Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
solarhydrocan
solarhydrocan's Journal
solarhydrocan's Journal
November 6, 2013
Honda is gearing up
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/smart-takes/hondas-home-garage-gadget-heres-your-solar-hydrogen-fueling-station/3631
A hydrogen gas station
Could one answer to the energy problem be right under our noses?
Watch this and see how hydrogen can be extracted from water (H2O) and stored like propane
Honda is gearing up
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/smart-takes/hondas-home-garage-gadget-heres-your-solar-hydrogen-fueling-station/3631
A hydrogen gas station
November 5, 2013
the benefits of eating right are pretty clear
Most veggies I know aren't out to "break" anyone
Eat what you want. Don't try to "break" me because I can't be "broken".
Here's a way to "break" meat eaters if one was so inclined.
When 45 year old meat eaters look like this:
and 70 year old vegans look like this:
the benefits of eating right are pretty clear
November 4, 2013
Until this is addressed affordable health CARE will become more expensive to the point that it will be impossible.
$40 per aspirin will be considered a bargain in the future.
And apparently the TPP will further complicate matters with the Pharmaceutical industry. The worst thing that could follow the ACA.
You have identified the crux of the problem that the ACA does nothing about
a) the raping of the public by the pharma industry
Indeed, the ACA entrenches the present broken system for the foreseeable future.
Please allow me to recommend a book that will not get any attention in the US because the Medical and Insurance complex that now controls every citizens health care does not want to hear a thing about it.
Pharmageddon by Dr. David Healy <---click for bio
http://www.amazon.com/Pharmageddon-David-Healy/dp/0520275764/
This searing indictment, David Healy's most comprehensive and forceful argument against the pharmaceuticalization of medicine, tackles problems in health care that are leading to a growing number of deaths and disabilities. Healy, who was the first to draw attention to the now well-publicized suicide-inducing side effects of many anti-depressants,
attributes our current state of affairs to three key factors: product rather than process patents on drugs, the classification of certain drugs as prescription-only, and industry-controlled drug trials.
These developments have tied the survival of pharmaceutical companies to the development of blockbuster drugs, so that they must overhype benefits and deny real hazards. Healy further explains why these trends have basically ended the possibility of universal health care in the United States and elsewhere around the world. He concludes with suggestions for reform of our currently corrupted evidence-based medical system.
"This book shines a bright light on the pharmaceutical industry (and American healthcare) in the same way that Silent Spring called out the chemical industry and Unsafe at Any Speed called out the automobile industry. Pharmageddon is Healy's most important book to date. It will make a real contribution toward healing our sick system of pharmaceutical-driven medicine and helping doctors provide better care for their patients."--Elizabeth Siegel Watkins, author of The Estrogen Elixir and On the Pill
"In this startling book, David Healy argues that 'evidence-based' medicine--and a healthy dose of corrupt science--has led modern medicine off a cliff. His book is provocative, challenging, and informative, and ultimately it serves as a powerful manifesto for rethinking modern medicine."--Robert Whitaker, author of Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America
"Like a good detective story, Pharmageddon weaves together the history of modern medicine, the evolution of clinical trials and statistical analyses, changes in international patent laws, privatization of clinical research, blurring of the line between academics and industry, and the enabling role of medical journals. If you want to learn how to protect yourself (or your patients) from medical commercialism and how medical practice can be re-directed back toward its true mission, this book is a must read."--John Abramson, author of Overdosed America
attributes our current state of affairs to three key factors: product rather than process patents on drugs, the classification of certain drugs as prescription-only, and industry-controlled drug trials.
These developments have tied the survival of pharmaceutical companies to the development of blockbuster drugs, so that they must overhype benefits and deny real hazards. Healy further explains why these trends have basically ended the possibility of universal health care in the United States and elsewhere around the world. He concludes with suggestions for reform of our currently corrupted evidence-based medical system.
"This book shines a bright light on the pharmaceutical industry (and American healthcare) in the same way that Silent Spring called out the chemical industry and Unsafe at Any Speed called out the automobile industry. Pharmageddon is Healy's most important book to date. It will make a real contribution toward healing our sick system of pharmaceutical-driven medicine and helping doctors provide better care for their patients."--Elizabeth Siegel Watkins, author of The Estrogen Elixir and On the Pill
"In this startling book, David Healy argues that 'evidence-based' medicine--and a healthy dose of corrupt science--has led modern medicine off a cliff. His book is provocative, challenging, and informative, and ultimately it serves as a powerful manifesto for rethinking modern medicine."--Robert Whitaker, author of Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America
"Like a good detective story, Pharmageddon weaves together the history of modern medicine, the evolution of clinical trials and statistical analyses, changes in international patent laws, privatization of clinical research, blurring of the line between academics and industry, and the enabling role of medical journals. If you want to learn how to protect yourself (or your patients) from medical commercialism and how medical practice can be re-directed back toward its true mission, this book is a must read."--John Abramson, author of Overdosed America
Until this is addressed affordable health CARE will become more expensive to the point that it will be impossible.
