it hasn’t been shown to cause any harm, vitamin D might be worth taking as a supplement on a consistent basis.

Probiotics

A mounting pile of research is showing how crucial the trillions of bacterial cells that live inside us are in regulating hour health, and how harmful it can be to suddenly wipe them out with an antibiotic. Thus, it shouldn’t come as a huge surprise that if you do go through a course of antibiotics, taking a probiotic (either a supplement or a food naturally rich in bacteria, such as yogurt) to replace the bacteria colonies in your gut is a good idea.

In 2012, a meta-analysis of 82 randomized controlled trials found that use of probiotics (most of which contained bacteria from the Lactobacillus genus, naturally present in the gastrointestinal tract) significantly reduced the incidence of diarrhea after a course of antibiotics.

All the same, probiotics aren’t a digestive cure-all: they haven’t been found to be effective in treating irritable bowel syndrome, among other chronic ailments. Like most other supplements that are actually effective, they’re useful in very specific circumstances, but it’s not necessary to continually take them on a daily basis.

Zinc

Vitamin C might not do anything to prevent or treat the common cold, but the other widely-used cold supplement, zinc, is actually worth taking. A mineral that’s involved in many different aspects of your cellular metabolism, zinc appears to interfere with the replication of rhinoviruses, the microbes that cause the common cold.

This has been borne out in a number of studies. A 2011 review [PDF] that considered 13 therapeutic studies—in which patients who’d just come down with the common cold were given zinc supplements, and compared to those who’d been given a placebo—found that the mineral significantly reduced the duration of the cold, and also made symptoms less severe. So if you feel a cold coming on, avoid overdosing on vitamin C, but take a zinc lozenge or pill to get better sooner.

Niacin

Also known as vitamin B3, niacin is talked up as a cure for all sorts of conditions (including high cholesterol, Alzheimer’s, diabetes and headaches) but in most of these cases, a prescription-strength dose of niacin has been needed to show a clear result.

At over-the-counter strength, niacin supplements have only been proven to be effective in helping one group of people: those who have heart disease. A 2010 review found that taking the supplement daily reduced the chance of a stroke or heart attack in people with heart disease, thereby reducing their overall risk of death due to a cardiac event.

​Garlic

Garlic, of course, is a pungent herb. It also turns out to be an effective treatment for high blood pressure when taken as a concentrated supplement.

A 2008 meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials (in which similar groups of participants were given either a garlic supplement or placebo, and the results were compared) found that, on the whole, taking garlic daily reduced blood pressure, with the most significant results coming in adults who had high blood pressure at the start of the trials.

On the other hand, there have also been claims that garlic supplements can prevent cancer, but the evidence is mixed. Observational studies (which rely on data collected from people already taking garlic supplements on their own) have found associations between garlic consumption and a reduced incidence of cancer, but that correlation could be the result of confounding factors. Controlled studies have failed to replicate that data.

Ben Carson's History As A Medical Malpractice Trainwreck

Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson isn’t as good of a doctor as he’s made himself out to be. Carson is actually a walking medical malpractice suit waiting to happen. Thom Hartmann and Ring of Fire host Mike Papantonio discussed Carson’s shady history of medical malpractice.

Watch.

About the Author

Joshua De Leon

Josh de Leon is a writer and researcher with Ring of Fire.

Deadly Anticoagulant Xarelto Continues To Get Celebrity Endorsements

As the number of Xarelto lawsuits approaches 2,000 and the drug’s connection to fatal bleeding becomes more widely known, manufacturer Janssen Pharmaceutica is pulling out all the stops on its marketing campaign – including a recent television ad featuring a quartet of prominent celebrities.

The four celebrities –  NBA player Chris Bosh, NASCAR driver Brian Vickers, golfing legend Arnold Palmer and Saturday Night Live alumnus Kevin Nealon – move in widely separated social and professional circles, and would be unlikely to meet for a casual luncheon under most circumstances. However, Janssen would have us believe they’re all old friends who decided to meet up for a friendly game of golf, then retire to the clubhouse to talk about how “treatment with XARELTO® was the right move” for them.

Vickers assures viewers about how Xarelto was “proven to treat and help reduce the risk of DVT (deep vein thrombosis) and PE (pulmonary embolism) blood clots,” while Nealon points out that “Xarelto was also proven to reduce the risk of stroke in people with ‘A-Fib’ (atrial fibrillation, or irregular heartbeat) not caused by a heart valve problem.”

