Citizens' Oversight Maryland---Maryland Progressives
CINDY WALSH FOR MAYOR OF BALTIMORE----SOCIAL DEMOCRAT
Citizens Oversight Maryland.com
  • Home
  • Cindy Walsh for Mayor of Baltimore
    • Mayoral Election violations
    • Questionnaires from Community >
      • Education Questionnaire
      • Baltimore Housing Questionnaire
      • Emerging Youth Questionnaire
      • Health Care policy for Baltimore
      • Environmental Questionnaires
      • Livable Baltimore questionnaire
      • Labor Questionnnaire
      • Ending Food Deserts Questionnaire
      • Maryland Out of School Time Network
      • LBGTQ Questionnaire
      • Citizen Artist Baltimore Mayoral Forum on Arts & Culture Questionnaire
      • Baltimore Transit Choices Questionnaire
      • Baltimore Activating Solidarity Economies (BASE)
      • Downtown Partnership Questionnaire
      • The Northeast Baltimore Communities Of BelAir Edison Community Association (BECCA )and Frankford Improvement Association, Inc. (FIA)
      • Streets and Transportation/Neighbood Questionnaire
      • African American Tourism and business questionnaire
      • Baltimore Sun Questionnaire
      • City Paper Mayoral Questionnaire
      • Baltimore Technology Com Questionnaire
      • Baltimore Biker's Questionnair
      • Homewood Friends Meeting Questionnaire
      • Baltimore Historical Collaboration---Anthem Project
      • Tubman City News Mayoral Questionnaire
      • Maryland Public Policy Institute Questionnaire
      • AFRO questionnaire
      • WBAL Candidate's Survey
  • Blog
  • Trans Pacific Pact (TPP)
  • Progressive vs. Third Way Corporate Democrats
    • Third Way Think Tanks
  • Financial Reform/Wall Street Fraud
    • Consumer Financial Protection Bureau >
      • CFPB Actions
    • Voted to Repeal Glass-Steagall
    • Federal Reserve >
      • Federal Reserve Actions
    • Securities and Exchange Commission >
      • SEC Actions
    • Commodity Futures Trading Commission >
      • CFTC Actions
    • Office of the Comptroller of the Currency >
      • OCC Actions
    • Office of Treasury/ Inspector General for the Treasury
    • FINRA >
      • FINRA ACTIONS
  • Federal Healthcare Reform
    • Health Care Fraud in the US
    • Health and Human Services Actions
  • Social Security and Entitlement Reform
    • Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP Actions
  • Federal Education Reform
    • Education Advocates
  • Government Schedules
    • Baltimore City Council
    • Maryland State Assembly >
      • Budget and Taxation Committee
    • US Congress
  • State and Local Government
    • Baltimore City Government >
      • City Hall Actions
      • Baltimore City Council >
        • Baltimore City Council Actions
      • Baltimore Board of Estimates meeting >
        • Board of Estimates Actions
    • Governor's Office >
      • Telling the World about O'Malley
    • Lt. Governor Brown
    • Maryland General Assembly Committees >
      • Communications with Maryland Assembly
      • Budget and Taxation Committees >
        • Actions
        • Pension news
      • Finance Committees >
        • Schedule
      • Business Licensing and Regulation
      • Judicial, Rules, and Nominations Committee
      • Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs Committee >
        • Committee Actions
    • Maryland State Attorney General >
      • Open Meetings Act
      • Maryland Courts >
        • Maryland Court System
    • States Attorney - Baltimore's Prosecutor
    • State Comptroller's Office >
      • Maryland Business Tax Reform >
        • Business Tax Reform Issues
  • Maryland Committee Actions
    • Board of Public Works >
      • Public Works Actions
    • Maryland Public Service Commission >
      • Public Meetings
    • Maryland Health Care Commission/Maryland Community Health Resources Commission >
      • MHCC/MCHRC Actions
    • Maryland Consumer Rights Coalition
  • Maryland and Baltimore Development Organizations
    • Baltimore/Maryland Development History
    • Committee Actions
    • Maryland Development Organizations
  • Maryland State Department of Education
    • Charter Schools
    • Public Schools
    • Algebra Project Award
  • Baltimore City School Board
    • Charter Schools >
      • Charter Schools---Performance
      • Charter School Issues
    • Public Schools >
      • Public School Issues
  • Progressive Issues
    • Fair and Balanced Elections
    • Labor Issues
    • Rule of Law Issues >
      • Rule of Law
    • Justice issues 2
    • Justice Issues
    • Progressive Tax Reform Issues >
      • Maryland Tax Reform Issues
      • Baltimore Tax Reform Issues
    • Strong Public Education >
      • Corporate education reform organizations
    • Healthcare for All Issues >
      • Universal Care Bill by state
  • Building Strong Media
    • Media with a Progressive Agenda (I'm still checking on that!) >
      • anotherangryvoice.blogspot.com
      • "Talk About It" Radio - WFBR 1590AM Baltimore
      • Promethius Radio Project
      • Clearing the Fog
      • Democracy Now
      • Black Agenda Radio
      • World Truth. TV Your Alternative News Network.
      • Daily Censured
      • Bill Moyers Journal
      • Center for Public Integrity
      • Public Radio International
      • Baltimore Brew
      • Free Press
    • Far Left/Socialist Media
    • Media with a Third Way Agenda >
      • MSNBC
      • Center for Media and Democracy
      • Public Radio and TV >
        • NPR and MPT News
      • TruthOut
  • Progressive Organizations
    • Political Organizations >
      • Progressives United
      • Democracy for America
    • Labor Organizations >
      • United Workers
      • Unite Here Local 7
      • ROC-NY works to build power and win justice
    • Justice Organizations >
      • APC Baltimore
      • Occupy Baltimore
    • Rule of Law Organizations >
      • Bill of Rights Defense Committee
      • National Lawyers Guild
      • National ACLU
    • Tax Reform Organizations
    • Healthcare for All Organizations >
      • Healthcare is a Human Right - Maryland
      • PNHP Physicians for a National Health Program
      • Healthcare NOW- Maryland
    • Public Education Organizations >
      • Parents Across America
      • Philadelphia Public School Notebook thenotebook.org
      • Chicago Teachers Union/Blog
      • Ed Wize Blog
      • Educators for a Democratic Union
      • Big Education Ape
    • Elections Organizations >
      • League of Women Voters
  • Progressive Actions
    • Labor Actions
    • Justice Actions
    • Tax Reform Actions >
      • Baltimore Tax Actions
      • Maryland Tax Reform Actions
    • Healthcare Actions
    • Public Education Actions
    • Rule of Law Actions >
      • Suing Federal and State government
    • Free and Fair Elections Actions
  • Maryland/Baltimore Voting Districts - your politicians and their votes
    • 2014 ELECTION OF STATE OFFICES
    • Maryland Assembly/Baltimore
  • Petitions, Complaints, and Freedom of Information Requests
    • Complaints - Government and Consumer >
      • Sample Complaints
    • Petitions >
      • Sample Petitions
    • Freedom of Information >
      • Sample Letters
  • State of the Democratic Party
  • Misc
    • WBFF TV
    • WBAL TV
    • WJZ TV
    • WMAR TV
    • WOLB Radio---Radio One
    • The Gazette
    • Baltimore Sun Media Group
  • Misc 2
    • Maryland Public Television
    • WYPR
    • WEAA
    • Maryland Reporter
  • Misc 3
    • University of Maryland
    • Morgan State University
  • Misc 4
    • Baltimore Education Coalition
    • BUILD Baltimore
    • Church of the Great Commission
    • Maryland Democratic Party
    • Pennsylvania Avenue AME Zion Church
    • Maryland Municipal League
    • Maryland League of Women Voters
  • Untitled
  • Untitled
  • Standard of Review
  • Untitled
  • WALSH FOR GOVERNOR - CANDIDATE INFORMATION AND PLATFORM
    • Campaign Finance/Campaign donations
    • Speaking Events
    • Why Heather Mizeur is NOT a progressive
    • Campaign responses to Community Organization Questionnaires
    • Cindy Walsh vs Maryland Board of Elections >
      • Leniency from court for self-representing plaintiffs
      • Amended Complaint
      • Plaintiff request for expedited trial date
      • Response to Motion to Dismiss--Brown, Gansler, Mackie, and Lamone
      • Injunction and Mandamus
      • DECISION/APPEAL TO SPECIAL COURT OF APPEALS---Baltimore City Circuit Court response to Cindy Walsh complaint >
        • Brief for Maryland Court of Special Appeals >
          • Cover Page ---yellow
          • Table of Contents
          • Table of Authorities
          • Leniency for Pro Se Representation
          • Statement of Case
          • Questions Presented
          • Statement of Facts
          • Argument
          • Conclusion/Font and Type Size
          • Record Extract
          • Appendix
          • Motion for Reconsideration
          • Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss
          • Motion to Reconsider Dismissal
      • General Election fraud and recount complaints
    • Cindy Walsh goes to Federal Court for Maryland election violations >
      • Complaints filed with the FCC, the IRS, and the FBI
      • Zapple Doctrine---Media Time for Major Party candidates
      • Complaint filed with the US Justice Department for election fraud and court irregularities.
      • US Attorney General, Maryland Attorney General, and Maryland Board of Elections are charged with enforcing election law
      • Private media has a responsibility to allow access to all candidates in an election race. >
        • Print press accountable to false statement of facts
      • Polling should not determine a candidate's viability especially if the polling is arbitrary
      • Viability of a candidate
      • Public media violates election law regarding do no damage to candidate's campaign
      • 501c3 Organizations violate election law in doing no damage to a candidate in a race >
        • 501c3 violations of election law-----private capital
      • Voter apathy increases when elections are not free and fair
  • Maryland Board of Elections certifies election on July 10, 2014
  • Maryland Elections ---2016

February 28th, 2018

2/28/2018

0 Comments

 
We want to begin by asking citizens to look a few decades down the road at what LIVING NEAR YOUR WORK will look like as we described global corporate campuses and global factories looking nothing like today's Baltimore row houses on campuses looking like today's Johns Hopkins or UMMS.  The earliest start of far-right wing global banking 1% policy is gradual but will end looking 180 degrees from today's societal ideas of LIVING NEAR YOUR WORK.

First, we want to address the low-income housing structure tied to LIVE NEAR YOUR WORK.  We have shouted for a decade against our 99% global labor pool immigrants being controlled by labor brokers with workers forced to move constantly living in housing that was substandard-----maybe no heating or lighting----still under construction or rehabbing and not safe for living.  This labor broker chop shop structure has now extended from our 99% global labor pool to our US citizens poor and working class wanting only shelter and steady employment.  As we stated, the subprime mortgage loan frauds have been tied to these dynamic labor broker chop shops making these housing situations even worse for community members wanting a stable tenet/homeowner anchor in communities.  Do we not like our US citizens as low-income workers? 

OF COURSE WE DO AND WE WANT THEM LIVING IN STANDARD HOUSING FOR A LONG-TERM.

So, what was SECTION 8 looks to have become chop shop housing operated by labor brokers who are generally tied to US city political machines and those 5% to the 1%  black, white, and brown freemason/Greeks.

These chop shops are the lower-income end of LIVE NEAR YOUR WORK.  The percentage of US workforce being tied to these chop shop housing structures is growing as fast as US citizens are pushed into poverty.



The Live Near Your Work Benefit


Live Near Your Work is a homebuying incentive for individuals working in Baltimore City. Incentives are funded partially by employers and partially by the City of Baltimore. Funds can be used toward your downpayment or closing costs associated with the purchase of a home in Baltimore City.

Am I eligible?Over 100 employers have signed on to participate in the Live Near Your Work program. If yours is found in the list below: Congratulations! You can likely claim this benefit.


Contact your HR department or benefits manager for assistance in applying for the Live Near Your Work incentive. If you are unsure of the contact for your company, reach out to Liz Koontz, Live Baltimore's Employer Outreach Manager, at 410-637-3750 x114 or by email.
Please note that some employers place restrictions on their Live Near Your Work benefit, including, but not limited to: length of employment, job title, and location of purchase.


What if my employer isn't listed?Many companies are receptive to employees' requests for this program. Contact Liz Koontz, Live Baltimore's Employer Outreach Manager, at 410-637-3750 x114 or by email for assistance in speaking with your employer.


__________________________________________


The subprime mortgage loan frauds are targeting houses at $400,000 ---$600,000 this allows an ARTIFICIAL RISE in property value. Add to this all the selective and targeted tax and cash back incentives and we see a house selling for $279,000 would end costing $200,000.
We want to begin by asking citizens to look a few decades down the road at what LIVING NEAR YOUR WORK will look like as we described global corporate campuses and global factories looking nothing like today's Baltimore row houses on campuses looking like today's Johns Hopkins or UMMS. The earliest start of far-right wing global banking 1% policy is gradual but will end looking 180 degrees from today's societal ideas of LIVING NEAR YOUR WORK.


First, we want to address the low-income housing structure tied to LIVE NEAR YOUR WORK. We have shouted for a decade against our 99% global labor pool immigrants being controlled by labor brokers with workers forced to move constantly living in housing that was substandard-----maybe no heating or lighting----still under construction or rehabbing and not safe for living. This labor broker chop shop structure has now extended from our 99% global labor pool to our US citizens poor and working class wanting only shelter and steady employment. As we stated, the subprime mortgage loan frauds have been tied to these dynamic labor broker chop shops making these housing situations even worse for community members wanting a stable tenet/homeowner anchor in communities. Do we not like our US citizens as low-income workers?


OF COURSE WE DO AND WE WANT THEM LIVING IN STANDARD HOUSING FOR A LONG-TERM.


So, what was SECTION 8 looks to have become chop shop housing operated by labor brokers who are generally tied to US city political machines and those 5% to the 1% black, white, and brown freemason/Greeks.


These chop shops are the lower-income end of LIVE NEAR YOUR WORK. The percentage of US workforce being tied to these chop shop housing structures is growing as fast as US citizens are pushed into poverty.

We have an entire generation of Baltimore citizens having been forced to play these few decades of ROBBER BARON frauds these real estate games. Many do not even know what EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND ACCESS HOUSING laws and diversity community policies used to create stable housing for citizens and creating stable communities----looks like.


Baltimore homes sales, prices continued to climb in June

Sarah GantzContact Reporter
The Baltimore Sun  July 12, 2017



Baltimore-area home sales and prices continued to climb in June as inventory dwindled.


Just more than 4,500 home sales closed in June, at a median price of $279,400, up 1.6 percent from the median sale price for the same month last year, according to a new report by ShowingTime.


Meanwhile, June marked the 21st consecutive month of declining inventory. Despite 5,851 new listings during the month, total active inventory was down 12.6 percent from June of last year, according to the monthly report, which is based on listing activity from MRIS, a division of the multiple listing service Bright MLS.


Tight inventory has benefited Baltimore’s lesser-known neighborhoods, as prospective home buyers are forced to expand their search, said Annie Milli, executive director of Live Baltimore, a nonprofit that promotes the benefits of living in Baltimore City.


“The neighborhoods seeing the most increase in activity are not the usual suspects,” Milli said. “When these neighborhoods do well, we see it as an indicator that buyers are comfortable expanding their search areas.”


When buyers can’t find what they’re looking for in the city’s more popular neighborhoods, they branch out to the adjacent areas.
From Baltimore to Florida to California and between — view photos of celebrity homes.


For example, Better Waverly in Northeast Baltimore has seen an uptick in sales as buyers fail to find a home in nearby Ednor Gardens, which has long been an in-demand neighborhood, Milli said.
Fourteen homes sold in Better Waverly in the first half of the year, compared to four sales in the same period last year, according to an analysis by Live Baltimore.


Across the city, 985 home sales closed, up 7.8 percent from June of last year. The median list price rose 5.8 percent from last year, to $154,950.


Carroll County saw the greatest increase in home sales and median sale price.
There, home sales were up 8.2 percent from the year before. The median sale price, $299,000, rose 7 percent from June of last year.


The steady march in home sales and prices shows continued buyer demand, despite declining inventory, said Jonathan Hill, a spokesman for MRIS.
“It shows the market is stable,” Hill said. “The market shows continued growth. There are still drivers in the market, buyer demand is still making appreciation of prices possible.”


Homes spent less time on the market and sold closer to their list prices, as buyers continued to scoop up new listings.


Homes spent a median of 19 days on the market in June, down from 22 days in the year-ago period.
Closing prices were, on average, 96.6 percent of the list price, up from 96.1 percent of list price last year, according to the report.


__________________________________________


When Baltimore City creates ARTIFICIAL housing value every which way but loose------it kills the ability of Baltimore long-term homeowners to get a return as this article states. Those new homeowners getting all kinds of subsidy bringing a $275,000 house not actually valued at that price down to a $200,000 closing cost will be paying HIGHER TAXES then the house is worth.

These new homeowners are always told to think of property values growing over a few decades but-----what downtown communities will look like as INDUSTRIALIZATION along the PORT OF BALTIMORE soars----is de-valuation.

Since global banking 1% are staging a few billion global labor pool filling our US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES-----waiting for those global corporate factories to be built------the chop shop labor broker housing will continue for our low-income citizens constantly tied to these VERY BAD EMPLOYMENT/HOUSING structures. If MOVING FORWARD continues with Greater Baltimore becoming nothing but miles of global corporate factories----then the chop shop will become factory dormitories. That is for what global Wall Street Baltimore Development is growing towards.......

Of course in the process of filling these US cities with global labor pool 99% ----today's US 99% caught in this system will be made EX-PATS facing third world global factory housing.


Incentives & Neighborhoods

The Johns Hopkins entity that employs you and the geographic location where you purchase a home determine the Live Near Your Work grant amount you are eligible to receive.


So, is a Baltimore citizen shouting against this kind of development a 'traitor' to city planning? OF COURSE NOT. Development of each Baltimore community can easily be done WITH JUSTICE under legal and honest goals. To FIX BALTIMORE is to get rid of these housing schemes meant to scam 99% of citizens tied to real estate.



Baltimore home sellers see low return on investment, Zillow finds

Sarah GantzContact Reporter

The Baltimore Sun  Oct 3, 2017




“All of this slow steady growth is very positive to me because it’s sustainable,” said Annie Milli, executive director of Live Baltimore, which promotes home ownership in the city. “We’re growing at a rate that our residents can really come along.”



Baltimore homeowners who sold their property last year didn’t get much of a return on their investment — just $5,000 more than they paid, according to a new report from Zillow.


The return on investment for a home sold in Baltimore in 2016 was 5.4 percent — the lowest among 33 cities studied by Zillow, a real estate database company.


Sellers last year in some West Coast cities saw percentage gains more than 10 times higher than in Baltimore, as high growth in technology jobs continues to drive up their home values, sales and the general cost of living.


Oakland, Calif., topped the list with a 78 percent gain, followed by Portland, Ore., at 64.7 percent and San Jose, Calif., at 56.5 percent. The highest East Coast cities were No. 8 Philadelphia at 51.7 percent and No. 10 Boston at 49.6 percent.


But in Baltimore, a slower recovery in the housing market resulted in lower return on investment, said Aaron Terrazas, a senior economist with Zillow.
“The general state of the housing market, it h

as not recovered to the same degree as other housing markets have,” he said.



Some don’t necessarily see that as bad news.
“All of this slow steady growth is very positive to me because it’s sustainable,” said Annie Milli, executive director of Live Baltimore, which promotes home ownership in the city. “We’re growing at a rate that our residents can really come along.”


The average home sale price in Baltimore last year was $167,473, up 8.42 percent from the year before, according to MarketStats by ShowingTime, which tracks residential home sales in the area.


Baltimore home sellers also sold their homes more quickly than in some markets that saw more appreciation — just short of three and a half years before selling, according to Zillow.


That could be a reflection of more young and first-time homebuyers, as well as investment properties being bought, renovated and put back on the market in short period of time, Terrazas said.


Meanwhile, in the West Coast cities that topped Zillow’s list, he said, owners stayed in their homes between seven and nine years before selling, which could be a sign of more mature buyers who are purchasing homes they plan to stay in for a long time.

__________________________________________


When we see Baltimore LIVE or any of global Wall Street Baltimore Development 'labor and justice' organizations promote this idea of reduced property taxes----we see BALTIMORE LIVE saying as of 2013 as much as a 30% drop in property taxes will be phased in------we already know that drop in property taxes is tied with a residential community being handed over to a global corporation.  The drop in property taxes goes to the corporation.  Meanwhile, those NEW HOMEOWNERS in gentrifying communities thinking they are getting a deal on INFLATED HOME PRICES coming with tax breaks and cash back ----will see their property taxes soar to replace all this community real estate changing from residential to corporate with no taxation for corporations.

THERE IS NO GOAL OF DROPPING BALTIMORE PROPERTY TAXES ON HOMEOWNERS.

When new homeowners in Baltimore live a few years in our communities and see no real attempts at development---see the corruption and third world level of public services no longer public----and those tax breaks expire---they sell that house too early to get a return on investment.  This happens over and over and over.  DON'T WORRY SAYS BALTIMORE MAYOR PUGH----WE WILL BRING NEW PEOPLE TO BALTIMORE.  Indeed, now it is those high-skilled global labor pool 99% being tied to these housing scams.

WHEN THE GOAL OF DOWNTOWN AND CITY CENTRAL IS INDUSTRIALIZATION AND MASSIVE GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUSES-----THERE WILL BE NO PROPERTY VALUE CLIMB.

The goal is having a small US city center filled with global 1% and their 2% and until MOVING FORWARD MASSIVE GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUS AND GLOBAL FACTORIES are installed, our working and middle-class trying to be homeowners are going to lose over and over again.  This will be only a few decades-----so, a constant turnover of housing making Baltimore communities dynamic without stable, steady family homeowners/tenets.



This is a MASTER PLAN in place since late 1980s---90s-----all media and 5% black, white, and brown pols and players KNOW the goals and these media discussions allowing pols to pretend there is affordable housing with tax relief in the future are LYING, CHEATING, AND STEALING the dream of home-ownership.


What to do about Baltimore’s high taxes


By Len Lazarick October 6, 2015
A version of this article runs in this month’s Business Monthly serving Howard and Anne Arundel counties.
By Len Lazarick


Len@MarylandReporter.com


What to do about Baltimore’s high taxes?


It is an old question perplexing Maryland political leaders, but with new urgency. And there have been precious few new answers.


Fifty years ago, more than 900,000 people lived in Baltimore, a third of the population of Maryland. Over that half-century, that population has gone down by a third to 622,000, meaning almost as many people left Baltimore as live in all of Howard County today.


The people who remain are poorer and concentrated in those same areas as those shown in a redlining map from the 1930s. The head of the Baltimore Metropolitan Council showed that map to a Howard County Chamber of Commerce lunch at Baltimore’s Horseshoe Casino in July. The mortgage lending maps of the 1930s reinforced the racial segregation of Baltimore more than 80 years ago.


As Baltimore began to lose population in the 1960s, especially after the 1968 riots (which were much more widespread than the uprising this spring), one of the things city leaders did to maintain public services was to raise property taxes.


But as taxes went up, the population went down.


Double the rate


Now, Baltimore has a property tax rate of $2.248 per $100, more than twice as high as any in the state. That high rate is among one of the many factors holding the city’s population from growing again. By comparison, Baltimore County’s rate is half that at $1.10; Howard County’s is $1.014, and many other counties are under $1.00, including Anne Arundel, Montgomery and Prince George’s.


City officials know this, but have only been able to trim the rate by pennies. To make up for these exorbitant rates and attract new development to the city, they have granted big tax breaks to developers willing to build major new projects in the city, particularly the now bustling Harbor East area.


These tax breaks have created a major divide in the city, with new developments paying lower property taxes and older areas paying the same high rates. What to do about them was the subject of debate last month sponsored by the Maryland Public Policy Institute, a free market-oriented think tank.


Cutting the tax rate


The debate was not about whether to cut Baltimore’s property tax rate, but how much to cut it and how soon.
“Any cut is better than none; a bigger cut is better than a small cut,” said Louis Miserendino, a visiting fellow at the institute and director of the McMullen Scholars Program at Calvert Hall College High School.


He said Baltimore should follow the examples of San Francisco and Boston, which drastically cut their taxes to spur a revival in city living.


“Baltimore taxes are way too high,” agreed Matt Gallagher, head of the Goldseker Foundation and former chief of staff to Gov. Martin O’Malley.


Gallagher also headed Mayor O’Malley’s CitiStat program, and he brought a note of political and governing reality to the discussion at the University of Baltimore’s new Angelos Law School building.


Hmmmm, Baltimore is soaked in US Treasury and state municipal bond debt tied to Baltimore tax revenues during O'Malley's terms-----O'Malley worried about taxes being too high?  REALLY?



Miserendino suggested that there should be a statewide cap on property taxes at 1.5%, a move which would only affect Baltimore property taxpayers. This would attract more people to live in the city and contribute to the state’s smart growth policies encouraging new development where infrastructure already exists. State taxpayers would then make up the difference in Baltimore’s lost revenues, much as California did for San Francisco in the 1970s, Miserendino said.


Wishful thinking


However, Gallagher said, “It’s wishful thinking that the state would fund this.
“We would have done it if we thought it could be done,” said Gallagher.


Gallagher’s solution is small cuts in the city property tax every single year on a predictable basis so that someone buying a home would know that their tax rate would gradually be going down. He also suggested renegotiating the deals the city has with the owners of one-third of city property that is not taxed at all, because it is owned by nonprofit institutions, in particular The Johns Hopkins University and Medical Institutions, and the University of Maryland. They already make some payments in lieu of taxes to the city.


Gallagher also pointed to major differences between Baltimore’s situation and that of San Francisco and Boston, particularly Baltimore’s “high concentrations of poor people” and the amount of money it spends on police: $450 million a year. (Baltimore has more police officers per citizen (46.3 per 10,000) than all but one major U.S. city, Newark, N.J.)


Jody Landers, a former City Council member who ran for mayor, suggested that Baltimore adopt the tiered property tax rates of the District of Columbia, which charges a much higher property tax rate for commercial real estate than it does for owner-occupied residential property. Washington, which had had a lower population than Baltimore for the last 60 years, now has 46,000 more people.


What it gets


Gallagher did not lay out the reasons that that the state would not help lower Baltimore’s tax rate, but most state legislators are well aware that Baltimore gets more state aid per capita than any other jurisdiction, at $1,953 — compared to a statewide average of $1,189. Most suburban counties get far less money back than their taxpayers pay the state.


In addition, the state spends $193 million to run the Baltimore City jail, central booking and its community college, which are functions other jurisdictions pay for themselves.


Hogan’s plans

Last month, Gov. Larry Hogan announced in a Baltimore Sun op-ed piece that his administration would be announcing “a series of innovative ideas that have the potential to deliver real change” for Baltimore.


These included “a plan to knock down blocks of derelict buildings that tarnish communities across Baltimore, replacing them with parks and other open spaces.” There already is such a program in Baltimore that O’Malley helped finance, but presumably Hogan is proposing to do it on a larger scale. Sun columnist Dan Rodricks responded, “send money, not a bulldozer,” which Republicans called a typical liberal reaction.


Hogan also promised a sustainable jobs program, and an alternative to the Red Line light rail project he rejected in June.


“My Transportation secretary, Pete Rahn, will unveil a new approach to transit that includes ideas to better move people around Baltimore, including dedicated corridors to rapidly move people East-West and North-South,” Hogan said.


Finally on education, Hogan promised, “My administration will vigorously pursue and support approaches to education that reject the status quo in order to make a real difference for students.”


The state already sends $913 million to Baltimore for its public schools, $11,310 per pupil, thousands more per student than all but the state’s smallest, poorest counties get. The city itself contributes a lower percentage of the school budget than any other jurisdiction.


For the moment, these are just generalities from Hogan. Since he continues to promise to cut taxes and spending, the city cannot expect a massive infusion of funds.

____________________________________________

Today, LIVING WHERE YOU WORK is seeing HOPKINS and UMMS for example,  both are BIOTECH corporations expanding to building global PHARMA factories for example with headquarters in those global factory campuses and downtown UMMS/UnderArmour will be only industrial/global resort no longer needing LIVING WHERE YOU WORK----that structure is now in counties tied to whatever global foreign global factory these corporations partner with.

So, LIVE WHERE YOU WORK becomes Chinese-style FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES global corporate campus and global factory dormitory housing.

Who will be living in today's downtown and city center where all these real estate scams pretend to be gentrifying for middle-affluent class homeowners?  Those global 1% and their 2%. 

Rather than be soaked in taxes, fees, fines, property values artificially controlled at a whim by global Baltimore Development and global hedge fund IVY LEAGUE Johns Hopkins-----99% WE THE PEOPLE must rebuild each Baltimore community with local small business economies, real mixed-income housing by removing corporations from our HUD/BALTIMORE HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC AGENCIES.


'Those bonds are to be repaid through new revenue generated on the property'.

As we see above, bonds to be repaid by new revenue generated on the property.  This means of course no revenue will be going into Baltimore City coffers.  This building as well is easily converted into corporate space as BIOTECH facility grows. 

THIS IS NOT REAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.


Each new development----East Baltimore Johns Hopkins, Harbor East, now UMMS, Cove Point UnderArmour comes with these revenue structures -----all taxes that would be paid to stabilize greater Baltimore are captured to only these individual corporate campuses. As these sets of NEW APARTMENTS are made corporate office space what was affordable housing ---disappears.

New apartments in Poppleton get underway

Natalie ShermanContact ReporterThe Baltimore Sun Feb 23, 2017


Baltimore leaders are scheduled to gather Thursday to celebrate the start of construction of a new multimillion-dollar apartment building in Poppleton near the University of Maryland BioPark.


The project, part of a planned $460 million, 33-acre redevelopment, has been in the works for more than a decade, as the city acquired hundreds of properties for the site and the developer weathered the recession to secure financing. At one point, the two sides sparred in court over delays to the project, which is supposed to rebuild the area as the University of Maryland, Baltimore spreads.


The first phase is a six-story complex on Schroeder Street with about 260 apartments, 19,000 square feet of ground-floor retail, a dog park and a plaza in front of the historic Poe House. Most of the building's units will be market-rate, but about 20 percent are expected to be subsidized.

Two New York firms, La Cite Development and BRP Development Corp., are the developers for this part of the project, which was estimated in 2015 at more than $70 million. KeyBank Real Estate Capital provided $56.1 million in FHA-insured financing for the first phase. Baltimore also agreed in November to issue $12 million in bonds for infrastructure. Those bonds are to be repaid through new revenue generated on the property.

______________________________________________
Each new development----East Baltimore Johns Hopkins, Harbor East, now UMMS, Cove Point UnderArmour comes with these revenue structures -----all taxes that would be paid to stabilize greater Baltimore are captured to only these individual corporate campuses. As these sets of NEW APARTMENTS are made corporate office space what was affordable housing ---disappears. Here we see the partnerships overseas that will become those BIOTECH GLOBAL FACTORIES branching off from a HOPKINS going NORTH and from a UMMS going NORTH...............................

'The Chinese pharma company JHL Biotech opened its own KUBio plant in May in Wuhan, China'. Image credit: GE Healthcare Life Sciences'


'Biologics

Think Inside The Box: Pfizer Will Use GE’s Mobile Biotech Factory To Make Next-Generation Drugs In China

Jun 30, 2016 by Mark Egan'

No doubt with GE AND PFIZER building their global PHARMA BIOTECH in Chinese FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES----then US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES will bring these CHINESE GLOBAL PHARMA FACTORIES to partner with Johns Hopkins and UMMS BioTech Parks.


This is the goal of MOVING FORWARD in Baltimore and what we are told are affordable housing or GENTRIFYING communities will end being covered with these Chinese global PHARMA factories tied to manufacturing BIOLOGICS.  General Electric has created a MOBILE factory----modeled on our US meth labs no doubt----to drop these facilities into any Chinese community for of course $2-6 LABOR with worker dormitories of course.


Keep in mind, while Baltimore City council allows these bond deals to capture all revenue generated in these NEW COMMUNITIES to stay in those communities-----the 99% of Baltimore citizens paying taxes at the highest rate in Maryland see those taxes go to these same NEW CORPORATE communities-----and not their communities.




Jul 24, 2013 @ 06:13 AM 52,082 2 Free Issues of Forbes


China's Top Pharmaceutical Companies In 2012 (List)


Russell Flannery , Forbes Staff

Unlike Chinese Internet companies that generally get good press, the country's pharmaceutical makers often seem to be in the news only when something bad happens.  Yet the industry is one of the world’s largest.  The China National Pharmaceutical Industry Information Center earlier this month posted a list of the industry’s largest businesses ranked by the value of their production for last year.   The list named companies, but didn't provide their associated production values. Here's the top 25: 



1. Guangzhou Pharmaceutical Holdings
  
2. Xiuzheng Pharmaceutical
 
3. Yangtze River Pharmaceutical Group
  
4. Harbin Pharmaceutical Group Holding
 
5. Weigao Holding
   
6. North China Pharmaceutical Group
  
7. CSPC Pharmaceutical Group
   
8. China National Pharmaceutical Group  

9. Bayer BAYRY +0% HealthCare China
  
10. Shanghai Pharmaceuticals SHPMY +0% Holding
  
11. Kangmei Pharmaceutical
   
12. Hangzhou East China Pharmaceutical Group
 
13. Pfizer PFE +1.18%
    
14. Qilu Pharmaceutical
   
15. Shanghai Roche Holding RHHBY +0%
    
16. Buchang Pharma
    
17. China Yuanda Group

   
18. Sichuan Kelun Pharmaceutical
  
19. China Resources Sanjiu Medical and Pharmaceutical

20. Furen Pharmaceutical Group
  
21. Novo Nordisk
   
22. Yunnan Baiyao Group
   
23. Sanofi (Hangzhou)
     
24. Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine
  
25. Shanghai Fosun Pharmaceutical Group
 
      
-- with Nancy He
0 Comments

February 27th, 2018

2/27/2018

0 Comments

 
We will discuss housing public policy this week as we see below our seniors in Canada and US are under attack as global banking 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA hand all that is senior health housing and health after care to global investment firms---whether hitting Asian 99% or US/Canada 99% of citizens.
IT'S ALL SIMPLY MONEY AND PROFITEERING OFF US OLD FOLKS!

Below we see where a TRADE DEAL supposedly keeps a Canadian government from stepping in to stop this abuse of Chinese senior citizens in a CANADIAN FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE in British Columbia.  This is of course the same thing happening in US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.


Trade Deal Ups Risks in Chinese Firm’s Takeover of Seniors’ Care Giant


FIPA means province could be blocked from improving care standards for residents.


By Scott Sinclair and Stuart Trew 27 Feb 2017 | TheTyee.ca


'The state of support for seniors in British Columbia is already shameful.

Mackenzie’s annual review found only 15 per cent of facilities were meeting the guideline of 3.36 hours of direct care per resident per day — an improvement over the previous year'.

'The ripple effect of #XiJinping seizing control of Chinese global giant #Anbang, amid corruption&fraud charges, is felt across the #PacificRim. @paulwillcocks @TheTyee: How the #Chinese Government Took Control of #BritishColumbia Seniors’ Homes'



And here is that MENTAL HEALTH super-sized funding by Obama and Clinton neo-liberals in Affordable Care Act at work just the way we KNOW it was meant to


'Perha
ps as a result, “25 per cent of residents were prescribed antipsychotic medications without a diagnosis of psychosis,” Mackenzie noted. Almost half — 48 per cent — were on antidepressants, even though only 24 per cent had been diagnosed with depression'.





How the Chinese Government Took Control of BC Seniors’ Homes

And why the Anbang saga is a symbol of our indifference to seniors’ support.

By Paul Willcocks Yesterday | TheTyee.ca

Ultimate decisions about 21 B.C. seniors’ residences were made in Anbang’s Beijing headquarters — now controlled by the Chinese government.

Photo by Julien GONG Min, Creative Commons licensed.


Great. The lives of seniors in B.C. care homes, where they are already over-drugged and under-supported, now depend in part on the Chinese government.

Announcements, Events & more from Tyee and select partners
  • In Hastings Crossing, Connecting Business with Community Needs Business improvement association partners local businesses with social enterprises and non-profits in the Downtown Eastside.
On Friday, Beijing seized control of Anbang Insurance Group, a financial giant with investments around the world. It cited corruption, fraud and a risk the whole $390-billion company could go broke.


Last year, Anbang spent an estimated $1 billion to buy Residential Concepts, which operates 21 seniors homes in British Columbia. It’s the biggest private provider in the province, collecting $87 million from the provincial government in 2015/16.

Anbang has no experience in seniors care. Its finances were murky and ownership so tangled as to be incomprehensible. It offered no promises of additional investment in the company or increased employment. Concerns about its business practices were already widespread.


But to promote its pro-China agenda, the Trudeau government turned a blind eye to the risks — and shifted them to seniors. Ottawa quickly approved the takeover, and the provincial government offered no objections and transferred operating licences to the Chinese company.

Last week’s Chinese government takeover is no surprise. When the sale was debated in the House of Commons, Conservative Mark Strahl asked what would happen “when the Anbang house of cards finally collapses.”

“Are seniors about to find out that their landlord is actually the People’s Republic of China?” the Chilliwack-Hope MP asked.

And that is exactly what seniors and their families have learned.

Why does it matter? The B.C. government went along with the deal because it said Anbang would still have to meet provincial standards.

But if one of the 21 residences needs significant improvements, where will the money come from? Lenders won’t be keen; the managers running Anbang for the Chinese government aren’t likely to let subsidiaries increase debt when they fear it’s already insolvent.

If the Chinese government’s goal is to save Anbang, what pressure will be put on its global properties to deliver more cash, and how will that affect residents? As one small example, Seniors Advocate Isobel Mackenzie reported last month that food costs in seniors’ residences across the province varied from $4.92 to $18.44 a day, averaging $8. Will Chinese government pressure force managers to cut costs on basics?

And if Anbang does end up insolvent, as the Chinese government fears, what happens to Retirement Concepts and its residents? (Retirement Concepts issued a statement saying the “temporary change in management at Anbang will not impact the operations, staff or residents.”)

In a Tyee article last year, Scott Sinclair and Stuart Trew offered their prediction if “the company faces liquidity problems, because it has overpaid for foreign acquisitions, for example, or Chinese regulators clamp down on risky insurance products.” It would then try to extract more money from subsidiaries like Retirement Concepts, they warned.

The state of support for seniors in British Columbia is already shameful.


Mackenzie’s annual review found only 15 per cent of facilities were meeting the guideline of 3.36 hours of direct care per resident per day — an improvement over the previous year.

The number sounds abstract. But the reality is that a lack of staff to meet residents’ needs translates into dramatic reductions in quality of life — sitting in soiled diapers, simply because no one is available to help you to the bathroom, showering once a week or less often. And there is the simple lack of someone to talk to for a few minutes, as overworked staff try to keep residences running.

Perhaps as a result, “25 per cent of residents were prescribed antipsychotic medications without a diagnosis of psychosis,” Mackenzie noted. Almost half — 48 per cent — were on antidepressants, even though only 24 per cent had been diagnosed with depression.

And the government has steadily been reducing the hours of home care support for eligible seniors, even though that is the most cost-effective way to keep them healthy and in their homes.

The Anbang deal is the natural continuation of the BC Liberals’ ideological commitment to hand seniors care over to private companies striving to maximize return for their owners.

A 2017 Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives report noted that between 2001 and 2016, the number of long-term care beds provided by non-profits and the health authorities was cut by more than 10 per cent. The number of spaces provided by for-profit companies increased by 42 per cent. BC Liberal policies promoted for-profit care.

Trade Deal Ups Risks in Chinese Firm’s Takeover of Seniors’ Care Giant


Mackenzie’s report suggests that might be good for companies, but bad for seniors. Last year, 33 per cent of facilities owned and operated by a health authority met the care guidelines, hardly a great record. But among contract residences — including the private businesses — the number was four per cent.

The new government took a significant step to address the problem in this month’s budget, providing $548 million over three years “to improve services for seniors across the continuum, including investments in primary care, home and community care, residential care, and assisted living.” A focus will be on ensuring residences, which serve 28,000 people, provide the recommended number of hours of care.

But we have miles to go. And the Anbang saga — especially governments’ willingness to allow a high-risk Chinese takeover of a Canadian business — show how much our attitude to the importance of seniors’ support needs to change.

____________________________________________



We have discussed in detail MOVING FORWARD FAR-RIGHT AUTHORITARIAN DEEP STATE brings these Chinese-style methods of population control and they are being placed under the terms REHABILITATION and THERAPEUTIC.  This segue from public health to housing will come with only a reminder to our seniors and to our pipeline to prison population ------the use of PHARMA will be repressive and repressive.  The rehabilitation of youth and young adults will be dormitory forced labor and the rehabilitation of our seniors will be PHARMA as control towards hospice.  When we see the article below state 'antipsychotic medications' are being used there is always LSD VIRTUAL REALITY therapy to send our seniors off without a clue.

We will note with this article towards housing policy------British Columbia was the first to go ONE WORLD ONE FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE becoming more Asian than British or European and we still see SEGREGATED HOUSING for Asian seniors with the building privatized to OLD WORLD ASIAN MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1%.


Trudeau PRETENDING he has no power to protect these global citizens inside a FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE according to TRADE DEALS. Remember, these TPP deals are illegal and UNCONSTITUTIONAL and can be VOIDED easy peasy.   These conditions of no US Rule of Law inside US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES as here in CANADIAN have been in place these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA----global banking 1% are simply MOVING FORWARD with openly ending national sovereignty.





Trade Deal Ups Risks in Chinese Firm’s Takeover of Seniors’ Care Giant

FIPA means province could be blocked from improving care standards for residents.


By Scott Sinclair and Stuart Trew 27 Feb 2017 | TheTyee.ca



The federal government has approved the sale of one of B.C.’s largest seniors’ care home chains to a Beijing-based conglomerate with a “murky” ownership structure, to say the least.

Announcements, Events & more from Tyee and select partners
  • In Hastings Crossing, Connecting Business with Community Needs Business improvement association partners local businesses with social enterprises and non-profits in the Downtown Eastside.
While the details of Investment Canada’s ruling are still under wraps, a spokesperson for Innovation, Science and Economic Development Minister Navdeep Bains told the Globe and Mail “no issues were raised” by the takeover of Retirement Concepts, which owns 21 seniors residences across B.C., by Cedar Tree Investment, a holding company controlled by China’s Anbang Insurance.


The minister’s benign assessment contrasts sharply with the controversy attending recent Chinese acquisitions in the U.S. and Europe. Over the last year, regulatory concerns have led to the cancellation of more than 30 deals worth $75 billion, according to the Financial Times, including Anbang’s attempted $1-billion acquisition of a landmark California hotel.


Beyond these corporate intrigues — and that awkward Nov. 7 “cash for access” meeting at which host Miaofei Pan “made the case to the prime minister to allow Chinese investment in seniors’ care and real estate development” — Canada’s controversial 2012 investment treaty with China clearly raises some important issues with respect to the takeover.


The first is how the Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement provides Cedar Tree, and its Anbang backers, an extrajudicial means to contest new regulations, such as those to protect vulnerable seniors, ensure quality of care or maintain adequate training and staffing levels in the fast-growing private retirement home industry.


Another is how the web of investment protections in the FIPA and similar deals shifts the risk of such cross-border deals going bust from foreign investors to Canadian taxpayers.


Canada’s retirement and long-term care system is under-regulated in many provinces. An investigation by the CTV News show W5 found at least 1,500 cases of staff-to-resident abuse in homes across Canada in 2013, a number the news program claimed to be low due to under-reporting. Retirement Concepts, B.C.’s biggest private provider, has faced complaints in the past, including staffing shortages and the use of subcontracting to fire and then rehire employees at lower wages.


When shareholder profits become a priority for essential services, quality of care tends to decline. A 2016 study by Dr. Margaret McGregor of Vancouver comparing international experiences with long-term care found that for-profit facilities consistently provided poorer service. “There is this conflict of interest between the profit motive and actually spending money on things like staffing,” she said.


Unfortunately, the B.C. government has embraced the private sector rather than look to public or not-for-profit options for meeting increasing demand for seniors’ care.


B.C. Finance Minister Mike de Jong told the Globe and Mail he’s not worried about the sale of Retirement Concepts to a Chinese company, since no matter who owns the service they must follow provincial standards.

OH, REALLY???



But here’s where the FIPA, signed by former prime minister Stephen Harper in 2012 and ratified in 2014, makes an already murky situation even murkier.


As the CCPA and other critics of the investment treaty have pointed out, if an established Chinese investor objects to stronger regulations (e.g., stricter training requirements, staffing levels or standards of care in retirement homes), the FIPA gives it the option to sue the Canadian government before unaccountable tribunals that are outside the Canadian legal system and courts. Such tribunals are not concerned with whether those regulations are consistent with Canadian law and norms, but only whether they were “necessary,” applied in an “arbitrary” manner or violate some other aspect of the FIPA’s broadly worded investor rights.


Deals like Anbang’s takeover of Retirement Concepts add a whole other layer of profit maximization to the private health care sector. As McGregor and Dr. Lisa Ronald explained in a commentary in the Toronto Star, “the likely scenario is that Anbang will lease the properties back to Retirement Concepts, the previous private for-profit owner, who will continue to provide the services.” Anbang’s sole interest is in a stream of rising rents, in large part to finance its wildly popular high-yielding investment products.


You don’t have to be a financial wizard to see that if the company faces liquidity problems, because it has overpaid for foreign acquisitions, for example, or Chinese regulators clamp down on risky insurance products, it must then squeeze its tenants, including Retirement Concepts. This deeply flawed sale-and-lease-back business model led, in 2011, to the bankruptcy and collapse of Southern Cross, Britain’s largest care homes operator with more than 31,000 residents.

When the hard times inevitably hit, provincial regulators must step up standards and enforcement to prevent cost cutting on the backs of seniors.


If a FIPA tribunal were to find that new regulations undermined the value of the company’s investment, Canadian taxpayers would be left holding the bag. For example, requirements to reinvest revenues in improved staffing, training, equipment or facilities could be construed as violating the foreign investor’s right to freely transfer funds back to China or the FIPA’s minimum standard of treatment obligation.


Future moves by the province to reverse direction toward more stable not-for-profit and public delivery of long-term care services can be challenged by Anbang’s Cedar Tree subsidiary as a form of expropriation or violation of the firm’s right to “fair and equitable treatment” under FIPA. Again, the validity of such a claim and the amount of any compensation due will be determined not in Canadian courts, but by a private investment tribunal. Canada is already the most sued developed country under similar rules in NAFTA.


Finally, legislation now before the Senate to implement CETA, the Canada–EU free trade deal, would raise the threshold for reviewing all foreign investments (not just those by European investors) from $600 million to $1.5 billion. In future, a takeover like that of Retirement Concepts, which has been valued at $1 billion, might escape scrutiny altogether.

Breaking Down the Harm to Canada Done by Treaty with China
read more



In that case, the government would not even have the right to put modest (and difficult to enforce) conditions on the new buyer, as Canada has attempted to do in this case.


In the eagerness to portray Canada as open for business and to lock in binding foreign investor rights, we must ask who is looking after the interests of vulnerable groups such as seniors, employees in the private health care sector, or indeed the Canadian taxpayer? A publicly financed, not-for-profit solution to the rising demand for long-term care is by far the better option. It would create high-quality care, decent-paying jobs and benefit from greater accountability.


Unfortunately, Canada’s trade agreements from NAFTA onwards, including FIPA with China and CETA, present real barriers to achieving this. Anbang would be able to sue or threaten to sue Canada for decisions made by B.C. to improve its long-term care system. These extra-judicial rights are not available to domestic companies and certainly not to citizens.


People should be concerned about who is running Canada’s long-term care and retirement homes. There are a lot of issues with providers already — Canadian or otherwise — and we need better regulations to deal with their infractions.


The deal may yet fall through. Various B.C. regional health authorities have still to decide whether operating licences should be granted to the new owners. Opposition parties are questioning why the federal government approved it, with Conservative MP Cathy McLeod asking the House of Commons Thursday why Prime Minister Justin Trudeau “put the care of our parents and grandparents at the mercy of profiteers pulling strings from Beijing?”


The rights Anbang and Cedar Tree have under the FIPA to frustrate public interest regulation and shift risk to Canadian taxpayers lend added urgency to that question.

______________________________________________

We usually discuss these senior and pipeline to prison housing issues under civil rights and justice public policy so we simply want what is a huge number of US citizens incarcerated during ZERO TOLERANCE to understand how these NEW INNOVATIVE REHABILITATIVE policies pushed by 5% GREEK JUDGES is tied to what we see with senior housing in Canada soon to be US.

Senior housing is becoming that DORMITORY LIVING as telemedicine becomes the only contact with doctors seniors can access and small dormitory size efficiencies are all they can afford. So too will this same housing be doled to our pipeline to prison rehabilitation citizens----this is what global banking 1% call AFFORDABLE HOUSING. It's all industrial corporate campus control and will be outside all of what US citizens think of as US RULE OF LAW---CIVIL RIGHTS, CIVIL LIBERTIES----US CONSTITUTION.

You will notice that CANADA as US seniors have paid plenty of money into retirements and health savings to live a simply but developed nation quality of life---but those savings have been allowed to be stolen during ROBBER BARON GLOBAL 1% FRAUDS.


The 5% freemason/Greeks will first be handed these 'housing' businesses for seniors and pipeline to prison young adults but the goal will have all that business in the hands of global investment firms. Here in Baltimore all our public housing is already being transferred to global investment firms.




The rare prison-reform documentary that listens to the jailers as well as the jailed18 individuals tell 18 different stories of their experiences within the criminal justice system



Rachel Leah10.26.2017•4:34 PM


The United States' prison population has surpassed 2 million. One in three black men are expected to go to prison in their lifetime, compared to one in 17 white men. One out of every 115 adults, black, white and otherwise, is incarcerated.


The statistics are harrowing, frightening even. But lost in those numbers is the more human notion that America's enormous and expensive prison system is populated and operated by individual, thinking, caring people.


That is what a new film series released today, called "We Are Witnesses," wants viewers to remember. Created by the criminal-justice platform The Marshall Project, in partnership with Participant Media, The New Yorker and Condé Nast Entertainment, "We Are Witnesses" features 18 individuals telling 18 different stories of their experiences with the criminal-justice system.


Marhsall Project founder and "We Are Witnesses" executive producer, Neil Barsky, told Salon that by diving into a series of intimate interviews, the project attempts to "convey the enormity and the tragedy of the criminal justice ecosystem." He calls it "a 360 degree look at the millions and millions of people whose lives are impacted by our system of crime and punishment." 


Yes, that means getting face to face with the prisoners in the system and those who have made their way out of it. But that also means listening to often-unheard voices, ones that may be disquieting to prison reform advocates.


There's the Rikers corrections officer, who relays how terrifying it is to walk the prison's halls, the victims of crime, the retired federal judge overwhelmed by his caseload, and a retired police officer. "I wanted to show that while a system could be corrupt and corrupting, the people involved can be noble," Barsky says. "I don’t see this as a good versus evil institution — mass incarceration — I see it as a perversion of justice."


