Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
JHan
JHan's Journal
JHan's Journal
February 3, 2017
Douglass-Tubman 2020 - Getting recognized more and more...
The glory that is black twitter:
February 1, 2017
I don't care if the Republicans remove the filibuster..
They used it far too effectively against Obama.
If they remove it now, it's on them.
So let's raise the stakes for 2018 and 2020.
We have to recapture Congress and the Presidency, and if Republicans remove the filibuster now, whenever they're in the minority they'll have fewer tools of obstructionism on hand to frustrate a Democratic President.
February 1, 2017
Remember?
I have to begin by saying my original plan for this visit was to focus on our agenda to help small businesses and entrepreneurs. This week we proposed new steps to cut red tape and taxes to make it easier for small businesses to get the credit they need to grow and hire.
I want to be a small business president. My father was a small business man. And I believe that in America, if you can dream it, you should be able to build it.
And so, we’ll be talking a lot more about small business and about our economic plans in the days and weeks ahead.
But today, here in this community college devoted to opening minds and creating great understanding of the world of which we live, I want to address something that I am hearing about from Americans all over our country.
Everywhere I go, people tell me how concerned they are by the divisive rhetoric coming from my opponent in this election.
And I understand that concern, because it’s like nothing we’ve heard before from a nominee for president of the United States from one of our two major parties.
From the start, Donald Trump has built his campaign on prejudice and paranoia.
He is taking hate groups mainstream and helping a radical fringe take over the Republican Party.
His disregard for the values that make our country great is profoundly dangerous.
In just this past week, under the guise of “outreach” to African Americans, Trump has stood up in front of largely white audiences and described black communities in such insulting and ignorant terms:
“Poverty. Rejection. Horrible education. No housing. No homes. No ownership. Crime at levels nobody has seen." Right now," he said, "you walk down the street and get shot.”
Those are his words.
But when I hear them, I think to myself: How sad. Donald Trump misses so much.
He doesn’t see the success of black leaders in every field, the vibrancy of black-owned businesses, the strength of the black church.
He doesn’t see the excellence of historically black colleges and universities or the pride of black parents watching their children thrive. And he apparently didn't see Police Chief Brown on television after the murders of five of his officers conducting himself with such dignity. He certainly doesn’t have any solutions to take on the reality of systemic racism and create more equity and opportunity in communities of color and for every American.
It really does take a lot of nerve to ask people he’s ignored and mistreated for decades, “What do you have to lose?” Because the answer is: Everything.
Now, Trump’s lack of knowledge or experience or solutions would be bad enough.
But what he’s doing here is more sinister.
Trump is reinforcing harmful stereotypes and offering a dog whistle to his most hateful supporters.
It’s a disturbing preview of what kind of president he’d be.
And that's what I want to make clear today:
A man with a long history of racial discrimination, who traffics in dark conspiracy theories drawn from the pages of supermarket tabloids and the far, dark reaches of the internet, should never run our government or command our military.
Ask yourself, if he doesn’t respect all Americans, how can he serve all Americans?
Now, I know some people still want to give Trump the benefit of the doubt.
They hope that he will eventually reinvent himself – that there’s a kinder, gentler, more responsible Donald Trump waiting in the wings somewhere.
Because after all, it’s hard to believe anyone – let alone a nominee for president – could really believe all the things he says.
But the hard truth is, there’s no other Donald Trump. This is it.
Like she repeated this over and over and over and over.
She got criticized for this speech and there was backlash. She was too "harsh", she was "descending to his level" they said.
Chris Matthews got in on the action and while discussing the speech with ex GOP Chairman Michael Steele, lamented that it dragged politics to a level it shouldn't be and he and Michael agreed that Hillary was wrong. Trump's gaslighting had so infected political media, the pundits couldn't see the truth if it slapped them in the face.Maybe Chris should eat crow now, because this speech was prescient about the dangers of a Trump presidency.
Hillary warned us time and time again about Trump, and was criticized for being too negative and too "anti- trump" even when her speeches weren't all about Trump. In fact, most of her speeches were about her policy positions and plans but the media didn't have time to discuss such unimportant things.
