Tuesday, January 10, 2012

More…gun sense and nonsense

TSA gun inspection
Here’s the latest.  The gun freaks now want to be able to extend their concealed right-to-carry privileges to airplanes.  J.D. Schechter from, where else but gun-totin’ Arizona, who runs the Arizona Citizens Defense League, says some of his readers think, because of the relaxing of guns laws in many states, this could become a reality. 

Just what we need.  Some yahoo from Arizona where anyone can own a gun and who probably has absolutely no training in firearms, to protect us on an airplane.  I’ll take the train.  Some lame brain gun owners still continue to end up at the airport daily with guns packed in carry-ons that they claim they forgot were there.  In the week before Christmas, the T.S.A. discovered 31 guns with rounds actually in the chamber.  National Rifle Assn. (NRA) education at its best.



And what happened to the uproar over improved gun control following the shooting of U.S. Representative Gabby Giffords.  The one year anniversary was last Sunday and immediately following the incident a year ago President Obama sounded as if he might be willing to move forward on the issue.  We also have heard nothing from Giffords herself. 

Jared Loughner
Jared Loughner, the shooter in the Tucson massacre has been judged mentally ill by many and at least we should be addressing that part of the problem.  But over one year later only a small number of states pass along records of those judged to be mentally ill.  Loughner killed six in Tucson, and another mentally unbalanced gunman Seung Hui Cho killed 32 at Virginia Tech U. in 2007.  Why doesn’t the NRA, which supports reporting, lobby for more state participation?

But there is definitely a wave in this country toward looser weapons laws, and gun control advocates like me are fast becoming the minority.  It makes sense that the more guns that are available, the more likely they are to get in the hands of the Loughners and Chos.  Having a gun in the home as a means of protection for an emergency is one thing, but some rube walking around on the streets with a gun in his pocket with no training or background check is preposterous.

If you think these relaxed gun laws is what has reduced violence across the U.S., think again.  Although it isn’t completely clear, the experts say it is due in part to higher rates of incarceration, and a decrease in the number of teenagers who commit a disproportionate share of offenses.  In New York City, as an example, their gun laws have not changed and there are still problems such as oppressive poverty, but murders have declined to 1950’s levels.


Old West cowboy

No matter how you view the loose weapons issue, Arizona is the leader in making guns available to anyone who wants them.  During a very somber period this past Sunday when a vigil was being held in Tucson for those killed in the Arizona shooting, the Tucson Gun Show decided to hold its annual event at the Pima County Fairgrounds.  This can only be described as tasteless beyond reasoning, devised by a bunch of double-digit IQs that have absolutely no feelings for the six dead.  Next, same state, the Republican legislature has renewed its push for legalizing guns on campus.

If there is anything I learn from all this show of masculinity it is that these gun wackos have to pack heat to feel like a man.  It’s an attempt to revive the days of Wyatt Earp when every cowboy carried a gun.  The big difference is in those days they knew how to use them.

Monday, January 9, 2012

ALERT: Senior citizens must support Medicare doctors in pay reductions

The time has passed when you consider becoming a doctor and all your friends assume right away you will be making tons of money.  I am not sure that was ever the real case, although there were a lot of docs driving around in Mercedes automobiles, and the general agreement was that specialist doctors were the ones who made the real money.  According to CNN Money, many docs today are just trying to survive, many hiding the fact they are about to go bankrupt.

This includes casualties from all fields including cardiologists, oncologists and the family physician.  To keep Medicare financially able, federal law says that annual reimbursement rates to doctors be reduced annually based on a formula that is connected to the health of the economy.  And even though Congress has blocked these cuts for ten years, the possibility still hangs over the heads of the docs creating an uncertain financial future for them.  The current cut is 27.4%.

Our family has witnessed this concern with every doctor who treats us and I was able to actually interview one recently on just where she stands on the issue.  I had heard her comments before about how little Medicare paid her for office visits, medical procedures and surgery.  Having seen the reports of payments, I agree.  But she really unloaded when asked about the current 27.4% cut.  She led with “many people think doctors are rich, but most are fighting the same battle as middle-class Americans.”

But she really got serious when reacting to the reduction, above, saying that most docs would have to drop Medicare patients if there is a reduction in payments of any percentage.  Her assessment was that special clinics would have to be set up for these folks for them to receive care.  And wouldn’t that cost taxpayers more than straightening out the Medicare and Medicaid entitlements?  Her judgment was that with a reduction of any amount would mean that it would cost most doctors to treat Medicare patients.