Some of the stories are more familiar. There's Erica Garner, the daughter of Eric Garner, who was killed by a police officer in 2014 when he was put in a chokehold. There's the late Venida Browder, the mother of Kalief Browder who committed suicide after he was held in Rikers Island under abominable conditions for three years without trial for allegedly stealing a backpack. There's Yusef Salaam, a member of the wrongfully convicted Central Park Five, innocent teenagers President Donald Trump notoriously wanted put to death.

But then there's also Steve Osborne, a retired NYPD police officer, who tries to convey what it means to be a cop. "There's no room for error," he tells the camera. "Nobody wants to hear that you made a mistake." He counters Erica Garner's viewing of the video of her father's death, defending the officer responsible.


And this happens throughout the films: while many of the stories overlap when it comes to trauma and severity of punishment, others contradict them. "The idea of this, is let the viewer decide," Barsky says. "I still believe that showing all perspectives is a much more powerful way of changing minds."


"We Are Witnesses" isn't trying to draw conclusions for you, but it is urgent to make people understand the personal and national costs of such an ineffective, often inhumane system. "The criminal justice system, by its very nature, isolates and demonizes those behind bars and those guarding them," Barsky says. Nonetheless, he says "I think across the board there’s a growing awareness that mass incarceration should be seen as a crisis, but because it’s been going on for so long, it’s seen as the status quo. 'We Are Witnesses' is one way to address that."

________________________________________________



What we are seeing in stats like this and although these stats always create separate stats for our black 99% these stats and the SKEWED DATA is the same for our 99% white Baltimore citizens. First we notice that what is being called good is not really good. LIVING WAGE has $30,000 a year as poverty line for individuals----it has $58,000 for family of four being poverty line. In Baltimore poverty line for family of four is around $21,000. So, the QUALITY OF LIFE tied to an AMERICAN CITIZEN is falling fast.

We were speaking to a Baltimore woman low-income saying she owned 3 houses. What we have in Baltimore is a growing GLOBAL LABOR POOL LABOR BROKER/CHOP SHOP HOUSING controlled by 5% freemason/Greeks being paid PATRONAGE funds from our pols and global Baltimore Development 'labor and justice' organizations to grow global labor pool and US citizens as global labor pool density. Someone 'owns' a house today and not several years from now. Housing is constantly DYNAMIC.

This home-ownership and self-employed stat is tied to these global labor broker/senior housing policies.

ABSOLUTELY NO EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EQUAL ACCESS HOUSING HAPPENING IN BALTIMORE NOW OR THESE FEW DECADES.

As the subprime mortgage loan targeted our low-income communities of color----so to does this global labor broker/senior care housing.


'No. 4: Baltimore, Md.

Median Household Income: $53,231
Home Ownership Rate: 44.6%
Share Who Are Self-Employed: 17.1%
Change In Population, 2010-16: 4.6%'



As housing in US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zone move towards extreme wealth extreme poverty----small city center for global 1% and their 2% we are seeing global corporate campuses with high wealth with our majority of low and working class citizens being in constant flux tied to temporary housing to live or own.

This same housing ownership data skewing these few decades also showed in the subprime mortgage loan frauds where anyone with a pulse was placed into homeownership knowing FORECLOSURE was coming. We can have better GOALS for our 99% of black, white, and brown citizens.





Cities Where African-Americans Are Doing The Best Economically 2018


Joel Kotkin


The 2007 housing crisis was particularly tough on African-Americans, as well as Hispanics, extinguishing much of their already minuscule wealth. Industrial layoffs, particularly in the Midwest, made things worse.

However the rising economic tide of the past few years has started to lift more boats. The African-American unemployment rate fell to 6.8% in December, the lowest level since the government started keeping tabs in 1972. Although that’s 3.1 percentage points worse than whites, the gap is the slimmest on record. A tightening labor market since 2015 has also driven up wages of black workers, many of whom are employed in manufacturing and other historically middle and lower-wage service industries.

The gains have not been evenly spread. To determine where African-Americans are faring the best economically, we evaluated America’s 53 largest metropolitan statistical areas based on three critical factors that we believe are indicators of middle-class success: the home ownership rate as of 2016; entrepreneurship, as measured by the self-employment rate in 2017; and 2016 median household income. In addition, we added a fourth category, demographic trends, measuring the change in the African-American population from 2010 to 2016 in these metro areas, to judge how the community is “voting with its feet.” Each factor was given equal weight.
____________________________________________
We will discuss in detail the MOVING FORWARD live where you work to see all US civil rights to housing ---all Federal HUD housing funds tied to equal opportunity and access being thrown aside----although the US Constitution and all the Federal laws require it-----under this global banking 1% TALKING POINT of LIVING WHERE YOU WORK.

Here is NJ TRENTON looking just like MD BALTIMORE installing all these MOVING FORWARD housing policies and look---this is WELLS FARGO-----leading in our US CITY HOUSING after these few decades of being top gun subprime mortgage loan fraud vendor.

WE ARE BEING TOLD LIVING WHERE YOU WORK IS SUSTAINABILITY WHILE IT IS SIMPLY BEING USED BY FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL BANKING 1% TO UNDERMINE ALL US HOUSING POLICY AND LAWS FROM LAST CENTURY.


BUT I WANT TO LIVE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD! Sorry, we are being sustainable you must work at the global corporate campus to live here.




**************************************************************************


Live Where You Work Trenton

The City of Trenton has partnered with the NJ Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency (HMFA) to become the first Live Where You Work community!!

What is Live Where You Work Trenton?



Live Where You Work Trenton is a special home mortgage incentive program that provides low-interest mortgage loans to homebuyers who work in Trenton and who are looking to purchase a home in Trenton. The goal of the program is to...

(1) strengthen our neighborhoods and increase community involvement through homeownership;
(2) attract individuals who work in Trenton to also live in our City; and
(3) develop positive relationships between Trenton and members of the local business and residential communities.

As a result, homebuyers who both work and want to live in Trenton will be able to take advantage of the Live Where You Work program incentives.

What are the benefits of Live Where You Work Trenton?
The primary benefits of Live Where You Work Trenton include:

• Low-interest mortgages for homebuyers
• Downpayment and closing cost assistance for the purchase of a home
• More flexible underwriting criteria for the loan qualification process


Additional incentives are available to homebuyers buying in one of Trenton’s Urban Target Area neighborhoods. To find out if your prospective home falls within Trenton's Urban Target Area neighborhoods, please click on Target Area to confirm. The incentives include the following:

• Homebuyers do not have to be first time homebuyers
• Enhanced maximum income limits and purchase price limits

MAXIMUM INCOME LIMITS

Location

1-2 Family

3+ Household

City wide

$85,400

$98,210

Urban Target Area

$102,480

$119,560

MAXIMUM PURCHASE PRICE LIMITS

Location

New 1 family

New 2 Family

Existing 1 Family

Existing 2 Family

Existing 3 Family

Existing 4 Family

City wide

$395,595

NA

$395,595

$445,563

$541,340

$624,623

Urban Target Area

$483,505

$544,578

$483,505

$544,578

$661,638

$763,428

Where are properties for sale in the City of Trenton?


The City of Trenton would like to offer all prospective buyers an opportunity to research available properties for sale within its city borders. If you would like to research this information further, please feel free to visit our FREE home search tool by clicking on available city properties or visit the HMFA’s Housing Resource Center at http://www.njhousing.gov/ and find out more about available housing opportunities.

In addition, please take a look at new developments impacting our city including the beautiful Goat Hill Development, and other showcase properties!

When can homebuyers begin to take advantage of the program?
Homebuyers can obtain a Live Where You Work mortgage today. Contact 1-800-NJHOUSE for information on participating lenders. In addition, Trenton has partnered with GMAC to bring additional lending benefits to the program.

IS THIS THE GM FINANCIAL ARM THAT WENT BANKRUPT FROM PARTICIPATING IN SUBPRIME MORTGAGE FRAUD?

For more information on the GMAC partnership, please click on GMAC incentive program for further details or contact a GMAC representative at (856) 797-2121.

In addition, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage is an approved lender for the LWYW program, for more information on financing options, contact directly Lillian Hernandez at 609-278-3854 x101 or by mobile 609-658-7607 and click on the logo below.



If you are interested in learning about the Live Where You Work mortgage program, please call 1-800- NJHOUSE or click on Live Where You Work.

____________________________________________
OH, REALLY????



Equal Housing Opportunity - HUD

www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal... What we do. The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity administers federal laws and establishes national policies that make sure all Americans have equal access ...

If cash back on purchase sounds like a global banking product merchandising ploy to deregulate our mortgage lending laws and create so many different lending schemes----COMPLEX FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS------then this is indeed the goal.

Remember, MOVING FORWARD development in our US mid-size cities come first to need more middle/affluent class US and immigrant citizens able to infuse more TAXES, FEES, AND FINES. The US Treasury and municipal bond market fraud has over $12 trillion in bond debt that global banking intends to suck from this coming decade's new urban homeowners. Get them here---get them in a house----then forget all those INCENTIVES.

Baltimore has had a global market DYNAMIC to its population these few decades leaving communities to fail and never having real connections......it is now going to become far worse.

CASH BACK FOR YOU CAR----CASH BACK FOR JOINING A NEW CREDIT CARD ---CASH BACK FOR BUYING A HOUSE. LOT'S OF SUBSIDY AND CASH BACK---WHAT COULD GO WRONG?



Mortgage Pre-Approval
Getting you the Pre-Approval letter that your Realtor will need so you can write an offer on your dream home.


HOME POINT FINANCIAL AFFINITY PROGRAM CAN GET YOU CASH BACK ON YOUR NEW HOME PURCHASE!ASK US HOW MUCH YOU QUALIFY FOR

  • Home
  • Services
  • Testimonials
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer

  • More
HOME POINT FINANCIAL877-902-6636
Ready To Lend
____________________________________________
What we see below was a mortgage lending policy written as Bush was exiting after being ROBBER BARON -IN-CHIEF of massive subprime mortgage loan fraud.  99% of WE THE PEOPLE are being told by the title of this policy SAFE ACT that this was about shaking out those bad characters from the mortgage lending market.  As the article below shows it seems to only shake out the single property buyer that maybe flips a few houses ----or a single buyer wanting to buy property to hand to a second homeowner.  MOM AND POP buys a house for their child  ----someone buys a house for another for business purposes.

Indeed, the house flippers were a problem in subprime mortgage frauds but those flippers were usually those mortgage lending institutions handing money for mortgages greater than this 2-3 limit each year.  It is the casual property flipper-----someone fixes a decaying house and acts as agent to sell that has been included in property and mortgage law for several centuries.  What about those homeowners wanting to be a OWNER SALE to sidestep real estate agents offering terms to new owners not tied to mortgage loans ----as the new owner paying the old owner monthly using the revenue from renting floors or rooms. 

It is this OWNER AS REALTOR power that takes total control of real estate sales from what are very captured real estate agencies in US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.


'Four years ago the home loan industry allowed anyone--including criminals--to broker mortgages as long as they coughed up a filing fee and took refuge under an employer's license. These days new applicants must sit for 20 hours and existing brokers for 8 hours of education. Everyone must pass federal and state tests as well as credit and criminal background screenings. These days states even fingerprint mortgage brokers'.


When we read BUSH-ERA SAFE ACT we see all kinds of references to these small real estate transfers as the problem in mortgage loan origination ------WHICH IS A LIE.  The mortgage loan originators many in Silicon Valley and Seattle were MERS TITLE MILLS-----none of these SAFE ACT laws now being installed in each state addresses the GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM mortgage loan fraud debacle.


'Federal Secure and Fair Enforcement Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008'.

'The repeal of this exemption significantly affects the private loan industry and hard money lending'.


The Blog of the Real Property Section of the Maryland State Bar Association


Important Changes to the Maryland Mortgage Lender LawJanuary 29, 2014

· by Ground Rules · in Legislative, Security Interests

·
Lynne T. Krause, attorney and founding partner of Krause & Ferris in Annapolis, provided the following report on changes to licensing requirements under the Maryland Mortgage Lender Law:


During the 2012 Maryland General Assembly session, a little-noticed piece of legislation repealed the exemption from licensing in the Maryland Mortgage Lender Law (“MMLL”) for a mortgage lender who makes “3 or fewer” residential mortgage loans in a year. The amendment to Md. Code, Fin. Inst., §11-501 et seq. went into effect January 1, 2013. The repeal of this exemption significantly affects the private loan industry and hard money lending. According to the Fiscal and Policy Note for this bill from the Department of Legislative Services, the primary purpose of the bill is to make the Maryland Mortgage Loan Law comply with the Federal Secure and Fair Enforcement Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008 (“SAFE Act).



The MMLL is a complicated statute, with most of its provisions relating to licensing of mortgage lenders. The statute generally states that a person must be licensed to make a residential mortgage or deed of trust loan unless that person is exempt from licensing.
The 2012 amendment eliminated the exemption from licensing for a lender who made three or fewer mortgage loans per year. The Maryland Department of Legislative Services in their Fiscal and Policy Note states that since there was no exemption in the SAFE Act for persons who are unlicensed making three or fewer loans per year, they made this change. The 2012 amendment also eliminated a similar exemption for a broker of residential mortgage loans who brokered no more than one loan per calendar year.


Md. Code, Fin. Inst., §11-502 retained other exemptions from licensing that were previously in the statute. Those exemptions include mortgage loans by: (a) nonprofit charitable organizations or religious organization; (b) loans by an employer to an employee; (c) loans to a borrower who is a person’s “spouse, child, parent, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, or grandchild’s spouse;” (d) real estate brokers who make a mortgage loan to facilitate a purchase of real estate brokered by the lender provided it has a repayment schedule of two years or less to assist a borrower in purchasing a dwelling; and (e) a licensed Maryland home improvement contractor who assigns a mortgage loan without recourse within 30 days after completion of the contract.


The 2012 amendment also revised certain definitions of loans that the MMLL covered. The MLLL previously defined a “mortgage loan” as a loan for personal household or family purposes in any amount that was secured by an interest in residential real property in Maryland, or if it was a commercial loan secured by residential real estate, not in excess of $75,000.00 and was supported by independent evidence of the commercial purpose.” The new definition of a “mortgage loan” regulated by the MMLL is “any loan primarily for personal, family, or household use that is secured by a mortgage, deed of trust, or other equivalent consensual security interest on a dwelling or residential real estate on which is dwelling is constructed or intended to be constructed.”



The definitional change to “mortgage loan” was taken directly from the Model State Statute complying with the SAFE Act. Now if a residential mortgage loan has a specific commercial purpose, and was not a loan “primarily for personal, family, or household use” then such a loan is no longer covered by the MMLL notwithstanding the amount of the loan. However, in making such a loan it is very important to document what that commercial purpose is to be if the loan is secured by residential real estate.



As many of you know, banks, savings institutions, and credit unions are generally not required to be licensed in the State of Maryland to make mortgage loans. Also, the MMLL does not apply to a deferred purchase money mortgage in connection with the sale of a dwelling or residential real estate for a residence that the seller built and then resold, such as in a situation in which a builder purchases a lot, builds a home on it, and then sells it, taking back a purchase money mortgage deed of trust. (Md. Code, Fin. Inst., § 11-502(c))



This is a fairly complicated statute and it is important that you read it carefully if you are to handle a transaction arguably covered by this statute. The penalties for violating this statute as detailed in Md. Code, Fin. Inst., §11-523 make it a felony for a person to “willfully” violate this statute. The penalties for a conviction could mean imprisonment for up to 10 years and a fine of up to $50,000.00. Also as additional financial penalties, any unlicensed person “who is not exempt from licensing under this subtitle who makes or assists a borrower in obtaining a mortgage loan in violation of the subtitle may collect only the principal amount of the loan and may not collect any interest, costs, finders fee’s, broker’s fees, or other charges with respect to the loan.” (Emphasis added.)

_________________________________________


All the legalese tied to this Bush era SAFE ACT now coming down to our state and local real estate sales policies are written to make one think our SELLING OUR OWN HOME is not off the shelf when indeed it appears that IS the intent of these laws. 


'In fact, a mortgage loan originator is defined in Section 1503 (3)(A)(i) of the SAFE  Act as "an individual who takes a residential mortgage loan application; and offers or negotiates terms of a residential mortgage loan for compensation or gain."

'This definition is the cause of much of the confusion amongst investors who think that they can no longer sell real estate and finance the purchase themselves without a license from their state'.

Most concern comes from small real estate developers buying and acting as sellers in flipping houses 1-3 houses a year.  What WE are concerned with for 99% of WE THE PEOPLE is the freedom to decide if we are going to be SALE BY OWNER ----able to control the sale of our own personal property acting as real estate broker. 

THIS IS WHAT IS UNDER ATTACK.  WHEN INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS LOSE THE CONTROL OF SELLING THEIR HOMES TO WHOM THEY WANT HOW THEY WANT-----WE LOSE THE ABILITY TO EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND ACCESS.

As this article states these SAFE ACT laws are written as usual very hard to define -----and state's assuring these EXEMPTION GROUPS historically recognized are using vague language as well.......WE DON'T KNOW HOW THIS WILL BE INTERPRETED.


'Accordingly, many Land Contracts are subject to the new rules, despite prior information to the contrary'.


Hmmmm, this SAFE ACT does not effect any of the major player in subprime mortgage loan origination fraud---so what is it actually doing?


Land Contract Regulations: The SAFE Act Impact on Seller Financing
06-28-2012

The Department of Housing And Urban Development (“HUD”) issued a final rule for the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act (“S.A.F.E. Act”), effective August 29, 2011.  This article summarizes a few key sections of the new rules for the real estate community.  This article is not a substitute for legal advice from a knowledgeable licensed attorney.


Background:  


Real estate investors, brokers and other industry participants have repeatedly sought confirmation that they can engage in activities or transactions that are prohibited by the SAFE Act or other laws.


Neither wishful thinking nor hiding one’s head in the sand can change law or make prohibited activities lawful.  Attempts to interpret the SAFE Act and the Michigan Mortgage Loan Originator Licensing Act (MLOLA) sections applicable to Land Contracts have been complicated by a disjointed law-making process, multiple sets of federal and state laws, the involvement of multiple state and federal governmental agencies, different and sometimes conflicting rules and regulations.



To make matters worse, purveyors of the legal equivalent of “snake oil” are offering real estate training based on land contracts.  These “legal gurus” and their disciples have spread bad information to the real estate community.


Combine wishful thinking, bad advice from both non-lawyers and lawyers and the confusing law-making process by state and federal agencies, and the result is incomprehension and non-compliance.


Even well-intentioned, knowledgeable, ethical persons, those who always follow the law (and some who even teach the law), have been stumped in their efforts to navigate through this bewildering maze.


Many Land Contracts Are Covered as of August 29, 2011


Many real estate investors have relied on outdated guidance that land contracts are not regulated by the SAFE Act.  That is now untrue.  There are circumstances when a land contract might not be subject to the SAFE Act, but the presumption is that land contracts, also known as “installment sales agreements,” are subject to the SAFE Act.  A significant portion of the public comments submitted on HUD’s proposed SAFE Act rules pertain to the issue of a property owner selling and financing the sale of his or her own property.  Whether an owner sells a property using a deed and “take-back” mortgage, or a land contract, the transaction is subject to the new rules.  The HUD rules clarify that a land contract is a “residential mortgage loan” under the SAFE Act.


The HUD SAFE Act Rule states in part:


As an initial statement, HUD confirms the commenters’ observation that a ‘‘residential mortgage loan’’ includes an installment sales contract, which the commenters advise is frequently involved in seller financing. ‘‘Residential mortgage loans,’’ as defined by section 1503(8) of the SAFE Act, refers to typical financing mechanisms such as mortgages and deeds of trusts. In addition, the SAFE Act definition also includes ‘‘other equivalent consensual security interest on a dwelling (as the term ‘dwelling’ is defined by section 103(v) of TILA) or residential real estate upon which is constructed or intended to be constructed a dwelling,’’ which has the potential for including a broad range of other financing mechanisms. For the purposes of this rule, ‘‘equivalent consensual security interests’’ specifically include installment sales contracts, consistent with the treatment by many states of such contracts in the same manner as mortgages and purchase money mortgages offered by sellers of residential real estate. While there is no formal recorded lien held by the provider of financing, the fact that the seller holds title to the property until the contract has been paid in full is the practical equivalent of a lien for purposes of the SAFE Act and its purposes and is comparable to the status of a mortgage in a state that follows title theory under mortgage law.



Accordingly, many Land Contracts are subject to the new rules, despite prior information to the contrary.

__________________________


WHAT???? 

Those global banking 1% Clinton neo-liberals Dodd Frank wanting to further harm 99% of WE THE PEOPLE and our ability to own homes and property?  Say it isn't so!  Bush signed this SAFE ACT so we indeed know it is true.

In US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones like Baltimore our city and state realtors have been largely part of these subprime mortgage frauds and they are largely tied to the global Wall Street development corporations MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD for only the global 1%.  But, those 5% to the 1% realtors are going under the bus as global real estate/investment firms replace all those realtor player peeps.


This article was written by a right wing realtor activist making this seem like another left policy issue when it is again FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL 1%.  Today, we are seeing those 5% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA pols as realtors being handed properties in pay-to-play. This policy will move forward any ability of a US citizen to buy and sell homes without what will become harder to get real estate licensing.

All of our US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones are filling with international lawyers tied to corporate and global tribunal law----so too are those able to get real estate licenses not far ahead.


Dodd-Frank Hijacks Owner Financing

By Ric Thom

Private property owners have been swept into the regulations of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Financial Protection Act which was signed into law in July 2010. Owner financing will be regulated in Title XIV Section 1401(2) (E) Mortgage Loan Origination Standards. The law restricts private property owners who want to sell their own property using owner financing (installment sale). These are some of the consequences.


Homeowners die before they receive all of their equity under the Dodd-Frank Act.



The act requires any homeowner who sells their property using an installment sale, known as owner financing, to fully amortize the installment sale note. It does not allow any balloons to be negotiated between buyer and seller in the note. This means if you are 55 or older there is a good chance you will die before that 30 year note pays out.


Part of the purpose of the Dodd-Frank Act is to protect seniors who use or invest in financial products. The Federal government chastises insurance companies for the deplorable practice of selling seniors 30 year annuities because Ma and Pa will die before they receive their money. Yet, the Dodd-Frank act does the same thing when it mandates that you cannot receive all of your equity for 30 years. Just shortening the amortization period does not help either. How many buyers can afford the monthly payments on a ten or fifteen year amortization?


The Dodd-Frank Act strips homeowner’s of their equity



Part of the rationale for the act is to protect homeowners from having their equity stripped from them by unscrupulous lenders. Yet, the Act which mandates that an installment sale note be fully amortized over 30 years with no balloons does just that. Ma and Pa who use owner financing when they sell their property receive a note for their equity. They have the right and the ability to sell that note in the future. Anyone who purchases that note takes into consideration the time value of money. Just like bonds these notes are sold at a discount. The longer it takes for the note to pay out, the more of a discount the note holder has to take. So, if Ma and Pa need to sell that note in the future they are going to have to sell at a 30-35% discount as opposed to a 5-10% discount if it had a balloon. So, you can see that by the government mandating no balloons they have potentially stripped Ma and Pa’s equity by 20-30%. I can see the reason behind not allowing these installment sale notes to negatively amortize or to be interest only, but I don’t think allowing a balloon in 8 to 10 years is unreasonable or predatory. That gives the new buyer ample time to refinance or sell the property before the note becomes due. It is not reasonable to require Ma and Pa to wait 30 years to receive their equity, unless that is what they wish to do.


An Installment Sale is Not a Loan


Thirteen states have exempted owner financing to some degree from their Mortgage Loan Originator Act in 2009. They did this because they realize owner financing is not a loan; it is an installment sale. There is no third party lender; no points or origination fees are charged. In spite of this, Congress included owner financing in the Dodd-Frank Bill with additional regulations. Owner financing is not predatory. The seller has 100% skin in the game. Ma and Pa simply want to receive their equity over time with a reasonable interest rate. They don’t want to receive cash. They don’t want to invest in 1% CDs or in a stock market that lost 40% of its value in recent history. The sellers do not want the property back; they simply want a decent return on their money. That’s why they sold it in the first place. Today’s buyer using owner financing will most likely be tomorrow’s seller using owner financing.


The IRS does not recognize the installment sale as a loan. They view it more as a trade. The property owner is trading the property for a note, which represents the seller’s equity. The IRS only taxes the seller as they receive payments.


Yet, Ma and Pa who might have only one property which they want to sell using the installment sale method are penalized, scrutinized and regulated.


Over-criminalization


This act regulates the sale of your personal residence, your cabin in the mountains, the vacant lot next door, a rental house, a duplex, triplex and four-plex. How many of the millions of property owners are going to know that if they use owner financing they are going to have to fully amortize the note, verify and document that the buyer can qualify, and that the interest rate is supposed to be fixed for the first five years? If they sell their property and don’t comply with these restrictions, they could be fined up to $25,000 and a possible felony charge simply because they did not know of the restrictions and requirements. The 13 states which exempted owner financing realized it would be a regulatory nightmare trying to keep track of every residential transaction that property owners enter into, not to mention the cost associated with that regulation. 99% of the people who use owner financing do not make a business of selling their property using the installment sale method. It is most likely they would only sell property using on installment sale a few times during their life. But that one time might involve trying to sell four properties at the same time.


Each state has its own version of owner financing; some states use notes and mortgages, some use deeds of trust or contract for deed. Each state already has case law and state statues that set the standards for owner financing and provide the protections for buyer and seller. The Dodd-Frank Act simply adds another, conflicting layer of complexity to the simple act of selling your private property on an installment sale. The states should remain in control of owner financing.


Trying to apply the same rules and regulations and licensing requirements for banks and professional mortgage loan originators to Ma and Pa on Main Street is counterproductive.
It is only going to drive owner financing underground. Buyers and sellers will still use it, but they won’t use realtors or title companies which creates opportunity for abuse where there wasn’t any before.


Is your credit good enough to sell your home?


The Act does allow a balloon in the installment sale note if Ma and Pa become mortgage loan originators. The Dodd-Frank Act restricts you to only three real estate transactions in a 12 month period where you offer owner financing terms. If you want a balloon or you want to sell a 4th property within a 12 month period using the installment sale you have to become a mortgage loan originator, which means: you have to have good credit, put up a surety bond, take 20 hours of classes on Federal and State mortgage laws, pass a national test, and take continuing education courses. 30% of mortgage brokers were unable to become mortgage loan originators because they either had poor credit or were unable to pass the test. Ma and Pa are sure to experience the same thing. Requiring a seller to take a test and have a certain credit score to transfer their private property is a slippery slope. It is an erosion of our private property rights.


This act, which is over 2000 pages and requires over 500 new rules to be written by 40 different agencies by July 2011, was meant to regulate Wall Street and protect consumers from the predatory lending practices of mortgage brokers, but has over-reached into Main Street and into the lives of Ma and Pa. Selling your own property using the installment sale method did not create the financial crisis. Including it in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is inappropriate. An installment sale is not a loan. This act is a limitation of the rights of property owners which will be virtually impossible to regulate. We need to ask our congressional representatives to exempt all owner-financing and return it’s regulation to the states or at the very least, to remove the draconian restrictions, in the Dodd-Frank Act.


The Act is just the framework. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has the authority to relax or expand the rules and regulations in the bill. They are in the process of reviewing the rules and regulations that do not go into effect until July 2011. Until then, it is my understanding that everyone will be following the laws of their state, but that could change come July 2011. Please write your congressional representatives, write your local board of realtors, and the National Association of Realtors or anyone else that might get the word out for Ma and Pa.

___________________________________________
We will look at all these housing public policy this week along with what is that US CONSTITUTIONAL EQUAL PROTECTION LAW tied to Federal equal opportunity/access as below we see the completely ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE for only the global 1% US Supreme Court ruled to weaken yet again those Federal housing protections.


'From a distance, the result in Inclusive Communities looks like a win'.

'That is, the use of statistics, no matter how persuasive, to show disparate impact without additional evidence creates a danger of “abusive disparate impact claims” that may hobble local governments and developers. Without strict safeguards, the opinion said, “disparate-impact liability might cause race to be used and considered in a pervasive way and ‘would almost inexorably lead’ government or private entities to use ‘numerical quotas.’”'

This current ruling hit the part to our Federal housing act still acting with some protection----disparate impact.  This article makes the breakdown in these equal opportunity and access laws seem to be a white vs black issue when these laws strongly protected according to class/ cultural identity-----including 99% of white citizens.


'Disparate impact means that some policy, adopted for a non-racial reason, might end up burdening minority-housing opportunities more heavily than those provided to whites; if so, the policymaker would be required to justify the policy to a court on grounds other than race'.

When the US SUPREME COURT via this TEXAS case pushes the DISPARATE IMPACT towards how it impacts DEVELOPERS as this ruling does----we have MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUS AND GLOBAL FACTORIES not interested at all as to what kind of housing 99% of WE THE PEOPLE want.


What is saves is the right of global 1% as developers to access and opportunity----this has nothing to do with 99% of WE THE PEOPLE black, white, or brown citizens.


WHO APPOINTED THIS US SUPREME COURT?  ROBBER BARON POLS AND PRESIDENTS?  WELL, WE SIMPLY VOID THOSE APPOINTMENTS AS ILLEGAL AND REVERSE THESE RULINGS--EASY PEASY.

The U.S. Supreme Court Barely Saves the Fair Housing Act


Disparate-impact claims survived in a 5-4 decision, but the narrow opinion suggests a tough fight ahead for civil-rights laws.

Jessica Rinaldi / Reuters
  • Garrett Epps
  • Jun 25, 2015

Subscribe to The Atlantic’s Politics & Policy Daily, a roundup of ideas and events in American politics.


As the Supreme Court term winds down, there is discussion whether the Court is in some way drifting to the left. That narrative may take on additional steam after Thursday’s decisions--King v. Burwell, negating a far-right challenge that might have destroyed the Affordable Care Act, and Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, an attempt by the state of Texas to radically scale back the scope of the federal Fair Housing Act.


Both challenges failed Thursday. But it would be a mistake to read Inclusive Communities as a “liberal” decision. Although four justices clearly wanted to radically cut back the Act, the majority--Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan--signed on to an opinion narrowing it in crucial ways.


This was no ringing victory for civil rights; it was a near-death experience that may produce health problems for the Act down the road.



The issue in Inclusive Communities was whether the Act allows plaintiffs only if they can show that a government agency or private actor in renting, selling, or otherwise making housing available on the basis of race, intended to discriminate on the basis of race, or whether the Act also forbids acts that have a “disparate impact” on housing opportunities. Disparate impact means that some policy, adopted for a non-racial reason, might end up burdening minority-housing opportunities more heavily than those provided to whites; if so, the policymaker would be required to justify the policy to a court on grounds other than race.


In this case, for example, the plaintiffs produced evidence that the Texas Housing Department awarded tax credits to more developments in poor, minority areas than in areas with majority-white population. The effect, they argued, was to lock minorities into certain parts of the Dallas metro area, perpetuating and extending the area’s segregated housing patterns. The department argued that its decisions followed a complicated set of criteria generated in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and including questions like the cost of land and construction (lower in low-income areas) and “community revitalization,” meaning the economic boon that development can represent to poorer areas. The federal district court held that the agency’s non-racial justifications were not sufficient. The Court of Appeals reversed, arguing that disparate-impact claims are permitted but that these plaintiffs had not made their case.


Before that case could be reheard, however, the state of Texas asked the Supreme Court to take a radical step by reinterpreting the FHA to bar disparate-impact claims altogether. Every circuit court of appeals that had considered the issue had held that the Act permitted disparate-impact claims. But the high court granted review. The Court had granted review in two earlier cases, but both had settled at the last minute. The Texas case finally teed the issue up squarely.


“The Court acknowledges the Fair Housing Act’s continuing role in moving the Nation toward a more integrated society.”From a distance, the result in Inclusive Communities looks like a win. Writing for himself and the four moderate-liberals, Justice Kennedy explained that the disparate-impact interpretation had a lot going for it: it tracks two other Court precedents concerning the employment-discrimination provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; it has been upheld by every court of appeals to consider the issue; Congress readopted the Act in 1988 with language that seems to recognize disparate-impact liability in all but a few categories of cases; and it has become a part of the landscape of urban planning, such that many large cities—including San Francisco, New York, Boston, and Baltimore--submitted a brief asking the Court to leave the Act alone. Eliminating disparate-impact claims would thus destabilize not only other areas of civil-rights law, but also a great deal of city planning. “The Court acknowledges the Fair Housing Act’s continuing role in moving the Nation toward a more integrated society,” Kennedy concluded.


But the majority opinion is less a ringing reaffirmation than a stern warning—claims like those brought by the plaintiffs in this case, Kennedy wrote, actually might raise “serious constitutional questions.” That is, the use of statistics, no matter how persuasive, to show disparate impact without additional evidence creates a danger of “abusive disparate impact claims” that may hobble local governments and developers. Without strict safeguards, the opinion said, “disparate-impact liability might cause race to be used and considered in a pervasive way and ‘would almost inexorably lead’ government or private entities to use ‘numerical quotas.’”


Kennedy concluded that “we must remain wary of policies that reduce homeowners to nothing more than their race.” And the implication is that anything outside the “heartland” of disparate-impact liability—that is, “zoning laws and other housing restrictions that function unfairly to exclude minorities from certain neighborhoods without any suffi­cient justification”—would be dangerous territory.


These particular plaintiffs, the opinion made clear, almost certainly must lose on remand. Disparate impact lives on. But the lower courts have plenty of ammunition in this opinion to use against any novel use of the FHA.


If the result seems “liberal,” it is only in contrast to the dissenting opinions, which are truly radical—contemptuous both of judicial precedent and the history of executive enforcement of civil-rights laws over the past half-century. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for himself, urged the court to begin overturning all those precedents—especially the case that originated the theory of disparate-impact liability, Griggs v. Duke Power, which used it to invalidate a neutral-seeming employment policy that had the effect of trapping black workers in laborers’ positions. The Civil Rights Act, Thomas said, didn’t justify the decision; the Court had relied on a deceitful bunch of bureaucrats at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, who schemed to enlarge the scope of the law—and their own power—by hoodwinking the Court. It is a striking argument, especially when made by the former head of the EEOC—one who, during his tenure, had tried to reorient the Commission away from the role it had played in the ‘60s and ‘70s.


Thomas concluded with a strange set of musings about racial disparities in general. Disparity is the way of the world. He quoted conservative economist Thomas Sowell to the effect that some minority groups end up running the economies of entire nations: “the Chinese in Malaysia, the Lebanese in West Africa, Greeks in the Ottoman Empire, Britons in Argentina, Belgians in Russia, Jews in Poland, and Spaniards in Chile—among many others.” Besides, he said, “over 70 percent” of players in the NBA are black.
The principal dissent, by Justice Samuel Alito writing for Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia, is, a bit less eccentric but equally radical. The precedents are not worthy of respect, Alito argued. Congress may have re-enacted the Act in 1988, but its changes didn’t mean everyone supported DI; the Reagan administration had said the Act didn’t allow DI claims. HUD, which issued regulations supporting DI, was actually trying to manipulate the Court rather than expressing its “’fair and considered judgment.’”


Like Thomas, Alito pointed out that disparities are everywhere—not only in the National Football League but in the Office of the Solicitor General, which mostly sends young lawyers to argue in front of the Court.


With one more vote, these two screeds would have created a gaping hole in the fabric of civil-rights law, with malign effect far beyond housing. That Kennedy rejected that course is an occasion for relief. But if you think that the great danger facing the United States is too much separation rather than too much equality, Kennedy’s opinion is no cause for celebration. It is a slow and measured step to the right, rather than a radical one. But its direction is clear.

0 Comments

February 24th, 2018

2/24/2018

0 Comments

 
'adding that the nutritional content of produce is not
as important as appearance and yield'.


Below we see an article from 2004 letting us know THE GREEN REVOLUTION has created great harm in public health by killing nutrient values in real food tied to MONSANTO and global BIG AG BIG MEAT. REAL left social progressive academics saw this data back in 1990s. Above we see the goals of FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL BANKING 1% GREEN CORPORATION REVOLUTION----it is more important to have appearance and yield than nutritional content in produce.

Global banking 1% released this data in Bush-era to promote the need to take VITAMIN AND MINERAL SUPPLEMENTS just as our farmers having killed soil symbiosis for healthy crops were told to use double the fertilizer---fertilizer is oil oil is BUSH.

This article now tells us that the MEDICATIONS we take during the soaring growth of GLOBAL BIG PHARMA complicate vitamin and mineral uptake of what are already depleted MONSANTO BIG AG grown food.

WHY ARE US CITIZENS THE SICKEST IN DEVELOPED NATIONS? WE HAVE BEEN SLOWLY STARVED OF ORDINARY FOOD NUTRIENTS AND THIS DAMAGES OUR BODY ORGANS AND BIOCHEMISTRY.

NOW, global banking 1% are corrupting VEGAN to market manufactured foods all filled with substance our bodies will not absorb.


MAYO CLINIC AS ALL US MEDICAL CAMPUSES HAVE KNOWN THESE FAR-RIGHT 'GREEN' REVOLUTION POLICIES WERE KILLING PUBLIC HEALTH.  Below we see MAYO CLINIC telling us in 2013 what we have known since 1990s.

We are shouting to our global 99% especially in third world nations having to eat this US SURPLUS food----and now global food corporations are 'donating' these new MANUFACTURED VEGAN foods -------you are not getting nutrients from these GREEN REVOLUTION foods and getting no nutrient value from today's manufactured VEGAN 'healthy' food.




Impoverished soils, impoverished crops
The depletion of the nutrient content of
our soils, through unsustainable agricultural
practices, results in the inevitable loss of nutr
ient value in our crops. Historical data shows
the average mineral content of vegetables grow
n in U.S. soils has dropped precipitously over
the last century.


Research published in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition in 2004 found significant declines in the mineral and vitamin content of 43 garden crops grown in U.S. markets.



As well, an investigative report published by Life Extension Foundation demonstrated that the vitamin and mineral content of several foods dropped dramatically between 1963 and 2000. Collard greens showed a 62% loss of vitamin C, a 41% loss of vitamin A and a 29% loss of calcium. Potassium and magnesium were down 52% and 84% respectively. Cauliflower had lost almost one-half of its vitamin C, thiamine and riboflavin, and most of the calcium in commercial pineapples had disappeared.

According to the report, when asked to explain the precipitous drop in the calcium content observed in commercial corn, the U.S. Department of Agriculture replied that the 78% loss was not significant because “no one eats corn for calcium,” adding that the nutritional content of produce is not
as important as appearance and yield.

Ultimately, the goal of far-right wing ' GREEN REVOLUTION' with this FAKE VEGAN technology is to produce food for planetary mining slave colonies and space travel for several years and decades.


Please take a look at what we information we learned in high school-----to see what our bodies do with depleted intake of nutrients to see the disease vectors looking much like today's American public health status


'Appendix C: Nutrient Chart - Function, Deficiency and ..'


Common Medications That Rob the Body of Nutrients


March 2, 2015 | Linda J. Dobberstein, Chiropractor, Board Certified in Clinical Nutrition
 
America is a nation of pill poppers. Mayo Clinic presented a study in 2013 that showed that nearly 7 out of 10 Americans take prescription drugs. More than half take two drugs. Senior citizens, 65 and older, take on average 14 or more prescription drugs per year. This creates a major concern with multiple prescriptions creating negative drug interactions.

Drugs can be life-saving in many circumstances. When they are required and managed well, they provide a purpose. Many times, however, drugs create insidious nutrient depletions, and rob the body of precious nutrients. The nutrient depletions induced by the drug often causes further loss of health. This is especially concerning for our senior citizens who take multiple medications. They are often handed a prescription to deal with the side effects of another prescription. Many times, the side effects are a result of the nutrients depleted from marginal nutritional health to begin with. Here are some things that you need to be aware.


Nutrient Depletions Caused by Top 10 Drugs in 2014
This is list of the top ten drugs in 2014 per number of prescriptions written.


1. Synthroid, 22.6 million
2. Crestor, 22.5 million
3. Nexium, 18.6 million
4. Ventolin HFA, 17.5 million
5. Advair Diskus, 15.0 million
6. Diovan, 11.4 million
7. Lantus Solostar, 10.1 million
8. Cymbalta, 10.0 million
9. Vyvanse, 10.0 million
10. Lyrica, 9.6 million

These top ten prescribed medications have the potential to create problematic nutritional challenges for the body. Here are the known nutrients stripped out and robbed from the body by these drugs.

1. Synthroid (Levothyroxine). This thyroid medication interferes with calcium causing it to be lost in the urine. Loss of calcium leads not only to osteoporosis, but also leads to muscle spasms, memory loss, hypertension, increased cancer risk, PMS, obesity, pregnancy complications, nerve impulses, hormone secretion negatively impacting insulin, increasing risk for diabetes and insulin resistance and poor beta cell function in the pancreas.

2. Crestor or statin drugs (HMG CoA Reductase Inhibitors). This type of cholesterol medication depletes coenzyme Q10 and interferes with vitamin K2 and selenium. Q10 is an essential antioxidant for energy production within the mitochondria. Heart, muscles, brain, cholesterol, cell membranes, blood vessels, blood pressure, pancreas, and nervous system function heavily rely on coenzyme Q10. Low vitamin D levels will make the muscle pain and adverse effects of statin drugs worse.

3. Nexium. This is the popular purple pill used to block stomach acid causing heart burn or GERD. Nexium, a proton pump inhibitor, is a monkey wrench in the digestive track because it blocks stomach acid production, which is vital to digestion of food. This change alters the whole process of digestion. Long-term use often creates dependency and further ingrains the malabsorption – nutrient depletion cycle. Proton pump inhibitors like Nexium are famous for depleting vitamin B12, folic acid, calcium, magnesium, but it also depletes iron, zinc, chromium, beta carotene and vitamin C. Anyone on long term use of Nexium is at risk. Other examples of common proton pump inhibitors include Prevacid, Omeprazole, and Protonix.

4. Ventolin HFA. This is also known as albuterol, a respiratory medication. Other common brand names include ProAir HFA, Proventil, Ventolin, and Proventil HFA. Albuterol is a short-acting, beta-adrenergic bronchodilator drug used for relief and prevention of bronchospasm or asthma. It is also used to prevent exercise-induced bronchospasm/asthma. This medication depletes calcium, magnesium, potassium and phosphate. These minerals are essential to maintaining open airways and functionality.

5. Advair. This respiratory drug is a combination of two active ingredients – salmeterol and fluticasone. Salmeterol is a type of long acting inhaler used for preventing exercise-induced bronchospasm or asthma. It is a beta agonist or long-acting, beta-adrenergic bronchodilator. Fluticasone is a type of corticosteroid used to treat inflammation of the lungs and bronchioles.

Salmeterol is a longer acting agent than albuterol/Ventolin HFA, but the nutrients depleted are the same. Salmeterol depletes calcium, magnesium, phosphate, and potassium.

Advair is often used as a back-up if albuterol is not enough. This becomes a double whammy to the body with essential minerals robbed out of the body. Do you see a pattern here? One is prescribed a drug to open the airway passages that simultaneously diminishes mineral stores that are essential for healthy contraction and relaxation of the airways. Then, because the underlying problem wasn’t corrected and further nutrients were depleted, a second medication is used to calm down the ongoing inflammation further stressing the body.

6. Diovan or Valsartan. This angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) is used to treat high blood pressure and heart failure. It depletes magnesium, potassium, and zinc. The same chasing tail scenario can appear here. The heart needs these essential minerals to manage heart contractions and energy production.

7. Lantus Solostar. This is a long-acting form of insulin. Lack of magnesium and calcium may cause poor response to insulin. The adrenal hormone DHEA that balances cortisol is depleted with insulin. Yet, another delicate hormonal balance tugged at with drug stress.

8. Cymbalta. Scientists have not discovered any drug-nutrient losses yet with this anti-depressant SNRI. Other types and classes of anti-depressant medications are known to deplete coenzyme Q10, Vitamin B2, B6, and melatonin.

9. Vyvanse (lisdexamfetamin demesylate) is a stimulant medication used to treat ADHD. Scientists have not discovered any drug-nutrient losses yet at this time.

10. Lyrica (pregabalin) is an anti-seizure medication that has a number of other uses. At this time, scientists have not identified any nutrients depleted by Lyrica.


Other popular medications
Here are some additional commonly used drugs that do have considerable impact and rob nutrients from the body. This is not an exhaustive list of medications, but provides a list of several medications that may commonly be found in a medicine cabinet. The longer the drugs are used the worse the risk and concern.

Pain Medications/Analgesics:


Acetaminophen/Tylenol: depletes glutathione. Glutathione is the master antioxidant for the whole body, but is especially important for liver function and detoxification. Acetaminophen is the most common drug-induced cause of liver damage in the US. Given the common use of Tylenol, coupled with at least 80,000 chemicals in the environment and rise of autoimmune disorders, it makes one wonder about the detoxification challenges, glutathione depletion, autoimmune issues since Tylenol has been on the market.

Aspirin is not immune to nutrient depletion. Aspirin depletes folic acid, iron, and vitamin C.

NSAIDs or Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (ibuprofen, ketoprofen, indomethacin, Naproxen, etc): deplete iron and folic acid in part due to the digestive irritation caused by the drug. While NSAIDs are certainly popular, their effect on the body can be serious. Steroid medications, oral or inhaled (Advair, etc), deplete calcium, vitamin D, chromium, folic acid, magnesium, strontium, DHEA, and zinc.

Antibiotics:
Antibotics in general deplete: vitamins B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B12, folate, biotin, and vitamin K. This is because of beneficial flora destruction in the intestinal tract from antibiotic usage. There are different classes or types of antibiotics which exhaust other nutrients. Here are three common classes of antibiotics.



  • Aminoglycosides (Gentamicin, Streptomycin, etc) deplete magnesium and potassium.

  • Fluoroquinolones (Cipro, Levaquin, Norfloxacin, etc) deplete calcium, iron, magnesium, and potassium.

  • Tetracycline drugs deplete calcium, iron, magnesium, zinc, and potassium.









Diabetic medications:
The long acting insulin medication was listed above, but how about non-insulin blood sugar medications such as Metformin. Metformin is a popular diabetic medication that robs the body of coenzyme Q10, folic acid, vitamin B1, B6, and B12. These are just some of the nutrients specifically needed to manage blood sugar function in the body. This again creates a vicious cycle of robbing and depletion of the body.

Anti-Gout/Rheumatic:
Methotrexate used for some autoimmune disorders and cancer treatments depletes folic acid. It also causes poor conversion of folic acid into the active form – folate. This makes the activated form of folate essential to consume in dark green leafy vegetables or in supplement form. Colchicine is another medication used for gout or rheumatic concerns. It robs the body of beta carotene and vitamin B12. Think about the elderly who are on meds that deplete B12 and folic acid. Without these nutrients, it is a fast road to poor cognition, low energy, and dementia.

Cardiac medications:
Cardiac medications provide a wealth of drugs robbing the body. Here are just some of them beside the Crestor/Statins listed above. Blood pressure meds such as hydralazine depletes vitamin B6. Catopril depletes zinc. Cardiac glycosides (digoxin) deplete magnesium. Cholesterol reducing meds like bile acid sequestrants (cholestestyramine, Questran, etc): deplete beta carotene, vitamin A, vitamin E, and vitamin K.

Water Pills/Diuretics
Loop diuretics (Lasix, etc) deplete calcium, magnesium, potassium, folic acid, vitamin B1, B6, and C. Thiazide and Thiazide derivatives deplete: magnesium, potassium, zinc, folic acid, vitamin B1. Often the physician will prescribe potassium along with these types of drugs, but what about the other nutrients stripped out of the body? Magnesium, potassium, and vitamin B1 naturally manage fluid activity in the body. Stripping these nutrients out even further and not replenishing them is another pathway to distress and poor health leading to more concerns with polypharmacy.

Common GI Meds:
GI medications are another category that silently strips the body of essential nutrients. The popular commercials certainly do not expose these harmful effects, and make them seem perfectly harmless to use long term. Acid blocking medications of different types, such as antacids, (magnesium salts or aluminum salts) deplete calcium, phosphorus, chromium, folic acid and iron. H-2 Blockers (Tagamet, Pepcid, Zantac, etc) deplete calcium, chromium, folic acid, vitamin B12, and zinc. Proton pump Inhibitors (Prevacid, Omeprazole, Protonix) deplete beta carotene, calcium, chromium, folic acid, iron, Vitamin B12 and C, and zinc.

At the other end of the digestive tract, we have laxatives and enemas often used by seniors as bowel motility and function breaks down. Laxatives such as Mineral Oil deplete beta carotene, calcium, vitamin A, D, E, and K, and phosphate salts. Stimulant Laxatives (Senokot, Correctol, Dulcolax, etc) deplete potassium, calcium, and vitamin D. This can be especially problematic for some with the colonoscopy preparation solutions and mineral loss. How many times do you see an elderly person on meds for constipation and diuretics only to see their health disappear before your very eyes?

Hormones:
Steroid hormones were discussed earlier with the top 10 prescription drugs, but we cannot forget about other hormone prescriptions especially estrogen containing drugs. Estrogens (Estrace, FemPatch, Premarin, Prempro, etc) and Birth Control Pills that contain estrogen deplete folic acid, magnesium, vitamin B1, B2, B6, B12, vitamin A, C, and zinc. This class of meds is notorious for serious nutrient depletions that wreak havoc with young women and cause significant risk for blood clots and stroke. This is especially true with smokers, overweight, migraine sufferers, those with PCOS, hypertension, and blood sugar problems.

Central Nervous System Drugs:
The three drugs listed in the top ten did not have known drug-nutrient depletions. There are, however, plenty of medications used for brain and mental health that do have known nutrient depletions. Rarely are these discussed when handed a prescription drug. Tricyclic Antidepressants (amytriptyline, Pamelor, etc) deplete coenzyme Q10 and vitamin B2.

SSRIs (Prozac, Zoloft, etc) deplete iodine, and MAOs deplete vitamin B6. Each nutrient is essential for energy production and mood stability, the very thing that the drugs are prescribed for. With the sky-rocketing rates of depression and mood disorders, how about replenishing some nutrients first or at least work on replenishing what the med stripped out.

Anti-seizure meds have several concerns and provide immense concerns for those with mitochondrial disorders or methylation defects that contribute to or cause the seizure disorders. Carbamazepine (Tegretol, etc) depletes biotin, acetyl-l carnitine, folic acid, calcium, vitamin D, E, and K. Phenytoin (Dilantin, etc.) reduces biotin, folic acid, acetyl l carnitine, vitamin B1, B12, D, E, K, calcium, and zinc. Valproic Acid (Depakote, etc) depletes folic acid, acetyl-l-carnitine, vitamin B3, and zinc. Lastly, anxiety meds (Xanax, Valium, etc) diminishes melatonin. Certainly going off something like Xanax with melatonin levels exhausted will lead to further sleepless nights, poor restorative sleep and more challenged brain health.

