RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Immigration Is Our Wake-Up Call Print
Sunday, 19 February 2017 13:16

Excerpt: "Any effort to remove the nation's undocumented immigrants by force would be cruel, prohibitively expensive and devastating to this country's centuries-long reputation as a haven for those fleeing persecution or poverty in their native lands. But in just a month, such an action has begun to seem frighteningly possible."

Immigration demonstration in Arizona. (photo: Timothy A. Clary/AFP/Getty Images)
Immigration demonstration in Arizona. (photo: Timothy A. Clary/AFP/Getty Images)


Immigration Is Our Wake-Up Call

By Editorial | Detroit Free Press

19 February 17

 

here aren't many absolutes in the immigration debate. But here's one: the tacit understanding that any policy to deal with the challenge of an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants needs to be fair, transparent and humane.

Already the fledgling Trump administration has shown its willingness to abandon those principles in its zeal to deal with an imaginary immigration emergency. Look at the administration’s now court-suspended travel ban for immigrants from seven majority-Muslim nations, and refugees from war-torn Syria. Or at ICE raids, stepped up across the country. Alone, each is problematic. Taken in concert, it all seems like prelude — the stage set for a more comprehensive deportation scheme Trump promised during the campaign.

It is in this context that we must consider an 11-page U.S. Department of Homeland Security memo, reported by the Associated Press last week, sketching out a plan to use 100,000 U.S. National Guard troops to forcibly remove unauthorized immigrants.

Any effort to remove the nation's undocumented immigrants by force would be cruel, prohibitively expensive and devastating to this country's centuries-long reputation as a haven for those fleeing persecution or poverty in their native lands. But in just a month, such an action has begun to seem frighteningly possible.

Think about it. The very idea of deploying the military, or some other force, to round up a vulnerable population conjures the darkest reflections of despotic oppression around the globe. This was a hallmark of German Nazism, for instance, and cascaded down through the horrors of Slobodan Milosevic in 1990s Yugoslavia. Dragnets designed to "cleanse" a nation of "unwanted" populations all share the same moral turpitude in history's eyes.

All that is required to bring such a nightmarish spectacle to life is an atmosphere of public hysteria, a besieged chief executive desperate to distract his constituents from serious allegations of illegal conduct, and a legislature and judiciary too craven to challenge his assertion of executive authority.

The widespread anxiety over such a perfect storm of circumstances was exacerbated late last week by the AP's report of that memo, detailing plans for an unprecedented militarization of immigration enforcement in four states that border Mexico and seven others as far north as Nevada, Utah and Oregon.

The White House denounced AP's report as fake news. The memo from Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly speaks for itself, and unidentified U.S. Department of Homeland Security staffers told the AP it had been under active consideration as recently as Feb. 10.

A DHS spokeswoman told USA TODAY that the memo was an early draft and the plan was not under serious consideration.

That the administration is now eager to distance itself from the proposal is encouraging. But the fact that it was floated in the department that has primary responsibility for immigration enforcement is deeply disturbing.

This is not how an America respectful of its own history and its reputation in the civilized world responds to the challenge of illegal immigration. A self-confident democracy does not exhibit its strength by deploying military force against a vulnerable immigrant population, the vast majority of whose members pose no threat to public safety and make economic contributions more significant than any government benefits they derive.

Even if the presence of unauthorized workers posed a more serious threat to the nation's sovereignty or security, the solution proposed by Kelly would be a shameful departure from America's tradition of individualized justice and fair play.

It is the starkest of ironies that word of this proposal leaked just a few days before the 75th anniversary of the American government's decision to intern Japanese Americans — round them up, and send them off to camps over fears about their loyalty during World War II — in one of this nation's most shameful historical acts.

It would seem trite to ask, even rhetorically, whether the Trump administration or its supporters have learned the profound moral lessons of that mistake. The answer, made plain already in just the first few weeks of this disgraceful presidency, is too horrifying to truly contemplate. Trump — and his loudest, braying acolytes — would return this nation to its barbarous past in a false pursuit of security, which has been dressed up to hide the bigotry and fearmongering that are truly driving the decision-making.