Of course, there’s no mention of FDA concerns over aspects of the clinical tests (specifically, whether or not test subjects had been at the optimal level of blood clotting for a sufficient period of time), nor the fact that post-market studies were funded by the manufacturer and its marketing partners at Bayer.

During the after-game luncheon, in which viewers see the four celebrities chowing down on healthful salads, a voice-over acknowledges that “for people with ‘A-Fib’ currently well-managed on warfarin, there was limited information on how Xarelto and warfarin compare in reducing the risk of stroke.”

Nonetheless, Vickers shares his experience: “You know, I tried warfarin…but the blood testing and dietary restrictions…”  Nealon commiserates: “Don’t get me started on that.”

This has been the big selling point of Xarelto. Warfarin patients are at risk for some 500 interactions with other prescription drugs as well as various foods high in Vitamin K, such as spinach. Those drug interactions are of particular concern among elderly patients, many of whom take several different medications. Xarelto (also known as rivaroxaban) has fewer than 50 interactions and requires far less in the way of expensive, time-consuming patient testing. The ad acknowledges that patients on Xarelto “may bruise more easily, and it may take longer for bleeding to stop.”

That is a gross understatement. In fact, the bleeding may not stop at all until the drug has been removed from the system, as there is no approved reversal agent. Patients taking rival medications Pradaxa (dabigitran) faced similar problems; however, that drug could sometimes be removed by putting the patient on emergency dialysis. Due to Xarelto’s particular mechanism of action, this is not an option for Xarelto patients. The ad goes on to state: “Xarelto may increase the risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines…Xarelto can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding.” The voice-over advises patients to seek emergency help in the case of emergency bleeding – but again, there is no mention how such bleeding should be handled.

Meanwhile, our celebrity endorsers are seen as they continue to enjoy their post-luncheon round of golf, to the accompaniment of sprightly guitar music. As Vickers tells Nealon in a confidential tone as they watch Palmer sink a putt, “You know, Xarelto is the Number One prescribed blood thinner in its class,” to which Nealon responds, “That’s a big win.”

It wasn’t such a big win to those who allege that they been injured or killed by Xarelto, says Levin Papantonio attorney Ned McWilliams who is helping to head the national litigation against those involved in the manufacture and promotions of Xarelto. Executives at Janssen and its parent company Johnson & Johnson, which has been target in several liability lawsuits in recent years, know they’re facing some serious trouble, especially with recent studies published in major medical journals.

Although a small San Francisco biotech firm has come up with a promising reversal agent, that drug  – Annexa-R – is still undergoing clinical trials, with no indication as to when or if it will get FDA approval.  In the meantime, Janssen and Bayer are determined to wring as much revenue out of Xarelto as possible, taking advantage of America’s obsession with celebrities in order to manipulate consumers and boost sales.

Hopefully, all four of Xarelto’s celebrity cheerleaders will continue to live healthy, productive lives. However, if any of them wind up suffering uncontrolled bleeding like almost 2,000 other patients, it could put a serious damper on the drug maker’s current marketing ploy.

About the Author

KJ McElrath

K.J. McElrath is a former history and social studies teacher who has long maintained a keen interest in legal and social issues.

Bernie Sanders smacks down Martin Shkreli: Rejects meeting and donation from hated drug CEO

martin shkreli

Pharmaceutical CEO Martin Shkreli’s very public temper tantrum continues: “I would destroy Bernie Sanders in a debate”

The notorious CEO said he was going to start a Democratic Super PAC, but now he's leaning toward voting GOP
Scott Eric Kaufman Friday, Oct 23, 2015 11:49 AM EST 145
Elections Bernie Sanders, 2016 Elections

Don’t feed the Shkreli: The Turing Pharma CEO’s pathetic Twitter antics are about as funny as his price-gouging

The pharmaceutical exec is trolling on social media like a bored teen instead of lowering drug costs
Mary Elizabeth Williams Tuesday, Oct 20, 2015 03:19 PM EST 23
Life martin shkreli

“FML”: Martin Shkreli, the world’s most hated pharmaceutical CEO, is trying to win back hearts and minds by trolling

Just when you think it's not possible for him to be more despicable
Scott Eric Kaufman Tuesday, Oct 20, 2015 09:17 AM EST 12
Media Bernie Sanders, Elections 2016

