192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
Real Music
 
  4  
Wed 25 Oct, 2017 07:11 pm
White House Welcomes Senate Vote, Killing Consumer Rule

Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House is welcoming a congressional measure killing the ability of millions of Americans to band together to sue bank or credit card companies to resolve financial disputes in a major win for Wall Street.

The Senate narrowly voted late Tuesday night to nullify the rule, with Vice President Mike Pence casting the final vote to break a 50-50 tie. The measure now goes to President Donald Trump for his signature.

"President Donald J. Trump applauds the Congress for passing," the resolution, the White House said in a statement shortly after the vote that highlighted its own Treasury Department report criticizing the rule. "The rule would harm our community banks and credit unions by opening the door to frivolous lawsuits by special interest trial lawyers."

The banking industry had been lobbying hard to roll back the regulation from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The bureau had moved to ban most types of mandatory arbitration clauses found in the fine print of agreements consumers often enter into when opening a checking account or getting a credit card.

The vote reflects the effort of the Trump administration and congressional Republicans to undo regulations that the GOP argues harm the free market.

Democratic lawmakers said the CFPB's rule would have given consumers more leverage to stop companies from financial wrongdoing. They cited the sales practices at Wells Fargo and the security breach at credit company Equifax as examples of misdeeds protected through forced arbitration.

"So who does forced arbitration help? Wall Street banks and other huge corporations that never pay the price for cheating working people," said Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio.

Richard Cordray, director of the consumer bureau, said: "Tonight's vote is a giant setback for every consumer in this country. Wall Street won and ordinary people lost. This vote means the courtroom doors will remain closed for groups of people seeking justice and relief when they are wronged by a company."

Republicans said the arbitration system has worked wonderfully for consumers. They said the payouts for the average consumer in arbitration cases are generally much larger and come more quickly than when compared to the relief gained through class-action lawsuits.

"The effort to try to characterize this as some devious system that has been created to try to stop consumers from having access to fairness is simply false," said Sen. Mike Crapo, the Republican chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. "We have a very fair system that has been working for over 100 years in this country."

Crapo said the average pay-out for consumers in class-action lawsuits against financial companies was just $32, but lawyers stood to make millions.

Democrats argued that consumers generally don't have the time and means to pursue claims in arbitration, and since most disputes revolve around small amounts, they typically just give up. They said banks and other financial firms know that in the end they won't have pay a real price for taking advantage of a consumer.

But class-actions would serve as a powerful tool for consumers, they said.

"Once again, we're helping the powerful against the powerless," said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., as the Senate neared the vote, sensing the Democrats would lose.

Two Republicans sided with Democratic lawmakers to keep the rule — Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John Kennedy of Louisiana.

The advocacy group Consumers Union and several veterans groups, including the American Legion, lobbied to keep the rule. They said consumers would still have the option to use arbitration to resolve a dispute, if both parties want to go that route.

"Without the CFPB rule, consumers can be forced into a rigged system where they have no recourse. It's a disgrace," said Linda Lipsen, CEO of the American Association for Justice, an advocacy group that works to improve the legal system.


The American Bankers Association cheered the Senate vote. "Today's vote puts consumers first rather than class-action lawyers," said Rob Nichols, the group's president and chief executive officer.


https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2017-10-25/senate-gop-votes-to-repeal-consumer-rule
Builder
 
  2  
Thu 26 Oct, 2017 01:03 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
God rest in peace A2K.


There's still many lovely people haunting these pages, but they generally steer clear of any thread where the seven sycophants gather to share their bias and bile.

Imagine what it would be like, if we didn't present an alternative to their propaganda?
izzythepush
 
  3  
Thu 26 Oct, 2017 01:06 am
@blatham,
That's the right wing for you, they decry politicians and the state of society as an excuse for nothing but narrow self interest. The left tries to make the World a better place. That's the difference, the difference between hope and hate.
izzythepush
 