$40 per aspirin will be considered a bargain in the future.
And apparently the TPP will further complicate matters with the Pharmaceutical industry. The worst thing that could follow the ACA.
November 4, 2013
Everyone should read the Heritage Document that started this descent into insurance purgatory: Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans. Except almost no one has. Have you read this critical piece of the puzzle?
Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans
By Stuart M. Butler PHD
excerpt: 2) ...Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance.Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seatbelts for their own protection. Many others require anybody driving a car to have liability insurance. But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness.
Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement. This mandate is based on two important principles. First, that health care protection is a responsibility of individuals, not businesses. Thus to the extent that anybody should be required to provide coverage to a family, the household mandate assumes that it is t h e family that carries the first responsibility. Second, it assumes that there is an implicit contract between households and society, based on the notion that health insurance is not like other forms of insurance protection.
If a young man wrecks his Porsche and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance, we may commiserate but society feels no obligation to repair his car. But health care is different. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance... MORE:
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/assuring-affordable-health-care-for-all-americans
Democrats can attack the Heritage Foundation in the future, however it will be an exercise in hypocrisy.
When it comes to insurance, We're all Republicans now.
The exact same argument used by the Right Wing Heritage Foundation which is the basis
for ACA. Doesn't this make the ACA something that, under a Republican administration, would be uh...unwelcome at a Democratic site?
The health insurance mandate in the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is an idea hatched in 1989 by Stuart M. Butler at Heritage in a publication titled "Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans".[20] This was also the model for Mitt Romney's health care plan in Massachusetts. [21]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_foundation#Policy_influence
Everyone should read the Heritage Document that started this descent into insurance purgatory: Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans. Except almost no one has. Have you read this critical piece of the puzzle?
Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans
By Stuart M. Butler PHD
excerpt: 2) ...Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance.Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seatbelts for their own protection. Many others require anybody driving a car to have liability insurance. But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness.
Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement. This mandate is based on two important principles. First, that health care protection is a responsibility of individuals, not businesses. Thus to the extent that anybody should be required to provide coverage to a family, the household mandate assumes that it is t h e family that carries the first responsibility. Second, it assumes that there is an implicit contract between households and society, based on the notion that health insurance is not like other forms of insurance protection.
If a young man wrecks his Porsche and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance, we may commiserate but society feels no obligation to repair his car. But health care is different. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance... MORE:
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/assuring-affordable-health-care-for-all-americans
Democrats can attack the Heritage Foundation in the future, however it will be an exercise in hypocrisy.
When it comes to insurance, We're all Republicans now.
November 1, 2013
A country serious about Health Care would treat McDonalds like tobacco users
instead this crap is marketed to children every day of every year.
If it wasn't so sad it would be funny.
I'm supposed to pay more so Junior here can get "Health Care"?
The US has become an insane asylum.
November 1, 2013
Now that the Democrats are the insurance party...
why stop with Health? Let's make everything insurable and mandatory.
Guns! Already proposed. How about Pets? If you own a pet and he/she gets sick surely it affects us all if something horrible happens and the owner grieves. Mandatory Pet insurance! And bike riders are not mandated to have insurance yet. Why not? They end up costing us all more with their silly habit. Mandatory Bike Insurance!!
Now that Insurance is a Buy Partisan thing nothing can stop it!
Buy Stock!
(Wouldn't it have been great if the Democrats in power had concentrated on jobs before passing a law that requires purchasing something? It's never even discussed anymore. The jobs are gone.)
Meet the New America: 29 hour work week at Target/Walmart/Mcdonalds or, if you're really lucky, you can sell insurance. After all, it's MANDATORY!!
November 1, 2013
The Trans-Pacific Partnership: A Trade Agreement for Protectionists
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/the-trans-pacific-partner_b_4172087.html
Hopefully the nominee will be someone that does not support the TPP.
Do you support the Trans Pacific Partnership?
Hillary does, and worked on the content.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership: A Trade Agreement for Protectionists
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/the-trans-pacific-partner_b_4172087.html
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) stands at the top of the Obama administration's trade agenda. The argument from its supporters is that this agreement is part of the never-ending quest for freer trade. The evidence from what we know of this still secret pact is that the TPP has little to do with free trade. It can more accurately be described as a pact designed to increase the wealth and power of crony capitalists.
