#in case she becomes ill in the future and the millions of dollars i already have aren't enough to get her adequate healthcare | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

emma-nation · 4 years

Text

Unfinished Business - F!Sam x MC Fanfiction

Summary: When Sam Dalton is caught in a scandal, Anna Schuyler is the only one who can help her. But will her former nanny be able to leave the past behind?

"Samantha Dalton was like one of good dreams you don't want to wake up from. You close your eyes, you force your brain to remember every minor detail, you begin to imagine what comes next... hoping to be in control. You want to fall asleep again. You want it to continue, but it's too late now. You're wide awake."

Genre: Angst, Romance

Notes: Hell yeah, three ongoing multichapter fics. I'm so screwed 😎

Tag List: If you wish to be tagged in future chapters and fics of this pairing, let me know.

"I can't do this anymore, Sam," Anna did the best to avoid her eyes. With the right look, they could melt the ice that had formed around her heart for the last few weeks. One look could make things warm again, but only for some time. Time enough for her to open up and fall in love once more, immediately followed by the realization all of that was nothing more than an illusion. She'd be fooling herself again.

This time she just had enough. It was the end.

"Anna, I'm sorry," the CEO didn't know very well what to say. Despite her usual calm voice tone, Anna could sense the nervousness in her words. "But Sofia is my wife."

"And I'm only the nanny."

"This is not what I meant. We just... we allowed ourselves to get too carried away. It was good while it lasted but now, we must face reality."

It was just a dream. Samantha Dalton was like one of good dreams you don't want to wake up from. You close your eyes, you force your brain to remember every minor detail, you begin to imagine what comes next... hoping to be in control. You want to fall asleep again. You want it to continue, but it's too late now. You're wide awake.

----------

Anna collected her stuff from the desk, giving one last emotional glance to the classroom in front of her. Before leaving for Summer, her fourth grade students had prepared her a small surprise. A little party with cake, snacks and a "Thank You, Ms. Schuyler" sign hanging in the back of the room. They also drew her some cards, which she saved for when she got home. It could become very emotional for her workplace.

"Anna," the principal appeared at the door, catching her attention, "I came here to congratulate you. It was your first year as a Science teacher in our school and you captivated all the kids, as well as their parents."

"You're welcome, Mrs. Rockwell," Anna smiled. "I love working with children and now I see I made the right decision taking this job. This year was the most rewarding experience of my life."

"So we can expect you to return next year? I'm sorry, the parents keep me asking this question all the time."

"Absolutely!"

"They'll be glad to hear that. Have a nice Summer, Ms. Schuyler."

After living in New York for the last two years, Anna was finally ready to drive to her mother's home in Rhode Island. They both had saved enough money for a road trip across the country. Her mom deserved to live that dream after caring for her ill step-dad for some long months, until his recovery.

When she arrived at her apartment, her best friend, Jenny, was still at work. What meant she'd have enough time to finish packing without having to stop to hear the latest gossip about the company she worked for, or unsolicited dating advice.

"But first," Anna pulled the small pile of cards from inside her purse, "let me cry my eyeballs out."

And she did. She learned how to love and connect to each one of her students. Those cards need to be kept in a special place, where she'd always be able to read them and remember the sweet moments she shared with those children.

Grabbing a box in her closet, Anna accidentally came across a picture of the Dalton twins. She didn't even remember where she had placed it, when she was getting rid of everything related to that family. All she wanted was to keep those boys' memory out of sight. She missed them too much for words. They were the reason why she accepted that job as a teacher in first place.

"I wonder how different they must look now," she thought. "They're already nine."

With a tightness in her chest, Anna placed the picture back in its secret spot.

"I still can't believe you're really going!" Later that evening, Jenny complained in the living room, where she divided her attention between painting her nails and watch TV.

"Well, it's time for you to come with terms with that. I'm only returning by the end of Summer," Anna responded from the kitchen, while she finished washing the dishes.

"Anna, we could have the Summer of our lives. Think about all the hot men and women you could meet, all the parties we could attend..."

"I promised my mom, okay? We've been planning this trip since I finished college."

Jenny was suddenly teleported back to her side, wrapping her arms around her like a clingy teddy bear.

"But I'm gonna miss you," she spoke with a mournful voice.

"I'll miss you too," Anna assured her. "I'll keep you updated on every detail. Don't worry."

"I know your mom is going with you but... Anna, it's time for you to find someone. Even if it's only a one night stand."

"This is not the main purpose of this trip. This isn't about my sex life, I want my mom to relax."

"It has been two years, for god's sake."

"I know. And I'm glad I've set my priorities straight, I live with my best friend in a nice apartment, I got this amazing job and I love my students. I don't need anyone else in my life to be happy. I am happy."

Jenny rolled her eyes, crawling back to the couch. She should know it was useless to bring up this subject. Anna's heart was indefinitely closed for balance. If that was one thing she learned from her last experience was that shouldn't open up so easily.

"Shut the hell up!"

Jenny yelling so loud in the living room, made Anna almost drop the plate she was holding.

"You need to come here right now and watch this," she added.

"I'm sorry, Jenny. You're not getting me into that steamy TV show you're always obsessing about."

"It's a really good TV show, okay? But it doesn't matter at the moment. You need to watch the latest news!"

Jenny was actually watching the news. Nothing good could've happened to spark that sudden interest. That had to be something stupid or celebrity gossip. Against her best judgment, Anna approached the TV.

"If that's something silly, I'll kill you for interrupting my tasks!" Anna's mouth suddenly dropped when she read the headline on her screen. "Oh."

"Dalton Enterprises Scandal: CEO Sam Dalton accused of insider trading."

Images of police officers closing the company and carrying out boxes and computers for further investigation appeared on the screen. As well as Sam being conducted to the officer's car while journalists and photographers chased after her.

"Karma's a bitch, huh?! Mrs. Perfect is going down!"

Anna didn't answer to her best friend. She was still trying to process what her eyes were watching. Her heart seemed to stop for a second as the camera focused on Sam's face. In just a few seconds, her eyes had the desperate need to capture every detail. She wanted to know if she looked any different, if she had changed her hair or even her clothes. She wanted to know if some make-up was trying to hide the bags under her eyes for lack of sleep, or if she had been so happy with her marriage she was appearing even younger. Any minor signs that would make her mind create a possible scenario of what Sam's life could be right now.

She hadn't seen or heard of Samantha since quitting her nanny job. Though it was difficult, she managed to avoid any news related to the Dalton Enterprises CEO. They didn't part in good terms, yet one thing she was sure about, Sam was a decent person. She would never get involved in such a scandal. She had a reputation to keep.

"I... I don't know what to say," Anna was finally able to mumble some words. "Honestly I don't think she'd do that. There must be a misunderstanding."

"Anna! Are you seriously defending her?! After everything she's done to you?"

"No. I just..." Two years had passed since the wedding. Anna realized a lot could've changed. Sam could've changed. She had changed. "Maybe you're right."

As she lied in bed, millions of thoughts started running through her mind. What would be of the boys? Who would have their custody in case Sam went to jail, her parents or Sofia? Could Sofia or Robin have any involvement in that scandal?

Anna didn't get any sleep that night. When she woke up in the morning she was still exhausted.

The apartment was silent and peaceful. Jenny had already left to work. She was alone. No one would witness or even judge her next action. After preparing herself some coffee she sat down and started to research more about the insider trading scandal.

"I'm not interested, only curious," she mentally assured herself as thousands of articles started showing on her laptop screen.

Not only Sam was being accused to cheat on Sofia with another woman, but she tried to cover up the affair by giving her mistress a check to purchase Dalton Enterprises stocks. The launch of a new and revolutionary product in the coming weeks would surely grant her some cash. In the following days of the launch, the woman and her husband made millions of dollars.

"What have you gotten yourself into, Sam?"

The trials were scheduled for the next few weeks, and in case of conviction, the CEO could spend over 20 years in prison.

Only a couple of days later, Anna was in the garage placing all her luggage inside the trunk. She had to leave immediately, for her own sanity. The scandal was a great reason to stay away from New York City. The television wouldn't stop talking about that subject, or show the face of the woman she once loved.

"Dammit," entering the car, Anna noticed she had forgotten her cell phone upstairs. The latest events had impacted her more than they should. She was constantly distracted and anxious, secretly following the last developments of the case.

She picked up her phone, returned to the car and turned on the radio. Playing some loud music always helped her to relax. The crowded streets and the buildings slowly started to stay behind as the road approached.

"And I'm here, to remind you of the mess you left..."

Anna sang aloud, completely involved by the song. And then, her eyes almost missed it. Through the rearview mirror she saw a blur moving on the back seat.

"What the..." she needed to remain calm and act cautiously. The roads were impressively calm and deserted, a perfect scenario for murder, like in every horror movie. She slowly slipped her hand into her purse, grabbing the pepper spray. "I'm not one of those chicks who die so easily."

In one sudden fast move, she stomped on the breaks and turned around, spraying whoever was hiding behind her seat.

"Anna!" She was able to take a better look. The figure was wearing a hoodie and sunglasses. "Stop, please!"

She was able to recognize that voice even among millions of people. The years hadn't erased it from her memories.

"S-Sam..." Anna pulled the disguise, confirming her suspicions, "what are doing here? In my back seat?"

"I can explain."

"You better."

She returned to the driver's seat, attempting to relax. Samantha Dalton was inside her car, for some very screwed up reason.

"I know it's strange," and now she had moved to the passenger seat, being at a short distance from her. Close enough to notice how her presence was making her nervous. Close enough to notice she wasn't breathing. Close enough to see her hands shaking. "But I needed you to hear me."

"You could've called, Samantha. Or even showed up at my door! You nearly gave me a heart attack."