There are 45 million Medicare beneficiaries and that figure is certain to grow measurably in the future.  The aging population is most prominent in the rural areas, and those are the places that can least afford to lose their docs.  Since rural areas tend to be more conservative, and the conservative right has tried already to meddle in Medicare, even reduce benefits, these people had better rethink their politics if they want to keep their physicians.



Dr, Robert Wergin, a family physician in Nebraska, says that based on what Congress might do, he might be forced “to pick up his business and move to a community with a smaller Medicare population.”  Some doctors have as many as 80 percent of their patients on Medicare.  One group of family physicians did a survey and found that 62 percent of their members would drop their Medicare patients if any cuts are made.  Some docs are even considering leaving medicine. 

Deborah Chollet, senior fellow and health economist at Mathematica Policy Research comments that this standoff between doctors and Washington could go on for years.


Today's Senior Citizens

There are 34.1 million Americans age 55 to 64, that will be collecting Medicare in the not-too-distant future.  There is another 45.1 million from 45 to 54 that are on Medicare’s horizon.  There were 60.6 million beneficiaries of Social Security as of November of 2011.  The U.S. must decide soon just how far we want to go in paying entitlements like these programs, and more important, how we plan to pay for them. 

Several ideas have been spun by both progressives and conservatives, neither of which will probably address the issue in an election year.  I like the one that changes the payment structure upward for the wealthy along with that elusive tax increase on the rich. 

Senior citizens should contact their congressional representatives now to let them know how you feel.  House of Representatives here; Senate here.

Friday, January 6, 2012

Canada grades the U.S. for its 2011 politics

Do you care?  If you don’t, I wouldn’t bother reading this article.  But I think it is important to know what our neighbors to the north think about us since they are more progressive in their approach to issues like gun control, consumer rights and health care than we are.  Considering just those aspects of Canada’s government, you would be right if you assume their attitude toward American politics is that 2011 was, as they describe it, a year of “lowlights.”

Gabby Giffords
The article from the Montreal Gazette starts with the assassination attempt on Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, which one year holiday will pass this coming Sunday.  As the paper put it, the year began with good intentions by President Obama in his State of the Union Address but basically ended there.  If there was ever a time in recent history where a reevaluation of gun control was called for, and just might have been demanded by the American public, it was then.

It was soon after that a Republican controlled House decided that it would block anything the Obama administration did just for the purpose of insuring that he wouldn’t be a two-term president.  The dysfunction commenced and lasted right down to the last day of December, 2011.  GOP House Speaker John Boehner was quickly reigned in by the radicals of the Tea Party, led by Rep. Eric Cantor, House Majority Leader, and remained under their thumb until the end of the year.



The Keystone XL pipeline from Canada produced a flip-flop on the part of Obama, just when environmentalists thought they had won a major battle.  The President decided to allow earlier consideration of the project when the GOP became obsessed with its approval because of their claim it would create jobs.  Critics think Republicans did harm to its eventual passage by their insistence that it be included in the tax relief bill.

And then there was the birther controversy over whether Obama’s birth certificate was valid.  Canadians considered Donald Trump the “crackpot” he is when using the issue to discredit the President.  Even today there are still two fruitcakes pursuing this stupid theory after the President already provided evidence of his birth in Hawaii.  There was also Rep. Anthony Weiner’s tweeting photos of his genital to a woman.  A Democrat from New York, he first denied, then admitted what he had done, and the resigned in disgrace. 

Sarah Palin
Sarah Palin was around for a while, goading her pathetic followers into thinking she would run for President, when she had no intention of giving up the lucrative speaking engagements these feeble-minded people pay dearly for.  Canadians saw the sadness in the ineptitude of the 112th Congress to accomplish anything, including what they consider “one of the worst pieces of kitchen-sink legislation,” the 2-month payroll tax cut.

House Speaker John Boehner gets the nod as the “weakest political leader’ due his complete lack of control over the Tea Party in the GOP caucus.  He simply could not deliver the votes ending up in a loss of credibility with the White House, Democrats, even Republicans in the Senate.  It almost seemed at one time that Boehner wanted to work with President Obama on a range of issues, but then the Tea Party jerked him back to reality through moves by Eric Cantor.