It is important to be ANTI TRUMP because of what he represents. He is a throwback, a dying breed of American who looks back instead of forward. He is regressive and autocratic and wants to hold on to an old tired view of the world that is tribalistic, nationalistic and provincial - to do so he will allow religious theocracy to take hold, he will fuck the environment over and justify doing so because it's a god given right, and wealth=right in his mind. He'll allow backward right-libertarian ideologues to steer policy and crush socialism in favor of feudalism and he will starve green energy initiatives in favor of extractive industries. He will turn his back to the promise of 21st century civilisation: Liberalism - open markets, green energy, cosmopolitanism, diversity, secularism, a vast social safety net, democracy.
The true progressive position is to be AntiTrump and all he stands for, on that score Hillary was right.
Folks want Hillary to say something about the OrangeClusterFuckofMadness in the WH. Well she did..
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/25/hillary-clintons-alt-right-speech-annotated/?utm_term=.2d4a3ad0d95fRemember?
I have to begin by saying my original plan for this visit was to focus on our agenda to help small businesses and entrepreneurs. This week we proposed new steps to cut red tape and taxes to make it easier for small businesses to get the credit they need to grow and hire.
I want to be a small business president. My father was a small business man. And I believe that in America, if you can dream it, you should be able to build it.
And so, we’ll be talking a lot more about small business and about our economic plans in the days and weeks ahead.
But today, here in this community college devoted to opening minds and creating great understanding of the world of which we live, I want to address something that I am hearing about from Americans all over our country.
Everywhere I go, people tell me how concerned they are by the divisive rhetoric coming from my opponent in this election.
And I understand that concern, because it’s like nothing we’ve heard before from a nominee for president of the United States from one of our two major parties.
From the start, Donald Trump has built his campaign on prejudice and paranoia.
He is taking hate groups mainstream and helping a radical fringe take over the Republican Party.
His disregard for the values that make our country great is profoundly dangerous.
In just this past week, under the guise of “outreach” to African Americans, Trump has stood up in front of largely white audiences and described black communities in such insulting and ignorant terms:
“Poverty. Rejection. Horrible education. No housing. No homes. No ownership. Crime at levels nobody has seen." Right now," he said, "you walk down the street and get shot.”
Those are his words.
But when I hear them, I think to myself: How sad. Donald Trump misses so much.
He doesn’t see the success of black leaders in every field, the vibrancy of black-owned businesses, the strength of the black church.
He doesn’t see the excellence of historically black colleges and universities or the pride of black parents watching their children thrive. And he apparently didn't see Police Chief Brown on television after the murders of five of his officers conducting himself with such dignity. He certainly doesn’t have any solutions to take on the reality of systemic racism and create more equity and opportunity in communities of color and for every American.
It really does take a lot of nerve to ask people he’s ignored and mistreated for decades, “What do you have to lose?” Because the answer is: Everything.
Now, Trump’s lack of knowledge or experience or solutions would be bad enough.
But what he’s doing here is more sinister.
Trump is reinforcing harmful stereotypes and offering a dog whistle to his most hateful supporters.
It’s a disturbing preview of what kind of president he’d be.
And that's what I want to make clear today:
A man with a long history of racial discrimination, who traffics in dark conspiracy theories drawn from the pages of supermarket tabloids and the far, dark reaches of the internet, should never run our government or command our military.
Ask yourself, if he doesn’t respect all Americans, how can he serve all Americans?
Now, I know some people still want to give Trump the benefit of the doubt.
They hope that he will eventually reinvent himself – that there’s a kinder, gentler, more responsible Donald Trump waiting in the wings somewhere.
Because after all, it’s hard to believe anyone – let alone a nominee for president – could really believe all the things he says.
But the hard truth is, there’s no other Donald Trump. This is it.
Like she repeated this over and over and over and over.
She got criticized for this speech and there was backlash. She was too "harsh", she was "descending to his level" they said.
Chris Matthews got in on the action and while discussing the speech with ex GOP Chairman Michael Steele, lamented that it dragged politics to a level it shouldn't be and he and Michael agreed that Hillary was wrong. Trump's gaslighting had so infected political media, the pundits couldn't see the truth if it slapped them in the face.Maybe Chris should eat crow now, because this speech was prescient about the dangers of a Trump presidency.
Hillary warned us time and time again about Trump, and was criticized for being too negative and too "anti- trump" even when her speeches weren't all about Trump. In fact, most of her speeches were about her policy positions and plans but the media didn't have time to discuss such unimportant things.
