|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 16 2016 15:04 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2016 14:23 TheTenthDoc wrote:
The most hated person in the world would be an individual who discovered a one-shot cure for high blood pressure and then priced it based on how much money it would save an individual/their insurance over the course of their life time.
But, if people insist on making healthcare a market (and accepting that this implicitly means rich people deserve to live longer than poor people), that's really the only rational thing for that person to do, so you can't get upset about how they're doing it.
(By the way, there's no HIV vaccines-are you talking about treatment with antiviral agents to prevent transmission ? And none of the Ebola treatments were actually all that useful compared to just treating people with fluids/etc. from the research I did on rotation back then, so it's hard to say that was a success, pretty much just throwing untested things at people and crossing our fingers)
But overall big pharma is not really being all that evil. They're just doing exactly what they should be doing in a market-based healthcare economy, complete with questionable advertising and buying up and gutting small competitors. Well, he'd have to price it slight under the lifetime cost of the illness  Yeah you're probably right-- I was thinking along the lines of infection prevention, and now that I think about it was more gels and such that had a 60% chance of preventing transmission in trials. My summer lab (the Vaccine Center @ Yerkes) was looking at some vaccines had a project looking at a potential vaccine, but I don't think it was panning out. I went to Emory and we handled the treatment for that doctor who got Ebola-- the school hyped it up waaaaaaay too much, but there's a bunch of vaccines in development though none are approved even w/ FDA fasttrack. Still, the fact that we can shit out so many candidates (though a lot don't pan out) is still pretty neat and says a lot about our insane capability for basic research. We used to wander around in the dark for cures. Now, we have a light though oftentimes we don't which direction to go. But we're getting hell of a lot better at it. I'm really excited for Nantworks to get their platform up and running, it should help accelerate info sharing and data crunching by a huge amount. Show nested quote +On January 16 2016 14:55 IgnE wrote:
Guess what the market share on the hep and HIV drugs ticklish and clutz are talking about? Those aren't blockbuster drugs. They don't make Big Pharma money. And my argument here is that there are other ways to fund that research than through companies that are competing for profits. Most of your guys' legitimate points only graze the larger point I was making about the industry. Like if you are going to make arguments about the big stride that Pharma is taking at least connect them back to the point about economic viability.
By the way, this wasn't a blame big pharma for everything. This was a clutz is wrong about healthcare outcomes being dependent on a vibrant US corporate pharma climate. I'm unsure what you're defining blockbuster drug as... if you mean a drug that can see wide distribution in addition to $$$, I'm unsure if any exist because the illnesses we have yet to develop cures need specific therapies. I guess there's Alzheimer's and such, but all I can say is that those are hard to treat. Maybe we'll fix it-- I think we will. But we have to accept that the human body just wasn't designed to last so long and in our current concrete jungles. Too lazy to pull the number, but Solvadi made like... $8-10 billion last year I think? About half their revenue. I should read Gilead's most recent reports, but the stock tanked and my portfolio hurts. Is it kind of an obscene price? Yes, $1,000 a pill is stupid, I get annoyed that Zyrtec i $1 a pill (thank goodness for Costco generic). But we have to recognize that it's a price that we pay for our healthcare system-- not the US alone, but the world. Look at it from this angle, which I think makes sense to a degree: ignoring everything else, we pay a big risk premium to pharma because drugs are expensive, risky, long-term investments that no one else can or is willing to take. We can try and decrease costs, hedge risks or increase rewards. And we can't really do that on a national level, we have to do it on a global level like with climate change. IMO drug pricing should be top down. Look at the market for a drug and calculate the cost to people as a whole as TheTenthDoc mentioned. Put a prize out based on that and offer grants and research for working on research with amounts for milestones and successes with the caveat that they have to price at a certain level if they opt in. Make the dollars real big. Let pharma pick their bets.
Solvadi costs almost a $100k for a course to treat people who have hep c. Who pays that? Insurance companies. So we have two profit-seeking enterprises, insurance and pharmaceutical corporations interposed between what noble scientists and medical researchers are trying to do and the patients who want them to do it. And you are going to tell me that this the most efficient way for this research to take place?