Weight Loss Drugs:
Xenical depletes beta carotene, vitamins A, D, E, and K.

The point of the article and known research is that it is fundamental to replenish what the drugs steal from the body. The majority of these nutrients are vital for maintaining energy, cognitive skills, memory, bone health, immune integrity, antioxidant status and simply vitality. Certainly there is a time and a place for properly prescribed medications, but how many patients go thru the medical revolving door only to be prescribed another script for side effects caused by drugs that rob the body of essential nutrients.

Taking a quality multiple vitamin, multiple mineral, vitamin D, and coenzyme Q10 can go a long ways to stop this slippery dangerous slide that too many are on. If you have to be on a medication, work with your medical provider to take the drug in the smallest dose possible for the least amount of time. Replenish the lost nutrients as best as you can, otherwise this can lead to "new problems" and a downturn in health. Get rid of the other nutrient robbers in your life, i.e. white flour, white sugar, processed foods, alcohol, etc. and restore nutrients with a diet filled with colorful, well-balanced foods. Don’t let your health be robbed even further. Life has enough challenges as it is.

________________________________________


SMART APPS for patient compliance is MOVING FORWARD to 99% of citizens being tied to telemedicine with nanobots and microchips as COMPLIANCE OFFICERS. As these same global corporate medical institutions sell the idea of GREEN REVOLUTION creating 'healthy' options -----as these same global health systems are behind the soaring amount of PHARMA we are taking even as PHARMA is now a deregulated, profiteering PRODUCT MILL often having no efficicacy----are not ready for prime time----and are often harmful-----

We are seeing these same global health institutions---far-right wing global banking 1% pushing PATIENT COMPLIANCE.

Here we have PA-----home of global banking 1% ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE---MOVING FORWARD patient compliance while tied to GLOBAL PHARMA----GLOBAL BIG AG AND BIG MEAT----

The American people were ranked #1 of all developed nations in public health access and outcomes---we were the healthiest of all developed nations UNTIL CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA----and that far-right wing global banking 1% GREEN CORPORATION REVOLUTION.


where will those 5% to the 1% black, white, and brown citizens be when global banking 1% no longer needs to buy them with PATRONAGE AS BAD PATENTS.


When we say those dastardly 5% to the 1% player peeps are going under the bus----global banking PATRONAGE to those 5% these few decades has been stock options, real estate, and promotion of bad PATENT PRODUCTS.  RAHAL and SMITH are two of those 5% players getting $600 million from US Federally subsidized BIOTECH research as well as GREEN SUBSIDIES-----and have national media free advertising these products as 'healthy'.

MOVING FORWARD GREEKS AND FREEMASONS AND THAT 5% WILL NOT BE NEEDED ---NO PATRONAGE FOR YOU----GLOBAL 1%----NO SMILING FACES FOR THOSE 5% BLACK, WHITE, AND BROWN PLAYERS.


Why Big Food is paying fat cash for small brands like RXBar and Boomchickapop
RXBAR co-founders, Peter Rahal, CEO, left, and Jared Smith, chief risk officer are photographerd after it was announced the company, which makes protein bars, was purchased by Kellogg for $600 million. (Chris Walker / Chicago Tribune)


Five ways technology can increase patient compliance

January 29, 2016
By Karen Appold



The key to helping patients adhere to treatment plans is to make it easy for them to do so, which is why Geisinger Health System in Danville, Pennsylvania, is exploring how the tools patients use in everyday life, such as smartphones, tablets, and wearable devices, can lend a hand in increasing patient engagement. “Our goal is to integrate patients' needs related to healthcare into their normal routines, including their daily use of digital technology,” says Jonathan Slotkin, MD, FAANS, medical director, Geisinger in Motion, a Geisinger Health System program that promotes the effective use of technology to initiate patient and provider activation across a distributed healthcare delivery network.


Patients regularly use technology to help manage many aspects of their lives, says Slotkin. “If we can add healthcare to the list of other items they use technology for, we have a better chance of engaging them and increasing care adherence.”
Here’s a closer look at how technological devices can increase patient compliance.


Smartphone apps


OscarMany people increasingly use smartphone apps to manage their daily activities, interact with the outside world, and get news, information, and alerts, says Robert Oscar, RPh, chief executive officer, RxEOB, Richmond, Virginia. In fact, a late 2015 article published in the Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology reported that more than 20,000 mobile apps tied to healthcare, fitness, and medicine exist today. Smartphone apps provide a way for patients to consolidate pertinent health information and to manage their health. Because many patients carry their smartphones with them, they can easily access the information.


Linda Girgis, MD, FAAFP, Girgis Family Medicine, South River, New Jersey, sees many patients use this technology. “Apps can emit a sound when it’s time to take a medication, reminding patients when to do so,” she says. “Oftentimes, patients may not remember if they took a dose or not, but smartphone app alerts eliminate this uncertainty. Patients can also use alerts from apps to remind them of doctors’ appointments or when they need to schedule them.”


GirgisIn addition, Girgis says apps can help patients keep track of information. For example, they may say they had bloodwork done a few weeks ago, when in fact it was several months ago. An app that tracks this information might prevent this error. “Relying on memory alone is fraught with errors,” Girgis says.


Fitness apps monitor heart rate, count steps, and track movement and calories burned, encouraging wearers to keep moving. Specialized apps address factors related to conditions such as diabetes and oncology, as well as women’s health. “Apps provide an immense number of opportunities, and are an important part of making medical care mobile and improving wellness and patient engagement,” says Cynthia Ambres, MD, MS, a KPMG strategy partner based in Los Angeles and a member of the firm’s Global Healthcare Center of Excellence.
__________________________________________


MOVING FORWARD in US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES has a goal of installing far-right wing, authoritarian, militaristic, extreme wealth extreme poverty LIBERTARIAN MARXISM-----these AFFORDABLE CARE ACT reforms pretend to create WINNERS AND LOSERS in our once strongly paid staff, doctors, administrators-----we are seeing today DOCTORS heading corporate R and D departments are being called EXECUTIVES and indeed they are receiving a high salary for now. If we look at US hospitals and clinics filling with global labor pool 99% staff and doctors----they are being paid far less with the goal being this GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUS SOCIALISM------$67 a month. Our foreign doctors being brought to US cities trained to do whatever that health institution says------will be those doctors at $67 a month while US citizens black, white, and brown citizens trained as doctors will be sent to be EX-PATS in third world nations receiving these same $67 a month.
If we look at PIPELINE TO PRISON reforms ----REHABILITATION CAMPS we identified as same as China used for free labor -----this is health care as are the doctors tied to these structures. Our US low-income and working class have had the most exposure to the dangers of FAR-RIGHT GREEN REVOLUTION creating GATEWAY MEDICINE. As 99% of WE THE PEOPLE fall into third world poverty we too will be MANDATED to SMART MEDICINE with products called HEALTHY by medical staff and doctors earning $67 a month.

OH, US CITIZENS will be those medical department executive doctors receiving top salaries-----well, NO it will be GLOBAL 1% brought into US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES getting those top salaries.


PLEASE DON'T THINK THIS WILL HAPPEN ONLY TO OUR NEW IMMIGRANT MEDICAL STAFF AND DOCTORS----WE WANT ALL US MEDICAL STAFF AND DOCTORS PAID A US WAGE WORKING UNDER QUALITY CONDITIONS PROVIDING STRONG PUBLIC HEALTH DOING NO HARM HIPPOCRATIC OATH HEALTH CARE.

Does bringing $67 a month foreign doctors to US lower health care costs? Of course not---it makes global health corporation profits soar. Remember, as we stated with our global human capital distribution system built by CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ----third world nations export their labor to FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES at enslaving wages in exchange for GOVERNMENT KICKBACKS. Same will happen to US health staff and doctors as EX-PATS.


Cuban Doctors Get Salary Raises To $67 A Month After Government Cuts 100K Redundant Jobs


Mar 24, 2014 04:34 PM By Matthew Mientka



The Cuban government has given its medical workers a pay raise after cutting 100,000 redundant jobs during the past four years. CC By 2.0
With remittances from sending tens of thousands of doctors and nurses abroad to care for the poor, Cuba is doubling some medical salaries to as much as $67 per month.



Though a true comparison between U.S. and Cuban salaries is complicated by stark differences between the two systems, specialists in America tend to earn 35 percent more than the average of counterparts around the world, according to a survey from Forbes. Whereas the “average” U.S. general practitioner spends some 54 hours per week for an annual salary of $185,000, medicine is a different animal on the scorned island-nation led by the Marxist-Leninist Raul Castro. Supplemented by a social welfare state, the average government worker makes just $20 per month by comparison.


Cuba’s official state media announced this week hundreds of thousands of medical workers would receive pay raises that in some cases doubled their annual salaries. Top-performing doctors with not one but two specialties may now earn as much as $804 per year, Granma reported, whereas entry-level nurses will now make $25 per month.


Sounding more like a capitalist country, Granma reported the government decided to raise pay for medical workers after eliminating more than 100,000 redundant positions during the past several years.


"This is very good news that makes me tremendously happy. ...With my first paycheck I'm going to buy a toy for my youngest grandson, who's 3," Soraida Pina, a 62-year-old nurse, told CNBC. "This will open new doors for me."


Yet other medical professionals said they were less thrilled by the pay raises. "They had talked to us about this, and it's very important for the family economy, but it continues to be a salary that means very little because everything is very expensive," Laura Vazquez, a 38-year-old pathologist, said.


Granma also said the nation would raise pay for medical personnel sent abroad to countries such as Brazil and Venezuela. The larger salaries "will contribute to the stability and quality of the medical services for the people, as well as fulfill international commitments," Granma reported. Today, Cuba exports medical care like the U.S. exports its military. With some 11 million people, the island nation has deployed more than 50,000 medical workers in 66 nations around the world.
_________________________________________________

Here we have more of those dastardly 5% to the 1% freemason Greeks telling us that after these few decades of CLINTON neo-liberals being the pols installing policies and creating conditions inside US cities for PRISON PIPELINE---now, these same global banking 1% pols are FIXING that prison pipeline. These two Greeks whether male, female---black, white, and brown citizens have been those 5% GREEKS to which we refer.

We will end by stating the obvious-----a nation is only as great as its poorest citizens are treated. These smiling faces are installing what will be that REHABILITATION health care being FAR-RIGHT WING CORPORATE with MOVING FORWARD health policy creating and expanding further tiered health policy that is repressive, regressive, abusive, and harmful to health.

If 99% of WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizens keep allowing these far-right health policies filled with deregulated chemical manufacturing, IPAB global health tribunal health policy, fast-tracked so American citizens used to freedom,liberty, justice, and pursuit of happiness have a chance to fight ----our US 99% will be pushed into what is being built for our low-income citizens.

INJUSTICE FOR ONE DOES BECOME INJUSTICE FOR ALL--NO MATTER IF ONE IS THE CONSUMER OR WORKER!


Texas was ground zero for privatized prison policy -----we KNOW these judges are as corrupted as our Baltimore City courts working for global Wall Street Baltimore Development ---not for 99% freedom and justice for all.



Alpha Kappa Alpha and Delta Sigma Theta Criminal Judges Team Up to Create Program to Fight the Prison Pipeline


The pipeline to prison is a problem that disproportionately affects the African-American community and four Black women who are judges and members of Alpha Kappa Alpha and Delta Sigma Theta have teamed up to create a program in Dallas to combat it.


The program they have created is called Pipeline to Possibilities and it focuses on changing the pipeline to prison in the local school system around Dallas. Through the program, youth are educated on various aspects of the justice system and taught life skills, redirecting them from engaging in criminal behavior.


The program was created by four elected judges who are members of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. and Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc.


Judge Shequitta Kelly


Judge Shequitta Kelly presides over Dallas County’s Misdemeanor Family Violence Criminal Court #11. She was initiated into Delta Sigma Theta in the fall of 1998 through the Gamma Nu chapter on the campus of Indiana University.  She is #8 of the 18 R.E.N.O.W.N.E.D. line. www.shequittakelly.com


Judge Amber Givens-Davis


Judge Amber Givens-Davis presides over Dallas County’s 282nd Judicial District Felony Criminal Court. She was initiated into Alpha Kappa Alpha in the spring of 2003 through the Omicron Theta Omega chapter in St. Louis, Missouri. She is #5 of the S.S. Cloud 9 line.


www.ambergivensdavis.com
Judge Stephanie Mitchell


Judge Stephanie Mitchell presides over Dallas County’s  291st Judicial District Felony Criminal Court.  She was initiated into Alpha Kappa Alpha in the spring of 1999 through the Delta chapter on the campus of University of Kansas. She is #12 of the S.S. Spectrum. line.
www.judgestephaniemitchell.com
Judge Lisa Green


Judge Lisa Green presides over Dallas County’s Misdemeanor Criminal Court #5.  She was initiated into Alpha Kappa Alpha in the spring of 1994 through the Delta Rho City Wide chapter on the campus of St. Marys. She is #4 of the Entertainer line. www.judgelisagreen.com


The program they created consists of 4 class sessions covering the following topics:



– Introduction to the Criminal Justice System
-Presentation and Appearance 


(Students are taught how to tie ties, apply makeup and present themselves respectably both in person and through their social media presence.)

-Changing Mindsets

(Where they address different obstacles the students are dealing with and offer solutions to approach their challenges.  Students also get to hear from people who found themselves in the criminal justice system because of the decisions they made while they were young and help the participants understand how important it is to make good choices.)


-College Explosion & Bridging Law Enforcement and Neighborhoods In Dallas


(Students get to learn about different careers, colleges and entrepreneurships. This sessions kicks off with a greek step show. Students also get an opportunity discuss with law enforcement their concerns.  Topics include the rise in police shootings of unarmed men across the country and concerns law enforcement officers).


We at Watch The Yard want to show these women as much love as we can for what they are doing. It not only is amazing to see four Black women who are judges teaming up to save the community, but it is also great to see them using their existing greek networks to amplify their positive and impactful work.

0 Comments

February 23rd, 2018

2/23/2018

0 Comments

 
We will end this week's discussion on health public policy focused on IPAB, FAST-TRACKING MEDICAL PRODUCTS, AND HEALTH INSURANCE MANDATE------by looking at how all these policies play into the MANDATE policy.

We showed how Maryland is already reaching beyond affordability for what are working class and middle-class who are the one's pushed to buy BRONZE.  Our poor and working class are the one's pushed onto MEDICAID.  Many on SILVER are there because of SUBSIDY ----that is how poor over 90% of Americans are becoming---soon to be 99% of Americans black, white, and brown citizens.  BRONZE is high-deductible meaning people are paying the premium and then not affording the health care access.

HARVARD'S U MASS WAS EARLIEST TO INSTALL ROMNEYCARE AS JOHNS HOPKINS IN MD===FAR-RIGHT WING HEALTH POLICY.

What data has shown throughout MA ROMNEYCARE was------more people with health insurance but unable to access actual health care.  Health corporations get that premiums----NO HEALTH CARE FOR YOU.  That data of course is now expanding across US as OBAMACARE IS ROMNEYCARE.


The health insurance mandate was NEVER about creating a pool of money to help fund health care for the poor----that pool of money comes from our FEDERAL tax revenue by the BUCKETFUL.

So, why are global banking 1% looking for other revenue streams for buckets of money from which to pocket?  Because Federal MEDICARE AND MEDICAID is ending ----NO BUCKETFUL OF MONEY THERE----so they install HEALTH INSURANCE MANDATE for 99% of citizens to pay premiums all their lives not needing nearly the access paid.

Keep in mind-----REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES have shouted this since the 1990s as data was available then -----here are those FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT 5% MEDIA telling us in 2012 ----as OBAMACARE was being installed ---what we already knew.


But we KNOW FORBES----KRUGMAN are not telling 99% WE THE PEOPLE this now for good motives----this article is of course spreading more lying, cheating, to abet stealing.



Oct 15, 2012 @ 03:06 AM 29,340 2 Free Issues of Forbes

Why Health Insurance is Not the Same Thing as Health Care


Avik Roy , Political commentary from Forbes’ Opinion Editor

 

Obama health-care adviser Zeke Emanuel outside his office in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in 2009. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


For most people in the health policy community, the word “coverage” carries a certain emotional power. People without health insurance coverage, we believe, are one bad break away from disability and destitution. Hence, many politicians, researchers, and activists believe that expanding coverage is more important than any other policy goal. But not all health insurance is created equal. Indeed, there are tens of millions of Americans who believe they have “health insurance” who can’t get actual health care when they truly need it. If Obamacare remains the law of the land, this problem will get worse, not better.


(DISCLOSURE: I am an outside adviser to the Romney campaign on health care issues. The opinions contained herein are mine alone, and do not necessarily correspond to those of the campaign.)


Earlier this month, in an interview with the Columbus Dispatch, Mitt Romney pointed out that, in America, anyone who has a heart attack has access to hospital care. “We don’t have a setting across this country where if you don’t have insurance, we just say to you, ‘Tough luck, you’re going to die when you have your heart attack,’” he said. “No, you go to the hospital, you get treated, you get care, and it’s paid for, either by charity, the government, or by the hospital. We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance.”




Paul Krugman: Mitt Romney is ‘blind’


Paul Krugman, upon reading these factually accurate remarks, went ape-dung. “These are remarkable statements,” wrote Krugman on Sunday in the New York Times. “Going to the emergency room when you’re very sick is no substitute for regular care, especially if you have chronic health problems. When such problems are left untreated—as they often are among uninsured Americans—a trip to the emergency room can all too easily come too late to save a life. So the reality, to which Mr. Romney is somehow blind, is that many people in America really do die every year because they don’t have health insurance.”


I don’t know if I’ve ever read a Krugman column in which Krugman didn’t paint those who disagree with him as morons or liars. But Krugman has a point—one that Mitt Romney agrees with, by the way—that emergency care is no substitute for regular care. Krugman, though, takes this kernel of truth and attempts to make a gallon of Obamacare popcorn out of it.


Krugman’s logic, and that of many Obamacare supporters, goes like this: (1) It’s not enough to offer all Americans free emergency room care, because access to early diagnosis and treatment is important to good health; (2) The uninsured don’t have access to such care, whereas the insured do; (3) Obamacare, by reducing the number of people without insurance by 30 million, gives 30 million more Americans access to such care; and (4) Mitt Romney, by pledging to repeal Obamacare, seeks to deny such health care to tens of millions of Americans.


Not all health insurance helps people live longer


There is, however, a key flaw in Krugman’s logic. It is this. Just because you have a piece of paper that says you have “health insurance” doesn’t mean that you can see a doctor when you need to.


There are three major forms of health insurance in America: Medicare, our government-sponsored program for the elderly; Medicaid, our government-sponsored program for the poor; and private insurance for most everyone else. As I have described extensively on this blog, it’s much harder to get a doctor’s appointment if you’re on Medicaid than if you have private insurance, because Medicaid pays doctors so little that doctors can’t afford to see Medicaid patients. This, in turn, leads patients on Medicaid that are at best no different than being uninsured, and in many cases even worse.


Krugman contemptuously dismisses such talk. “Conservatives love to cite the handful of studies that fail to find clear evidence that insurance saves lives,” he writes. (Here’s the most rigorous of them.) “The overwhelming evidence, however, is that insurance is indeed a lifesaver, and lack of insurance a killer. For example, states that expand their Medicaid coverage, and hence provide health insurance to more people, consistently show a significant drop in mortality compared with neighboring states that don’t expand coverage.”


In fact, Krugman is wrong. The overwhelming evidence goes in the other direction. That evidence shows that people with private, commercial health insurance have substantially better outcomes than those without insurance; but that Medicaid makes little to no difference.


Understanding this data really matters, because of the 30 million people that Obamacare expands coverage to, about half get that coverage through a cavalier and reckless expansion of Medicaid.


Medicaid has little impact on preventive care


Let’s review the evidence. In a paper I wrote in March for the Manhattan Institute, I went through research studying nearly a million patients, showing that patients on Medicaid had worse outcomes than those with no insurance at all.


The study Krugman cites in his column, regarding supposedly improved mortality in three states that expanded Medicaid, was statistically flawed. Only one state—New York—showed a significant improvement against its (biased) comparator. In another state, Maine, mortality under the Medicaid expansion got worse.


Another study that Obamacare’s supporters like to cite comes from Oregon. But the Oregon study, so far, has only described patients’ subjective view of their own health, rather than looking at objective clinical outcomes such as death and longevity.


Let’s look at the specific question Paul Krugman raised. Are patients on Medicaid diagnosed and treated earlier than they would have been if they were uninsured? There is no evidence of that to date.


Indeed, the evidence goes in the opposite direction. To take one of many examples, a group of researchers at the American Cancer Society looked at 533,715 women with breast cancer, and asked: When those women were first diagnosed with breast cancer, were they diagnosed with early-stage or late-stage disease? And how did that correlate to their insurance status?


That correlation matters, because if you already have late-stage cancer when the doctors first discover it, it's much harder for you to receive curative treatment. Quite literally, the difference between being diagnosed with Stage I and Stage IV breast cancer is the difference between life and death.


Sadly, what the ACS researchers found was quite typical for the literature. Women without insurance were 2.4 times as likely to have late-stage breast cancer upon diagnosis than women with private insurance. But those on Medicaid performed even worse on this metric than did the uninsured; Medicaid patients were 2.5 times as likely to obtain a late-stage diagnosis as those on private insurance. And the authors adjusted their results for race, age, income, education, and geography, among other factors.


The study, like all studies, has its quirks and limitations. But it's typical of the mountains of published data describing Medicaid's poor access and poor outcomes. “Our results are in agreement with and extend those from previous, smaller studies," write the authors in their paper. "The uninsured and Medicaid populations…are less likely to receive timely follow-up and are more likely to experience greater delays in diagnosis and treatment.”


Obama adviser: Medicaid has little impact on survival


Sarah Kliff of the Washington Post, reacting to the same Romney interview as Paul Krugman, wrote a piece entitled “Yes, insurance status does matter for your health.” She spoke to Obama adviser Ezekiel Emanuel, of the University of Pennsylvania, who confirmed to her that health insurance does matter. “In almost every way we’ve looked at it,” said Emanuel, “if you’re uninsured you get worse or more delayed care. In the case of cancer, this is something that can be a matter of life and death.”

To illustrate his point, he sent Sarah a chart, comparing cancer survival times for patients with private insurance, Medicaid, and no insurance at all:


But Sarah neglected to comment about the most notable aspect of this chart. While patients with private insurance lived significantly longer than those with no insurance, patients with Medicaid didn’t. If Medicaid were a drug, the FDA would reject it without a second thought.


Expanding coverage has to be done the right way


This, then, is the fundamental problem with Obamacare. It expands coverage, in large part, by pouring trillions of dollars into the Medicaid program, without making any meaningful improvements to the way that program is structured. And Scott Gottlieb and Tom Miller, of the American Enterprise Institute, fear that Obamacare’s private insurance exchanges will also suffer from poor quality and poor access, just like Medicaid.


The proper goal, then, is not merely to expand coverage out of some obsession with an arbitrary statistic, but rather to do what we can to make it easier for Americans to buy high-quality, private insurance.

The way to do that is to make private insurance cheaper, by liberating the government restrictions that make it difficult for individuals to purchase insurance for themselves, instead of from their employers.

OH, REALLY?????? AND WHICH INDUSTRY WHEN DEREGULATED BECAME CHEAPER?



Depending upon how Romney’s plan were to be structured, it could offer universal coverage to all Americans, or achieve more modest expansions of coverage in exchange for reducing the deficit. Either way, the Romney plan focuses on giving more Americans access to high-quality private insurance.


Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that Mitt Romney’s plan expanded insurance coverage to 10 million people, in comparison to Obamacare’s 30 million, by making health insurance cheaper. According to the people like Paul Krugman who insist that all coverage is the same, Obamacare is the better option.


But the 10 million people who might get private insurance under a Romney administration would enjoy the same access to high-quality care that employers provide to their employees. That private insurance would have a real impact on the quality of their health and the length of their lives. Under Obamacare, few will be able to say the same thing.

_____________________________________________
The article above wants to make two points---both of which are not true.  First, far-right wing global banking 1% media like FORBES want to pretend the poor are better off if they receive PRIVATE INSURANCE rather than FEDERAL MEDICAID OR MEDICARE.  This of course refers to PRIVATIZED MEDICARE-----MEDICARE ADVANTAGE AND MEDIGAP all policy written to more heavily subsidize these private health policies these few decades killing the public Federal MEDICARE/MEDICAID funding making it cover less.  FORBES says----a global corporate welfare queen is better than 99% of citizens simply having their taxes come back to their communities as local public health care access.


'But not all health insurance is created equal. Indeed, there are tens of millions of Americans who believe they have “health insurance” who can’t get actual health care when they truly need it'.

Obama's AFFORDABLE CARE ACT was designed to be ROMNEYCARE but far worse for 99% of US citizens and our 99% new immigrants.  We all knew the front-loaded expanded MEDICAID would disappear---and we knew INSURED WOULD NOT MEAN ACCESS TO CARE.  We knew this in 1990s---here is NYTIMES telling us in 2015.



ROMNEYCARE and JOHNS HOPKINS are far-right wing global banking so allowing them to write health care policy means ending US public health.

Insured, but Not Covered

By ELISABETH ROSENTHALFEB. 7, 2015

WHEN Karen Pineman of Manhattan received notice that her longtime health insurance policy didn’t comply with the Affordable Care Act’s requirements, she gamely set about shopping for a new policy through the public marketplace. After all, she’d supported President Obama and the act as a matter of principle.


Ms. Pineman, who is self-employed, accepted that she’d have to pay higher premiums for a plan with a narrower provider network and no out-of-network coverage. She accepted that she’d have to pay out of pocket to see her primary care physician, who didn’t participate. She even accepted having co-pays of nearly $1,800 to have a cast put on her ankle in an emergency room after she broke it while playing tennis.


But her frustration bubbled over when she tried to arrange a follow-up visit with an orthopedist in her Empire Blue Cross/Blue Shield network: The nearest doctor available who treated ankle problems was in Stamford, Conn. When she called to protest, her insurer said that Stamford was 14 miles from her home and 15 was considered a reasonable travel distance. “It was ridiculous — didn’t they notice it was in another state?” said Ms. Pineman, 46, who was on crutches.


She instead paid $350 to see a nearby orthopedist and bought a boot on Amazon as he suggested. She has since forked over hundreds of dollars more for a physical therapist that insurance didn’t cover, even though that provider was in-network.

The Affordable Care Act has ushered in an era of complex new health insurance products featuring legions of out-of-pocket coinsurance fees, high deductibles and narrow provider networks. Though commercial insurers had already begun to shift toward such policies, the health care law gave them added legitimacy and has vastly accelerated the trend, experts say.



The theory behind the policies is that patients should bear more financial risk so they will be more conscious and cautious about health care spending. But some experts say the new policies have also left many Americans scrambling to track expenses from a multitude of sources — such as separate deductibles for network and non-network care, or payments for drugs on an insurer’s ever-changing list of drugs that require high co-pays or are not covered at all.


For some, like Ms. Pineman, narrow networks can necessitate footing bills privately. For others, the constant changes in policy guidelines — annual shifts in what’s covered and what’s not, monthly shifts in which doctors are in and out of network — can produce surprise bills for services they assumed would be covered. For still others, the new fees are so confusing and unsupportable that they just avoid seeing doctors.


It is true that the Affordable Care Act has erased some of the more egregious practices of the American health insurance system that left patients bankrupt or losing homes to pay bills. Insurers can no longer deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, for example. And the new policies cap out-of-pocket spending so long as the patient receives care within the plan. Most important, the act has offered health insurance to an estimated 10 million Americans who did not have any, often by expanding Medicaid or providing subsidies.


But by endorsing and expanding the complex new policies promoted by the health care industry, the law may in some ways be undermining its signature promise: health care that is accessible and affordable for all.


“I’m always curious when I read this ‘good news’ that health costs are moderating, because my health care costs go up significantly each year, and I think that’s a common experience,” said Mark Rukavina, president of Community Health Advisors in Massachusetts.


While much of the focus in the past has been on keeping premiums manageable, “premiums now tell only a part of the story,” Mr. Rukavina said, adding: “A big part of the way they’ve kept premiums down is to shift costs to patients in the form of co-pays and deductibles and other types of out-of-pocket expenses. And that can leave patients very vulnerable.”


Such policies desperately need improvement, patients and professionals like Mr. Rukavina say. But with the Republicans attacking the Affordable Care Act at all turns, even political supporters seem reluctant to acknowledge that it has some flaws. The narrative has been cast in black or white: It’s working, or it’s a failure. The reality, of course, is gray.


AT this point, we don’t have a good definition of “affordable” — or how to measure it fully and fairly. Many studies show that national health costs, while still rising, are not growing as fast as they once were. But what does that mean for individual patients? So far the research has yielded mixed results.


A study by the Commonwealth Fund this month found that the rise in health insurance premiums in employer-based plans had slowed in 31 states since the passage of the Affordable Care Act (good news, right?). But premiums were still rising faster than median incomes (hmm). More important, perhaps, the researchers found that patients were paying more in health care expenses than ever before, during a time of stagnant wages (not so great). In fact, nearly 10 percent of median household income now goes to pay premiums and deductibles, the study found. And that does not include other kinds of health payments that patients now encounter, such as co-pays and uncovered drugs or services.



A recent New York Times/CBS poll found that 46 percent of Americans said they had trouble affording health care, up 10 percentage points in just one year. Some of the cost problems may ease as patients — now known as health care consumers — learn what to expect and how to choose and navigate their plans.


But other problems may be related to the process by which the plans are created. Under the Affordable Care Act each state was asked to select a benchmark plan as its standard. It had to cover certain “essential health benefits” like maternity care and prescription drugs; it had to have a defined actuarial value depending on the level of plan. Silver plans, for example, had to cover 70 percent of charges, leaving consumers with 30 percent. But within those parameters, competing insurers had leeway to set premiums, co-payments and deductibles, and to create networks by negotiating with doctors and hospitals. Naturally, they created policies that met the core criteria while minimizing their financial risk.


Suddenly there were hundreds of new insurance products that had never been tested in real time. Their shortcomings are now playing out in various ways.

Alison Chavez, 36, who is self-employed, signed up for a marketplace plan in October 2013 that she hoped would be an improvement on her previous plan. She had recently been given a diagnosis of breast cancer and was just beginning therapy, so she was careful to choose a policy on the Covered California marketplace that included her physicians.


But in March, while in the middle of treatment, she was notified that several of her doctors and the hospital were leaving the plan’s network. She was forced to postpone a surgery as she scrambled to buy a new commercial policy that included her doctors. “I’ve been through hell and back, but I came out alive and kicking (just broke),” she wrote in an email.


Dr. Alexis Gersten, a dentist in East Quogue, N.Y., switched her family and 11 employees to a new Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan for 2014, after a previous small-business group plan was canceled. She bought the plan through a broker, and says she was unaware that it was an Affordable Care Act plan. When her son needed an ear, nose and throat specialist, the nearest was in Albany, five hours away. Though her cardiologist was on the network list, he said he did not take the plan. She ended up driving an hour to see a new one. A dispute with the insurer about how to count deductibles left her with a $457 pediatrician’s bill. This year she has chosen a new policy.


“People may have a checklist when they buy insurance: First, premiums, then the deductible — and those are pretty easy to understand because they’re set dollar amounts,” said Lynn Quincy, associate director of health reform policy at Consumers Union. But new policies demand different and more difficult kinds of calculations, she said: “The terms are unfamiliar, and figuring out networks is especially murky.”


Compounding the problem is the lack of basic information to shop effectively. When Andrea Greenberg, a New York lawyer, called the help line of Health Republic to clarify the difference between two plans, she found herself speaking to someone reading off a script in the Philippines. “I was really outraged,” she said. “This is an important decision with potentially dire consequences. It’s not like you’re choosing a sweater.”


Likewise, it took many phone calls for Aviva Starkman Williams, a California computer engineer with insurance through her employer, to determine whether the pediatrician doing her son’s 2-year-old checkup was in-network for 2015. Only three of the pediatricians in her doctor’s six-person group were listed in her plan’s online directory, and since her deductible had tripled from the previous year’s, she wanted to limit her out-of-pocket payments.


The practice’s office manager couldn’t tell her for sure. The insurer’s representative said he didn’t know because doctors came in and out of network all the time, likening the situation to players’ switching teams in the National Basketball Association. “If you don’t have updated information, who does?” she asked. “Isn’t it your job to know?”


Ms. Quincy said regulators needed to do a much better job setting requirements and policing plan practices and offerings, particularly provider networks. Few states have clear standards and many rely on consumer complaints to ferret out problems.


Last month, the California insurance commissioner, Dave Jones, announced new emergency regulations concerning networks, noting: “Health insurers’ medical provider directories have been inaccurate, misleading consumers into signing up with a health insurer for access to a doctor, specialist or hospital, only to learn that these medical providers are not actually a part of the health insurer’s network.”


But for now, patients are most often left to fend for themselves. When Amy Moses, a tech entrepreneur in New York City, went online to select a plan, she paid a relatively pricey $650 per month for a United Healthcare plan to make sure her network included a longtime physician. One month into the year, the doctor’s practice was bought by a hospital, which then dropped the plan, so her doctor did as well. (A year later the doctor was still listed in the network directory.)


She discovered the change only when she contacted the physician for a referral for an urgent outpatient procedure costing thousands of dollars that had been recommended by an in-network surgeon. (Both the referring doctor and the surgeon had to be in-network for coverage.) “I literally had three days to find a new in-network internist and score an appointment to get a referral, or cancel my procedure,” she said. “I was stuck in insurance purgatory.”

_________________________________________
COMMONWEALTH FUND is a global WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION NGO---we would not go there for real data-----but NYTIMES now does.

Employer-based plans have somewhat lower rates because we no longer have UNIFORMITY is who, what, when, why, and how health prices and costs are applied------global corporate campuses get discounted prices -----Federal public health programs get soaked with profiteering.  Second, employer-based plans are driven by corporations owning their own health corporations pushing their employees to WELLNESS PREVENTATIVE CARE----ONLY.
  These employees are still paying high-premium rates for their corporate-owned health care policies----still paying all those high-deductions, fees----while that global corporate campus is getting kickbacks from global health systems.



'A study by the Commonwealth Fund this month found that the rise in health insurance premiums in employer-based plans had slowed in 31 states since the passage of the Affordable Care Act (good news, right?). But premiums were still rising faster than median incomes (hmm)'.

There will be no amount of INFORMED CONSUMERISM to keep families having lower health costs----that is NOT THE GOAL.  As US health institutions consolidate into global health system monopolies there will be no choice.   But national media and Obama and Clinton neo-liberals said this was all about giving US citizens more CHOICE-----but---they are far-right wing global banking 1% and they LIE, CHEAT, STEAL.


'Though her cardiologist was on the network list, he said he did not take the plan. She ended up driving an hour to see a new one. A dispute with the insurer about how to count deductibles left her with a $457 pediatrician’s bill. This year she has chosen a new policy'.

ALL OF THE FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT POPULIST HEALTH CARE 5% PLAYERS KNEW ALL THIS----AS MARYLAND HEALTH CARE FOR ALL----MARYLAND HEALTH INITIATIVE---BOTH GLOBAL HEDGE FUND IVY LEAGUE JOHNS HOPKINS' NGOS.


Here is CLARENCE PAGE----HOME OF OBAMA---Chicago Tribune also knowing back in 1990s what OBAMACARE as ROMNEYCARE had as a goal----now making it about THE REPUBLICANS......Obamacare IS a far-right wing health policy-----written by REPUBLICAN think tanks.  CLINTON/OBAMA global banking 5% pols and players white, black, and brown citizens always blaming their policy stances on the Republicans because they are PRETENDING to be left----when they are FAR--RIGHT WING.



Column:
Health care 'access' is not the same as 'coverage'

Clarence PageContact Reporter


Watching top Republicans explain their proposed Affordable Care Act replacement can make you wonder who hijacked the English language.


For example, if you're like me, you might have been shocked by the news that 24 million fewer Americans will have health insurance by 2026 if the Republican-proposed alternative passes, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office — including 14 million fewer people in the next year alone.


But that's OK, say Republican congressional leaders. House Speaker Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, already had declared such gloomy outlooks to be a "bogus" metric. It's not "coverage" that counts, he said; it's "access."


"What matters is that we're lowering costs of health care and giving people access to affordable health care plans," Ryan said in a news conference. Ryan, a self-described "policy wonk," was excited.


He loves the mere sound of words like "freedom," "choice" and "access" even when the reality of "access" amounts to having the freedom to be offered decent health insurance but also being too poor to buy it.



And he's not alone. "Insurance is not really the end goal here," Mick Mulvaney, director of the Office of Budget and Management, later told NBC. "We're choosing instead to look at what we think is more important to ordinary people: Can they afford to go to the doctor?"


OK, call me old-fashioned but I thought being able to afford to go to the doctor is why we have insurance.
But, no, said White House chief economic adviser Gary Cohn to host Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday" about the prospect of millions losing their health insurance: "It's not just about coverage, it's about access to care. It's about access to be able to see your doctors."


So where did I get the idea that the goal was coverage? Maybe President Donald Trump had something to do with that when he promised a Republican plan that would provide "insurance for everybody."

But he also said in a White House meeting with House Republicans after the Grand Old Party's proposed legislation was unveiled that it "will lower costs, expand choices, increase competition and ensure health care access for all Americans."


There's that word "access" again. By now, I suppose, we should know from experience that only the president's most recent version of the truth should be believed, if that.

What gives? Is promising "access" a nice-sounding squishy doublespeak way to say, "We're not giving you any more money to help you buy insurance"?


That's the biggest reason why the CBO and other analysts expect to see millions lose coverage under the Republican plan. Yet Speaker Ryan and other GOP leaders are more excited by the $337 billion that the CBO says the federal government will save over the next decade by shifting most of the ACA's health care burden back to the states and to individuals.


The Republican plan would remove mandates that require everyone to buy insurance, which have enabled the ACA to bar insurance companies from denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions. It would replace subsidies with tax credits to help low-income people buy insurance, and it would expand health savings accounts so more people could save more of their own money to pay for their own health care.


But market-driven incentives work best for people who can afford them. I like HSAs, for example, but households that are living paycheck-to-paycheck often find they simply can't afford to salt away much savings. One health crisis can eat up your health savings overnight. And there goes your "access."


All of which makes it all the more poignant — or sad, as President Trump might tweet — that the biggest losers in what's being called "Trumpcare" probably would be the core supporters of Trump's election campaign.


The same lower-income, older voters who voted for him in rural red-state America stand to lose more in federal insurance subsidies than any other demographic, according to an analysis of country voting and tax credit data by Noam Levey of the Los Angeles Times.


That's the political base that Trump in his inaugural address lauded as the forgotten men and women to whom he had given a political voice. Now the burden is on Trump to show whether "access" to health insurance is as good as the real thing.

________________________________________


As we said---OBAMACARE made ROMNEYCARE worse-----by attaching all Federal funding for low-income citizens poor and seniors to only accessing pain/mental health PHARMA----slowly losing the ability to access vital ordinary health care for major disease vectors our POOR AND SENIORS acquired by eating GREEN REVOLUTION food----filled with fat, sugar, MONSANTO fertilizer/pesticides-----now morphing to NOT BEING FOOD at all.



'Not all health insurance helps people live longer'

The same global banking 1% BIG AG/BIG MEAT Green Revolution creating GATEWAY MEDICINE business for corporate medicine----are now creating food sources with questionable nutrient values at all.  So, we were fighting foods loaded with fats, sugar, farmed by BIG AG AND BIG MEAT with chemical covering......now global banking 1% are pushing foods that will not enter the body systems as vitamins, minerals needed for nutrition. 

BUT, THE GOOD NEWS IS---THERE IS A PATENT FOR THAT.



So, rather than harm health with natural excess of fats and sugars----we are MOVING FORWARD to toxicity from what are being called 'NATURAL' manufactured protein, carb, fat, vitamins and minerals.  Yes, the human body simply excretes these chemicals---but in levels found in these manufactured foods-----the high-levels are damaging our organ systems.

YES, THOSE IPAB---THAT FDA-------THAT GLOBAL HEALTH SYSTEM ----THOSE DASTARDLY COUNTY/CITY PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENTS KNOW THIS.


This is all the far-right wing global banking 1% GREEN REVOLUTION that has throughout CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA been used to corrupt every REAL left social progressive policy tied to public health and environment......killing ORGANICS now moving to kill VEGAN.

What we are seeing in FAKE VEGAN products are what are ordinary nutrients being offered in ways our body cannot absorb them as NUTRIENTS so the excess is excreted but not before entering liver and kidney----what are the major organ disease vectors these few decades?  KIDNEY AND LIVER DISEASES.




The 10 Vitamins & Other Nutrients That can be HARMFUL When Taken in Excess

by www.SixWise.com



An estimated 150 million Americans take dietary supplements on a daily basis in an effort to add nutrition to their diets. In 2006 alone, nearly 94 million multivitamin supplements were sold (not including those sold by Wal-Mart), according to Information Resources, Inc., along with:
  • 63 million individual "letter" vitamins
  • 57 million non-herbal supplements
  • 51 million mineral supplements
  • 29 million herbal supplements


Do you have a cabinet full of dietary supplements? Be sure you're not getting too much of a good thing by monitoring the amount of vitamins you're taking.


However, be wary of the mindset that if a little is good, more is even better. While it's nearly impossible to overdose on vitamins from eating whole foods, it is possible to get excessive, potentially harmful amounts of nutrients when taking them in supplement form.


This is particularly true of fat-soluble vitamins, which accumulate in your body and are stored for later use (water-soluble vitamins, meanwhile, are not readily stored in the body), though even water-soluble vitamins and minerals can be problematic in large doses.


The Best Way to Get Your Vitamins


Of course, the best way to get the nutrients your body needs is by eating a variety of healthy foods (or in the case of vitamin D, getting it through safe and sensible sun exposure). Whole foods contain an array of health-promoting micronutrients and phytochemicals that provide a beneficial synergistic effect that is not obtained when you take isolated vitamin supplements.
That said, there is a wide disparity in quality among supplements on the market, and if you do choose to take them you should do your homework to find a reputable manufacturer of high-quality natural supplements.



Meanwhile, some physicians in the natural health field do recommend high doses (beyond the typical government limits) of certain nutrients, such as vitamin C, for the treatment of specific health conditions.


Vitamins to Keep a Close Watch On


If you take any of the following dietary supplements, particularly in mega-dose form, or if you take a variety of multivitamins everyday, be careful that you are not exceeding a healthy amount. The Daily Recommended Dietary Allowances and Tolerable Upper Intake Levels listed below are provided only as a guide. Taking supplements in excess of or below these amounts should only be done under the guidance of a knowledgeable health care professional.


1. Iron
Taking too much iron can lead to liver problems, accumulation of fluid in the lungs, fatigue, headache, low blood sugar, coma and testicular problems in men.
Daily Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA): 8 mg for men, 18 mg for women (8 mg for women 51 and over)
Tolerable Upper Intake Levels (UL) (This is the highest dose adults can take without experiencing adverse effects): 45 mg/day

2. Vitamin A
Excess vitamin A (even at just double the RDA) can increase the risk of birth defects and cause liver damage, reduced bone mineral density (which can lead to osteoporosis), and central nervous system disorders.
RDA: 3,000 IU (International Units) for men, 2,310 IU for women
UL: 10,000 IU/day


3. Vitamin C
Taking large amounts of vitamin C can lead to gastrointestinal upset and diarrhea. There are also reports (that have yet to be confirmed) that it may cause genetic mutations, birth defects, increased oxidative stress, kidney stones and even cancer.
RDA: 90 mg for men, 75 mg for women
UL: 2,000 mg/day



4. Calcium
Though rare, excessively high intakes of calcium can lead to hypercalcemia (elevated levels of calcium in the blood), impaired kidney function and decreased absorption of other minerals, including iron, zinc, magnesium, and phosphorus.


Before taking any dietary supplement, be sure to talk with your doctor. Many of them contain active ingredients that can interact with medications, foods and each other, causing some unwanted (and unexpected) effects.


RDA: 1,000 mg for adults 19-50, 1,200 mg for those 51 and over
UL: 2500 mg/day


5. Vitamin E
Because vitamin E is an anticoagulant, taking too much may increase the risk of bleeding problems. Also, according to the American Heart Association, excess amounts (even 400 IU/day or more) of this vitamin may increase the risk of death.
RDA: 22.5 IU
UL: 1,500 IU/day


6. Vitamin D
When taken in excess, vitamin D can raise blood levels of calcium, which can cause mental changes, such as confusion. It can also result in nausea, vomiting, poor appetite, constipation, weakness, and weight loss.
Adequate Daily Intake (AI) (used when there is not enough scientific evidence available to establish an RDA): 400 IU, 600 IU for those 71 and over
UL: 2,000 IU/day



7. Zinc
A zinc overdose (which can occur from as little as150 to 450 mg/day) can reduce immune function and good cholesterol levels, and alter iron function and copper levels.
RDA: 11 mg for men, 8 mg for women
UL: 40 mg


8. Selenium

In rare instances, too much selenium can result in a condition called selenosis (this occurs when selenium blood levels are greater than 100 µg/dL). Symptoms of selenosis include gastrointestinal upset, hair loss, white blotchy nails, garlic breath odor, fatigue, irritability, and mild nerve damage.
RDA: 55 µg
UL: 400 µg/day


9. Vitamin B6
At high doses (lower than 500 mg per day), vitamin B6 can result in nerve damage to the arms and legs.
RDA: 1.3 mg for those 19-50, 1.7 mg for men 51 and over, 1.5 mg for women 51 and over
UL: 100 mg/day


10. Copper
Taking too much copper can lead to organ damage (liver and kidneys) and neurologic problems. Other symptoms include weakness, abdominal pain, nausea, learning disabilities, memory lapses, diminished concentration, insomnia, seizure, delirium, stuttering and hyperactivity.
RDA: 900 mcg
UL: 10,000 mcg

___________________________________________



Where the RIGHT WING GREEN REVOLUTION corrupted our REAL left social progressive ORGANICS movements in place for centuries by contaminating fresh organics with MONSANTO seeds blowing in the wind-----now, global banking 1% is corrupting our VEGAN movements by pushing VEGAN filled with GREEN REVOLUTION MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS that are harmful and/or deadly.

Now, our 5% to the 1% global banking pols and players SELL these harmful FADS-----they do it to temporarily have businesses that will disappear once that FAD has been used to saturation. Our organics corrupted by making fair trade into FREE TRADE from third world nations---our organics corrupted by building monopoly organic grocers like WHOLEFOODS that were never really ORGANIC.

So, too is this corruption hitting the VEGAN MOVEMENT. Vegans are more PURE in their eating than organics----but right wing GREEN REVOLUTION is selling the idea of manufactured foods being VEGAN when they are as harmful as MONSANTO/FERTILIZER/PESTICIDE food sources.


IF YOU ARE NEW TO VEGAN EATING----PLEASE DON'T BE SOLD ON CORRUPTED VEGAN SOURCES.  WE ARE NOW GOING FROM CORRUPTED NUTRIENT SOURCES---TO PATHWAYS NOT ALLOWING NUTRIENT ABSORPTION AT ALL....

Food waste has been WASTE for a reason.  MILITANT VEGANS? Really????????????????



Be Fair Be Vegan Campaign Comes to Hobart Tasmania (AU)
Listen here
veganismisnonviolence.com


Below we see what are ALL FAKE VEGAN media sites.  We know they are FAKE because they use the global banking 1% talking point----GREEN REVOLUTION ---and they do not educate against what is neo-liberal manufactured foods pretending to be VEGAN.

YOU MUST USE REAL FRESH FOODS AND NO ARTIFICIALLY MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS EVEN WHEN THEY ARE CALLED 'NATURAL'.


HUMANS have always been OMNIVORES----our bodies need meat and vegetables. People taking time away from meat/dairy----cleansing body is not bad------moving 99% of citizens away from meat under the guise of environmentalism or public health----NOT GOOD SCIENCE OR PUBLIC HEALTH. Creating a VEGAN MOVEMENT to sell FAKE VEGAN patented products------very, very, very ,very bad.



February 20, 2017 · 5:14 pmBe Fair Be Vegan Campaign Comes to Hobart Tasmania (AU)
Why Be Vegetarian Be A Part Of Green Revolution - twrwsw.de
  1. Green Revolution - facebook.comwww.facebook.com/pages/Green-Revolution/... Vegetarian/Vegan Restaurant in ... with a ton of love! ... Green Revolution was in Derbyshire today catering for a lovely group of ladies who decided to treat ...
  1. Why Be Vegetarian Be A Part Of Green Revolutionwadena.de/...be_vegetarian_be_a_part_of_green_revolution.pdf Browse and Read Why Be Vegetarian Be A Part Of Green Revolution Why Be Vegetarian Be A Part Of Green Revolution ... Many people may be love to read, but not a book.

  2. Home - Safe For Veganswww.safeforvegans.co.uk Veganism made easy! Safeforvegans helps you recognize products that are safe for vegan consumption. Download our app and be part o f the green revolution.

8 Reasons Everyone Hates Vegans


LIKE OGP ON FACEBOOK :






One Green Planet
January 3, 2014

1. They credit their vegan diet for their health, wellness and energy.

 

Who needs to drink green juices and smoothies to be healthy? Can’t they just stick to lifting weights and enjoy steak for dinner like normal people? Hippies.


2. They love animals. Ugh.



Isn’t that sickening? Caring for animals and fighting for their rights?! I mean, come on. How can they care more about cows than Louis Vuitton!? Damn those morals!


3. Some of them even look cute as a button!

 

Look at them, eating greens, blending smoothies, shooting arrows like elves. Do they want to live forever? It’s so unfair.


4. They care about the Earth—those jerks!



Reducing greenhouse gas emissions, massive water and air pollution, soil erosion and contamination…who cares about this mumbo jumbo? Oh, wait, vegans!


5. They mislead you with their food…wicked, tricksy, false!

 

They make delicious cupcakes, cookies, muffins and a whole bunch of stuff without any butter, cream, cheese, milk….those cheats! Even Paula Deen hates them.



6. They are so demanding….why can’t they just enjoy bacon like normal people!

 

Vegans create pandemonium at restaurants just because they don’t want to eat greasy, high-cholesterol, heart-clogging food. They want this and that and don’t put that on my food, could I have extra this? Geez vegans, just shut up and sit down!


 7. Such elitists….spending all their money on veggies!

 

They sit on their high horse and judge others. Why don’t they just advocate for change in food subsidies so vegetables are less expensive? Oh, they do do that? Well, they repulse me. 


8.  Worst of all…science and medicine supports them!

 

Ugh, Vegans.
Want to read more posts like this? Sign up for our newsletter below!​

______________________________________________


'Beyonce is launching her own vegan meal delivery service in the US with her personal trainer Marco Borges'.