It is important to be ANTI TRUMP because of what he represents. He is a throwback, a dying breed of American who looks back instead of forward. He is regressive and autocratic and wants to hold on to an old tired view of the world that is tribalistic, nationalistic and provincial - to do so he will allow religious theocracy to take hold, he will fuck the environment over and justify doing so because it's a god given right, and wealth=right in his mind. He'll allow backward right-libertarian ideologues to steer policy and crush socialism in favor of feudalism and he will starve green energy initiatives in favor of extractive industries. He will turn his back to the promise of 21st century civilisation: Liberalism - open markets, green energy, cosmopolitanism, diversity, secularism, a vast social safety net, democracy.
The true progressive position is to be AntiTrump and all he stands for, on that score Hillary was right.
January 25, 2017
by David Wethe, January 24, 2017
*snip*
For the poor souls who placed faith in Trump's promise that unlimited drilling would bring jobs:
Robots Are Taking Over Oil Rigsby David Wethe, January 24, 2017
The robot on an oil drillship in the Gulf of Mexico made it easier for Mark Rodgers to do his job stringing together heavy, dirty pipes. It could also be a reason he’s not working there today.
The Iron Roughneck, made by National Oilwell Varco Inc., automates the repetitive and dangerous task of connecting hundreds of segments of drill pipe as they’re shoved through miles of ocean water and oil-bearing rock. The machine has also cut to two from three the need for roustabouts, estimates Rodgers, who took a job repairing appliances after being laid off from Transocean Ltd.
“I’d love to go back offshore,” he says. The odds are against him. As the global oil industry begins to climb out of a collapse that took 440,000 jobs, anywhere from a third to half may never come back. A combination of more efficient drilling rigs and increased automation is reducing the need for field hands. And therein lies a warning to U.S. President Donald Trump, who has predicted a flood of new energy-sector jobs under his watch.
Automation, of course, has revolutionized many industries, from auto manufacturing to food and clothing makers. Energy companies, which rely on large, complex equipment for drilling and maintaining oil wells, are particularly well-positioned to benefit, says Dennis Yang, chief executive officer of Udemy, a company in San Francisco that trains workers whose careers were derailed by advanced machinery.
“It used to be you had a toolbox full of wrenches and tubing benders,” says Donald McLain, chairman of the industrial-programs department at Victoria College in south Texas. “Now your main tool is a laptop.” McLain, who worked as a rig hand for 25 years, is helping to retrain laid-off oil workers for more technical jobs.
The Iron Roughneck, made by National Oilwell Varco Inc., automates the repetitive and dangerous task of connecting hundreds of segments of drill pipe as they’re shoved through miles of ocean water and oil-bearing rock. The machine has also cut to two from three the need for roustabouts, estimates Rodgers, who took a job repairing appliances after being laid off from Transocean Ltd.
“I’d love to go back offshore,” he says. The odds are against him. As the global oil industry begins to climb out of a collapse that took 440,000 jobs, anywhere from a third to half may never come back. A combination of more efficient drilling rigs and increased automation is reducing the need for field hands. And therein lies a warning to U.S. President Donald Trump, who has predicted a flood of new energy-sector jobs under his watch.
Automation, of course, has revolutionized many industries, from auto manufacturing to food and clothing makers. Energy companies, which rely on large, complex equipment for drilling and maintaining oil wells, are particularly well-positioned to benefit, says Dennis Yang, chief executive officer of Udemy, a company in San Francisco that trains workers whose careers were derailed by advanced machinery.
“It used to be you had a toolbox full of wrenches and tubing benders,” says Donald McLain, chairman of the industrial-programs department at Victoria College in south Texas. “Now your main tool is a laptop.” McLain, who worked as a rig hand for 25 years, is helping to retrain laid-off oil workers for more technical jobs.
*snip*
Automation-related jobs for software specialists and data technicians are in demand as the oil industry recovers, said Janette Marx, chief operating officer of Airswift, an oilfield recruiter. She sees explorers and service companies being much more methodical and selective in their hiring this time around.
“To me, it’s not just about automating the rig, it’s about automating everything upstream of the rig,” says Ahmed Hashmi, head of upstream technology for BP Plc. “The biggest thing will be the systems.”
That means an engineer can design an oil well at his desk. With the press of a button, an automated system would identify the equipment needed from a supplier, create a 3D model and send instructions for building it out into the field, Hashmi says. “That is automation.”
“To me, it’s not just about automating the rig, it’s about automating everything upstream of the rig,” says Ahmed Hashmi, head of upstream technology for BP Plc. “The biggest thing will be the systems.”