What I mean by there are no more blockbuster drugs being discovered is basically the same point that you are making. The serious diseases that require pharmaceutical intervention (cancer, hiv, hep, alzheimers) are likely not going to be amenable to a simple drug that can be sold in large quantities to many people. They are hard problems being worked on by teams of people across the entire world. And interposed between the hard work being done by these teams of collaborators and the solution are drug companies vying for control over intellectual property rights, sometimes to the detriment of the science being done. Not only that, but because drug companies are the ones who are funding much of the work, they are closing off entire branches of research where there are no possibilities of putting an IP stake down in whatever advance they achieve.
So we end up paying a big premium not only because these are hard problems that cost a lot of money to fix, but because rent-collecting patent holders are basically extracting a huge premium from the US insured population in order to make a profit (over)selling drugs. But then they have advertising and people like you to come back and say, "but hey look at all this good we are doing!" Yeah, that's great. I support goodness. How could you not? But that's never what I was opposed to. I am concerned with two big picture problems here: the extraction of profit by profit-seeking enterprises who not only have blinders on because of their profit motive, but because of the thick regulatory regime and the nature of the overgrown intellectual property thicket; and the pursuit of technically advanced solutions that are patentable to the detriment of cheaper, more cost effective solutions that could be pursued and researched if only there were a profit in them. The fact that the rentier Pharma Collective are driving much of the research because people like Clutz think that that is the most effective solution to better healthcare outcomes totally distorts incentives in addition to exploiting the populace.
Further, as you said, much government money is spent developing some of these ideas initially, or university teams from around the globe contribute to getting them off the ground before handing them off to Pharma to collect the profits. So the population is hit twice. They provide the initial investment in the forms of government grants and subsidies, and then they pay again when Pharma collects their monopoly rents.
|
On January 16 2016 14:19 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2016 11:59 Nyxisto wrote:
I guess his point is rather that the US is subsidizing the EU through research but I don't really know why it makes sense from an American perspective to keep doing that at the expense of their own citizens, and I'm not even sure if the US leading position in research is at all connected to the expensive healthcare system. It is connected, and yes it doesn't make sense, its not 100% of the problem as I address below. The problem is that healthcare innovation worldwide is a diner's dilemma problem: Every country is individually incentivized to reduce its own costs using price controls, but each that does makes the collective international community, as a whole, worse off.
This way of approaching the problem lacks perspective and is self-centered. Think about how much money we spent "liberating Iraq" and making the world "safe for democracy." The US spends hundreds of billions, in the trillions, projecting military power for nebulous aims. You simply cannot tell me, in your right mind, that spending a couple tens or even hundreds of billions on publicly funded medical research that improved health outcomes in the non-Western world is not worth more than spending many multiples of that on weapons to kill people, even from a selfish US-centered perspective. In a world lacking demand, wouldn't healthier people provide more plentiful consumer markets for US goods?
Oh, I forgot, the US doesn't make anything anymore. All we do is collect rents on "intellectual property" that is free to distribute around the world. Hence the need for the TPP.
Does anyone think that Mickey Mouse will ever enter the public domain? Does anyone here know what the constitution says on copyright? Oh right, our pocket-constitution carriers don't seem to care about that.
|
You are just absolutely out of this world.
|
That is what all the girls tell me.
|
United States22883 Posts
On January 16 2016 14:30 Doublemint wrote:
on a different, way funnier topic:
Well, it's a relief that Cruz is essentially untenable now.
I wonder when the GOP is going to realize short term gambles for the voters of bumfuck South Carolina aren't going to go very far. When Rove ran GWB's grass roots campaign, they didn't change his views to meet them, they just gave them extra attention.
The majority of people in the country, and in particular the majority of people with and generating money in the country, align closer to NYC than South Carolina or even Texas.