  3  
Thu 26 Oct, 2017 02:43 am
Opinion piece on America's opioid problem.

Quote:
When it comes to taking opioids, the United States has the dubious honour of leading the world.
For every one million Americans, almost 50,000 doses of opioids are taken every day. That's four times the rate in the UK.
There are often good reasons for taking opioids. Cancer patients use them for pain relief, as do patients recovering from surgery (codeine and morphine are opioids, for example).
But take too many and you have a problem. And America certainly has a problem.
n two years, the town of Kermit in West Virginia received almost nine million opioid pills, according to a congressional committee.
Just 400 people live in Kermit.
Nationally, opioids killed more than 33,000 people in 2015, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
That figure includes deaths from heroin, an illegal opioid. But almost half involved a prescription opioid - that is, a painkiller available from a pharmacy with a note from a doctor.
So why does America - more than any country in the world - have an opioid problem?
There is more than one cause. But these are some of the most important.
American doctors prescribe - a lot
Unlike most European countries, the US does not have universal healthcare paid for by taxes.
Instead, Americans must get their own insurance - usually via an employer or the government.
"Most insurance, especially for poor people, won't pay for anything but a pill," says Professor Judith Feinberg from the West Virginia University School of Medicine.
"Say you have a patient that's 45 years old. They have lower back pain, you examine them, they have a muscle spasm.
"Really the best thing is physical therapy, but no one will pay for that. So doctors get very ready to pull out the prescription pad.
"Even if the insurance covers physical therapy, you probably need prior authorisation (from the insurer) - which is a lot of time and paperwork."
The CDC says opioid prescriptions have fallen by 18% from their peak in 2010. But the total is still three times higher than in 1999.
'I saw this drug on TV'
The US and New Zealand are the only countries that allow prescription drugs to be advertised on television.
According to the research firm Kantar, spending on advertising by pharmaceutical companies in the US reached $6.4 billion in 2016 - a rise of 64% since 2012.
None of the 10 most-advertised brands in 2016 was an opioid. But mass-marketing of drugs has an effect, says Professor Feinberg.
"As a clinician, people will come and say 'I saw this on TV - can you give me this drug'.
"Sometimes they were so confused, they were already on the drug - they were using the brand name, where I used the generic name."
In 2015, the American Medical Association called for a ban on adverts for prescription drugs. It didn't happen.
Three months later, the extent of America's opioid culture was seen at half-time of the Superbowl - the country's most expensive advertising slot.
A 60-second ad was devoted to opioid-induced constipation. The advert - paid for by AstraZeneca - advised sufferers to visit their doctor and "ask about prescription treatment options".
President Obama's chief of staff was not impressed.
Gifts to doctors
In the US, it is common for drug companies to court doctors, in an effort to promote their products.
"When you're a doctor in the US, these detailing people (salespeople) come in from the industry," says Professor Keith Humphreys from Stanford University.
"They are invariably smooth, friendly, attractive, sharply dressed, adorable, they're giving out gifts to everybody. They host dinners, they sponsor conferences, they sponsor junkets.
"That is going to affect prescribing."
For the past four years, the US government has published the amounts paid by drug and device companies to doctors and teaching hospitals.
The total in 2016 was more than $8bn. More than 630,000 physicians had payment records.
For example, Purdue Pharma - which makes OxyContin, a popular opioid painkiller - made almost 80,000 transactions in 2016, worth more than $7m in total.
In 2016, a study looked at the link between doctors, the free meals they received from drug companies, and the medication they prescribed.
The study found receiving free meals was "associated with an increased rate of prescribing the promoted brand-name medication".
Pharmaceutical companies say their reps are merely sharing information with doctors. But Professor Humphreys says there is a "corrupting" influence.
"We need a pharma industry, it's not that it's wrong," he says. "But you can't let the fox guard the hen house.
"I would create completely clear blue water between the people that manufacture drugs and all the training and operation of the healthcare system."
Pharmaceutical companies also spend money on health care workers and organisations in other countries.
In the UK in 2016, companies gave £116m ($153m) to health workers and organisations for non-research and development in 2016.
But, although the UK figure is 7% higher than in 2015, it is less than 2% of the amount paid in the US.
Poor training
Dr Richard Frank is professor of health economics at Harvard Business School, and served in the Health Department from 2009 to 2016, during President Obama's administration.
He thinks medical training in the US has not been good enough.
"Physicians have received almost no training in pain management," he says.
"Until recently they have been under some pretty important misconceptions about how addictive various products are."
He adds: "A couple of years ago I testified before congress when I was in government. One of the representatives, before going into congress, was a thoracic surgeon.
"He noted that he had gotten almost no training in pain management - and what he had learned came entirely from the nursing staff he worked with."
Dr Frank says medical training isn't the only reason for America's opioid problem. "There's plenty of blame to go round," he says.
But his criticism is echoed by Professor Judith Feinberg.
"Doctors didn't learn anything about addiction at medical school," she says.
"That is now changing, but everyone who's a doctor already, didn't learn anything. I learned about opioid drugs in the part of pharmacology where we learned about anaesthesia.
"Probably the whole topic of anaesthesia-like drugs was two hours. People don't have much knowledge about opioids. There was no curriculum that includes addiction."
Bad science?
In 1980, Dr Hershel Jick wrote a short letter to the New England Journal of Medicine.
It said that "despite widespread use of narcotic drugs in hospitals, the development of addiction is rare in medical patients with no history of addiction".
The claim has been debunked, and the letter now carries an online warning note. But Dr Jick's letter had a big impact.
This year, Canadian researchers said the letter had been cited 600 times - usually to claim opioids weren't addictive.
In the late 1990s the Veterans Health Administration - which runs healthcare for military veterans - pushed for pain to be recognised as the "fifth vital sign".
This gave pain equal status with blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, and temperature.
Then in 2001, the Joint Commission - which certifies almost 21,000 US health organisations and programmes - established standards for pain assessment and treatment.
In 2016, the JC released a statement that claimed that "everyone is looking for someone to blame" for the opioid problem. It insisted that its 2001 standards did not "require the use of drugs to manage a patient's pain".
But Professor Feinberg says the VHA and JC's moves meant doctors were under pressure to prescribe strong painkillers - such as opioids - when they may not have been necessary.
"By the time you reach middle age, it's a rare person who doesn't ache somewhere," she says.
She adds that - in a country where patients rate their doctors, and low ratings can affect doctors' earnings - the score can be influenced by whether patients receive opioids.
A culture of medication
Some Americans, says Professor Keith Humphreys from Stanford University, believe that life is "fixable".
"I'm 51," he says. "If I go to an American doctor and say 'Hey - I ran the marathon I used to run when I was 30, now I'm all sore, fix me', my doctor will probably try to fix me.
"If you do that in France the doctor would say 'It's life, have a glass of wine - what do you want from me?'"
In 2016, a study compared how Japanese and American doctors prescribed opioids. It found that Japanese doctors treated acute pain with opioids in 47% of cases - compared to 97% in the US.
"There is obviously a willingness, and a habit, of giving opioid pain relief that is not shared elsewhere," says Professor Feinberg.
"Other countries deal with pain in much healthier ways."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41701718
Builder
 
