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
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 the 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.
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
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.
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
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.