Politics, Politics, Politics

[subhub174014]

After Trump Tax Break Pfizer Ends Funding For Alzheimer's, Parkinson's Research And Gives Billions to Investors
Nicole Goodkind,Newsweek

Jeff Borghoff was 51 years old when he began to experience memory loss and difficulty concentrating at work. The software developer could no longer gather his thoughts. He found himself putting co-workers on hold during conference calls to buy extra time to comprehend what they were saying. Eventually, he had to ask for a less stressful job.
The ******* of three began a year-long medical journey to search for an explanation until he got his diagnosis—early-onset Alzheimer’s, a degenerative disease with no cure.
Still, he had hope. Jeff's doctor told him that scientists were closing in on a cure, and advised him to look into clinical trials for new Alzheimer’s *******. “Clinical volunteers should consider themselves front line battle warriors in the cure for Alzheimer’s,” said Jeff. “Our participation is about saving multiple generations of lives.”

But in a bombshell decision that hampers hopes of a treatment or cure for the most expensive disease in America, Pfizer announced this week that it would end all research and development efforts into new ******* and treatments for Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease.
The world’s third largest pharmaceutical company released a statement saying that as "a result of a recent comprehensive review” it would lay off nearly 300 scientists and end its “neuroscience discovery and early development efforts.”
"The report of Pfizer's decision to end it's Alzheimer's ******* research and trials is a gut punch to the millions of people with Alzheimer's, their caregivers and families let alone the folks that will be losing their jobs," said Jeff.
The fear is that this becomes a trend, said James Beck, the chief scientific officer at the Parkinson’s Foundation. “Other pharmaceutical companies are also weighing this option and if the biggest of the bunch decides to exit the party, it might have a ripple effect on the others,” he told Newsweek. Private foundations and government-funded research initiatives can work to keep up the pipeline of basic science, but ultimately it takes funding from a large company to get a treatment onto the shelves of CVS or Walgreens, he said.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-tax-break-pfizer-ends-130002411.html

 

[hoping hubby]

Maybe she's a psychologist, Carl ... ever think of that?

Maybe she is a psychiatrist...ever think of doing a simple google search Mac? She's a psychiatrist. She received her MD in 1994.

http://psychiatry.yale.edu/people/bandy_lee-1.profile

She's also currently licensed, but in New York, not Connecticut

http://www.nysed.gov/coms/op001/opsc2a?profcd=60&plicno=219444&namechk=LEE

Presume she was licensed in Connecticut at one time but let that lapse due to no longer practicing in that state and whoever started the "she isn't licensed" thing was no better at research than you.

She also received a Masters of Divinity, making her an officially certified christian con artist. In her defense, maybe she actually believes the religion BS in which case not so much a con artist...more like just plain gullible.

Regardless she really needs to listen to the professional guidelines of her chosen profession....which says it is highly unethical and inappropriate to give psychiatric opinions about someone you have not personally examined.

https://www.psychiatry.org/newsroom/news-releases/apa-calls-for-end-to-armchair-psychiatry

Today, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) reiterates its continued and unwavering commitment to the ethical principle known as "The Goldwater Rule." We at the APA call for an end to psychiatrists providing professional opinions in the media about public figures whom they have not examined, whether it be on cable news appearances, books, or in social media. Armchair psychiatry or the use of psychiatry as a political tool is the misuse of psychiatry and is unacceptable and unethical.

 

[hoping hubby]

Be SURE to tell prickhead h-h that you have a doctor's visit co-pay of $30 and not a fucking deductible. He's under the impression, simply because he's a dumbass, that you pay both co-pay & deductible before your plan pays doctors visits. I've NEVER seen a health plan that would apply both co-pay and calendar year deductible to a charge before it paid ... its either ONE OR THE OTHER .... do you GET THIS, h-h? I doubt it.