  1  
Thu 26 Oct, 2017 03:17 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
"There is obviously a willingness, and a habit, of giving opioid pain relief that is not shared elsewhere," says Professor Feinberg.
"Other countries deal with pain in much healthier ways."


It's not pain that's the problem. It's a total disconnect from a system that has left the people behind, in the mad rush for personal gain. Drumpf is a symbol of everything that is wrong with America. The alternative to him, was more of the same.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  5  
Thu 26 Oct, 2017 03:43 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
This forum has been reduced to glib proclamations by blatham followed by the "Huzzah!" of his sycophants.

I find this skewed perspective puzzling — because I've never read anyone responding to a"glib" blatham post with a "Huzzah!" nor do I see any "sycophants". What would be the point of obedience and flattery on a message board like this? When someone posts an opinion or an article which is cogent and timely and it happens to be something others agree with, I hardly consider it "bootlicking" when people post a positive followup or give a thumbs up.

I won't mention the screen names involved, but I recall some real sycophancy among the resident rightists. And there used to be a good selection of them here. It's unfortunate that many of them have left but the fault is not with those on the other side who have remained. That's just bizarre.

There used to be occasional posts from rightists that were well-written and prompted thoughtful responses. You used to write a lot of these yourself. Over the past few months I've noticed that your posts have become mostly personal attacks. You call people "fools"and "toads" and seem to unable to grasp that some of us have very deep misgivings about the policies of this administration and the management style of its CEO.

Yeah, I miss the halcyon days of this thread when we were regularly treated to this sort of thing:

Quote:
Hillary Sucks...Yes Hillary sucks!

The Democrat Party sucks...Yes the Democrat Party sucks!

Liberals suck...Yes Liberals suck!

The MSM sucks...Yes the MSM sucks!

If you like that sort of thing and if you only wish to post on sites where you don't have to read opposing points of view I'm sure there are options for you. If you want to engage in "serious" analysis of the contemporary political scene then I suggest that you cease making every political disagreement into a personal one. There was a time when you seemed to rise above the background chatter and actually posted thoughtful pieces. It's too bad that Mr. Trump's administration and its policies are so difficult to defend that you have to resort to silly personal attacks, baseless charges, and mock concern:
Quote:
God rest in peace A2K.