Ours is a nation that endeavors to dispense justice humanely, taking into account the impact on innocent children and family members, including those born in the U.S., who may be economically and even physically dependent on those targeted for removal. At our best, we conduct hearings and leaven the fair and impartial enforcement of our laws with a modicum of mercy. We do not deploy soldiers to roust parents from their beds at gunpoint and whisk them onto planes or trucks bound for the border while their children slumber unawares.

We do not mimic the nations we lecture, and sometimes punish, for behaving as oppressors to the vulnerable populations within their boundaries.

Even if it were floated in an atmosphere of calm but candid discussion about the very real challenges posed by undocumented immigration, Kelly's proposal would be offensive. But the Trump White House has cultivated no such atmosphere.

Instead, there is every reason to suspect that Kelly's proposal is part of a larger, profoundly cynical campaign to distract voters from the grave and still unanswered questions that have arisen about the new president's intentions, his mental and administrative competence, and even his fealty to the U.S. Constitution.

Until those questions are answered by an independent prosecutor and/or bipartisan investigative body that enjoys the public's trust, every White House initiative must be regarded as a possible diversion attempt. The targeting of unpopular scapegoats is a favorite strategy of desperate despots, and President Trump is acting more and more like an autocrat under siege.

The sooner he addresses the legitimate questions about his relations with Russia forthrightly, the sooner his administration will be free to address America's immigration problems in an atmosphere cleansed of paranoiac suspicion and bigotry.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Trump Invents Sweden Terror Attack, Lies About Immigrant Crime Print
Sunday, 19 February 2017 11:55

Cole writes: "Trump made up another alleged terrorist attack at his rally on Saturday, this one about a figment of his imagination that did not actually take place in Sweden on Friday night."

Donald Trump's Florida rally. (photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Donald Trump's Florida rally. (photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)


Trump Invents Sweden Terror Attack, Lies About Immigrant Crime

By Juan Cole, Informed Comment

19 February 17

 

rump made up another alleged terrorist attack at his rally on Saturday, this one about a figment of his imagination that did not actually take place in Sweden on Friday night.

It is clear that Trump and his white supremacist mafia (Steve Bannon et al.) despise Sweden and Germany for having taken in more than their fair of refugees since the crisis began. Trump and his henchmen see refugees and immigrants as inherently dangerous.

This allegation is not true. In fact, in some places immigrants appear actually to cause the local crime rate to fall! A scientific study of crime and immigration in Canada found that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than the native-born. Haimin Zhang of the University of British Columbia writes,

not only do immigrants themselves commit less crimes, they can reduce the crime rates in the long run through channels such as changing the neighbourhood characteristics or impacting the behaviour of natives.”

The same effect can be seen in the United States. Walter Ewing and his colleagues point out,

“Between 1990 and 2013, the foreign-born share of the U.S. population grew from 7.9 percent to 13.1 percent and the number of unauthorized immigrants more than tripled from 3.5 million to 11.2 million. During the same period, FBI data indicate that the violent crime rate declined 48 percent -—which included falling rates of aggravated assault, robbery, rape, and murder. Likewise, the property crime rate fell 41 percent, including declining rates of motor vehicle theft, larceny/robbery, and burglary. According to an original analysis of data from the 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) conducted by the authors of this report, roughly 1.6 percent of immigrant males age 18-39 are incarcerated, compared to 3.3 percent of the native-born. This disparity in incarceration rates has existed for decades.”

In countries where this effect cannot be seen, i.e. where immigrants do not reduce the crime rate, it is because of the class of immigrants admitted. The US mostly lets in fairly high-skilled immigrants. As for the undocumented, who tend to do menial labor, they are careful not to commit crimes on the whole because they don’t want to be sent back. A tiny number of gang members who are confident that their gang will bring them back if they are deported casts a shadow over millions of people. But only because we let the far right dominate this discourse.

Ironically, it is precisely people like Donald Trump’s grandfather Frederick who are responsible for some minor problems in Sweden. Frederick at least allowed prostitution in his gold rush hotels, and indeed the prospect of a crackdown on that trade along with other law enforcement actions caused him to try to go back to Germany (the German government did not want him).