Regardless of what Canada thinks of U.S. politics, the important thing is what do Americans think of their political situation.  With Congress at its lowest favorability rating ever, 9 percent, that seems painfully obvious.  Andrea Mitchell of NBC News said it best: she commented that only the military has a favorable rating in government.

Thursday, January 5, 2012

Facebook, Google help potential suicides…will they sell your data?

It is commendable that Facebook and Google have set up procedures to identify people who are contemplating suicide, passing them along to help lines that are geared up to help these folks.  Facebook has designed a system that promotes the flagging of “suicidal or otherwise violent messages.”  If there is a post about someone doing harm to themselves, friends can click on a “report suicidal content link.”

Google added something to its U.S. search engine in 2010 showing a red telephone plus the telephone number for a suicide help line to call.  They have a similar program for poison-control providing a hotline.  The latter was prompted by an actual incident of a mother unable to find the right number after her child had consumed something poisonous. 

These are good things being done by two high-profile companies in the business of providing and sharing information between their customers.  The question is whether we can trust either with this most personal of private information, that, if used against us, could be disastrous.  As an example, both companies are known to collect marketing information from online use of their sites, and what if Google or Facebook decided to sell suicide data to a life insurance company?



After all, Mark Zuckerberg, the bad-boy founder of Facebook, has been known in the past to push the limit on how he uses your personal data.  As late as November of 2011 the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) lodged a complaint against Facebook for assuring customers their data was secure from ad networks or FB apps, while at the same time this information was merrily streaming on its way to both. 

It’s as if Zuckerberg, genius that he may be, comes completely dumb when it gets down to your privacy.  Or is it that he just doesn’t care because he thinks your private information belongs to him?  I spent 35 years in the junk mail industry selling your personal data, but for the last seven years I have been fighting for your rights in this matter.  The problem is the average person is completely apathetic about this issue, allowing the Facebooks and Googles to do their thing.

Google has mellowed over the years since they were accused of holding search data for too long a period of time.  However, in March of 2011, Google settled a complaint with the FTC that its Google Buzz social network violated user privacy.  With a fanfare introduction, Google failed to tell users their personal information might be shared.  These oversights are frequent in businesses who apparently don’t understand the full value of privacy.  Unlike junk mailers, who understand but either don’t care or favor profits over customer data security.

Let me leave you with yet one more example of how Facebook and Google might share this data with advertisers.  Pharmaceutical companies thrive on any means to hawk new and old drugs to the public and have little regard for consumer privacy.  Anti-depressant drug-makers could use a list like this to sell their wares, although some experts in the past say anti-depressants actually cause suicides. 

You may think this is all far-fetched but we are currently in an information-driven society and in my 35 years selling this personal data it was obvious just what a gold mine it is.  And because everything anyone needs to know about you is out there with easy access, it just may be too late to even think about your privacy anymore.

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Americans favor the IRS and communism over the present Republican Congress

Yes, I said Republican Congress.  It is less popular than the dreaded tax folks and the political ideology that is a direct opposite to democracy.  In this CBS rating, the IRS comes in at a colossal 40 percent, communism at 11 percent, the lowly Congress at 9 percent.  Only Fidel Castro ranks lower at 5 percent.  These ratings are taken by major polling services like Gallup and Rasmussen, and reflect the growing feeling that the people in Washington must be replaced in 2012.

In a release from CBS of the approval rating, it is clear that the GOP is continuing to block everything that would help jump-start the economy because they want the President to fail.  It is a blockade Barack Obama has been up against since his inauguration, conceived by a deranged Tea Party and implemented by fanatics like Eric Cantor, (R-VA) House Majority Leader with help from House Speaker, Rep. John Boehner and Sen. Minority leader, Rep. Mitch McConnell.

Communist symbol
According to the Addicting Info site, this is what the Republican Congress has done: “…spent their time passing anti-women bills, bills against birth control and contraceptives, anti-abortion bills, bills declaring pizza a vegetable, bills re-affirming ‘In God We Trust,’ as the national motto, anti-tax bills, anti-environmental bills.”  There is more but just as ludicrous. 

This gang of brainless GOP bullies has frittered away three years trying to convince the American public to hate President Obama and vote him out of office next November.  What they have accomplished is raising the ire of a majority of the voting public, including many Republicans and a number of Independents.  The country is fed up with their shenanigans and they’re not going to take it anymore.  The question is how to make sure voters remember this subterfuge on November 6, 2012.