That means an engineer can design an oil well at his desk. With the press of a button, an automated system would identify the equipment needed from a supplier, create a 3D model and send instructions for building it out into the field, Hashmi says. “That is automation.”
January 23, 2017
*snip*
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/upshot/in-obamas-farewell-a-warning-on-automations-perils.html?_r=0
.........................................................................................................
" they divert attention from the bigger culprit." - In other words, we have to prepare ourselves for a world where capitalist enterprise no longer needs low-skilled workers.
Capitalism has always depended on a ready stream of low skilled workers. Which isn't to say Capitalism doesn't uplift people out of poverty - it does- however it works best in tandem with some communist/socialist principles of collectivism i.e. investing in the commons and placing value on people or "human resources". This hybrid approach is a better guarantee of sustained wealth creation and economic opportunities for all. But, unfortunately, American capitalism prioritizes shareholder value and short term profit above all other considerations. The result of this rapacious and short sighted approach has been wage stagnation and entrenched poverty over the past couple decades.
With increasing automation, the need for low wage labor will be eliminated, and even mid to high skilled jobs may be threatened by mechanized and/or AI systems. Whatever can be made cheaper, even complex processes, will be made cheaper using technology.
Regressive Protectionist ideas won't fix the problem, just prolong the suffering by allowing capitalists to exploit the remnants of a system that is slowly dying. And this Trump government ,backed by Anarco capitalists, won't care - and they won't come up with real solutions to address poverty - like implementing Universal Basic Income, quality socialized healthcare and changing the current paradigm.
Democrats must lead on these issues. We can't say we weren't warned.
President Obama's warning about automation.
Underneath the nostalgia and hope in President Obama’s farewell address Tuesday night was a darker theme: the struggle to help the people on the losing end of technological change.
“The next wave of economic dislocations won’t come from overseas,” Mr. Obama said. “It will come from the relentless pace of automation that makes a lot of good, middle-class jobs obsolete.”
Donald J. Trump has tended to blame trade, offshoring and immigration. Mr. Obama acknowledged those things have caused economic stress. But without mentioning Mr. Trump, he said they divert attention from the bigger culprit.
Economists agree that automation has played a far greater role in job loss, over the long run, than globalization. But few people want to stop technological progress. Indeed, the government wants to spur more of it. The question is how to help those that it hurts.
The inequality caused by automation is a main driver of cynicism and political polarization, Mr. Obama said. He connected it to the racial and geographic divides that have cleaved the country post-election.
“The next wave of economic dislocations won’t come from overseas,” Mr. Obama said. “It will come from the relentless pace of automation that makes a lot of good, middle-class jobs obsolete.”
Donald J. Trump has tended to blame trade, offshoring and immigration. Mr. Obama acknowledged those things have caused economic stress. But without mentioning Mr. Trump, he said they divert attention from the bigger culprit.
Economists agree that automation has played a far greater role in job loss, over the long run, than globalization. But few people want to stop technological progress. Indeed, the government wants to spur more of it. The question is how to help those that it hurts.
The inequality caused by automation is a main driver of cynicism and political polarization, Mr. Obama said. He connected it to the racial and geographic divides that have cleaved the country post-election.
*snip*
Education is the main solution the White House advocated. When the United States moved from an agrarian economy to an industrialized economy, it rapidly expanded high school education: By 1951, the average American had 6.2 more years of education than someone born 75 years earlier. The extra education enabled people to do new kinds of jobs, and explains 14 percent of the annual increases in labor productivity during that period, economists say.
Now the country faces a similar problem. Machines can do many low-skilled tasks, and American children, especially those from low-income and minority families, lag behind their peers in other countries educationally.
The White House proposed enrolling more 4-year-olds in preschool and making two years of community college free for students, as well as teaching more skills like computer science and critical thinking. For people who have already lost their jobs, it suggested expanding apprenticeships and retraining programs, on which the country spends half what it did 30 years ago.
Displaced workers also need extra government assistance, the report concluded. It suggested ideas like additional unemployment benefits for people who are in retraining programs or live in states hardest hit by job loss. It also suggested wage insurance for people who lose their jobs and have to take a new one that pays less. Someone who made $18.50 an hour working in manufacturing, for example, would take an $8 pay cut if he became a home health aide, one of the jobs that is growing most quickly.
Now the country faces a similar problem. Machines can do many low-skilled tasks, and American children, especially those from low-income and minority families, lag behind their peers in other countries educationally.