Moreover, it should be noted that a lot of the refugees taken in by Sweden are from Afghanistan and Iraq. That is, they are fleeing conditions created by the United States in their countries. So actually it should have been the US who took them, not Sweden. The United States is responsible for the displacement of 4 million Iraqis out of 32 million, or over 12% of the population. The US did not displace all of them directly, but its invasion, overthrow of the government, and abolition of the army did lead to these millions losing their homes and being forced to try to find some other place to live. This would be like 40 million Americans being made homeless, a little more than the combined population of Texas and Georgia.

As for Europe, since all human populations have a certain crime rate, if you let in more people, you are letting in more crime. But the real question is relative. Compared to how many people you let in, is the crime rate out of the ordinary? We have seen that in Canada and the US, it is lower than ordinary.

In Germany, Heather Horn of The Atlantic points out, “Although the number of refugees in the country increased by 440 percent between 2014 and 2015, the number of crimes committed by refugees only increased by 79 percent. (The number of crimes against refugees increased as well.)” Sexual offenses are less than 1%, despite the wild allegations of the far right.

As for refugee rape in Sweden, Doug Saunders at the Globe and Mail quoted an actual academic who actually studies these things: ““What we’re hearing is a very, very extreme exaggeration based on a few isolated events, and the claim that it’s related to immigration is more or less not true at all,” says Jerzy Sarnecki, a criminologist at Stockholm University who has devoted his career to the study of criminality, ethnicity and age.”

Swedes are extremely feminist and define all sorts of things as rape (taking off a condom during sex without informing one’s partner e.g.) as rape that would not be considered rape in other countries.

To any extent that refugees in Sweden commit petty crime, they do so at the same rate as other people of their social class. A study cited by Saunders shows that 75% of the difference between native and foreign-born crime rates is accounted for by where people live and how much they make. He adds, “Among the Swedish-born children of immigrants, the crime rate falls in half (and is almost entirely concentrated in lesser property crimes) and is 100-per-cent attributable to class – they are no more likely to commit crimes, including rape, than ethnic Swedes of the same family income.” Saunders also points out that where rapes do occur, the victims also tend to be immigrants, so the lurid picture painted by Neonazis and Islamophobes of white women assaulted by brown men is a fiction.

In fact, a widely reported, premeditated gang rape in Germany attributed to Muslim immigrants never happened. I wrote Friday, ” There was, for instance, the fake news about the alleged Muslim immigrant mass rapes in Cologne a little over a year ago. Breitbart beat the drums for it, but the the story was not true. Or then there was the phony story about Muslims burning a church in Germany, also played up by Breitbart and also not true. Trump is deeply influenced by Bannon’s insane conspiracy theories; if you want to know why he keeps saying false and/or unbalanced things, consider that he gets his news from alt-Neonazi toilet paper like Breitbart.”


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Welcome to Nuremberg. Florida. Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=35918"><span class="small">Michael Moore, Michael Moore's Facebook Page</span></a>   
Sunday, 19 February 2017 11:27

Moore writes: "No president has ever done this. Today's rally is sponsored by and paid for by 'Re-Elect Trump 2020.' I'm serious. This is happening."

Michael Moore. (photo: unknown)
Michael Moore. (photo: unknown)


Welcome to Nuremberg. Florida.

By Michael Moore, Michael Moore's Facebook Page

19 February 17

 

Just so you understand: The rally Trump is holding right now near Orlando, Florida is, as his aides are calling it, "an official Re-Elect Trump 2020 campaign rally." On Inauguration Day, Trump filed the legal papers with the Federal Election Commission to establish the "Re-Elect President Trump 2020 Committee." No president has ever done this. Today's rally is sponsored by and paid for by "Re-Elect Trump 2020". I'm serious. This is happening. Trump doesn't intend to leave until January, 2025. He'll be close to 80 then. His filing, this rally, is his way of saying, "PRESIDENT FOR LIFE." HIS life. Not exactly "a Reich that lasts 1,000 years," but when you're a massive narcissist, you don't really give a shit about a thousand years from now -- just the years when you're going to be around to do the damage. Over 50,000 rabid Trump faithful have shown up to this massive rally now underway. This airport hangar can't hold them all. My crew, unbeknownst to the Trump operatives, is inside. Welcome to Nuremberg. Florida.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Trump's Behavior Is Beginning to Remind Me of the Final Days of Nixon's Tenure Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=40776"><span class="small">Dan Rather, Dan Rather's Facebook Page</span></a>   
Sunday, 19 February 2017 09:21

Rather writes: "President Donald Trump's press conference Thursday is one of the most unusual and unsettling from a president perhaps in our nation's history."