"You wouldn't answer. Would you?"

And that was it. One look and all the walls melted away. Her heart started beating faster, reminding her of the moments they shared two years before.

"No," Anna answered, fighting those feelings. "I wouldn't."

"I need your help, Anna," Sam touched her arm briefly, but enough to know she'd cause impact. "I'm in serious trouble and you're the only one that can help me."

#playchoices #the nanny affair #sam dalton #sam dalton x mc #sam x mc #f!sam dalton x mc #f!sam x mc #the nanny affair fanfiction #tna fanfiction #unfinished business #choices stories you play

49 notes · View notes

losangelesleftygayvoters · 4 years

Text

March 3, 2020 Primary

Hi there. We didn’t write this. But a very smart and interesting dude named Kris Rehl did. As we were about to sit down and prepare ours - we read his and thought well, we’re not going to do a lot better than this.

LOS ANGELES AREA PROGRESSIVE VOTER GUIDE

The following are recommendations for the most effective, progressive candidates in each race based on reviewing the resources listed at the bottom of this guide, news articles, and candidates’ statements. I encourage you to do your own research on each candidate as well!

CALIFORNIA STATE PROPOSITION

Prop 13: YES - This is a $15 billion bond to invest in crumbling school infrastructure, including the removal of toxic mold and asbestos from aging classrooms, to provide cleaner drinking water, and make upgrades for fire and earthquake safety. The proposition would also increase the size of bonds that school districts can place on future ballots.

CALIFORNIA STATE SENATE

21st District: Kipp Mueller - Mueller’s progressive platform focuses on homelessness, wage inequality, and the environment, calling out Big Oil in the Antelope Valley swing district.

23rd District: Abigail Medina - The daughter of immigrant parents, Medina has been in the foster care system, worked as a tomato picker, and served on the San Bernardino City Unified School board. She is the candidate with the boldest environmental platform in her district.

27th District: Henry Stern - A strong advocate for closing the Aliso Canyon gas facility and a fairly progressive candidate in a purple district. In addition to fighting big oil, he’s running on creating incentives for companies to switch to clean transportation and renewable energy infrastructure, improving the economy with small businesses and job training, supporting education by securing funding, and creating safer communities by providing funding to local governments. (Fun fact: His dad played Marv in the Home Alone movies.)

29th District: Josh Newman - Newman won his Fullerton district in 2016, focusing on 100% renewable energy by 2045, affordable education, and homelessness and mental health services. He was recalled by voters in a low turnout midterm primary, after being targeted by a Republican effort to break the Democrats’ supermajority. Despite the partisan recall over his vote to increase the state gas tax by 12 cents per gallon to fund $5.4 billion in annual road improvement and transit projects, Newman will again face the Republican he beat in 2016.

35th District: Steven Bradford - A leader on police reform and accountability, including passing AB391, a law reducing when police can use deadly force. Bradford is focused on lowering homelessness through affordable housing, enhancing access to healthcare, and increasing access to mass transit.

CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY

36th District: Eric Andrew Ohlsen - Endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America, Ohlsen has excellent positions on environmental issues, immigration, eliminating student debt, and criminal justice reform. Ohlsen wants to eliminate costly and unjust private prison contracts and help people already in the system with policies targeting recidivism.

38th District: Dina Cervantes - A child of immigrants, community activist, small business owner, and former preschool teacher with a strong record on education and environmental issues. (This district’s incumbent is retiring.)

39th District: Luz Maria Rivas - The incumbent, Rivas has a solid record on immigration and housing. She also founded a non-profit in Pacoima to encourage school-aged girls to pursue careers in STEM.

41st District: Chris Holden - The incumbent, Holden has fought to expand funding for disability programs, expand lead-level testing in drinking water at child care centers, and passed legislation to improve safety on electricity systems that caused the 2017 wildfires. His only opponents are Republicans, so vote for Chris!

43rd District: Laura Friedman - Friedman is the incumbent and has a progressive voting record, including supporting the end of Section 8 discrimination and authoring several environmental and sustainability bills.

44th District: Jacqui Irwin - The incumbent, facing a Republican challenger, Irwin has focused heavily on gun violence prevention legislation and strengthened gun violence restraining orders since the 2018 Thousand Oaks shooting.

45th District: Jesse Gabriel - A progressive incumbent, Gabriel has enacted more than a dozen new gun safety measures, championed efforts to address California’s housing and homelessness crisis, and strengthened public education.

46th District: Adrin Nazarian - A strong charter school opponent, who has fought to increase public school aid by $23 billion over the past five years, with a mostly progressive record across the board.

49th District: Edwin Chau - Born in Hong Kong and raised in L.A., incumbent assemblymember Chau is facing a Republican challenger. He’s focused on legislation to prevent elder abuse and authored bills to address the affordable housing crisis as well as the California Consumer Privacy Act, enhancing protections for internet users’ personal data.

50th District: Richard Bloom - Authored some strong housing bills with a heavy focus on environmental legislation, helping establish the most stringent protections in the country against the dangers of hydraulic fracking.

53rd District: Godfrey Plata - Plata is a progressive challenger to an establishment Democratic incumbent, who has a disappointing record on housing policy. Plata is a gay Filipino immigrant, who if elected will become the first person in the California Assembly's 140-year history to be an out LGBTQIA+ immigrant. Plata’s campaign is focused on affordable housing, strengthening public schools, and universal healthcare.

54th District: Tracy B. Jones - A special education teacher, Jones is a strong advocate for increasing public school funding and improvements. He supports Medicare for All and the banning of fracking.

57th District: Vanessa Tyson - Tyson is an advocate for increasing the accessibility and affordability of college, expanding affordable housing, and investing in permanent housing solutions to address homelessness.

58th District: Margaret Villa - A Green Party candidate, Villa supports rent control, Medicare for All, and getting money out of politics. The incumbent Democrat she’s challenging (Cristina Garcia) previously made false claims about earning a graduate degree, has several sexual harassment accusations against her from her own staff, and was investigated for her rampant use of racist and homophobic language in the workplace. Vote for Margaret Villa instead!

59th District: Reggie Jones-Sawyer - A strong progressive incumbent, Reggie comes from a family of pioneers in the civil rights movement, is the nephew of one of the Little Rock Nine, and a member of the California Legislative Black Caucus. He’s co-authored legislation to provide re-entry assistance like housing and job training for persons that have been wrongfully convicted and consequently released from state prison. He also led an effort to secure nearly $100 million for recidivism reduction grants.

63rd District: Maria Estrada - Endorsed by Democratic Socialists of America, Estrada is a community activist, challenging an incumbent establishment Democratic leader, who stopped the passage of single-payer healthcare in the California legislature. Maria is running “to end the culture of policies that are deferential to industrial polluters that continue to poison our communities.”

64th District: Fatima Iqbal-Zubair - A high school teacher from Watts, Fatima is challenging Democratic incumbent Mike Gipson, who takes money from Chevron, Valero, Pfizer, and Juul. She is campaigning to end environmental racism in her district, fight for affordable housing and rehabilitation services for the homeless, better funding for public schools, and making college accessible to everyone.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

District Attorney: Rachel Rossi - Rossi’s experience as a public defender and aggressive platform make her the most progressive option to unseat incumbent Jackie Lacey, who Black Lives Matter and the ACLU criticized for refusing to prosecute violent cops. Rossi will pursue “data-driven crime prevention” over ineffective mass incarceration, focusing on serious, violent cases and ending the revolving door of low-level offenses that waste taxpayer dollars.

County Measure R: YES - An important step toward L.A. County jail reform that helps decriminalize mental illness and build community-based care centers where people can get the qualified help they need. Measure R also provides crucial tools for LA’s Civilian Oversight Board to check a corrupt Sheriff’s department.

L.A. County Measure FD: YES - Provides firefighters with the resources they require.

COUNTY CENTRAL COMMITTEE, 43rd Assembly District (*Vote for no more than 7)

Luke H. Klipp - A progressive, who is disenchanted with the establishment, Klipp has been a housing and HIV/AIDS policy advocate and transportation analyst. He hopes to create a more walkable, bikeable, and transit-friendly LA, centering equity and climate change in all policy.

Jennifer “Jenni” Chang - A universal healthcare advocate and community activist, Jenni wants to make politics more people-centric, shun corporate influence, and hold party leaders accountable to progressive values. She supports green transportation, more public education funding, affordable housing, closing corporate loopholes, and prison reform.

Linda Perez - Linda is an immigrant and retired labor advocate, who is prioritizing immigrant protections, LGBTQ rights, education, housing, workers’ rights, and student homelessness.

Ingrid Gunnell - A teacher focused on public school funding and accountability for charter schools, Ingrid plans to fight homelessness with affordable housing, mental healthcare, and job training.

Nicholas James Billing - A Sunrise Movement member, Nicholas is fighting for renewable energy infrastructure, supports public school, prison reform, and affordable housing.

Angel Izard - A community activist, Angel supports public schools, quality healthcare for all Californians, investing in renewable energy, affordable housing, and prison reform.

Paul Neuman - An incumbent, Paul wants to empower people and make government more accessible, transparent, responsive and accountable. He has a long history of activism and volunteer work, advocating for many marginalized groups. He’s written resolutions for emergency funding for homelessness, arts education, campaign reform, and more.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

Office No. 42: Linda Sun - Sun is an experienced prosecutor focused on corruption from professionals and businesses rather than crimes of poverty. She describes her judicial approach as embodying empathy and dignity.

Office No. 72: Myanna Dellinger - Dellinger is passionate about gender-related employment discrimination, harassment, and violence cases. She believes “people of color and lower incomes are disproportionately affected by environmental problems such as air and water pollution...The law should help remedy that.” Dellinger also advocates for gender-affirming treatment of everyone in and out of the courtroom.