The White House proposed enrolling more 4-year-olds in preschool and making two years of community college free for students, as well as teaching more skills like computer science and critical thinking. For people who have already lost their jobs, it suggested expanding apprenticeships and retraining programs, on which the country spends half what it did 30 years ago.
Displaced workers also need extra government assistance, the report concluded. It suggested ideas like additional unemployment benefits for people who are in retraining programs or live in states hardest hit by job loss. It also suggested wage insurance for people who lose their jobs and have to take a new one that pays less. Someone who made $18.50 an hour working in manufacturing, for example, would take an $8 pay cut if he became a home health aide, one of the jobs that is growing most quickly.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/upshot/in-obamas-farewell-a-warning-on-automations-perils.html?_r=0
.........................................................................................................
" they divert attention from the bigger culprit." - In other words, we have to prepare ourselves for a world where capitalist enterprise no longer needs low-skilled workers.
Capitalism has always depended on a ready stream of low skilled workers. Which isn't to say Capitalism doesn't uplift people out of poverty - it does- however it works best in tandem with some communist/socialist principles of collectivism i.e. investing in the commons and placing value on people or "human resources". This hybrid approach is a better guarantee of sustained wealth creation and economic opportunities for all. But, unfortunately, American capitalism prioritizes shareholder value and short term profit above all other considerations. The result of this rapacious and short sighted approach has been wage stagnation and entrenched poverty over the past couple decades.
With increasing automation, the need for low wage labor will be eliminated, and even mid to high skilled jobs may be threatened by mechanized and/or AI systems. Whatever can be made cheaper, even complex processes, will be made cheaper using technology.
Regressive Protectionist ideas won't fix the problem, just prolong the suffering by allowing capitalists to exploit the remnants of a system that is slowly dying. And this Trump government ,backed by Anarco capitalists, won't care - and they won't come up with real solutions to address poverty - like implementing Universal Basic Income, quality socialized healthcare and changing the current paradigm.
Democrats must lead on these issues. We can't say we weren't warned.
January 21, 2017
Mike Pence disappointed that Nasty Women were allowed to be seen in public shouting and marching..
.... instead of knitting and baking in the kitchen where they belong - Source: The Onion.
Mike Pence Disappointed In The 200,000 Husbands And Fathers Who Permitted Women To Attend March
WASHINGTON - Admonishing those responsible for failing to uphold their moral duties, Vice President Mike Pence expressed disappointment Saturday in the 200,000 husbands and fathers who had allowed the women and girls in their charge to attend the Women’s March on Washington. “I can’t tell you how let down I feel by the heads of these households who did not simply give their wives and daughters a firm, decisive ‘no’ when they asked to participate in today’s demonstration,” said Pence, noting with frustration that many of the protesters had been granted permission to travel across the country alone and stay for several days in a faraway city with no male chaperone whatsoever to guide and look after them. “There are a few men marching as well, so they must be the ones supervising this whole thing, and thank God for that. But I can’t help but feel that these ladies’ custodians—the ones who were supposed to be providing a masculine voice of reason on these sorts of matters—have really come up short today.” Pence stressed that he, for example, had told his 23-year-old eldest daughter that it was simply out of the question when she mentioned she was thinking of attending the march.
January 21, 2017
Words Donald Trump said for the first time in any U.S. inaugural address in history
January 20, 2017
http://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/news/a42222/rep-maxine-waters-will-read-you-now/
In this era of Fuckeries, Maxine Waters is my Patronus
Her shade can eclipse the brightest suns, her resilience and zero-fucks-to-give , zero-time-for-bullshit essence will forever be my inspiration.
And Elle agrees:
"I'm tempted to elect Congresswoman Waters as this week's Shade Bae, but shade is subtle. Waters doesn't have time for subtlety. Waters knows that desperate times call for shadier measures. She is reading this town for filth.
Dr. Carla Hayden may be the Librarian of Congress, but Congresswoman Maxine Waters has read everything in that building, honey.
Her whole face says, "You tried it." Her lipstick shade is "Shade.""
Dr. Carla Hayden may be the Librarian of Congress, but Congresswoman Maxine Waters has read everything in that building, honey.
