Oct 4, 2023

So Much Losing




Donald Trump's Properties Will Likely Be Auctioned Off, Attorney Says

Donald Trump's properties will likely be liquidated and sold off at auction after a judge found he had committed fraud, New York's former assistant attorney general has said.

Tristan Snell was speaking after a court found that the former president had massively inflated the value of some of his properties and ordered that some Trump companies involved be stripped of their corporate licenses. It's one part of Trump's ongoing civil fraud trial.

"The worst outcome that could have come from this case has already been handed down, and that is for the corporate licenses to be canceled," Snell told MSNBC. "The properties are likely going to be liquidated. The properties are probably going to be sold at auction. That's probably what is going to happen. We don't know that for sure, but that is probably where this is headed. So [Trump] is already really, really in trouble."

Snell said that it was important to remember that Trump has already lost, despite his protestations of innocence.

Judge Arthur Engoron ruled last week that Trump, his adult sons, The Trump Organization and other businesses associated with the former president had overvalued several of his properties—including his Mar-a-Lago residence in Palm Beach, Florida, and his triplex in Manhattan at the Trump Tower—for financial gain.

Trump and his sons responded with incredulity to Engoron's summary judgment last week, which ordered that some of their business licenses in New York be rescinded and that the companies that own the properties named in the judgment be handed over to independent receivers.

Trump's lawyers have vowed to appeal the decision and took issue with the figures used to determine that the properties had been overvalued during the first day of the trial. The former president himself appeared in court on Monday in order to, as he put it, "fight for my name and reputation."

The ongoing trial will now determine the outstanding allegations against Donald Trump and his named associates.

Judge Engoron is presiding over the trial in the $250 million civil lawsuit brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James against Trump, his adult sons and The Trump Organization. Trump is accused of inflating his net worth by billions of dollars to secure favorable loan terms from banks. He has denied any wrongdoing.

Newsweek reached out to Christopher Kise, a lawyer for the former president, via email for comment.

The former president's daughter, Ivanka Trump was listed as a witness in James's prosecution case in court filings prior to the trial, having previously been named as a co-defendant.

A court order filed on June 27 this year dismissed Ivanka Trump as a co-defendant as the claims against her were "accrued prior to...February 2016" and that she had not been party to a 2021 tolling agreement between the New York attorney general and the Trump Organization extending the period of statutory limitations on the claims.

The move to becoming a witness in the case against Donald Trump "usually indicates some form of cooperation," an attorney previously told Newsweek, leaving open the potential that Ivanka Trump could give potentially damaging evidence against her family at the trial.

Newsweek reached out to a lawyer for Ivanka Trump via email for comment.

Today's Tweext


Watch out - Peewee seems a bit pissed

Today's Pix

click
⬇︎


































Go Brandon


If you want somebody to make a stand against price gouging, then Brandon's your guy.

This is, of course, a win. But we can prob'ly expect more wrangling, which may have something to do with the timing of implementation (2026). Maybe they built in a time allowance to get it all sorted out thru the courts (?)


US judge refuses to block Medicare from negotiating drug prices

Sept 29 (Reuters) - The U.S. government's Medicare health insurance program can begin negotiating prices for some prescription drugs this fall under a new program, a federal judge ruled on Friday, vindicating one of President Joe Biden's signature initiatives.

The order by U.S. District Judge Michael Newman in Dayton, Ohio, comes in a lawsuit brought against the Biden administration by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The nation's largest business lobbying group argues that the program violates the U.S. Constitution by allowing the government to force drugmakers to accept unfairly low prices, and would stifle innovation.

Newman in a preliminary order rejected that argument, finding that drugmakers were unlikely to prevail in the case. He said they were not being forced to give anything up because participating in Medicare is "completely voluntary."

"As there is no constitutional right (or requirement) to engage in business with the government, the consequences of that participation cannot be considered a constitutional violation," he wrote.

The Chamber of Commerce and the U.S. Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The Biden administration "will continue fighting to lower health care costs for American families, no matter how many challenges Republicans and Big Pharma put in our way," White House spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement.

Although Newman's ruling allows the price negotiation program to begin as scheduled on Oct. 1, the judge allowed the lawsuit to continue, denying a motion by the government to dismiss it altogether.

The ruling is the first to come from multiple lawsuits by drug companies and industry groups challenging the program. Newman was appointed to the bench by Republican former President Donald Trump.

The drug price negotiation program is part of the Inflation Reduction Act, which Biden, a Democrat, signed last year.

Americans pay more for prescription medicines than people in any other country. The program aims to save $25 billion annually by 2031 by requiring drugmakers to negotiate the prices of selected expensive drugs with the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service (CMS), which oversees Medicare.