Whether he means it this way or not, it'll also be portrayed and received as criticizing Jewish values. Criticizing New York "money and the media" is a red flag for anti-semeticism, whether it's founded or not.. So that will be fun, the next time he grovels before AIPAC.
|
On January 16 2016 21:39 Jibba wrote:Well, it's a relief that Cruz is essentially untenable now. I wonder when the GOP is going to realize short term gambles for the voters of bumfuck South Carolina aren't going to go very far. When Rove ran GWB's grass roots campaign, they didn't change his views to meet them, they just gave them extra attention. The majority of people in the country, and in particular the majority of people with and generating money in the country, align closer to NYC than South Carolina or even Texas. Whether he means it this way or not, it'll also be portrayed and received as criticizing Jewish values. So that will be fun, the next time he grovels before AIPAC.
The GOP realized several years ago when the new tea party rose that their gamble failed. The problem is how can they get out of the hole, because if they drop the tea party they will simply stop coming out to vote (they will never vote Democrat) and then the GOP cant win any election anymore.
|
United States22883 Posts
On January 16 2016 21:50 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2016 21:39 Jibba wrote:Well, it's a relief that Cruz is essentially untenable now. I wonder when the GOP is going to realize short term gambles for the voters of bumfuck South Carolina aren't going to go very far. When Rove ran GWB's grass roots campaign, they didn't change his views to meet them, they just gave them extra attention. The majority of people in the country, and in particular the majority of people with and generating money in the country, align closer to NYC than South Carolina or even Texas. Whether he means it this way or not, it'll also be portrayed and received as criticizing Jewish values. So that will be fun, the next time he grovels before AIPAC. The problem is how can they get out of the hole, because if they drop the tea party they will simply stop coming out to vote
They've never tested that, though. No one likes losing, eventually they adjust.
|
On January 16 2016 21:39 Jibba wrote:Well, it's a relief that Cruz is essentially untenable now. I wonder when the GOP is going to realize short term gambles for the voters of bumfuck South Carolina aren't going to go very far. When Rove ran GWB's grass roots campaign, they didn't change his views to meet them, they just gave them extra attention. The majority of people in the country, and in particular the majority of people with and generating money in the country, align closer to NYC than South Carolina or even Texas. Whether he means it this way or not, it'll also be portrayed and received as criticizing Jewish values. Criticizing New York "money and the media" is a red flag for anti-semeticism, whether it's founded or not.. So that will be fun, the next time he grovels before AIPAC. He has too long of a healthy record on Israel for the AIPAC to get confused.
His supporters also generally recognize NY to be a basket case of solidly liberal governance. The majority of people in major metropolitan areas vote democrat and haven't wavered since Reagan. I think he'll barely suffer on that score.
What remains to be seen is if the idea of the 'Americanness' of NY will get play against his Hispanic ancestry.
|
I still have no idea how exactly talking about 9/11 stomped Cruz on the issue, considering that from what was said he was pretty clear on what he hated about New York values and most of the base does indeed hate those things, but I missed that part of the debate. It was probably mostly just in Trump delivery and people getting heart palpitations whenever a candidate mentions 9/11, like when Clinton defended her PAC spending (or maybe it was banking stances, I dunno) by discussing it, so I doubt any big money people really give a crap.
Unless people actually believe that you can't be in solidarity with liberals that are pro-gay marriage when they're attacked by terrorists.
|
As a Cuban, Ted Cruz does not and will never represent Cuban values. Marco Rubio on the other hand goes very well with older Cuban generations. The younger Cuban generations are all for Bernie Sanders and despise both Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Even the older generations don't know what to say of Ted Cruz and that says a lot.
|
On January 17 2016 00:58 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I still have no idea how exactly talking about 9/11 stomped Cruz on the issue, considering that from what was said he was pretty clear on what he hated about New York values and most of the base does indeed hate those things, but I missed that part of the debate. It was probably mostly just in Trump delivery and people getting heart palpitations whenever a candidate mentions 9/11, like when Clinton defended her PAC spending (or maybe it was banking stances, I dunno) by discussing it, so I doubt any big money people really give a crap.
Unless people actually believe that you can't be in solidarity with liberals that are pro-gay marriage when they're attacked by terrorists.