If we do not think these VEGAN FADS are about pushing FAKE VEGAN PATENTED PRODUCTS-----then we will be buying swampland in Florida next.  As we said yesterday------a FAKE FOOD product like TANG is not keeping the human body from essential nutrients---we simply drink one glass while eating and drinking other sources for nutrients.  What the GLOBAL GREEN CORPORATIONS are doing is expanding these sources of FAKE FOODS AND DRINKS pretending they offer nutrient sources that are NOT GETTING TO OUR BODY.  So, now they are making MAIN MEALS of manufactured vegan foods.  

WE SAW HAITIANS reduced to eating DIRT because of CLINTON GREEN REVOLUTION.  Please do the research----is is NATURAL FRESH ORGANIC FOOD SERVED AS VEGAN----

We can be SURE BEYONCE AND JZ are FAKE VEGAN food as global banking 1% freemason STARS.



Order from Beyonce's kitchen; launches delivery meal service

Singer along with personal trainer starts vegan meal service

By
  • Bang

Published Wednesday, February 04, 2015

Beyonce won a record-setting six Grammys at the 2010 ceremony. (Invision/AP, File)


Beyonce is launching her own vegan meal delivery service in the US with her personal trainer Marco Borges.


The 'Pretty Hurts' hitmaker, who participated in a meat-free challenge with husband Jay Z in December 2013 in a bid to adopt 'a healthy lifestyle,' has teamed up with her personal trainer Marco Borges for the new venture, 22 Days Nutrition, which will provide customers with organic, plant-based, gluten-free, soy-free and dairy-free meals for three weeks.


(Reuters)
The 33-year-old star, who is close friends with lifestyle guru and clean-eating advocate Gwyneth Paltrow, said in a statement: "I am so grateful that I took the challenge and credit Marco with leading by example. He is the most energetic person I know and it's all because of his decision to live a healthy lifestyle. He came up with a great program to get people motivated to make better nutritional choices. I am excited to partner with him."


The meals will range in price from $9.76 to $16.50 each and Beyoncé is confident anyone will be able to stick to the programme.


AP
She said: "All you have to do is try. If I can do it, anyone can."

The 'Drunk in Love' hitmaker and Jay Z decided to eat vegan food for 22 days shortly before his birthday in late 2013.

The 45-year-old rapper explained the reason for their experiment on his blog at the time, writing: "Psychologists have said it takes 21 days to make or break a habit. On the 22nd day, you've found the way.


AFP
"This all began a few months back when a good friend and vegan challenged me to embrace a 'plant-based breakfast' everyday. It was surprisingly easier on me than I thought.

"It just feels right! So you can call it a spiritual and physical cleanse."
_____________________________________________

'The elimination of the penalties does not technically remove the requirement to obtain healthcare coverage'.

TRUMP sold his TAX REFORM as ending the AFFORDABLE CARE ACT MANDATE----when it actually didn't.

'Instead, their plan would leave it up to states to preserve, revise or dump the requirement'.

What we are seeing is more and more and more DEREGULATION of US health care. Some states do this---some do that----some call the mandate by another name-----and VOILA----no centralized MEDICARE AND MEDICAID giving all 99% of US citizens and our new immigrants the same access to health care. Here in Maryland health access is tied to PAY-TO-PLAY, PATRONAGE -----

So, the MANDATE is not going away. What we are already seeing is this-----US citizens are being forced to attach to one global health system which has total power over what health policies are offered at what price. It is allowing tiered levels of access creating third world preventative care vs GLOBAL MARKET RATE MEDICINE.

These insurance plans require a patient to follow that corporate doctor's treatment or else be bumped to higher cost insurance tier---and corporate doctors are more and more attached to predatory profiteering health products---

WE KNOW THESE PRODUCTS ARE BAD----IF WE REFUSE THEM WE FACE BEING BUMPED TO HIGHER PRICE LESS ACCESS PLAN----AND CANNOT OPT OUT.


The Supreme Court called this MANDATE a TAX-----so it would fall into ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE-----where public subsidy is not allowed but TAXING the 99% is tops.

TAXING TO REDUCE CONSUMPTION says the US Supreme Court. Indeed, that is what has brought MEDICARE spending down-----


Why Obamacare's Much-Criticized Individual Mandate Is Likely to Endure (for Now)



by Stateline
| September 15, 2017






By Michael Ollove


The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that Americans either carry health insurance or pay a fine remains the law’s most unpopular feature. Nevertheless, a bipartisan group of governors is insisting that the so-called individual mandate remain in place — at least for now.


In a letter sent late last month, the governors urged federal lawmakers to retain the mandate to help stabilize insurance markets. But the group, which is led by Republican John Kasich of Ohio and Democrat John Hickenlooper of Colorado, also said states should be given the opportunity to devise “a workable alternative” to it, subject to federal approval.


Earlier this week, Republican U.S. Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana proposed a repeal of the ACA that would eliminate the federal mandate. Instead, their plan would leave it up to states to preserve, revise or dump the requirement.


In its early days, the Trump administration signaled it would not penalize people for not having health insurance. The IRS said it did collect penalties this year, although prior to the filing deadline, it announced that it would accept returns from those who didn’t provide the requested information on insurance coverage. The current penalty is either 2.5 percent of household adjusted gross income, or $695 for an adult and $347.50 for a child, whichever is greater. The maximum penalty is $2,085 for a household.


Health policy analysts say the Trump administration’s threat to withhold ACA funding has unsettled insurance companies and destabilized health insurance markets. That is one reason the governors’ group favors keeping and enforcing the mandate for now.


Many critics of the mandate object to it on philosophical grounds, noting that it obliges Americans to purchase a product whether they want it or not. Supporters argue that short of universal health insurance, the mandate is the best way to draw everyone — including young and healthy people who presumably will pay more in premiums than they collect in claims — into the insurance pool, thereby making coverage affordable for everybody else.

Several insurers have abandoned markets in parts of the country this year, complaining that too few young and healthy people were enrolling. As a result, the insurers said, they were paying more in claims than they were collecting in premiums. In some areas, the companies sought steep premium increases for next year, bringing protest from many policyholders.


Getting rid of the mandate now might convince even more young and healthy people to forgo insurance, further destabilizing markets and perhaps chasing some insurers out of them, said Greg Moody, director of Kasich’s Office of Health Transformation.


“You can’t replace it now without the whole market falling apart around us,” Moody said.

 
Waiting Periods, Surcharges

Once the market is stable, Moody said, states with Democrats in power might try to strengthen the mandate by increasing penalties for non-compliance or strengthening enforcement. More likely, aides to Democratic governors say, those states might not change the mandate at all and instead revise other elements of the law, such as establishing reinsurance pools to help insurers to remain financially solvent.


States with Republicans in control might move to replace the mandate with something other than a direct financial penalty. Since the ACA was enacted in 2010, Republicans and some right-leaning think tanks have floated ideas for other approaches that would encourage Americans to enroll in health insurance without levying fines on them. Some of these ideas were incorporated in Republican repeal-and-replace proposals that failed to win congressional support in the spring and summer.


Under most of these alternatives, people who opted out of health insurance and then changed their minds would have to wait until they could obtain coverage, pay premium surcharges, or go without coverage for medical conditions they developed while uninsured.


JoAnn Volk, a senior research professor at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms, said that each of those alternatives are intended to do what the mandate does now — get as many people into the health insurance marketplace as possible — while at least nominally suggesting that consumers have a choice.

“If you get rid of the mandate, you still need some very strong incentive to get healthy people to buy coverage now and not when they get sick,” Volk said.

WHY FOR GOODNESS SAKE DO WE HAVE TO DO THAT????  MEDICAID HAS FOR SEVERAL DECADES BEEN FULLY FUNDED FROM FEDERAL TAXES ALREADY PAID.

The insurance industry, which largely supports the mandate, has stayed out of the debate for the most part, except to note that “well designed” alternatives could be acceptable, presumably if they drew in at least as many enrollees as the mandate.


Health policy analysts say the mandate, in combination with other ACA provisions, has helped reduce the U.S. uninsured rate, from 13.3 percent before the law was implemented to 8.8 percent now. Among the so-called young invincibles, 18- to 35-year-olds who tend to use less medical care, the rate has dropped from 25.2 to 14.6 percent.


According to the IRS, 85 percent of taxpayers indicated that they had health coverage in 2016. About 6.5 million people paid $3 billion in penalties for not having insurance, an average payment of about $470.


The federal government does not seek payment from taxpayers who do not have refunds coming, and it does not have the capacity to attach liens on homes or garnish wages, although it can obtain payments in future years if the taxpayer does qualify for a refund then.
 
Not As Effective?


Conservatives, like the Heritage Foundation’s Edmund Haislmaier, and libertarians, like Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute, prefer alternatives that would allow consumers to choose whether to purchase health insurance. They also would open the door to allowing insurers to charge some people more for their pre-existing conditions.


But other health care analysts, including Volk and Sarah Lueck, a senior policy analyst at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, say none of the alternatives would induce as many people to buy insurance as the mandate does now, and they all would lead to higher premiums. A recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office confirmed those fears.



State Democratic officials largely agree the alternatives would lead to higher premiums, but they are willing to allow Republican governors to devise solutions that could work in their states.


And that’s exactly the point, Ohio’s Moody said. A state like Ohio, where premiums have not increased sharply, might be able to replace the mandate without the negative consequences of higher premiums. That might not work in other places.


Still, as Lueck says, no one has convinced her that any alternative will work as well as the mandate.
“We’ve learned in the first few years of law that the individual mandate is the most effective tool that we have,” Lueck said.


And, she said, there would be a human cost to the alternative methods. “It hits at people who are sick and made a miscalculation or were just confused by the paperwork.”




0 Comments

February 22nd, 2018

2/22/2018

0 Comments

 
We want to spend a day focused on MOVING FORWARD ending 20th century's public health protections at work and in our communities tied to research and data identifying toxic levels of exposure of hundreds of chemicals so 99% WE THE PEOPLE and our elected officials know how to regulate, provide oversight and accountability, in chemical corporation production---and industrial use of harmful chemicals.  Not rocket science----just public interest public policy.  When our US citizens march and protest against environmental injustice and never identify these CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA policies creating far-worse injustice then exists now in US cities-----they are using TALKING POINTS.  It is that 5% global banking pol and player MOVING FORWARD all these deregulation which will kill hundreds of millions of the few billion global labor pool 99% and US WE THE PEOPLE.

We showed yesterday that global banking neo-liberals are installing the same deregulation of CHEMICAL EXPOSURE STANDARDS in UK---in Europe------as in US/Canada.  They do this because TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT----TRANS ATLANTIC TRADE PACT is MOVING FORWARD even as our global banking pols are pretending to fight them.

'Trade implications: Extensive restrictions could create unnecessary barriers to trade and violate the EU’s commitments under the Agreements of the World Trade Organization. The apparel industry is a global industry; a rapidly-imposed ban on CMRs in apparel may lead operators in this sector to temporarily or permanently stop marketing certain products in the EU'.

Here we see European 99% being told total deregulation of chemical restrictions must be done for TRADE reasons and of course JOBS, JOBS, JOBS.  We do not want global corporate factories in our US Foreign Economic Zones---so there is NO TRADE ISSUES.  Local and regional manufacturing WILL adhere to last century's safety standards.


Again, these deregulation policies are being installed because Euro and US Foreign Economic Zones will operate as they do overseas---


Upcoming European Chemical Restrictions in Apparel Raise Concerns

By Charlotte Ryckman and Roberto Yunquera Sehwani on July 29, 2016


Posted in Fashion & accessories, Regulatory & government affairs


The European Commission intends to ban the use in apparel of hundreds of Cat. 1A and 1B carcinogenic, mutagenic and toxic for reproduction substances (“CMRs”) within the next year. To do so, the Commission expects to use the so-called “fast-track” procedure to ban CMRs under Regulation 1907/2006 (“REACH Regulation”), instead of the standard procedure for prohibiting substances. Historically, the fast-track procedure has been reserved for mixtures that contain CMRs and are intended for the general public.  The Commission has indicated that its proposal to ban the use of CMRs in apparel is a “test-case” of its intention to also ban Cat. 1A and 1B CMRs in articles (i.e., objects) intended for consumers on a regular basis in the near future.  This fast-track procedure allows less scientific input from the European Chemicals Agency (“ECHA”) and industry, and the related restrictions would create significant barriers to international trade.


“Standard” vs. “Fast-Track” Procedure

Title VIII of the REACH Regulation empowers the European Commission to restrict the use in mixtures (e.g., inks, paints) and articles (e.g., apparel) of substances that pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment.  Restricted substances are listed in Annex XVII of the Regulation, which is regularly updated.


There are two different procedures for adding new restrictions:

the “regular” and the “fast-track” procedure. In both cases, the Commission proposes the restrictions, and its final proposal is then adopted through “comitology” (i.e., a process involving the input of Member States).  The road towards the final Commission proposal, however, is very different for each procedure:
  • Standard procedure: The standard procedure is generally highly regarded for the sound scientific input it gathers. Articles 69 – 73 of the REACH Regulation include important steps, such as ECHA’s or a Member State’s preparation of an Annex XV dossier analyzing the restrictions, assessments by the Agency’s Risk Assessment Committee (“RAC”) and Socio-Economic Assessment Committee (“SEAC”), and consultation of the Forum for Exchange of Information on Enforcement (“Forum”).
  • Fast-Track Procedure: Article 68(2) of the REACH Regulation, however, empowers the Commission to ban the use of substances that are classified as Cat. 1A or 1B CMRs in mixtures and articles that could be used by consumers without the preparation of a dossier, the opinions of the RAC and SEAC or the consultation of the Forum. As the Commission recognized in its Article 68(2) Paper of 2014, the legislation provides little to no guidance on the use of this procedure.
Indeed, the fast-track procedure was originally intended, and until now has been used solely, to restrict the use of mixtures intended for consumers that contain Cat. 1A or 1B CMRs in concentrations above specific thresholds. Entries 28 to 30 of Annex XVII contain the general ban for mixtures containing Cat. 1A and 1B CMRs, and the Commission has regularly updated them by amending their Appendixes.
The procedure was historically intended for mixtures due to the potential high exposure of consumers using them. In contrast, there is scientific uncertainty on the risk of exposure of consumers to CMRs contained in articles.  As the Commission recognizes in its Article 68(2) Paper, the “main difference between articles and substances and mixtures is that there might be cases where there is no or very limited possibility of exposure of consumers to a CMR substance contained in an article.”


The Proposed CMR Restrictions

The Commission’s long term strategy is to use the REACH fast-track procedure to restrict the use of Cat. 1A and 1B CMRs in a broad range of consumer products. The upcoming ban in apparel is intended as a “test-case”.

Following concerns raised by the industry, the Commission recently announced that it intends to restrict the use of Cat. 1A and 1B CMRs in textiles in two phases. First, it will restrict CMRs in textiles that are in direct contact with the skin.  This concerns primarily apparel, but also products such as footwear and bed linen.  We understand that these restrictions could be adopted by spring or summer of 2017.


Second, the Commission will restrict Cat. 1A and 1B CMRs in textiles that are not in direct contact with the skin, such as accessories (e.g., buttons), floor coverings, and carpets.  The Commission will not start this second phase until it presents its final proposal for textiles that are in direct contact with the skin.


It is still unclear which Cat. 1A and 1B CMRs the Commission will target. Initially, it had proposed to restrict 286 CMRs.  The Commission should only restrict those substances for which there are validated detection and measurement methods.


Analysis of the Planned Restrictions

The Commission’s initial proposal to restrict no less than 286 CMRs in a wide category of textile products raises significant concerns. These include:



Duplication: Of the CMRs that the Commission intends to restrict under the fast-track procedure, several are already subject to other restrictions in the REACH Regulation. The resulting double bans or restrictions might create confusion and duplication. The Commission indicated last June that it is aware of this issue and that it “is committed to avoid double regulation for the same substance and use.”


  • Trade implications: Extensive restrictions could create unnecessary barriers to trade and violate the EU’s commitments under the Agreements of the World Trade Organization. The apparel industry is a global industry; a rapidly-imposed ban on CMRs in apparel may lead operators in this sector to temporarily or permanently stop marketing certain products in the EU.
  • Socio-economic impact: It is questionable whether the Commission has sufficiently considered the cost of compliance with the upcoming restrictions. Widespread and simultaneous restrictions may represent a significant burden for industry, including numerous small and medium-sized enterprises (“SMEs”), and increase the price of apparel for consumers.
Next Steps

What lies ahead? The Commission has agreed to gather additional expert input over the next few months.  This will include input from the Forum, ECHA, and a group of experts, including industry representatives.  Subsequently, the Commission will open its proposal for a public consultation, likely by the end of 2016 or early 2017.  Once this public consultation is closed, the Commission will adopt its final proposal.
Although much remains to be decided, it is clear that a ban of hundreds of CMRs in all skin contact textiles will significantly affect apparel and footwear companies that market their goods in the EU and EEA. In the mid-long term, the Commission’s plans will likely also have a significant impact on the wider global textile and consumer goods industry.


_________________________________________
All US citizens understand the US has these few decades had CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA pols working for global banking and global corporate profits.  We know EPA------FDA-------all Federal agencies have been captured and laws protecting against public health exposure to toxic chemicals.  This is why there was a CANCER ALLEY in Louisiana and Texas---it is why our coal workers are seeing lung disease soar---it is why fracking killing our fresh water aquifers and fertile land went unabated---it is why PHARMA is being found to be toxic and deadly AFTER it has been released for several years------there has been no enforcement of last century's CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING REGULATIONS.

As well, LAUTENBERG of NJ has been in office these few decades as top gun global banking 1% Clinton neo-liberal.  Just because a pol backs a few bills that sound good does not make that pol a left social progressive on public policy.  We see in Maryland all the time pols pushing social progressive policies knowing none of it will be enforced.  So, LAUTENBERG did good work in cigarette smoking exposure----a CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING REGULATION----BUT, he was bound to global banking, global corporations and his bill for 21ST CENTURY STANDARDS FOR CHEMICAL REGULATIONS----will end as deregulation looking just like BREAKING GLASS STEAGALL.

So, US is MOVING FORWARD these same CMS deregulation as in UK and Europe----wrapping the policies in titles making it sound public interest.  Was START TREATY about de-nuclearization as national media and Clinton neo-liberals stated?  NO, it was about retooling the nuclear arsenals and distribute decayed nuclear materials.



The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act


Sign up for TSCA and Other Chemical Safety News
Get email alerts Enter email address

New Chemicals Review Progress under Amended TSCAAs of February 13, 2018:
  • 30 new chemical reviews were completed in January 2018.
  • 1278 new chemical reviews have been completed since enactment.

On June 22, 2016, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act which amends the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Nation’s primary chemicals management law was signed into law.

The new law, which received bipartisan support in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, includes much needed improvements such as:
  • Mandatory requirement for EPA to evaluate existing chemicals with clear and enforceable deadlines;
  • New risk-based safety standard;
  • Increased public transparency for chemical information; and
  • Consistent source of funding for EPA to carry out the responsibilities under the new law.
One year later, on June 22, 2017, EPA announced a number of implementation activities which have enabled EPA to meet its first-year statutory responsibilities.


We would ask Bonnie Lautenberg why are you not shouting that the BLENDED CIGARETTES being sold as lowest costing cigarettes across the nation are the same chemically-filled tobacco banned during these tobacco industry fights------all regulations protecting public from toxic chemicals in cigarettes have been ignored and shelves restocked. 
A 30 year CLINTON NEO-LIBERAL Lautenberg as head of EPA-----oh, we KNOW what is MOVING FORWARD.


This is why REAL left social progressive shout----we cannot get REAL LEFT social policy installed while Congress, statehouses, and city councils are still filled with far-right wing global banking 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA. So, now Trump will simply take this structure to totally deregulate US chemical manufacturing laws just as in UK.

The hazardous nominee who could lead the EPA's chemical safety program

By Bonnie Lautenberg


Updated 6:40 PM ET, Wed December 6, 2017

(CNN)As a Senator, my late husband, Frank Lautenberg, made it his mission to fight for the health of Americans -- especially kids. He fought to protect them from exposure to toxic chemicals in our air, water, consumer products and cigarette smoke.

Frank's passion for defending the most vulnerable of Americans came from his father -- a Polish immigrant who worked in silk mills. As an adult, Frank's dad took great pride in his own personal health. Yet he only lived to the age of 43, dying of colon cancer after years of working in the silk mills.

Frank's final fight during his last year in Congress was to ensure strong public health protection would guide our decisions about chemical safety. To do this, he sought to fix the nation's badly broken chemical safety law, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).


Bonnie Lautenberg

Inspired by Frank's vision, his colleagues continued working towards a bipartisan solution -- culminating in 2016 with the signing of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act into law. The Lautenberg Act aimed to plug the holes in our chemical safety net, to better protect Americans from toxic chemicals tied to cancer, infertility, learning disabilities and other serious health impacts.


But today that progress is endangered. Michael Dourson, President Trump's nominee to lead the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) chemical safety program, has made his living helping the chemical industry in its efforts to weaken safety standards for their chemicals. If confirmed, he would be in charge of reviewing the safety of chemicals that our kids have exposure to.

The Lautenberg Act requires the EPA to evaluate chemicals using the "best available science," but Dourson has made a career practicing what has been called "mercenary science." Over and over again, through his consulting company, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA), Dourson downplayed the health threats of his clients' products.

Study ties pesticides in food to reduced fertility in women


For example, in a study funded by the American Chemistry Council, Dourson has argued for a safe exposure level of the carcinogen trichloroethylene (TCE) that is up to 15 times higher than the EPA's recommended level. He did similar work on PFOA, a chemical that was used to make Teflon, 1,4-dioxane, a frequent drinking water contaminant -- and many more.


But it isn't just unfamiliar chemicals with confusing names -- all of us are familiar with tobacco and its dangers. The health impacts of secondhand smoke were already on Frank's radar as far back as 1987, when he worked to ban smoking on airplanes. Yet Michael Dourson was working with a tobacco industry front group as recently as 2001 -- helping it downplay the dangers of its products.


Dourson is certainly not unique in doing this kind of work: There are plenty of scientists who worked for big tobacco, and more recently the chemical industry. But why on earth should someone with that background oversee our federal chemical safety program? How could anyone trust Dourson to put public health before the interests of the clients he has spent decades defending?

Senators acted to pass the Lautenberg Act because toxic chemicals pose a threat to all of our families. And clearly President Trump cares deeply about his own children and grandchildren. I'm surprised any of them would entrust the safety of their loved ones to Dourson.



Michael Dourson will only serve to undermine Frank's legacy and threaten the safety of families and children across our country. Now it's up to members of the Senate to recognize this and keep our health out of his hands.


_________________________________________

SOUND CREDIBLE SCIENCE------this is what backs AFFORDABLE CARE ACT handing health policy to IPAB-----they are supposed to give sound credible science-----we discussed the difference between public interest VALUE-ADDED and corporate profit VALUE ADDED.  What we have today in our Federal agencies are CORPORATE PROFIT-VALUE-ADDED executives---including EPA.  They will say CLEAN COAL is good----they will say FOOD MANUFACTURED using no food is good.

We know COREY BOOKER---OBAMA----LAUTENBERG all raging far-right global banking neo-liberals---this is how we know this structure is MOVING FORWARD 21ST century deregulation of all last century's public health and workplace chemical safety research just as in UK, Europe.




'The EPA would set priorities for evaluating chemicals and would not first have to show they pose a potential risk. Manufacturers could ask the EPA to evaluate a particular chemical if they are willing to cover those costs'.


'Manufacturers could ask the EPA to evaluate a particular chemical if they are willing to cover those costs'.



Obama signs new law named for Lautenberg to stem toxic chemical risks

Updated on June 22, 2016 at 9:52 PM Posted on June 22, 2016 at 1:14 PM
President Obama signs the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act


By Jonathan D. Salant
jsalant@njadvancemedia.com,
NJ Advance Media for NJ.com


WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama on Wednesday signed into law legislation to regulate toxic chemicals, a measure championed by the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg until the day he died.
With Lautenberg's widow Bonnie and several New Jersey lawmakers looking on, Obama affixed his signature to the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act.


"Frank was passionate about this," said Obama, who served in the Senate with Lautenberg. "For him to be able to see this legacy completed must be greatly satisfying. He's looking down on us and feeling pretty good right now."

The bill would require the Environmental Protection Agency to test chemicals using "sound and credible science" and impose regulations if they are shown to pose a health risk.


The EPA would set priorities for evaluating chemicals and would not first have to show they pose a potential risk. Manufacturers could ask the EPA to evaluate a particular chemical if they are willing to cover those costs.


It updates a 40-year-old federal law requiring chemicals be tested for safety. That bill prevented the U.S. government from regulating asbestos even after it was linked to cancer.

U.S. Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), who now holds Lautenberg's seat in Washington, and Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-6th Dist.) were among those standing behind Obama on stage as he signed the legislation in an auditorium in the executive office building adjacent to the White House.


"It is truly a great testimony to not only bipartisan efforts but the legacy of Frank Lautenberg," Booker said. "That's why I rolled up my sleeves and worked even harder. I felt an extra personal obligation to get things done."


Pallone, the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said the bill would allow New Jersey to keep its tougher regulations on chemicals and would allow consumers to know whether chemicals in their products were safe.
"Without this bill, people really don't know what's harmful," Pallone said.


In the audience were Reps. Donald Norcross (D-1st Dist.), Scott Garrett (R-5th Dist.), Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-9th Dist.) and Donald Payne Jr. (D-10th Dist.)
Bonnie Lautenberg said after the bill signing that the bill was a top priority of the senator's.
"Frank worked very hard on this," she said "I wish he was here to see this day come. I hope he knows what happened."


_____________________________________________
'In May, a Trump administration appointee to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) toxic chemical unit directed the rewriting of rules on toxic chemicals that would make tracking their health risks more difficult'

AND here is Trump taking that 21st century chemical manufacturing toxicity structure and doing just as we said-----making it about ending last century's public interest public health toxicity data-----and making it about creating data putting corporate profits FIRST.

THIS WAS THE GOAL OF OBAMA AND LAUTENBERG POLICY CHEERLEADER COREY BOOKER------TRUMP SIMPLY MOVING FORWARD REQUIREMENTS OF TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT HAVING US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES ALLOWING GLOBAL CORPORATIONS TO OPERATE IN US AS THEY DO OVERSEAS.


'It is possible to both support the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals on education and healthy lives, as well as business growth'.

Well, since UNITED NATIONS SUSTAINABILITY is global corporate sustainability of profits-----the opposite of US and global  99% SUSTAINABILITY ---then yes, TRUMP is MOVING FORWARD far-right wing global banking sustainability ----by totally deregulating chemical manufacturing policies and creating data making corporate products known to HARM-----look public interest.  Who built overseas FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES and filled them with global corporate factories that then were allowed to devastate both environment and public health of communities and workers? 

UNITED NATIONS GLOBAL 1% NEO-LIBERALS------


Directed to rewrite the rules on toxic chemicals.



Education Plus Development

Chemical warfare on children’s brains: Where environmental toxins meet education


Virginia Rauh and Kathy Hirsh-Pasek Monday, November 13, 2017


Education Plus Development


In May, a Trump administration appointee to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) toxic chemical unit directed the rewriting of rules on toxic chemicals that would make tracking their health risks more difficult. Easing regulations on certain toxic chemicals—regulations that aim to keep dangerous toxic exposures out of the air, public drinking water, and the nation’s food supply—can result in a “chemical brain drain” that strangles the learning potential of children. This is clearly problematic as early childhood development programs show strong evidence of long-term impact and are among the few areas in the U.S. that enjoy strong bipartisan support. Exposing environmental toxins to children provides a new and insidious form of chemical warfare that can thwart these efforts to raise educational outcomes.


What are the effects of toxins?


For adults, exposure to toxins, including organophosphate pesticides, is known to cause impaired memory, convulsions, and parkinsonism, among other serious health effects. Currently, these pesticides are among the most widely used in the U.S. and globally for agricultural insect control and food production. Although banned for indoor residential use by the EPA in 2001, these chemicals continue to be used on numerous crops in farming communities, where residents are exposed via airborne drift and the general public is exposed via food residues.


One of us, Virginia, has demonstrated the potency of these chemicals on baby brain growth. Exposures during pregnancy have been linked to lowered birth weight, motor delays, ADHD-type behaviors, and working memory problems and tremor—and these adverse effects have been corroborated by published reports from other groups in California and New York, despite differences in populations, geographical locations, and ways of measuring exposure in the body. Most dramatically, behavioral effects have been backed up by changes in brain structure, persisting into adolescence.


The developing brain does not expect to be exposed to toxic chemicals that threaten its very structure and connections. Moreover, the developing brain is particularly vulnerable to lead and some pesticides—a sensitivity that is greatest in utero and throughout early childhood. Why? First, the structure and connections in the brain of an unborn child are fragile and “unfinished”. Second, young children have disproportionately heavier exposures to widespread chemicals, reflecting their higher metabolic rate, greater consumption of food, water, and air per pound of body weight, as well as reduced capacity to clear or expel chemicals from the body.


The negative consequences of early chemical exposure are both long lasting and potentially irreversible, with effects on school success, physical and mental health, and quality of life in adulthood. Protecting brain development from toxic chemical threats should be a global priority. This will require that regulatory agencies are aware of the impact their decisions can have on young children.


From one perspective, this example from the U.S. highlights conflicting economic and public health interests. On the one hand, governments hope to create environments in which children thrive—be it in school or out. Conversely, businesses enjoy greater profits when they are free from regulation. However, economic and public health interests should not be in conflict—they should be completely aligned. The workforce of 2042 is in utero today and we need to ensure policies provide enabling environments for successful development.


It is possible to both support the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals on education and healthy lives, as well as business growth. To do so, however, requires that policymakers look across sectors—beyond the traditional bins in which they practice—to see how they influence one another.  This means that educators need to understand environmental context, and science/public health professionals need to broaden their outcomes to include key indicators of learning.


As we prepare for success in a rapidly changing world, child health and education must remain a central priority. Ensuring that our children are ready to meet the challenges of the 21st century will require that we are mindful of the many factors that enhance or restrict future thinkers, actors, and doers. The use of toxic chemicals is high on the list of those policies that may yield short-term benefits to industry at the expense of long-term capacity of our children (and future workforce) to contribute to a vital and healthy national economy. True investment in early childhood is more than a budgetary issue; it means having the foresight to remove toxic exposures from our environment to create the conditions for optimal learning that will enable our children to thrive.
__________________________________________
We already mentioned the obvious dangers of 21ST century deregulation of chemical manufacturing toxicity-------it places our US citizens and global 99% of labor pool inside global factories filled with the most toxic of materials just as is done in Asia-----we must be competitive in US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.  There will be no more Federal testing or university research setting toxicity guideline data for humans et al-----

Below we see what is a GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM issue only able to MOVE FORWARD if total deregulation of toxicity is installed.  Remember, GREEN REVOLUTION gave us BIG AG MONSANTO filling our food supply with fertilizers and pesticides =====killing our US soil making it arid ====killing our pollinators and soil symbiosis-----now these same far-right wing global banking 5% players are MOVING FORWARD FAKE FOOD.

We read in national media one of those global 1% are starting a global corporation tied to manufacturing food that has no food sources.  We have had artificial taste additives-----many people doubt if there is any real food in a MCDONALD'S hamburger for example.  Now they are manufacturing what will be sold as food---with the tastes of what people are used to being food-----but having no real food in it. 

REMEMBER---THIS IS VERY PLANETARY MINING SLAVE COLONY SCIENCE.




'Establish a Manufacturing Innovation Institute (MII), a public-private partnership, through the National Network of Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI) focused on advanced manufacturing in the U.S. food industry'.

TANG is that artificial drink substance------but people do not drink TANG for their body nutrient content.  We KNOW vitamins and minerals introduced through artificial supplements are not processed as vitamin and minerals attained from REAL FOOD.  So, any manufactured food containing NO REAL FOOD----will not provide nutrients body needs---it will simply make people feel they have eaten.



It's all so TRANSFORMATIONAL-----we use this one example of how 21ST century deregulation of chemical manufacturing will allow this to MOVE FORWARD----even though it creates human detriment. The same as saying MONSANTO is good as all wild seed sources are privatized and chemicals are harming humans and flora/fauna.



UNL College of Engineering Transformational Food Manufacturing Innovation Institute (TFMII)

UNL College of Engineering
(402) 472-3181

The Transformational Food Manufacturing Innovation Institute for Advanced Food Manufacturing (TFMII) is a shared vision that began in 2015 to create a national public‐private partnership focusing on improving the quality, volume, safety and security of food through advanced manufacturing.

As part of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) NNMI Competition, an initial proposal was submitted in April 2016. NIST then requested a full proposal, which is due July 22, 2016. (resource: http://www.nist.gov/amo/upload/NNMI2016FAQ.pdf)

The Institute has been proposed to help the U.S. government define the critical needs of the U.S. food and beverage industry for advanced manufacturing and research. If selected, the breadth and depths of the organizations of the TFMII will serve as a resource and a catalyst for innovative research and commercialization of technologies currently needed in the food industry and as rapid response and expert advice to the government. The TFMII will be headquartered at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, with branches at the Georgia Institute of Technology and the University of California, Davis.

Background
In May 2016, a workshop was held in Washington, D.C., completing a critical follow‐up from the first workshop of the Transformational Food Manufacturing initiative held in May 2015 at the University of Nebraska‐Lincoln (Food Factory of the Future Workshop). 

The D.C. workshop created a technology roadmap to identify the few critical technology areas the TFMII will focus on in order to fulfill its mission. Representatives from approximately 25 companies, manufacturing partnerships, state and regional development entities and universities worked to do the following:
  • Identify the gaps in the current technology universe of the food and beverage industry
  • Create a future roadmap proposal of realistic and proven technological solutions to help propel the industry to the next evolutionary level.


Establish a Manufacturing Innovation Institute (MII), a public-private partnership, through the National Network of Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI) focused on advanced manufacturing in the U.S. food industry.

The MII opportunity:
  • $70M from the U.S. Dept. of Commerce over 5 years
  • Minimum 1:1 match from industry, academia, state and local governments (past winners have demonstrated ›2:1)
  • This is an open topic competition; 2 MIIs will be awarded
  • Proposal deadline: July 22, 2016
 
  • The growing global population (~9 billion people by 2050) can be destabilized by a lack of healthy and plentiful food supply.
  • 50% of the world’s food supply is lost to waste.
  • In the U.S., the $300B food manufacturing industry is in a state of crisis.
  • Energy and water intensive production methods have changed little since the early/mid 20th century.
  • Much of our food is handled by humans who transfer and introduce contaminants and pathogens, creating recent recalls.
  • Low margins, activist investors and industry inertia are drastically reducing R&D from the industry in favor of short returns.
  • At the same time, there has been a dramatic increase in food safety-related recalls.
  • The U.S. economy, global security and stability depend on our ability to make more abundant, higher quality, safer, less expensive and more secure food for a growing global population.
 
  • Establish a pre-competitive public-private partnership (i.e., an MII) to transform how food is made.
  • Focus primarily on food safety, security and automation as the unifying pre-competitive themes for the partnership.
  • Industry executives identify the following three areas as highest priorities:
    • Traceability – advanced sensors and big data analytics are necessary to detect and monitor transmission and growth of pathogens/allergens along the entire supply chain.
    • Sanitation – this is a water, time and labor intensive process representing a cost of 3% of gross revenues industry wide
    • Raw material prep-processing (disassembly) – these are dangerous (deboning), difficult, repetitive processes where humans can transfer contaminants across the entire production process.



Deploy transformational advanced manufacturing teams across four major technology areas:
  • Automation and Control – This will allow workers to elevate their technical skill sets and operation away from the production floor.
  • Sensors – State of the art sensors, both for automation and control, as well as for real-time detection of contaminants will be necessary.
  • Big Data – Advances in information technology are making it possible to track critical food data along the entire supply chain.
  • Antimicrobial Materials and Coatings – Significant cost reductions can be realized if coatings can be developed that are hostile to contaminants or better protect the final product.
These efforts will be integrated into a matrix involving:
  • Sanitation – Savings in sanitation costs can be used to capitalize the food manufacturing transformation into the future.
  • Raw Materials Preparation – The challenge is handling and cutting ingredients that are variable in size, shape, material properties, etc.
  • Food Production Processes – This is at the heart of the transformation, making the food remotely away from the production floor



The ability to automate and control food production opens tremendous opportunities to tailor foods to individual customer tastes and preferences.

This will create opportunities for:
  • Ultra-Customization – Like cars and consumer goods, food in the future can be customized for different personal and cultural tastes.
  • Reduced Waste – Smaller lots with targeted ingredients will lead to significant reduction in the amount of food discarded in western societies.
  • Sustainability – Production methodologies will be far more efficient, reducing the demand for ingredients, preservatives, energy and water.
  • Safer, Wholesome Food Supply – This will drastically reduce the change of external microbial contamination and the risk of expensive food recalls.



Successful transformation of the food manufacturing industry will require solutions to and result in additional critical challenges:
  • Standards and Certifications – Current codes and standards in the industry are often confusing (multiple agencies), antiquated, and impediments to positive change.
  • Workforce Development – This transformation will create the need for a highly skilled technical workforce.
  • Consumer Education/Public Policy – Success of the transformation will ultimately depend on a well-informed consumer who understands precisely what constitutes ‘high quality food’, how to keep it safe and protect the consumers.
_________________________________________

'The Transformational Food Manufacturing Innovation Institute for Advanced Food Manufacturing (TFMII)'

Of course all this must be PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP in order to send all Federal and state taxes to subsidize what is global corporate private profits.



A public–private partnership facilitated by:

The University of Nebraska–Lincoln|Georgia Institute of
Technology|University of California–Davis


TRANSFORMATIONAL FOOD MANUFACTURING INNOVATION
INSTITUTE (TFMII) TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP WORKSHOP:


TRANSFORMING THE FOOD FACTORY TO THE CULINARY
CENTERS OF THE 21ST/22ND CENTURIES
10‐11 MAY 2016 /WASHINGTON, DC



Agriculture is the natural (but increasingly engineered and therefore less natural) transformation of biomaterials from one form to another form more valuable to humans. Advances in biomimetic materials and processes and the promise of biomanufacturing are gradually blurring the line between agriculture and manufacturing'.


'Both isolates are a byproduct of factory cheese production and cannot be efficiently broken down by the body in high concentrations.


Why I’m Breaking Up with Quest Bar, and You Should Too'


So, what we are seeing is reprocessing of what would be waste food products in processing REAL FOOD----making them taste like something else.  We are seeing as well protein replicated under lab conditions being called natural.  As this article states-----it is not natural and our bodies are not digesting much of what these 'food' products are.  Increasingly these NEW INNOVATIVE PRODUCTS PATENTED are being distributed in third world nations as nutritional sources and are now entering our US food source supply for low-income people.  Do high-protein as high-caffeine products harm people?  YES.



The ''#1 Protein Bar'' may not be as perfect as we all think.
Lila SeeleyAmerican University

May 04, 2015

 Protein bars are all the craze these days, serving as “healthy” on-the-go snacks for our generation’s busy lifestyle. One brand in particular has gained recent popularity: Quest Bar. These protein-packed bars have taken over social media as fans share their favorite flavors and clever ways to transform the bar into cookies and even cereal.


Photo courtesy of Instagram.com/questnutrition


Quest Bars boast an impressive amount of protein and fiber with only 1 gram of sugar in one low-calorie bar. For any diet conscious, busy consumer, Quest Bars seem like the perfect grab-and-go snack.


Although the brand advertises itself as such, a closer look at the ingredients label reveals that this bar may not be as healthy as we once thought.


Photo by Lila Seeley
Sometimes ignorance is bliss, but when it comes to the food (or food-like substances) we’re consuming, truth triumphs over any wishful thinking. So, we at Spoon AU did our own little research into some of the ingredients behind the oh-so-famous Quest Bar.


Protein Blend (whey protein isolate and milk protein isolate)Photo by Malia Budd


Although whey protein is infamously used by body builders for increased muscle growth, whey protein isolate and milk protein isolate are far from natural sources of protein. Both isolates are a byproduct of factory cheese production and cannot be efficiently broken down by the body in high concentrations.


For many, these protein sources are known to cause digestion complications resulting in bloating, gas and constipation. No thank you Quest Bar.


Isomalto-Oligosaccharides (IMO)Photo by Lila Seeley


Yes, Quest Bar makes an effort to point out that this ingredient is derived from plant sources. However, the ingredient is added only after a lengthy processing method that results in a thick sticky syrup. IMO is not considered a natural fiber and is harder for your body to digest, causing even more havoc on your digestion.


Are 17 grams of fiber and 20 grams of protein in one serving really worth an achy cramping belly?


SucralosePhoto courtesy of Purepharma.com
This artificial sweetener, also known as Splenda, finds itself at the very end of the bar’s ingredient list, following a few other low-sugar sweeteners like erythritol and stevia. Some speculation exists surrounding the actual health consequences of Sucralose, but studies have found that Sucralose increases the chances of cancer and digestive diseases.


Regardless, artificial sweeteners are highly processed compounds that do not have a place in a healthy, balanced diet.


Photo by Lila Seeley
Quest Bars can be tasty, convenient forms of high concentrated protein. Not to mention, they’re fun to bake, broil and microwave into creative low-calorie treats. But next time you’re reaching for a protein bar snack, think twice about what you’re consuming. There are many other healthier options out there for a nutritious on-the-go snack.

______________________________________


We need to know that FDA is global BIG AG BIG MEAT------the one giving us the junk food having given billions of people around the world a host of industrial food disease vectors-----

We shared what was protein taken from non-meat sources ---here is yet another claiming to be 'vegan'.  We have lab manufactured meat------having nothing to do with natural food sources.  IT'S CHEMICALLY SIMILAR ------IS THE SAME MODUS OPERANDUS FOR PATENTING NEW BRANDS FROM GENERICS.

There is almost no CLINICAL TRIAL RESEARCH being done with what is completely artificial blending of chemical compounds with goals of tasting like FOODS PEOPLE LIKE.



'Government, Meet the Future. The Future, Government

In 2014, Impossible Foods filed what’s known as a GRAS notice, or “generally recognized as safe,” with the FDA. In it, the company listed the reasons it considered soy leghemoglobin safe for humans to consume. Leghemoglobin, they argued, is chemically similar to other globins considered safe, so it should carry the same confidence with consumers'.


This is today's FDA showing rightful concern over public health and safety-----what 21st century deregulated chemical manufacturing policy does is eliminate these global corporations even having to come to FDA for approval------if people can eat it and not die immediately there is no safety issue

'Hansen takes issue with the idea that leghemoglobin is similar to other edible globins are therefore safe. “As the FDA pointed out in their response, just because proteins have similar functions or similar three-dimensional structures, doesn't mean that they're similar," Hansen says. "They can have a very different amino acid sequence, and just slight changes can have impacts."'

This same repackaging of PHARMA untested and allowed to be patented because a former brand is similar----is creating widespread harmful reactions and/or death.....BIO-SIMILARS. Note that vegans are people wanting MOST PURITY AND NATURAL in their foods---they are being PLAYED.




The Impossible Burger: Inside the Strange Science of the Fake Meat That 'Bleeds'


The cook, complete with hair net, lays the red patty down on the grill and gives it a press with a spatula. And there, that unmistakable sizzle and smell. She flips the patty and gives it another press, lets it sit, presses it, and pulls it off the grill and onto a bun.


This is no diner, and this is no ordinary cook. She's wearing not an apron, but a lab coat and safety goggles, standing in a lab-kitchen hybrid in a Silicon Valley office park. Here a company called Impossible Foods has over the last six years done something not quite impossible, but definitely unlikely: Engineering a plant-based burger that smells, tastes, looks, and even feels like ground beef.


There are other veggie burgers on the market, of course, but Impossible Foods wants to sell consumers a real meat analog—one that requires a very different kind of engineering than your Boca or black bean burgers. So WIRED wants to take you on the deepest dive yet into the science behind the Impossible Burger.


Biting into an Impossible Burger is to bite into a future in which humanity has to somehow feed an exploding population and not further imperil the planet with ever more livestock. Because livestock, and cows in particular, go through unfathomable amounts of food and water (up to 11,000 gallons a year per cow) and take up vast stretches of land. And their gastrointestinal methane emissions aren’t doing the fight against global warming any favors either (cattle gas makes up 10 percent of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide).


This is the inside story of the engineering of the Impossible Burger, the fake meat on a mission to change the world with one part soy plant, one part genetically engineered yeast—and one part activism. As it happens, though, you can’t raise hell in the food supply without first raising a few eyebrows.


The Lean, Mean Heme Machine

What makes a burger a burger? The smell, for one, and taste and texture, all working in concert to create something animal. It’s loaded with all manner of proteins that interact with each other in unique ways, creating a puzzle of sorts. But Impossible Foods thinks the essence of a meat lies in a compound called heme, which gives ground beef its color and vaguely metallic taste—thanks to iron in the heme molecule. In blood, heme lives in a protein called hemoglobin; in muscle, it's in myoglobin.


Interestingly, you’ll find globins (a class of proteins) not just across the animal kingdom, but in plants as well. Soy roots, for example, carry a version called leghemoglobin, which also carries heme. Leghemoglobin in soy and myoglobin in meat share a similar 3-D structure consisting of what's known as an alpha helical globin fold, which wraps around the heme.


So what if you could extract the heme from a plant to obtain that secret ingredient in ground beef? Well, the main problem, Impossible Foods found, is that you'd need a heck of a lot of soy: One acre of soybeans would yield just a kilogram of soy leghemoglobin.

Impossible Foods founder and CEO Pat Brown figured out how to hack together a better way. Technicians take genes that code for the soy leghemoglobin protein and insert them into a species of yeast called Pichia pastoris. They then feed the modified yeast sugar and minerals, prompting it to grow and replicate and manufacture heme with a fraction of the footprint of field-grown soy. With this process, Impossible Foods claims it produces a fake burger that uses a 20th of the land required for feeding and raising livestock and uses a quarter of the water, while producing an eighth of the greenhouse gases (based on a metric called a life cycle assessment).


Now, engineering a “beef” burger from scratch is of course about more than just heme, which Impossible Foods bills as its essential ingredient. Ground beef features a galaxy of different compounds that interact with each other, transforming as the meat cooks. To piece together a plant-based burger that’s indistinguishable from the real thing, you need to identify and recreate as many of those flavors as possible.


To do this, Impossible Foods is using what's known as a gas chromatography mass spectrometry system. This heats a sample of beef, releasing aromas that bind to a piece of fiber. The machine then isolates and identifies the individual compounds responsible for those aromas. “So we will now have kind of a fingerprint of every single aroma that is in beef,” says Celeste Holz-Schietinger, principal scientist at Impossible Foods. “Then we can say, How close is the Impossible Burger? Where can we make improvements and iterate to identify how to make each of those particular flavor compounds?”


This sort of deconstruction is common in food science, a way to understand exactly how different compounds produce different flavors and aromas. "In theory, if you knew everything that was there in the right proportions, you could recreate from the chemicals themselves that specific flavor or fragrance," says Staci Simonich, a chemist at Oregon State University.

Then there’s the problem of texture. Nothing feels quite like ground beef. So Impossible Foods isolates individual proteins in the meat. “Then as we identify what those particular protein properties are, we go and look at plants for plant proteins that have those same properties,” says Holz-Schietinger. Plant proteins tend to taste more bitter, so Impossible Foods has to develop proteins with a cleaner taste.


What they’ve landed on in the current iteration is a surprising mix. Ingredients include wheat protein, to give the burger that firmness and chew. And potato protein, which allows the burger to hold water and transition from a softer state to a more solid state during cooking. For fat, Impossible Foods uses coconut with the flavor sucked out. And then of course you need the leghemoglobin for heme, which drives home the flavor of “meat.”


For something that so accurately mimics the taste and look and feel and smell of meat (and trust us, it does), the Impossible Burger is actually not all that complex. “Earlier iterations were much more complex because we didn't fully understand it,” says Holz-Schietinger (experiments with cucumber and the famously smelly durian fruit didn't ... pan out, nor did trying to replicate the different connective tissues of a cow). “Now we understand which each component drives each sensory experience.”


At the moment, the Impossible Burger is only available in select restaurants, though Impossible Foods just opened a plant with the idea of increasing production from 300,000 pounds a month to a million. But as they focus on expansion, some critics are raising questions about the burger of tomorrow.


Government, Meet the Future. The Future, Government

In 2014, Impossible Foods filed what’s known as a GRAS notice, or “generally recognized as safe,” with the FDA. In it, the company listed the reasons it considered soy leghemoglobin safe for humans to consume. Leghemoglobin, they argued, is chemically similar to other globins considered safe, so it should carry the same confidence with consumers. Food companies aren’t required to tell the FDA when they’re introducing new ingredients, and filing this sort of self GRAS determination is not mandatory, but Impossible Foods says it did so in the name of transparency.


“Leghemoglobin is structurally similar to proteins that we consume all the time,” says Impossible Foods’ chief science officer David Lipman. "But we did the toxicity studies anyway and they showed that that was safe.” They compared the protein to known allergens, for instance, and found no matches. The company also got the OK from a panel of experts, including food scientist Michael Pariza at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.


But the company didn't get the blessing it was looking for from the FDA. As detailed in documents FOIA'ed by environmental groups and published by The New York Times in August, the FDA questioned the company’s conclusions. “FDA believes that the arguments presented, individually and collectively, do not establish the safety of SLH [soy leghemoglobin] for consumption, nor do they point to a general recognition of safety…,” the FDA wrote in a memo. That is not to say the FDA concluded leghemoglobin to be unsafe, just that it had questions.


The FDA also noted that the company's engineered yeast doesn't just produce leghemoglobin—it also produces 40 other normally occurring yeast proteins that end up in the burger, which "raises further question on how the safety argument could be made based solely on SLH." Impossible Foods insists these proteins are safe, and notes that the yeast it has engineered is non-toxic, and that its toxicity studies examined the whole leghemoglobin ingredient.


Impossible Foods withdrew its GRAS notice in November 2015 to perform a new study. They fed rats more than 200 times the amount of the leghemoglobin ingredient than the average American would consume if the ground beef in their diet—an average of 25 grams a day—was replaced with Impossible's fake meat (adjusted for weight). They found no adverse effects.


Meanwhile, the Impossible Burger is on the market, which has some environmental groups peeved. That and there's the larger question of whether GRAS notifications should be voluntary or mandatory. “The generally recognized as safe exception was meant for common food ingredients, not for the leading-edge products, especially the innovative like the leghemoglobin,” says Tom Neltner, chemicals policy director at the Environmental Defense Fund, which was not involved in the FOIA. “We don't think it should be a voluntary review, we don't think the law allows it.” Accordingly, the group is suing the FDA over the agency’s GRAS process.