Medicare mostly serves the millions of Americans aged 65 and older.

Drugmakers whose medicines were selected for the first round of pricing negotiations must agree to begin talks on Oct. 1. Those who do not negotiate either would have to pay steep penalties, up to 19 times a drug's sales, or stop participating in the government healthcare programs, which account for a significant portion of the companies' U.S. sales.

CMS announced the first 10 drugs to be negotiated on Aug. 29:

Eliquis          
Bristol Myers Squibb

Jardiance
Boehringer Ingelheim

Xarelto
Janssen Pharms

Januvia
Merck Sharp Dohme

Farxiga
AstraZeneca AB

Entresto
Novartis Pharms Corp

Enbrel
Immunex Corporation

Imbruvica
Pharmacyclics LLC

Stelara
Janssen Biotech, Inc.

Fiasp, Fiasp FlexTouch, Fiasp PenFill, NovoLog, NovoLog FlexPen, NovoLog PenFill
Novo Nordisk Inc.

The negotiated prices would take effect in 2026 with a minimum discount from the list price at 25%.

The Chamber of Commerce's lawsuit is one of several similar cases challenging the program. The others were filed by individual drugmakers and by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the leading drug industry lobbying group.

Companies that have sued over the program include J&J, Merck, Bristol Myers and Boehringer Ingelheim, which make drugs on CMS's negotiation list.

The Chamber of Commerce was the only plaintiff to ask for a preliminary injunction halting the price negotiations while its lawsuit proceeds. The other lawsuits are moving at a slower pace, and judges may not rule on them until next year.

The Biden administration has repeatedly said there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits drug price negotiations. Many other countries already negotiate drug prices.

Face-Eating Leopards

... will always eat our face.

Here's Rick Wilson with a few predictions. Let's make a note and see if any of this actually happens.


Cracking It Open


(This is a repeat/update of a post from 09-30)

This Hall character is kinda the poster boy for Mike Flynn's project to have goons going around seizing voting machines.

There are so many aspects to this enormous attempt to kill American democracy, it's a wonderment any law enforcement outfit has been able to do anything.

The unraveling has begun, and it's picking up a little steam, but there is a very long stretch of very treacherous road still ahead of us.


God Who?


Sow honesty
Reap trust

Opinion
America doesn’t need more God. It needs more atheists.

I like to say that my kids made me an atheist. But really what they did was make me honest.

I was raised Jewish — with Sabbath prayers and religious school, a bat mitzvah and a Jewish wedding. But I don’t remember ever truly believing that God was out there listening to me sing songs of praise.

I thought of God as a human invention: a character, a concept, a carry-over from an ancient time.

I thought of him as a fiction.

Today I realize that means I’m an atheist. It’s not complicated. My (non)belief derives naturally from a few basic observations:

1. The Greek myths are obviously stories. The Norse myths are obviously stories. L. Ron Hubbard obviously made that stuff up. Extrapolate.

2. The holy books underpinning some of the bigger theistic religions are riddled with “facts” now disproved by science and “morality” now disavowed by modern adherents. Extrapolate.

3. Life is confusing and death is scary. Naturally, humans want to believe that someone capable is in charge and that we continue to live after we die. But wanting doesn’t make it so.

4. Child rape. War. Etc.

And yet, when I was younger, I would never have called myself an atheist — not on a survey, not to my family, not even to myself.

Being an “atheist,” at least according to popular culture, seems to require so much work. You have to complain to the school board about the Pledge of Allegiance, stamp over “In God We Trust” on all your paper money and convince Grandma not to go to church. You have to be PhD-from-Oxford smart, irritated by Christmas and shruggingly unmoved by Michelangelo’s “PietΓ .” That isn’t me — but those are the stereotypes.

And then there are the data. Studies have shown that many, many Americans don’t trust atheists. They don’t want to vote for atheists, and they don’t want their children to marry atheists. Researchers have found that even atheists presume serial killers are more likely to be atheist than not.

Given all this, it’s not hard to see why atheists often prefer to keep quiet about it. Why I kept quiet. I wanted to be liked!

But when I had children — when it hit me that I was responsible for teaching my children everything — I wanted, above all, to tell them the truth.

Their first atheist lesson was completely impromptu. Noah was 5, Jesse was 3, and we were sitting on the couch before bed reading from “D’Aulaires’ Book of Greek Myths,” a holdover from my childhood bookshelf. One of the boys asked what a “myth” was, and I told them it was a story about how the world works. People used to believe that these gods were in charge of what happened on Earth, and these stories helped explain things they didn’t understand, like winter or stars or thunder. “See” — I flipped ahead and found a picture — “Zeus has a thunderbolt.”