Obviously I won the debate since you've sunk to your grade school playground name calling. Guess that level of vernacular does match your demonstrated math skills

I never said there were plans that applied both a co-pay and calendar year deductible. You're starting with your typical strawman argument bullshit, arguing against something I never said. I realize you likely feel embarrassed since I proved you wrong about something you should know far better than I given your profession. You could just man up and admit you were wrong. You claimed my sore throat type doctors office visit was covered without having to "satisfy your calendar year deductible UNLESS your doctor orders a CATSCAN for your sore throat" This is compete bullshit. My insurance pays ZILCH for a sore throat visit until I meet my $6,500 annual deductible. No copay, no coinsurance...100% out of my pocket. I then showed you straight off the Obummercare website where the same is true of some Obummercare plans.

Instead of namecalling, why don't you explain how the Obummercare website's own example is wrong????

 

[Carl Franklin]

 

[MacNfries]

Obviously I won the debate since you've sunk to your grade school playground name calling. Guess that level of vernacular does match your demonstrated math skills

....You won nothing. If it polishes your ego to think you did, go for it, fucknuts. Again, fuck off... h-h

You claimed my sore throat type doctors office visit was covered without having to "satisfy your calendar year deductible UNLESS your doctor orders a CATSCAN for your sore throat" This is compete bullshit. My insurance pays ZILCH for a sore throat visit until I meet my $6,500 annual deductible. No copay, no coinsurance...100% out of my pocket.
Instead of namecalling, why don't you explain how the Obummercare website's own example is wrong????

....h-h, YOU chose the HDHP ... you had options, you chose the high deductible up front, because of the cheap ass, annoying bastard that you are. You had options and you went cheap, fucknuts. You simply have a comprehensive plan with a front end, high deductible so you'd have something to sob about with your Obamacare. Usually, employers also give you a MRP with those plans ... but I'm betting you're so super cheap that you didn't even opt for that either.

 

[hoping hubby]

You won nothing. If it polishes your ego to think you did, go for it, fucknuts. Again, fuck off... h-h

I thought you might be man enough to simply admit you were wrong. I see this isn't the case.

.h-h, YOU chose the HDHP ... you had options, you chose the high deductible up front, because of the cheap ass, annoying bastard that you are

No, my employer ****** an HDHP on us. I've said this several times, but you keep failing to comprehend it. We had AWESOME insurance. The copay for an office visit was $10 and specialist only $15. Obama called it a "Cadillac plan" and was going to slap my company with a 40% tax because my health insurance was too good in his eyes. My company obviously wasn't going to just suck it up and pay an extra 40% for Obummer to waste on his buddies. So they ended that insurance option. Now THE ONLY OPTIONS MY COMPANY OFFERS ARE HDHP. I get zilch for a sore throat visit until I've spent $6,500 out of my pocket. Suck it up and admit you were wrong....or purposefully bullshitting us. For icing on the Obummercare shitburger, my premiums have gone up 75%.

Oh, there is one other HDHP I could choose from my company. Its deductible is about $3,000 less. Of course the monthly cost of that plan is about $250 more. So picking it makes my out of pocket a wash. (I'm assuming here you can figure out what 250 times 12 is....that is below sixth grade level math)

 

[subhub174014]

******* getting deep huh Mac?
going to ride that dead horse.....it's the only one they have

 

[subhub174014]

Gowdy was already found guilty of falsifying Clinton emails....and now this.....

Jennifer Rubin: Now we know why Republicans are attacking the FBI
The spectacle of Republicans trying to cook up a spurious case of corruption against the entire FBI is strong evidence of their inability to take their constitutional responsibilities seriously.

Jennifer Rubin | The Washington Post

CNN reported that Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe this week testified before the House Intelligence Committee and then before members of the House Intelligence, Oversight and Judiciary committees that former FBI director James Comey told McCabe that President Donald Trump had asked for a pledge of loyalty. Comey previously testified that the president had requested loyalty; Trump has denied that this took place.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, put out a statement slamming Republicans for holding a secret meeting of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., with members of the House Oversight and Judiciary committees to discuss interviewing McCabe:

“Today’s ‘emergency’ interview with FBI Deputy Director McCabe was both rushed and unnecessary and further demonstrates that Republicans are desperate to distract from the Russia investigation and undermine the credibility of the FBI and Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation,” Nadler said in the statement. “This truth was laid bare when we learned last evening that a group of Republicans have been secretly meeting for months for just that purpose.