A bit over dramatic, don't you think? Get a grip, man. I just gave you a thumb up so you can get back to business. Like maybe explaining why forced arbitration is a good thing or why we need tax cuts.

izzythepush
 
  3  
Thu 26 Oct, 2017 03:54 am
@hightor,
Trump is a disastrous president, yet his acolytes just can't handle it, because there's no good news they blame news organisations, embrace falsehoods and personally attack those who refuse to drink the koolaid.

Expect more sneering insults and snide comments, it's all they've got.
blatham
 
  5  
Thu 26 Oct, 2017 04:48 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
You are so shallow my big toe would stand dry in your waters.
Not exactly Bob Dylan or Falstaff but kudos for trying.

I'm not interested in a pissing match with you nor anyone else. Perhaps you don't understand what the term "principled" means. Perhaps you'd benefit from some basic studies in ethics/morals. Perhaps you need to delve into anthropology in order to grasp how commonly altruism manifests in the world, in humans and elsewhere. Maybe you need to study history much more. Whatever the case, your political philosophy is simplistic and incoherent. There's no sense carrying on here.
blatham
 
  3  
Thu 26 Oct, 2017 04:52 am
@Real Music,
Yes. If there is any move by Republicans and Trump right now that demonstrate who they actually serve, it's this. It seems almost impossible that GOP voters don't recognize that they are damaging their own interests but they (most of them) do not.
blatham
 
  2  
Thu 26 Oct, 2017 05:05 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
That's the right wing for you, they decry politicians and the state of society as an excuse for nothing but narrow self interest. The left tries to make the World a better place. That's the difference, the difference between hope and hate.
You're on to something, for sure. For some set of reasons that aren't clear, there is a tendency in some portion of the population to reduce all human motivation to self-interest. And that's a notion which is very convenient for those humans who are built that way, who are lacking in empathy, who deride charity, and who have little or no use for actual democracy where power and wealth are shared. The bully (to the degree he thinks about things) thinks that everyone is either a bully or a sucker. The person (Trump is a classic example as are the Koch brothers) who has a deep need to dominate others thinks the same way, you dominate or you are dominated. This is the territory of the sociopath.
blatham
 
  2  
Thu 26 Oct, 2017 05:08 am
@hightor,
Quote:
There was a time when you [Finn] seemed to rise above the background chatter and actually posted thoughtful pieces.

Yes.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Thu 26 Oct, 2017 05:13 am
Quote:
Sinclair Broadcast Group is continuing talks with former Fox News star host Bill O’Reilly despite news that the former host struck a $32 million settlement agreement related to accusations of sexual harassment, NBC News reported Wednesday.

NBC News reported, citing two unnamed sources familiar with negotiations between O’Reilly and Sinclair, that O’Reilly has been negotiating for a position at the conservative media company.
TPM
I expect no one is much surprised by this. And Sinclair may well reach an agreement with O'Reilly because there will be money in it and because it would match Sinclair's political goals and match their propagandist messaging strategies.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Thu 26 Oct, 2017 05:14 am
@blatham,
Interesting that Graham and Kennedy cast "no" votes — and I'm disgusted with my state's senator, Collins, for siding with the GOP establishment once again. I think she was concerned about "frivolous lawsuits" or something.
hightor
 
  3  
Thu 26 Oct, 2017 05:17 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
Expect more sneering insults and snide comments, it's all they've got.

The post following yours illustrates your point nicely.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Thu 26 Oct, 2017 05:25 am
Jesus. Now Mark Halperin is apologizing for sexual misconduct with fellow staff including those junior to him.

My daughter was just here for a welcome visit. She's a pretty strident feminist, particularly as regards the ubiquitousness of this sort of behavior. We agreed that the Weinstein thing is having some very real and significant consequences in our culture.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Thu 26 Oct, 2017 05:29 am
@hightor,
No one in banking, or Wall Street finances went to jail for the 2008 financial crash, it seems those industries will always have a Teflon coating.
blatham
 
  2  
Thu 26 Oct, 2017 05:34 am
@hightor,
Quote:
Interesting that Graham and Kennedy cast "no" votes — and I'm disgusted with my state's senator, Collins, for siding with the GOP establishment once again. I think she was concerned about "frivolous lawsuits" or something.
Graham is such an odd duck. I once heard him in a debate/discussion with Breyer and he's clearly a very smart fellow (and he was very gracious in behavior throughout). Sometimes I agree with his stance on some issue and other times I want to slap him with a rotting salmon. I hadn't realized Collins' vote had been in favor. She's another odd one.
blatham
 
