Webmaster Forum

Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Controversial Social Issues Discussions concerning controversial social issues. Topics include politics, religion, culture, social and economic issues, etc. Respect required at all times.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Share |
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 05-30-2013, 06:57 PM
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 08-15-06
Posts: 10,109
iTrader: 11 / 100%
ObamaCare to trigger health insurance cancellation notices

Quote:
New health insurance rules under ObamaCare could lead to a host of personal insurance plans being canceled as early as this fall, a scenario expected to cause consumer confusion.

Under the federal overhaul, those policies that cannot meet new insurance plan standards may be discontinued. This means individuals, and some small businesses, that rely on those plans will have to find new ones.

The goal is to ensure that most insurance policies offer a basic set of coverage, as part of the Obama administration's plan to cover most of the nation's 50 million uninsured.

Yet it also seems to run afoul of one of the president's best-known promises on the law: "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan."

In fact, state insurance commissioners largely are giving insurers the option of canceling existing plans or changing them to comply with new federal requirements. Large employer plans that cover most workers and their families are unlikely to be affected.

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners says it is hearing that many carriers will cancel policies and issue new ones because administratively that is easier than changing existing plans.

About 14 million Americans currently purchase their health policies individually, a number expected to more than double eventually because of the new law's subsidies and one-stop insurance markets. But the transition may not be seamless.

"The impending changes ... have the potential to cause policyholder confusion," said a recent memo from Iowa Insurance Commissioner Nick Gerhart to insurers. Though a Republican-led state, Iowa is helping to carry out major portions of the health care law.

Nationally a considerable number of people could be affected by cancellations. Information from insurers is still dribbling in to state regulators.

Seen as consumer safeguards by the administration, the new requirements limit costs paid by policyholders, and also expand benefits. That includes better preventive care, and also improved prescription coverage in many cases. The most important feature may be protection for your pocketbook if you get really sick: The new plans limit copayments and other out-of-pocket costs to $6,400 a year for individuals.

In Washington state, the changes will affect more than 400,000 people, said Stephanie Marquis, spokeswoman for insurance commissioner Mike Kreidler. Marquis said she expects the premiums for replacement plans to be similar to current ones, but with better coverage.

"Your costs involve more than your premiums," Marquis explained. "It's also what you would have to pay out of pocket if you had actually used your health plan."

Others see an encroaching nanny state.

"You're going to be forcibly upgraded," said Bob Laszewski, a health care industry consultant. "It's like showing up at the airline counter and being told, 'You have no choice, $300 please. You're getting a first-class ticket, why are you complaining?'"

Rollout of the Affordable Care Act is going full speed ahead, despite repeal efforts by congressional Republicans. New insurance markets called exchanges are to open in every state this fall. Middle-class consumers who don't get coverage on the job will be able to pick private health plans, while low-income people will be steered to an expanded version of Medicaid in states that accept it.

Other bumps on the road to the new health care law include potentially unaffordable premiums for smokers unless states act to waive them, a new $63-per-head fee that will hit companies already providing coverage to employees and dependents, and a long-term care insurance program that had to be canceled because of the risk it could go belly up.

The Obama administration did not respond directly to questions about the potential fallout from cancellation notices. Instead, Health and Human Services spokeswoman Joanne Peters released a prepared statement saying: "Beginning in October, individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for insurance in the marketplace, where we are already seeing that increased competition and transparency are leading to a range of options for quality, affordable plans."

Democrats in Congress devised a complicated scheme called "grandfathering" to try to deliver on Obama's pledge. It can shield plans from many of the law's requirements, provided the plans themselves change little.

State officials said it has proven impractical in most cases for insurers to "grandfather" plans sold to individuals
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...ation-notices/

Any thoughts on this? {sarcasm}
__________________
"The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant."