Dan Rather. (photo: USA Today)
Dan Rather. (photo: USA Today)


Trump's Behavior Is Beginning to Remind Me of the Final Days of Nixon's Tenure

By Dan Rather, Dan Rather's Facebook Page

19 February 17

 

resident Donald Trump's press conference Thursday is one of the most unusual and unsettling from a president perhaps in our nation's history. It reminds me a bit of the final days of President Nixon's tenure, when the world was collapsing about him. But Mr. Trump is not yet a month into his presidency.

As many of my fellow journalists have noted, the scorn for Mr. Trump's ramblings and incoherence, nevermind the matter of the topics he did address, has been widespread. But it would be a grave mistake to think it is universal. This President remains deeply popular with his base. While his overall numbers are sinking well below any historical comparisons, his numbers amongst Republicans seem to be floating on helium.

This is one of the great urgencies of the moment - a deep bifurcation in how the country sees the President and the Republican agenda as a whole. The two are linked but only weakly. The effects of this can be seen by the tepid criticism at best from the GOP leadership and rank and file on Capitol Hill. Even as many in the press and on the political left - and even maybe independents - see an Administration teetering on collapse. Republican voters see it very differently. at least for now. The votes on controversial cabinet posts continue with few speed bumps. The latest vote on Scott Pruitt, a climate change denier whose potentially explosive emails were ordered by a judge to be released, is a perfect case in point as this article in from The New Yorker makes clear.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Big Pharma Really, Really Doesn't Want You to Know the True Value of Its Drugs Print
Sunday, 19 February 2017 09:16

Lazarus writes: "The latest poster child for cruel and inhuman drug pricing is Kaleo Pharma, maker of an emergency injector for a med called naloxone, which is used as an antidote to save the lives of people who overdose on painkillers."

Kaleo Pharma's Evzio naloxone injector has climbed 600% in price over the last few years, lawmakers say. The company says that's not really a problem. (photo: Bob Brown/Richmond Times-Dispatch)
Kaleo Pharma's Evzio naloxone injector has climbed 600% in price over the last few years, lawmakers say. The company says that's not really a problem. (photo: Bob Brown/Richmond Times-Dispatch)


Big Pharma Really, Really Doesn't Want You to Know the True Value of Its Drugs

By David Lazarus, Los Angeles Times

19 February 17

 

he latest poster child for cruel and inhuman drug pricing is Kaleo Pharma, maker of an emergency injector for a med called naloxone, which is used as an antidote to save the lives of people who overdose on painkillers.

As America’s opioid crisis reaches epidemic levels, Kaleo has jacked up the list price for its Evzio auto-injector by 600%, soaring from $690 several years ago to $4,500, according to lawmakers.

 Nearly three dozen senators wrote to Kaleo’s chief executive, Spencer Williamson, last week to say they were “deeply concerned” about the price hike and to note that it “threatens to price out families and communities that depend on naloxone to save lives."

But that’s not what caught my attention.

Rather, I was struck by the company’s answers to me about lawmakers’ concerns.

In response to emailed questions, Williamson said that although the list price for Evzio is more than $4,000, that’s “not a true net price to anyone … due to numerous discounts and rebates that are negotiated in the supply chain that make up our healthcare system.”

In other words, even though the price tag for his company’s easy-to-use, lifesaving device is ridiculous and indefensible, there’s no need to worry because backroom deals by assorted players in the healthcare food chain make that price tag meaningless.

And that, in a nutshell, illustrates the lunacy of the U.S. healthcare system.