“They don’t believe them anymore?” No, I said. That’s why they call it “myth.” When people still believe it, they call it “religion.” Like the stories about God and Moses that we read at Passover or the ones about Jesus and Christmas.

The little pajama-clad bodies nodded, and on we read.

That was it — the big moment. It was probably also the easiest moment.

Before one son became preoccupied with death. Before the other son had to decide whether to be bar mitzvahed. Before my daughter looked up from her math homework one day to ask, “How do we know there’s no God?”

Religion offers ready-made answers to our most difficult questions. It gives people ways to mark time, celebrate and mourn. Once I vowed not to teach my children anything I did not personally believe, I had to come up with new answers. But I discovered as I went what most parents discover: You can figure it out as you go.

Establishing a habit of honesty did not sap the delight from my children’s lives or destroy their moral compass. I suspect it made my family closer than we would have been had my husband and I pretended to our children that we believed in things we did not. We sowed honesty and reaped trust — along with intellectual challenge, emotional sustenance and joy.

Those are all personal rewards. But there are political rewards as well.

My children know how to distinguish fact from fiction — which is harder for children raised religious. They don’t assume conventional wisdom is true and they do expect arguments to be based on evidence. Which means they have the skills to be engaged, informed and savvy citizens.

We need citizens like that.


Lies, lying and disinformation suffuse mainstream politics as never before. A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 29 percent of Americans believe that President Biden was not legitimately elected, a total composed of those who think there is solid evidence of fraud (22 percent) and those who think there isn’t (7 percent). I don’t know which is worse: believing there to be evidence of fraud when even the Trump campaign can’t find any or asserting the election was stolen even though you know there’s no proof.

Meanwhile, we are just beginning to grasp that artificial intelligence could develop an almost limitless power to deceive — threatening the ability of even the most alert citizen to discern what’s real.

We need Americans who demand — as atheists do — that truth claims be tethered to fact. We need Americans who understand — as atheists do — that the future of the world is in our hands. And in this particular political moment, we need Americans to stand up to Christian nationalists who are using their growing political and judicial power to take away our rights. Atheists can do that.

Fortunately, there are a lot of atheists in the United States — probably far more than you think.

Some people say they believe in God, but not the kind favored by monotheistic religions — a conscious supreme being with powers of intercession or creation. When they say “God” they mean cosmic oneness or astonishing coincidences. They mean that sense of smallness-within-largeness they’ve felt while standing on the shore of the ocean or holding a newborn baby or hearing the final measures of Chopin’s “Fantaisie-Impromptu.”

So, why do those people use the word “God” at all? The philosopher Daniel C. Dennett argues in “Breaking the Spell” that since we know we’re supposed to believe in God, when we don’t believe in a supernatural being we give the name instead to things we do believe in, such as transcendent moments of human connection.

Whatever the case, in 2022, Gallup found that 81 percent of Americans believe in God, the lowest percentage yet recorded. This year, when it gave respondents the option of saying they’re not sure, it found that only 74 percent believe in God, 14 percent weren’t sure, and 12 percent did not believe.

Not believing in God — that’s the very definition of atheism. But when people go around counting atheists, the number they come up with is far lower than that. The most recent number from Pew Research Center is 4 percent.

What’s with the gap? That’s anti-atheist stigma (and pro-belief bias) at work. Everybody’s keeping quiet, because everybody wants to be liked. Some researchers, recognizing this problem, developed a workaround.

In 2017, psychologists Will Gervais and Maxine Najle tried to estimate the prevalence of atheism in the United States using a technique called “unmatched count”: They asked two groups of 1,000 respondents each, how many statements were true among a list of statements. The lists were identical except that one of them included the statement “I believe in God.” By comparing the numbers, the researchers could then estimate the percentage of atheists without ever asking a direct question. They came up with around 26 percent.

If that’s true or even close, there are more atheists in the United States than Catholics.

Do you know what some of those atheists call themselves? Catholics. And Protestants, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists. General Social Survey data back this up: Among religious Americans, only 64 percent are certain about the existence of God. Hidden atheists can be found not just among the “nones,” as they’re called — the religiously unaffiliated — but also in America’s churches, mosques and synagogues.

“If you added up all the nominal Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. — those who are religious in name only,” Harvard humanist chaplain Greg M. Epstein writes in “Good Without God,” “you really might get the largest denomination in the world.”

Atheists are everywhere. And we are unusually disposed to getting stuff done.