DOthers are concerned that leghemoglobin—again, a new ingredient in the food supply, since humans don't typically eat soy roots—hasn’t gone through enough testing to prove it’s safe, and agree with the FDA that Impossible Foods’ GRAS notification came up short. “The point of some of us that are being critical of this is not that everything that's engineered is unsafe or anything like that,” says Michael Hansen, senior staff scientist at the Consumers Union, which was also not involved in the FOIA. “It's like, look, any new food ingredient, some new food additive, of course it should go through a safety assessment process.”


Hansen takes issue with the idea that leghemoglobin is similar to other edible globins are therefore safe. “As the FDA pointed out in their response, just because proteins have similar functions or similar three-dimensional structures, doesn't mean that they're similar," Hansen says. "They can have a very different amino acid sequence, and just slight changes can have impacts."

This is what happens when the future of food lands on the government’s plate. The central question: Should Americans trust companies to do their own food safety testing, or should that always be the job of the feds?


The reality is, different kinds of modified foods attract different levels of regulatory attention. "It is a patchwork system with little rhyme or reason," says crop scientist Wayne Parrott of the University of Georgia. "It depends on what is done, how it is done, and its intended use." You hear plenty about the crops, and most certainly about the long hullabaloo over that GM salmon. But not engineered microorganisms, which are extremely common. Why?

"Out of sight, out of mind," says Parrott. "And people also get more emotional over animals than they do over other things. With the salmon it was political. Very, very political."


Really, there's no inherent danger in genetically modifying a food. After all, the FDA wasn't raising its voice about soy leghemoglobin because it comes from genetically engineered yeast. The agency's job is to determine the safety of foods. "Any risk that's associated comes from traits," Parrott says. "It doesn't come from the way you put those traits in there."


This is only the beginning of a new era of high-tech, genetically engineered foods. Because if we want to feed a rapidly expanding species on a planet that stays the same size, we’re going to need to hack the food supply. Our crops will have to weather a climate in chaos. "We want to improve efficiency so we can feed 9 billion people without more land, without more water, without more fertilizer or pesticides," says Parrott.


And humanity will sure as hell have to cut back on its meat consumption. “We'll change the world more dramatically than any company possibly in history has ever done it,” says Impossible Foods founder Brown. “Because when you look at the impact of the system we're replacing, almost half of the land area of Earth is being occupied by the animal farming industry, grazing, or feed crop production.” That system, of course, will not give up ground quietly.


But who knows. Maybe shocking the system isn’t so impossible after all.

___________________________________________

'As more biosimilars come to market, patients need to know that their treatments they rely on are safe and up to standard with other drugs approved by FDA. To make this happen, the FDA must instill ironclad patient safety standards that ensure biosimilars are as safe and effective as the reference innovative biologics'.


What we are seeing with INNOVATIVE MANUFACTURED FOOD is mirrored in INNOVATIVE uses of old brand patents made NEW again----as BIO-SIMILAR treatment any number of disease vectors---and NO----they are not brought through any clinical trial or safety standards because FAST-TRACKING to market is the VALUE-ADDED.
21st century reforms of CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING SAFETY-------is designed to open these kinds of markets-----no public safety ----not much real public health.

All of this falls under the far-right wing global banking 1% GREEN REVOLUTION which is today's GLOBAL GREEN CORPORATION PARTY.


THE BLOG
03/31/2011 08:25 am ET Updated May 31, 2011



Biosimilar and Counterfeit Meds: When Do They Become Dangerous?

By John Horton

A recent 60 Minutes special blasted open the dark and dangerous world of counterfeit drugs — a multi-billion dollar market that potentially affects the health and safety of anybody taking a prescription drug. The tens of thousands of fake prescription drugs that enter the U.S. each year range from sugar pills that fail to deliver necessary medical benefits, to those containing actual toxins that can kill (and indeed, have been linked to fatalities).


Over the last few decades, regulators and private industry, working together, have improved their collective sense of what works and what doesn’t, to fight counterfeiters. What if they were able to go back in time and apply these “lessons learned” decades ago, saving countless lives?


They can’t, of course — but there is an opportunity to apply that collective wisdom to a class of relatively new drugs called “biologics.” Precisely because biologics, which are made from living organisms, show significant promise, they will inevitably be a target for counterfeiters intent on making outrageous profits at the expense of patient safety.


So what can be done to prevent prescription drug counterfeiters from injecting the U.S. market with fake biologics?

First, the FDA is currently considering what is called an “abbreviated pathway” for approving legal knock-offs of biologics (called “biosimilars“) that will enable copycat and thus cheaper versions of these life-saving medications to become FDA-approved. It’s important to ensure that this process doesn’t cut corners: the FDA should hold biosimilars to the same standards of safety as the original biologics. Unlike non-biologic medicines, where a “generic” version is more or less an exact chemical replica, biosimilars can never truly be identical to the original biologic. Hence, the only way to ensure the same level of safety is to require similarly rigorous clinical testing for biosimilars as is required for the original biologics.


Second, it’s important to be open-eyed about how counterfeiters operate. Some have been known to insert convincingly real-looking counterfeits into the normal prescription drug supply chain. “Track and trace” technology affords regulators and drug companies the ability to follow a drug’s supply chain back to the origin.

Third, it’s important to empower pharmacists, physicians and patients. When a biosimilar is approved, labels and product names should adequately educate the reader as to whether the drug is the original biologic or a copycat biosimilar. As with any product, it’s tempting for copycat manufacturers to want to cash in on the original creator’s trademark, suggesting that the products are identical; but when it comes to medicines, is it safe to allow that?
0 Comments

February 21st, 2018

2/21/2018

0 Comments

 
Let's discuss why US citizens both right and left wing hate the policy of IPAB-------AND what makes the difference if an IPAB is American or WORLD HEALTH UNITED NATIONS.

US citizens are being told they are now captured by corporations because those 5% global banking 1% pols and players have a crony hold on all levels of government doing anything global banking tells them.  So, the policy of IPAB today----with this corporate capture means all health care policy and pricing decisions will be made in corporate profit and corporate welfare------with no thought of 99% WE THE PEOPLE and public interest. Our US health system was public and local before Clinton era------our local county PUBLIC HEALTH would have been working for what was best for all Baltimore citizens and all funding from FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL TAXES would reach those health agencies to assure these goals were met.  THIS IS HOW IT NEEDS TO WORK AS WE STOP MOVING FORWARD.

We know Obama and Clinton neo-liberals installed the IPAB to make sure global 1% corporations and not 99% of citizens controlled all health policy making sure we could not end PROFITEERING AND CORPORATE WELFARE QUEEN SUBSIDY.  
We know that a WORLD HEALTH UNITED NATIONS IPAB would be far worse as global 1% from third world nations having no regard to Western medical ethics and morals would have strong powers of installing policies.  We do not want either of these structures to continue to be built.

While 99% of WE THE PEOPLE are watching national news propaganda on sex scandals and FAKE Russian conspiracies ---our local US cities and counties DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES are MOVING FORWARD these global banking 1% health policies.


Trump is NOT stopping Trans Pacific Trade Pact---he is not stopping IPAB.


THE BLOG
04/20/2011 04:32 pm ET Updated Jun 20, 2011



Why Does (Almost) Everyone Hate the IPAB?

By Linda Bergthold


What IS the IPAB you ask?


If you know the answer to this, you will score big points with your friends, because only about .5% of the population knows the answer. The IPAB is the Independent Payment Advisory Board established in the health reform bill to help keep Medicare spending under control. Sounds good, right?



Actually, almost everyone hates the idea of the IPAB. Everyone, that is, except more than 200 economists and health care researchers, the former head of OMB, Peter Orszag, and of course the president of the United States, who made the IPAB a central part of his deficit reduction proposal last week. In fact, he recommended strengthening not repealing it. The reason for the president’s strong support is the conclusion reached by many economists that the type of decisions that need to be made about Medicare spending require independence and expertise.


Here’s what the IPAB is, and why so many groups fear its power. The Board would be composed of 15 members appointed by the president (and subject to Senate confirmation). The members would be physicians, patients, the elderly, economists, health insurers, employers and researchers. This board would be asked to recommend ways to control Medicare spending, triggered by a certain percentage increase in Medicare costs each year. The recommendations of the Board each year must be approved by Congress in their totality unless Congress can come up with options for savings that are similar to what the Board has proposed. Sort of a “base closing” kind of up-or-down vote. There are safeguards for Medicare benefits, however.


With regard to IPAB’s recommendations, the law says:
The proposal shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums under section 1818, 1818A, or 1839, increase Medicare beneficiary cost sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and co-payments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria.


There are many reasons why this type of Board faces opposition. Its independence from the political process is both an advantage and a disadvantage. It’s an advantage because recommendations about reducing Medicare costs probably should be done by independent experts (including patients), not by politicians, who can be swayed by financial contributions and pressure from their health care constituencies. It’s a disadvantage for the same reason. The IPAB would be largely independent of congressional control. Politicians do not want to give up the opportunity or responsibility to tweak Medicare, and both Democrats and Republicans oppose the Board for that reason. Many health industry and physician groups also oppose the Board because it could have too much power to reduce or change their rates of reimbursement. Consumer and patient groups have doubts about what the recommendations might do to patient care and coverage (even though the law forbids the Board from reducing benefits). Add to that the difficulty of coming up with recommendations for cuts when you cannot touch benefits or raise revenue, and you get the picture. This is not a popular program.


The arguments against the IPAB are both substantive and ideological. Republicans say that health care recommendations by the IPAB will be made by bureaucrats or “experts” you don’t know (and would be a government takeover of course). Actually that’s the way these decisions are made right now in the way Medicare is administered by private sector plans, and how is that going? Do you know the people in your insurance plan or in the Medicare bureaucracy who are making the decisions about your benefits? They may be bureaucrats, but is it comforting that they are “your” or “Congress’s” bureaucrats? It is true that this Board would not be as accountable to the Congress as it would be to the president, but the IPAB is not completely without accountability given the opportunity for Congress to come up with its own solutions if it doesn’t like what the Board recommends.


As members of the public and current or future patients or Medicare beneficiaries, should we hate the IPAB too? Should we oppose the idea? It all depends on where you think the authority for controlling the cost of Medicare should reside. If you believe that an elected official would make better decisions about Medicare spending, then you would oppose the IPAB. If you think appointed experts from a variety of fields of expertise, then you would support the IPAB. Whatever you believe, there will be plenty of hyperbole launched around this board in the next few months as the federal budget is debated. I personally believe that the IPAB can play an important role in helping to keep Medicare viable, and I think the president has taken a courageous stand in supporting it. Whether it will survive the budget negotiations in the coming months is not clear.

__________________________________________


The IPAB was attached to MEDICARE TRUST because for several decades MEDICARE has indeed controlled health costs and been a standard of EQUAL PROTECTION FOR ALL 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizens.  Until Clinton era----that was in PUBLIC INTEREST giving the US the strongest and best in quality health care in the world.  US citizens went to a local hospital and doctor and felt secure in what was prescribed or procedures done.  CLINTON ERA 1990s broke all those protections down, outsourced and privatized to FAKE OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE FREEMASON NGOs and private corporate  universities all our PUBLIC HEALTH WITH PUBLIC INTEREST.

Fast forward to today-------MEDICARE has been fully privatized, defunded, and these BOARDS are filled with global corporate executives using MEDICARE IPAB to set policies which will take PRIVATE INSURANCE PLANS down as well.  So, those middle-affluent class thinking they have that GOLD OR PLATINUM====EVEN THAT LOWLY SILVER PLAN-----will fall under the same constraints set by MEDICARE and IPAB.  That means lots of fees and little access to quality health care.

99% WE THE PEOPLE WANT TO RETURN TO MEDICARE LEADING IN PUBLIC INTEREST COST, QUALITY, AND EQUAL ACCESS======SO WE MUST STOP MOVING FORWARD GLOBAL DEREGULATED, PRIVATIZED, PREDATORY, AND PROFIT-DRIVEN AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.

Please do not fall for MEDICARE FOR ALL----SINGLE PAYER----UNIVERSAL CARE as doing this---these are all global banking 1% FAKE talking points.

Global banking 1% pols are using these health reforms aimed at MEDICARE to expand to controlling private health insurance in a very, very NEGATIVE way.


Medicare Leads in Controlling Health Costs


July 21, 2016 at 11:30 AM


Medicare has been the leader in reforming the health care payment system to improve efficiency and has outperformed private health insurance in holding down the growth of health costs, as we note in our newly updated report on Medicare’s finances.  Since 1987, Medicare spending per enrollee has grown by 5.7 percent a year, on average, compared with 7.0 percent for private health insurance.  (See figure.)




This favorable trend will continue over the coming decade, according to the latest national health expenditure projections from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).  Medicare spending per enrollee will grow at an annual rate of 3.9 percent between 2014 and 2025, CMS projects, while private health insurance will grow by 4.6 percent.


The Affordable Care Act (ACA) envisions that Medicare will continue to lead the way in efforts to slow health care costs.  It authorizes the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation to test new models to reduce program spending while preserving or enhancing the quality of care.  And the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) of 2015 moves toward paying physicians based on quality of care rather than volume of procedures.  Along with directly reducing Medicare costs, the ACA and MACRA payment changes may also encourage structural changes throughout the health care payment and delivery system that may generate further savings.

__________________________________________

Below we see one reason IPAB installed by OBAMA AND CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS is so bad-------the appointments keep our ELECTED OFFICIALS at Federal, state, and local level in control of health care policy----total control goes to these few people.  This is called BIG GOVERNMENT-----global banking 1% is pretending this is SOCIALISM-----government telling 99% WE THE PEOPLE what to do.  THIS IS NOT GOVERNMENT----it is a global corporate tribunal ------government is OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE.  Don't be confused by terms like BIG GOVERNMENT-----CORPORATE SOCIALISM.



So, yes this is the gorilla-in-the-room issue in health care reform----do you hear any of those FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT POPULIST pols and 5% players mentioning any of these problems?  No, they support AFFORDABLE CARE ACT and just want to TWEEK it----to make it ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE UNITED NATIONS.

'But common sense still matters.

President Obama’s ACA established the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), a 15-member panel of unelected federal employees; its members to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The law does not require the IPAB to be bi-partisan in structure, as is required for almost all other independent agencies. Its mission is specific - to restrict payments to doctors and hospitals in order to achieve a reduction in Medicare spending beneath a specified cap'.


The GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM issue bigger than IPAB with no bi-partisan rules-----CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA are of course ONE WORLD ONE POLITICAL PARTY------is this FAST-TRACK cuts to MEDICARE.

US citizens constantly here of this term FAST-TRACKING----it is a policy installed these few decades ago----rarely used decades ago-----now used all the time.  It takes all deliberation and participation out of Congress, state assemblies, and local government and makes excuses of EMERGENCY NEED OF EFFICIENCY in installing policy from a BOARD like IPAB----right away.  No time for 99% of WE THE PEOPLE to know what is happening or to respond to stop MOVING FORWARD.


Again, Wyden of OR is pretending to push this as he is a raging global banking 1% ONE WORLD UNITED NATIONS 5% pol.  He pretends because OR tends to be right wing conservative more so than CA and WA.



As far-right wing global banking 1% ----CLINTON/OBAMA love that FAST-TRACKING as much as BUSH NEO-CONS. Anything to take 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE out of legislative process.


January 31,2017




Wyden Pushes to Block Fast-Track Cuts to Medicare


Resolution and Bill Blocking IPAB Would Prevent Administration from Rushing Through Harmful Policies to Undermine Medicare

WASHINGTON – Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., today introduced a resolution and a bill that would prevent the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) process from moving forward. The resolution comes before the Feb. 1 statutory deadline required to discontinue the process.



“Given the Trump administration’s short but disturbing record of irresponsible and cruel executive actions, it would be a huge mistake to leave in place the authority to push through harmful cuts to Medicare with minimal input from Congress,” Wyden said. “The president has picked people to lead his health care team at HHS, including Congressman Tom Price, who have long records of supporting policies that would shift cost to seniors and other vulnerable Americans. I am deeply concerned about their commitment to the promise of Medicare – a promise of guaranteed health benefits for seniors and vulnerable Americans who count on it.”


Independent Payment Advisory Board, commonly referred to as IPAB, was set up under the Affordable Care Act to make recommendations to reduce Medicare spending if it exceeds a certain target. The ACA allows for a one-time, fast-track process to discontinue the entire IPAB process, but it requires that a joint resolution be introduced no later than February 1, 2017.


Wyden introduced both a resolution, as prescribed by statute, as well as a bill to unwind IPAB. The resolution takes advantage of a one-time opportunity to discontinue the process, whereas the bill repeals IPAB in full.

_________________________________________



We have shouted for over a decade that MARYLAND was ground zero for all this global banking 1% global corporate health reform policy----so, it makes sense our Maryland Assembly working for global HEDGE FUND IVY LEAGUE JOHNS HOPKINS would MANDATE health insurance coverage under one of the most privatized and unjust state corporate health systems in the nation.

The MANDATE-----tied to a global corporate IPAB making policy and pricing ASSURES that 99% of Maryland and US citizens will be SOAKED with fees in insurance policy monthly payments while not getting the access to ordinary care.  WE THE PEOPLE will be declared TOTALED===as our auto insurance had been allowed to do these few decades and declared not worth the investment in REPAIRS.

More and more American citizens and Maryland citizens are being pushed to CATASTROPHIC health plans just because of these GOALS.

THIS HEALTH MANDATE TIED TO WORLD HEALTH IPAB------ASSURES US CITIZENS AND OUR IMMIGRANT LABOR POOL 99% WILL BE VICTIMS -----


All of our Maryland candidates for GOVERNOR---no matter if running as REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT are pledged to MOVE FORWARD all these global banking 1% health reforms ---killing our US best in world history AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH CARE.

IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH FUNDING HEALTH CARE FOR THE POOR=======



General Assembly weighs bill to require Marylanders to buy health insurance
Andrea K. McDanielsContact Reporter  Baltimore Sun


Responding to the federal repeal of the individual mandate requiring everyone to have health insurance, Maryland lawmakers are considering legislation that would impose the requirement at the state level.


“We need to find some way to stabilize the individual insurance market. The premium increases we are facing are really high if we don’t,” said Sen. Brian J. Feldman, a Montgomery County Democrat and sponsor of the bill.


The federal requirement was a key part of the Affordable Care Act designed to ensure enough people were on the insurance rolls to keep costs down. Congress removed the mandate as part of the federal tax overhaul passed in December.

OH, REALLY?????


“I think there is a strong desire to respond to what is happening on Capitol Hill,” Feldman said.


The proposal will get hearings this week.
The legislation has the support of more than half of the House of Delegates. Sen. Thomas M. “Mac” Middleton, a Charles County Democrat who co-sponsored the Senate bill, chairs the committee that will consider the legislation in that chamber. He calls the proposal “innovative.”


Maryland is one of about nine states currently weighing legislation to replace the federal mandate with a state one, but with a unique twist.

The Maryland bill would require those who choose not to buy a plan to pay an annual fine starting at $700, but it would offer people the option of using that money as a down payment to purchase insurance the following year. Supporters hope to use the fine to prod people to get coverage rather than penalize them.


With federal subsidies and incentives, 60,000 of the state’s 200,000 uninsured could buy insurance for less than or the same cost as the proposed fine, supporters say.


Getting more people to buy health insurance could help slow the skyrocketing premium increases faced by people who buy their health coverage on the state insurance exchange.

WHAT DO STATS ALREADY SHOW?  HAVING HEALTH INSURANCE DOES NOT MEAN ACCESSING HEALTH CARE---WHICH IS THE GOAL.



“We in Maryland need to make sure people are insured to keep their premiums down,” said Del. Joseline Pena-Melnyk, a Montgomery County Democrat sponsoring the bill. “We think this will allow us to keep health care accessible and affordable.”


The insurance mandate — one of the most reviled aspects of the law known as Obamacare — is considered essential to its success. When mostly sick people enroll for insurance it drives prices up.


“The Republicans did some real damage to the ACA by repealing the individual mandate,” said Jonathan P. Weiner, a professor of health policy and management at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health. “The ranks of the U.S. uninsured could increase by 13 million over the next decade because of this. The Maryland legislature is the leader of a pack of eight or so blue states trying to respond to this federal repeal by enacting a similar mandate at the state level.”
The idea of using the penalty as an incentive for people to buy insurance is a new one, Weiner said.

MARYLAND IS A GLOBAL BANKING 1% OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE ROYAL STATE---NOT DEMOCRATIC OR BLUE.



“What the Maryland legislature is proposing is both timely and innovative,” Weiner said. “Not only does it replace what the Republicans took away, it improves upon the soon-to-be-defunct federal law by seamlessly converting tax penalties into insurance coverage, rather than simply depositing it into the state’s coffers.”


Lawmakers propose automatically putting people’s fines toward purchasing insurance unless they opt out. They would send out a form to those who were uninsured the previous year and tell them that unless they say otherwise it would put the fine toward a health plan for the following year in the form of a down payment. Uninsured individuals would have to check a box to pay the fine instead.


For those who choose not to opt out, the legislation would put their penalty in escrow until the next enrollment period to use for an insurance plan. People also would be notified by the state during open enrollment time and provided with information about how to apply the $700 toward insurance and other insurance options available.


“We believe that this is a way to really encourage these folks who haven’t signed up to do so,” said Stan Dorn, a senior fellow at Families USA who helped develop the plan. “They will have to make the choice of using the money to pay for insurance or have it go to state coffers.”

FAMILIES USA IS A FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL BANKING 1% ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT GROUP=====NOT A REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE GROUP.



Gov. Larry Hogan has not said if he will support the bill but has called the individual mandate “basically a tax.” He has said he is in favor of “incentives” that could help reduce the cost of health care.


Hogan’s spokesman, Doug Mayer, sent YouTube video clips from a January news conference when asked about the governor’s position on an individual mandate. In one video, Hogan announced he would work with leaders of the House and Senate to stabilize the insurance market under the Affordable Care Act. He called the stakes tremendous, noting that thousands of people could lose their insurance and the market could collapse if no solution is found.

HOGAN IS FAR-RIGHT GLOBAL BANKING 1% AS A REPUBLICAN SO YES, HE WILL SUPPORT A CLINTON NEO-LIBERAL HEALTH POLICY.



“These issues are much too important and the impact too far-reaching for us to get it wrong,” Hogan said.
Mayer said Hogan has been meeting with both delegates and senators to come up with solutions and that the meetings have been productive.


Representatives for House Speaker Michael E. Busch and Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller said the two lawmakers also were working with people from the medical and insurance industries as well as other legislators on solutions to stabilize the market, but were not yet ready to comment on specific legislation.
There are a dozen or so bills pending in the General Assembly to address the issue. The bills cover a wide range of ways to stabilize the market, including creating a high risk pool and merging the small business and individual markets.


Vincent DeMarco, president of Maryland Citizens' Health Initiative, praised the idea of using the penalty to help pay for insurance. His group is pushing the bill.
“We think that once people know, they will opt for the insurance,” he said.

MARYLAND HEALTH CARE FOR ALL AND MARYLAND CITIZENS' HEALTH INITIATIVE ARE BOTH GLOBAL HEDGE FUND IVY LEAGUE JOHNS HOPKINS FAKE 'LABOR AND JUSTICE' ORGANIZATIONS.

________________________________________


'The American Enterprise Institute has pointed out, that IPAB “emphasizes payment reductions at the expense of real Medicare reform'.

Here is the FAKE RIGHT WING global banking 1% Bush neo-cons pretending they are protecting right wing voters from what is a far-right wing health policy goal.  As we said----IPAB will be made UNITED NATIONS WORLD HEALTH IPAB via TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT------TPP---which all Congressional Republicans support and those same right wing Republicans are the source of FAST-TRACKING POLICY installed a few decades ago.

What we see Republicans doing in fighting to repeal Affordable Care Act is repealing all that does not fit with MOVING FORWARD TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT----which includes public trusts and subsidies for health care for seniors, disabled, and poor. CLINTON/OBAMA doing just the same.



The right wing coining the term DEATH PANELS tied to OBAMA and Clinton neo-liberal health care reform has nothing to do with their own goals doing the same----it is simply a TALKING POINT to the right wing voters----and yes, the IPAB will be illegally denying US citizens access to health care that will cause them to die prematurely.

House Votes To Abolish Obamacare Board That Conservatives Called A ‘Death Panel’

Kerry Picket
Reporter

7:50 AM 11/03/2017


WASHINGTON — The House Thursday voted to repeal a key government board established by the Affordable Care Act that conservatives rallied against during the Obamacare debate seven years ago out of concern that the provision could wind up rationing medical care for patients.

The Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), famously called a “death panel” by its opponents, is a 15-member federal agency intended to reduce Medicare without taking away coverage or quality of care. The American Enterprise Institute has pointed out, that IPAB “emphasizes payment reductions at the expense of real Medicare reform. The constraints placed on what the IPAB can recommend were not accidental. The authors of the ACA support restraining Medicare spending, but only with government-imposed payment restrictions, not financial incentives.”


The IPAB can make recommendations about cuts to Medicare sans congressional oversight or input. IPAB proposals use “fast track” protocols and require a three-fifths vote in the Senate for Congress to alter the kinds of cuts to Medicare. Even then, Congress may not change the amount of cuts made. If Congress does not act on the board’s recommendations, they automatically go into effect. Additionally, the IPAB is immune to judicial or administrative review.


Tennessee Republican Rep. Phil Roe introduced two pieces of legislation back in February, to repeal the IPAB. The first, H.J. Res. 51, would enable the Senate to utilize a “fast track” parliamentary mechanism to repeal the IPAB. The second, H.R. 849, is the same bill Roe proposed in the prior Congresses to repeal the board.


Members voted 307-111 to do away with the Board, but the future of the legislation in the Senate is still on shaky ground as it is a stand-alone bill and would need 60 votes to end debate before a final simple majority passage vote. According to The Hill, no appointees are on IPAB presently and budget experts predict that IPAB won’t be triggered until 2021 or 2022.

___________________________________________
Here we see UK having installed these same FAST-TRACKING health policies.  Below we see how US PHARMA and MEDICAL DEVICES have hit the FAST TRACK at a time when tens of millions of citizens are harmed and/or killed by these untested products.

Obama and Clinton neo-liberals LOVE FAST-TRACKING------because it gives the 99% of WE THE PEOPLE no time to organize against policies flying out of CLOSED CORPORATE BOARDS. 

So, like TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT----TPP------the Affordable Care Act pushed fast-tracking ability on this IPAB and RIGHT WING REPUBLICANS love this---it is a FAR-RIGHT WING HEALTH POLICY after all.




'Fast Track - Food and Drug Administration


www.fda.gov/ForPatients/Approvals


/Fast/ucm405399.htm Jan 03, 2018 ·
Fast track is a process designed to facilitate the development, and expedite the review of drugs to treat serious conditions and fill an unmet medical need'.


EPHA Briefing |

Will fast-tracking medicines improve affordability?


by Yannis Natsis | May 30, 2016 | Universal Access and Affordable Medicines | Strategic Documents, Universal Access and Affordable Medicines Campaign





These fast-track policies created by an IPAB whether national or ONE WORLD UNITED NATIONS WORLD HEALTH----are designed to be installed EVERY YEAR----so health policy would look different every time a citizen needed to access care.



Continuing Care Fast Track assessments – how to get a quick decision
Care to be Different > Articles > NHS Continuing Healthcare >

Continuing Care Fast Track assessments – how to get a quick decision


Posted on July 16, 2012 in NHS Continuing Healthcare
88 Comments



Many families are wrongly told that NHS Continuing Healthcare funding is only available for people who are at the end of their life. Not only is this incorrect, it often means that elderly people with significant health needs are wrongly denied the free NHS care they are entitled to in law.


Continuing Healthcare funding for care fees depends on the extent of your relative’s health needs, not what stage of your life they’re at. Assessments are supposed to be carried out swiftly, no matter what your relative’s degree of health needs. There is, however, a special process that should be used in emergency situations when a person is in a period of rapid deterioration or when a person is in ‘terminal decline’ at the end of their life.


National Framework guidelines, page 32, paragraph 97:
“Individuals with a rapidly deteriorating condition that may be entering a terminal phase, may require ‘fast tracking’ for immediate provision of NHS continuing healthcare.”


Nursing care is provided by the NHS, and NHS care is free – in law. The Continuing Healthcare eligibility criteria are based purely on care needs and NOT on a person’s money, and by looking at the criteria – and at the local authority legal limit for means tested care – it will be clear whether or not a person should receive full NHS funding for their care.


If your relative is in terminal decline at the end of their life or in a period of rapid deterioration, you can insist on them having an urgent Continuing Healthcare assessment. This is done using the NHS Continuing Healthcare Fast Track process (‘Fast Track Pathway Tool for NHS Continuing Healthcare’). Essentially, it’s a fast assessment to get NHS funding in place as quickly as possible.


Here are some of the key points to keep in mind about this NHS Continuing Healthcare Fast Track process:


  • It is used if your relative has urgent health needs and/or nursing needs and is rapidly deteriorating and/or in a terminal phase of life. It is also used if your relative’s health is likely to deteriorate rapidly before the next routine Continuing Healthcare review. It is not only for people at end of life.
  • It allows a quick decision to be made about Continuing Healthcare funding. As part of this, it allows appropriate end of life support to be put in place quickly by the NHS – free of charge – and it means your relative can have care provided in their preferred location, including at home.
  • The Fast Track assessment should be carried out by a registered medical practitioner (the ‘assessor’), such as a GP, consultant, registered nurse, hospice clinician, etc – but this person must have detailed knowledge of your relative’s needs. Unfortunately, families report that GPs and other medics often have little (if any) knowledge of the Continuing Healthcare assessment process, and it can fall to the family to ‘educate’ them in this respect. This can be immensely frustrating for the family at a time when urgent action is required.
  • In the Fast Track assessment the assessor makes the decision that person is in a rapidly deteriorating state and/or in a terminal phase and with an increasing level of dependency. This decision should be accepted and acted upon immediately by the NHS.
  • There should be no delay in providing free NHS Continuing Healthcare funding just because NHS or local authority staff are arguing or debating how the Fast Track should be used.
 
  • Your relative should be moved to his/her preferred place of care and have funding immediately put in place without having to go through the long-drawn-out ‘full’ multidisciplinary team Continuing Healthcare assessment process. The NHS is responsible for this. If your relative is already in a care home, and no longer owns their own home, it may be that the care home will be the best place in which to remain.
  • Once Fast Track Continuing Healthcare funding is in place, it should never removed without the NHS going through the proper review process, i.e. a full assessment process carried out by a multi-disciplinary team (MDT). This ‘full’ assessment process uses a form called the ‘Decision Support Tool’ (DST). Only once the Fast Track assessment is complete and funding is put in place should an MDT review process ever be started – and only if this MDT assessment is really necessary. This full MDT assessment process should never delay urgent Fast Track end-of-life funding and care.
  • If parts of the Fast Track form have not been completed, or if the assessor does not know how to complete it, or the patient cannot assist in completing it, this should never delay a decision about funding or delay NHS care being put in place.
Essentially, the Fast Track allows for a decision to be made quickly that your relative has a ‘primary health need’, that they have a rapidly deteriorating condition or are in the terminal phase of life, that their needs are more than ancillary to the provisions of accommodation by a local authority, i.e. the care they need is beyond the legal remit of Social Services.



Remember, ask for a Fast Track assessment if you feel your relative should have one. If this is declined, and yet it’s clear that your relative is declining rapidly, put your concerns in writing to the Chief Executive of your relative’s local NHS (Clinical Commissioning Group) and copy it to the Continuing Healthcare Team, the GP, all appropriate consultants, nurses, medics, clinicians, carers and the care home manager (if relevant).


If necessary write to your MP.
If it’s obvious that your relative needs urgent nursing care, you could also refuse to pay (or continue to pay) care fees at this point.


This does, of course, raise a further question: If a rapid decision can be made using the Fast Track process, why can’t all NHS Continuing Healthcare assessments be as quick?

__________________________________________

GLOBAL BANKING 1% ARE ONLY TRYING TO HELP 99% US WE THE PEOPLE

'This, it continues, contradicts the principles of the Commission’s ‘Better Regulation’ agenda. “We are seriously worried about the precedent that such rushed, unscientific and inconsistent proposals would set.”'




FAST TRACKING is now taking all US, UK, and slowly European public policy especially around HEALTH CARE REFORM.  Does a patient told they have no other access want to try experimental medicine?  We have always had that choice.  Using the term FAST-TRACKING in medicine is not about patients gaining RIGHTS-----it is about by-passing all our 20th century regulations and processes in place to protect 99% of WE THE PEOPLE from harm and death.

Below we see CHEMICAL CORPORATIONS are having their guidelines for protecting public health weakened through FAST TRACKING sending chemicals out into the public once banned as harmful----or killing the research and development clinical trials needed to assess harm. 

IF WE ARE ENDING PUBLIC PROTECTION AND ACCESS TO MEDICAL TREATMENT FROM DEVASTATING TOXIC INDUSTRIAL EXPOSURES WE MAY AS WELL FAST-TRACK THE NEED TO RESEARCH WHETHER THOSE CHEMICALS CAUSE HARM.



'However, chemicals and policy officer at NGO ChemSec, Jerker Ligthart, told Chemical Watch that using the fast-track approach is the “right way to go”, due to its focus on consumer protection and the well-known hazardous properties of these classified substances'.

When we have a HEALTH INSURANCE MANDATE----tied to an IPAB making decisions on patient care with the power of telling a patient they HAVE TO USE THIS PRODUCT as it is efficient-----we are open to global medical corporations doing ANYTHING THEY WANT under the guise of providing HEALTH CARE ACCESS.


Global corporate factories are REAL KILLERS.

Fast tracking CMR restrictions sets ‘dangerous precedent’


Textile trade groups ‘deeply concerned’ by plans for 286 substances


30 March 2016 / Children's products, Europe, Priority substances, Textiles & apparel


A group of trade organisations is calling for the European Commission to abandon its proposal to “fast track” the restriction of 286 carcinogenic, mutagenic, reprotoxic (CMR) substances in textiles consumer articles.


Responding to the Commission’s consultation on the proposal, the group of textiles and wider industry associations, which includes Euratex, the Foreign Trade Association, EuroCommerce and the American Chamber of Commerce for the EU, raise a number of concerns in a joint statement.


Among these, it says the use of Article 68 (2) – which sets out the fast-track procedure under REACH – would ignore the importance of the “evidence-based usual restriction process under REACH”.


The fast-track approach, it says, is not appropriate for such a large number of substances, sets a dangerous precedent for bad regulation and could also impact the European economy negatively.


The group says it is “under the impression” that the potential impact of the proposed restriction has not been assessed adequately and that “political motivations are driving the overly ambitious procedure”.


It questions the "appropriateness" of addressing a list of 286 substances in the two-three months, allocated by the Commission.


“Considering the substantial amount of time, work and resources spent in the exercise of responding to the consultation, it is arguable whether the European Commission is willing to support European SMEs, and design EU policies and laws that achieve their objectives at minimum cost and informed by the best available evidence,” it adds.


This, it continues, contradicts the principles of the Commission’s ‘Better Regulation’ agenda. “We are seriously worried about the precedent that such rushed, unscientific and inconsistent proposals would set.”


However, chemicals and policy officer at NGO ChemSec, Jerker Ligthart, told Chemical Watch that using the fast-track approach is the “right way to go”, due to its focus on consumer protection and the well-known hazardous properties of these classified substances.

“It is widely agreed that known and classified CMR substances do not have a place in consumer articles, especially in the consumer textiles product group as it is worn directly on the skin,” he added.


Last month, ChemSec said the proposal should be expanded to cover all CMRs used in the industry, not just category 1A and 1B classified substances.

Consumer groups have even called for the proposed restriction to go beyond just CMRs. European Consumer Organisations, Beuc and Anec, say persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic (PBT) very persistent, very bioaccumulative (vPvB), (neuro)toxic, endocrine disruptors and substances with probable serious effects to human health, such as sensitisers or irritants, should also be included.


They also recommend establishing a separate, product-specific regulation for textiles, which would allow it to address all substances of concern in an “appropriate way”.


In a separate response, textiles trade body, Euratex, proposes that an ad-hoc industry scientific committee is established to support decision making.


This committee, it says, would include a representative panel of industry-appointed experts to discuss with the Commission and advise on the feasibility of restriction, valid replacement options and the impact of decisions.  

The Commission says it is collating responses and will evaluate them in "due course".

___________________________________________
We will end discussion over FAST TRACKING, IPAB as a national vs WORLD HEALTH UNITED NATIONS policy tied to US MEDICARE and by extension all aspects of US public health by revisiting the history behind US CONGRESSIONAL ability to FAST TRACK.

We always shout that FDR creating the status of US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES were restricted to DUTY/TAXES tied to import export.  Back then of course our US economy was mostly domestic so these policies were background in our economy.  It was NIXON-ERA with all that OPENING UP CHINA making global markets take the majority of our US economy and FAST TRACK policies BROADENED from only duty/taxes to all aspects of FOREIGN POLICY tied to trade-----ergo, it is undermining every aspect of our economic and societal structures determined by 300 years of US CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, 3 BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT CHECKS AND BALANCES----and of course any thought that 99% of WE THE PEOPLE would be involved in public policy. 

So, 1970s expanded the use of FAST TRACK and 1990s super-sized that expansion.  This is why we have CONGRESS trying to fast track TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT----totally killing 300 years of US governance structures.



'Today, the fast track approach of the 1970s is under stress'.

When we speak of HEALTH CARE POLICY we are MOVING FORWARD issues of LIFE AND DEATH-----issues of global boards installing policies actually having a goal of HARM over GOOD. 

WE ARE ALREADY SEEING THIS PREDATORY MEDICINE IN US THESE FEW DECADES NOW GROWING IN AFFORDABLE CARE ACT----IPAB-----
We simply need to reverse these expansions as they create illegal MONOPOLY-----they create an illegal circumvention of our US Constitutional rights AS CITIZENS TO LEGISLATE.

Simply REPEAL IT ---VOID IT as illegal ---easy peasy.



Rethinking the Roles of Congress and the President in "Fast Tracking" U.S. Trade Negotiations

Charles Hankla, Georgia State University

In January 2014, President Obama formally requested that Congress grant him Trade Promotion Authority – also known as “fast track” – to speed the negotiation of two treaties that could transform America’s relationship with international markets. The pending Transpacific Partnership would eliminate key trade barriers between the United States and eleven Asian countries, including Japan. Of even greater potential significance, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership would merge the world’s two largest markets, the United States and the European Union, into a single interdependent commercial zone.

If fast track authority were granted, Congress would have to vote on agreements negotiated by the President within ninety days, up or down with no amendments. But opposition erupted right after President Obama made his request. Many in Congress are no longer willing to grant presidents such latitude on trade agreements that impact jobs and worker rights, the environment, and a host of other societal concerns. The current impasse puts in stark relief the challenges faced by the United States government as it seeks to develop a coherent approach to increasingly globalized commerce. Presidential authority is more important than ever, but Congress is no longer willing to step back. New arrangements are needed.

The Origins and Limits of Fast Track

In the eighteenth century, trade policy was considered a source of revenue rather than an instrument of foreign policy, so the U.S. Constitution granted nearly complete authority to Congress. Congress remained in charge for more than a century, setting U.S. tariff levels by direct votes as on any other legislation. Difficulties came to a head with the infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930, when a series of Congressional logrolls raised U.S. tariffs to extraordinary levels that sparked retaliation from Europe and, as most scholars agree, helped worsen the Great Depression.

In 1934, Congress granted greater authority to the executive branch in the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, for two main reasons:


  • To limit interest group pressures that could drive tariffs to dangerous levels. Even if each member of Congress advocated for the protection of only one commodity made in his or her district, the logrolling process could add up to harmful overall outcomes. The President, hopefully, could better represent the national interest as a whole.

  • To enable the President, as the agent of U.S. foreign policy, to use trade concessions as leverage to generate reciprocal concessions from trading partners. 
Patterns of authority established by the 1934 law and its offshoots allowed the executive branch to negotiate U.S. tariff rates on commodities within certain ranges in exchange for concessions from America’s trading partners. The same concept of reciprocity informed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) set up in 1947 to prevent the reemergence of harmful trade blocs. Mid-century arrangements through which Congress delegated authority within limits functioned well until the 1970s, when Congress created a new form of delegation.

By that point, international trade negotiations had moved beyond tariffs into more complex areas where pre-set limits were no longer feasible. In place of the older system, the Trade Act of 1974 created fast track authority, where Congress provides very general guidance on trade policy goals and rules for consultation, and agrees to put any agreement signed by the President to a prompt up or down vote. Overall, this delegates more authority to the executive branch to handle complex, contingent negotiations – yet it also limits the President’s authority to make adjustments after he signs an agreement and sends it to Congress.

The Need for Revisions in Fast Track Authority


Today, the fast track approach of the 1970s is under stress. Newly pressing issues such as intellectual property rights, environmental, health, and labor regulation, and domestic subsidies make it impossible for senators and representatives to remain uninvolved as negotiations proceed. An even stronger role for the executive branch is justified by its technical expertise, facility with secret international negotiation, and ability to speak for the United States as a whole. Yet how can representatives and senators remain uninvolved in discussions of politically salient matters such as labor rights and food safety, or ignore matters of national security that get drawn into trade negotiations (as with the extension of free trade to drug-violence-plagued Colombia or the exclusion of China from the Transpacific Partnership)?

Because it is highly unlikely that Congress will accept anything less than a more complete partnership, here are some ways the fast track approach could be revised and updated:

  • Congress could narrow the authority it grants the President by specifying the countries, broad issues, and agreements to which fast track applies, rather than granting this authority for a fixed period of time. Specific guidelines could actually boost U.S. bargaining power, as research has shown that a strong legislature with veto power can toughen a country’s negotiating stance. 

  • Congress could demand more regular consultation according to specific procedures. Given the fluidity of international negotiations, a small number of Congressional members would have to be authorized to meet regularly with negotiators. 

  • Congress could insist on more public access to information during ongoing negotiations.

  • Congress could extend the 90 day voting period and enable amendments supported by supermajorities. Or it could require that Congress approve a draft trade agreement before the President signs it, enabling the revision of points that Congress finds objectionable.

  • Congress can insist on legislation to more fully guide implementation after a pact is approved.
U.S. leadership in trade is critical to prosperity and security. Maintaining that leadership in ways commensurate with our democratic values requires rethinking the roles and relationship of Congress and the President in negotiating and implementing high-stakes trade agreements.




0 Comments

February 20th, 2018

2/20/2018

0 Comments

 
This morning I watched as CNN anchor CUOMO---great big far-right global banking 5% player said THEY KNOW as he introduced a report of RITE AID merging with ALBERTSON'S grocery chain.  We were told SIZE MATTERED now-----with CNN that comment may have been sexual.

When we watch 3 global banking 1% players telling us they will simply start their own global health system having nothing to do with medicine-----we are watching as that GLOBAL IPAB ------is being created.  BUFFET, BEZOS, JP MORGAN are those global corporate executives appointed to IPAB along with those global health corporations fat on US frauds and profiteering from our Federal health programs.

What is another example from CNN today was this-----when our US national grocery chains partner with global PHARMA corporations like RITE AID-----WALGREEN-----CVS------those grocery chains are then controlled by global PHARMA and this is our US food source.  So, Safeway is partnered with Rite Aid because it is ALBERTSON'S. 

All of this DEREGULATION of what used to fall into the category of US PUBLIC HEALTH INSTITUTIONS-----is very, very, very bad-----but tying these global PHARMA to our national food chains will see those food chains raided and thrown into bankruptcy so please don't think your corporation and job is being saved with these mergers which have DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS on the US 99% and access to ordinary health care.


'Safeway Inc., part of Albertsons Companies'

'CVS-Target deal could spur supermarkets to find pharmacy partners
'CVS Pharmacy, Walgreens to anchor CVS Health's new ...'
'Walgreens to close 600 stores following Rite Aid buy'

The point is this------the Obama IPAB we were told would be filled with STAKEHOLDERS----which of course are largely global corporations insuring their employees and global health corporation executives.  Since these IPAB categories are already GLOBAL 1% ------that IPAB will simply become WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION/UNITED NATION global 1% appointees.


When 99% WE THE PEOPLE are supporting all these mergers taking our US health institutions from being local---then regional---then national---then global as these few decades have done ----just to keep a job---we are the ones killing our US MEDICARE----ALL US STRONG PUBLIC HEALTH access. IT'S NOT JUST ANY JOB.


Albertsons Scoops Up Remainder of Rite Aid as Retailers Face Online Threat

The transaction would create a company with revenue of $83 billion and allow Albertsons to go public.

Photo: Getty Images
By
Heather Haddon

Updated Feb. 20, 2018 1:50 a.m. ET


 

Albertsons Cos. plans to buy the rest of Rite Aid Corp. RAD 2.40% that isn’t being sold to Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc. WBA 1.63% as retailers of all stripes scramble to respond to a rapidly changing consumer shopping landscape.


The drugstore chain and Albertsons have a combined value of around $24 billion, including debt, the companies said Monday. Rite Aid, which comprises thousands of drug stores and a benefits-management company with millions of members, has a market value of about $2.3 billion and is in the process of selling a chunk of its stores to Walgreens.


Following the proposed cash-and-stock deal, shareholders of closely held Albertsons, owner of Safeway and 19 other supermarket chains, would hold roughly 71% of the combined company, while Rite Aid investors would own the rest, they said.


The transaction would create a company with revenue of $83 billion and allow Albertsons to go public after more than a decade of ownership by private-equity giant Cerberus Capital Management LP. The grocer was on the brink of an initial public offering in 2015 but shelved the plan in the face of a dour profit forecast by rival Walmart Inc.


For Rite Aid, the third-largest U.S. drugstore chain, the deal represents another way to gain heft after the federal government blocked its full sale to Walgreens, which now plans to buy roughly 2,000 of Rite Aid’s stores.


The chief executives of the companies said in interviews Monday that the merger is the best way for them to compete in businesses increasingly threatened by Amazon.com Inc., along with an emboldened Walmart.


Amazon is making a big push into food retail with its purchase of Whole Foods Market Inc. Walmart, in turn, has boosted its e-commerce offerings and the range of goods it sells, through a number of recent deals.


“We know that scale matters,” said Bob Miller, Albertsons chief executive. “We continue to grow to compete with all competitors, not just Amazon.”



John Standley, Rite Aid’s CEO, said the merger will help the company expand its food offerings to stand out from CVS Health Corp., Walgreens and Walmart. It will also expand Rite Aid’s e-commerce offerings given Albertsons’ progress in that realm, said Mr. Standley, 54 years old.


“There is a ton of potential here,” he said.
All three of the U.S.’s biggest pharmacy chains are now pursuing deals in a sign of the threats they face as customers increasingly shop online. CVS has agreed to buy health insurer Aetna Inc., and Walgreens, in addition to the scaled-back Rite Aid deal, is in talks to buy drug distributor AmerisourceBergen Corp. , The Wall Street Journal recently reported.


The S&P index for drug retail has fallen 11% in the past year.
Mr. Standley is to serve as the new company’s CEO, while Mr. Miller would act as chairman. Speculation as to who would succeed the 73-year-old Albertsons CEO had mounted in recent years.


“The truth is I’d like to work forever; I love what I do, but I’m going to be 74 in a month,” Mr. Miller said.
The new company, to be based in both Boise, Idaho, and Camp Hill, Pa., would operate approximately 4,900 stores and 4,300 pharmacies across 38 states and Washington, D.C., with a heavy presence along the coasts. The company’s new name is to be determined upon the deal’s close, expected by the summer, the companies said.


Amazon’s further push into grocery has caused supermarket stocks to tumble and prompted food retailers to search for deals in a sector known for razor-thin profits. A historic drop in food costs also hurt sales last year when it sparked a price war among grocers.


The executives said Monday that the merger will boost food and pharmacy delivery options for customers and help drive repeat sales.


Supermarket shoppers tend to spend more and be more loyal when they shop for prescriptions along with food, the executives said.


Albertsons, owner of roughly 2,300 stores, had made a series of technology plays as sales in physical stores have softened. The company acquired the Plated meal-kit service last year, and is in the process of offering the popular boxes of premeasured ingredients to millions of store customers.


Albertsons reported disappointing sales last month. Executives at the time said they expect improvements this year and to slow new-store development to focus on technology investments.


Mr. Miller said the company hadn’t closed the door on an IPO when the merger discussions began, but that the Rite Aid deal offers more benefits for shareholders and customers.


“This is more about a combination of two great companies that will create great value and grow sales, not just about being a public company,” he said.

The federal government will have to approve the deal. Albertsons and Rite Aid operate in many of the same markets, but have less sector overlap than Walgreens and Rite Aid, the companies said. Rite Aid today does sell food, and Albertsons operates pharmacies in its stores.


Mr. Standley said the company has sought to learn from the failed Walgreens deal, and that it believes the merger wouldn’t stifle competition.

______________________________________


We took yesterday to review the AFFORDABLE CARE ACT goal of creating massive global health systems consolidated and deregulated controlled by the same global banking 1% that has all other once AMERICAN INDUSTRIES......to see who will be on that IPAB ------what would have been local public health officials and community members has become global corporate executives, global banking executives, and global 1% WORLD HEALTH officials.

OBAMA and Clinton neo-liberals created this capture of all US health policy and pricing phasing not phasing it in until 2020 for the same reason those FAKE $15 AN HOUR laws we are hearing are not being enforced across the US-----are not intact until 2020---2022. The coming economic collapse and handing to IMF/WORLD BANK will see this US IPAB-------become that WORLD HEALTH IPAB.

So, yes, 99% of WE THE PEOPLE want the AFFORDABLE CARE ACT repealed----we want that INSURANCE MANDATE gone-----we want this IPAB structure gone----and we cannot get to MEDICARE FOR ALL----UNTIL we get rid of these global deregulated, consolidated to global monopoly structures.


World Health Assembly

The World Health Assembly is the supreme decision-making body for WHO. It generally meets in Geneva in May each year, and is attended by delegations from all 194 Member States. Its main function is to determine the policies of th
e Organization.

The Health Assembly appoints the Director-General, supervises the financial policies of the Organization, and reviews and approves the proposed programme budget. It similarly considers reports of the Executive Board, which it instructs in regard to matters upon which further action, study, investigation, or report may be required.
Executive Board

The Executive Board is composed of 34 members technically qualified in the field of health. Members are elected for 3-year terms.

The main Executive Board meeting, at which the agenda for the forthcoming Health Assembly is agreed upon and resolutions for forwarding to the Health Assembly are adopted, is held in January, with a second shorter meeting in May, immediately after the Health Assembly, for more administrative matters.

The main functions of the Board are to give effect to the decisions and policies of the World Health Assembly, to advise it and generally to facilitate its work.


Can you explain the controversy around the IPAB and why it was repealed?

Can you explain the controversy around the IPAB and why it was repealed?
  • Louise Norris
  • Individual health insurance and health reform authority; broker
  • February 10, 2018
Q. Can you explain the controversy around the IPAB and why it was repealed? 