My thought: Well, he basically insulted the entire Northeast... I mean, it's a comment in the same category as Romney's 47% of Obama's clinging to guns. Romney and Obama had the benefit of people not thinking they were really assholes, but Ted was skirting the line. For Romney and Obama it was like "gee that was pretty insensitive", for Ted it's like "wow this guy is actually an asshole". Plus, he made Trump look good, I mean, you have to screw up pretty hard to do that.
Big money people give a crap because voters give a crap-- money can buy a lot, but there's limit. If your candidate says something unutterably stupid or sucks (sorry Jeb) it makes it that much harder. They have to grimace and bump up spending because that's all they can do. Hilariously, politics is a sunk cost but these people are going to keep throwing money after bad until it's several blocks down the road from extremely clear that it's hopeless.
For Cruz, expect the clips about him insulting New York and the Northeast to blanket the airwaves in New Hampshire. He's in second now, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him fall to third or fourth and that to be the end of his campaign.
|
On January 17 2016 04:23 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2016 00:58 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I still have no idea how exactly talking about 9/11 stomped Cruz on the issue, considering that from what was said he was pretty clear on what he hated about New York values and most of the base does indeed hate those things, but I missed that part of the debate. It was probably mostly just in Trump delivery and people getting heart palpitations whenever a candidate mentions 9/11, like when Clinton defended her PAC spending (or maybe it was banking stances, I dunno) by discussing it, so I doubt any big money people really give a crap.
Unless people actually believe that you can't be in solidarity with liberals that are pro-gay marriage when they're attacked by terrorists. My thought: Well, he basically insulted the entire Northeast... I mean, it's a comment in the same category as Romney's 47% of Obama's clinging to guns. Romney and Obama had the benefit of people not thinking they were really assholes, but Ted was skirting the line. For Romney and Obama it was like "gee that was pretty insensitive", for Ted it's like "wow this guy is actually an asshole". Plus, he made Trump look good, I mean, you have to screw up pretty hard to do that. Big money people give a crap because voters give a crap-- money can buy a lot, but there's limit. If your candidate says something unutterably stupid or sucks (sorry Jeb) it makes it that much harder. They have to grimace and bump up spending because that's all they can do. Hilariously, politics is a sunk cost but these people are going to keep throwing money after bad until it's several blocks down the road from extremely clear that it's hopeless. For Cruz, expect the clips about him insulting New York and the Northeast to blanket the airwaves in New Hampshire. He's in second now, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him fall to third or fourth and that to be the end of his campaign.
Uh, he's not really in second in NH unless you count tied-for-second-due-to-margin-of-error as second. Rubio and Kasich both poll on par with him or a smidge better. He also does not care about the state at all, judging by the time he's spent in the area, so it's pretty meaningless to his campaign how he does there, and I don't blame him. Same goes for pretty much every New England state where he'll lose to whoever the establishment picks or Trump, probably both, even if he does nothing but eat clam chowder while singing Yankee Doodle Dandy for the rest of the campaign.
(Plus I find it hilarious that constantly demonizing the Senator that served a state for 9 years is somehow less insulting than saying they are pro-gay marriage and pro-abortion (okay, okay, pro-choice) both of which happen to be true in the state)
It's also still unimaginably bizarre to be that saying you don't agree with someone's values means you hate them and think they're scum but I guess that's America today
|
On January 17 2016 04:23 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2016 00:58 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I still have no idea how exactly talking about 9/11 stomped Cruz on the issue, considering that from what was said he was pretty clear on what he hated about New York values and most of the base does indeed hate those things, but I missed that part of the debate. It was probably mostly just in Trump delivery and people getting heart palpitations whenever a candidate mentions 9/11, like when Clinton defended her PAC spending (or maybe it was banking stances, I dunno) by discussing it, so I doubt any big money people really give a crap.
Unless people actually believe that you can't be in solidarity with liberals that are pro-gay marriage when they're attacked by terrorists. My thought: Well, he basically insulted the entire Northeast...