Iused to say, when people asked me what atheists do believe, that it was simple: Atheists believe that God is a human invention.

But now, I think it’s more than that.

If you are an atheist — if you do not believe in a Supreme Being — you can be moral or not, mindful or not, clever or not, hopeful or not. Clearly, you can keep going to church. But, by definition, you cannot believe that God is in charge. You must give up the notion of God’s will, God’s purpose, God’s mysterious ways.

In some ways, this makes life easier. You don’t have to work out why God might cause or ignore suffering, what parts of this broken world are God’s plan, or what work is his to do and what is yours.

But you also don’t get to leave things up to God. Atheists must accept that people are allowing — we are allowing — women to die in childbirth, children to go hungry, men to buy guns that can slaughter dozens of people in minutes. Atheists believe people organized the world as it is now, and only people can make it better.

No wonder we are “the most politically active group in American politics today,” according to political scientist Ryan Burge, interpreting data from the Cooperative Election Study.

That’s right: Atheists take more political action — donating to campaigns, protesting, attending meetings, working for politicians — than any other “religious” group. And we vote. In his study on this data, sociologist Evan Stewart noted that atheists were about 30 percent more likely to vote than religiously affiliated respondents.

We also vote far more than most religiously unaffiliated people. That’s what distinguishes atheists from the “nones” — and what I didn’t realize at first.

Atheists haven’t just checked out of organized religion. (Indeed, we may not have.) We haven’t just rejected belief in God. (Though, obviously, that’s the starting point.) Where atheism becomes a definite stance rather than a lack of direction, a positive belief and not just a negative one, is in our understanding that, without a higher power, we need human power to change the world.

I want to be clear: There are clergy members and congregations all across this country working to do good, not waiting for God to answer their prayers or assuming that God meant for the globe to get hotter. You don’t have to be an atheist to conduct yourself as if people are responsible for the world they live in — you just have to act like an atheist, by taking matters into your own hands.

Countless good people of faith do just that. But one thing they can’t do as well as atheists is push back against the outsize cultural and political power of religion itself.

That power is crushing some of our most vulnerable citizens. And I don’t mean my fellow atheists. Atheists, it’s true, are subject to discrimination and scapegoating; somehow we’re to blame for moral chaos, mass shootings and whatever the “trans cult” is. Yes, we are technically barred from serving as jurors in the state of Maryland or joining a Boy Scout troop anywhere, but we do not, as a group, suffer anything like the prejudice that, say, LGBTQ+ people face. It’s not even close.

Peel back the layers of discrimination against LGBTQ+ people, though, and you find religion. Peel back the layers of control over women’s bodies — from dress codes that punish girls for male desire all the way to the Supreme Court striking down Roe v. Wade — and you find religion. Often, there isn’t much peeling to do. According to the bill itself, Missouri’s total abortion ban was created “in recognition that Almighty God is the author of life.” Say what, now?

Peel back the layers of abstinence-only or marriage-centered or anti-homosexual sex education and you find religion. “Don’t say gay” laws, laws denying trans kids medical care, school-library book bans and even efforts to suppress the teaching of inconvenient historical facts — motivated by religion.

And when religion loses a fight and progress wins instead? Religion then claims it’s not subject to the resulting laws. “Religious belief” is — more and more, at the state and federal levels — a way to sidestep advances the country makes in civil rights, human rights and public health.

In 45 states and D.C., parents can get religious exemptions from laws that require schoolchildren to be vaccinated. Seven states allow pharmacists to refuse to fill contraceptive prescriptions because of their religious beliefs. Every business with a federal contract has to comply with federal nondiscrimination rules — unless it’s a religious organization. Every employer that provides health insurance has to comply with the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate — unless it’s, say, a craft supply store with Christian owners.

Case by case, law by law, our country’s commitment to the first right enumerated in our Bill of Rights — “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” — is faltering. The Supreme Court has ruled that the citizens of Maine have to pay for parochial school, that a high school football coach should be free to lead a prayer on the 50-yard line, that a potential wedding website designer can reject potential same-sex clients. This past summer, Oklahoma approved the nation’s first publicly funded religious school. This fall, Texas began allowing schools to employ clergy members in place of guidance counselors.

You don’t have to be an atheist to worry about the structural integrity of Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation between Church & State.” You don’t have to be an atheist to think that religion should not shape public policy or that believers should have to follow the laws that everyone else does. You don’t have to be an atheist to see that Christian nationalists are using “religious liberty” to perpetuate much of the discrimination Americans suffer today.

But atheists can do one thing about the country’s drift into theocracy that our religious neighbors won’t: We can tell people we don’t believe in God. The more people who do that, the more we normalize atheism in America, the easier it will be — for both politicians and the general public — to usher religion back out of our laws.