Office No. 76: Emily Cole - As a judge, Cole is dedicated to helping the victims of crime but also helping the defendants that are in a system that they can’t get out of. She was also endorsed over her opponent by the LA County Bar Association.

Office No. 80: Klint James McKay - McKay is an administrative law judge with social services and has a history in the Public Defender Union. He has focused on an empathetic approach and understanding for all people, who pass through the court. His opponent David Berger is endorsed by the problematic current DA Jackie Lacey but was also chosen for the District Attorney's Office Alternative Sentencing Designee, where he’s worked within the criminal justice system to find alternatives for non-violent candidates.

Office No. 97: Sherry L. Powell - Powell has dedicated much of her legal career to serving and advocating for families, who lost loved ones to murder, and victims of violent crimes such as child molestation, rape, human trafficking, and domestic violence. She is running against Timothy Reuben, a real estate law firm founder, who ran as a conservative in 2018.

Office No. 129: Kenneth Fuller - As a District Attorney, Fuller has prosecuted environmental and sex crimes, but has also worked on the defense side as a military judge advocate.

Office No. 145: Troy Slaten - Slaten strongly supports criminal justice reform with efforts such as Collaborative Courts, designed to provide treatment instead of incarceration to the most vulnerable populations in the criminal justice system.

Office No. 150: Tom Parsekian - Parsekian is a civil litigation attorney, who is endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America.

Office No. 162: Caree Annette Harper - Harper is a former police officer, turned civil rights attorney, who has dedicated massive amounts of her time to pro bono work. In 2018, Caree obtained $1.5 million for the family of Reginald Thomas, who was beaten and tased to death by Pasadena Police Department.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERVISOR

2nd District: Holly Mitchell - A champion for progressive causes in the State Legislature, Mitchell has called for 20% affordable housing in every new development and a compassionate, non-criminalization approach to the homelessness crisis. Holly introduced the recently enacted CROWN Act, the first state law to ban discrimination based on natural hair or styles like locs, braids, and twists in workplaces and public schools.

4th District: Janice Hahn - Hanh has been solid on housing and labor issues. It should be noted that in 2015, she voted with 242 Republicans and 46 Democrats to pass a bill that proposed instituting a much more intensive screening for refugees from Iraq and Syria, who applied for admission to the U.S. It does not appear Hahn has any serious challengers.

5th District: Darrell Park - Park proposed an ambitious Green New Deal for LA County, signed the homes guarantee, and endorsed the Services Not Sweeps campaign to end the criminalization and ease the suffering of unhoused people. The current Supervisor for this district, Kathryn Barger, is the only Republican on the County Board of Supervisors.

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT - BOARD OF EDUCATION

The following are the endorsements of the Los Angeles teachers union:

District 1: George McKenna

District 3: Scott Schmerlson

District 5: Jackie Goldberg

District 7: Patricia Castellanos

LOS ANGELES CITY COUNCIL

***The corruption in City Hall has led to inaction, worsened the housing crisis, and wasted millions in taxpayer dollars. I urge you to vote out all incumbents.

2nd District: Ayinde Jones - Wants to expand affordable public transportation and beds in homeless shelters. (The incumbent, Paul Krekorian, did not meet the new bed goal that the city council set for itself. Krekorian did turn his own budget’s $400 million surplus into a $200 million deficit with little transparency or public oversight though.) For more info on this race, check out this community activist’s thread from the candidates’ forum.

4th District: Nithya Raman - Nithya is an MIT-trained urban planner, who founded SELAH, a local homeless service organization, and served as executive director of anti-sexual harassment group Times Up. She plans to end homelessness by providing services and housing to those in need, stop evictions, and freeze rents. She is also focused on fighting the climate crisis and improving our city’s air quality.

6th District: Bill Haller - A member of his neighborhood council and experienced with environmental advocacy, Haller is running because he is disgusted by the corruption in L.A. City Hall. Haller wants to reduce city council pay from $207,000 to $93,500 (or 85% of an elected state assemblymember’s salary) and double the number of city districts to allow for more diverse, grassroots candidates, who better understand and represent their communities.

8th District: Denise Woods - A write-in candidate who has fought against housing discrimination, Denise has plans to address public safety, prevent gang violence, and expand education and job training in South L.A.

10th District: Aura Vasquez - Aura was born and raised in Colombia. In 1996, her family came to America to escape the bloodshed and violence caused by drug cartels and the War on Drugs. As an undocumented student, Aura worked nights and weekends to put herself through college. Aura has become a dedicated community organizer, environmental advocate, and was the driving force in banning single-use plastic bags in L.A. She is focused on making city services more responsive, creating affordable housing and homeless services, ensuring police treat all residents with respect and dignity, keeping immigrant and refugee families together, and supporting local schools, teachers, and after-school programs.

12th District: Dr. Loraine Lundquist - An educator and astrophysicist, Loraine is an expert on clean energy and helped organize community opposition to the Aliso Canyon gas storage facility when it posed a massive danger to the Valley in 2015. She is refusing donations from corporate special interests and wants to challenge corruption in the LADWP to create lower utility bills for residents. Loraine also wants to use humane, data-proven solutions to end the homelessness crisis, putting an end to tax dollars being wasted on inaction.

14th District: Cyndi Otteson - Cyndi served on her neighborhood council and leads a nonprofit that helped over 320 refugee families resettle in the U.S. Cyndi rejects developer, charter school, and special interest money and wants to make housing more affordable for rent-burdened Angelenos with financial reforms and protections for renters. She proposes using the $355 million annually generated by Measure H to build on or adapt commercial property that is undeveloped or abandoned for affordable housing and homeless shelters.

GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL

Dan Brotman - Dan is an advocate for a sustainable Glendale and has been endorsed by the Sunrise Movement for fighting fossil fuel infrastructure and advocating for affordable housing.

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

8th District: Chris Bubser - Bubser has been endorsed by several labor and environmental groups, and she is the only chance to avoid two Republicans on the November general election ballot in this red district.

23rd District: Kim Mangone - Kim is a veteran, running against Kevin McCarthy, one of the most far-right Republicans in Congress and the GOP’s current House Minority Leader. Vote for Kim and get McCarthy the hell out of Washington!

26th District: Julia Brownley - The incumbent, Julia passed her Female Veterans Suicide Prevention Act in 2016, which requires the VA to collect data on women veterans to identify best practices and services to end female veteran suicide. She passed a surface transportation bill to increase funds to invest in our crumbling infrastructure. Julia has been an advocate for women and working families, fighting to close the wage gap, raise the minimum wage, and expand job training and education assistance.

27th District: Judy Chu - The incumbent, Chu is chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus and has a strong record on immigration rights and reform. She has also become a strong advocate for ending military hazing since her 21-year-old nephew shot and killed himself after enduring three and a half hours of discrimination-motivated assault and torture from his fellow marines in Afghanistan.

28th District: G. “Maebe A. Girl” Puldo - Maebe (she/her) is the first drag queen elected to public office in U.S. history! She is genderfluid/trans and hosts, produces, and performs in drag shows around Los Angeles in addition to her Silver Lake Neighborhood Council duties. Maebe supports Medicare for All, has experience with homelessness advocacy, and is running on a broad, progressive platform. If your knee jerk reaction is to dismiss Maebe because she’s a drag queen, kindly check your queerphobia at the door.

(Second Choice: Adam Schiff - Despite his impressive contribution to the president’s impeachment, incumbent Adam Schiff has shown himself to be a hawk, defined by donations made to his campaign by the defense industry. Even if you plan to vote for Schiff during the general election this November, I encourage you to vote for Maebe in the primary.)

29th District: Angélica María Dueñas - A member of her neighborhood council, Dueñas supports unions, Medicare For All, achieving 100% renewable energy by 2030, eliminating pharmaceutical subsidies, increasing taxes on the rich, and a humane path to citizenship.

30th District: CJ Berina - CJ is challenging an establishment Democratic incumbent, who has worked against many progressive causes. CJ supports the Green New Deal, Medicare For All, the cancellation of medical and student debt, abolishing ICE and the death penalty, and ending for-profit healthcare.

32nd District: Emanuel Gonzales - Growing up, Emanuel and his family became homeless twice: after his father was diagnosed with End-Stage Renal Disease and during the recession. Since his father died from a failed kidney transplant, Emanuel has become an advocate for expanding Medicare coverage to everyone in the U.S. and reforming the current organ transplantation system so that no organ goes to waste. Personally knowing the pain of losing a home, Emanuel will fight for affordable interest rates for first-time buyers, extending tax benefits for working families who own homes, and increasing federal grants, so people can own homes in the communities they work and serve in.

33rd District: Ted Lieu - Ted has been an outspoken critic of the current administration, bringing special attention to the treatment of migrant children in detention, separated from their families. Ted previously authored a bill banning conversion therapy and was a co-sponsor of the 2019 Medicare For All Act.

34th District: Frances Yasmeen Motiwalla - Frances supports Medicare for All, the Rent Relief Act, the Green New Deal, and urgently wants to end the war in Yemen. The incumbent Jimmy Gomez has moved to the left since facing a Green Party candidate last election cycle. If nothing else, let’s push him even more left.

37th District: Karen Bass - Leader of the Congressional Black Caucus, Karen has focused on issues such as criminal justice reform, a national minimum wage increase, and foster care. She supports Medicare For All, tuition-free community college, and capping the interest rate for federal student loans at 3.4 percent.

38th District: Michael Tolar - Supports Medicare for All, The Green New Deal, closing private prisons, getting money out of politics, and banning military-style weapons.