Her whole face says, "You tried it." Her lipstick shade is "Shade.""
http://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/news/a42222/rep-maxine-waters-will-read-you-now/
January 20, 2017
http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/hip-hop/7661885/kanye-west-not-invited-to-perform-at-trump-inauguration-because-traditionally-american-event
" Even if you in a Benz, you still a ninja in a coupe"
The Trump Camp didn't invite Kanye to perform because his music ain't "traditionally american"...
""He considers himself a friend of the President-elect, but it's not the venue. The venue we have for entertainment is filled out, it's perfect, it's going to be typically and traditionally American, and Kanye is a great guy but we just haven't asked him to perform. We move on with our agenda.""
http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/hip-hop/7661885/kanye-west-not-invited-to-perform-at-trump-inauguration-because-traditionally-american-event
" Even if you in a Benz, you still a ninja in a coupe"
January 18, 2017
"They actually have a very strong point. This is a budget appropriations bill and thus would not be able to give power for the FDA to regulate these imports. We are asked to believe that there is no concern, because coming from Canada these drugs would allegedly be subjected to the same safety standards as the U.S. and often be coming from the same factories, but this is largely untrue due to some of the regulatory peculiarities concerning how Canada exports drugs. Most importantly, drugs that are marked for export are not actually subject to ANY regulation by the Canadian government. That means any startup company could bring in drugs manufactured in countries with zero regulations, and then directly sell them without oversight from the Canadian government, to pharmacies and hospitals in the U.S. without any regulatory power from the FDA. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-27/section-37-20161212.html#wb-cont
This reveals the real and potential danger of this amendment, and also why someone like Senator Ted Cruz would be in favor of it. It undermines the FDA, which like any regulatory agency is not without it’s flaws, but which also undeniably plays an important role in maintaining a standard of safety in our prescription drugs. In the so-called “free market” frontier of a post-ACA world people who rely upon complex life saving medicines, hospitals would have an unmitigated ability to distribute medications without any oversight or obligation to disclose where they came from.
This is about so much more than just ordering online prescriptions. When the article in The New Republic uses that comparison, it misses the mark completely. It also ignores the fact that there HAVE been problems with online prescriptions : https://news.vice.com/article/a-canadian-pharmacy-is-accused-of-selling-counterfeit-cancer-drugs-to-us-doctors or http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/31/health/counterfeit-medications/
Regardless of some of the dangers, Americans are able to currently order supplies of less than three months from online pharmacies, and the current policy of the FDA is to “look the other way”.
*SNIP*
"The truth, is that it is nothing more than an optical band-aid for a problem that cannot be addressed under our current health care system. The reason why drugs are cheaper in Canada is because they have a single payer health system that negotiates the prices. In the U.S. we have a differential market system that provides ample opportunity for price gouging. When the “same companies” are manufacturing the drugs that go to both the U.S. and Canada, if large amounts of drugs start being re-imported, then the companies will just limit their exports to Canada. They already have done so in fact. https://hbr.org/2016/02/why-importing-cheap-pharmaceuticals-from-canada-wont-work
Canada has not always in unison welcomed the idea of being America’s pharmacy. They already took steps on their own in 2005 to restrict the flow, properly pointing out that the solution to America’s health care is not to expect a country of 36 million to suddenly provide prescription medications for all of America. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/29/AR2005062901632.html
At the heart of this, is the accusation that senators voting against this amendment are “afraid to stand up to big pharm” as Bernie Sanders stormed, or as the Shephard article in The New Republic attempts to prove, that financial incentives from “big pharm” are behind the nay votes. There are some huge errors in this logic, and in the very selected information (or lack thereof) we are presented. Much attention was drawn to pharm donations to Booker, but a lot of other convenient information was left out, but we can fill in the gaps."
And the article goes on.
Also worth reading: https://cenlamar.com/2017/01/14/if-bernie-sanders-cares-about-cheaper-drugs-he-should-stop-smearing-his-colleagues-for-rejecting-his-flawed-amendment/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/1/16/1621097/-Cory-Booker-Made-the-Right-Call
I know some love to pick on Cory for any number of reasons, but the outrage over his vote is ridiculous.
Cory Booker Made the Right Call
From Rationak , DailyKos:
Cory Booker Made the Right Call
From the diary:
"His (Booker's) response was panned and often based on information from a widely shared article from New Republic newrepublic.com/...that portrays the “safety argument” as a disingenuous industry lie. But did Alex Shephard in his article really examine the basic facts, or give Booker the benefit of the doubt he deserves? Not only did he not do that, but he also did not provide any evidence to back up his audacious claims that connect Booker’s vote to him being under the sway of the pharmaceutical industry, and many of Booker’s other votes, including the SA 188, the vote immediately after SA 178 contradict that claim.