A. The IPAB (Independent Payment Advisory Board) was created by the ACA (see sections 3403 and 10320 of the ACA for the legislative language that established the IPAB). It would have been a 15-member board, with the board members appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

The idea was that if Medicare per-capita spending growth were to exceed a target amount, the IPAB would have proposed evidence-based recommendations to reduce Medicare spending growth. But Medicare spending growth has been particularly low since the ACA was enacted, and nobody was ever appointed to the IPAB. The program was repealed in early 2018 as part of the budget act.


Board members

The President would have been required to consult with Congressional leaders for at least 12 of the 15 appointments, and the Senate would have had to confirm all of the appointees. IPAB members would have been required to possess expertise in health care, economics, medical research, health coverage and/or third-party administration of employer health plans.


And while medical providers could have been on the board, no more than seven of the 15 members could have been providers. In addition, board members would have had to demonstrate that they didn’t have conflicts of interest, and would have had to give up any other jobs that they previously held, as serving on the IPAB would have been a full-time federal position.


How would the IPAB have worked?

If Medicare per-capita spending growth exceeded a target amount, the IPAB would have been tasked with drafting recommendations for reducing spending growth. Once the recommendations were made, Congress could have voted to implement different cost containment measures that achieved at least as much savings as the IPAB recommendations. But they would have needed a three-fifths majority in the Senate in order to ignore the issue altogether. So the IPAB wouldn’t have had the final say in the matter, but neither could their recommendations have simply fallen on deaf ears.


The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) is a more stripped-down version of the IPAB, and has been in place for more than two decades. But unlike the IPAB, MedPAC’s recommendations can be — and routinely are — ignored by Congress. In order to ignore recommendations from the IPAB, Congress would need a supermajority vote. And if Congress were to fail to pass their own legislation to contain Medicare spending growth, the IPAB’s recommendations would have automatically taken effect.


The text of the ACA specifically notes that the IPAB’s recommendations could not have included increasing Medicare payroll taxes or beneficiary premiums, nor could they have recommended any sort of rationing or increases in beneficiary cost-sharing. But cuts to provider reimbursements would have been allowed as of 2019, which pitted most provider groups against the IPAB.


The IPAB was controversial from the start. It was envisioned as a concrete step towards containing Medicare spending growth, but critics called it a “death panel,” charging that it would effectively result in rationing—despite the ACA’s language preventing direct rationing—and that it would amount to bureaucrats getting between seniors and their health care.


IPAB’s supporters believed that it made sense for a panel of experts using medical evidence to weigh what we should cover and what we should pay for various treatments. But many Americans are wary of “experts” and Republicans are particularly skeptical. Polling shows that when asked about having an independent panel make proposals for Medicare, 59 percent of Republicans expressed a high level of distrust vs. 39 percent of Democrats.

IPAB never convened, and the process was never triggered

Per-capita Medicare spending growth has been much lower than expected in recent years. Between 2000 and 2010, it averaged 7.4 percent per year. But between 2010 and 2016, it averaged just 1.3 percent per year. As a result, the IPAB cost-containment recommendation process has never been triggered. And as of 2017, it was projected that it still wouldn’t be triggered until 2021 (the ACA allowed for the IPAB process to begin as early as 2014, if Medicare spending growth had exceeded targets at that point).



In addition, the board itself has never existed. President Obama never appointed anyone to it, nor did President Trump. So conversations about the IPAB in the early years of ACA implementation were theoretical, rather than practical, as there was no need for the IPAB process to be implemented. But the IPAB remained controversial, even though some fiscal conservatives saw it as a necessity to keep Medicare solvent. Even Democratic lawmakers weren’t particularly fond of it.



IPAB was repealed in early 2018Section 52001 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 repeals the IPAB. The act was signed into law by President Trump on February 9, 2018. As noted above, the IPAB never convened and its process was never triggered, given how low per-capita Medicare spending growth has been since the ACA was enacted. But projections about if and when the IPAB will be triggered are now moot.

_________________________________________

Just as TRUMP is pretending to be right wing conservative in removing US from TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT and pretending to be fighting all those global labor pool 99% immigrants------he is pretending to end this IPAB tied to MEDICARE.  Notice a super-majority of REPUBLICANS today just as a super-majority of DEMOCRATS in 2009 didn't remove that INSURANCE MANDATE-----

TRUMP is super-sizing mergers, consolidations, deregulations just as OBAMA----he is MOVING FORWARD to an IPAB attached to WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION/UNITED NATIONS only his right wing voters would not want to hear that.

THE IPAB IS NOT REPEALED-----IT IS MORPHING INTO THE HANDS OF GLOBAL 1% CORPORATIONS.



IPAB was repealed in early 2018

Section 52001 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 repeals the IPAB. The act was signed into law by President Trump on February 9, 2018. As noted above, the IPAB never convened and its process was never triggered, given how low per-capita Medicare spending growth has been since the ACA was enacted. But projections about if and when the IPAB will be triggered are now moot.


Here we see the propaganda surrounding what should be a REAL LEFT social progressive issue-----repealing IPAB-----repealing INSURANCE MANDATE----breaking up US health consolidation/monopolization.

What we see below are global banking 1% pols both Bush neo-cons and Clinton neo-liberals pretending to end IPAB when they are heavily tied to global health corporations and WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION/UNITED NATIONS waiting to simply install that IPAB----over this US IPAB.

We know this especially for those 'Democrats' because they are tied to HYPER-GLOBAL NEO-LIBERAL US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES-----Oregon, CA, TX---and TN is super-duper global health system.


99% OF WE THE PEOPLE DO NOT WANT WHAT THESE GLOBAL BANKING 1% POLS/PLAYERS HAVE AS A GOAL------WE NEED OUR OWN 99% VOICE---NOT GLOBAL BANKING TALKING POINTS.



'The repeal effort has bipartisan support in Congress, including 49 senators and 219 members of the House, she noted. In the Senate, Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) have introduced both a joint resolution and a regular bill to repeal IPAB, as have Reps. Phil Roe, MD, (R-Tenn.) and Raul Ruiz (D-Calif.) in the House. But the biggest problem with Congress has been raising awareness of the issue, Fazio said. "Most members of Congress are surprised to know that the [joint resolution option] is open to them."'



CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA have completely deregulated, monopolized, and now handed all control of US health policy and pricing to what will become that ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE WORLD HEALTH/UNITED NATIONS board.


Practice Management > Reimbursement


Healthcare Groups Push to Repeal IPAB by August Deadline


Repeal through a joint resolution would need to happen by Aug. 15

  • by Joyce Frieden, News Editor, MedPage Today June 30, 2017
WASHINGTON -- A large group of healthcare organizations is pushing for Congress to repeal the law establishing the Affordable Care Act's Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) before Aug. 15, warning that it will get a lot harder after that date.


The IPAB was designed to be a 15-member independent body that would make recommendations on cuts to the Medicare budget; if Congress didn't agree with the IPAB's recommendations, it would have to devise its own plan to cut the Medicare budget by an equivalent amount.


The board has not yet met -- indeed, no one has even been named to it -- and its hypothetical existence has few defenders. Nevertheless, it could become a much bigger focus in the next few weeks if it remains on the books. That's because of the expected release of the Medicare Trustees' Report, an analysis released annually that details the fiscal health of the Medicare program.


The trustees' report will announce whether or not Medicare has met spending targets mandated by the Affordable Care Act (ACA). If the targets are not met -- if Medicare spending is too high -- the ACA's IPAB clause will be triggered. If the IPAB isn't established, or if it meets but fails to devise an acceptable plan, the responsibility of making the cuts would fall to the current Health and Human Services Secretary, Tom Price, MD.


The IPAB's critics -- who span the ideological spectrum -- say it is a far too blunt instrument to use for cutting Medicare spending. "There are more thoughtful ways to improve the efficiency and quality of the Medicare program rather than this meat axe approach," said Mary Grealy, president of the Healthcare Leadership Council, a coalition of drug, medical device, health insurance, and other healthcare organizations that is spearheading the repeal push.


"It takes time to bend the cost curve in Medicare," said Victor Fazio, a former Democratic congressman from California and now a senior advisor to the Washington law firm Akin Gump, which the HLC has hired to help with the repeal effort. The IPAB "is the impatient approach."


In addition, said Grealy -- who, like Fazio, spoke during an interview at which a public relations person was present -- the law creating IPAB "is very restrictive as to who could be on this board" because of conflict-of-interest issues, "so it would be people with no real-world experience in delivering healthcare."


And the cost-cutting recommendations would likely involve reimbursement cuts for physicians and other healthcare providers, according to Grealy.


"The law requires IPAB to achieve scoreable savings within a one-year time period," the HLC, along with several hundred organizations, wrote in a letter to members of Congress. "Thus, instead of pursuing long-term reforms that may not achieve immediate savings, IPAB is more likely to consider short-term savings in the form of payment cuts for healthcare providers. This was, in fact, the conclusion of the Congressional Budget Office, which stated that IPAB is most likely to focus on payment rates or methodologies for services provided by non-exempt providers."


There are better ways to cut Medicare costs than through IPAB, including greater use of accountable care organizations (ACOs), Grealy said. "There is also a big focus now on chronic care and there are a lot of new tools out there [such as] allowing broader use of telehealth." In terms of reducing the cost of prescription drugs -- an issue that affects the drug companies in Grealy's organization -- the solution involves "increasing competition to lower prices -- get more generics to market quickly, and get more brand-name drugs to market quickly too."


IS GREALY A GLOBAL BANKING 5% PLAYER OR WHAT????  ACOs AND TELEMEDICINE are the goals of FAR-RIGHT WING global corporations.

Although IPAB could be repealed at any time through the regular law-making process, there is a special provision that would allow it to be repealed through a joint resolution -- a "cleaner" process that allows no amendments to the measure -- as long as it is done by Aug. 15. Hence the group's rush to get the repeal done. "We miss that [deadline] and then it would go to a normal legislative process," which would be much more complicated, Grealy said.


The repeal effort has bipartisan support in Congress, including 49 senators and 219 members of the House, she noted. In the Senate, Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) have introduced both a joint resolution and a regular bill to repeal IPAB, as have Reps. Phil Roe, MD, (R-Tenn.) and Raul Ruiz (D-Calif.) in the House. But the biggest problem with Congress has been raising awareness of the issue, Fazio said. "Most members of Congress are surprised to know that the [joint resolution option] is open to them."


Although Democrats have been supportive of the ACA, some are not anxious to trigger the IPAB because if the board fails to cut Medicare costs to Congress's satisfaction, the task will fall to Price, a Republican, he noted.


In general, "IPAB has been operating like a ghost ship -- an empty vessel created by Congress that doesn't have anyone on board," Jonathan Oberlander, PhD, chair of the department of social medicine at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, wrote in an email to MedPage Today.


"Many health services researchers still support IPAB as a device to rationalize healthcare spending and Medicare governance," Oberlander said. "But in Congress, Republicans intensely oppose it and Democratic support is wavering. Some Democrats probably still support IPAB for substantive reasons, others as a symbol of the ACA -- they resist repealing any part of the ACA or giving ground to the GOP on any ACA issue. How strong Democratic support actually is for IPAB in Congress right now I don't know."


"There is a good chance that Congress could repeal IPAB, though given the general uncertainty over healthcare reform and the ACA it is hard to predict and its fate remains uncertain," continued Oberlander, the author of a Perspective article on IPAB in the New England Journal of Medicine. "If it survives, the Trump administration could potentially choose not to enforce its spending cuts -- IPAB in that case would essentially become the institutional equivalent of the living dead."
___________________________________________


'Some industry experts think that this could be CVS’ way of gearing itself up to compete against Amazon, which is rumored to soon look to grow its online pharmacy business'.

Here we see BEZOS AMAZON.COM in the PHARMA business ------and we see what is still called a US national PHARMA chain---CVS---hawking itself to another 'health' specialist JP MORGAN----because global banking 1% simply want to take care of its GLOBAL LABOR POOL 99% HUMAN CAPITAL.

BEZOS may be a sociopath----but he is a CEO of a global business so he can be on that WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION IPAB ----as a CORPORATE STAKEHOLDER. CVS may have a bit of a bias on PHARMA policy and pricing as it PROFITEERS its way to global expansion----but it's CEO will have a spot on a WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION IPAB----because it is a STAKEHOLDER.

US 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE and our MEDICARE seniors------not a stakeholder there except we have paid for all that consumption we are now going to be denied. We will see FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT 5% health NGOs pretending to work for the 99% with a person on these boards as with AARP.




Sep 8, 2017 @ 01:59 PM 1,255 2 Free Issues of Forbes

How CVS Is Looking To Further Expand Its Reach


Great Speculations Buys, holds and hopes Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

Trefis Team , Contributor

 

After a better than expected second quarter, CVS is taking initiatives to boost its sales even further through the introduction of vending kiosks. The pharmacy giant has decided to put vending machines in areas that experience high traffic, such as airports, college campuses and bus terminals so that busy customers have the convenience of accessing its products through these outlets. It plans on launching 25 such vending machines this fall throughout New York and New England. An additional 50 more machines will be installed in the next phase.


The first kiosk is already operational in the South Station bus terminal in Boston. Through the new CVS Pharmacy vending machine program, the company can reach its customers beyond its traditional brick-and-mortar setups. The machines will carry items that are convenient to pick up for busy travelers. These include deodorant, toothpaste, contact solution, healthy snacks, batteries, lint rollers, and stain removers. The kiosks will be touchscreen and carry more than 70 products.


Some industry experts think that this could be CVS’ way of gearing itself up to compete against Amazon, which is rumored to soon look to grow its online pharmacy business. The convenience of online shopping over brick-and-mortar stores has already made a lot of industries such as apparel and beauty companies make their business models more digitally oriented. Though pharmacy is not traditionally a segment that might be greatly impacted given the regulations of selling most drugs only with prescriptions, other generic healthcare products can easily be bought online. Accordingly, CVS’ recent initiative might be relevant and effective for helping it maintain a competitive edge in the future.
____________________________________

'America's Debt Crisis
Obama's budget would cut heat subsidies for poor


snow_blizzard.gi.top.jpg By Charles Riley, staff reporterFebruary 13, 2011: 10:29 AM ET


NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- President Obama's 2012 budget will propose cutting $2.5 billion from a program that helps low-income people cope with high energy costs in the cold of winter and heat of summer, according to a source familiar with the budget process'.



YES, MERGING US ENERGY CORPORATIONS AND INSTALLING SMART METERS WILL LEAD TO HOME ENERGY AND WATER RATIONING---A PUBLIC HEALTH DISASTER IN WAITING.

We are not going to discuss ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC HEALTH DEVASTATION health public policy---we went into great detail about what a CHINESE-STYLE Maryland/Virginia US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE filled with global industrial factories, oil and gas drilling, super-sized roads, rails, and pipeline to carry all these products----will end as the article posted yesterday-----AS CANCER ALLEY. Global 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA are working as hard as they can to make sure US citizens have no health coverage for this soaring disease vectors tied to MOVING FORWARD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE development.

Now, that 5% FAKE labor union leaders hawking the idea of union jobs------good paying jobs------are not reminding US citizens that all that CANCER ALLEY from Texas and Louisiana came during US PUBLIC HEALTH BENEFITS to treat those disease vectors caused from hyper-industrialization in TX and LA------THAT WILL BE GONE-----NO HEALTH CARE FOR YOU.

As well, we always hear these are good paying jobs----oil and gas drilling-----but again, global energy corporations are already installing AUTOMATED AND ROBOTIC drilling rigs and operations seeking to eliminate THOSE JOBS.

THERE IS NO WIN FOR 99% OF US CITIZENS OR OUR GLOBAL IMMIGRANT WORKERS IN ALLOWING MOVING FORWARD KILLING OUR US PUBLIC HEALTH INSTITUTIONS AND FEDERAL MEDICARE AND MEDICAID.


'Precision Drilling Corp.’s quest to automate more of its drilling rigs with new technology helped the company reduce its losses, even as oil and gas prices continued to languish in the third quarter.

The Calgary-based driller’s new technology is still in beta testing, but the company rolled out new process automation controls and other emerging technologies on 20 of its rigs, which drilled 70 wells in the quarter'.



This attack on social subsidy of home energy came with mergers by MARYLAND'S O'MALLEY and policies tied to SMART METERS-----OBAMA and Clinton neo-liberals defunded these social programs. TRUMP is simply MOVING FORWARD as that far-right wing global banking 1% -----TPP does not allow public subsidy----it takes away from corporate subsidy.


Khorri Atkinson Feb 18

Trump seeks to end heating assistance program for low-income people


President Trump's 2019 budget seeks to cut all funding from a program that provides heating assistance subsidies to low-income families in cold-weather states. The administration's argument: the program is marred by fraud and unnecessary, the AP reports.


Why it matters: This is the second attempt by the Trump administration to end the program, and it’s likely the proposal will again face resistance from lawmakers. Last year, Congress ultimately appropriated $3 billion, or 90% of the program's funding. Supporters argue the elderly, disabled and others with fixed incomes desperately need the assistance.

America's Debt Crisis

Obama's budget would cut heat subsidies for poor
By Charles Riley, staff reporterFebruary 13, 2011: 10:29 AM ET



NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- President Obama's 2012 budget will propose cutting $2.5 billion from a program that helps low-income people cope with high energy costs in the cold of winter and heat of summer, according to a source familiar with the budget process.
The reduction is steep, and might impact millions of families. In 2010, the program received $5.1 billion in federal funds, which were then distributed to states that have both low average incomes and high energy costs.

The administration is quick to point out that the reduction will bring the funding down to $2.57 billion, which is exactly the same as the fiscal year 2008 level.


Before becoming law, the proposal will have to survive a marathon budget process, but Republicans are also calling for cuts to the program, a fact that increases the likelihood of passage.

It's hard to say exactly how many people would be affected by the reduction in funding.
Before the White House plans, first reported by National Journal, leaked to the press, a coalition of Democrats on Capitol Hill led by Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts defended the program.


The program currently only serves one of every five eligible people, and a reduction would have dire consequences for those already receiving benefits, Markey said.
"Returning to 2008 funding levels ... would mean forcing 3.1 million families nationwide to return to deciding between heating and eating," Markey said.


In Massachusetts, Markey said the program will help 250,000 residents this year. The state received $175 million in 2010.

Markey's estimate of the impact of the proposed cut is in line with one produced by the American Gas Association, an industry group that represents natural gas companies. Based on data collected from state governments, the group predicts 3.2 million households, and 9 million individuals, will be affected by the administration's proposal.


States with extreme weather and high poverty levels would be hit hardest. In 2010, New York received $479 million, the largest amount of aid. Pennsylvania received $282 million, while Michigan and Illinois both got $233 million.


In all, 15 states received in excess of $100 million.
Members of Congress from those states are sure to fight the cuts. On Friday, a bipartisan group of 31 senators wrote to Obama's budget officials urging them to reconsider.

"To cut this critical funding during one of the coldest winters in recent memory would not only be devastating for the individuals who rely on LIHEAP to keep their families safe and warm, but would serve as a threat to our national economic recovery," wrote Democratic Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, who was joined by Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine.  

0 Comments

February 19th, 2018

2/19/2018

0 Comments

 
Before discussing IPAB in public health policy let's look at two posts from this weekend tied to goals of IPAB and how to tell the far-right wing global 1% players from REAL left social progressives.

When the WORKING FOR WOMEN you tube video told us IPAB is bad---they were right.  What they then said was this:  Medicare costs per person is 3:1 cost overrun to what payroll deductions put into our Medicare HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS.  That is WRONG.  This is how we know WORKING FOR WOMEN is a far-right wing global 1% group-----not working for 99% of US OR GLOBAL WOMEN.


'In addition to billions in Medicare pillaging to fund Obamacare, President Obama has essentially circumvented the law and future presidential vetoes by using the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) to insure all cuts to Medicare "must become law by August 15th, 2014."'


US 99% and global journalism has placed the costs of US health care as a result of FRAUD AND PROFITEERING.  We KNOW the costs these few decades are not the normal costs of heath care when it was a PUBLIC HEALTH INTEREST----we show this one current example------painkiller jumps to $2,979 from $138 these few years as Obama and Clinton neo-liberals pushed almost all of MEDICAID funding to PAINKILLERS AND MENTAL HEALTH PHARMA.  So, Medicaid is not too costly----it is the global health corporation FRAUDS and PROFITEERING that is too costly.  If we look at PER PERSON COSTS FOR HEALTH CARE adjusted to normal public interest rates there is not only a 1:3 ratio of payment-----one patient using only a third of those Medicare health savings----but there has built into the MEDICARE TRUST a perpetual funding for future generations just as with our US SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST.

IT IS TRUE THAT A RELATIVELY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF AMERICANS USE THE MAJORITY OF HEALTH CARE COSTS---BUT THAT IS THE NATURE OF DISEASE VECTORS AND GENETIC PRE-DISPOSITIONS.


So, the IPAB created by OBAMA and Clinton neo-liberals now MOVING FORWARD under TRUMP is composed of those very global health corporation executives having spent these few decades fleecing our US medical trusts and citizens' pockets.


'Painkiller that once cost $138 is now $2,979

by Matt Egan   @MattEganCNN February 15, 2018: 4:16 PM ET '

Is that ratio really 3:1 WORKING WOMEN----or is it 1:3?  We KNOW it is 1:3.
Remember, there our US seniors are paying almost $100 a month just to access ordinary MEDICARE----then they are forced to pay a MEDIGAP insurance often $400 a month----none of which should be in place nor is it necessary. Every time COLA handed SS seniors a measly increase that MEDICARE monthly payment increased to take it all.




'#111 Great Power in the Hands of Few: The recently repealed IPAB
What is the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), how…
youtube.com'



Obama Loots $716 Billion from Medicare
Posted by Justin Sykes on Tuesday, August 14th, 2012, 11:42 AM

Senior Obama adviser David Axelrod attacked Romney and Ryan this week with the accusation that a repeal of Obamacare would bankrupt Medicare. David Axelrod however is misinformed, as the real threat to Medicare is President Obama, who has taken billions of dollars from Medicare to fund Obamacare.


Medicare cost saving measures could be beneficial, however such measures should be used to make the Medicare guarantee stronger for tomorrows' seniors while preserving contemporary enrollee's plans. Instead, President Obama took Medicare dollars from today's seniors to fund Obamacare.


A report issued by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) finds that the amount of money President Obama has taken from Medicare to fund Obamacare totals $716 Billion:

Obama's Cuts to Medicare:

Total Amount Cut by Service:

Hospital Services$260 Billion

Medicare Advantage (MA)$156 Billion

Home Health Services$66 Billion

Skilled Nursing Services$39 Billion

Hospice Services$17 Billion

Medicaid/CHIP$114 Billion

Other Services$33 Billion

DSH Payments$56 Billion


Worst of all, President Obama has taken $56 Billion from Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) Payments. DSH payments go to Hospitals that primarily serve low-income patients.


In addition to billions in Medicare pillaging to fund Obamacare, President Obama has essentially circumvented the law and future presidential vetoes by using the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) to insure all cuts to Medicare "must become law by August 15th, 2014." 
____________________________________________

The profiteering these few decades was SO EGREGIOUS hundreds of billions of dollars each year------that what is needed to REALLY service PER PERSON MEDICARE is far less than what individuals pay into their MEDICARE SAVINGS ACCOUNTS.

Any discussion on costs per person in MEDICARE treatment must take into consideration this ROBBER BARON looting of our public trusts.  This is why a IPAB is not only ILLEGAL ----but the opposite of what 99% US WE THE PEOPLE needed Obama and a super-majority of Clinton neo-liberals to do in FIXING US HEALTH CARE.


Trump will absolutely keep MOVING FORWARD----he could not possibly harm our US seniors more than OBAMA and Affordable Care Act meets $20 trillion national debt with trillion dollars gutting of MEDICARE.

So, any group trying to affix blame for cuts to MEDICARE on Trump and not including OBAMA and Clinton neo-liberals---are 5% far-right wing global banking 1% players and pols.



11:10 AM ET July 11th, 2013


U.S. health care’s dangerous profit fixation


By Russell J. Andrews, Special to CNN


Editor’s note: Russell J. Andrews is a neurosurgeon who has been a U.S. Army flight surgeon, a clinician and researcher in both academia and private practice and a medical device developer with NASA. He is the author of ‘Too Big to Succeed: Profiteering in American Medicine.’ The views expressed are his own.



Medicine is big business in America. Nearly one fifth of our GDP is spent on health care – 50 percent more than any other developed country. Yet by many measures we are not getting value for money. Even nearby Cuba, which spends less than one-tenth as much as the U.S. per capita on health care, has outcomes that are as good or better: life expectancy is just as long, and the infant mortality rate is actually lower. Health care in the U.S. is on an unsustainable course, and costs cannot continue to increase while outcomes continue to deteriorate.


This crisis has been blamed on greedy malpractice lawyers, drug companies, health care insurance companies and doctors who over treat patients by practicing defensive or wasteful medicine – unnecessary tests are ordered and unneeded operations are performed. And there is something to all of these. Doctors have failed to address this health care crisis, so other groups offer solutions – notably economists and political commentators. Not surprisingly these proposals represent the expected economic or political views, namely: “Which reform will rein in burgeoning health care costs?” and “Which reform will be politically acceptable?”


Medical students since ancient Greek times have sworn to uphold the Hippocratic Oath. Yet nowhere in the Hippocratic Oath is money, financing or making a profit mentioned.  Medicine is a unique relationship between two people, one born of a person’s need for the skills of another person to live and be healthy. Even more than the teacher or the religious leader, the physician bears a responsibility that transcends financial gain. That responsibility to uphold the Hippocratic Oath has been lost in present-day American medicine.



Runaway costs and deteriorating patient outcomes are symptoms, not causes, of the present health care crisis. There are two primary factors at play: (1) the exchange of the unique long-term doctor-patient relationship (where the doctor assumes personal responsibility for the patient receiving the best care possible) for impersonal “corporate medicine;” (2) the morphing of American medicine from a function of humanitarian society into a revenue stream for health care professionals, drug and medical device companies, hospitals, and insurance companies. In essence, we have transformed health care in the U.S. into an industry whose goal is to be profitable, and the health of the patient is not really in the equation. Imagine if such a transformation from a societal good into a profit-making industry occurred in public safety (police and fire), clean air and water or basic education?


True, many incoming medical students have humanitarian motivations (an M.B.A. or a law degree is a quicker route to financial success than medicine). However, corporate America begins invading the physician’s professional “genome” early in training. Academic medical centers are as challenged as community hospitals in making financial ends meet: the faculty member who does not maintain the revenue stream is likely to be let go. The same is true for a physician in private practice – remaining economically viable is a full-time job (leaving less and less time for actual patient care) as for-profit insurance companies work ever harder to reduce their expenses.


The family doctor who follows you over time and place (“from womb to tomb,” and in both the office and the hospital) is being replaced by compartmentalized corporate medicine.  In-hospital care is assumed by a team of hospital-based physicians (“hospitalists”). Hospitalized patients may see three or more different hospitalists in a 24-hour period – and still others if they remain hospitalized over a weekend. Indeed, one hospitalist group has impersonalized this to the point where the patient’s doctor is whoever happens to hold the “hospitalist pager” at the moment.


It is sobering how the for-profit “virus” has “infected” health care in the U.S. medical students learn that physicians must forego “the joy of healing those who seek their care” to survive in the profit-driven medical environment. Direct to consumer (patient) advertising – at present largely limited to prescription drugs, although ads for surgical procedures are appearing – clouds the physician’s ability to prescribe what is truly best for the patient. Physicians are forced to prescribe treatment plans that place the financial health of the system (including the doctor’s own “financial health”) ahead of the physical health of the patient.


Medical research and drug and device development also aren’t immune to the profit motive. Many examples exist of millions of dollars wasted in the development of drugs or devices that in the long run were doomed to fail. Competition in medical drug and device research is not like competition in the cellphone or automobile industries. Consumers quickly determine which cellphones are best for them. Health care consumers (i.e. patients) cannot determine if a novel (expensive) drug will be beneficial for them, nor can they predict if their artificial hip or lumbar spine fusion will provide many years of improved quality of life. There are “lemon laws” if your new car fails to perform – but there is no trade-in available for a “failed back.” And again, the profits are privatized up front (to the physicians, the hospitals and the drug and device manufacturers), while the losses are socialized later on (disability payments and the other societal costs of a person who cannot work).


Fortunately, there are signs of health care reform that put patient before profit. The PCMH (patient-centered medical home) places the physician-patient relationship at the forefront of a team providing full-service medical and social service care. The EPMA (European Association of Predictive, Preventive and Personalized Medicine) brings together medical societies, medical research institutes and university hospitals and medical corporations from around the world to address, comprehensively, medical challenges such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease and neurological disorders.  Unlike the U.S., European countries provide basic universal health care for their citizens and are not controlled by for-profit insurers and hospitals.


Yet ultimately, the only way true health care reform will happen here is if the voting public in the U.S. rejects the unsustainable course of for-profit medicine. We must lobby our elected representatives in Congress and locally, demanding change. The public must exercise their democratic duty to make their views known – through emails, letters and the ballot box. We don’t just owe it to ourselves to do something – our lives depend on us doing so.


____________________________________________
We begin this week's discussion on IPAB tied to not only MEDICARE PAYMENTS----but all US health care by making sure 99% US WE THE PEOPLE know the MEDICARE TRUST has plenty of money for all baby boomers and our children and grandchildren.  Those appointed to today's IPAB are the global corporation executives behind all these few decades of massive frauds and profiteering-------

'Between 1982 and 2010, the U.S. spent $1.6 trillion more than Europeans on care for four leading cancers but had 729,000 more deaths, according to a new study. The figures are adjusted for population size. Photo of lung cancer tumor: James Heilman, Wikimedia Commons.On this blog, I’ve often dwelled on the disturbing fact that Americans pay far more for health care per capita than any other nation in the world and yet have a relatively low life expectancy. We spend more, and yet we’re less healthy'.


Taking ourselves for example as upper-middle class professionals having paid payroll taxes at a high rate over 30 years-----if we reach 65 years and have that incident of heart disease or cancer-----the costs of $25,000 inflated for our US medical staff wages and benefits-----would leave quite a bit of approximately $700,000 in payroll taxes with inflation paid into our MEDICARE HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS.  We could have regular checkups and PHARMA and never reach that $700,000.  We had a high percentage of middle-class Americans paying into that payroll trust who are mostly healthy going into MEDICARE years.  Do we care if those less healthy use that extra?  There is plenty of MEDICARE FUNDS to cover today's disease vectors and carry over to next generation.



'Why Chemotherapy That Costs $70,000 in the U.S. Costs $2,500 in India.......U.S. patients will not indefinitely pay a 20-fold increase on the price of medicines that Indian consumers pay.

Below we see what an OBAMA administration tells 99% of WE THE PEOPLE about goals and operations of IPAB ---meanwhile, costs of medical care and PHARMA have SOARED during OBAMA.



The Facts About the Independent Payment Advisory Board

April 20, 2011 at 5:46 PM ET by Nancy-Ann DeParle

Summary: 

Learn more about health care cost growth and the Independent Payment Advisory Board


Last week, the President outlined a framework for reducing our deficits and debt that is based on the values of shared responsibility and shared prosperity. We know we can’t reduce our deficit without reducing the growth of health care spending. But we also cannot bring down health care cost growth by simply raising costs for seniors and States and ending Medicare as we know it. That’s why the President opposes any plan that would simply place the burden of deficit reduction on seniors and undermine Medicare.


The President’s framework instead builds on the improvements made by the Affordable Care Act.  It tackles Medicare fraud and excessive payments for prescription drugs, proposes a stronger Federal-State partnership in Medicaid, and includes a series of health care reforms that would save $340 billion by 2021, $480 billion by 2023 and at least an additional $1 trillion in the following decade.


Key to these savings is a proposal to strengthen the Independent Payment Advisory Board – IPAB, which was created by the Affordable Care Act. Here’s how IPAB works:


  • 15 experts including doctors and patient advocates would be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to serve on IPAB.
  • IPAB would recommend policies to Congress to help Medicare provide better care at lower costs.  This could include ideas on coordinating care, getting rid of waste in the system, incentivizing best practices, and prioritizing primary care. 
  • IPAB is specifically prohibited by law from recommending any policies that ration care, raise taxes, increase premiums or cost-sharing, restrict benefits or modify who is eligible for Medicare.
  • Congress then has the power to accept or reject these recommendations. If Congress rejects the recommendations, and Medicare spending exceeds specific targets, Congress must either enact policies that achieve equivalent savings or let the Secretary of Health and Human Services follow IPAB’s recommendations.


IPAB is a backstop – it would only take effect if Medicare costs grow too fast.  We’re already implementing a series of reforms that will improve the quality of care and reduce costs. In fact, according to Congressional Budget Office projections, Medicare spending won’t hit the targets that would cause IPAB’s recommendations to take effect in the next decade. But independent experts agree that IPAB will offer constructive ideas and help keep Medicare cost growth per enrollee affordable in the long run:


  • Experts including former Bush Administration Medicare Official Mark McClellan called for “[strengthening] and [clarifying] the authority and capacity of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).”
  • Former Congressional Budget Office Director Former CBO Director Robert Reischauer called IPAB a “big deal” that “could generate substantial savings.”
  • Experts from the Commonwealth Fund wrote “the Affordable Care Act includes important provisions that will finally begin to control unchecked health care costs, such as…the creation of the Independent Payment Advisory Board. Building on and extending these provisions across the health system has the greatest promise of slowing the growth of government health care budget outlays, private insurance premiums, and underlying health care cost trends.”
  • A coalition of economists including three Nobel laureates said “the Affordable Care Act contains essentially every cost-containment provision policy analysts have considered effective in reducing the rate of medical spending” including an Independent Payment Advisory Board.


Under the President’s framework, seniors will have their guaranteed Medicare benefits. People on Medicare won’t be saddled with thousands of dollars in additional health care costs. And Medicare beneficiaries will be able to choose the health care plan and doctor that work for them.


The same can’t be said for the Republican plan. Under their proposal, a typical 65-year-old who becomes eligible for Medicare would pay an extra $6,400 for health care, more than doubling what he or she would pay if the plan were not adopted. Guaranteed Medicare benefits would be eliminated. Big health insurance companies would decide which benefits and insurance plans are available and could limit seniors’ choice of doctor. And in some cases, seniors might not have any health care choices at all.


As with deficit reduction, there is a right way and a wrong way to strengthen Medicare.  The wrong way is to simply slash benefits, leave seniors with higher premiums and hope for the best. 


The right way is to identify and implement what works on an ongoing basis to lower costs and improve care, set spending goals, and have a way to ensure that they are met – which is what IPAB does.  Reducing our deficit and debt is a goal we all share, and we can achieve that goal and ensure our seniors get the quality, affordable health care they need and deserve.

___________________________________________

We want to be clear from the start----that these few decades of increasing MEDICARE fees and monthly insurance payments equate to seniors simply PAYING FOR A PRIVATE HEALTH CARE PLAN.  We are not getting our MEDICARE ----we are paying insurance just as we pay throughout our lives.





Now that Social Security beneficiaries will receive a 2 percent cost-of-living adjustment in 2018, much or all of the gain may go toward Medicare Part B premiums. "Part B enrollees who were held harmless in 2016 and 2017 will see an increase in the monthly Part B premium from the roughly $109, on average, they paid in 2017," according to a statement from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Medicare Premiums for 2018:

Part A: (Hospital Insurance) Premium
Most people do not pay a monthly Part A premium because they or a spouse has 40 or more quarters of
Medicare-covered employment.

The Part A premium is $232.00 per month for people having 30-39 quarters of Medicare-covered employment.


The Part A premium is $422.00 per month for people who are not otherwise eligible for premium-free hos-pital insurance and have less than 30 quarters of Medicare-covered employment.


Part B: (Medical Insurance) Premium

$134.00 per month*
*If your income is above $85,000 (single) or $170,000 (married couple), your Medicare Part B premium may
be higher than $134.00 per month.

****************************************************************

Guaranteed Medigap Coverage
South Carolina has two guaranteed issue Medigap policies for persons under the age of 65 and on Medicare due to disability. The coverage is through the South Carolina Health Insurance Pool (SCHIP).
The plans and costs for all ages, effective January 1, 2018, are as follows:
Plan A
-
$932.75 monthly
Plan C
-
$1,185.38 monthly




Medicare Premiums Increase for Many Retirees in 2018

Most of the Social Security cost-of-living adjustment will be used to pay for higher Medicare Part B premiums.

By Emily Brandon, Staff Writer |Dec. 18, 2017, at 11:49 a.m.

The standard Medicare Part B monthly premium will be $134 in 2018, the same amount as in 2017. But many retirees who have been paying less than the standard rate for the past several years will see a jump in their premiums. Here's a look at how much you can expect to pay for Medicare Part B premiums in 2018.

Held harmless.

Medicare Part B payments are prevented by law from reducing Social Security payments by Social Security's "hold harmless" provision. Social Security recipients didn't get a cost-of-living adjustment in 2016 and only received a very low 0.3 percent cost-of-living adjustment in 2017, so they continued to pay premiums that were less than the standard rate charged to new enrollees and other people not protected by Social Security's "hold harmless" rule. Now that Social Security beneficiaries will receive a 2 percent cost-of-living adjustment in 2018, much or all of the gain may go toward Medicare Part B premiums. "Part B enrollees who were held harmless in 2016 and 2017 will see an increase in the monthly Part B premium from the roughly $109, on average, they paid in 2017," according to a statement from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.


The CMS estimates that 42 percent of Medicare Part B beneficiaries will see their Medicare premiums grow to $134 because the cost-of-living adjustment to their Social Security benefit will be greater than or equal to the amount that is necessary to increase their Medicare premium to the standard rate. "The majority of people who were protected by hold harmless will see a fairly significant increase in their premiums. That's because their Social Security cost-of-living adjustment is large enough to cover the Medicare increase," says Tricia Neuman, director of the Program on Medicare Policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. "For some, it will take up the full income from their Social Security cost-of-living adjustment." However, CMS estimates that about 28 percent of Part B enrollees will continue to pay less than the full monthly premium of $134 because the increase in their Social Security benefit will not be large enough to cover the full Medicare Part B premium. "The hold harmless provision is designed to protect people so that the Part B premium doesn't result in a reduction in the Social Security check," Neuman says.


The standard rate.

Retirees who newly enroll in Medicare in 2017 or 2018 pay the standard monthly premium of $134 per month. Those who signed up for Medicare without claiming Social Security benefits or who are directly billed for their Medicare Part B premium also pay the standard rate. Low-income retirees who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid generally have their premiums paid by state Medicaid agencies. Medicaid pays the standard premium on behalf of the qualifying beneficiary.




High-income retirees.

Retirees with high incomes are required to pay more for Medicare Part B. Those with an income that exceeds $85,000 as an individual or $170,000 for married couples have $53.50 added to their monthly rate for a total premium of $187.50. Seniors with retirement income between $107,000 and $133,500 ($214,000 to $267,000 for couples) must pay $267.90 per month for Medicare Part B in 2018, and monthly premiums further increase to $348.30 per month for retirees bringing in between $133,500 and $160,000 ($267,000 to $320,000 for couples). Wealthy retirees with incomes above $160,000 ($320,000 for couples) must pay $428.60 per month for Medicare Part B.


Late enrollees.

You first become eligible to sign up for Medicare Part B during the months around your 65th birthday. If you sign up later, and you weren't covered by a group health insurance plan through your or a spouse's job while you delayed enrolling, you will be charged a 10 percent late enrollment penalty for each 12-month period you were eligible for Medicare Part B but delayed enrolling. For example, if your initial enrollment period ended on September 30, 2015, but you don't sign up for Medicare Part B until March 2018, your premiums will be 20 percent higher for the rest of your life due to two full years of delayed enrollment. In this case, the late enrollment penalty would increase the 2018 premium from $134 to $160.80 per month. "Some people miss their enrollment period, and unless they are covered by active employment, they will get a penalty," says Leslie Fried, senior director of the Center for Benefits Access at the National Council on Aging. "If you are five years late and you didn't have other insurance through active employment, then you could be hit with an additional 50 percent penalty."

_____________________________________________


Here is the AFFORDABLE CARE ACT with global state health systems being told to reduce MEDICARE costs to make up for the massive global health corporation FRAUDS AND PROFITEERING from our Medicare Trust. This is the trillion dollar gutting of MEDICARE during the OBAMA administration.

We already know our low-income seniors are being denied access to ordinary disease vector care---we already know our affluent citizens are paying tremendous amounts of their personal wealth simply to access ordinary care. The affluent are getting that care---but their family wealth is disappearing in order for them to receive what they PRE-PAID as HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS.

This SLOW-DOWN is called the ACCOUNTABILITY making spending on seniors AFFORDABLE. Health industry profits are soaring-------US seniors are seeing longevity declining in one generation.


Which US health corporations were made global corporations from all that fraud and profiteering?  KAISER PERMANENTE AND GLOBAL HEDGE FUND IVY LEAGUE JOHNS HOPKINS are only two.  Here is KAISER pretending to care about our seniors losing access to their own PRE-PAID HEALTH INSURANCE ACCOUNTS ---MEDICARE.

Below we see that trillion dollar cut to Medicare during OBAMA courtesy Clinton neo-liberals being phased in-----this is what national media are blaming on TRUMP.


'Medicare spending is expected to be $1,200 lower per beneficiary in 2014 than was projected in 2010, and $2,400 lower in 2019'



The Mystery of the Missing $1,200 Per Person: Can Medicare’s Spending Slowdown Continue?

Tricia Neuman and Juliette Cubanski
Published: Sep 29, 2014

This insight updates the original July 2014 version to reflect new budget projections released by the Congressional Budget Office.

The big story in the Medicare world these days is the slowdown in program spending.  Based on our comparison of CBO’s August 2010 and August 2014 baselines, Medicare spending this year will be about $1,200 lower1 per person than was expected in 2010, soon after passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which included reductions in Medicare payments to plans and providers and introduced delivery system reforms that aimed to improve efficiency and reduce costs.  By 2019, Medicare spending per person is projected to be more than $2,400 lower per person than was expected following passage of the ACA.  Medicare spending projections in CBO’s August 2010 and subsequent baselines take into account the anticipated effects of the ACA, along with other factors that are expected to affect future Medicare spending.  So it seems that the ACA may be having a bigger than expected effect, but something else may be going on here too.

Medicare spending is expected to be $1,200 lower per beneficiary in 2014 than was projected in 2010, and $2,400 lower in 2019

The numbers are impressive, and the consecutive year-to-year reductions in projected Medicare spending are unprecedented.  Looking back, total and per person Medicare spending have grown more slowly each year since 2010 than was expected based on CBO projections, and on a per person basis, Medicare spending actually declined between 2013 and 2014, according to our analysis of data from CBO.

Health care observers are still scratching their heads trying to explain why Medicare spending is growing so slowly.
 A CBO analysis shows the Great Recession did not have the same effect on Medicare that it had on the slowdown in health care spending generally, which has been documented by our Kaiser colleagues. It is clear that the Medicare savings provisions in the ACA, such as reductions in provider payment updates and Medicare Advantage payments, have played a major role, and the changes included in the law may be having a bigger effect than was expected soon after the law passed.  In addition, the Budget Control Act of 2011 also exerted downward pressure on Medicare spending through sequestration that reduced payments to providers and plans by 2 percent beginning in 2013.  And yet even after incorporating these scheduled payment reductions in the baseline, CBO has continued to lower its projections of Medicare spending.

So what else might be going on here?  In addition to scheduled reductions in Medicare’s more formulaic payment rates, providers may be tightening their belts and looking to deliver care more efficiently in response to financial incentives included in the ACA, and it is possible that these changes are having a bigger effect than expected.  For example, CMS recently reported that hospital readmission rates dropped by 130,000 between January 2012 and August 2013.  It is also possible that hospitals and other providers are using data and other analytic tools more successfully to track utilization and spending and to reduce excess costs.  Another more straightforward factor is that several expensive and popular brand-name drugs have gone off patent in recent years, which has helped to keep Medicare drug spending in check.


Whatever the causes may be, the slowdown in spending is good news for Medicare,
the federal budget and for beneficiaries—at least for now, and as long as it does not adversely affect access to or quality of care.  Lower costs lead directly to lower Medicare premiums and cost sharing.  Lower costs also help to improve the balance sheet for the Part A Trust Fund.

Even with this good news, it is unclear how long slow growth rates can be sustained.  The Medicare actuaries expect Medicare spending to begin to rise more rapidly in the coming years due to a number of factors, including faster enrollment growth, an increase in service use, and faster growth in payment rates due to higher prices brought about by a healthier economy, which will not be fully offset by payment reductions included in the ACA.  And Medicare continues to face long-term financing challenges brought about in part by an aging baby boom population. 

OH,REALLY?????

These challenges will, no doubt, continue to be the subject of policymakers’ attention.

But for now, the slowdown in Medicare expenditures, as illustrated in the unexpected $1,200 per beneficiary reduction in spending this year, may ease short-term budgetary pressures on Medicare and could provide an opportunity for thoughtful consideration of ways to bolster the program for an aging population.

_________________________________________


Between this IPAB installed by OBAMA and Clinton neo-liberals ----and these global banking 1% enriched from all the frauds and profiteering against our US Medicare and Medicaid Trusts------we are now told global 1% are going to get rid of AMERICAN TAPEWORM creating the huge cost to efficacy ratio in health care these few decades.

Now, if we had REAL left social progressives saying they were after the TAPEWORM----this would of course mean clawing back trillions of dollars stolen from our US health trusts.  This would mean a global hedge fund IVY LEAGUE JOHNS HOPKINS would sell all of its global corporate campuses in every nation around the world---built mostly on the fleecing of our US health care.  It would mean global UNITED HEALTH CARE would see its assets seized by BEZOS, BUFFET, AND JP MORGAN to RESTORE to  our over-funded US MEDICARE TRUST that TAPEWORM of these few decades.

The IPAB was created and appointed but not yet operating because as we said------it was never a national IPAB----it is tied to TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT and BEZOS, BUFFET, AND JP MORGAN may indeed be those few global 1% on a GLOBAL IPAB.


Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway and JPMorgan Team Up to Try to Disrupt Health Care


By NICK WINGFIELD, KATIE THOMAS and REED ABELSONJAN. 30, 2018

SEATTLE — Three corporate behemoths — Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway and JPMorgan Chase — announced on Tuesday that they would form an independent health care company for their employees in the United States.


The alliance was a sign of just how frustrated American businesses are with the state of the nation’s health care system and the rapidly spiraling cost of medical treatment. It also caused further turmoil in an industry reeling from attempts by new players to attack a notoriously inefficient, intractable web of doctors, hospitals, insurers and pharmaceutical companies.


It was unclear how extensively the three partners would overhaul their employees’ existing health coverage — whether they would simply help workers find a local doctor, steer employees to online medical advice or use their muscle to negotiate lower prices for drugs and procedures. While the alliance will apply only to their employees, these corporations are so closely watched that whatever successes they have could become models for other businesses.


Major employers, from Walmart to Caterpillar, have tried for years to tackle the high costs and complexity of health care, and have grown increasingly frustrated as Congress has deadlocked over the issue, leaving many of the thorniest issues to private industry. About 151 million Americans get their health insurance from an employer.

But Tuesday’s announcement landed like a thunderclap — sending stocks for insurers and other major health companies tumbling. Shares of health care companies like UnitedHealth Group and Anthem plunged on Tuesday, dragging down the broader stock market.


That weakness reflects the strength of the new entrants. The partnership brings together Amazon, the online retail giant known for disrupting major industries; Berkshire Hathaway, the holding company led by the billionaire investor Warren E. Buffett; and JPMorgan Chase, the largest bank in the United States by assets.


They are moving into an industry where the lines between traditionally distinct areas, such as pharmacies, insurers and providers, are increasingly blurry. CVS Health’s deal last month to buy the health insurer Aetna for about $69 billion is just one example of the changes underway. Separately, Amazon’s potential entry into the pharmacy business continues to rattle major drug companies and distributors.

The companies said the initiative, which is in its early stages, would be “free from profit-making incentives and constraints,” but did not specify whether that meant they would create a nonprofit organization. The tax implications were also unclear because so few details were released.


Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, said in a statement that the effort could eventually be expanded to benefit all Americans.


“The health care system is complex, and we enter into this challenge open-eyed about the degree of difficulty,” Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s founder and chief executive, said in a statement. “Hard as it might be, reducing health care’s burden on the economy while improving outcomes for employees and their families would be worth the effort.”


The announcement touched off a wave of speculation about what the new company might do, especially given Amazon’s extensive reach into the daily lives of Americans — from where they buy their paper towels to what they watch on television. It follows speculation that the company, which recently purchased the grocery chain Whole Foods, might use its stores as locations for pharmacies or clinics.
(We asked health care experts to imagine what the three corporations might do.)


“It could be big,” Ed Kaplan, who negotiates health coverage on behalf of large employers as the national health practice leader for the Segal Group, said of the announcement. “Those are three big players, and I think if they get into health care insurance or the health care coverage space, they are going to make a big impact.”


Taking On ‘the Hungry Tapeworm’

A look at the three companies that announced a joint health care initiative on Tuesday.



  • Total employees: 1.2 million
    Amazon: 540,000
    Berkshire Hathaway: 367,000
    JPMorgan Chase: 252,000.
  • Individual strengths
    Amazon: logistics and technology
    Berkshire Hathaway: insurance
    JPMorgan Chase: finance.
  • Jeff Bezos of Amazon:
    “The healthcare system is complex, and we enter into this challenge open-eyed about the degree of difficulty.”
  • Warren E. Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway:
    “The ballooning costs of healthcare act as a hungry tapeworm on the American economy. Our group does not come to this problem with answers. But we also do not accept it as inevitable."
  • Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase:
    “The three of our companies have extraordinary resources, and our goal is to create solutions that benefit our U.S. employees, their families and, potentially, all Americans."

But others were less sure, noting that the three companies — which, combined, employ more than one million people — might still hold little sway over the largest insurers and pharmacy benefit managers, who oversee the benefits of tens of millions of Americans.


“This is not news in terms of jumbo employers being frustrated with what they can get through the traditional system,” said Sam Glick of the management consulting firm Oliver Wyman in San Francisco. He played down the notion that the three partners would have more success getting lower prices from hospitals and doctors. “The idea that they could have any sort of negotiation leverage with unit cost is a pretty far stretch.”


Even the three companies don’t seem to be sure of how to shake up health care. People briefed on the plan, who asked for anonymity because the discussions were private, said the executives decided to announce the initiative while still a concept in part so they can begin hiring staff for the new company.


Three people familiar with the partnership said it took shape as Mr. Bezos, Mr. Buffett, and Mr. Dimon, who are friends, discussed the challenges of providing insurance to their employees. They decided their combined access to data about how consumers make choices, along with an understanding of the intricacies of health insurance, would inevitably lead to some kind of new efficiency — whatever it might turn out to be.