  2  
Thu 26 Oct, 2017 05:46 am
Quote:
Despite the fervor of President Trump’s Republican opponents, the president’s brand of hard-edge nationalism — with its gut-level cultural appeals and hard lines on trade and immigration — is taking root within his adopted party, and those uneasy with grievance politics are either giving in or giving up the fight.
NYT[/url

For me, this has been one of the really depressing aspects of American politics since last November. I used to go through National Review and Weekly Standard every day as part of my reading. But after November, both became marked by internal turmoil and political confusion. Slowly, many or most of the voices there began to fall in line with partisan alignment, dropping their prior and more principled stand. And that's been true more broadly within conservative circles. There are sane and principled right wing voices but not nearly enough. It's frightening and depressing.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Thu 26 Oct, 2017 05:54 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Quote:
That's the right wing for you, they decry politicians and the state of society as an excuse for nothing but narrow self interest. The left tries to make the World a better place. That's the difference, the difference between hope and hate.
You're on to something, for sure. For some set of reasons that aren't clear, there is a tendency in some portion of the population to reduce all human motivation to self-interest. And that's a notion which is very convenient for those humans who are built that way, who are lacking in empathy, who deride charity, and who have little or no use for actual democracy where power and wealth are shared. The bully (to the degree he thinks about things) thinks that everyone is either a bully or a sucker. The person (Trump is a classic example as are the Koch brothers) who has a deep need to dominate others thinks the same way, you dominate or you are dominated. This is the territory of the sociopath.


A rather superficial analysis of both human history and contemporary politics by both posters.

I'll agree that many of the left wish to be judged by others based on the supposed virtue of their self-assigned altruistic intentions. However wiser and more experienced people tend to judge others based on the results and outcomes they achieve, rather than their self-proclaimed purposes. I believe that history confirms the rightness of that view.

Most of the human misery and suffering of the late, unlamented 20th century was caused by self proclaimed "reformers" of human society, bent on improving the condition of all through the imposition of their ideas of various socialist paradises. The results were uniformly bad and tens of millions were executed, starved or died in various gulags & "reform" prisons during the imposition of these systems. After a few generations each system was found to have failed, yielding only economic backwardness, poverty and the tyranny required to enforce the inhuman doctrines of the socialist reformers, who, justified it all based on the supposed virtue of their lofty intentions. Somehow, along the way they became willing to crush the lives of millions in order to impose a system they asserted was for the good of all, and which in the end collapsed amidst its own failures and contradictions.

A common element in all that appears to be a thirst for power among those who are sure they alone are right and have the good of others in mind. The historical facts indicate that their desire for power generally overcame their interests ion others.

I'm not as willing as Balham to so simply categorize "the right" and "the left" in contemporary politics. Human nature and human affairs are far too non-linear and complex for that to make sense. However, I believe there is something of the above in several persistent areas of contemporary left wing, or reform politics in today's world, and I believe the self proclaimed goodness of ones intentions and a desire to be judged by them is an indicator of its presence.

blatham
 
  4  
Thu 26 Oct, 2017 05:56 am
This is deeply disturbing
Quote:
The Federal Communications Commission on Wednesday announced plans to eliminate decades-old media ownership rules meant to protect local coverage and diversity in media voices.

The commission’s chairman, Ajit Pai, said in a congressional hearing that the agency would vote in November to roll back rules that prevent ownership of a newspaper and broadcast station in the same market. The rules were created to prevent an individual or organization from having outsize influence over public opinion.

...It was the latest action by Mr. Pai, who was appointed by President Trump in January, to overhaul the media industry. Since Mr. Pai has taken the top seat at the F.C.C., his deregulatory actions have ushered in the possibility of consolidation in the broadcast television industry.

In the spring, soon after he lifted a cap on how many stations a single company can own, the Sinclair Broadcast Group announced its intention to buy Tribune Media for $3.9 billion. The merger, which the F.C.C. and the Department of Justice are reviewing, would give Sinclair access to more than 70 percent of all television viewers in the United States. This week, the commission’s Republican majority lifted rules that required television stations owners to operate a main studio in each locality, which Mr. Pai said was unnecessary and costly for TV station owners.
NYT
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.46 seconds on 09/20/2024 at 01:05:59