Okay, but should you say you’re an atheist even if you believe in “God” as the power of nature or something like that?

Yes. It does no one any favors — not the country, not your neighbors — to say you believe in God metaphorically when there are plenty of people out there who literally believe that God is looking down from heaven deciding which of us to cast into hell.

In fact, when certain believers wield enough political power to turn their God’s presumed preferences into law, I would say it’s dangerous to claim you believe in “God” when what you actually believe in is awe or wonder. (Your “God is love” only lends validity and power to their “God hates gays.”)

So ask yourself: Do I think a supernatural being is in charge of the universe?

If you answer “no,” you’re an atheist. That’s it — you’re done.

But if you go further: You’ll be doing something good for your country.

When I started raising my kids as atheists, I wasn’t particularly honest with the rest of the world. I wasn’t everybody’s mom, right? Plus, I had to get along with other people. Young parents need community, and I was afraid to risk alienating new parent friends by being honest about being — looks both ways, lowers voice — an atheist.

But, in addition to making me be honest inside our home, my children pushed me to start being honest on the outside. In part, I wanted to set an example for them, and in part, I wanted to help change the world they would face.

It shouldn’t be hard to say you don’t believe in God. It shouldn’t be shocking or shameful. I know that I’m moral and respectful and friendly. And the more I say to people that I’m an atheist — me, the mom who taught the kindergarten class about baking with yeast and brought the killer cupcakes to the bake sale — the more people will stop assuming that being an atheist means being … a serial killer.

And then? The more I say I’m an atheist, the more other people will feel comfortable calling themselves atheists. And the stigma will gradually dissolve.

Can you imagine? If we all knew how many of us there are?

It would give everyone permission to be honest with their kids and their friends, to grapple with big questions without having to hold on to beliefs they never embraced.

And it would take away permission, too. Permission to pass laws (or grant exemptions to laws) based on the presumed desires of a fictional creation. Permission to be cruel to fellow human beings based on Bible verses. Permission to eschew political action in favor of “thoughts and prayers.”

I understand that, to many people, this might sound difficult or risky. It took me years to declare myself an atheist, and I was raised Reform Jewish, I live in the Northeast, I’m White, I work at home, and my family and friends are a liberal bunch. The stakes were low for me. For some, I fully concede, the stakes are too high.

If you think you’d lose your job or put your children at risk of harassment for declaring your atheism, you get a pass. If you would be risking physical harm, don’t speak out. If you’re an atheist running for school board somewhere that book bans are on the agenda, then feel free to keep it quiet, and God bless.

But for everyone else who doesn’t believe in God and hasn’t said so? Consider that your honesty will allow others to be honest, and that your reticence encourages others to keep quiet. Consider that the longer everyone keeps quiet, the longer religion has political and cultural license to hurt people. Consider that the United States — to survive as a secular democracy — needs you now more than ever.

And the next time you find yourself tempted to pretend that you believe in God? Tell the truth instead.

Oct 3, 2023

Still Kickin'

I've had my 3 score and 10. From here on out, I'm on bonus. And I can live with that.


University of Oxford professor John Bell, a native of Canada, offers a sobering assessment of what other high-income nations see when they view life expectancy in the United States.

“You know you’ll never be last, because America is always last,” Bell said.

It is a paradox that confounds the world: The United States is among the wealthiest nations in history, and yet its citizens die earlier than those in some poorer nations.

It wasn’t always this way. In 1980, the United States was in the middle of the pack of wealthy nations, according to a detailed analysis of more than 40 years of life expectancy data by The Washington Post.

Life expectancy was rising before it flatlined, drifted downward and then cratered during the coronavirus pandemic. That is despite having much of the world’s most cutting-edge medical research and higher health expenditures per person than any other nation.

“You’re looking at a situation where we are performing extremely poorly relative to our income, relative to our educational attainment, relative to our history,” said Samuel Preston, professor of sociology at the University of Pennsylvania.

Nicola Triglione, a cardiologist in Milan, visits the United States often to study the latest health-care innovations. But, he said, he would never move to the United States. He knows too many Italian doctors who moved to the country but found the lifestyle unsustainable. The problem wasn’t their patients’ health — it was their own.

“After maybe 10 years, they come back, and they say: ‘I’m done. [The Americans] work too much, it’s a money game, they have, I don’t know, four weeks of vacation a year?’” Triglione said.

While the United States specializes in high-tech interventions for acute illness, other countries emphasize preventing illnesses.