Martin Shkreli, poor little rich bro: The most hated man in pharma is “furious” he couldn’t meet with Bernie Sanders

The controversial pharmaceutical CEO can't always get what he wants
Mary Elizabeth Williams Friday, Oct 16, 2015 11:12 AM EST 75
Life martin shkreli, Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders smacks down Martin Shkreli: Rejects meeting and donation from hated drug CEO

“We are not keeping the money from this poster boy for drug company greed"
Salon staff Friday, Oct 16, 2015 08:04 AM EST 25
Business martin shkreli, Bernie Sanders

Martin Shkreli is back: The “Donald Trump of drug development” is just as loathsome as ever

The Turing CEO unlocked his Twitter, but still hasn't touched his his jacked-up drug prices
Mary Elizabeth Williams Monday, Oct 12, 2015 03:32 PM EST 34
Life martin shkreli

Bill Maher smacks down GOP’s “supply-side Jesus”

"It exposed just how little the so-called Christians of the far right believe in what Jesus actually said." VIDEO
Sarah Burris Saturday, Oct 3, 2015 07:48 AM EST 263
Entertainment Bill Maher

The 9 most expensive medicines in the world — courtesy of Big Pharma

Martin Shkreli isn't the only executive shamelessly gouging consumers. Some of these drugs cost more than a house
Larry Schwartz, AlterNet Friday, Oct 2, 2015 04:00 AM EST
Politics AlterNet, martin shkreli

Martin Shkreli’s free-market fetish: How the drug profiteer’s pathetic excuses reveal a dangerous ideology

The Turing Pharmaceuticals CEO tried to jack up the price of an essential drug. This is shocking, but no surprise
Conor Lynch Saturday, Sep 26, 2015 09:29 AM EST 86
News martin shkreli, Health Care

Paul Krugman dismantles GOP candidates’ plans to rein in federal regulation of “demonic” corporations

""I’m not claiming that all businesspeople are demons, just that some of them aren’t angels," he wrote
Scott Eric Kaufman Friday, Sep 25, 2015 08:27 AM EST 68
Business Paul Krugman, Business

Larry Wilmore demolishes Ayn Rand capitalism: “The more we leave things to unfettered markets, the more we have to clean up their sh*t”

Three of the worst examples of capitalist dung -- all in one week VIDEO
Sarah Burris Friday, Sep 25, 2015 08:02 AM EST 82
Entertainment pope francis, Larry Wilmore

“Morons,” “dumb,” “idiots”: Martin Shkreli and Donald Trump deserve each other

Separated at birth -- the price-gouging CEO and the leader of the GOP clown car
Aaron R. Hanlon Wednesday, Sep 23, 2015 02:10 PM EST 14
Life martin shkreli, Donald Trump

Drug profiteer Martin Shkerli relents: “There were mistakes made with respects to helping people understand” why we raised prices 5,455%

His passive-voice defense -- "mistakes were made" -- essentially confirms every awful thought you had about him
Scott Eric Kaufman Wednesday, Sep 23, 2015 10:46 AM EST 35
Business martin shkreli, Big Pharma

“Martin Shkreli is the Donald Trump of drug development”: Why even a biotech exec agrees Turing’s pill price-gouging is “even skeevier than you think”

Raising the price of a drug 5000 percent may be legal, but it's wrong
Mary Elizabeth Williams Tuesday, Sep 22, 2015 11:40 AM EST 128
Life martin shkreli

Martin Shkreli on his “altruistic” motives: “I’m a capitalist — I want to create a big drug company”

"There're a lot of altruistic properties" to raising cost of treating toxoplasmosis from $1,350 to $63,000, he said VIDEO
Scott Eric Kaufman Tuesday, Sep 22, 2015 10:26 AM EST 95
Business turing pharmaceuticals

CEO Martin Shkreli defends his company: Life-saving pill whose price was increased 5,455 percent is “still under-priced”

"I don't think you can find a drug company on the planet that can make money on $5 million of revenue," he said VIDEO
Scott Eric Kaufman Tuesday, Sep 22, 2015 08:16 AM EST 70
Business martin shkreli, Big Pharma, Video

Twitter shreds drug profiteer for increasing cost of common treatment of parasitic infections by 5,455 percent

“It really doesn’t make sense to get any criticism for this," Martin Shkreli said, unaware that it really does
Scott Eric Kaufman Monday, Sep 21, 2015 01:39 PM EST 355
Business martin shkreli, Big Pharma