No, he brought up this:
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/trump-in-1999-i-am-very-pro-choice-480297539914
It was pretty brilliant by Cruz and a total miscalculation by Trump. The bigger a deal he makes of this, the more likely it comes out that Trump himself described New York values as: pro-choice, pro-gay marriage. He even specifically says: "I don't have Iowa values". It's going to sink Trump in Iowa.
Also, no one really thinks Ted Cruz was insulting anyone but the elite New York liberal culture. The only reason Trump got away with the 9/11 defense was because Fox didn't let Cruz respond, and Cruz wasn't quick enough on his feet to call Trump out for using 9/11 as a political prop. Anyway, it still looks like it might be a strategic win for Cruz. Trump won the battle of the debate by bringing attention away from this video, but he's going to lose the war if he inadvertently gives media attention to this video in the aftermath.
|
On January 16 2016 15:54 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2016 15:04 ticklishmusic wrote:On January 16 2016 14:23 TheTenthDoc wrote:
The most hated person in the world would be an individual who discovered a one-shot cure for high blood pressure and then priced it based on how much money it would save an individual/their insurance over the course of their life time.
But, if people insist on making healthcare a market (and accepting that this implicitly means rich people deserve to live longer than poor people), that's really the only rational thing for that person to do, so you can't get upset about how they're doing it.
(By the way, there's no HIV vaccines-are you talking about treatment with antiviral agents to prevent transmission ? And none of the Ebola treatments were actually all that useful compared to just treating people with fluids/etc. from the research I did on rotation back then, so it's hard to say that was a success, pretty much just throwing untested things at people and crossing our fingers)
But overall big pharma is not really being all that evil. They're just doing exactly what they should be doing in a market-based healthcare economy, complete with questionable advertising and buying up and gutting small competitors. Well, he'd have to price it slight under the lifetime cost of the illness Yeah you're probably right-- I was thinking along the lines of infection prevention, and now that I think about it was more gels and such that had a 60% chance of preventing transmission in trials. My summer lab (the Vaccine Center @ Yerkes) was looking at some vaccines had a project looking at a potential vaccine, but I don't think it was panning out. I went to Emory and we handled the treatment for that doctor who got Ebola-- the school hyped it up waaaaaaay too much, but there's a bunch of vaccines in development though none are approved even w/ FDA fasttrack. Still, the fact that we can shit out so many candidates (though a lot don't pan out) is still pretty neat and says a lot about our insane capability for basic research. We used to wander around in the dark for cures. Now, we have a light though oftentimes we don't which direction to go. But we're getting hell of a lot better at it. I'm really excited for Nantworks to get their platform up and running, it should help accelerate info sharing and data crunching by a huge amount. On January 16 2016 14:55 IgnE wrote:
Guess what the market share on the hep and HIV drugs ticklish and clutz are talking about? Those aren't blockbuster drugs. They don't make Big Pharma money. And my argument here is that there are other ways to fund that research than through companies that are competing for profits. Most of your guys' legitimate points only graze the larger point I was making about the industry. Like if you are going to make arguments about the big stride that Pharma is taking at least connect them back to the point about economic viability.