As far back as the 1970s, experts showed that as countries got richer, the gains from their wealth in terms of life expectancy became smaller. But what is happening now with the United States is something else entirely.

The collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, notably, occurred after a decline in health that got even worse during that period. Some experts see an alarming parallel.

“Historically, demographic trouble tends to presage broader difficulties of social division,” said former treasury secretary Lawrence Summers, recalling that it was demographers who foresaw the collapse of the communist system by identifying hugely surging mortality rates.

“There are lots of arguments about how to measure GDP, satisfaction, unemployment,” Summers said, “but death is kind of unambiguous.”

And it’s not just a matter of divergence between other high-income nations and the United States. Even within the United States, the disparities are stark: How long you live often depends on where you live.

The Post analysis shows that the gap between the richest and poorest areas was far wider than in other wealthy nations. And despite this widening gap,
people living in the wealthiest areas of the United States don’t live longer lives than people in the poorest parts of France, where health outcomes are far more equal.

In France, overall life expectancy has increased about equally in the richest and poorest areas. In the U.S., there’s been a widening gap.

The divergence between wealth and health is a relatively recent trend. For much of history, there has been a direct link between economic growth and people living longer.

The United States, a booming economic superpower after World War II, saw life expectancy increase substantially at that point.

The dramatic rise in life expectancy during the 20th century is largely attributed to the spread of treatments for infectious diseases. In the latter half of the century, declines in smoking in many countries pushed down cardiovascular disease, another major killer.

During that time, the practice of medicine in the United States shifted in a way distinct from other high-income nations. Robert L. Phillips, a professor of family medicine at Georgetown University and executive director of the Center for Professionalism and Value in Health Care, said only 13 percent of internists go into primary care, with the rest choosing to become specialists.

Primary care doctors, also known as general practitioners or family doctors, are supposed to be the first to see patients, catching potential problems early. They treat relatively simple problems themselves or send their patients on to specialists.

In the United States, there is little incentive to work in primary care. Studies show that American specialists earn far more than primary care doctors.

Despite being a specialist, Triglione, the Italian cardiologist, said he found the low status of American primary care doctors jarring. In Italy, these doctors are the central hub of the health-care system, seeing patients regularly for years and earning more than most specialists.

Primary care doctors work like a “movie director,” he said, coordinating all aspects of care. “You go to the specialist, but then you come back to your general practitioner. It’s a relationship.”

During the coronavirus pandemic, this lack of centralization became a painfully obvious failing of the U.S. health-care system, especially compared with highly centralized systems such as those in Taiwan, which was able to contain the outbreak to a far larger extent and saw a much lower number of deaths per capita than the United States.

America not only had a population with chronic illnesses that made it susceptible to covid-19, but a patchwork health-care system that struggled with the coordination needed to prevent its spread.

Could the United States get back on track? It certainly has the resources to do so.

Many other countries, including high-risers such as Portugal and Taiwan, have achieved vast improvements in life expectancy during the past 40 years while the United States stagnated. Both countries did so, in part, by creating national health services, but they also did so with significant economic growth and transitions to democracy.

The worry for many experts is that other nations may be following the destructive trends seen in the United States. Even successful countries are having to adjust and resist the spread of New World Syndrome — the processed foods and sedentary lifestyle that are factors in lowering U.S. life expectancy. Even high achievers, such as Norway and other Nordic nations, are seeing an alarming increase in inequality in life expectancy.

Notably, obesity is rising around the world. “There’s not one population globally that we have data on that has reduced obesity, which is a pretty bad scorecard,” said Christopher Murray, director of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington.

Outside the United States, some experts hope they can chart a new course. Britain, one of America’s closest allies, is seeing a particularly sharp slowdown in life expectancy gains and suffered greatly during the pandemic, led by many of the same trends as in the United States.

Britain has a national health system focused on people, not profits. Bell, the Oxford professor, is spearheading a plan in hopes that Britain and other nations can make up lost ground by combining new diagnostic technologies with lessons from the pandemic in delivering vaccines, screening and other preventive measures expeditiously.

“The problem in America in this world of prevention of disease is: Who is going to pay for it?”

Hunter


If he's fairly tried and found guilty, Hunter Biden will have to stand for the penalties. That's how it has to work if we're going to call ourselves a nation of laws and not men.

There are questions about all this though.
  1. Where's the NRA? Why are "conservatives" not raising a stink about Hunter Biden's gun rights?
  2. Did the original plea deal get torpedoed by some MAGA weevils at DOJ, and a judge that may not be completely on the level?
  3. Why is Trump not screaming about how unfair it is to pick on his fellow-rich-fuck?
ie: "They're coming for you and your guns, and poor little ol' Hunter is in the way!"