“The ballooning costs of health care act as a hungry tapeworm on the American economy,” Mr. Buffett said in the statement.
“Our group does not come to this problem with answers. But we also do not accept it as inevitable.”


Over the past several months, the three had met formally — along with Todd Combs, an investment officer at Berkshire Hathaway who is also on JPMorgan’s board — to discuss the idea, according to a person familiar with Mr. Buffett’s thinking.

The three chief executives saw one another at the Alfalfa Club dinner in Washington on Saturday, but by then each had already had dozens of conversations with the small in-house teams they had assembled. The plan was set.


Mr. Buffett’s motivation stems in part from conversations he has had with two people close to him who have been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, according to the person. Mr. Buffett, the person said, believes the condition of the country’s health care system is a root cause of economic inequality, with wealthier people enjoying better, longer lives because they can afford good coverage As Mr. Buffett himself has aged — he is 87 — the contrast between his moneyed friends and others has grown starker, the person said.


The companies said they would initially focus on using technology to simplify care, but did not elaborate on how they intended to do that or bring down costs. One of the people briefed on the alliance said the new company wouldn’t replace existing health insurers or hospitals.

Planning for the new company is being led by Marvelle Sullivan Berchtold, a JPMorgan managing director who was previously head of the Swiss drugmaker Novartis’s mergers and acquisitions strategy; Mr. Combs; and Beth Galetti, a senior vice president at Amazon.


One potential avenue for the partnership might be an online health care dashboard that connects employees with the closest and best doctor specializing in whatever ailment they select from a drop-down menu. Perhaps the companies would strike deals to offer employee discounts with service providers like medical testing facilities.

“Each of those companies has extensive experience using transformative technology in their own businesses,” said John Sculley, the former chief executive of Apple who is now chairman of a health care start-up, RxAdvance. “I think it’s a great counterweight to what government leadership hasn’t done, which is to focus on how do we make this health care system sustainable.”

TOTAL DEREGULATION OF US HEALTH CARE-------ABSOLUTELY NO ABILITY TO STOP CRONYISM BETWEEN GLOBAL CORPORATIONS ---


Erik Gordon, a professor at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business, predicted that the companies would attempt to modernize the cumbersome process of doctor appointments by making it more like booking a restaurant reservation on OpenTable, while eliminating the need to regularly fill out paper forms on clipboards.


“I think they will bring the customer-facing, patient-facing thing into your smartphone,” he said.
Amazon has long been mentioned by health care analysts and industry executives as a potential new player in the sector. While the company has remained quiet about its plans, some analysts noted that companies often use their own employees as a testing ground for future initiatives.
The entry of Amazon and its partners adds to the upheaval in an industry where much is changing, from government programs after the overhaul of the tax law to the uncertain future of the Affordable Care Act. All the while, medical costs have persistently been on the rise.


Nationwide, average premiums for family coverage for employees rose to $18,764 last year, an increase of 19 percent since 2012, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Workers are increasingly paying a greater share of those costs — they now pay 30 percent of the premium, in addition to high deductibles and growing co-payments.


“Our members’ balance sheets speak for themselves — health care is a growing cost at a time when other costs are either not rising or falling,” said Robert Andrews, chief executive of the Healthcare Transformation Alliance, a group of 46 companies, including Coca-Cola and American Express, that have banded together to lower health care costs.


Other major employers have also sought more direct control over their employees’ health care. Walmart contracted with groups like the Cleveland Clinic, Mayo and Geisinger, among others, to take care of employees who need organ transplants and heart and spine care. Caterpillar, the construction equipment manufacturer, sets its own rules for drug coverage, which it has said saves it millions of dollars per year, even though it still uses a pharmacy benefit manager to process its claims.


Suzanne Delbanco, the executive director for the Catalyst for Payment Reform, a nonprofit group that mainly represents employers, said controlling rising prices is especially hard in markets where a local hospital or medical group dominates. While some have tried to tackle the issue in different ways, like sending employees with heart conditions to a specific group, “it’s piecemeal,” she said.
She added, “There are so many opportunities to do this better.”


The issue is not solely a 21st-century concern:
In 1915, Henry Ford became increasingly worried about the quality of health care available to his growing work force in Detroit, so he opened the Henry Ford Hospital. It is still in existence today.

____________________________________________

Here is our FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT 5% global banking player ROBERT REICH------out there selling the demise of MEDICARE is all about TRUMP AND REPUBLICANS-----the trillion dollar corporate and wealth tax cut by Trump mirrors the same TRILLION DOLLAR TAX CUT in 2010 when OBAMA and Clinton neo-liberals extended Bush-era tax cuts for super-sized tax give-away.  Yes, it is bad of Trump to give these corporate and wealth tax breaks.

What Robert Reich NEVER discusses -----these few decades of MASSIVE HEALTH INDUSTRY FRAUD AND PROFITEERING started from CLINTON-ERA deregulation and privatization of MEDICARE AND MEDICAID TRUSTS.  Clinton dismantled oversight and accountability and outsourced local public health to corporations and Bush era let that fraud go wild.  Obama era super-sized global  health industry subsidy and allowed open fraud.  All this coming from our Federal health spending.

Obama MOVED FORWARD US health care as TELEMEDICINE for the 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE-----all of this was GOODBYE MEDICARE AND MEDICAID access to ordinary hospital and doctor care.

REICH HAS NEVER MENTIONED ALL THIS----HE PROMOTES UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSAL SINGLE PAYER WHICH IS TELEMEDICINE PREVENTATIVE CARE FOR ALL-----

Medicare will disappear if 99% WE THE PEOPLE do not reverse AFFORDABLE CARE ACT----the deregulation and global health system privatization of MEDICARE AND MEDICAID with the goals of taking US health care to third world preventative care only.


Yale/Stanford Johnson & Johnson Global Health Scholars Program

medicine.yale.edu/intmed/globalhealthscholars/

Thank you for your interest in the Yale/Stanford Johnson & Johnson Global Health Scholars Program. Our established program rotations sites for 2018-19 are in South Africa, Uganda, Rwanda and Colombia. We are not selecting Scholars to go to our site in Liberia, and we are ironing out supervisory and visa issues in ...

Next New Deal: The Blog of the Roosevelt Institute


Incredible Shrinking Public Option: Robert Reich takes Harry Reid to task

By Roosevelt Institute | 11.26.09


Building these global health corporations these few decades is to where our US MEDICARE AND MEDICAID funding went through fraud and profiteering.



Robert Reich: Hello Trump Tax Cuts, Goodbye Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security

. . . .
By Robert Reich On 11/2/17 at 10:04 AM


The goal of Trump and the Republican leaders is to pull off a giant redistribution of over $1 trillion from the middle class, working class, and poor to the rich, who are already richer than ever.
They’re selling this to the public with a false claim that the middle class will benefit from their tax cut plan. It’s a gigantic Trojan horse.

For most Americans, the proposed tax cuts are tiny and temporary. That’s right – temporary. They will shrink in just a few years. And some middle class Americans will actually get a tax increase.


Meanwhile, the top 1 percent will get a gigantic tax cut. The Tax Policy Center estimates that the current plan will save the bottom 80 percent between $50 and $450 in taxes per year, but that it saves each person in the top 1 percent an average of $129,000 a year. For people at the very top, like Trump himself, the tax cuts are humongous. And the corporations they own will also get a massive tax cut.


Republicans say economic “growth” will pay for the tax cuts, so there’s no need to cut social programs like Medicare and Medicaid.  


But Republicans have just passed a budget that would cut nearly $1.5 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid to pay for these tax cuts. Pell Grants, housing assistance, and even cancer research are also on the chopping block.



Now, they say we shouldn’t take their budget resolution seriously. It was just a device to get the tax bill through the Senate with 51 votes.

But once these tax cuts are passed, the budget deficit will explode. The Tax Policy Center predicts that it will cut federal revenue by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years.


When that happens, the only way out of the crisis will be something dramatic – exactly the cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, and maybe even Social Security – that Republicans have wanted for years.

By this time, any talk of raising taxes on the rich will be dismissed.
Using the promise of middle-class tax cuts as a Trojan horse for a tax windfall for the rich and deep spending cuts is a tactic dating back to the Reagan administration.


But the version they’re aiming for now is “YUGE.”
We must see the strategy for what it is. And it must be stopped.


Leon Washington is helped by volunteer Rebecca Cox as he signs up for the new Medicare drug prescription program during a Medicare enrollment event December 19, 2005 in Pleasanton, California. Justin Sullivan/Getty


Robert Reich is the chancellor’s professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, and a senior fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies. He served as secretary of labor in the Clinton administration, and Time magazine named him one of the 10 most effective Cabinet secretaries of the 20th century. He has written 14 books, including the best-sellers Aftershock, The Work of Nations and Beyond Outrage and, most recently, Saving Capitalism. He is also a founding editor of The American Prospect magazine, chairman of Common Cause, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and co-creator of the award-winning documentary Inequality for All.
_____________________________________________
Pelosi pushed AFFORDABLE CARE ACT----pushed the gutting of MEDICARE as the answer to addressing deficit created by these few decades of massive frauds against all our Federal agencies and trusts ----especially MEDICARE AND MEDICAID. Pelosi is that Baltimore politician -----it is her CA district tied to KAISER PERMANENTE and roots to GLOBAL IVY LEAGUE STANFORD AND JOHNS HOPKINS-----all of which heavily fleeced our US health trusts and people's pockets. We could claw back the hundreds of millions Pelosi managed to offshore these few decades to pay for CA 99% of citizens hit again by another Silicon Valley industry's frauds.
PELOSI WAS ONBOARD FOR ALL OF OBAMA'S STANDINGS ON BUDGET CUTS, RESTRUCTURING OF MEDICARE, IGNORING TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN MEDICARE AND MEDICAID TRUST LOSES FROM FRAUD.
Pelosi is a far-right wing global banking pol------she would not be working for REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE health issues like MEDICARE.

Pelosi is HILLARY CLINTON and her health reform from 1990s-----she is behind IPAB.........

Politics
Revisiting the cost of the Bush tax cuts
By Glenn Kessler May 10, 2011 Washington Post......


'Tax cuts are estimated to have totaled $2.8 trillion, which we guess would count as “trillions,” as the president put it. Strictly speaking, the two big tax cuts during the Bush years are estimated to total about $1.5 trillion, But many continued into the early years of the Obama presidency, and in December he cut a deal with Republicans to extend them even more, which brings us to $2.8 trillion.




Pelosi cautious on Medicare, Social Security cuts

Politics Oct 27, 2011
By ANDREW TAYLOR and DAVID ESPO
Associated Press


WASHINGTON (AP) - The top Democrat in the House declined Thursday to endorse cuts to Medicare and Social Security benefits proposed by Senate Democrats earlier this week. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi also said a counter-offer from Republicans on the deficit "supercommittee" - it totals about $2.2 trillion - isn't bold or balanced enough because it lacks tax revenues.

"If it's going to be bold, that doesn't do it," Pelosi told reporters.
She also said she's "not making any judgment" about a plan proposed earlier this week by Sen. Max Baucus, which totals about $3 trillion in deficit cuts, including $400 billion in Medicare savings over a decade and Medicaid cuts of another $75 billion. The Baucus plan also would use a new inflation measure that would slow the annual cost-of-living increases in future Social Security benefits.


Pelosi says any plan has to be "big, bold and balanced" and that any willingness by her and other Democrats to change federal retirement programs depends on requiring the wealthy to pay higher taxes.


"It's not fair to say to a senior `you're going to pay more for Social Security and we're not going to touch a hair on the head of the wealthiest people in our country,"' Pelosi said.


The California Democrat made her comments after Republicans and Democrats on a deficit "supercommittee" swapped initial offers that left the two sides far apart despite weeks of secret talks.

The Republican offer would cut deficits by about $2.2 trillion over a decade, according to officials in both parties. About one-third of that would come from increases in items such as Medicare premiums, the sale of public lands and airport fees - measures that increase government revenue without raising taxes. The GOP plan also assumes that tax reform would generate economic growth that would also lift revenues.


The GOP plan would cut about $500 billion from Medicare over a decade and another $185 billion from Medicaid, these officials said.


By contrast, Democrats want $1.3 trillion in higher tax revenue, a similar amount in spending cuts and enough other savings elsewhere in the budget to reduce deficits by more than $3 trillion over the coming decade while financing a $450 billion jobs bill along the lines that President Barack Obama is recommending.

The officials who described the rival approaches did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to provide details of the committee's confidential discussions. In private, each side also disparaged the other, providing yet another indication that the panel's deliberations have not shown significant progress.

More importantly, the two sides are at a fundamental impasse over taxes. Republicans insist that the panel won't increase revenues; Democrats say they can't agree to cuts to critical benefit programs like Medicare unless Republicans agree to new taxes.

The panel of six Republicans and six Democrats has until Nov. 23 to recommend deficit savings of $1.2 trillion. But in fact, most if not all of the decisions must be made by early next month to give the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office time to render precise estimates on their costs on future deficits.

Whatever the committee recommends must be approved by both houses of Congress in December if lawmakers want to avoid automatic spending cuts of about $1 trillion across a range of federal programs.
There were signs of Democratic dissension one day after Baucus, D-Mont., outlined a proposal on behalf of his party's negotiators that included changes in large government benefit programs.

According to several officials, he called for $1.3 trillion in increased tax revenue over a decade, and $1.3 trillion in spending cuts. Another $1 trillion in savings would come from the presumed reduction of Pentagon costs in Iraq and Afghanistan and $500 billion more from a reduction in interest costs resulting from declining deficits.

Those savings would be on top of cuts that Congress approved earlier in the year of nearly $1 trillion.

For Democrats on the committee, it appeared that the most contentious of the items would slow the growth of monthly checks to recipients of Social Security and other benefit programs, curtail Medicare spending by $400 billion over a decade and Medicaid by another $75 billion.

Several Democrats said during the day that the presentation had the support of a majority of the six Democrats on the panel, leaving the impression that at least one, and possibly two, of the party's lawmakers had not signed on. They also stressed that Obama has previously endorsed each of the proposals they made, including the one to adjust the government's calculation for inflation in a way that curtails the growth of benefit programs.


Others suggested that Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., a member of the party's leadership, and Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., had not agreed to support the recommendations.

Aides to the two men would not confirm the accounts.
In contrast, Republicans appeared to avoid any ideological pitfalls in their counter-offer, pulling well back from a position that House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, took earlier in the year in private talks with Obama.

In those discussions, Boehner and the president discussed legislation to enact tax reform that was assumed to result in economic expansion and increases in tax revenue of $800 billion over a decade.
0 Comments

February 16th, 2018

2/16/2018

0 Comments

 
We will finish discussion of sovereignty public policy by returning to SOVEREIGN RIGHTS of US citizens ----being that citizen who legislates---being that citizen protected from open corporate and banking fraud----being that citizen protected from corrupt and deadly policing policies.  Most important to being a sovereign citizens is HAVING ELECTIONS FREE OF CRONYISM, FRAUD, AND RIGGING.  These few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA have seen GRADUALISM of US citizens losing their rights----our US city citizens in low-income communities say WHAT RIGHTS AS CITIZENS.  Our working class citizens seeing their wages openly fleeced and their communities gentrified with no intention of inclusion say WHAT RIGHTS AS CITIZENS.  Our middle-affluent class having all wealth, property, ability to be employed taken with no justice say WHAT RIGHTS AS CITIZENS.

THESE FEW DECADES OF ROBBER BARON FRAUDS AND US CITY BRUTALITY WHERE JUST THE START MOVING FORWARD TO THIRD WORLD STATUS FOR ALL 99% BLACK, WHITE, AND BROWN CITIZENS. 

Please don't think having sovereign rights is not worth it----or please don't think nothing will happen to this population group or that----

We discussed our REPATRIATION OF EX-PATS having lived overseas these few decades installing all that is FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE policies and/or the UNITED NATIONS.  Living overseas as an EX-PAT AMERICAN  came with protections by US STATE DEPARTMENT and US JUSTICE DEPARTMENT----it came with a process for EX-PATS to legally challenge wage or employment status. 

NONE OF THIS EXISTS IN MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE-----THE ONLY CITIZENS WITH RIGHTS ARE THE GLOBAL 1% SOON TO BE MINUS THOSE PESKY GLOBAL 2%.


Safety & Insurance Safety


How the State Department Can Help You Have a Safe Trip

By James Martin
Updated 06/28/17


Disasters can happen at any moment, as we learned from the recent Tsunami experience in Southeast Asia. While Europe offers a far more stable political system than most developing countries, protests and political unrest are not unheard of here, and the ground around Pompeii is just as unstable as it always was.


But there are also emergencies that have nothing to do with a country, its politics, or its geography.
According to the US State Department, over 6000 US citizens die abroad every year, and many more face sudden illness.


What can the traveler do to assure family or business associates of his or her whereabouts or well-being? First, you can leave them with your itinerary. Second, you can register your travel with the State Department. If you're a US citizen, you've been paying for these services through taxes all along, you might as well take advantage of them.


Registering Your Trip With the State Department


Did you know that the State Department actively tries to find US citizens during a disaster? They won't become a travel agent for people trying to get out of a bad situation, and they can't order you out of a foreign country, but they will evacuate citizens if things get really sticky.


First, check the State Department's information on the country you'll be visiting by checking the Alerts and Warnings from the Bureau of Consular Affairs.
The State Department keeps a close watch on developments that might hamper the movement of US citizens around the globe.



Once you've assured yourself that you've made the right destination choices, you're ready to register your trip by using the State Department's Travel Registration Page. The information you enter may be used in the event of a disaster by The Department of State and its overseas embassies and consulates.


In addition, you can specify the people who are allowed to know your whereabouts through contact with the Department of State. In the event of an emergency, concerned family members or business associates listed on the registration form can contact the Office of Citizens Services via a toll-free number: 888-407-4747. Overseas travelers can use 317-472-2328.


Here is the State Department's list of issues that can be discussed by calling one of these numbers: "Death of an American citizen abroad, arrest/detention of an American citizen abroad, robbery of an American citizen abroad, American citizens missing abroad, crisis abroad involving American citizens, after-hours number for an emergency involving an American citizen abroad."


What Else Can the State Department Do for the Traveler?


The State Department says that "U.S. embassies and consulates assist nearly 200,000 Americans each year who are victims of crime, accident, or illness, or whose family and friends need to contact them in an emergency". The State Department offers help for travelers who encounter serious legal, medical, or financial difficulties. Consular officers can also notarize documents, issue passports, and register American children born abroad.


Knowing the services offered by the nearest Consulate to your destination can be vital in an emergency.


Prepare Yourself for the Most Common Travel Emergencies


Before you go, make copies of your Passport Information Page and all tickets plus any other important documentation and keep them in your carry-on (in a different place from where you keep your passport, of course). In the event your passport is stolen, a consulate can efficiently issue a temporary new passport from this information. You may also wish to leave some information, including your passport number, with a friend or relative. For more trip-planning information, see Europe Travel 101: Before You Go.


If you take medications, make sure you have your doctor's phone number, the generic name for the drugs prescribed to you and a history of your inoculations written down.


Be aware that American drug companies have a history of giving cute names to drugs to make them sell; you want the scientific name of your medications so that a pharmacist in Europe can determine exactly what you're taking. In an emergency, you may be able to get medications you need from a local pharmacy if you know the generic name.


Consider Travel Health Insurance. If you are concerned, make sure it has evacuation coverage, a costly endeavor if you ever should need it.


It may help to rent or purchase a GSM Mobile phone to keep people up to date on your whereabouts. Some car rental and leasing companies offer rental cell phones as well.


Travel Emergency End Notes

For more on the US State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs can do for a traveler in an emergency, see their Emergencies Abroad page.
For an interesting story on a travel emergency and some good advice in the sidebar concerning consular services, see The Government's Fallen and You Can't Get Out.

_________________________________________

When US 99% WE THE PEOPLE are made simply global labor pool 99% we will be at the mercy of labor brokers----global corporate human capital management----with the United Nations pretending they care about WORLD CITIZENS.

Today's global labor pool 99% already know that comes with no rights, control, choice, free will------or justice.

US EX-PATS coming back to US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES to advance MOVING FORWARD in US as they did overseas need to stop and think what a dismantled national sovereignty, tied to a dismantled state sovereignty, tied to no local sovereignty will look like no matter whether one is that 5% to the 1% pol or players.  Most of our 5% players are living for today not caring what family face through 21st century----but some do.  WAKE UP TODAY TO STOP MOVING FORWARD.


Since we KNOW the goal of ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE is ending our US sovereignty then this is exactly what will follow------these are of course many of our 5% to the 1%-----CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA now Trump work for OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1%----not US citizens or sovereignty. Tillerman as Trump are simply those looking to be inside that global 2% they are PLAYER PEEPS even if having a BILLION DOLLARS.

The State Department is of course EMBASSIES in each nation to where any US citizen traveling or working goes for legal protections. If US WE THE PEOPLE are not sovereign citizens then those pushed overseas to FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES will be on their own----human capital owned by LABOR BROKERS. Here in Baltimore as other US cities those 5% pol/player peeps are moving hard to be those human capital labor brokers using FREEMASON/CORPORATE K-CAREER as the recruitment tool.

That 5% is about to disappear so all that labor brokering will be done by global corporate job placement ----you go wherever that global corporate campus says and don't think you have any way to stop those directives.

Baltimore is well on its way to installing these vocational tracking and apprenticeship K-career tied to global corporate campuses and any US citizen as too our global labor pool 99% can expect to have no rights as citizens....

NO SOVEREIGNTY IN BALTIMORE----NO SOVEREIGNTY IN MARYLAND----BECOMES NO SOVEREIGNTY AS AMERICANS.


Politics

Diplomats Sound the Alarm as They Are Pushed Out in Droves


By GARDINER HARRISNOV. 24, 2017


WASHINGTON — Of all the State Department employees who might have been vulnerable in the staff reductions that Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson has initiated as he reshapes the department, the one person who seemed least likely to be a target was the chief of security, Bill A. Miller.


Republicans pilloried Hillary Clinton for what they claimed was her inadequate attention to security as secretary of state in the months before the deadly 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya. Congress even passed legislation mandating that the department’s top security official have unrestricted access to the secretary of state.


But in his first nine months in office, Mr. Tillerson turned down repeated and sometimes urgent requests from the department’s security staff to brief him, according to several former top officials in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security. Finally, Mr. Miller, the acting assistant secretary for diplomatic security, was forced to cite the law’s requirement that he be allowed to speak to Mr. Tillerson.


Mr. Miller got just five minutes with the secretary of state, the former officials said. Afterward, Mr. Miller, a career Foreign Service officer, was pushed out, joining a parade of dismissals and early retirements that has decimated the State Department’s senior ranks. Mr. Miller declined to comment.


The departures mark a new stage in the broken and increasingly contentious relationship between Mr. Tillerson and much of his department’s work force. By last spring, interviews at the time suggested, the guarded optimism that greeted his arrival had given way to concern among diplomats about his aloofness and lack of communication. By the summer, the secretary’s focus on efficiency and reorganization over policy provoked off-the-record anger.


Now the estrangement is in the open, as diplomats going out the door make their feelings known and members of Congress raise questions about the impact of their leaving.


In a letter to Mr. Tillerson last week, Democratic members of the House Foreign Relations Committee, citing what they said was “the exodus of more than 100 senior Foreign Service officers from the State Department since January,” expressed concern about “what appears to be the intentional hollowing-out of our senior diplomatic ranks.”


Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat of New Hampshire, sent a similar letter, telling Mr. Tillerson that “America’s diplomatic power is being weakened internally as complex global crises are growing externally.”


Mr. Tillerson, a former chief executive of Exxon Mobil, has made no secret of his belief that the State Department is a bloated bureaucracy and that he regards much of the day-to-day diplomacy that lower-level officials conduct as unproductive. Even before Mr. Tillerson was confirmed, his staff fired six of the State Department’s top career diplomats, including Patrick Kennedy, who had been appointed to his position by President George W. Bush. Kristie Kenney, the department’s counselor and one of just five career ambassadors, was summarily fired a few weeks later.


None were given any reason for their dismissals, although Mr. Kennedy and Ms. Kenney had been reprimanded by Trump transition officials for answering basic logistical questions from Nikki R. Haley, President Trump’s pick as United Nations ambassador. Mr. Tillerson is widely believed to dislike Ms. Haley, who has been seen as a possible successor if Mr. Tillerson steps down.


In the following months, Mr. Tillerson launched a reorganization that he has said will be the most important thing he will do, and he has hired two consulting companies to lead the effort. Since he decided before even arriving at the State Department to slash its budget by 31 percent, many in the department have always seen the reorganization as a smoke screen for drastic cuts.


Mr. Tillerson has frozen most hiring and recently offered a $25,000 buyout in hopes of pushing nearly 2,000 career diplomats and civil servants to leave by October 2018.


His small cadre of aides have fired some diplomats and gotten others to resign by refusing them the assignments they wanted or taking away their duties altogether. Among those fired or sidelined were most of the top African-American and Latino diplomats, as well as many women, difficult losses in a department that has long struggled with diversity.


One of them was Linda Thomas-Greenfield, a career Foreign Service officer who served as ambassador to Liberia under Mr. Bush and as director general of the Foreign Service and assistant secretary for African affairs during the Obama administration. Ms. Thomas-Greenfield was among those asked to leave by Mr. Tillerson’s staff, but she appealed and remained until her retirement in September.


“I don’t feel targeted as an African-American,” she said. “I feel targeted as a professional.”
PhotoBill A. Miller, the department’s former chief of security. Credit U.S. State Department


For those who have not been dismissed, retirement has become a preferred alternative when, like Mr. Miller, they find no demand for their expertise. A retirement class that concludes this month has 26 senior employees, including two acting assistant secretaries in their early 50s who would normally wait years before leaving.


The number of those with the department’s top two ranks of career ambassador and career minister — equivalent to four- and three-star generals — will have been cut in half by Dec. 1, from 39 to 19. And of the 431 minister-counselors, who have two-star-equivalent ranks, 369 remain and another 14 have indicated that they will leave soon — an 18 percent drop — according to an accounting provided by the American Foreign Service Association.


The political appointees who normally join the department after a change in administration have not made up for those departures. So far, just 10 of the top 44 political positions in the department have been filled, and for most of the vacancies, Mr. Tillerson has not nominated anyone.

“Leadership matters,” said Nancy McEldowney, a former ambassador who retired in June after a 30-year career as a Foreign Service officer. “There’s a vacuum throughout the State Department, and the junior people now working in these top jobs lack the confidence and credibility that comes from a presidential nomination and Senate confirmation.”



Even more departures are expected as a result of an intense campaign that Mr. Tillerson has ordered to reduce the department’s longtime backlog of Freedom of Information Act requests. CNN reported that the task had resulted from Mr. Trump’s desire to accelerate the release of Mrs. Clinton’s remaining emails.


Every bureau in the department has been asked to contribute to the effort. That has left midlevel employees and diplomats — including some just returning from high-level or difficult overseas assignments — to spend months performing mind-numbing clerical functions beside unpaid interns.



Mr. Tillerson’s spokesman, R. C. Hammond, dismissed any suggestion that the departures had had a negative effect.


“There are qualified people who are delivering on America’s diplomatic mission,” Mr. Hammond said. “It’s insulting to them every time someone comes up to them and says that the State Department is being gutted.”


Former State Department officials disagree.

“The United States is at the center of every crisis around the world, and you simply cannot be effective if you don’t have assistant secretaries and ambassadors in place,” said R. Nicholas Burns, a retired career diplomat who was an under secretary of state for President George W. Bush. “It shows a disdain for diplomacy.”



One result is that there is no one in place with responsibilities for some key trouble spots.
Although the North Korean nuclear crisis is the Trump administration’s top priority, the administration has yet to nominate an assistant secretary for East Asia or an ambassador to South Korea, crucial positions to deal with the issue.


In the midst of the war in Syria and growing worries over a possible conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, there is no confirmed assistant secretary for Near Eastern affairs or ambassadors to Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt or Qatar. And as Zimbabwe confronts the future after the departure of Robert Mugabe, the department is lacking a confirmed assistant secretary for African affairs or an ambassador to neighboring South Africa.


And the department’s future effectiveness may also be threatened. As more senior officials depart, interest in joining the Foreign Service is dwindling. With fewer prospects for rewarding careers, the number of people taking its entrance exam is on track to drop by 50 percent this year, according to the Foreign Service Association.


“The message from the State Department right now is, ‘We don’t want you,’ and students are hearing that,” said James Goldgeier, former dean of the School of International Service at American University.


For many at the State Department, their experience under Mr. Tillerson has been a particular shock because their hopes for him were initially high.


Mrs. Clinton and John Kerry, her successor, were both seen as focused on their own priorities and were not particularly popular within the department. The model secretaries in recent history have been Colin Powell, James A. Baker III and George P. Shultz, Republicans who cared about management.


“Everyone who called me, I said: ‘Listen, guys, this is going to be great, and maybe he’ll finally get the department in shape,’” said Dana Shell Smith, the ambassador to Qatar, who recently resigned.

Since then, Ms. Smith has changed her mind.
“These people either do not believe the U.S. should be a world leader, or they’re utterly incompetent,” she said. “Either way, having so many vacancies in essential places is a disaster waiting to happen.”

__________________________________________

We agree with the NYTimes article above that HILLARY was not interested in State Department outside what is could do for her personally-----but we have known since 1990s when ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE was shoved into overdrive as with all FEDERAL AGENCIES----our STATE DEPARTMENT was being corrupted in activities with intent of dismantling this system of embassies. 

NO======THESE FAR-RIGHT WING BUSH-ERA SECRETARIES------NO BETTER.



'The model secretaries in recent history have been Colin Powell, James A. Baker III and George P. Shultz, Republicans who cared about management'.

This is not about TRUMP or racism or sexism religion====it is about US sovereignty.


We saw the dismantling of our US State Department of course when it went from public services to US citizens overseas to being a global corporate tool-----it has been GLOBAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE during hyper - endless wars.


Insurance Providers for Overseas Coverage
Disclaimer

The Department of State assumes no responsibility or liability for the professional ability or reputation of, or the quality of services provided by, the entities or individuals whose names appear on or are linked to the above page. Inclusion of private groups on this page is in no way an endorsement by the Department or the U.S. government. The order in which names appear has no significance. The Department is not in a position to vouch for the information.



Several private organizations provide information and insurance for overseas travelers. Familiarize yourself with your travel and medical coverage before going overseas. The following is provided for informational purposes only and in no way constitutes an endorsement, expressed or implied, by the Department of State. 
  • Travel Insurance insures your financial investment in your trip.  Typically it covers such things as the cost of your lost baggage and cancelled flights, but it may or may not cover costs of medical attention you might need while abroad. 
  • Travel Medical Insurance covers the cost of various levels of overseas medical treatment.  
  • Medical Evacuation Services provides air ambulance, medical evacuation or medical escort service coverage for overseas travelers.

One of the most common distresses of world travelers is having their property and money stolen---no matter how hard one tries to protect currency. You become that DESTITUTE CITIZEN when your luggage or wallet goes one way and you another.

What services does the Department of State provide to assist destitute U.S. citizens abroad who need temporary financial assistance?

The Office of Overseas Citizens Services in the U.S. Department of State, (888) 407-4747 (or from overseas +1 202-501-4444) can assist U.S. citizens who are temporarily destitute abroad because of an unanticipated emergency. If you find yourself in such a situation, here are some options:



  • Contacting Home: U.S. citizens in need of emergency financial assistance while abroad should first attempt to contact their family, friends, banking institution, or employer in the United States, or in their place of residence abroad, for financial help. The American Citizen Services unit in the Consular Section of the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate can assist in this effort. U.S. embassy and consulate contact information is available in our country information pages. 

  • Sending Money Through the U.S. Department of State: When commercial options are not available, or their use is not feasible due to the circumstance of the emergency, family or friends may send funds to the Department of State for delivery to a destitute U.S. citizen abroad through the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate. See Sending Money Overseas to a U.S. Citizen. The Department of State assesses a $30.00 fee to establish an account and transfer funds. For additional information, contact the U.S. Department of State, Office of American Citizens Services and Crisis Management, at (888) 407-4747.
_________________________________________________

We have been reading foreign policy journals like FOREIGN AFFAIRS these few decades letting us know EMBASSIES are not needed when all the power structures are meeting in United Nations and DAVOS SWITZERLAND-----the only CITIZENS being global 1%. 

EMBASSIES were for SOVEREIGN NATIONS filled with the needs of 99% of a nations' activities overseas.  It was central in IMPORT EXPORT markets---but US is MOVING FORWARD to tribute state with global corporate factories and natural resource corporations dealing with GLOBAL TRIBUNALS not sovereign national entities.

REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES welcome the clawing back of embassy expansions but we see this happening along with decline of global marketing and endless wars as we FOCUS ON REBUILDING OUR US DOMESTIC ECONOMY.


CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA see ending EMBASSY AND DIPLOMACY tied to already existing UNITED NATIONS/NATO with only the global 1% represented.


We pointed to just a few services our EMBASSIES and STATE DEPARTMENT have for 300 years provided---but the gorilla-in-the-room is sovereign rights protection when outside US borders...whether working or pleasure.


Many of our US citizens don't travel outside US say ----WHO CARES? When the goal of MOVING FORWARD is throwing 99% of US citizens into global labor pool sent to overseas Foreign Economic Zones----the needs for sovereign protections soar.



The Irrelevant Diplomat

Do We Need Embassies Anymore?

By Alex Oliver   Snapshot March 14, 2016 Foreign Affaris


The embassy, at least in its traditional form, is facing an existential crisis. The global transformations of the twenty-first century have dramatically changed the way nations practice diplomacy. The rise of digital communications, diminishing resources, and growing security threats all raise the question of whether the traditional embassy is still relevant.


More than half of the developed nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have reduced their diplomatic footprint over the last decade, according to our research at the Lowy Institute, where we have constructed the Global Diplomacy Index, which charts almost 6,000 diplomatic posts across nearly 660 cities around the world. As government budgets shrink, embassies and diplomats seem more like expensive luxuries than political assets. It doesn’t help, of course, that diplomats are stereotyped as overpaid and ineffectual cocktail-circuit regulars and that foreign ministries frequently fail to reflect the times. They generally lack diversity and are slow to embrace innovation, even social media. Australia’s diplomats in Indonesia, for example, were still not using social media in 2010, even though Indonesia is the site of one of its most significant embassies, the largest recipient of Australian aid, and one of its most important neighbors in Asia. Despite being described as a “digital dinosaur” in 2010, the secretary of Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs admitted in 2012 that he still did not consider digital diplomacy a high priority. And with the rising importance of economic diplomacy, governments are more inclined to open trade offices and innovation hubs than embassies. For example, our research indicates that between 2009 and 2015 the United Kingdom’s Foreign & Commonwealth Office shed almost 30 diplomatic missions, while its science and innovation network expanded its coverage from 24 to 28 countries.



Once the government’s eyes and ears abroad, embassies are now usually the slowest way to get information, unable to compete with lightning-fast media reporting and exhaustive country analyses prepared by NGOs and risk consultancies. The digitally connected world allows governments to communicate directly with their counterparts, and some world

_______________________________________
Here are just two of what have been these few decades thousands and thousands of examples of our global labor pool 99% from third world nations being abandoned with no sovereign rights protecting them and yes, global multi-national corporations are the source of complete control through labor brokers of the fate of these workers once they leave their nation. We see all the time where that global corporation actively acts to harm global labor pool as described below. The article posted here shows these practices already in place with US workers within US------this is now being structured to take 99% of WE THE PEOPLE into these global labor pool distribution systems we already know LIE, CHEAT, STEAL, HAVE NO MORALS OR ETHICS, NO US RULE OF LAW, NO GOD'S NATURAL LAW-----they deliberately harm EX-PAT workers having no SOVEREIGN RIGHTS PROTECTION.


'The 19 named plaintiffs say they are all U.S. citizens, some with “exemplary service in the U.S. military.”'


'Workers Claim DynCorp Abandoned Them

September 25, 2013 RYAN ABBOTT



ALEXANDRIA, Va. (CN) – DynCorp got its military translators thrown into Kuwaiti prisons after coercing them into signing false confessions, and owes them money too, 19 American-Arab translators claim in a federal class action.


Lead plaintiff Ramzi Zinnekah, of Dallas, sued DynCorp and its joint ventures Global Linguists Solutions (GLS) and AECOM in Federal Court, accusing them of Fair Labor Standards Act violations, conspiracy and tortious interference.


The class claims that DynCorp, a military contracting giant, duped them into signing confessions that they violated Kuwaiti immigration laws, landing some in jail and stiffing all of them for paychecks'.



Being abandoned in US is nothing compared to having no US presence overseas to provide SOVEREIGN RIGHTS to US citizens pushed into global labor pool......


'The workers said they stopped working after two days without money or food'.




Workers Claim Abandonment By Staffing Company

Monday, January 21, 2013 2:25:00 PM CST in News
By: Micah Smith




COLUMBIA - Laborers from Atlanta, Georgia said Monday they were stranded in Columbia by a staffing agency and Aspen Heights, a construction company. The laborers said they responded to an advertisement posted on Craigslist that stated a staffing agency wanted to hire 50 people for framing and general labor work in Columbia.


The ad stated that laborers would be reimbursed for travel expenses and would receive pay for lodging and food. But the workers said they have not received anything since their arrival in Columbia. Eleven remain in Columbia without enough resources to go home.


"When we found out what was going on it seemed like everybody put money in they pocket and ran off and abandoned everybody out here. It's eleven of us out here, we don't even have a way back to Atlanta. We don't know where we're going to sleep at, we don't know anything. People are really upset out here, people's families are upset," said Barceneas Cosby. 

The workers said they stopped working after two days without money or food. One worker said when he tried to reach the supervisor of the staffing agency, the agency claimed to have no knowledge of the situation.



When KOMU 8 News went to the construction site, the supervisor first agreed to talk with a reporter, but then went inside the main office and did not come back out.
Later, Aspen Heights contacted KOMU 8 News with this statement:


"This particular issue is between a subcontractor and its employees. Now that this has been brought to the attention of Aspen Heights; we are working closely with all subcontractors to make sure contractual obligations are met. The Aspen Heights Columbia project is currently in good standing with all lenders and subcontractors involved."

OH, REALLY?????  BECAUSE MAKING SURE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS ARE MET IS NOT HAPPENING ANYWHERE ACROSS THE US.



The workers said the staffing company doing the hiring was Everything Staffing in Marietta, Georgia, but KOMU 8 News has been unable to reach the company or verify that it was the one that placed the ad.


The laborers said that although they feel wronged by the construction company and staffing agency, they just want money to get back home to their families.

___________________________


As US citizens see every US Constitutional, 300 years of Federal court precedence, centuries of COMMON LAW and basic developed nation quality of life under attack these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ---now Trump-----the US has the strongest governmental structure to assure the rights of all citizens in WORLD HISTORY. We do not believe a UNITED NATIONS filled with those same global 1% banking neo-liberal leaders attacking US 99% and our rights as citizens have any good intentions in selling BE A WORLD CITIZEN.

Yet, here is RACE TO THE TOP global corporate neo-liberal education reform bringing pre-K to career forced tracking vocational apprenticeship filled with COMMONER CORE and computerized lesson plans. UNITED WORLD SCHOOLS from UNITED NATIONS educating our 99% of US citizens to FORGET ALL THAT US CITIZENSHIP----just be a WORLD CITIZEN.

The video indicates global IVY LEAGUE HEDGE FUND corporations can expand their global brand to third world nations. Know what? Global 99% of citizens want to develop their OWN education protocol----as do 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE.




'Chairman Mao's image was used in a variety of ways - from badges, to books, to posters - so that every citizen in the huge sub-continent country would be in no doubt that he was their unchallenged leader.

It can be argued that without this wealth of ways that was used to spread the message of his personality, it would have been very difficult to bring the population under his control.

More than two billion Mao badges, were produced during the Cultural Revolution, ensuring that Mao was seen as the undisputed ruler across China.
The badges became essential for demonstrating revolutionary zeal, allowing wearers to both avoid denunciation and elevate themselves above their peers.
The badges even became an alternative currency used to barter for goods and services'.



Global Citizenship and United World Schools

Children help children. Students support students.

Contact Us

UWS promotes global citizenship through our schools partnership programme and our global citizenship badge programme.


We connect schools in the developed world with our schools in post conflict regions.

Pupils in the developed world school fundraise and engage with the UWS school. The pupils receive accounts of life in schools in other countries, visual case studies, and often visit the school and meet the pupils they help support. The children in other countries benefit from an education they might otherwise have been denied.


What is “Global Citizenship”?

Fostering Global Citizenship is priority 3 of the UN Secretary General’s Global Education First initiative.  


The GEFI defines global citizenship thus:



“The world faces global challenges, which require global solutions. These interconnected global challenges call for far-reaching changes in how we think and act for the dignity of fellow human beings.”
“It is not enough for education to produce individuals who can read, write and count.”


“Education must be transformative and bring shared values to life. It must cultivate an active care for the world and for those with whom we share it. Education must also be relevant in answering the big questions of the day.”


“Technological solutions, political regulation or financial instruments alone cannot achieve sustainable development. It requires transforming the way people think and act.”

WE ARE PRETTY SURE IT IS THOSE SAME GLOBAL 1% BEING SOCIOPATHS NEEDING TO TRANSFORM THE WAY THEY THINK AND ACT FOR EARTH'S SUSTAINABILITY.




“Education must fully assume its central role in helping people to forge more just, peaceful, tolerant and inclusive societies. It must give people the understanding, skills and values they need to cooperate in resolving the interconnected challenges of the 21st century.”



Source: Priority #3: Foster Global Citizenship


globaleducationfirst.org

“Global citizenship educates and prepares young people for their role in a modern world. This begins with an exploration of different cultures, languages and economies.”

“Crucially, active global citizens care about the world they live in, and take action to support causes that have a positive impact for other communities and future generations.”

Jon Cooper, Teacher, Red Maids' School, Bristol

Why is global citizenship important?

We believe global citizenship is essential for young people to gain the skills, attributes and knowledge to be successful in their chosen careers, and for the progress and development of a fairer and protected world.


So what is a global citizen?

A global citizen cares passionately about others and the world they live in. An active global citizen takes action to support causes they believe in.


Together with our network of Partner Schools, with many thousands of active global citizens, we help transform the lives of thousands of some of the poorest children in the world.


Global citizenship is about far more than just fundraising – it is an opportunity for children to take a lead, be active and join a movement that touches the lives of all those involved.


UWS sees a Global Citizen as someone who:
  • Is aware of the wider world.
  • Has a sense of their role as a world citizen.
  • Respects and values diversity.
  • Wants to tackle social injustice.
  • Believes that all children and young people have a right to an education.
  • Takes action to make the world more equitable.
  • Lives and promotes a sustainable way of life.

How UWS promotes global citizenship

We partner schools from affluent countries with their own UWS community school in an area of significant educational poverty. In other words, we partner the elite with those at the other end of the educational spectrum. We’re currently working with some brilliant schools in the UK, Hong Kong, Japan, Germany, Bahrain, Australia, and the US.


With our partner schools we’ve so far reached over 4,000 of the poorest children in the world, transforming their futures. These are mutually beneficial partnerships that enrich the curriculum, develop school culture, enable students to be active global citizens, to own the partnership, and be part of something that genuinely touches the lives of all of those involved, e.g.,


Hannah Watts, a student at UWC Atlantic College, took it upon herself to raise over £300 by asking for donations from friends, family and contacts.


This money directly helped the village community of Na Cam, where it was used to build a well. Hannah specifically wanted to fund this project because she saw that the village’s only source of water was the river. Other villages the group visited had already benefitted from having a water pump or well installed, and Hannah wanted to do the same for the people of Na Cam.


As our founder Chris Howarth says, “Children help children. Students support students”.  This is global citizenship in action.




Video Transcript

“As a former partner school pupil, it was fantastic to have such a relevant project integrated into the school’s culture. The simple idea of pupils raising money for other students in less developed nations was something that was easy to get behind and certainly helped to instill a better awareness of my standing in the world.”


“As a teenager it may be unlikely that a global conscience is at the forefront of your mind, yet now as an undergraduate aiming to pursue a career in International Development, I was perhaps more influenced by programmes like UWS than I realised.”


“This is a trend I’ve noticed amongst my fellow alumni, with PGS pupils keen to travel sustainably, work abroad and generally more ethically aware than other students.”


Alun Cledwyn

Student, Portsmouth Grammar School

“My belief in the importance of gender equality in education stems, to some extent, from the fact that the secondary school I have just left is an all-girls school, as well as being a strong partner school to UWS.”



“Working with UWS has proved to me that the contrast between my educational experience and the daily lives of the women of Ratanakiri cannot be understated.”


“We must recognise that there is still a long way to go in narrowing this global divide.”


Milly LovedayStudent and UWS Volunteer, Red Maids' School


United World Schools Global Citizenship Badges

The UWS Global Citizenship badge is just one way we recognise and reward active Global Citizens who believe in making a difference and who support the UWS movement.


How do the badges work?

There are 4 badges available:
  • Bronze  – All ages, 5-10 hours over one term.
  • Silver – Typically for 11-16 year olds, 15-30 hours over 6+ months.
  • Gold – 14 years +, typically achieved over 12 months or more.
  • Platinum – For the ultimate UWS ambassadors and champions. 16 years +, links to career and higher education pathways

Pupils work with their teacher and:
  • Set goals and select a badge. Start at bronze level and work up, or go straight for gold!
  • Plan activities and what evidence to collect, based on the Learn, Share & Act framework.
  • Share, compare and improve ideas by working with classmates, teachers and others completing the badge.
  • Self-assess evidence against the criteria provided.
  • Present evidence to the teachers when all criteria are met. If the teacher agrees, send it off to the UWS team.
  • If successful, receive a certificate and badge! If there are areas to develop, review progress with teachers and friends, then re-submit updated evidence.

“My name is Jo, I’m 10, and I have been working for my Bronze Award. Our teacher showed us a video from the UWS website about what life is like in a village in Cambodia. Then we learned about the school that we are linked with –UWS Chai Dor School.”


“The children are very poor but now they can read and write. We did a project about life in the village. We wanted to help them so we told our parents and friends about the school and did a sponsored hop around the football pitch called “Leg Up for UWS” to raise money for the children at Chai Dor. Our target was to each raise £5. I raised £11.40. We had our picture from the day in the local newspaper too.”


Jo, 10

Join the UWS Global Citizenship Badge Scheme

The UWS Global Citizenship badge is just one way we recognise and reward active Global Citizens who believe in making a difference and who support the UWS movement.


If you would like to learn more about the UWS Global Citizenship Badge scheme contact Jack at info@unitedworldschools.org.

For a sample of materials included, download the Student Guide to the UWS Global Citizenship Badge scheme.



0 Comments

February 15th, 2018

2/15/2018

0 Comments

 
'The state courts in both Maryland and New York held that so long as the primary purpose of the office building was for maritime purposes connected with the port, legislation authorizing the leasing to private tenants was valid'.

These state court rulings are corrupt-----there may be a situation where a manufacturing plant locates on a waterway for business but the entire periphery of coastline, whether ocean or harbor cannot be captured to private means. We are watching in Baltimore as waterfront communities global Wall Street Baltimore Development PRETEND are open to all 99% of citizens are being made more and more exclusive---tied to who works or lives on a global corporate campus. Offshore, these ties to US business are not to be found-----it is all multi-national----it is all tied to global banking 1% -----none of which are AMERICAN.

UNDERARMOUR COVE POINT given rights to a WATER TAXI business and marinas being called MARITIME. Having an industry like SPARROW'S POINT STEEL MILL taking a small section of waterfront property private is not the same as MOVING FORWARD where all coastal and waterfront properties are being tied to global corporations.

We see below CA as MD is ground zero for protests and lawsuits fighting for 99% access to PUBLIC TRUST TERRITORIAL WATER.





The Public Trust Doctrine

California State Lands Commission


Origins of the Public Trust

The origins of the public trust doctrine are traceable to Roman law concepts of common property. Under Roman law, the air, the rivers, the sea and the seashore were incapable of private ownership; they were dedicated to the use of the public.[1] This concept that tide and submerged lands are unique and that the state holds them in trust for the people has endured throughout the ages. In 13th century Spain, for example, public rights in navigable waterways were recognized in Las Siete Partidas, the laws of Spain set forth by Alfonso the Wise.[2] Under English common law, this principle evolved into the public trust doctrine pursuant to which the sovereign held the navigable waterways and submerged lands, not in a proprietary capacity, but rather “as trustee of a public trust for the benefit of the people” for uses such as commerce, navigation and fishing.[3]

After the American Revolution, each of the original states succeeded to this sovereign right and duty. Each became trustee of the tide and submerged lands within its boundaries for the common use of the people.[4] Subsequently admitted states, like California, possess the same sovereign rights over their tide and submerged lands as the original thirteen states under the equal-footing doctrine.[5] That is, title to lands under navigable waters up to the high water mark is held by the state in trust for the people. These lands are not alienable in that all of the public’s interest in them cannot be extinguished.[6]

Purpose of the Public Trust

The United States Supreme Court issued its landmark opinion on the nature of a state’s title to its tide and submerged lands nearly 110 years ago, and although courts have reviewed tidelands trust issues many times since then, the basic premise of the trust remains fundamentally unchanged. The Court said then that a state’s title to its tide and submerged lands is different from that to the lands it holds for sale. “It is a title held in trust for the people of the State that they may enjoy the navigation of the waters, carry on commerce over them, and have liberty of fishing” free from obstruction or interference from private parties.[7] In other words, the public trust is an affirmation of the duty of the state to protect the people’s common heritage of tide and submerged lands for their common use.[8]

But to what common uses may tide and submerged lands be put? Traditionally, public trust uses were limited to water-related commerce, navigation, and fishing. In more recent years, however, the California Supreme Court has said that the public trust embraces the right of the public to use the navigable waters of the state for bathing, swimming, boating, and general recreational purposes. It is sufficiently flexible to encompass changing public needs, such as the preservation of the lands in their natural state for scientific study, as open space and as wildlife habitat. The administrator of the public trust “is not burdened with an outmoded classification favoring one mode of utilization over another."[9]

The Legislature, acting within the confines of the common law public trust doctrine, is the ultimate administrator of the tidelands trust and often may be the ultimate arbiter of permissible uses of trust lands. All uses, including those specifically authorized by the Legislature, must take into account the overarching principle of the public trust doctrine that trust lands belong to the public and are to be used to promote public rather than exclusively private purposes. The Legislature cannot commit trust lands irretrievably to private development because it would be abdicating the public trust.[10] Within these confines, however, the Legislature has considerable discretion.

The Legislature already may have spoken to the issue of the uses to which particular tide and submerged lands may be put when making grants of these lands in trust to local government entities. Statutory trust grants are not all the same--some authorize the construction of ports and airports, others allow only recreational uses and still others allow a broad range of uses.