By the way, this wasn't a blame big pharma for everything. This was a clutz is wrong about healthcare outcomes being dependent on a vibrant US corporate pharma climate. I'm unsure what you're defining blockbuster drug as... if you mean a drug that can see wide distribution in addition to $$$, I'm unsure if any exist because the illnesses we have yet to develop cures need specific therapies. I guess there's Alzheimer's and such, but all I can say is that those are hard to treat. Maybe we'll fix it-- I think we will. But we have to accept that the human body just wasn't designed to last so long and in our current concrete jungles. Too lazy to pull the number, but Solvadi made like... $8-10 billion last year I think? About half their revenue. I should read Gilead's most recent reports, but the stock tanked and my portfolio hurts. Is it kind of an obscene price? Yes, $1,000 a pill is stupid, I get annoyed that Zyrtec i $1 a pill (thank goodness for Costco generic). But we have to recognize that it's a price that we pay for our healthcare system-- not the US alone, but the world. Look at it from this angle, which I think makes sense to a degree: ignoring everything else, we pay a big risk premium to pharma because drugs are expensive, risky, long-term investments that no one else can or is willing to take. We can try and decrease costs, hedge risks or increase rewards. And we can't really do that on a national level, we have to do it on a global level like with climate change. IMO drug pricing should be top down. Look at the market for a drug and calculate the cost to people as a whole as TheTenthDoc mentioned. Put a prize out based on that and offer grants and research for working on research with amounts for milestones and successes with the caveat that they have to price at a certain level if they opt in. Make the dollars real big. Let pharma pick their bets. Solvadi costs almost a $100k for a course to treat people who have hep c. Who pays that? Insurance companies. So we have two profit-seeking enterprises, insurance and pharmaceutical corporations interposed between what noble scientists and medical researchers are trying to do and the patients who want them to do it. And you are going to tell me that this the most efficient way for this research to take place?
I'd say yes it is (at least as compared to the alternatives)
First, I personally wouldn't want to rely on Kickstarters for new drugs,
1. I have a biology and chemistry degree, but I don't have the time to look over research grant requests for drugs that would benefit me
2. I don't have much confidence in the general public's ability
So some intermediaries Are needed (like most people don't directly pay a farmer and trucker to get their food... they have a grocery store in between them and the farmer)
There are definitely details that could be improved... (ie the nature of patents, the regulations, the lack of a free market in either insurance or healthcare providers, which are oligopolies at best, the fact that there are actually 3 intermediaries since everyone gets their insurance through employers or government)
However, improving those to the best that can be imagined would still end up with 2 profit seeking intermediaries
1 working to get the best (highest) price for the researchers
1 working to get the best (lowest) price for the patients
But having either no intermediary would definitely not be better
A "power" motivated intermediary (ie a nonprofit like the government or an NGO) would probably not be better when you consider all the things that people want (cheap, safe, effective)
|
Barack Obama signed an emergency declaration for Flint, Michigan, where a lead-poisoning crisis in the city’s water supply has left residents without safe water for nearly two years.
On Saturday the White House authorized the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema) to provide water, filters, cartridges and other supplies for 90 days. Republican governor Ricky Snyder asked Obama for help on Friday, saying emergency measures could cost $41m.
Democratic candidate for president Bernie Sanders called for Snyder to resign on Saturday, saying he has “no excuses” for the the disaster.
“The governor long ago knew about the lead in Flint’s water,” the Vermont senator said in a statement issued by his campaign. “He did nothing. As a result, hundreds of children were poisoned. Thousands may have been exposed to potential brain damage from lead. Gov[ernor] Snyder should resign.”
In April 2014, as a cost-saving measure, the city of Flint switched its main water source from Lake Huron to the Flint river. Despite reports of problems with the water from sources including General Motors, which stopped using it, residents were advised by state officials to “relax” and continue to drink it.
Sanders’ main rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton, has called such advice “unconscionable”.
Water from the Flint river has been linked to increased lead levels in children’s blood; E coli bacteria has also been found in such water. A spike in cases of Legionnaires’ disease has also been reported, though not conclusively linked to river water.
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 16 2016 08:52 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +
giving people more direct transfers is not the correct solution nor is it really the correct message for the left. it is a strategic mistake to think that tax and spend, or debt and spend, will be the solution.
To be fair a single payer healthcare system wouldn't actually cost significantly more money for the average guy or the government because they're significantly cheaper on a per capita basis than whatever the US has going on now, it would actually lower public spending significantly. Why do conservatives not love single payer systems?
single payer healthcare is good. i've been consistently saying healthcare is not really a market per se, except in the elective area.
dunno if you are saying i am a conservative tho lmfao
|
On January 17 2016 12:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Barack Obama signed an emergency declaration for Flint, Michigan, where a lead-poisoning crisis in the city’s water supply has left residents without safe water for nearly two years.
On Saturday the White House authorized the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema) to provide water, filters, cartridges and other supplies for 90 days. Republican governor Ricky Snyder asked Obama for help on Friday, saying emergency measures could cost $41m.