There's practically no doubt about having a fucked up 2-tiered justice system here in USAmerica Inc. But it's always been slanted in favor of people who are wealthy &/or well-connected. So maybe watching Hunter Biden get slapped around is exactly what should happen. The problem I have with that though, is:
So fucking what? We're going to fuck up a few rich legacy pukes while doing nothing about white cops murdering black people - while black kids are basically being railroaded into prison because we refuse to fix the neighborhoods where there are no jobs - because there are no businesses because they can't get financing - and no decent schools?

Again - if he's found guilty, he should pay. Let's just not pretend that balances the account - that it settles the whole thing up.


Hunter Biden Set to Be Arraigned Over Federal Gun Charges

Mr. Biden intends to plead not guilty, but if convicted, he could face up to 25 years in prison and $750,000 in fines.


Hunter Biden’s hopeful arrival at the federal courthouse in Wilmington, Del., in July ended in chaos and uncertainty after the judge in his case dismantled an agreement that would have given him broad immunity from future gun and tax charges.

Mr. Biden’s expectations are much lower this time. He is set to be arraigned in court on Tuesday on three counts related to lying about his drug use when he bought a handgun in 2018, a routine legal proceeding with outsize political implications.

Mr. Biden, 53, is accused of falsifying a federal firearms application, lying to a federally licensed gun dealer and possessing an illegally obtained gun for 11 days, from Oct. 12 to Oct. 23, 2018.

He intends to plead not guilty, his lawyer Abbe Lowell said.

If convicted, Mr. Biden could face up to 25 years in prison and $750,000 in fines. But nonviolent, first-time offenders who have not been accused of using the weapon in another crime rarely receive serious prison time.

It is possible that the federal district judge presiding in the case, Maryellen Noreika, could schedule a trial, or ask the parties to renegotiate a stripped-down version of the agreement they reached this year: enrollment in a two-year gun diversion program without prison time.

During a hearing on the original agreement, Judge Noreika stunned Mr. Biden and federal prosecutors with her scouring skepticism as she accused both parties of asking her to “rubber stamp” a deal she considered legally and constitutionally questionable. The agreement fell apart minutes later, after Mr. Biden’s lawyers and prosecutors could not hastily hash out a compromise that satisfied the judge.

The decision to file criminal charges against President Biden’s troubled son in mid-September, while expected, was nonetheless an extraordinary move by the Justice Department and David C. Weiss, whom Attorney General Merrick B. Garland named as a special counsel in August.

Republicans have sought to make the case that Mr. Biden’s business dealings are linked to his father, and have based their preliminary impeachment inquiry of the president on his son’s activities. The first hearing on the matter, held last week, yielded no new information about the president’s conduct — or any support for Republicans’ accusations that he had been directly involved with his son’s business deals.

The original deal between Hunter Biden and the Justice Department would also have resolved an investigation into his late filing of his tax returns for several years — in exchange for his guilty plea on misdemeanor charges.

Mr. Weiss’s team has also signaled that it continues to investigate other elements of Mr. Biden’s business activities. Those most likely include whether his lucrative consulting work with companies based in Ukraine, China and Romania violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which requires disclosing lobbying activities for other countries.

Mr. Lowell has argued that the indictment should be thrown out. Mr. Weiss is still legally bound by the previous diversion agreement, Mr. Lowell has said, accusing him of caving to pressure from supporters of Donald J. Trump who called the plea agreement a sweetheart deal.

Mr. Biden’s lawyers have also asserted that the gun charges will ultimately be thrown out because Supreme Court and appeals court decisions have cast doubt on the constitutionality of federal limits on firearms purchases.

Mr. Biden had asked to appear at Tuesday’s hearing by videoconference, but a federal magistrate judges rejected that request. That forced him to fly from California, where he lives, back to his home state.

Ukraine vs MAGA


A lot of the weird political shit that goes on here in USAmerica Inc seems a little clearer when I keep in mind that the MAGA faction is totally bent on tearing down the whole democratic self-government thing in order to replace it with a corporate-style plutocracy.

So these MAGA boobs love to bitch about our helping Ukraine because Ukraine is kickin' Russia's ass, and that makes Putin look bad, and that threatens the pipeline that's pumping millions of Russian mob dollars into American politics through wingnut organizations like the NRA and the various other "conservative" SuperPACs, along with American hyper-wealthy dildos like Charlie Koch and Harlan Crow.

Paul Krugman brings a little light to the subject of the cost of things.