39th District: Gil Cisneros - A solid Orange County Democrat facing a tough reelection against a Republican this fall. Cisneros was a $266 million Mega Millions winner and became a philanthropist before deciding to run for Congress in 2018. Gil is a veteran and education advocate, who has stood up to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries to lower healthcare costs, protected education funding, and worked to create good-paying local jobs.

40th District: Dr. Rodolfo Cortes Barragan - Taking on a more conservative Democrat incumbent, Rodolfo is a first-generation American, who came from Mexico at a young age and earned degrees from UC Berkeley and Stanford. He is a Green Party candidate, running on a platform of Medicare for All, tuition-free public colleges, the Green New Deal, abolishing ICE, repealing the Patriot Act, and a homes guarantee with funding for universal public housing.

43rd District: Maxine Waters - Maxine has been an outspoken advocate for women, children, people of color, and the poor. She has strongly condemned the actions of the current administration and is facing a Republican challenger this fall.

44th District: Nanette Diaz Barragán - Elected in 2016, Nanette became the first Latina to represent her Congressional district. She is a strong advocate for immigration and supports Medicare for All.

45th District: Katie Porter - Katie is a survivor of domestic abuse and a former consumer protection attorney. She impressively won a swing district while still supporting Medicare for All, gun safety reform, and legislation to reduce the influence of dark money in politics.

47th District: Peter Matthews - Peter refuses donations from corporate PACs and lobbyists, supports tuition-free college, canceling student debt, Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, universal child care, public banks, taxing income brackets over $10 million at 70%, and believes housing is a human right.

PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY

Elizabeth Warren - Elizabeth doesn’t just have some of the most comprehensive, progressive plans of any candidate, she has figured out and proposed some brilliant strategies to actually move them through the gridlock in Washington. She engages with stakeholders in every community, listens, and incorporates their feedback to be sure she is addressing the needs of all Americans. I trust Elizabeth to take on corruption and create a better, fairer country by removing monied corruption in politics, implementing a wealth tax on the ultra rich, creating free universal healthcare, reforming our criminal justice system, fighting predatory debt, expanding educational and economic opportunities, and creating new clean energy jobs to swiftly combat climate change.

(2nd Choice: Bernie Sanders - Bernie is a truly inspiring candidate, and I agree with almost all of his policies. I would be thrilled to vote and volunteer for him if he becomes the nominee, but he is my second choice because I believe Warren has more effective strategies to implement an extremely similar platform, ranging from the removal of the filibuster to finding solutions that won’t raise middle-class taxes to fund for Medicare For All.)

RESOURCES

https://lavote.net/Apps/CandidateList/Index?id=3793

https://laist.com/elections/

https://knock-la.com/the-knock-la-los-angeles-progressive-voter-guide-for-the-march-2020-primary-7f2c3efc13cc

https://www.dsa-la.org/2020_primary_voter_guide

https://votersedge.org/en/ca

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/2/9/1917945/-LA-Progressive-Majority-Voter-Guide-to-Judges-Candidates-for-March-2020-Los-Angeles-CA

https://progressivevotersguide.com/california/

https://app.kpcc.civicengine.com/v/choose_party

http://www.easyvoterguide.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/EVG-march2020-Eng.pdf

1 note · View note

cannabisrefugee-esq · 5 years

Photo

If A Disease Is Untreatable, Incurable and Progressive, Is It A "Medical" Condition at All?

December 2, 2018

I have seen it pointed out elsewhere that some “conditions” for which the medical establishment offers consumerist goods and services are not actually bona fide medical conditions at all and are in fact money-making schemes advanced by wealthy investors and others who stand to make a fortune off of anyone stupid, naive or deranged enough to accept them. The conversation I am most familiar with pertains to the medicalized transgender movement where people are persuaded that they can achieve the impossible through medicalized interventions, in that case, that “transgender” individuals can change their biological sex through consuming expensive and dangerous cross-sex hormones, puberty blocking drugs, and surgeries including castration, so-called “facial feminization” surgeries and others.

Whether anyone accepts the psychological or physical transgenderism of individuals or not, the issue remains that there are billions of dollars to be made globally on this phenomenon and thinking people are prone to thinking about such things. “Follow the money” is a familiar admonition and politically-minded people understand what that means. They generally accept the reality that where there is money to be made, there will be corruption and wealthy people and entities working in the shadows to further their own interests. In the above-linked article by Jennifer Bilek entitled “Who Are the Rich, White Men Institutionalizing Transgender Ideology?” she asks and answers that question and names names. She concludes that it is “Exceedingly rich, white men (and women) who invest in biomedical companies [who] are funding myriad transgender organizations whose agenda will make them gobs of money” including billionaire businessmen George Soros, “Jennifer” Pritzker and others. And it’s difficult to argue with that conclusion which is demonstrably true. But let’s go further.

Whether the potential or actual opportunity to make “gobs” of money under a capitalist patriarchy renders a potentially legitimate project illegitimate on its face is a discussion for another day. However, in the case of the legitimacy of medicalizing transgenderism Bilek identifies a specific social discourse that “institutionalizes and normalizes” transgenderism in a way that convinces people that consuming medicalized goods and services literally for life — the entire life of the patient throughout and following medicalized transition — is in the interests of both the patient and society at large. According to her, it does this by manufacturing a medical condition which arguably does not even exist, and then by encasing the created medical and consumerist issue within a civil rights framework. In the case of transgender, the intended and actual result is to socialize all people (aka “consumers” whether they themselves are transgender or not) to believe both that there is something physically wrong with so-called transgender people which medical goods and services can fix, and that it is those people’s unalienable human right to have the condition corrected no matter the cost to themselves or to society. She concludes that:

It behooves us all to look at what the real investment is in prioritizing a lifetime of anti-body medical treatments for a miniscule part of the population, building an infrastructure for them, and institutionalizing the way we perceive ourselves as human beings, before being human becomes a quaint concept of the past.

As her argument is narrow and addresses only the issue of transgenderism, I cannot fault her for coming up with such a narrow conclusion. She does not broadly criticize Big Medicine in general, favoring specificity to make her point which appears to be that medicine does not behave this way in any other area besides transgenderism and that the (alleged) difference should be parsed. In making that point, she necessarily implies that medical overreach is a small-scale problem affecting only a miniscule part of the population (and that medical consumerism is not inherently problematic and that we needn’t follow they money except in the case of transgender); that “building” social and medical infrastructure to accommodate these new patients is worse than absorbing new patients into the existing infrastructure, or expanding the existing infrastructure to include people it shouldn’t; and that Big Medicine is not fundamentally about “institutionalizing the way we perceive ourselves as human beings” already, and is not generally intended and used as a tool of social control.

And although she rightly characterizes transgender as a problematic “lifestyle” issue, she misses the opportunity to discuss the apparent fact that medicalized goods and services are not effective in treating the (alleged, self-reported) mental and physical pain and symptoms of transgenderism, which analysis would only support her skepticism that transgender is a legitimate diagnosis of a medical disease/illness at all.*

But what if the problems she identifies with the medicalization and normalization of transgenderism are actually a feature and not a bug of Big Medicine and Big Pharma when it comes to defining — if not outright inventing — what constitutes both illness and treatment and engaging consumers long-term or for life? Feminists have long known and noted that patriarchal medicine “invents” both illnesses and treatment for women as a part of our oppression — hysteria and its dubious treatments being perhaps the most obvious example but there are others. But the evidence suggests that invented treatments aren’t “just” for invented illnesses: Big Pharma and Big Medicine actually invent “treatments” for untreatable (yet objectively verifiable) disease, for example, in the case of Crohn’s disease which notoriously does not respond to conventional care.

And this has everything to do, in fact, with “institutionalizing the way we perceive ourselves as human beings.” Doesn’t it? We have to engage with Big Medicine because that’s what human beings do, it’s one thing that separates us from animals, it separates the sick from the well, even when the medicine itself does nothing but make us worse it is the willingness to engage that’s important. In cultures that extoll Big Pharma and Big Medicine we seem not to include untreatable disease as part of the human condition and “the way we perceive ourselves” despite all evidence that it is and has always been part of the human experience (and untreatable illness such as autoimmune disease has only become more prevalent over time). Think about that for a minute. It is striking.

And if transgender patients can rightly be seen as “lifestylists” making medicalized consumer choices in the absence of therapeutic benefits, and I think they can, what could be said about chronically ill people whose lives revolve around medical interventions which are not therapeutic and which therefore must be something else? This is a serious question that, I think, deserves serious “treatment” but is a sticky wicket; as far as I can tell it is rarely if ever discussed. Our alleged “civil right” to medical treatment seals the deal where perhaps Americans in particular will die a million billion deaths before they will fail to exercise a perceived or actual “right,” even if the alleged right has no basis in natural law, and even where the fight and even the prize will likely kill us, and that includes women and feminist women.

They will die on the hill of “rights” again and again and again and again and again, but in the case of the alleged right to medical treatment of chronic illness no one will ever question why and how a condition for which Big Medicine offers no effective treatment and no cure has been “medicalized” in the first place and what that actually means, for one, that a health condition equals a medical condition (meaning that health and medicine are the same thing). That our alleged “right” to medical care is not a right at all, but an obligation and that we are therefore coerced into engaging with Big Medicine and Big Pharma. That “the way we perceive ourselves as human beings” in a medical/medicalized context has been institutionalized (meaning, dictated and normalized) by lying, scheming and powerful men. That untreatable illness has been written out of the human experience, and that “human history” is therefore fiction. It’s fiction, as is our human present and our future. It probably means other things too, but it definitely means that.