“After a day’s worth of questioning by Members from both Committees, what we learned today was that McCabe is a dedicated public servant who has committed his life to the FBI and its mission to uphold the law.”
A Nadler adviser told The Washington Post that Republicans’ conduct was “what we have come to expect from Republicans who continue to try and distract, discredit and undermine the special counsel investigation. This is all just a very silly attempt to undermine the FBI and re-litigate the [Hillary] Clinton investigation.”
Republicans grilling McCabe over the FBI’s handling of Clinton’s emails and their conspiracy theorizing substantiate our suspicions that GOP members of Congress have zero interest in conducting a serious investigation of the president’s possible collusion with Russia and obstruction of justice.

“President Trump has called Jim Comey a liar and likewise suggested that Comey committed a crime by lying under oath about their conversations,” Susan Hennessey of the Lawfare blog tells me. “Notably, Comey gave his account under penalty of perjury, while Trump, to date, has not. Comey also substantiated his story with contemporaneous memos.”
She continued: “Now we learn that Andrew McCabe can offer further corroboration that what Comey said was true and that he shared the details at the time. That means that, conversely, the deputy FBI director has testified the president is lying to the American people.” She argued, “I don’t think that many serious people genuinely questioned whether the famously, even notoriously forthright former FBI director or the president, who has a habitually tenuous relationship with the truth, was being honest. But to the extent there were any lingering doubts, McCabe’s testimony should put them to rest.”

The Republicans, by their conduct, implicitly recognize Trump’s weak defense to a potential obstruction charge. Contrary to the Trump attorney’s mumbo jumbo, they realize that a sitting president with a corrupt intent can be cited for obstruction of justice, although the case might need to be prosecuted after he leaves office.
Second, Republicans understand that if the fact pattern is believed, Trump at the very least committed an impeachable action (although not necessarily a criminal violation of federal statute) in pressuring the then-FBI director to lay off of Michael Flynn and curtail the Russia investigation. If the facts here were not so damning, Republicans would not find it necessary to call into question the credibility of the entire FBI.

Third, the Republicans will have their hands full if they go down this road. Not only McCabe but also other FBI officials may have been told of Trump’s pursuit of a loyalty oath from Comey. Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and National Security Agency director Mike Rogers as well as other members of the White House staff may be privy to Trump’s statements about Comey and efforts to get Comey to relent from investigating Flynn. That’s a lot of people to discredit if the GOP is bent on circling the wagons around a president who has neither the law nor the facts on his side.

The spectacle of Republicans trying to cook up a spurious case of corruption against the entire FBI is strong evidence of their inability to take their constitutional responsibilities seriously. If we are to get a fair investigation and consideration of the facts as well as a mature examination of whether those facts rise to an impeachable offense, it likely won’t come with a GOP majority in control of the House and Senate.

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/comm...e-know-why-republicans-are-attacking-the-fbi/


I think the country knows by now the right is not going to do anything except help the president...******* will not happen until after the election and hopefully the Dems get control....they might ...MIGHT do something if they see they are losing voters and support!
but doubt that ...look what they did on taxes...without a care in the world!

 

[TwoBiFour]

 

[MacNfries]

Oh, there is one other HDHP I could choose from my company. Its deductible is about $3,000 less. Of course the monthly cost of that plan is about $250 more.

As I said ... you chose the HDHP because of the "cheap ass, annoying bastard" that you are. And I'll bet he offered your sorry ass a health savings plan to go with the plans ... maybe even a health reimbursement plan ... and again, you were too frik'n cheap to spring for that either ... yet, you have no problem crying and bitching about the plan you chose. Its TSB ... 'tough *******, bucko'. Maybe Trump will provide you what you really want, huh?
Now, I'll ask you nicely ... and this IS nicely ... Leave Me The FUCK Alone!