Why MAGA Wants to Betray Ukraine

So the federal government wasn’t shut down over the weekend, although we may have to go through this whole drama again in six weeks. Kevin McCarthy, the speaker of the House, ended up doing the obvious: bringing a funding bill to the floor that could pass only with Democratic votes, because the hard-liners in his own party wouldn’t agree to anything feasible. And the bill didn’t include any of the spending cuts Republicans have been demanding, except for one big, bad thing: a cutoff of aid to Ukraine.

Democrats appear to have agreed to this bill because they expect to get a separate vote on Ukraine aid; President Biden has indicated that he believes he has a deal with McCarthy to that effect. I hope they’re right.

But why did things turn out this way? Michael Strain of the right-leaning (but mostly not MAGA) American Enterprise Institute has called the fiscal confrontation the “‘Seinfeld’ shutdown” — that is, a shutdown about nothing. That’s a good line, but if we’re going to do popular culture references, I think it might be better to call it the “Network” shutdown, as in people shouting “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore!”

Nothing short of a coup can satisfy this inchoate rage. But McCarthy evidently thought he could reduce the backlash against his deal with Democrats by betraying, or at least pretending to betray, Ukraine. That’s clearly something MAGA wants. But why?

Whatever anti-Ukraine voices like Elon Musk may pretend, it’s not about the money.

Right-wing hard-liners, both in Congress and outside, claim to be upset about the amount we’re spending supporting Ukraine. But if they really cared about the financial burden of aid, they’d make the minimal effort required to get the numbers right. No, aid to Ukraine isn’t undermining the future of Social Security or making it impossible to secure our border or consuming 40 percent of America’s G.D.P.

How much are we actually spending supporting Ukraine? In the 18 months after the Russian invasion, U.S. aid totaled $77 billion. That may sound like a lot. It is a lot compared with the tiny sums we usually allocate to foreign aid. But total federal outlays are currently running at more than $6 trillion a year, or more than $9 trillion every 18 months, so Ukraine aid accounts for less than 1 percent of federal spending (and less than 0.3 percent of G.D.P.). The military portion of that spending is equal to less than 5 percent of America’s defense budget.

Incidentally, the United States is by no means bearing the burden of aiding Ukraine alone. In the past, Donald Trump and others have complained that European nations aren’t spending enough on their own defense. But when it comes to Ukraine, European countries and institutions collectively have made substantially larger aid commitments than we have. Notably, most of Europe, including France, Germany and Britain, has promised aid that is higher as a percentage of G.D.P. than the U.S. commitment.

But back to the costs of aiding Ukraine: Given how small a budget item that aid is, claims that aid to Ukraine somehow makes it impossible to do other necessary things, such as securing the border, are nonsense. MAGA types aren’t known for getting their numbers right or, for that matter, caring whether they get their numbers right, but I doubt that even they really believe that the monetary costs of helping Ukraine are insupportable.

And the benefits of aiding a beleaguered democracy are huge.
Remember, before the war, Russia was widely viewed as a major military power, which a majority of Americans saw as a critical threat (and whose nonwoke military some Republicans exalted). That power has now been humbled.

Ukraine’s unexpectedly successful resistance to Russian aggression has also put other autocratic regimes that might have been tempted to engage in wars of conquest on notice that democracies aren’t that easy to overrun. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Russia’s failures in Ukraine have surely reduced the chances that China will invade Taiwan.

Finally, what even Republicans used to call the free world has clearly been strengthened. NATO has risen to the occasion, confounding the cynics, and is adding members. Western weapons have proved their effectiveness.

Those are big payoffs for outlays that are a small fraction of what we spent in Iraq and Afghanistan, and let’s not forget that Ukrainians are doing the fighting and dying. Why, then, do MAGA politicians want to cut Ukraine off?

The answer is, unfortunately, obvious. Whatever Republican hard-liners may say, they want Putin to win. They view the Putin regime’s cruelty and repression as admirable features that America should emulate. They support a wannabe dictator at home and are sympathetic to actual dictators abroad.


So pay no attention to all those complaints about how much we’re spending in Ukraine. They aren’t justified by the actual cost of aid, and the people claiming to be worried about the cost don’t really care about the money. What they are, basically, is enemies of democracy, both abroad and at home.


One more thing about the weapons - we're sending all the old stuff that's being superseded and replaced. By sending it to Ukraine, we can prove the worth of past expenditures, and make the new stuff more easily justifiable. (and holy fuck - wait'll ya see what the new stuff can do)

I'm not a fan of our over-bloated military industry, and I'll continue to push for spending the money on more human-friendly approaches to geopolitics. But you still have to be ready willing and able to kick a bully in the solar plexus, cuz that's all some of these assholes understand.