And don’t even get me started on the goddamned “disability advocates” who aim to protect sick (and transgender) people’s “civil rights” to a lifetime of painful, dangerous and ineffective medical treatments, but notably do not advocate for anyone’s right to refuse unwanted medical care, even in the United States where that right of refusal is protected by the Constitution, and where so-called disability advocates would universally remove euthanasia from the table for mentally competent yet seriously, incurably and even terminally ill patients because the disability advocates say so. And thus spake capitalism and patriarchy: (alleged) positive rights yay! Negative rights, meaning, the right to do nothing, the right to abstain, the right to be left the hell alone, the right to cease to exist at all, especially when it comes to women (and where women are particularly vulnerable to developing untreatable chronic disease) (crickets).

*Note: until very recently there was an excellent online resource providing citations from the medical literature indicating that medical transition is not a reliable treatment or cure for the (alleged, self-reported) distressing symptoms of transgenderism but that site no longer exists, having been deleted by WordPress for speaking ugly truths about the transgender movement that Bilek does not address and which are beyond the scope of this post.

#transgender bullshit #chronic illness #crohn's disease #toxic male institutions #sexist healthcare #george soros #radfem analysis

11 notes · View notes

leggigoesabroad · 5 years

Text

we’re only here on borrowed time

Sitting on a lovely, smooth, high-speed train from Nuremberg, Germany to Paris. Yesterday was a day from hell which I'll lightly get into but not dwell on, but for now, I'm so happy. I'd be remiss to not mention why!! Part of the reason I decided to book the train instead of flying from Prague to Paris was for many uninterrupted hours to listen to this new book my doctor recommended for me, called "Stress Less, Accomplish More" but Emily Fletcher. It obviously sounds like a typical self-help book, but I have a crush on my doctor and she really sold it for me. (BTW she's no older than like, 32, is married with two kids, super pretty, and totally gets me. She's very female-centric and one time said 'I'll never let you leave here without a prescription for more birth control, we will never let the system be the reason you're struggling with something' after asking if I had enough for the foreseeable future. Joke's on her, I'm single AF, but it really spoke to me.) She said it's a book about meditation and although I've tried meditating before, I am a little bit of a natural skeptic as to allllllllll of its listed benefits. She said this super simple technique helps you sleep better, greatly reduces anxiety/depression, get sick less often, be more effective at work, eliminate jet lag, on and on. She said she honestly can't say enough about it and it completely changed her life. I took this as a way to be more like her and immediately bought it. Also because I wanted her to like me. Incidentally, she texted me a few days ago inviting me to a new women's group she's developing for people in my demographic who are going through the same things. Because like of COURSE she did!! She also tells me to call her Casey instead of by "Doctor" and man I should stop now this is getting weird.

Anyway, this book is by an ex-Broadway performer who noticed she was going grey at age 28 (cough cough I am too) and was sick of all the medications she used to treat these symptoms and wanted to get more at the root. She talks about how simple this meditation method is - 15 minutes twice a day - and how it is literally the best thing she's ever done for herself in her life. After her course, she asks people how much money it would take to stop meditating. They all say something between "500 million dollars" and "no amount of money in the world, because what would be the point without everything else meditation gives me?" I booked the train so I could set aside several hours to listen to the book, especially on this trip, because we all know from the Thailand blog era that being far away in new countries is often what helps me make decisions in life and really self-reflect. Yes, I hear how extra that sounds, but I'm fine with it. I'm only on Chapter 5 and I keep intermittently crying!! We haven't even gotten to the part where she tells me HOW to meditate! Just her background on why it works and the entire theory behind it. The author talks about one case in which a guy with advanced Parkinson's started her sessions and after literally the first one, his tremors disappeared during the entire 15 minutes and for 5 minutes after. She said when they both opened their eyes he asked if she had noticed, and she said she did, and started crying because it was arguably the most profound moment of her career. I'm crying typing this. Ugh. She doesn't claim that meditation will cure chronic illnesses of course, but rather that it's the best thing one can possibly do to supplement medical instruction and for some ailments, it can indeed end up replacing them. She said after she started the practice, she didn't get sick again (cold, flu, anything) for EIGHT AND A HALF YEARS!! Because when the body can use sleep at night to fully rest and not just as a band-aid for stress relief, your immune system can work at its intended level and not allow any of these small things to come into play. You'd think I'd be getting paid for this post, but alas, I'm only 5 chapters in and get ready for me to be even more insufferable than usual when I get home.

Onward. Last I left off I was in a cafe with Lizzy in Prague. We stayed for a few hours and actually got a lot of work done! Turns out my freelance deadlines don't disappear when I go to Europe, hmm. We then walked to an area called Petrin, which from afar just looks like a tree-covered hill. It's actually an uphill path in an expansive park that ultimately overlooks the entire city of Prague. The more we went up, I kept thinking "we must be at the top by now" and then new buildings and castles and paths and orchards would appear. It felt like a hidden fairyland with twists and turns and new beautiful sights along the way. I posted a pic on the gram, but at one point we came to a clearing and there was a picture-perfect snapshot of the entire city through the trees. With the red roofs and striking architecture I again almost felt like crying. Also saw a bunch of couples making out in the orchards with no shame all, so that was something. Good on 'em, ay. We stopped for a glass of wine at the top (duh) and ended up chatting about work/management styles/feelings about jobs/etc. Something great about Lizzy is that it turns out for everything I'm interested in, she's in grad school for. I felt like she was the manifestation of all things fascinating to me. Kinda like when you meet someone really smart who is able to vocalize all the things you feel about things, but better. Like Hilary, but not my sister. Like Jay Wong, but not my boss! We talked about Kitty and her job search and then got into the concept of finding a job by figuring out what you love and what comes naturally to you, and then seeing how you can get paid for it. She loved hearing about Kitty and SpotX and the proposal she had to do about team-building and customer engagement, and we chatted all about different marketable skills. I remember crying to Hil many years ago (Hil if you read this, do you remember??) about how I *thought* I was smart but I hated studying/learning/school and my grades reflected that, and how I've squandered all my potential, I'm actually really dumb, etc. BTW in retrospect I now see a lot of that as my undiagnosed ADHD and I wish I had understood it earlier to get ahead of it, but it's okay. Hil at the time told me that she may have great grades and a good job, etc., but that she can't walk into a room and command attention or just become friends with everyone, and that skills come in all shapes and sizes and one isn't better than another. I'M GETTING EMOTIONAL AGAIN. Remember when my blogs used to be carefree and funny? Me either.

After that, Lizzy and I walked all through the grounds of the Prague Castle and wound our way down the hill to the Charles Bridge, and stopped for another drink. Then we got into a whole discussion about relationships and sexuality. Later, when we were hanging out with her husband, Rob, I found myself saying over and over: "It's like what Lizzy and I were talking about earlier..." and he was like "how did you guys somehow talk about EVERYTHING today?!" Females, man. Eventually she went back to her place to shower and I checked into my Airbnb across the street. Got SO EXHAUSTED and almost fell dead asleep while waiting for her before dinner, but rallied, and so glad I did. We took the tram up the hill to a nice restaurant for dinner, then went to an Irish pub to watch the Liverpool/Barcelona game. No one there remembered the epic call from 2010 World Cup that Ned and I quote all the time, but hey, we do and that's what counts. ("AND YOU COULD NOT WRITE... A STORY LIKE THIS.") We got there at halftime and were ordering drinks at the bar when a guy sitting at the bar was a real dick and says to me and Lizzy, "just so you know, when the game's on again, you've gotta move. I sat here on purpose for a good view, so make sure you move." Then turned to his partner and we could clearly hear him saying things like, "Fuckin' ridiculous they're standing right there during the game... I'm not going to let that happen... no fuckin' way" Um, a) it's half time. b) it's a bar and we're at the bar ordering drinks. c) WE KNOW. d) fuck off. He kept talking about us after we moved and she and I briefly thought about starting shit but you know, foreign country and all that. Luckily he was cheering for Liverpool and they got stomped in the second half to lose the game and we rejoiced. :)

Went to a weird, dark "Books" bar after that and we were almost the only people there. There were condoms in the bathroom and I took one as a joke to show Rob and Lizzy, but now it's still in my bag and freaks me out every time I reach for my Chapstick. We went back to their house afterwards and I kid you not, just watched Harry Styles videos. Turns out they both love him, especially Rob, which is so rich to me. He was like "this guy is just like coolness personified and he's so talented and he's weirdly attractive in kind of a feminine way but also masculine and he has such a nice voice and swagger...." you'd think I planted Rob to say this to me, but no. We watched the entirety of his Carpool Karaoke as I told them all of my favorite parts ("I was back middle." "Why am I always Julia Roberts??" "I cry in like, a cool way.") It's like when someone says to me, "you know, I'd love to know more about the meanings behind Taylor Swift's songs but I never learned, what are all of the albums about?" And I look around expecting that I'm being Punk'd. Parted ways with them and thanked them for everything and told them I was very grateful for our summer camp relationship. You know, the kind that is intensely strong, and very brief. I may never see them again and yet we spent 15 hours straight together on Wednesday and I had one of the best days ever. See you in another life, brotha.