Robespierre
 
Reply With Quote

Advertisement

Advertisement

  #2 (permalink)  
Old 05-30-2013, 07:37 PM
ScriptMan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 02-10-07
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 13,143
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Just one, a repeat. Elections have consequences and I hope you enjoy what you voted for.
__________________
I do not put ads or pop-ups in my posts and I have no control of what shows there. I do not endorse any product displayed in my post.
Scriptman's Playhouse || Ramblings from an old man
 
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 05-30-2013, 08:16 PM
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 08-15-06
Posts: 10,109
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScriptMan View Post
Elections have consequences and I hope you enjoy what you voted for.
I don't vote for a very long time, if you think that a vote make a difference, good for you
__________________
"The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant."

Robespierre
 
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 05-30-2013, 08:48 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: 05-30-13
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 7
iTrader: 0 / 0%
As someone who has lived in the US most of my life and now in Canada. I have to say universal health care isn't that bad. When you think about it the insurance industry isn't really offering anything to you, they aren't giving you stitches when you get a cut, the doctors do that. Why not take out the middle man? I know I feel better just not having to worry about it.

That being said, governments have been known for waste and corruption as well, so there is always two sides.
 
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 05-30-2013, 09:43 PM
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 08-15-06
Posts: 10,109
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by CloakandPigeon View Post
As someone who has lived in the US most of my life and now in Canada. I have to say universal health care isn't that bad. When you think about it the insurance industry isn't really offering anything to you, they aren't giving you stitches when you get a cut, the doctors do that. Why not take out the middle man? I know I feel better just not having to worry about it.

That being said, governments have been known for waste and corruption as well, so there is always two sides.
That's right, universal health care isn't that bad, IF it is well managed. Our French universal health care is pretty good, that's why many people want to immigrate over there. The actual problem is that the EU thing is destroying our heath care system because of their genius austerity plan and the globalization that generate heavy unemployment.

Now in US, we have to see, but it doesn't work the same and in my opinion there are too many constraints, special interests and backdoor deals to be a well functioning universal health care.
__________________
"The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant."

Robespierre
 
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2013, 06:21 AM
G10's Avatar
G10 G10 is offline
Super Moderator
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 05-10-04
Location: UK - Cheshire
Posts: 11,763
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Don't believe too much of the hype and scare-mongering behind the healthcare as I am pretty sure that there is a lot of that going on.

Think about it for a minute. Who stands to lose THE MOST from a healthcare system such as this?

Insurance companies
Pharmaceuticals
Overly-priced doctors

These 3 industries alone make a fortune and it is all courtesy of the public that pay. Pharma's need to make profit so as to pay their bigwigs millions - Insurance companies need to make profits so as to pay their staff and management - Doctors can charge whatever they like as it is paid for by insurances, but ultimately paid for by the public as your premiums go up.

In the UK, we cut out the insurance companies, overly priced doctors (ok, there are a few but it isn't the norm) and our government fights against Pharmaceuticals and tries to keep their prices down, instead of charging whatever they want.

If the Obama healthcare plan comes through and under a similar guise as ours, then the 3 sectors listed above will no longer be able to charge whatever they deem fit and (HOPEFULLY) this saving is passed onto the general public.

If that is how it works, then things shouldn't actually be that bad and the scaremongering is probably being steered by some of the biggest players in the market and who have the most to lose.

Just a thought.
__________________
Click Here for Chester Carpet Cleaners
Sequential Labeling - Sticker and Decal Printers
 
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2013, 07:43 AM
ScriptMan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 02-10-07
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 13,143
iTrader: 4 / 100%
The British and Canadian plans are fine. This obomination is neither of those.

Just don't get cancer after you are 76 as there will be no treatment. http://educate-yourself.org/cn/obama...t06apr12.shtml
__________________
I do not put ads or pop-ups in my posts and I have no control of what shows there. I do not endorse any product displayed in my post.
Scriptman's Playhouse || Ramblings from an old man
 
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2013, 07:46 AM
G10's Avatar
G10 G10 is offline
Super Moderator
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 05-10-04
Location: UK - Cheshire
Posts: 11,763
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Wow, I can't see most people going for that, and imagine trying to pass that in Florida where the darned place is run by the older generations.

I hope that THAT part at least is changed as that is just wrong.
__________________
Click Here for Chester Carpet Cleaners
Sequential Labeling - Sticker and Decal Printers
 
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2013, 09:04 AM
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 08-15-06
Posts: 10,109
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScriptMan View Post
The British and Canadian plans are fine. This obomination is neither of those.

Just don't get cancer after you are 76 as there will be no treatment. http://educate-yourself.org/cn/obama...t06apr12.shtml
That's totally scandalous>>>>>>>

At age 76 when you most need it, you are not eligible for cancer treatment :

What Nancy Pelosi didn't want us to know until after the healthcare bill was passed. Remember she said, "pass it and then read it!!." Here it is!
__________________
"The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant."

Robespierre
 
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2013, 09:12 AM
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 08-15-06
Posts: 10,109
iTrader: 11 / 100%
[YT]0hSWEyFwfUs[/YT]
__________________
"The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant."

Robespierre
 
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2013, 09:18 AM
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 08-15-06
Posts: 10,109
iTrader: 11 / 100%
I remember of this powerful speech.

[YT]PwrzsLYt-uI[/YT]
__________________
"The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant."

Robespierre
 
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2013, 09:35 AM
Zap's Avatar
Zap Zap is offline
Super Moderator
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 01-15-06
Posts: 13,755
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScriptMan View Post
The British and Canadian plans are fine. This obomination is neither of those.

Just don't get cancer after you are 76 as there will be no treatment. http://educate-yourself.org/cn/obama...t06apr12.shtml
This may sound crazy, but that may be a blessing in disguise.
The main stream medical profession doesn't treat cancer so much as they try to kill the cancer AND the patient and cross their fingers, hoping the patient survives.
You aren't going to get real cancer treatment from a medical profession which benefits from sick customers.
This may have the effect of forcing older cancer patients to seek alternatives, some of which are much more effective at eliminating cancer than chemotherapy, radiation and surgery.
Think about it... The American Cancer Association just "celebrated" 100 years of existence.... hardly something to be proud of, considering their mandate.
 
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2013, 10:21 AM
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 08-15-06
Posts: 10,109
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap View Post
The American Cancer Association just "celebrated" 100 years of existence.... hardly something to be proud of, considering their mandate.
That's correct, if you believe in the sites below, you will discover the dark side of this industry. As you can see there are many conflict of interests.


National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society skewered in new book by leading cancer expert

Quote:
A new book by leading cancer expert, Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, skewers the National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society and blames the organizations for America losing the war against cancer.

In the book, "National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest," Epstein argues that the NCI and ACS have spent tens of billions of taxpayer and charity dollars focusing on treatment to the exclusion of prevention, which has allowed cancer rates to skyrocket, with the disease now affecting nearly one in two men and more than one in three women. Furthermore, the author claims that not only do numerous conflicts of interest exist within the NCI and ACS, but the NCI and ACS are also withholding a mass of information on avoidable causes of cancer.

Epstein, who has served as a consultant for the U.S. Senate Committee on Public Works, is an internationally recognized authority on avoidable causes of cancer, particularly carcinogen exposure through conduits such as food, air, water, household products, cosmetics, prescription drugs or industrial carcinogens in the workplace.

Epstein is professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health and chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition. He has published more than 270-peer reviewed articles and 20 books, including the prize-winning 1978 The Politics of Cancer, and has appeared on national media, including NPR, 60 Minutes, Face the Nation, Meet the Press, The McNeil/Lehrer News Hour, Good Morning America and The Today Show. He was a key expert in the banning of hazardous products including DDT, chlordane and aldrin. In his new book, he is now the leading critic of the cancer establishment for its indifference to prevention of the disease, which, for the ACS, he claims, borders on hostility.


Cancer funding skyrockets along with cancer rates, followed by exaggerated claims of progress
The cancer industry has made a series of misleading claims about the advances in the war against cancer over the past three decades, wrote Epstein.

Some of the false claims, according to Epstein, include the industry's 1984 announcement by the NCI that cancer mortality would be halved by 2000, the 1998 NCI and ACS Report Card announcement of a reversal in the almost twenty-year trend of increasing cancer incidence and death, and the 2003 pledge by NCI Director and former ACS president-elect Andrew von Eschenbach to "eliminate suffering and death from cancer by 2015."

The NCI, ACS and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also claimed that "considerable progress has been made in reducing the [number of people with cancer] in the U.S. population" in its 2003 "Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1975-2000."

The claim, however, is not consistent with NCI's own data, Epstein said, which shows the overall number of people with cancer and incidence rates actually increased by 18 percent. The data also shows a dramatic increase in nonsmoking-related cancers, according to Epstein, including a 104 percent increase in liver cancer, an 88 percent increase in prostate cancer, a 54 percent increase in thyroid and testicular cancer, a 29 percent increase in breast cancer and a 14 percent increase in brain cancer. Epstein also notes the overall cancer mortality rates have remained unchanged and have increase by 6 percent for blacks.

It seems that the more we spend on cancer, the more cancer we get, Epstein said, because while the number of people with cancer goes up, so does the NCI budget paid for by tax payers and charity. The NCI budget has increased 25-fold, from $220 million to $4.6 billion, between 1971 and 2000.


Prevention is the key
The fixation on "damage control" instead of prevention is the root cause of the booming cancer rates in the face of billions of dollars aimed at elimination of the disease, according to Epstein.

He claims the NCI priorities are all wrong. The opening statement of the NCI's 2001 Cancer Facts report says that "cancer prevention is a major component and current priority -- to reduce suffering and death from cancer." Meanwhile the report claimed that only 12 percent of the NCI's then $3.75 billion budget was allocated to prevention.

Epstein shows that the actual attention to prevention is probably even less, by citing an analysis of a 1992 NCI budget showing that less than 2.5 percent of its then $2 billion budget was spent on prevention.

Epstein further crucifies NCI stating that prevention tactics defined by NCI only covered the value of avoiding smoking and a bad diet, while wholly ignoring the myriad of environmental and occupational carcinogens.


NCI & ACS withholding a mass of cancer prevention information
The NCI has failed to inform the public of published scientific information on a wide range of avoidable causes of multiple cancers, Epstein said.

According to Epstein, there are three major categories of avoidable causes including:

1. Environmental contaminants in air, water, soil, the workplace, and food;

2. Carcinogenic ingredients in consumer products, particularly pesticides;

3. Carcinogenic prescription drugs and high-dose diagnostic radiation, particularly pediatric CAT scans.

Epstein wrote, "NCI's silence on cancer prevention is in flagrant violation of the 1971 National Cancer Act's specific charge to disseminate cancer information to the public. This silence is in further violation of the 1988 Amendments to the National Cancer Program, which called for an expanded and intensified research program for the prevention of cancer caused by occupational or environmental exposure to carcinogens."

Epstein blamed this NCI failure to inform Congress and regulatory agencies of avoidable carcinogens for encouraging petrochemical and other industries to continue manufacturing products containing carcinogens and encouraging corporate polluters to continue polluting.

NCI's aversion to publicizing avoidable carcinogens has even gone as far as suppression and denial, Epstein said, quoting the following examples:

"In 1983, the Department of Health and Human Services directed NCI to investigate the risks of thyroid cancer from I-131 radioactive fallout following atom bomb tests in Nevada in the late 1950s and early 1960s."

"NCI released its report in 1997, based on data which had been available for over fourteen years, predicting up to 210,000 thyroid cancers from radioactive fallout. These cancers, whose incidence has almost doubled since 1973, could have been readily prevented had the NCI warned the public in time and advised them to take thyroid medication."

"At a September 1999 hearing by the Senate Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Affairs, former Senator John Glenn (D-OH) charged that the NCI investigation was plagued by lack of public participation and openness. Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) charged that NCI's conduct was a travesty."

[Just] as serious is NCI's frank suppression of information. At a 1996 San Francisco Town Hall Meeting on breast cancer, chaired by Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), former NCI director Richard Klausner insisted that "low level diagnostic radiation does not demonstrate an increased risk." However, this was contrary to long-term studies on patients with spinal curvature (scoliosis), which showed that such radiation was responsible for 70% excess breast cancer mortality.