 

[hoping hubby]

As I said ... you chose the HDHP because of the "cheap ass, annoying bastard" that you are.

No, I "chose" an HDHP because that is the ONLY option my employer offers us after Obummer threatened to slap us with a 40% tax because our old insurance was too good in his eyes. Why is that so hard to get through your head?

Obummer conveniently left off that tidbit....should have promised us, "if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance...unless I don't like your insurance"

Now how much was it again that your industry bribed Obummer & congress to make it illegal not to buy your product?

 

[subhub174014]

Busted! Health Insurers Secretly Spent Huge To Defeat Health Care Reform While Pretending To Support Obamacare


A stunning $102.4 million spent over just 15 months.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickun...pretending-to-support-obamacare/#e9a124f4248a

 

[subhub174014]

OPINION: Big Pharma's stranglehold on Washington
******* companies have armies of lobbyists, and the rest of us are paying the price

It’s no surprise that American corporations spend billions of dollars each year on lobbying, trying to gain favorable treatment from legislators. What some may find a bit unnerving is the industry that’s leading the pack in these efforts.
You might think our nation’s defense and aerospace companies, which have legions of hired guns on Capitol Hill, are the leaders. Or perhaps Big Oil, which is perpetually fighting with environmentalists and consequently needs friends in Washington to block what it considers onerous legislation or regulations.

In both cases, you’d be wrong. It’s actually the pharmaceutical industry that spends the most each year to influence our lawmakers, forking over a total of $2.6 billion on lobbying activities from 1998 through 2012, according to OpenSecrets.org. To get some perspective on just how big that number is, consider that oil and gas companies and their trade associations spent $1.4 billion lobbying Congress over the same time frame while the defense and aerospace industry spent $662 million, a fourth of Big Pharma’s total.
https://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/02/11/12175/opinion-big-pharmas-stranglehold-washington

 

[subhub174014]

Fearing Democratic tidal wave, the ******* industry is pouring money into GOP coffers
https://www.statnews.com/2016/11/02...e-*******-industry-pouring-money-gop-coffers/

 

[subhub174014]

Senator Max Baucus, A Leading Architect of Health Care Reform, Received More Industry Contributions Than Any Other Congressional Candidate
WASHINGTON, DC -- Health insurers and ******* companies gave a combined $6.1 million to the top ten recipients in each house of Congress since 2005, according to a study released today by the non-profit Consumer Watchdog.

Health insurers contributed $2.7 million to the top ten members in each house, while pharmaceutical companies contributed $3.4 million to the top ten members of each. The two industries donated a combined $26.2 million in campaign contributions to the current members of the 111th Congress. The Center for Responsive Politics compiled federal campaign contribution data for use in this analysis.

With the exception of John McCain (R-AZ), Max Baucus (D-MT) received more money than any other current member of Congress from both the health insurance and the pharmaceutical industries. For the 2006, 2008 and 2010 election cycles, Baucus received $213,400 in contributions from health insurance companies and $229,520 from the pharmaceutical industry. As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Baucus is one of the primary architects of health care reform in Congress.
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/new...panies-contributed-262-million-111th-congress

 

[milf4bbcstretch]

 

[MacNfries]

No, I "chose" an HDHP because that is the ONLY option my employer offers us after Obummer threatened to slap us with a 40% tax because our old insurance was too good in his eyes. Why is that so hard to get through your head?