Maybe it would help to illustrate more cases where the unfavorable is favored over the Republican Congress.  The airlines, which have raised rates and curtailed benefits for several years now comes in at 29 percent.  Keep in mind now Congress is at 9 percent.  Banks, one of the most hated institutions and the target of the Occupy movement rank 23 percent.  The oil and gas industry, often accused of raising the price of gasoline just to improve their bottom line, 20 percent.  And Hugo Chavez, Pres. of Venezuela, ties Congress at 9 percent.

The GOP Congress has done absolutely nothing to create jobs, improve the foreclosure crisis, and they want to repeal the health care bill that has already helped many needy Americans.  Stephen Foster of Addicting Info says, “Hell, Republicans have turned Congress into such a joke that even King George III was more popular during the Revolutionary War.”  He was the British monarch during the American Revolution, his favorability coming in between 15 and 20 percent.

I cannot remember a time in my life where the hallowed halls of Congress have been looked on with such contempt for the people who are supposed to be running our country but yet have let a small group of wacko radicals dictate their actions.  I would be talking about the Tea Party, of course, and until the GOP breaks the umbilical cord with these certifiable maniacs, there will be no breakthrough in Washington.

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

Iowa caucus is a group of religious extremists' much ado about nothing

I lived in Iowa at one time; still have family there that will no doubt roast me alive after this post.  But I am sick and tired of seeing religion, not just making its impact on politics like any other politicking body, but in actual control of the outcome.  And that is exactly the position the Iowa evangelicals are in when it comes to caucus results.  They are able to do it because of their numbers in the state and also because of their unlimited passion over what they believe.

University of Akron’s expert on religion and politics, John Green, says, ““Relatively few people participate in the Iowa caucuses, so it’s ideal for a group of highly committed activists to have a big influence.”  The need to attend area get-togethers is a requirement, and since evangelicals thrive on sharing their devotion, it is easy for the churches to initiate this kind of participation.  And there is nothing wrong with this loyalty to their cause.

 

What is wrong is the influence the Iowa Caucus has on voters’ opinions across the country of the candidates and their qualifications to be president.  What would the evangelicals do if someday this country elected an agnostic to the highest office in the land?  He or she would believe in a God, but not share the normal Christian beliefs such as the crucifixion.  This new president would have all the capabilities to perform the necessary duties, and he or she would possess all the real values of good people.  The latter is possible, you know.

 A U. of Iowa journalism professor, Stephen G. Bloom, a New Jersey transplant, has wreaked havoc in the state with his statement: "Whether a schizophrenic, economically depressed, and some say, culturally challenged state like Iowa should host the first grassroots referendum to determine who will be the next president isn't at issue. ... In a perfect world, no way would Iowa ever be considered representative of America, or even a small part of it. Iowa's not representative of much." 

When I lived in Des Moines in the late 60s, it was a dingy place, very cliquish, and when I left, knew I would never want to live there again.  Apparently a lot of people still feel the same way as Forbes magazine ranked Iowa in the top ten states losing population in 2010.  That doesn’t mean those who stay are bad, just that it is an environment in which they feel comfortable.  Perhaps many who desert the state are just not “evangelical” enough to fit in and decide to go elsewhere.

To illustrate what I feel to be the complete absurdity of the Iowa Caucus, evangelist Pat Robertson in 1988 finished second, ahead of then-Vice President George H.W. Bush.  Now I am far from being a Bush fan but finishing behind Pat Robertson, come on!  It’s like having the big “E” before his name qualifies Robertson to be president of the United States and that is ridiculous.  But this seems to be the only criteria of the current caucusers. 


Iowa caucus GOP
 As another example, former Penn. Senator Rick Santorum’s latest surge in the polls might be explained by the fact he landed on Time’s list of America’s 25 most influential evangelicals; he is also a devout Catholic.  But as the vote becomes even more fractured, Iowa’s evangelicals have become worried that it will lessen the importance of the caucuses nationwide and have yet another trick up their sleeve. 

They are attempting to get either Santorum or Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry to drop out so as not to dilute the vote for the chosen evangelicals.