A series of hiccups led to a very stressful morning on Thursday that I won't fully get into because my poor family already lived through it with me via WhatsApp... but it started with extreme random nausea, (the kind you have a serious internal talk with yourself about: "no. you are okay. take deep, slow breaths. do not throw up here. you are completely fine, this will pass. breathe. you're not sick. this is just random. you cannot throw up here.") and then I got on what was supposed to be a train from Prague to Nuremberg with a stop in Schwandorf, but there was a service interruption on the first leg and everyone knew but me. Probably because everyone speaks Czech and I, ya know, do not. BTW so far Czech is the least intuitive language I've ever come across. I could read an entire book in it and wouldn't be able to give you even the slightest context, like you can with French/Spanish/German. I know, romance languages and all that, but man I really underestimated how important it is to know some of the language when you're traveling through remote towns. I notice everyone in Plzen has gotten off the train and I think "well that's weird, but maybe they're all local commuters." A lady comes by and yells at me to get off, I say, "English?" She says, "NO. Bus." and shoos me off. In the panic I forget my suitcase from where I stored it - thank the heavens above, it was still there when I realized 15 minutes later and fought my way back on a closed train. I have such PTSD today and can't fathom what would have happened if the train had left. Imagine my suitcase just taking off on a train to the Czech countryside by itself. Zero percent chance I get that back. Work computer, my treasured leather jacket from Kathy that I swear I'd save in a fire, all of my toiletries and pills and prescriptions...ugh I can't even think about it.

No one spoke English except for a kind man at the info desk who spoke very little, and gave me directions ("directions" is a loose term here, I did a lot of critical thinking and problem solving to vaguely understand what I was supposed to be doing next) to take a bus in an hour that would take me to Stod, where I could then catch my train to Schwandorf and hopefully ultimately Nuremberg. After a series of mishaps and incredible uncertainty, eventually all of that happened. I walked into the hotel in Nuremberg and almost kissed the floor. I had big plans to wake up early and explore, but alas, I'm embarrassed to admit that all I did in Nuremberg was buy some wine/chocolate/gummy bears and stay in all night and sleep late this morning. Bodies need rest, y'all. My audiobook author would tell me that my body is in recovery mode after releasing an unnatural amount of adrenaline and cortisol. NEVERTHELESS SHE PERSISTED!

I'll be staying with rig friend Angie and her family in Paris, and seeing rig Aaron there too. He messaged me yesterday and said, "so do you want to see museums and such? Or I can show you my favorite brasseries?" I said, "I've been to Paris, I'd just like to day drink honestly." Luckily he is on board, shawoooooooo. Oddly there's no WiFi on this train like they said there would be, but it's not that bad because it's so smooth and comfortable and I still have my audiobook. Will post this blog sometime later when the WiFi shows up. Cross your fingers that I get the romantic countryside train ride I pined for. And happy weekend!!!

1 note · View note

expatimes · 4 years

Photo

What is at stake when the US Supreme Court takes on Obamacare?

On November 10, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear a new case against the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the signature legislation of Barack Obama’s two-term presidency.

It will be heard by a court that is more conservative than Americans have known for generations, with its newest judge Amy Coney Barrett rushed into a vacant seat just days before the divisive presidential election. This tipped the balance of the already conservative-leaning nine-member court to a much more weighted 6-3 split in their favour.

The case, California v Texas, which deals with the constitutionality of the 2010 ACA (commonly known as “Obamacare”), is the latest salvo against a complex, intricate law that is loved, hated and misunderstood in the US, and that touches the lives of almost everyone in it.

The hearing comes just in the wake of Donald Trump losing the presidential election – even as he refuses to concede – while nearly a quarter of a million people have died from COVID-19, and as millions of American citizens have lost their jobs and their health coverage.

A 2018 group portrait of the justices of the US Supreme Court, including the now-late Ruth Bader Ginsburg who passed away in September 2020. Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed as her replacement in October, bolstering the conservatives on the bench [File: AP]

Healthcare in the US: A short history

Since the second world war, most Americans have known that good health insurance is tied to a good job.

But in the 1960s, two government options were created by the Lyndon Johnson administration: For Americans over 65, there was Medicare, a programme that has long been popular and difficult to cut due to its wide bi-partisan reach (everyone gets old).

And for the poor, there was Medicaid, which is administered individually by states, resulting in wide variations in who is eligible. In some states, for example, children were only covered by Medicaid if their parents earned less than half of what would put a family of three on the federal poverty line (approximately $9,000 a year at the time), while in other states, with more progressive policies, children would be covered if their family’s income was $55,000 for a family of three.

Despite these limited government options, health insurance was understood as a private enterprise, and across the insurance market, plans were shaped by the demands of hospital networks and providers.

In a photo from 2012, a woman opposed to healthcare reform, rallies in front of the Supreme Court in Washington [File: AP]

By the 2000s most insured Americans were covered by a private healthcare plan they chose through their workplace. In 2008, a family would, on average, pay $12,300 per year just to own a plan through their workplace, with additional co-payments for services, medicines, and therapies on top of that. That average premium also varied widely between states.

For those who wanted something else, or for the wealthy, self-funded private medical plans were available. In 2009, someone buying individual non-employer health insurance would pay about $3,600, or $7,000 if it also covered their family, but pay much higher deductibles for medical services. Many of these plans were not as comprehensive as employer-backed options.

For most insured people (59 percent of employee plans and nearly 90 percent of individual plans) there were lifetime caps on how much total coverage a provider would pay for. After that cap – sometimes one or two million dollars – was reached, insurers would stop covering, even if the treatment continued.

Hitting such a maximum might seem unlikely, but for someone receiving specialised treatments, or managing the care of a very sick premature baby, those costs could be exceeded within a few years or less, and the patient would be left to cover the remaining costs. A long-term stay in the ICU could leave a family in financial ruin.

Insurance companies considered future health complications liabilities, and charged higher costs or did not sell policies to people with so-called pre-existing conditions, affecting more than 100 million Americans in 2010. A pre-existing condition could be asthma, a family tendency towards high blood pressure, or a likelihood the patient would develop cancer.

Women are statistically more likely to develop diabetes and cancer than men and were disproportionately uninsured, in part due to the pre-existing conditions loophole. In 2010, 20 percent of women aged 18 to 65 did not own health insurance.

In a 2017 photo, a man walks by a healthcare insurance office in Florida [File: AP]

Black and Hispanic Americans were also insured at lower rates. In 2010, 13 percent of white working-age Americans, 20 percent of Black Americans and 33 percent of Hispanic Americans were uninsured. Among those who did have a plan, higher numbers of Black and Hispanic Americans were receiving Medicaid, which often delivered lower-quality care options. People of colour in the US are more likely to live in low-income families without access to an employer-sponsored option, and most private plans were out of reach. As a result of this lack of health insurance – along with other barriers to care – these groups are also less likely to receive preventive care, diminishing overall health outcomes.

For the uninsured patient walking into a clinic, price vertigo could quickly strike. With most doctors and nurses unable to tell a patient how much the eventual cost of a medical service would be, they would have to decide whether to receive treatment before knowing if they could afford it.

Typically for an insured patient, a medical provider would submit documentation of a medical service – a physical exam, a blood test, an MRI, for example. The insurance company negotiates reimbursement with the health network and the patient gets the bill after treatment has been delivered. Depending on how much their plan covers, the patient may pay a portion.

Meanwhile, medical interventions in the US have become more state-of-the-art, more expensive, and more common.

By the early 2000s, health spending accounted for roughly one-sixth of the US economy, the largest share in the world, but only about 85 percent of Americans had health insurance. Many of the millions of families left out were an injury or illness away from dire financial consequences.

The cost of care

Marleny, who prefers that Al Jazeera use only her first name, was one of the millions of uninsured. She lives in Framingham, Massachusetts, and is a single mother of 9-year-old twin girls and a 20-year-old daughter. She is an immigrant from Guatemala and used to live in California, where she had a basic insurance plan sponsored by her employer while she was pregnant. In addition to her premium, she paid $30 for a doctor’s visit and $500 for each birth.

When she moved to the Boston area in the cold winter of 2014, all of her daughters fell ill with bronchitis. She was scared to take them to the hospital.

“I waited a week to take them to the hospital. My daughters had a lot of fever and coughing, and I noted they were losing weight. My mother said, ‘You need to take them’,” Marleny explained in a phone interview.

The family of four was living in a single rented room and their car had not yet arrived from the west coast. But with her daughters’ conditions worsening, Marleny knew she had to do something. She borrowed a car from someone she knew, packed the twins, then two years old, and her older daughter into it and drove.

There were two things Marleny did not know when she walked into the Emergency Room at Metrowest Medical Center: that Massachusetts did have some state coverage plans available for low-income people, and that the first provisions of the ACA were just coming into effect. She thought of walking back out into the cold.

“I was scared that I might get a high bill. I told them I don’t have health insurance here, and I don’t know how much this will be.”

Her story mirrored others playing out in ERs across the US. She would soon discover that a reform bitterly fought on the national level was at that moment becoming available. Too concerned about her girls’ health to leave, she decided to stay.

In a photo from 2017, protesters gather across from Trump Tower to rally against the repeal of the Affordable Care Act in Chicago [File: AP]

Attempts at health reform

During his term, President Bill Clinton tried to reform the healthcare system – but failed.

Then, in 2006, Republican (then-governor) Mitt Romney succeeded in delivering Massachusetts, a wealthy liberal-leaning state, a form of universal coverage in which everyone was obligated to buy insurance. State-funded options were available to those making up to 300 percent of the figure that would put someone on the federal poverty line, and at-cost individual plans were regulated and sold in streamlined marketplaces. The reform was seen as radical as until that point no state had passed a plan compelling people to buy health insurance.

When Obama debated John McCain on national television ahead of the election in 2008, he said healthcare spending was a burden on the American people and vowed to tackle it. At the time, millions were out of work and hence health insurance, due to the “Great Recession”. McCain said he would solve the problem by sending a $5,000 tax credit to the average family, which they could use to pay for health costs (at that point, the average yearly premium for a family was more than $10,000). McCain said Obama’s plan would be so limiting that it would leave “Joe the plumber”, a made-up potential user, without any plan at all.

Obama was swept into the White House with a strong mandate, and his team set out to invest their political capital directly in the divisive issue.

