Yesterday, Zerohedge published an article detailing the agribusiness giant Monsanto being caught red-handed colluding with the EPA regarding their weed-killer Roundup:
Finally, when all else fails, you call in those “special favors” in Washington D.C. that you’ve paid handsomely for over the years.
And that’s where Jess Rowland, the EPA’s Deputy Division Director for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention and chair of the Agency’s Cancer Assessment Review Committee, comes in to assure you that he’s fully exploiting his role as the “chair of the CARC” to kill any potentially damaging research…”if I can kill this I should get a medal.”
It’s not as if this is the first time Monsanto has used its political influence to skirt the law and market their dangerous products to consumers, not just in the U.S. but globally. They even admitted as much in 2005, when the company paid a fine for bribing an Indonesian official:
Note: Happy New Year from Free Market Shooter! Today’s post is a repost of an article I wrote for Single Dude Travel with input from Recall Report, about dangerous prescription drugs. Free Market Shooter is looking forward to 2017, and expect new content to be featured here on a Monday/Wednesday/Friday schedule, though the news cycle and current events will force some flexibility in postings. You can also subscribe to Free Market Shooter via email on the right sidebar, or follow me on Facebook/Twitter, as any new content will also be linked and shared there.
In addition, stay tuned to Single Dude Travel as well, for an upcoming article on what we all need to be aware of during a Trump Presidency: if the market brings the whole house of cards down on Trump’s watch, the globalists who opposed him will blame not only Trump and his voters for the collapse, they will also blame all who do not conform to their vision of total government control. Make no mistake about it, they may have lost the battle, but their war is far from over.
“Doctors are men, who prescribe medicines of which they know little, to cure diseases of which they know less, for men, of whom they know nothing at all.” – Voltaire, The Emperor of All Maladies
Seeing a lack of competition in many of the health law’s online insurance marketplaces, Hillary Clinton, President Obama and much of the Democratic Party are calling for more government, not less.
Mr. Obama’s signature domestic achievement will almost certainly have to change to survive. The two parties agree that for too many people, health plans in the individual insurance market are still too expensive and inaccessible.
Source: Ailing Obama Health Care Act May Have to Change to Survive | NY Times
The hits just keep on coming for Obamacare. It is increasingly difficult to find people in support of the healthcare reform law as it currently exists. Though, the NY Times is truthfully just calling for more Obamacare, specifically a “public option”, which will be bankrolled by the taxpayer. Once again, ZeroHedge said it best:
People who warn that President Obama’s healthcare law is in dire straits often point to rising health insurance premiums as proof. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has called premium increases on Affordable Care Act exchanges “astronomically high.” Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), said premiums have “skyrocketed.”
But are these growing premiums actually high?
A new analysis from the Urban Institute found that the average unsubsidized premiums in the Affordable Care Act exchanges, commonly known as Obamacare, are actually 10% lower than the full premiums in the average employer plan nationally in 2016.
Source: Rising Obamacare premiums are still lower than employer-sponsored health insurance | LA Times
Obviously it wasn’t just the LA Times; WaPo, and the Morning Consult got in on the act too. They all cited the same study from the aptly-named Urban Institute, a policy group founded by Lyndon Johnson to promote his own government programs. Unsurprisingly, it is one of the largest think tanks today, and while it claims to be independent, its own Wikipedia page shows its clear tilt towards liberal initiatives. Yet, it is still cited in major media as an “unbiased” source.
The prior article, “My ACA Experience”, for context
I recently received several letters from my insurance company in regards to my policy. They informed me that I can keep my coverage through the end of next year. One letter said that I would need to contact them to keep my policy. Another said the following, in this exact formatting: “We are required to provide you with the enclosed communication prepared by the Department of Health & Human Services. It suggests you contact us to keep your current plan, but that is not necessary.” And in yet another letter, I was informed of my “mastectomy benefits”.
In a state of confusion, I called the insurance company and asked what was going on. A representative seemed even more confused than I was, asked me information about the letters, and was unsuccessful in attempts to locate copies of what they sent to me. After promising to take action within the company internally so that this situation doesn’t happen again, I was (finally) assured that I wouldn’t need to take any action to keep my policy beyond continuing to pay my premiums. She made it clear to me that this confusion would not happen again, and that any further updates to my policy would be very clearly communicated.