......Probably because in post #11880 you said, and I quote you ... "Oh, there is one other HDHP I could choose from my company. Its deductible is about $3,000 less. Of course the monthly cost of that plan is about $250 more. So picking it makes my out of pocket a wash."
.....So, which is it ... is the HDHP that you have the ONLY plan offered (which would make your employer's plan not in compliance, or are you offered the OTHER plan with the $3,000 LESS deductible, that also includes those "co-pays" we discussed earlier, similar to what TwoBi's plan has? My bet is you don't really know what the fuck you have; you're too busy blaming Obama for losing your Cadillac health plan. Just imagine, however, the alternatives the Republicans and Trump were and are wanting to give you. It'll make that plan you have NOW really nice ...
.....The fact is, your employer is required, by law, to provide you two or more options for health plans ... high & low. Also, it doesn't make sense that if you were covered under the "so-called" Cadillac plan, that you would select, as your alternative option, the very worst plan, the so-called Bronze Plan, when the middle plan, the Silver Plan, is the one most often selected, as you described above in the statement that you now deny saying that you only had ONE option. Lot of difference between the Silver & Bronze plans, bozo ... like those doctors visits for sore throats, after those co-pays, and your prescription *******, etc. But then, getting information isn't your goal HERE, as with your loser of a President, its to simply lie, misrepresent, redirect, argue, and cause confusion, and the REASON I keep telling you specifically to .

......

 

[hoping hubby]

......Probably because in post #11880 you said, and I quote you ... "Oh, there is one other HDHP I could choose from my company. Its deductible is about $3,000 less. Of course the monthly cost of that plan is about $250 more. So picking it makes my out of pocket a wash."
.....So, which is it ... is the HDHP that you have the ONLY plan offered (which would make your employer's plan not in compliance, or are you offered the OTHER plan with the $3,000 LESS deductible, that also includes those "co-pays" we discussed earlier, similar to what TwoBi's plan has? My bet is you don't really know what the fuck you have; you're too busy blaming Obama for losing your Cadillac health plan. Just imagine, however, the alternatives the Republicans and Trump were and are wanting to give you. It'll make that plan you have NOW really nice ...
.....The fact is, your employer is required, by law, to provide you two or more options for health plans ... high & low. Also, it doesn't make sense that if you were covered under the "so-called" Cadillac plan, that you would select, as your alternative option, the very worst plan, the so-called Bronze Plan, when the middle plan, the Silver Plan, is the one most often selected, as you described above in the statement that you now deny saying that you only had ONE option. Lot of difference between the Silver & Bronze plans, bozo ... like those doctors visits for sore throats, after those co-pays, and your prescription *******, etc. But then, getting information isn't your goal HERE, as with your loser of a President, its to simply lie, misrepresent, redirect, argue, and cause confusion, and the REASON I keep telling you specifically to View attachment 1649666 .

......

Can you not comprehend simple English??? I said " there is one other HDHP I could choose from my company". I have exactly two choices of insurance from my employer. BOTH ARE HDHPs. One has a $6,500 deductible and the other is around $3,000. Hence my correct statement that "I "chose" an HDHP because that is the ONLY option my employer offers us after Obummer threatened to slap us with a 40% tax".

Neither of my options has copays. Neither pays anything for a sore throat type doctors visit.....why? Because they are both HDHPs. They legally CAN'T have a copay. Since you don't seem to get that, here it is straight from the Obummercare website:

https://www.healthinsurance.org/glossary/high-deductible-health-plan/

HDHPs cover preventive care before the deductible – the ACA requires this of all plans – but under an HDHP, no other benefits are provided until the insured has met the deductible. That means HDHPs cannot have copays for office visits or prescriptions prior to the deductible being met

How can you be in your claimed profession and not know this???? As I've said before, I pity the poor slobs who are stuck with you as their insurance guy!

 

[Carl Franklin]

 

[subhub174014]

Thanks to the North Carolina case, partisan gerrymandering’s day of reckoning may soon be upon us
Salon.com 15 hours ago

Gerrymandering was already shaping up to be an important issue this year, with huge implications for American democracy. But after the ruling this week on the North Carolina congressional map, the stakes have been raised still higher. For the first time, a federal panel of judges ruled that a state’s map of its congressional districts was unconstitutional. The North Carolina map didn’t just give an advantage to Republicans – it manifested “invidious partisan intent.” The panel directed the state to draw the districts again by Jan. 24. Politicians are always looking for partisan advantages, and the constitutional mandate to redraw district boundaries every 10 years provides an irresistible opportunity. ...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/36e4e0...612092e4/ss_thanks-to-the-north-carolina.html