ACS has just as abysmal a track record on prevention as NCI, according to Epstein, and it has been and remains the target of periodic attacks by leading scientists and public interest groups.

One attack in a 1994 press release by the Center for Science in the Public Interest stated, "A group of 24 scientists charged that the ACS was doing little to protect the public from cancer-causing chemicals in the environment and workplace. The scientists urged ACS to revamp its policies and to emphasize prevention in its lobbying and educational campaigns."

The scientists criticized ACS for requiring human evidence of carcinogenic effects before implementing regulation, saying that they had an unrealistically high action threshold. The scientists included: Harvard University Nobel Laureates Matthew Meselson and George Wald; former Occupational Safety and Health Director Eula Bingham; and past president of the Public Health Association, Anthony Robbins.

One major instance of ACS ignoring the science, according to Epstein, was in 1993 when they came out in support of the pesticide industry just before the airing of the PBS Frontline special, "In Our Children's Food." ACS released a memorandum in which it trivialized pesticides as a cause of childhood cancers, and reassured the public that pesticide residues were safe, even for infants.

Possibly most shocking is the failure of the NCI and ACS to inform the public of the increasing incidence of childhood cancers, which has escalated to alarming rates, according to Epstein. The Cancer Prevention Coalition's 2003 report said that childhood cancers have increased by 32 percent between 1975 and 2000 and that cancer is one of the leading causes of death in children, second only to accidents.

Even more shocking, the NCI claims that "the causes of childhood cancer are largely unknown." This is diametrically opposed to substantial scientific evidence, according to Epstein, which shows that children are exposed to numerous avoidable carcinogens, including everything from X-rays, prescription drugs, pesticides and contaminants in beauty products to petrochemical and industrial pollutants, radioactive pollutants in the air and drinking water, and pollutants from hazardous waste sites../..


Conflicts of Interest
But emphasis on treatment looks likely to remain if, as Epstein shows, the ACS and NCI are in bed with those who profit from a treatment focus.

Approximately half of the members of the ACS board are doctors and scientists with close ties to the NCI, Epstein said. Many of the board members and their colleagues obtain funding from both the ACS and NCI, he said. Frank conflicts of interest are evident in many ACS priorities, according to Epstein, including the two major examples of mammography and cancer drugs.
Read the entire article here: http://www.naturalnews.com/032700_Na...l_Epstein.html



The American Cancer Society (ACS), "More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives," Warns Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.

Quote:
Public Relations

1998-2000: PR for the ACS was handled by Shandwick International, whose major clients included R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings.

2000-2002: PR for the ACS was handled by Edelman Public Relations, whose major clients included Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company, and Altria Group, the parent company of Philip Morris, Kraft, and fast food and soft drink beverage companies. All these companies were preemptively dismissed once this information was revealed by the Cancer Prevention Coalition.

Industry Funding

ACS has receive contributions in excess of $100,000 from a wide range of "Excalibur Donors." Some of these companies were responsible for environmental pollution with carcinogens, while others manufactured and sold products containing toxic and carcinogenic ingredients. These include:

•Petrochemical companies (DuPont; BP; and Pennzoil)
•Industrial waste companies (BFI Waste Systems)
•Big Pharma (AstraZeneca; Bristol Myers Squibb; GlaxoSmithKline; Merck & Company; and Novartis)
•Auto companies (Nissan; and General Motors)
•Cosmetic companies (Christian Dior; Avon; Revlon; and Elizabeth Arden )
•Junk food companies (Wendy's International; McDonalds's; Unilever/Best Foods; and Coca-Cola)
•Biotech companies (Amgen; and Genentech)


Nevertheless, as reported in the December 8, 2009 New York Times, the ACS claimed that it "holds itself to the highest standards of transparency and public accountability". Of major concern is the reckless record of the ACS with regard to cancer prevention over the past four decades.