Democratic candidate for president Bernie Sanders called for Snyder to resign on Saturday, saying he has “no excuses” for the the disaster.
“The governor long ago knew about the lead in Flint’s water,” the Vermont senator said in a statement issued by his campaign. “He did nothing. As a result, hundreds of children were poisoned. Thousands may have been exposed to potential brain damage from lead. Gov[ernor] Snyder should resign.”
In April 2014, as a cost-saving measure, the city of Flint switched its main water source from Lake Huron to the Flint river. Despite reports of problems with the water from sources including General Motors, which stopped using it, residents were advised by state officials to “relax” and continue to drink it.
Sanders’ main rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton, has called such advice “unconscionable”.
Water from the Flint river has been linked to increased lead levels in children’s blood; E coli bacteria has also been found in such water. A spike in cases of Legionnaires’ disease has also been reported, though not conclusively linked to river water. Source
what. in. the. fuck.
2 years? can anybody give me sufficient reason not to want to burn those officials on a stake?
|
On January 17 2016 12:25 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2016 12:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Barack Obama signed an emergency declaration for Flint, Michigan, where a lead-poisoning crisis in the city’s water supply has left residents without safe water for nearly two years.
On Saturday the White House authorized the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema) to provide water, filters, cartridges and other supplies for 90 days. Republican governor Ricky Snyder asked Obama for help on Friday, saying emergency measures could cost $41m.
Democratic candidate for president Bernie Sanders called for Snyder to resign on Saturday, saying he has “no excuses” for the the disaster.
“The governor long ago knew about the lead in Flint’s water,” the Vermont senator said in a statement issued by his campaign. “He did nothing. As a result, hundreds of children were poisoned. Thousands may have been exposed to potential brain damage from lead. Gov[ernor] Snyder should resign.”
In April 2014, as a cost-saving measure, the city of Flint switched its main water source from Lake Huron to the Flint river. Despite reports of problems with the water from sources including General Motors, which stopped using it, residents were advised by state officials to “relax” and continue to drink it.
Sanders’ main rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton, has called such advice “unconscionable”.
Water from the Flint river has been linked to increased lead levels in children’s blood; E coli bacteria has also been found in such water. A spike in cases of Legionnaires’ disease has also been reported, though not conclusively linked to river water. Source what. in. the. fuck. 2 years? can anybody give me sufficient reason not to want to burn those officials on a stake?
I certainly haven't heard one. That's some legit going to hell stuff there.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 17 2016 12:25 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2016 12:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Barack Obama signed an emergency declaration for Flint, Michigan, where a lead-poisoning crisis in the city’s water supply has left residents without safe water for nearly two years.
On Saturday the White House authorized the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema) to provide water, filters, cartridges and other supplies for 90 days. Republican governor Ricky Snyder asked Obama for help on Friday, saying emergency measures could cost $41m.
Democratic candidate for president Bernie Sanders called for Snyder to resign on Saturday, saying he has “no excuses” for the the disaster.
“The governor long ago knew about the lead in Flint’s water,” the Vermont senator said in a statement issued by his campaign. “He did nothing. As a result, hundreds of children were poisoned. Thousands may have been exposed to potential brain damage from lead. Gov[ernor] Snyder should resign.”
In April 2014, as a cost-saving measure, the city of Flint switched its main water source from Lake Huron to the Flint river. Despite reports of problems with the water from sources including General Motors, which stopped using it, residents were advised by state officials to “relax” and continue to drink it.
Sanders’ main rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton, has called such advice “unconscionable”.
Water from the Flint river has been linked to increased lead levels in children’s blood; E coli bacteria has also been found in such water. A spike in cases of Legionnaires’ disease has also been reported, though not conclusively linked to river water. Source what. in. the. fuck. 2 years? can anybody give me sufficient reason not to want to burn those officials on a stake?
not carbon neutral
|
Did anyone actually watch the debate with the NFL playoffs happening at the same time?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