At this point, with few exceptions formal trade barriers, such as tariffs and quotas, are not very large. If lowering or eliminating the formal barriers that remain were the main agenda of this pact, there would be relatively little interest. Rather, the purpose of the pact is to use an international trade agreement to create a regulatory structure that is much more favorable to corporate interests than they would be able to get through the domestic political process in the United States and in the other countries in the pact.
The gap between free trade and the agenda of the TPP is clearest in the case of prescription drugs. The U.S. drug companies have a major seat at the negotiating table. They will be trying to craft rules that increase the strength of patent and related protections. The explicit purpose is to raise (as in, not lower) the price of drugs in the countries signing the TPP.
Note that this goal is the opposite of what we would expect in an agreement designed to promote free trade. Instead of having drug companies at the table, we might envision that we would have representatives of consumer groups who would try to negotiate rules that could ensure safe drugs at lower prices. Instead of using a "trade" agreement to try to push drug prices in other countries up, we could actually use trade to bring the price of drugs in the United States down to the levels seen elsewhere...SNIP MORE
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/the-trans-pacific-partner_b_4172087.html
At this point, with few exceptions formal trade barriers, such as tariffs and quotas, are not very large. If lowering or eliminating the formal barriers that remain were the main agenda of this pact, there would be relatively little interest. Rather, the purpose of the pact is to use an international trade agreement to create a regulatory structure that is much more favorable to corporate interests than they would be able to get through the domestic political process in the United States and in the other countries in the pact.
The gap between free trade and the agenda of the TPP is clearest in the case of prescription drugs. The U.S. drug companies have a major seat at the negotiating table. They will be trying to craft rules that increase the strength of patent and related protections. The explicit purpose is to raise (as in, not lower) the price of drugs in the countries signing the TPP.
Note that this goal is the opposite of what we would expect in an agreement designed to promote free trade. Instead of having drug companies at the table, we might envision that we would have representatives of consumer groups who would try to negotiate rules that could ensure safe drugs at lower prices. Instead of using a "trade" agreement to try to push drug prices in other countries up, we could actually use trade to bring the price of drugs in the United States down to the levels seen elsewhere...SNIP MORE
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/the-trans-pacific-partner_b_4172087.html
Hopefully the nominee will be someone that does not support the TPP.
October 30, 2013
Since insurance is now a public interest
this is just the first of the "suggestions" and it won't be long before we're hearing this kind of thing from government spokespeople
I don't want to pay extra because some fat kid or his parents can't keep his food intake under control. Since smokers have to pay more, so should everyone that costs us all more.
October 30, 2013
It's fashionable to hate the Kochs. But the Clintons didn't.
What did Bernie think when the DLC took Koch money?
If there were any "Reporters" or "Journalists" left, that question might be asked. But there aren't.
The Rightwing Koch Brothers fund the DLC -- article from '06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414
CrossChris (641 posts) Thu Feb-24-11 11:32 AM
I saw this posted elsewhere recently, and thought this was very interesting to revisit:
http://www.democrats.com/node/7789
The Rightwing Koch Brothers fund the DLC
Do deep-pocketed "philanthropists" necessarily control the organizations they fund? That has certainly been the contention of those who truck in conspiracy theories about the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations funding liberal and neo-liberal organizations...As Bill Berkowitz writes, the Koch brothers have also been funding the Democratic Leadership Council.
According to SourceWatch, a project of the Center for Media & Democracy, the brothers are "leading contributors to the Koch family foundations, which supports a network of Conservative organizations and think tanks, including Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Manhattan Institute the Heartland Institute, and the Democratic Leadership Council."
This is no less stunning than if Scaife or the Coors family were funding the DLC. So do the Kochs just throw money at the DLC -- as long as the Council supports a free-market" (i.e. unrestricted/unregulated corporate power) agenda that the Kochs generally agree with. Or is it more than just that -- does this really buttress what Greens and other disaffected liberals contend -- that the DNC has just become a party of "Republicrats", thanks especially to the DLC? They would say that corporate backers like the rightwing/libertarian Kochs have co-opted the Democratic establishment -- a hostile takeover of (what was once) the opposition. (continued)
Koch Industries gave funding to the DLC and served on its Executive Council
http://americablog.com/2010/08/koch-industries-gave-funding-to-the-dlc-and-served-on-its-executive-council.html
It's fashionable to hate the Kochs. But the Clintons didn't.
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Sep 6, 2013, 05:01 AMNumber of posts: 551