1971 When studies unequivocally proved that diethylstilbestrol (DES) caused vaginal cancers in teenage daughters of women administered the drug during pregnancy, the ACS refused an invitation to testify at Congressional hearings to require the Food and Drug Administration to ban its use as an animal feed additive. It gave no reason for its refusal. Not surprisingly, U.S. meat is banned by other nations worldwide.

1983 The ACS refused to join a coalition of the March of Dimes, American Heart Association, and the American Lung Association to support the Clean Air Act.

1992 The ACS issued a joint statement with the Chlorine Institute in support of the continued global use of organochlorine pesticides, despite clear evidence that some were known to cause breast cancer. In this statement, ACS vice president Clark Heath , M.D., dismissed the evidence of any risk as "preliminary and mostly based on a weak and indirect association."

1993 Just before PBS Frontline aired the special entitled, "In Our Children's Food," the ACS came out in support of the pesticide industry. In a damage-control memorandum sent to some 48 regional divisions and their 3,000 local offices, the ACS trivialized pesticides as a cause of childhood cancer. The ACS also reassured the public that carcinogenic pesticide residues in food are safe, even for babies.

1994 The ACS published a study designed to reassure women on the safety of dark permanent hair dyes, and to trivialize risk of fatal and non-fatal cancers, particularly non-Hodgkin lymphoma, as documented in over six prior reports.

1999 The ACS denied any risks of cancer from drinking genetically-engineered (rBGH) milk. Its position has remained unchanged in spite of strong scientific decade old strong evidence relating rBGH milk to major risks of breast, prostate, and colon cancers.

2000 The Washington-Insider Cancer Letter, revealed that the ACS has close ties to the tobacco industry, notably Shandwick International, representing R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, and subsequently Edelman Public Relations, representing Brown & Williamson Tobacco company.

2002 The ACS initiated the "Look Good...Feel Better" program to teach women cancer patients beauty techniques to help restore their appearance and self-image during chemotherapy and radiation treatment." This program was partnered by the National Cosmetology Association and The Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association Foundation, which failed to disclose the wide range of carcinogenic ingredients in toiletries and cosmetics. These trade organizations also failed to disclose evidence of risks of breast and other cancers following long-term use of black or dark brown permanent and semi-permanent hair dyes. The ACS also failed to inform women of these avoidable risks. The Environmental Cancer Risk Section of the ACS Facts and Figures Report also reassured that carcinogenic exposures from dietary pesticides, "toxic wastes in dump sites" -- are "all at such low levels that risks are negligible."

2007 The ACS indifference to cancer prevention, other than smoking, has remained unchanged despite its $1 billion budget, and despite the escalating incidence of cancer from 1975. This includes post menopausal breast cancer, 23%; childhood cancer, 30%; testis cancer 60%; and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, 82%.

2009 The ACS budget was about $1 billion, of which 17% was allotted to smoking cessation programs, and 28% to support services and salaries. The top three executive salaries ranged from $670,000 to $1.2 million.

2010 The ACS rejected the April 2010 President's Cancer Panel report, "Reducing Environmental Cancer." This had been widely endorsed by leading scientific and public policy experts. Nevertheless, the ACS brazenly claimed that more studies were needed to justify this conclusion.

The ACS track record of frank indifference to cancer prevention, other than that due to faulty lifestyle, extends to cancer organizations in Canada and 90 nations worldwide in support of their "Relay For Life" programs. Team members take turns to walk or run around a track for 12-24 hours. "Through the Relay, these organizations bring together passionate volunteers, to take action in the international movement to end cancer," by stopping smoking and developing healthy lifestyles. Funds raised by these Relays support local organizations' cancer control programs, services, and research". These organizations also contribute part of their funds to ACS "cancer control programs" worldwide.

Clearly the ACS continues to forfeit the decades old international public trust and support.
Read the entire article here: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...117942029.html
__________________
"The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant."