Let’s begin by gaining a larger understanding of the safety claim. Mike Enzi (R -WY) responded to the introduction of the amendment by giving some history:
Mr. President, this discussion will be a little different than any we have had because in a bipartisan way we have been defeating this for at least 14 years. Byron Dorgan used to head it up on that side, and I used to oppose it from thisside, but it has always been bipartisan, and that is because we are not sure about the safety of the prescription drugs that come in online.People who drive over the border and go to a pharmacist are probably getting good drugs there, but we are told that for up to 85 percent of what comes in online, we can't tell what country it came from. So we can specify Canada, but it may be from another country altogether, particularly the Middle East. If we want to assure we have the safety of our drugs, being able to get it online from even Canada doesn't have the kind of assurance we need. We have always asked that the Secretary of Health and Human Services specify that the safety is in place. No one has been willing to do that. I ask that we vote against this amendment.
"They actually have a very strong point. This is a budget appropriations bill and thus would not be able to give power for the FDA to regulate these imports. We are asked to believe that there is no concern, because coming from Canada these drugs would allegedly be subjected to the same safety standards as the U.S. and often be coming from the same factories, but this is largely untrue due to some of the regulatory peculiarities concerning how Canada exports drugs. Most importantly, drugs that are marked for export are not actually subject to ANY regulation by the Canadian government. That means any startup company could bring in drugs manufactured in countries with zero regulations, and then directly sell them without oversight from the Canadian government, to pharmacies and hospitals in the U.S. without any regulatory power from the FDA. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-27/section-37-20161212.html#wb-cont
This reveals the real and potential danger of this amendment, and also why someone like Senator Ted Cruz would be in favor of it. It undermines the FDA, which like any regulatory agency is not without it’s flaws, but which also undeniably plays an important role in maintaining a standard of safety in our prescription drugs. In the so-called “free market” frontier of a post-ACA world people who rely upon complex life saving medicines, hospitals would have an unmitigated ability to distribute medications without any oversight or obligation to disclose where they came from.
This is about so much more than just ordering online prescriptions. When the article in The New Republic uses that comparison, it misses the mark completely. It also ignores the fact that there HAVE been problems with online prescriptions : https://news.vice.com/article/a-canadian-pharmacy-is-accused-of-selling-counterfeit-cancer-drugs-to-us-doctors or http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/31/health/counterfeit-medications/
Regardless of some of the dangers, Americans are able to currently order supplies of less than three months from online pharmacies, and the current policy of the FDA is to “look the other way”.
*SNIP*
"The truth, is that it is nothing more than an optical band-aid for a problem that cannot be addressed under our current health care system. The reason why drugs are cheaper in Canada is because they have a single payer health system that negotiates the prices. In the U.S. we have a differential market system that provides ample opportunity for price gouging. When the “same companies” are manufacturing the drugs that go to both the U.S. and Canada, if large amounts of drugs start being re-imported, then the companies will just limit their exports to Canada. They already have done so in fact. https://hbr.org/2016/02/why-importing-cheap-pharmaceuticals-from-canada-wont-work
Canada has not always in unison welcomed the idea of being America’s pharmacy. They already took steps on their own in 2005 to restrict the flow, properly pointing out that the solution to America’s health care is not to expect a country of 36 million to suddenly provide prescription medications for all of America. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/29/AR2005062901632.html
At the heart of this, is the accusation that senators voting against this amendment are “afraid to stand up to big pharm” as Bernie Sanders stormed, or as the Shephard article in The New Republic attempts to prove, that financial incentives from “big pharm” are behind the nay votes. There are some huge errors in this logic, and in the very selected information (or lack thereof) we are presented. Much attention was drawn to pharm donations to Booker, but a lot of other convenient information was left out, but we can fill in the gaps."
And the article goes on.
Also worth reading: https://cenlamar.com/2017/01/14/if-bernie-sanders-cares-about-cheaper-drugs-he-should-stop-smearing-his-colleagues-for-rejecting-his-flawed-amendment/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/1/16/1621097/-Cory-Booker-Made-the-Right-Call
I know some love to pick on Cory for any number of reasons, but the outrage over his vote is ridiculous.
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleMember since: Sun Sep 11, 2016, 01:18 AM
Number of posts: 10,173