“Both the politics and the substance of health care were mind-numbingly complicated,” the former president writes in his new memoir, excerpted by the New Yorker on October 26, 2020. “When I think back to those early conversations, it’s hard to deny my overconfidence,” he recalled.

In a March 23, 2010 photo, President Barack Obama signs the Affordable Care Act in the East Room of the White House in Washington [File: AP]

Democratic lawmakers drafted a 900-page bill containing hundreds of provisions. They hosted dozens of bipartisan meetings and held hours of public hearings with 200 witnesses. Senators from the Finance Committee grilled representatives from the health insurance industry, conservative think-tanks, interest groups for retired Americans and state regulators.

“A single provision tucked inside the bill could translate to billions of dollars in gains or losses for some sector of the health-care industry,” Obama reflected. It was early 2010 and the White House, the House of Representatives, and Senate were all controlled by Democrats. When it was clear that no Republican would support any law that reformed the health sector, the politicians pushed it through in a rare late-night holiday vote on December 24.

Obamacare’s bold approach

The ACA’s bold idea was to get more healthy Americans to own health insurance. This, the administration believed, would put more money into the insurance market and lower costs for everyone. The authors did it by introducing the “individual mandate”, a penalty for those who stayed uninsured, administered by Congress. Anyone who did not purchase a private plan would have to pay a fee to the Internal Revenue Service. Critics raged that the federal government was forcing them to buy something they did not want.

The ACA then clamped down on insurers by making them offer better individual plans for those without employer-sponsored options. It stopped the pre-existing condition loophole. It required insurers to include basic essentials such as emergency services, pregnancy and maternal care, and substance abuse treatment, many of which had been out-of-pocket extras before.

The law required these new individual plans to be sold in transparent marketplaces run by states, which would only offer plans that were vetted. Separately, the law dramatically expanded the free health coverage programmes for the poor and the elderly – Medicaid and Medicare – which had always missed millions who did not qualify according to their state’s criteria.

Lastly, the law invested billions in research for innovations to improve how health is paid for, and quality of delivery.

Don Berwick, a Harvard-educated paediatrician, had studied the quality of care for 30 years when he was appointed by Obama to lead this particular expansion in 2010.

“I told my staff three questions for any proposal: How would this improve care? How would this improve people in dire straights? How would this help reduce costs overall?” he told Al Jazeera.

In a 2012 photo, Republican Mitt Romney spoke about the Supreme Court’s healthcare ruling in Washington [File: AP]

Berwick developed plans to expand the free services and prepare the state marketplaces for launch, before resigning 18 months later due to his recess appointment. He had been criticised by Republicans after saying Britain’s NHS, a government-paid system, could be an example for the US. Opponents, like the Republican senator from Wyoming, said his approach would ration care. Dr Berwick vigorously refuted that accusation. Berwick, who has long argued for healthcare delivery to be a government responsibility, is now president emeritus of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement.

“We don’t have evidence that market forces yield improvements that we’re after. Market induces competition instead of cooperation … The market system will not encourage [knowledge sharing] … Market systems tend to lead to behaviours that favour providing services to people with more money and not people with less money. We need exactly the opposite approach,” he told Al Jazeera.

Republican lawmakers and judges took aim at the ACA from multiple angles and, in 2012, Obamacare was challenged in the Supreme Court. The National Federation for Independent Businesses (NFIB) and 26 states argued the ACA forced small business owners to buy insurance for their employees, hurting the businesses. The court did not agree, but it did transform the ACA by declaring the individual mandate was a tax, not a fine. The change was subtle but would open an opportunity for that tax to be reduced by Congress.

The justices also ruled that the decision to expand Medicaid would be left to individual states. A dozen mostly southern states immediately stopped the expansion, leaving millions without promised insurance options. The NFIB said the “constitution has been undone”.

After more than three years of preparation, the ACA became active in 2014.

More than just crisis care

Sitting in the emergency room that January, Marleny knew her girls were too sick to leave untreated. A member of the staff told her not to worry, there were plans for her. One of the new advantages of the ACA was same-day enrollment, shrinking a process that had previously taken up to 45 days. The girls were prescribed antibiotics and sent home. Her family would need emergency services several more times that winter, but Marleny was now covered, as were her daughters.

She started to think of healthcare as more than something for a crisis. Marleny began visiting her own doctor regularly, going for mammograms and other preventive services, which were free.

“Thank God we have this programme,” she said. “If not, I don’t know what we are going to do. A lot of families like mine don’t have the money to pay for health insurance.”

Marleny is not unemployed. She works as an administrative assistant at an NGO that provides housing help to people in Massachusetts, making about $2,500 each month. She says her employer-provided plan costs $600 a month for the premiums alone, too expensive for her to afford. Her income, near the poverty line, makes her eligible for the subsidised plans Don Berwick helped expand. Her ACA-insurance costs just $45 per month; a visit to the doctor costs $18, medicine for the children costs her a few dollars.

A woman in Florida holds a sign in support of Obamacare in October 2020, ahead of the US election [AP]

Marleny’s insurance is available because Massachusetts receives federal money for people in her situation. Health Care for All, an NGO in the state, helps her navigate the process. For many years Hannah Frigand, the NGO’s director of education and enrollment services, received phone calls from people eager or desperate to secure a coverage plan.

“We hit a peak when the ACA was implemented,” she told Al Jazeera. Calls nearly doubled as the law was passed, and again when it was implemented four years later. Thousands of people had been waiting for better coverage.

Trump and the case against Obamacare

Donald Trump criticised the ACA in his very first speech as a candidate, calling Obamacare “a disaster”. He claimed, citing anecdotes, that patients would lose their health coverage, doctors would quit, and the health consumer would be stuck with ballooning payments. When he spoke in 2015, about 17 million new working-age Americans were insured who previously had not been before the law. The average family premium for employer-sponsored insurance had indeed gone up, as it had every year before and continues to today, but the cost of individual plans was falling. In his first day as president, Trump issued a broad executive order for government agencies to scale back as many parts of the ACA they could.

With control of both Houses of Congress in 2017, Republican lawmakers pushed forward bills to repeal and replace Obamacare. Their “skinny” version lowered the individual mandate to zero dollars, leaving the rule with no penalty. But their replacement preserved much of the ACA’s popular parts like coverage for pre-existing conditions, for children up to 26 years old under their parents’ plans, and the expansion of Medicare.

In an after-midnight vote on July 28, 2017, Republican Senator John McCain, who had been facing months of aggressive criticism from President Trump and who had just been diagnosed with a brain tumour that would take his life a year later, walked to the podium and held his thumb down for the cameras to see. The ACA would continue.

In a July 2017 photo, now-late Republican Senator John McCain looks on during a press conference about his resistance to the so-called “Skinny Repeal” of the ACA [File: Reuters]

Nisha Kurani studies the law and its effects at the Kaiser Family Fund (KFF), an organisation that tracks the medical insurance industries. In a phone interview, she said the loss of the individual mandate has, paradoxically, not had the impact many feared.

“Early on there were concerns that the market would destabilise. But that hasn’t happened. Premiums in the past years have gone down. Healthy people have not left the market as was predicted. And the financial health of insurers has dramatically improved since the early years of the ACA. We’ve seen that the marketplace has stabilised.”

At the start of the Trump presidency, 20 million new Americans were insured by the expanded programmes. The gap between uninsured Black and white Americans fell by four percent, and that between uninsured Hispanic and white Americans fell by over nine percent. The number of uninsured women halved in two years.

The White House under Trump pushed for many parts of the ACA to be undone. Obamacare blocked a type of short-term insurance option sold across states that had often driven consumers into medical debt: The user would buy one, undergo a treatment, and find it was not actually covered. The ACA limited these plans to 30 days, the Trump administration extended that to a full year with the option of renewal.

Watchdog organisations have documented how the websites for state marketplaces have been closed for hours or days during enrollment periods, due to “maintenance”, preventing people from finding health plans. Funding for public messaging about health insurance has been reduced. States have seen their waivers for innovation programmes cut. Some states have imposed work requirements for Medicaid, demanding that people who receive the subsidised coverage for the poor prove that they are employed, even though studies have shown that most on the programme already are working or have a good reason such as disability not to.

In one stirring example, money intended for medical research and other services was moved by the White House’s Health and Human Services director to pay for the detention of migrant children. These cuts have made a difference: the uninsured rate has been growing slowly since its 2016 low, creeping up by a few million people.

Democratic Senator Chris Coons spoke during the Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Amy Coney Barrett in Washington in October, ahead of the US election and court hearing on the ACA [AP]

The new challenge

This Tuesday, November 10, the ACA will again be challenged at the Supreme Court.

Texas, 18 other – traditionally Republican-led – states, two individuals and the White House say the whole law must be thrown out because the individual mandate is zero, “a law that does nothing”, the case says. The justices will first decide whether the two sides have what is called “standing”, they will ask whether the individual business owners have been injured by the ACA. It will be a difficult argument, as there is no penalty for not buying insurance. If the plaintiffs do not have standing, the case will be rejected.

The justices will then decide whether the ACA would have been written and passed had it been known at the time that the individual mandate would be unconstitutional. If the answer is yes, the individual mandate could be sliced off the law, or severed, leaving the rest intact. The court could rule that both the individual mandate and the protections for pre-existing conditions are unlawful, but leave states to decide which subsidies and other parts to preserve.

If the court agrees with the federal decision made in Texas and strikes down the law, the impact would be profound. It is estimated that 23 million people could lose their health coverage (20 million who gained it plus another 3 million who have had to find new plans since the start of the pandemic). States that have taken full advantage of the subsidies of the ACA would lose those funds in their budgets. Massachusetts may have to cut programmes that prevent Marleny from worrying whether rent, food or health costs come first.