Robespierre
 
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 06-01-2013, 07:47 AM
robjones's Avatar
v7n Mentor
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 09-15-09
Location: Texas
Posts: 9,680
iTrader: 0 / 0%
So far the new IRS-Care has been a study in the law of unintended (I hope) consequences. Beth was at the store the other day and the girl checking her out had just been told she was no longer going to get more than 25 hours a week. [Slightly above that, they'd have to provide her with the "medical benefit" or pay a huge fine per employee.]

It wasn't just her... everyone in their checker role was hit with it. This company isn't the only one... so in jobs of that nature you'll see people having to find two half-time jobs. They'll work in the 50 hour a week range, but without benefits and at more than one job.

[FORWARD! * Hope and Change! * Yes we CAN!]

I've yet to run into anyone that just can't wait to have their healthcare decisions placed in the hands of the caring folks at the IRS.
__________________
-- CAUTION: Not Politically Correct --
 
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 06-02-2013, 09:59 PM
Weebitty's Avatar
v7n Mentor
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 09-18-10
Posts: 1,010
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Top Lawmakers negotiating a way out of Obamacare. What does this tell you?




(NaturalNews) Top lawmakers on Capitol Hill are negotiating a secret deal to exempt themselves from Obamacare. The Obamacare mandate is a total nightmare, of course, and it doubles health insurance rates while providing nothing resembling actual "health" care. It's such a nightmare that the very people who passed it now want to exempt themselves from it.

That would leave it in a state where only the constituents are subjected to its onerous costs and mandates, not the lawmakers who passed it into law. How's that for hypocrisy in America?

According to a report from Politico, "Congressional leaders in both parties are engaged in high-level, confidential talks about exempting lawmakers and Capitol Hill aides from the insurance exchanges they are mandated to join as part of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, sources in both parties said."

Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell has the best reply to all this: "Let's exempt the entire country from Obamacare," he said according to a Breitbart.com report.

I couldn't agree more. If Obamacare is so great, why do lawmakers want nothing to do with it? And if they want to be exempted from it, how can they demand that all their constituents be forced to buy it?

Even Obama doesn't have to buy Obamacare, it turns out. And the very fact that Obamacare forces citizens to purchase a private insurance product or be fined by the IRS is blatantly unconstitutional and an outlandish interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

Obamacare is the biggest government boondoggle our nation has ever seen, and it is doomed to crash and burn. Nobody who understands it wants it, and even those who foolishly were mind-tricked into supporting it have no clue just how badly it's going to hurt them.

Every rational person wants to be exempted from Obamacare. Any lawmakers who continue to defend Obamacare will likely find themselves out of a job when the 2014 elections come around.


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040075_Ob...#ixzz2V7cDNKW7
 
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 06-03-2013, 07:19 PM
robjones's Avatar
v7n Mentor
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 09-15-09
Location: Texas
Posts: 9,680
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Any lawmakers who continue to defend Obamacare will likely find themselves out of a job when the 2014 elections come around.
So there is a silver lining.

That said... I don't think the people that keep electing idiots like Pelosi (who bears a LOT of responsibility) will ever hold their officials to account for it even if they hate it. By then they'll be told it sucks because George Bush, and they'll believe it.
__________________
-- CAUTION: Not Politically Correct --
 
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 07-26-2013, 07:19 AM
deepsand's Avatar
Rest In Peace 1946 2013
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 01-14-10
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 14,946
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScriptMan View Post
The British and Canadian plans are fine. This obomination is neither of those.

Just don't get cancer after you are 76 as there will be no treatment. http://educate-yourself.org/cn/obama...t06apr12.shtml
That claim is one of forty-four false claims made in a chain e-mail.

See http://www.politifact.com/oregon/sta...nt-under-obam/ .

__________________
__________________
While each is entitled to his own opinion, no one is entitled to his own "facts."
 
Reply With Quote
Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[share] Free PLR Articles about Health, Diabetes, Health Insurance acmeadvantage Content 2 08-17-2011 10:34 PM
Godaddy cancellation confirmation coppa Domain Name Forum 4 02-13-2007 05:31 AM


V7N Network
Get exposure! V7N I Love Photography V7N SEO Blog V7N Directory


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:37 PM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright © 2003 - 2014 Escalate Media




Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.