A further and often complicating factor is that granted and un-granted lands already may have been developed for particular trust uses that are incompatible with other trust uses or may have become antiquated. Some tidelands have been dedicated exclusively to industrial port uses, for example, and in these areas, recreational uses, even if also authorized by the trust grant, may be incompatible. Similarly, tidelands set aside for public beaches may not be suitable for construction of a cannery, even though a cannery may be an acceptable trust use. Piers, wharves and warehouses that once served commercial navigation but no longer can serve modern container shipping may have to be removed or converted to a more productive trust use. Historic public trust uses may have been replaced by new technologies. Antiquated structures on the waterfront may be an impediment rather than a magnet for public access and use of the waters. Public trust uses may and often do conflict with one another. The state and local tidelands grantees, as administrators of their respective public trust lands, are charged with choosing among these conflicting uses, with the Legislature as the ultimate arbiter of their choices. For all these reasons, a list of uses or a list of cases without more may not be as useful as an analysis of public trust law applied to a specific factual situation.

The Leasing of Tidelands

A few principles established by the courts are instructive in analyzing under the public trust doctrine the leasing of public trust lands for particular uses. For example, it was settled long ago that tidelands granted in trust to local entities may be leased and improved if the leases and improvements promote uses authorized by the statutory trust grant and the public trust. Leases for the construction of wharves and warehouses and for railroad uses, i.e., structures that directly promote port development, were approved early in the 20th century.[11] Later, leases for structures incidental to the promotion of port commerce, such as the Port of Oakland’s convention center, were held to be valid because although they did not directly support port business, they encouraged trade, shipping, and commercial associations to become familiar with the port and its assets.[12] Visitor-serving facilities, such as restaurants, hotels, shops, and parking areas, were also approved as appropriate uses because as places of public accommodation, they allow broad public access to the tidelands and, therefore, enhance the public’s enjoyment of these lands historically set apart for their benefit.[13]

These cases provide three guidelines for achieving compliance with the public trust when leasing tidelands for construction of permanent structures to serve a lessee’s development project: (1) the structure must directly promote uses authorized by the statutory trust grant and trust law generally, (2) the structure must be incidental to the promotion of such uses, or (3) the structure must accommodate or enhance the public’s enjoyment of the trust lands. Nonetheless, when considering what constitutes a trust use, it is critical to keep in mind the following counsel from the California Supreme Court: The objective of the public trust is always evolving so that a trustee is not burdened with outmoded classifications favoring the original and traditional triad of commerce, navigation and fisheries over those uses encompassing changing public needs.[14]

Promotion of Trust Uses and Public Enjoyment of Trust Lands

Installations not directly connected with water-related commerce are appropriate trust uses when they must be located on, over or adjacent to water to accommodate or foster commercial enterprises. Examples include oil production facilities, freeway bridges and nuclear power plants.[15] Hotels, restaurants, shops and parking areas are appropriate because they accommodate or enhance the public’s ability to enjoy tide and submerged lands and navigable waterways. The tidelands trust is intended to promote rather than serve as an impediment to essential commercial services benefiting the people and the ability of the people to enjoy trust lands.[16]

Nevertheless, the essential trust purposes have always been, and remain, water related, and the essential obligation of the state is to manage the tidelands in order to implement and facilitate those trust purposes for all of the people of the state.[17]

Therefore, uses that do not accommodate, promote, foster or enhance the statewide public’s need for essential commercial services or their enjoyment tidelands are not appropriate uses for public trust lands. These would include commercial installations that could as easily be sited on uplands and strictly local or “neighborhood-serving” uses that confer no significant benefit to Californians statewide. Examples may include hospitals, supermarkets, department stores, and local government buildings and private office buildings that serve general rather than specifically trust-related functions.

Mixed-Use Developments

Mixed-use development proposals for filled and unfilled tide and submerged lands have generally consisted of several structures, including non-trust use structures or structures where only the ground floor contains a trust use. While mixed-use developments on tidelands may provide a stable population base for the development, may draw the public to the development, or may yield the financing to pay for the trust uses to be included in the development, they ought not be approved as consistent with statutory trust grants and the public trust for these reasons. These reasons simply make the development financially attractive to a developer. Projects must have a connection to water-related activities that provide benefits to the public statewide, which is the hallmark of the public trust doctrine. Failure to achieve this goal, simply to make a development financially attractive, sacrifices public benefit for private or purely local advantage. A mixed-use development may not be compatible with the public trust, not because it may contain some non-trust elements, but because it promotes a “commercial enterprise unaffected by a public use”[18] rather than promoting, fostering, accommodating or enhancing a public trust use.[19] That use, however, need not be restricted to the traditional triad of commerce, navigation and fishing. It is an evolving use that is responsive to changing public needs for trust lands and for the benefits these lands provide.[20]

Moreover, commercial enterprises without a statewide public trust use may violate the terms of statutory trust grants. Typically, grants allow tidelands to be leased, but only for purposes “consistent with the trust upon which said lands are held.” This term is not equivalent to “not required for trust uses” or “not interfering with trust uses.” Since leases of tidelands must be consistent with statutory trust grant purposes, leases which expressly contemplate the promotion of non-trust uses rather than trust uses would not comply with the terms of the trust grants.

For these reasons, non-trust uses on tidelands, whether considered separately or part of a mixed-use development, are not mitigable. That is, unlike some environmental contexts where developments with harmful impacts may be approved so long as the impacts are appropriately mitigated by the developer, in the tidelands trust context, mitigation of a non-trust use has never been recognized by the courts. To the contrary, the California Supreme Court has said that just as the state is prohibited from selling its tidelands, it is similarly prohibited from freeing tidelands from the trust and dedicating them to other uses while they remain useable for or susceptible of being used for water-related activities.[21]

Incidental Non-Trust Use

All structures built on tide and submerged lands should have as their main purpose the furtherance of a public trust use. Any structure designed or used primarily for a non-trust purpose would be suspect. Mixed-use development proposals, however, frequently justify non-trust uses as “incidental” to the entire project. The only published case in California in which a non-trust use of tidelands has been allowed focused on the fact that the real or main purpose of the structure was a public trust use and that the non-trust use would be incidental to the main purpose of the structure.[22] In this context, the court noted that because the real or main purpose of the structure was to promote public trust uses, non-trust groups could also use the facility, but the non-trust uses must remain incidental to the main purpose of the structure.[23] This is the state of the law, and it is supported by good policy reasons as well. If the test for whether a non-trust use is incidental to the main purpose of a development were not applied on a structure-by-structure basis, pressure for more dense coastal development may increase as developers seek to maximize the square feet of allowable non-trust uses. Disputes may arise as to how to calculate the square footage attributable to the proper trust uses versus non-trust uses, with open waterways and parking garages likely being the dominant trust uses and structures being devoted to non-trust uses.

It is beyond contention that the state cannot grant tidelands free of the trust merely because the grant serves some public purpose, such as increasing tax revenues or because the grantee might put the property to a commercial use.[24] The same reasoning applies to putting tidelands to enduring non-trust uses by building structures on them. Accordingly, the only enduring non-trust uses that may be made of tidelands without specific legislative authorization are those incidental to the main trust purpose applied on a structure-by-structure basis. Each structure in a mixed-use development on tidelands must have as its primary purpose an appropriate public trust use. If its real or main purpose is a trust use, portions of the structure not needed for trust purposes may be leased temporarily to non-trust tenants, provided that the non-trust use is incidental to the main purpose of the structure.

The Role of the Legislature

The Legislature is the representative of all the people and, subject to judicial review, is the ultimate arbiter of uses to which public trust lands may be put. The Legislature may create, alter, amend, modify, or revoke a trust grant so that the tidelands are administered in a manner most suitable to the needs of the people of the state.[25] The Legislature has the power to authorize the non-trust use of tidelands. It has done so rarely, and then on a case-specific basis.[26] Many of its actions have been a recognition of incidental non-trust uses or of a use that must be located on the tidelands. When these legislative actions have been challenged in court, the courts, understandably, have been very deferential, upholding the actions and the findings supporting them.[27]

The Legislature has provided a statutory framework for the leasing of tidelands for non-trust uses by the cities of Long Beach and San Francisco grounded on findings that the tidelands are not required for (San Francisco) or not required for and will not interfere with (Long Beach) the uses and purposes of the granting statute.[28] Where, as in these two statutes, the Legislature has authorized in general terms the use of tidelands for non-trust purposes, the statutes’ provisions must be interpreted so as to be consistent with the paramount rights of commerce, navigation, fishery, recreation and environmental protection. This means that the tidelands may be devoted to purposes unrelated to the common law public trust to the extent that these purposes are incidental to and accommodate projects that must be located on, over or adjacent to the tidelands. These non-trust uses are not unlimited, for there are limits on the Legislature’s authority to free tidelands from trust use restrictions.[29]

To ensure that the exercise of the Long Beach and San Francisco statutes is consistent with the common law public trust, the tidelands to be leased for non-trust uses must have been filled and reclaimed and no longer be tidelands or submerged lands and must be leased for a limited term. The space occupied by the non-trust use, whether measured by the percentage of the land area or the percentage of the structure, should be relatively small.

Finally, any structure with a non-trust use should be compatible with the overall project. Findings such as these are necessary because legislative authorizations to devote substantial portions of tidelands to long-term non-trust uses have generally been considered by the courts as tantamount to alienation.[30]

In several out-of-state cases, specific, express legislative authorizations of incidental leasing of publicly-financed office building space to private tenants solely for the purpose of producing revenue have been subject to close judicial scrutiny, although they did not involve tidelands trust use restrictions.[31] One case involved construction of an international trade center at Baltimore’s Inner Harbor with public financing where legislation expressly permitted portions of the structure to be leased to private tenants for the production of income. Another was a condemnation case where the statute authorizing the New York Port Authority to acquire a site on which to build the World Trade Center was challenged on the basis that it allowed portions of the new structure to be used for no other purpose than the raising of revenue. In both cases, opponents of the projects argued that a publicly financed office building should not be permitted to have any private commercial tenants even though the respective legislatures had expressly allowed incidental private use of each building. The state courts in both Maryland and New York held that so long as the primary purpose of the office building was for maritime purposes connected with the port, legislation authorizing the leasing to private tenants was valid.[32] Although both cases involve challenges to financing and condemnation statutes and do not involve the public trust, they are instructive because they demonstrate the importance to the courts, even in the context of public financing and condemnation, that when a portion of a structure is to be leased for the purpose of raising revenues to offset expenses, this incidental non-public leasing must have been legislatively authorized.

OH, REALLY??????

Exchanges of Lands

Situations where a local government or a private party acquires a right to use former trust property free of trust restrictions are rare.[33] In order for such a right to be valid, the Legislature must have intended to grant the right free of the trust and the grant must serve the purpose of the trust. Public Resources Code section 6307 is an example of the rare situation where abandonment of the public trust is consistent with the purposes of the trust.

Section 6307 authorizes the Commission to exchange lands of equal value, whether filled or unfilled, whenever it finds that it is “in the best interests of the state, for the improvement of navigation, aid in reclamation, for flood control protection, or to enhance the configuration of the shoreline for the improvement of the water and upland, on navigable rivers, sloughs, streams, lakes, bays, estuaries, inlets, or straits, and that it will not substantially interfere with the right of navigation and fishing in the waters involved.” The lands exchanged may be improved, filled and reclaimed by the grantee, and upon adoption by the Commission of a resolution finding that such lands (1) have been improved, filled, and reclaimed, and (2) have thereby been excluded from the public channels and are no longer available or useful or susceptible of being used for navigation and fishing, and (3) are no longer in fact tidelands and submerged lands, the lands are thereupon free from the public trust. The grantee may thereafter make any use of the lands, free of trust restrictions.

In order for such an exchange of lands to take place, the Commission must find that the lands to be exchanged are no longer available or useful or susceptible of being used for navigation and fishing, taking into consideration whether adjacent lands remaining subject to the trust are sufficient for public access and future trust needs; that non-trust use of the lands to be freed of the public trust will not interfere with the public’s use of adjacent trust lands; and that the lands that will be received by the state in the exchange not only are of equal, or greater, monetary value but also have value to the tidelands trust, since they will take on the status of public trust lands after the exchange. Only then can the Commission find that the transaction is in the best interests of the state, that the exchange of lands will promote the public trust and that it will not result in any substantial interference with the public interest in the lands and waters remaining.


______________________________________________



Our west and east coast beaches are MOVING FORWARD to being devastated with environmental pollution and contamination------so if we do not act as REAL left social progressive 99% -----our health will be harmed by simply coming near our US coast and waterfront PUBLIC territorial waters.

Both CA and MD are staging a complete takeover of offshore territorial and EEZ waters by global corporate massive platforms owned and operated by multi-national corporations.

'Governor Jerry Brown vetoed legislation by state Senator Jerry Hill that would have enabled the state to purchase the easement leading to Martins Beach'.


So, states allowed to be called DEMOCRATIC ---NY, MD, CA are passing illegal laws trying to end PUBLIC TRUST because they work for global banking 1%-----killing 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE



Environment

The Fight for Public Access to Martins Beach Rages On
  •  
  • Monday January 29, 2018

Jennifer Savage
California Policy Manager, Surfrider Foundation


Attempts to wrest back access to Martins Beach from billionaire Vinod Khosla ramped up last year culminating in both good news – a court victory – and bad – Governor Jerry Brown vetoed legislation by state Senator Jerry Hill that would have enabled the state to purchase the easement leading to Martins Beach.


The Surfrider Foundation has worked diligently to open Martins Beach since 2010, when property owner Vinod Khosla locked the gates permanently to keep the public out. Surfrider has attempted to engage Khosla to work out a reasonable access plan, but has been met with litigious responses and accusations of blackmail. To open access to Martins Beach, Surfrider has worked on several fronts in addition to this litigation, including advocating to the Board of Supervisors in San Mateo County; advocating for the State Lands Commission to exercise eminent domain to acquire an easement to the beach; supporting state Senator Jerry Hill’s legislation SB 968 and SB 42, and supporting the defense of the Martins Beach 5.


In 2018, we remain determined to regain the right-of-way thousands of visitors to Martins Beach enjoyed prior to Khosla’s illegal closing of the gate. After all, California’s Coastal Act guarantees what should be a right everywhere, that all people can enjoy the ocean, beaches and waves regardless of income, background or where they own property.


Among our actions:


Surfrider Foundation’s California staff and legal team is continuing to support Senator Hill’s efforts around eminent domain.


We’re preparing to, if necessary, argue our case at the U.S. Supreme Court. Khosla’s lawyers have until February 22 to file a request to be heard at the top level.


We’re continuing to advocate at the California Coastal Commission and State Lands Commission to ensure our state agencies are pursuing all available options.
Khosla’s actions are not only illegal, but heartbreaking for so many longtime visitors to Martins Beach. Like Marilyn Barcellos, who wrote a letter to the California Coastal Commission last year and has allowed Surfrider to share it:


“Martin’s Beach is the only beach our families have been going to for over 120 years.  It’s our favorite beach in the world. My mother is 93 and her parents took her there when she was a child… We have been sickened these recent years not having access to this beach… it’s completely heartbreaking. My husband’s family and my family have been going there since the beginning probably.  I know my grandfather went there, and his parents probably took him there… My Grandfather died around 1973 at the age of 81.  My mother is 93 now and still sharp as a tack.  She spoke at one of your meetings last year, of her lifelong experience being able to go to Martin’s Beach. I’m 69 now and I’ve been going there since we were tiny kids. My mother’s grandchildren and our nephews and nieces and THEIR children have been going there… until the gate got LOCKED by some ‘rich’ guy. So unkind… if you do the math above you can figure out that our families have been going there, weekly, monthly to enjoy the beach as families and to fish.  The fishing there was always great!  We’ve been going to this beach as far back as 1880 or before… Doesn’t the public deserve continued access to this beach based on precedence? I wouldn’t think it would hurt someone to share the beach with people who absolutely love it and have been respectful of it for so many years. WE ALL MISS MARTINS BEACH. IT WAS OUR FAMILY MEETING GROUND.”


What may seem like a small issue, the closure or prevention of full public access to a single beach in an area that’s relatively remote, we see as a matter of principle. The beach belongs to us all.

___________________________________________

'The Texas Open Beaches Act (TOBA) was passed in 1959 to assure that the public has the “free and unrestricted right of ingress and egress to and from” public beaches, defined as the area between the line of vegetation and the mean low tide line. Because the vegetation and low tide line shift due to natural coastal processes, the demarcation lines for public beaches are not static. The public’s right of access, or easement, moves as well'.

Here we are in 1959 TEXAS with laws strengthening PUBLIC TRUST along coastal waterfront----here is the public battle today. Our citizens allowed to build on top of waterfront are now angry as coastal erosion explodes----so too sea level rise taking away their rights as homeowners along the beach. These citizens are mad at 99% of WE THE PEOPLE fighting for public access to beach and shoreline.

PLEASE THINK WHICH OF THESE RIGHTS ARE CRITICAL FOR 99% OF US WE THE PEOPLE-----A SEVERAL HUNDRED YEAR OLD PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE----OR A FEW DECADES OF LIVING ALONG THE BEACH. LOSE THE BEACH HOUSE AND FIGHT FOR PUBLIC EASEMENT ALONG COASTS AND WATERFRONT.

Notice, the STATE owns these waterfronts ----not EEZ UNITED NATIONS.





Rolling Easements & the Texas Open Beaches Act

Rolling Easements

In all of the Gulf States, state ownership of submerged bay-side wetlands will migrate inland as tidal wetlands migrate with rising sea level, due to the common law rules of erosion and the public trust doctrine. In effect, then, a kind of rolling easement already exists on the bay shores in all five states. Wetlands, and the legal protections they enjoy, will migrate inland where topography and lack of development permit the migration.

This de-facto rolling easement, however, has one very significant difference compared to the Texas Open Beaches Act: the common law rules are ineffective in areas were bulkheads have been constructed to hold back the sea since the shoreline does not change as a result of the bulkheading. The boundary line between public and private property has been fixed. Where development occurs landward of coastal wetlands on the bay side, none of the Gulf states would force the movement of bulkheaded structures inland of the new mean high water mark in the case of sea level rise, in effect recognizing the permanence of the bulkheaded structure.


About the Texas Open Beaches Act

Unique among most states, Texas maintains a “rolling easement” on the Gulf shores to protect public access to the state’s beaches. The concept embodied in the TOBA has been termed a “rolling easement” and it evolved from Texas common law which recognized that Gulf beaches have been used by the public since “time immemorial” and that barrier islands are constantly shifting. The TOBA allows private land owners to develop their beachfront property as long as that development does not interfere with public access. As the vegetation line gradually moves the public access easement takes effect[1]

The Texas Open Beaches Act (TOBA) was passed in 1959 to assure that the public has the “free and unrestricted right of ingress and egress to and from” public beaches, defined as the area between the line of vegetation and the mean low tide line. Because the vegetation and low tide line shift due to natural coastal processes, the demarcation lines for public beaches are not static. The public’s right of access, or easement, moves as well.

The TOBA prohibits the construction of an “obstruction, barrier, or restraint of any nature which would interfere with the free and unrestricted right of the public” to access the beach. Holding back the sea, either through bulkheading or seawalls is, therefore, not permitted along public beaches. One thing that should be noted is that the public easement created by the TOBA does not affect the title to the property to which it attaches. The TOBA, however, makes that ownership subject to an easement that allows the public free and unrestricted use of the beach.



Challenges to Texas Open Beaches Act


homes that must be removed after hurricane Ike, aerial image

Aerial photograph of the west end of Galveston Island right after Hurricane Ike (courtesy NOAA). The vegetation line in this photo has shifted well inland of the first row of houses, and in some cases beyond the second row. If the new line proves to be stable for more than a year, some of these homes will have to be moved out of the public easement.

Buildings located seaward of the vegetation line must be removed if those buildings become an impediment to public access to the beach, as they do when the vegetation line shifts. A structure is an impediment to public access merely by being in the public access zone. As might be expected, property owners affected by changing vegetation lines do not take kindly to having to move their houses. Litigation occurs after every major storm when any number of houses end up seaward of the vegetation line, but the Texas courts have uniformly upheld the validity of this law since its inception in 1959 until 2012.


Historic Challenges

The majority of the challenges to the TOBA are based on the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment which requires the government to compensate landowners when their property is taken for public use. Government regulation can result in compensatory takings if a property owner loses all economically viable use the land.( Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1019 (1992)) Texas has partially protected itself against takings claims under the TOBA. The Act requires that deeds for properties sold after October 1, 1986 contain a disclosure statement to warn buyers of the potential loss of their homes or buildings due to the movement of the vegetation lines. Such statements notify owners that they do not have a right to maintain structures seaward of the vegetation line.


Severance v. Paterson

In 2012, the Texas Supreme Court weakened the Texas Open Beaches Act. After Hurricane Rita, Texas sought to enforce TOBA on properties on Galveston Island that were now (though not previously) located seaward of the vegetation line. The owners sued the State in Federal District Court, though the TOBA rolling easements were upheld. The landowners appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which asked the Texas Supreme Court to determine if TOBA rolling easements applied to sudden changes in the shore, such as what happens with hurricane damage.

The Texas Supreme Court ruled that the TOBA rolling easement did not automatically apply (or spring forward so to speak) to eroded beaches and adjacent property after storm events. Upholding a property owners right to exclude others from one’s property, the Court ruled that the State could only take property via eminent domain with just compensation, an appropriate use of state police power, a legal easement, or other pre-existing limitation on property. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that none of these conditions were satisfied by the State argument. Through the State argued that property owners were aware of the TOBA requirements, the Court found that this knowledge did not displace an owners right of to exclude.

[1]Therefore, the previous rolling easement line of TOBA was found to remain in place after sudden storm events, but could migrate with gradual natural changes to the beach. This ruling invalidates the rolling easement concept as it applies to sudden storm events. However, the rolling easement was upheld for gradual coastal change.


H.B. 3459: 2013 Amendment to TOBA

After the Severance v. Paterson ruling, the TOBA was amended by H.B. 3459 to grant decision-making authority to the General Land Office. The General Land Office was granted the authority to suspend the determination of the line of vegetation after it is destroyed by a sudden “meteorological event”, and to determine the new location of the line of vegetation. This authority is discretionary, and whether or not it is exercised to uphold private property rights or public access rights will be determined by the Commissioner of the General Land Office.


No Protection Landward of Vegetation Line

The Texas Open Beaches Act does not explicitly prohibit bulkhead construction landward of the vegetation line. What then, impedes developers from constructing bulkheads inland of the vegetation line? In point of fact, nothing in the law prohibits such construction. Many single-family homes on or near the beach in Texas are built on pilings or stilts to achieve the elevation needed to obtain insurance (17 feet). Little or no bulkheading accompanies stilt-built structures as a matter of practice.

There are, however, several high-rise condominium structures going up on the east side of Galveston Island. This part of Galveston Island is one of the relatively few areas on the Texas coast that are undergoing accretion rather than erosion, and the investors must feel there will be enough time to recoup their investment before the vegetation line moves. Other high-rise structures found along the beach in Texas on the vegetation line or just seaward of it were likely grandfathered in place.


_____________________________________________
We shared a video of a Hollywood movie showing an extreme case of EMINENT DOMAIN and the fight against Federal or state grab of private land or property-----but today these attacks using eminent domain are SOARING.  It is not a WARTIME ACT----as our movie showed.

CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA are far-right wing global banking 1% neo-liberals/neo-cons that have always been LIBERTARIAN.  Neo-liberal is basically LIBERTARIAN so yes, their view is there will be NO PUBLIC PROPERTY.  That is to where court challenges are going and it is to where EEZ and UNITED NATIONS is taking our US sovereign coast/waterfront standings.  What do far-right wing PRETENDING to be left social progressives do?  They use progressive terms to hide the fact that all public access areas and laws are being protected INSIDE GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUSES.  It's private but we zoned it public access.

Where Maryland citizens are seeing the hardest hits are EMINENT DOMAIN for what is a massive statewide global corporate campus industrialization and all the roads, pipelines et al attached to creating Chinese-style FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.  This attack is extended offshore in Maryland and Baltimore MOVING FORWARD at the speed of light while 99% of WE THE PEOPLE watch CNN tabloid FAKE news on sexual liaisons and Russian conspiracies.



When we have MUNICIPAL BONDS that hide who is tied to that land development------and those tied to that land development are global banking 1% having nothing to do with our US city-----happening every day in BALTIMORE-----offshore in MARYLAND-----serious sovereign issues for our US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE are sliding under the radar.

ANY GROUP OR POL CLAIMING TO BE 'LEFT' WOULD HAVE BEEN SHOUTING AGAINST FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES, EEZ, EMINENT DOMAIN, PUBLIC TRUSTS HELD BY GLOBAL NGO FOUNDATIONS.




BLUMM
PACE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW


Volume 27
2010
Number 3
649
ARTICLE


The Public Trust Doctrine and Private Property:
The Accommodation Principle

MICHAEL
C. BLUMM
*
The public trust doctrine has been attacked by libertarian property rights advocates for being grounded on shaky history, inefficient, a threat to private property, and inconsistent with the rule of law.

Some libertarians see application of the public
trust doctrine as an evisceration of private property rights.

In reality, such claims are hyperbolic. The doctrine actually functions to mediate between public and private rights, and thus is hardly the antithesis of private property; instead, it functions to transform, not eradicate, private property rights.


.This is the goal of global banking 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA now Trump------in redefining PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE that moved away from KINGS AND QUEENS or global 1% having control of all aspects of waterways-----pre-MAGNA CARTA-----to returning to that very condition eliminating several hundred centuries of citizens and public domain.

This is why all these GLOBAL GREEN CORPORATION policies that are NOT GREEN and actually cause CLIMATE CHANGE to soar-----are being used as the reason to END SOVEREIGNTY RIGHTS TIED TO PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE----and return to the days of MEDIEVAL OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% control of any and all land issues in US.

 In the interests of saving the planet from a climate change the global banking 1% created and are sending to LEVEL 5 ====global corporate platforms termed as GREEN or SUSTAINABLE negate our AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE.

“THE GLOBAL PUBLIC TRUST, ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE, AND UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS: IMPLICATIONS FOR GLOBAL GOVERNANCE AND INTERNATIONAL LAW”


Christian E. Banck Seminar on International Law of Armed Conflict ****FOR WRITING REQUIREMENT****** Prof. Jeanne M. Woods 4.28.2014



Introduction: The Global Public Trust Doctrine

The size and scale of human civilization as it has grown in complexity, population, and interconnectivity over the last 150 years and has grown to pose a clear and present danger to the continued survival of human civilization on this planet in the form of anthropogenic climate change. Anthropogenic climate change is defined in article 1 of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change as “a change of climate which attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”

 The fundamental natural processes associated with climate change are problems that future generations will continue to grapple with.

 Simply put, meeting the challenge requires not just emission cuts, but a fundamental rethinking of how the legal systems of the advanced industrial societies function.

 The current legal emphasis on the sanctity of private property rights is unsustainable because as currently seen individual private property rights are seen as holding primacy over collective rights, like the right to a clean environment.

 The current economic emphasis on global capitalism is also unsustainable in its current form. The current international law regarding armed conflict is also insufficient to meet the challenge presented by climate change as ecosystems become more vulnerable and resource wars become more likely. Adapting to the reality of a changed global climate represents a paradigm shift that requires solutions that can be sustained for generations going forward.


 What I am  proposing should properly understood as a synthesis of several previously concepts namely the concept of collective rights and duties, the concept of government by the consent of the government as a trust between the government and the individual members of the community, the concept of the public trust doctrine to be expanded globally  beyond the limited constraints of individual domestic law of nations and the concept of a global public trust doctrine as containing a fundamental human right that is granted as an individual right and an collective obligation owed by every human person on earth to each other supplies the necessary legal framework to balance the needs of first generation human rights with collectively held third generation human rights;

 such a doctrine can ensure the preservation of second generation human rights in the developed world; it can work to promote the sustainable economic development of the undeveloped world; it provides a legal mechanism to limit the damage to the natural environment during armed conflict; and it has the potential to be a vehicle that protects the rights of unborn generations, while balancing the needs of the current generation.

 Additionally, this would address the problem that climate change presents to security issues, as ecological systems degrade and we become more reliant on surviving vulnerable ecologies and these ecologies become likely targets and the danger represented by lone nations taking unilateral action to modify the global climate through a process of geo-engineering, like cloud salting, or the seeding of genetically altered plankton in the oceans to induce algae blooms to feed on carbon-dioxide and convert it to oxygen

_____________________________________________


'We want to go back to Roman times, the Magna Carta, the Charter of the Forest, the public trust doctrine, and points in between, to regenerate a body of “ commons law” that can provide new legal justifications for the commons. We call this the Commons Law Project, a multi-year effort to explore ecological governance in ... '
Lot's of use of the word COMMONER in this MOVING FORWARD back to DARK AGES stance on redefining PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE------United Nations is of course those global 1% banking OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE from DARK AGES thinking of 99% of WE THE PEOPLE as COMMONERS----as in COMMONER CORE.
All of this is centered on the GLOBAL CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY FAKE green/environmentalism.

Love that global carbon trading fraud led by United Nations to move sovereign land on water and land in this redefinition of PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE.

OUR WORLD--- 'OUR REVOLUTION'---- UNITED NATIONS GLOBAL 1%.


Can the Commons Move from Margins to Mainstream?

DEVELOPMENT & SOCIETY : Biodiversity, Economics
2012•02•27 David Bollier
Photo by Zach Klein.


So much of nature, culture and economic activity utterly depend upon the commons — the atmosphere, the oceans, wildlife and seeds as well as the Internet, scientific knowledge and creative works, among countless other commons. And yet corporate-dominated markets are doing everything they can to privatize and commodify our commons. After all, there is big money to be made in mining the deepsea ocean floor, patenting the genes of plants and animals, claiming proprietary control of agricultural seeds, owning new sorts of synthetic nano-matter that can replace ordinary substances, and owning mathematical algorithms that power software programs.


The great, unacknowledged scandal of our times is the market enclosure of things that belong to all of us. Instead of having free or low-cost access to the shared resources that belong to all of us, companies are privatizing them and forcing us to pay. This story is well-told by such books as Raj Patel’s The Value of Nothing, Lawrence Lessig’s Free Culture, Lewis Hyde’s Common as Air and my own Silent Theft.



Rather than review this history of contemporary enclosures, I want to focus here on what we going to do about them. How can we be more effective in combating enclosure and in making the commons paradigm more visible and consequential in politics, economics and culture?


The great, unacknowledged scandal of our times is the market enclosure of things that belong to all of us.
We must first recognize that the commons inhabits a political environment that is often quite hostile to it. In fact, the State and Market often have their own very good reasons for disliking the commons. For one thing, both are hungry for the revenues that come from exploiting the commons — and both State and Market often find it useful to support each other’s political objectives.


The market/state duopoly, as I sometimes call it, has another reason for disliking the commons:  The commons often requires significant transfers of power to the commoners and new forms of social equity. So there is often a shared political interest for doing the wrong thing — that is, to enclose the commons.


Many resources that belong to us all are being privatized and commodified because corporations see them as cheap or free fodder for the voracious market machine. At the same time, these resources represent a cheap and convenient waste dump — a place to get rid of all the nasty externalities that businesses don’t want to internalize into their cost structures.

Comparing commons and market stories

If we are going to raise awareness of the commons and make it a serious element in policy discussions, then we are going to have to talk more aggressively about enclosure — because the privatization of the commons is in fact a profound disenfranchisement of people.


Having said this, we commoners need to do a better job of articulating and advancing what I call the value proposition of the commons. Here’s what I mean by that. The market has its own well-developed, aggressively promoted story about how material wealth is created and human progress is advanced. It’s a story about how private property rights, money and market exchange generate wealth. It’s a process that considers Gross Domestic Product a proxy for happiness. The market story is a story of bigger, better and faster, and it is the dominant norm of our time, a global religious catechism that is only now starting to come unravelled, thanks to the economic crisis of 2008.


The commons is a very different narrative — one that fills out that picture that this mainstream economic narrative omits. The value proposition of the commons cannot be expressed as a “bottom line” because it’s all about community empowerment and social equity and ecological security. Unfortunately, this is a fuzzy and complex storyline in the public mind, at least right now.
Some other reasons that the commons narrative has trouble going mainstream have everything to do with the intrinsic nature of the commons. Unlike the market narrative, which presumes to be standard and universal, the commons consists of countless distinctive and locally rooted examples, each different. The market celebrates quantitative measures of its performance, and so comparisons about who’s best, who’s richest, and so forth, are easy. By contrast, the value of the commons tends to be qualitative, social, spiritual, ecologically complex and long term. Needless to say, these values cannot be plugged into a spreadsheet and put into rankings, like the “Commons 500”.  As a result, the commons is harder to see and name as a distinct sector — and therefore, it can be harder to reclaim a commons or build one from scratch.


The market story is a story of bigger, better and faster, and it is the dominant norm of our time, a global religious catechism that is only now starting to come unravelled, thanks to the economic crisis of 2008.


In addition, the commons storyline is relational, not transactional. While markets are focused on individual initiative, conflicts and competition and winners and losers, the commons is focused on stewardship, community benefit and sustainability. Guess which narrative is more dramatic and gripping to the media?


Paradoxically, the commons does all sorts of work that markets depend upon — but this work usually goes unacknowledged. The “caring economy” and other so-called “women’s work” is part of a vast, off-the-books shadow economy that invisibly props up the formal market economy. Nature is also part of this shadow economy. So is the public domain of information and culture. It tells you something about the vaunted “productivity” of the formal economy that it quietly relies upon so many invisible commons-based subsidies!


Whilst paywalls and patents are used to privatise access to technology and knowledge, other organisations are countering this by maintaining open access to medical findings, scientific knowledge and other cultural products.


Of course, many leaders of the market/state duopoly are not troubled by this. They prefer to keep the commons in the shadows. Why call attention to a valuable off-the-books subsidy?  By keeping the commons unnamed, it is easier to neutralize it as a competitive power base. Without a vocabulary for naming the commons, the commons can be used and abused with impunity. It becomes harder to organize a community to defend it. Commons-based alternatives that might disrupt the status quo can be safely ignored.



Going mainstream with the commons discourse is difficult in many countries — most notably, the United States — because it clashes with the basic premises of laissez-faire individualism. When the US government tried to vanquish Native Americans in the 1800s, for example, the first thing that it insisted upon, as a legal precondition for US citizenship, was that Native Americans abandon their common ownership regimes and assign individual property rights to everyone. I can think of no better way of destroying a people.


The enclosure strategy is: Disassemble the connections that a community has to itself, its resources and its social traditions and rules. Convert commoners into consumers and make them dependent on the money economy.


This enclosure dynamic plays itself out repeatedly today. The strategy is:  Disassemble the connections that a community has to itself, its resources and its social traditions and rules. Convert commoners into individual consumers and producers for the market system, and make them more dependent on the money economy. We must frankly recognize that “free markets” may entail a cultural agenda and identity shift.


Now, the argument is often made that the commons is simply a vestigial, pre-modern throwback. They say it’s impractical, it’s inefficient, it’s a “tragedy”.  With the failures of communism and state socialism still hanging in the air, the claim is made that self-organized collective action threatens “freedom”.  We need to fight these myths by asserting the real value-proposition of the commons.


Deepest of origins

I will concede, the critics get it partly right:  the commons has pre-modern origins. I’ll go a step further. I’m convinced that the commons is as old as the human species. It predates the modern marketplace and state — and as the great historian of the commons Peter Linebaugh has put it, the commons is “independent of the temporality of the law and state”.


Evolutionary biologists, geneticists and anthropologists now tell us that cooperation is hard-wired into the human species. It is, they say, an “evolutionary stable strategy” — one that confers competitive advantages on homo sapiens in its ongoing struggle to survive. Scientists say that such evolutionary innovations as language, agriculture, altruism and even the whites of our eyes, reflect our natural propensity to cooperate and develop social trust.


As social order has evolved, so have the institutions that can protect our collective interests. In Roman times, the Emperor Justinian famously established several categories of law to reflect collective ownership. Things were considered res communes if they were owned in common by everyone as a whole. The Code of Justinian states:  “By the law of the nature these things are common to mankind — the air, running water, the sea and consequently the shores of the sea.”  Another category of property was things that belonged to the State -- res publicae. Things that belonged to no one — such as wild animals and abandoned property — were considered res nullius.

Another landmark in the history of the commons was the adoption of the Magna Carta in 1215 A.D. and a few years later, the Charter of the Forests. A series of conflicts and civil wars between the commoners and barons and the king eventually forced King John to formally recognize commoners’ rights — from due process rights and habeas corpus to the right to use the forest commons to supply their primary subsistence needs — for food, firewood and building materials.


I recall this history because it is another reason why the commons has been marginalized. Much of its history has been forgotten or bastardized. Consider our skewed remembrance of John Locke, who is responsible for the most celebrated and enduring theories of private property. Locke considered it a divine right for people to claim private property rights in things that they made with their own labor. What is usually omitted from Locke’s formulation of this right is his significant qualification — “…so long as there is enough, and good left in common for others.”


Recovering the history of commons law will show that human well-being is best served by respecting the integrity of regional ecosystems (which may or may not coincide with political boundaries) and the stability of local and regional communities.


In other words, private property rights can be justified only if the common pool resource is preserved intact. That often requires a commons. Let’s just say that the Wall Street Journal and Financial Times have forgotten such things. It reminds me of the novelist Milan Kundera’s famous line, “Man’s struggle against power is the struggle of memory against forgetfulness.”


Without a coherent, big-picture history of what I call “commons law,” it is hard for commoners to argue in courts and legislatures for what is theirs. The law frequently ignores or rejects commons-based approaches. That is why I am currently working with a noted international law and human rights professor, Burns Weston of the University of Iowa College of Law, to try to recover and refurbish this history. We want to go back to Roman times, the Magna Carta, the Charter of the Forest, the public trust doctrine, and points in between, to regenerate a body of “commons law” that can provide new legal justifications for the commons. We call this the Commons Law Project, a multi-year effort to explore ecological governance in partnership.



We need to recover the history of commons law, and regenerate it for our times, so that we can begin to imagine and invent new approaches to protecting our natural ecosystems. Existing law is predicated on the idea that the greatest benefits come from maximizing market exploitation of natural resources. It assumes that those resources are inexhaustible and that the byproducts of market activity (e.g., air and water pollution, toxic waste, climate change) are negligible. This is simply not true — yet the deep premises of modern law presume that maximizing private property rights, individual self-interest and market exchange will necessarily yield the greater public good, as Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand declares.



Recovering the history of commons law will show, on the contrary, that human well-being is best served by respecting the integrity of regional ecosystems (which may or may not coincide with political boundaries) and the stability of local and regional communities. The market needs to become the servant of these needs, not the master. Within a framework of law and public policy, communities must find new ways to limit their market-driven exploitation of nature. That’s where a new type of commons-based law can be helpful. It can help us invent new types of socio-legal mechanisms to protect ecological commons. It can also provide a valuable body of moral and legal principles to which contemporary environmental activists can appeal in their political advocacy.


In a larger sense, recovering the history of the commons can help us develop a new grand narrative for the commons. It can help us understand how the dynamics of enclosure in the past are repeating themselves today. It can help us recognize who are the victims of enclosure:  chiefly women, the poor, the elderly and others who depend on the commons for subsistence.



Tearing fences down


The history of the commons is also a source of inspiration. It can validate the creativity of commoners of the past who struggled to protect their shared wealth and self-determination. I only recently learned about the medieval tradition of “beating the bounds” — an annual community perambulation around the perimeter of the commons — complete with good food and drink.


The event celebrated the community’s identity as commoners while providing a way to tear down any fences, hedges or other enclosures. I was astonished by this revelation — commoners once had the affirmative legal right to knock down enclosures of their shared resources! We need to recover and remember the history of the commons as a way to help understand some challenges facing us today.


I see great potential in the commons because it goes beyond political ideology to propose a paradigm shift, a different worldview. It knits together the economic, political, cultural and humanistic into one coherent discourse. It empowers individuals to help themselves. It helps reconnect people with each other, and with the earth. It helps regenerate personal meaning and social tradition. It helps foster sustainable management of ecological resources.


For me, it is the ethic of the commons that may be most valuable. Alain Lipietz, a French political figure and student of the commons, traces the word “commons” to William the Conqueror and the Normans. I love the etymology of the word. It comes from the Norman word commun, which comes from the word munus, which means both “gift” and “counter-gift,” as a duty. Munus is related to what the economist Karl Polanyi called “reciprocity”.


I think we need to recover a world in which we all receive gifts and we all have duties. This is a very important way of being human. Tragically, the expansion of centralized political and economic structures tends to eclipse our need for gifts and duties. We rely on money or the state for everything. And so we forget what Ivan Illich called the “vernacular domain” — the spaces in our everyday life in which we create and shape and negotiate our sense of how things should be:  the commons.


The basic problem is that we need to rediscover “commoning” — the commons as a verb, the commons as a set of social practices. “The allure of commoning,” Peter Linebaugh has written, “arises from the mutualism of shared resources. Everything is used, nothing is wasted. Reciprocity, sense of self, willingness to argue, long memory, collective celebration and mutual aid are traits of the commoner.”
Now, the really great thing about commoning is that it is not just a figment of history. It’s alive and growing!  In fact, today we see the rise of countless self-styled commoners — people who see the commons as a way of dramatically reframing how they might conduct politics, conceptualize economics and revitalize democracy.


Today we see the rise of countless self-styled commoners — people who see the commons as a way of dramatically reframing how they might conduct politics, conceptualize economics and revitalize democracy.


In November 2010, in Berlin, some 200 self-identified commoners from 34 countries gathered in Berlin at the first international commons conference, hosted by the Heinrich Böll Foundation and the Commons Strategy Group. It turns out that agricultural activists from the Philippines and computer hackers from Amsterdam and defenders of urban spaces in Croatia and free culture advocates from Brazil, despite their obvious differences, actually have a lot in common. They all celebrate an ethic of participation, inclusiveness, transparency, social equity and collective innovation.


There are some amazingly large and robust trans-national communities of commoners who are making serious progress in taking charge of the common wealth. These include a vast network of free software programmers who created GNU Linux and thousands of other shareable software programs; the Wikipedians in dozens of countries who edit the largest encyclopaedia in history; the millions of digital artists and authors in more than fifty countries who use Creative Commons licenses; the growing world of open access scholarly publishing, which has bypassed expensive commercial journals to make their work freely available in perpetuity; the Open Educational Resources movement, which creates and shares open textbooks and curricula and learning materials.


Beyond this exploding universe of digital commoners, there are self-identified commoners who are recovering urban land and community gardens; commoners who are fighting to keep genetic knowledge free and open; commoners who are building solar energy panels on public rights-of-way; commoners who are building open-source hardware and agricultural equipment; commoners who are ingeniously using Internet technologies to improve ecosystem protection. The list goes on and on.


So how do we open some new conversations and build some new alliances?  I propose the following strategies:
  • Let us recover and remember the history of the commons so that we can appreciate its role in different historical and political contexts.
  • Let us develop a grand narrative about the commons that can be popularly understood, so that we can communicate the value proposition of the commons better.
  • We should try to bridge the cultural divide between digital commoners and natural resource commoners, because there truly are important synergies between the two.
  • We should try to formulate how the commons can work with existing state institutions and policy structures, while inventing new forms that are more appropriate to the commons.
  • We must try to reframe mainstream political and economic discourse with a commons perspective, so that some bright, alternative futures can be seen.
  • And finally, we must strengthen the linkages between commons scholars, practitioners and activists, so that we can learn from each other and support each other’s work.
I realize this is a ridiculously big wish list, but on the other hand, we have every reason to dream big. Our problems are daunting and our energies are growing. It’s time to take the commons to the next level.

0 Comments
<<Previous

    Author

    Cindy Walsh is a lifelong political activist and academic living in Baltimore, Maryland.

    Archives

    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012

    Categories

    All
    2014 Economic Crash
    21st Century Economy
    Affordable Care Act
    Affordable Care Act
    Alec
    Americorp/VISTA
    Anthony Brown
    Anthony Brown
    Anti Incumbant
    Anti-incumbant
    Anti Incumbent
    Anti Incumbent
    Attacking The Post Office Union
    Baltimore And Cronyism
    Baltimore Board Of Estimates
    Baltimore Board Of Estimates
    Baltimore Development Corp
    Baltimore Development Corp
    Baltimore Recall/Retroactive Term Limits
    Bank Fraud
    Bank Fraud
    Bank Of America
    Bank Settlement
    Bank-settlement
    B Corporations
    Bgeexelon Mergerf59060c411
    Brookings Institution
    Business Tax Credits
    California Charter Expansion
    Cardin
    Career Colleges
    Career Colleges Replacing Union Apprenticeships
    Charters
    Charter School
    Collection Agencies
    Common Core
    Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
    Consumer-financial-protection-bureau
    Corporate Media
    Corporate-media
    Corporate Oversight
    Corporate-oversight
    Corporate Politicians
    Corporate-politicians
    Corporate Rule
    Corporate-rule
    Corporate Taxes
    Corporate-taxes
    Corporate Tax Reform
    Corporatizing Us Universities
    Cost-benefit-analysis
    Credit Crisis
    Credit-crisis
    Cummings
    Department Of Education
    Department Of Justice
    Department-of-justice
    Derivatives Reform
    Development
    Dismantling Public Justice
    Dodd Frank
    Doddfrankbba4ff090a
    Doug Gansler
    Doug-gansler
    Ebdi
    Education Funding
    Education Reform
    Edwards
    Election Reform
    Election-reform
    Elections
    Emigration
    Energy-sector-consolidation-in-maryland
    Enterprise Zones
    Equal Access
    Estate Taxes
    European Crisis
    Expanded And Improved Medicare For All
    Expanded-and-improved-medicare-for-all
    Failure To Prosecute
    Failure-to-prosecute
    Fair
    Fair And Balanced Elections
    Fair-and-balanced-elections
    Farm Bill
    Federal Election Commissionelection Violationsmaryland
    Federal Election Commissionelection Violationsmarylandd20a348918
    Federal-emergency-management-agency-fema
    Federal Reserve
    Financial Reform Bill
    Food Safety Not In Tpp
    For Profit Education
    Forprofit-education
    Fracking
    Fraud
    Freedom Of Press And Speech
    Frosh
    Gambling In Marylandbaltimore8dbce1f7d2
    Granting Agencies
    Greening Fraud
    Gun Control Policy
    Healthcare For All
    Healthcare-for-all
    Health Enterprise Zones
    High Speed Rail
    Hoyer
    Imf
    Immigration
    Incarceration Bubble
    Incumbent
    Incumbents
    Innovation Centers
    Insurance Industry Leverage And Fraud
    International Criminal Court
    International Trade Deals
    International-trade-deals
    Jack Young
    Jack-young
    Johns Hopkins
    Johns-hopkins
    Johns Hopkins Medical Systems
    Johns-hopkins-medical-systems
    Kaliope Parthemos
    Labor And Justice Law Under Attack
    Labor And Wages
    Lehmann Brothers
    Living Wageunionspolitical Action0e39f5c885
    Maggie McIntosh
    Maggie-mcintosh
    Martin O'Malley
    Martin O'Malley
    Martin-omalley
    Martin-omalley8ecd6b6eb0
    Maryland Health Co Ops
    Maryland-health-co-ops
    Maryland-health-co-ops1f77692967
    Maryland Health Coopsccd73554da
    Maryland Judiciary
    Marylandnonprofits
    Maryland Non Profits
    Maryland Nonprofits2509c2ca2c
    Maryland Public Service Commission
    Maryland State Bar Association
    Md Credit Bondleverage Debt441d7f3605
    Media
    Media Bias
    Media-bias
    Medicaremedicaid
    Medicaremedicaid8416fd8754
    Mental Health Issues
    Mental-health-issues
    Mers Fraud
    Mikulski
    Military Privatization
    Minority Unemploymentunion And Labor Wagebaltimore Board Of Estimates4acb15e7fa
    Municipal Debt Fraud
    Ndaa-indefinite-detention
    Ndaaindefinite Detentiond65cc4283d
    Net Neutrality
    New Economy
    New-economy
    Ngo
    Non Profit To Profit
    Nonprofit To Profitb2d6cb4b41
    Nsa
    O'Malley
    Odette Ramos
    Omalley
    O'Malley
    Open Meetings
    Osha
    Patronage
    Pension-benefit-guaranty-corp
    Pension Funds
    Pension-funds
    Police Abuse
    Private-and-public-pension-fraud
    Private Health Systemsentitlementsprofits Over People
    Private Health Systemsentitlementsprofits Over People6541f468ae
    Private Non Profits
    Private-non-profits
    Private Nonprofits50b33fd8c2
    Privatizing Education
    Privatizing Government Assets
    Privatizing-the-veterans-admin-va
    Privitizing Public Education
    Progressive Policy
    Progressive Taxes Replace Regressive Policy
    Protections Of The People
    Protections-of-the-people
    Public Education
    Public Funding Of Private Universities
    Public Housing Privatization
    Public-libraries-privatized-or-closed
    Public Private Partnerships
    Public-private-partnerships
    Public Transportation Privatization
    Public Utilities
    Rapid Bus Network
    Rawlings Blake
    Rawlings-blake
    Rawlingsblake1640055471
    Real Progressives
    Reit-real-estate-investment-trusts
    Reitreal Estate Investment Trustsa1a18ad402
    Repatriation Taxes
    Rule Of Law
    Rule-of-law
    Ruppersberger
    SAIC AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
    Sarbanes
    S Corp Taxes
    Selling Public Datapersonal Privacy
    Smart Meters
    Snowden
    Social Security
    Sovereign Debt Fraudsubprime Mortgage Fraudmortgage Fraud Settlement
    Sovereign Debt Fraudsubprime Mortgage Fraudmortgage Fraud Settlement0d62c56e69
    Statistics As Spin
    Statistics-as-spin
    Student-corps
    Subprime Mortgage Fraud
    Subprime-mortgage-fraud
    Surveillance And Security
    Sustainability
    Teachers
    Teachers Unions2bc448afc8
    Teach For America
    Teach For America
    Technology Parks
    Third Way Democrats/new Economy/public Union Employees/public Private Patnerships/government Fraud And Corruption
    Third Way Democratsnew Economypublic Union Employeespublic Private Patnershipsgovernment Fraud And Corruption
    Third-way-democratsnew-economypublic-union-employeespublic-private-patnershipsgovernment-fraud-and-corruptionc10a007aee
    Third Way/neo Liberals
    Third-wayneo-liberals
    Third-wayneo-liberals5e1e6d4716
    Third Wayneoliberals7286dda6aa
    Tifcorporate Tax Breaks2d87bba974
    Tpp
    Transportation Inequity In Maryland
    Union Busting
    Unionbusting0858fddb8b
    Unions
    Unionsthird Waypost Officealec3c887e7815
    Universities
    Unreliable Polling
    Unreliable-polling
    Van Hollen
    Van-hollen
    VEOLA Environment -privatization Of Public Water
    Veterans
    War Against Women And Children
    War-against-women-and-children
    Youth Works

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.