“Our system of healthcare financing is the most cynical such system in the world,” said Uwe Reinhardt, a healthcare economist at Princeton University. “It starts with the opaque hospital bill and ends with the opaque system of product pricing and the disgrace of surprise medical bills. Americans can rightly be ashamed of these arrangements.”

There’s a good reason why U.S. drug prices are so much higher than what people pay in other countries. Most other developed nations place limits on how much drug companies can charge to prevent them from taking advantage of the sick. A fair profit is fine. Price gouging is not.

In this country, drugmakers charge whatever they can get away with, which perhaps would be tolerable if we had an efficient, transparent marketplace in which patients benefit from robust competition and an ability to shop around for the best price. But we don’t.

Often, we have a single provider of a drug or medical technology that, thanks to its monopoly power, is in a position to profit handsomely from people’s misfortune. Their message to this captive market is based on an ugly economic principle: Pay up or suffer.

Or in some cases, pay up or die.

In his statement to me, Williamson said most people won’t pay anywhere close to $4,000 for Evzio. Even with a high-deductible insurance plan, he said, a patient won’t pay more than $360 and might end up paying nothing thanks to the company’s “enhanced patient access program.”

But that isn’t price transparency. That’s a magician’s trick known as misdirection. Williamson is saying, “Don’t look at the crazy list price in this hand, look instead at the sweet discounts in this hand.”

The upshot is that his company’s prices remain indecipherable.

“It's awfully hard to see much value in this opaque approach to real drug pricing,” said Nicholson Price, an assistant law professor at the University of Michigan who focuses on healthcare and regulation. “Especially if we want to have patients be more cost-conscious to keep costs down, opaque pricing does us no favors.”

What it does do, he added, is “create lots of opportunities for gaming and middlemen.”

Kaleo’s gamesmanship isn’t new. As my colleague Melody Peterson noted in a story about naloxone pricing last year: “Not long ago, a dose of the decades-old generic drug cost little more than a dollar. Now the lowest available price is nearly 20 times that.”

The reason Williamson can so confidently declare that the list price for Evzio isn’t worth fretting about is because he knows it’s completely arbitrary. Drug companies and hospitals routinely open their negotiations with insurers with a made-up price and then settle for a much lower amount, which is what the patient ultimately sees.

Unfortunately, that system, such as it is, no longer works. An increasing number of Americans face the full cost of healthcare as a result of high-deductible insurance plans.

Kaleo might pat itself on the back for its patient subsidies and protections, but the reality is that somebody has to pay the company’s bills, either the patient or the insurer. Sky-high list prices for insurers raise premiums for everyone.

What’s to be done? At the moment, the only effective tool is public shaming. Case in point: Mylan, which introduced a cheaper (but still overpriced) version of its EpiPen after facing public scorn over a 500% price increase for its epinephrine injector.

Otherwise, we can follow the example of our economic peers and impose price caps for prescription drugs (it’ll never happen) or pass legislation that introduces some sunlight to negotiations between pharmaceutical companies and insurers (ditto).

My sense is that the only politically feasible solution is to empower Medicare to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies — right now that’s forbidden by law; thanks, Republicans — and for details of that process to be available to anyone who wants to see them, as is the case for most public spending.

The drug industry wouldn’t like that, of course. It prefers operating in the shadows and keeping consumers in the dark.

Matt Schmitt, an assistant professor of strategy at UCLA’s Anderson School of Management, said it’s easy for Kaleo’s Williamson to shrug off a 600% markup as a fantasy number. But “the true price increase, while perhaps not 600%, may still be very substantial,” Schmitt said.

That’s what Kaleo and all other drug companies want to keep hidden — the deals cut behind closed doors. And they’ll do this by getting people to focus on the magic wand in their hand, rather than the cards up their sleeve.

This week, Kaleo reintroduced Auvi-Q, a competitor to the EpiPen. Auvi-Q had been recalled from the market in 2015 after reports of device malfunctions.

Kaleo’s list price for the injector is $4,500. Before the recall, it sold for $500.

But don’t worry, the company says. That list price is meaningless.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 Next > End >>

Page 1726 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN