is this true? you're the only person on my list who i thought would be aware of this if it were indeed accurate:
David Hager to head up the Food and Drug
Administration's (FDA) Reproductive Health Drugs
Advisory Committee. The committee has not met for more
than two years, during which time its charter lapsed.
As a result, the Bush Administration is tasked with
filling all eleven positions with new members. This
position does not require Congressional approval.
The FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee
makes crucial decisions on matters relating to drugs
used in the practice of obstetrics, gynecology and
related specialties,including hormone therapy,
contraception, treatment for infertility, and
medical alternatives to surgical procedures for
sterilization and pregnancy termination.
Dr. Hager is the author of "As Jesus Cared for
Women:Restoring Women Then and Now." The book blends
biblical accounts of Christ healing Women with case
studies from Hager's practice. His views of
reproductive health care are far outside the
mainstream for reproductive technology. Dr. Hager is a
practicing OB/GYN who describes himself as "pro-life"
and refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried
In the book Dr. Hager wrote with his wife, entitled
"Stress and the Woman's Body," he suggests that women
who suffer from premenstrual syndrome
should seek help from reading the bible and praying.
As an editor and contributing author of "The
Reproduction Revolution: A Christian Appraisal of
Sexuality Reproductive Technologies and the Family,"
Dr. Hager appears to have endorsed the medically
inaccurate assertion that the common birth control
pill is an abortifacient.
2004-11-18 05:53 pm (UTC)
Re: speaking of battery acid bush douche...
It appears to be true, as there are other news stories related to it out there. I had read about this but just after the election and simply couldn't make myself post about it.
The suckitude just keeps on rolling in.
2004-11-18 06:12 pm (UTC)
Re: speaking of battery acid bush douche...
While it is true, it's also old news, and not quite as dire as it sounds.http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/hager.asp
He sits on the committee, but doesn't head it. It does make me feel better that he claims that while he's pro-life he will still review medications for the commitee objectively, and we haven't seen anything that contradicts this.
I don't think we should auomatically assume a personally pro-life person would ban a safe drug any more than we should assume a pro-choice person would approve an unsafe one.
The Bush administration is eyeing an overhaul of the tax code that would drastically cut, if not eliminate, taxes on savings and investment....
Given that social security will run out in a few years, I don't see how encouraging people to save and invest for the future is a bad thing. I put $150 a month into the state's teacher retirement plan, and it's nice because (as I understand it) it's sort of a tax shelter. I'll get taxed when I withdraw it, but not while it's accumulating.
The other stuff looks iffy, but offering the kinds of breaks that encourage people to act, in regards to fiscal planning, like the upper echelon doesn't sound awfully bad.
that is, if one has anything to save and/or invest after paying bills, buying food, etc.
Then the question, if one has something to invest, what is one investing in? Considering the fact that a lot of "investment companies" and "retirement plans" just use the money to play Russian Roulette, I mean, the stock market...hell, I can go to Harrah's myself.
Meanwhile, CEO's get multimillion dollar severance packages on those rare occasions when they get fired. Listening to Eisner vs. Ovitz on the radio on the way to work leaves a bad taste in one's mouth. Ovitz the multimillionaire whining that the multibillion dollar company he used to work for didn't give him enough money after they fired him, and he needs a few million more.
The older I get the angrier I get and the more interesting Socialism looks.
Great story on NPR the other day on how Britain screwed up their "retirement fund" for gov't employees by - guess what - playing the stock market with it. Of course one cannot expect our Gubmint to learn anything by observing, just like the Nu Amurka seems unable to learn anything from History. Guess they're too busy "creating reality."
Bitter? Me? Nah. Last week I was bitter. This week I am angry.
"As a teacher, you clearly do not work for one of the vast number of large corporations who are already trying to find ways to stop paying for employee health insurance and sending out notices at least quarterly about the rising costs and cutting of coverages. Paying for it by removing tax incentives to pay medical insurance on employees is a guarentee that we will lose medical coverage in most major corporations and eventually government entities, too. While their goal might be noble, read the fine print about how they're paying for it. That's the really really dangerous part, when all the kids in your class can't pay for getting their broken arm fixed because dad no longer has medical coverage for the family through his job and his pay didn't go up to compensate for the difference in cost of living for him.
People who don't have any money left at the end of the month will not have any money left to invest. People's whose taxes increase because their money is being double-taxed will not have any left to invest. People whose insurance costs go through the roof because there is no employer incentive to pay and small businesses have to pass those costs to the employee - if not drop health care altogether - will not have any left to invest.
It is naive thinking to suppose that increased return on investment will somehow create original capital for the working schmo who isn't investing now.
In a way, while it would suck ass for a while, I hope he gets away with it. Might finally be enough to get some rabid republicans to rethink their position on the republican party when it hits them square in the face and pocket book and they can't afford treatment for anything that's wrong with them.
I don't know that they'll connect it with the government when the company they work for takes away their health insurance.
Seriously--it's a fairly small percentage of people who can see patterns, and an even smaller number who pays attention to daily political news. That's why there's so much gotten away with. (Oooooohhhhhhh, that was an oddly constructed sentence--'gotten away with'--anyone want to offer suggestions to better it?)
Let me rephrase. It _might_ be enough to get the human interest stories that will increase tv ratings enough to prompt major media to start covering some of the mess at home instead of just the mess of the middle east. And it _might_ get sensationalist enough stories of children dying at the hand of the government to cause some rethinking or at least demands that moron number one back off that particular idiocy. _Might_. But yeah, people suck.
That's why there's so much gotten away with.
You have no defined noun, leaving the sentence in an amorphous state. Try, "That's why goverment gets away with so much."
Between this and the Ferrett's post on the Refusal Clause.. I'd love to say something about how all you Bushites are getting what you voted for.. except, the 49% who DIDN'T vote for him get dragged in the muck too.
Very soon, if this passes, it's going to suck a lot to be running a small business. Insurance is EXPENSIVE. I bet there's going to be a lot more uninsured citizens... if it passes.
Care to take odds on it passing?
If I'm not mistaken, there is a legal way to stop paying social secruity, isn't there? I recall reading about it and anyone can do it, but it's just a long process and most people don't. I'll have to look it up again...
The only ways I know of are:
1. Be part of a state government system that has an alternative to Social Security (Public Employee Retirement System)
2. Be Amish
(To the tune of the "Mickey Mouse Club" song):
It's no surprise. None at all. The Republican myth has consistently been "make rich people richer and they'll invest in businesses and stimulate the economy."
At least they're consistent. God help us.
Some interesting ideas when you read the whole article. I will be curious to see just what actually comes out of the panel that gets put together to work on this.
I do not like the sound of eliminating the deduction of state and local taxes - I dont like the idea of having to 'pay' for tax cuts. Tax cuts pay for themselves.
Cutting taxes on investment and savings is a good thing though.
I also like statements like this: " The contours of a tax plan already are taking shape, though: lower individual and corporate tax rates and steps to broaden the base of taxation and promote growth by cutting taxes on investment."
I am willing to wait and see how it all pans out rather than complain about ideas that are being kicked around before the panel has even been formed.
Messing with the health insurance deduction is A Bad Thing. If his plan is to lower taxes on businesses, then there is no excuse for targeting a tax-lowering measure that aids workers.
In the long run, I think we'd be better off if health insurance was de-linked from employment altogether, but that's just me. I will be honest, though, and say that I'm not sure exactly what kind of system we'd replace it with (because most of the countries with national health care systems have the same kind of problems we do - spending out of control, etc, or exceptionally long waiting lists for people who can't afford to pay the $$ to queue jump.)
I've known many people who stayed at jobs at which they were miserable, just because they couldn't afford to leave because their health insurance was tied to their job; also, by boyfriend has to pay an exorbitant amount of premiums every month because he's self employed.
Don't forget, he's also proposing a tax credit of $1000 for singles, or $3000 for families, for health insurance premium payments. If companies discontinue offering health insurance, they OUGHT to make it up in compensation, because benefits *are* considered a part of the overall compensation package. Whether they do or not, would remain to be seen, but if they do, and individual policies are somehow made more affordable, that $1000/$3000 credit would take a significant bite out of the cost.
So, yes. I think we may be moving toward a system in which health insurance isn't necessarily tied to employment; there were hints of this in Kerry's proposed program, too - and I can't necessarily say I think this is a bad thing.
i only have 1 basic point to make. there's a civil way about spreading information. one of those ways is to not make jerky generalizations like "keeping voting republican! because they care!" all you have to do is state the info. trust me, its more effective that way. you gain more respect. and plus, i dont really trust info until its proven to me. and yeh, i've already read plenty about the bush tax plan, and there are tons of positives that are being ignored. sorry if i'm not "mtv cool" enough to have a liberal bias, but hey, thats just me.
You're right. I was just so damned angry to see damaging measures aimed directly at the working people of America after Bush stood at the debate podium and castigated Kerry for his economic programs as burdensome on this group of people. I have tried to stay civil in the debate, but this just tore me up.
I understand why you're angry. But there's a part of me that says: "You're still capable of being surprised by that man's perfidy and hypocrisy? Damn but you have more faith in people then me."
What positives would those be?