At least we have a real election to look forward to in New Hampshire a week after the Iowa fiasco.  With any luck in 2012 we’ll sweep Congress clean of conservative extremists like the lunatics of the Tea Party, and the religious right that puts faith before country, and bring in some progressives that will again concentrate on what is good for America.  Hell, we might even elect an agnostic after President Obama’s second term.

Monday, January 2, 2012

Drug companies want to convince you that you are sick

Americans are going without necessary drugs to fight major aliments like cancer with no alternative available according to a new report, while pharmaceutical companies play with a new business model that emphasizes profitability.  Lipitor was the culprit when it went generic and its maker, Pfizer, was faced with losing the $13 billion in annual revenue.  The current model of betting on everyday afflictions required high priced screening programs that took up to 15 years to reach success, and requiring enormous facilities and numbers of people.

Not sure what was wrong with the old model since over the last 20 years, drug companies have been the world’s most profitable.  Pfizer, itself, is ranked 21st in the Fortune 500 with sales of $8.257 billion in 2010; Johnson & Johnson was 9th; Eli Lilly was 29th; Abbott Laboratories was 33rd.  But Scott Gottlieb writing in the Wall Street Journal says, “There’s something unanticipated in drug research that can’t be industrialized.”  The new focus of drug makers are the more serious conditions such as cancer and Alzheimer’s.

Pharma pushing drugs
The concentration is now on more finite accuracy over wide-scale experiments, but much depends on government regulation.  The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) is not known for being the best at what it does, although it is the only game in town.  Gottlieb comments, “Regulatory requirement have grown enormously over the past few decades, increasing costs and deterring new investment.  But it would seem that we are being led to believe that, in spite of being the highest profit industry in the world, drug companies should be pitied.

The same report says that if pharmaceutical companies were forced to report potential shortages to the FDA in a timely manner, the agency could find alternatives to deal with the issue.  Like the situation 61-year-old Renee Mosier faced with her ovarian cancer this past June.  She needed the drug Doxil, which has no generic equivalent, and has not been available for several months.  It is a life and death thing for Mosier, particularly since this is a recurrence of her cancer.  Currently there is no legislation requiring the reporting of shortages.



But the above isn’t even the worst of a pharmaceutical industry gone bonkers.  Ever hear of disease mongering?  It’s a term that’s been around 20 years and refers to the way drug companies promote their blockbuster drugs to those who are “sick.”  Lynn Payer, author of Disease-Mongers: How Doctors, Drug Companies, and Insurers Are Making You Feel Sick, lists four disease mongering tactics:

  • taking a normal function and implying that it is potentially dangerous and should be treated, preferably for a long time
  • taking a common symptom that could mean anything and making it sound as if it is a sign of a serious disease    
  • saying that a large percentage of the population might be suffering from the “disease”
  • recruiting doctors to spread the message

To me the last one is the most alarming, assuming some docs would recommend a drug just because the salesman is pushing it because the company wants to promote it at all costs.  And Dr. Andrew Weil adds yet another contrivance: allocating a clinical-sounding name to what is really an everyday malady like heartburn, which becomes “gastro-esophageal reflux disease or GERD.”  In the article done by David Wallechinsky, he says, “Aggressive and creative marketing has permitted drug manufacturers to convince millions of people they have a problem that requires treatment and medication.”  Like depression.

But when depression became passé, pharmaceutical companies switched to adult ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder).  ADHD cases skyrocketed; doubling, even tripling among important age groups 20 to 44 and 45 to 65.  Disease mongering has also led to “cooked up” diseases like female sexual dysfunction leading over 60 percent of women to think they had it.  Pfizer even tried promoting Viagra to women until it was proven it was no more effective than a placebo. 

Wallechinsky adds, “Sometimes, the therapy being pushed can be more harmful than the condition it’s supposed to treat.” Like exploiting rheumatoid arthritis with immune suppressors such as Remicade, Enbrel, and Humira.  “Taking these, however, can ‘invite cancers, lethal infections, and activate TB [tuberculosis],’” according to Martha Rosenberg at AlterNet. 

There’s more to be said about the shenanigans of large pharmaceutical companies like shady lobbying and how they use your personal data that I will cover in a later post.  In the meantime, isn’t it nice to know that these big corporations have the consumer’s best interest at heart, and that we have the FDA to protect us if something happens?  Yeah…right!

Donald Trump Says He Will Be Indicted On Tuesday

  THAT'S TODAY... Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has brought the case to this point, now looking at a possible indictment. Trum...