“Pulling away the ACA would be, I think, a disaster for millions of people in this country,” Berwick told Al Jazeera. “They would be left high and dry, angry, their costs would soar … it’s hard to imagine the ACA being pulled away at this point without severe dislocations.”

President Donald Trump with Amy Coney Barrett, who was confirmed to be a Supreme Court justice in October 2020 [AP]

All eyes are now on Amy Coney Barrett, the newest justice. She was clerk to the court’s most famous recent conservative justice, Antonin Scalia, who dissented both previous healthcare rulings. Justices are not often public speakers, so Barrett’s verbal record has been combed over looking for clues as to how she could rule. She has said she supported the dissent in a previous case against the ACA – but as a law professor, not a judge.

In her confirmation hearings, she said the Supreme Court tends to rule in favour of severability, keeping most of a law if a part can be chopped off. Whether or not California v Texas prevails, this is unlikely to be the final case to challenge the ACA.

In 2020, the Affordable Care Act is still (mostly) law, and it is as popular as it is divisive. Most Americans want the whole ACA to stand, though most Republicans want to see it repealed. More than 90 percent of Democrats and two-thirds of Republicans do not want to see protections for pre-existing conditions disappear. Critics like the Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation write that the law is too expensive for both the government and for beneficiaries, and too limiting for the American consumer.

Under the ACA, more people are insured. Costs for individual insurance buyers have fallen, but costs for insurance through work have grown. Expanded Medicaid services are credited with saving tens of thousands of lives, protecting essential workers during the pandemic, and even slowing eviction rates in high-enrollment areas (one study suggested that low-income users were less frequently forced to choose between paying rent and paying for health costs).

The US is a country that has incredible health resources, but mixed outcomes. Measured against comparable nations, the US has better outcomes for its cancer patients and worse outcomes for maternal mortality, according to Kurani at KFF. Healthcare is a work in progress.

Berwick advocates taking a long view.

“If we can take a breath as a country and depoliticise this, there’s a lot to be learned. ACA is not a perfect law. It has many elements that could be better.

“I think the ACA, even as weakened now, can and should survive … Then we have to remember – it still left 30 million uninsured, so there’s work yet to do.”

. #world Read full article: https://expatimes.com/?p=13665&feed_id=15577

#BusinessandEconomy #Courts #Features #Health #UnitedStates #USampCanada

0 notes

markdecastroweb · 4 years

Text

What's it like to be fabulously wealthy for lottery winners?

Members of this South Florida real estate firm won $1 million from their office Powerball syndicate... how will it change their lives? Photo: Inside Edition

What if you never had to work again, ever? You can dream up a future life, but sometimes the reality of being exceptionally rich is quite different.

So this fascinating question was put to several contributors at Quora, and the candid answers from actual wealthy people may surprise you. Some are heart-warming, some are brutally honest.

Here's a few highlights by Nicholas Carlson of Business Insider from their comments:

Money does not make you happier, relationships do.

"I don't believe very much in the hedonics argument about wealth - that the more you have, the more money you need to maintain a certain level of happiness. Happiness has mostly to do with relationships and the quality thereof. I doubt that it's a metric that can be measured effectively by economists to come to a conclusion." -- J.C. Hewitt

After you are rich, you take it for granted, like you take having great parents for granted.

"[Being rich] feels like all the other blessings we have in life when times are tough - we know that they are blessings, strive not to take the for granted, but can forget we're blessed when we're feeling down. It's like having a beautiful kid of a wonderful spouse or great parents. And for me, at least, I can say with absolute certainty it has not made me any happier." -- Rick Webb, COO Barbarian Group.

Gordon Gekko, played by Michael Douglas in the film Wall Street, was fabulously wealthy.

Having a lot of money makes you want to make more.

"I thought, if I could make 10 million dollars then it must be too easy. In fact, I honestly thought, everyone else had probably already made 11 million dollars. So then I felt poor again. I now needed 100 million dollars to be happy." -- James Altucher

When rich people start dying, they become less proud of their wealth.

"After she attained what she thought was success, [my mother] was diagnosed with Stage IV cancer. She spent the days up until her death regretting almost all the choices she made and beat herself up day after day. One of her last journal entries included reflections on how unappreciative she was with the things in front of her, and finally realising happiness does not lie within superficial matters a little too late." -- Mona Nomura

Rich people get all the same sadness, but they don't hurt as much because they are still rich.

"Rich people are prone to all the same maladies and emotions as anyone else, and at the same frequency. And certainly, in some cases, money itself can cause stress and unhappiness. But, with one difference -- if you're unhappy and rich, you have money. And money buys creature comforts." -- Steven Kane

After you get rich, you feel the same.

"After a few months of wealth you will eventually get used to it and become the same person that you are now." -- Balraj Chana

Being rich makes you feel smarter and better than the rest of the world, and that feels good.

"It feels good when you break your own money making records and look at the rest of the world like retards. It's good to defeat the system and money helps you do that." -- Anonymous.

You get the respect you don't deserve.

"Life is effortless for the rich. Just by being who you are, perhaps 99% of the world will hop-to and accord you respect that you don't deserve. Even the stupidest and most illiterate rich person can be showered with respect and praise." -- Anonymous

Being rich makes life less risky.

"My life has less risk. If I'm ever ill, I go to the best doctor. If I want to invest in real estate, I can afford to lose the investment without effect to my lifestyle. I can have 5 kids and know that each of them will go to college." -- Josh Kerr

After you get rich, you will still ask: "Is this it?"

"When you've achieved all material goals, you startup asking yourself, is this it? And then if you're a truly ambitious individual, with some care for what the world could be you start asking yourself, what next, how can I change the world? That's where I'm at at this point." -- Anonymous

Could you win the lottery in 8 games out of 10? What's it like to be fabulously wealthy for lottery winners? published first on https://188lotosite.tumblr.com/

0 notes

yessadirichards · 4 years

Photo

WHO declares coronavirus crisis a pandemic GENEVA

Expressing alarm both about mounting infections and inadequate government responses, the World Health Organization declared Wednesday that the global coronavirus crisis is now a pandemic but added that it's not too late for countries to act.

By reversing course and using the charged word "pandemic" that it had previously shied away from, the U.N. health agency sought to shock lethargic countries into pulling out all the stops.

"We have called every day for countries to take urgent and aggressive action. We have rung the alarm bell loud and clear," said Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the WHO chief.

"All countries can still change the course of this pandemic. If countries detect, test, treat, isolate, trace and mobilize their people in the response," he said. "We are deeply concerned by the alarming levels of spread and severity and by the alarming levels of inaction."

Iran and Italy are the new front lines of the battle against the virus that started in China, the WHO said.

"They're suffering but I guarantee you other countries will be in that situation soon," said Dr. Mike Ryan, the WHO's emergencies chief.

He added that the agency thought long and hard about labeling the crisis a pandemic - meaning a new virus causing sustained outbreaks in multiple regions of the world.

The risk of employing the term, Ryan said, is "if people use it as an excuse to give up."

But the benefit is "potentially of galvanizing the world to fight."

Underscoring the mounting challenge: The case count outside China has multiplied 13-fold over the last two weeks to over 118,000, with the disease now responsible for nearly 4,291 deaths, WHO said.

With officials saying that Europe has become the new epicenter, Italy's cases soared again, to 12,462 infections and 827 deaths - numbers second only to China.

"If you want to be blunt, Europe is the new China," said Robert Redfield, the head of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Italy considered imposing even tighter restrictions on daily life and announced billions in financial relief Wednesday to cushion economic shocks from the coronavirus, its latest efforts to adjust to the fast-evolving crisis that silenced the usually bustling heart of the Catholic faith, St. Peter's Square.

In Iran, by far the hardest-hit country in the Middle East, the senior vice president and two other Cabinet ministers were reported to have been diagnosed with COVID-19, the illness caused by the virus. Iran reported another jump in deaths, by 62 to 354 - behind only China and Italy.

In Italy, Premier Giuseppe Conte said he would consider requests from Lombardy, Italy's hardest-hit region, to toughen the already extraordinary anti-virus lockdown that was extended nationwide Tuesday. Lombardy wants to shut down nonessential businesses and reduce public transportation.

These measures would be on top of travel and social restrictions that imposed an eerie hush on cities and towns across the country. Police enforced rules that customers stay 1 meter (3 feet) apart and ensured that businesses closed by 6 p.m.

Milan shopkeeper Claudia Sabbatini said she favored the stricter measures. Rather than risk customers possibly infecting each other in her children's clothing store, she closed it.

"I cannot have people standing at a distance. Children must try on the clothes. We have to know if they will fit,'' she said.

Still, the effectiveness of such measures as travel restrictions and quarantines will likely drop substantially as COVID-19 spreads globally, making it impossible for countries to keep the virus out. Health officials will also need to be more flexible in their coordinated response efforts, as the epicenters are likely to shift quickly and dramatically - as demonstrated by the recent eruptions in Iran and Italy.

Conte emphasized fighting the outbreak must not come at the expense of civil liberties, suggesting that Italy is unlikely to adopt the draconian quarantine measures that helped China push down new infections from thousands per day to a trickle and allowed its manufacturers to restart production lines.

China's new worry is that the coronavirus could re-enter from abroad. Beijing's city government announced that all overseas visitors will be quarantined for 14 days. Of 24 new cases reported Wednesday, five arrived from Italy and one from the United States. China has had over 81,000 virus infections and over 3,000 deaths.

For most, the coronavirus causes only mild or moderate symptoms, such as fever and cough. But for a few, especially older adults and people with existing health problems, it can cause more severe illnesses, including pneumonia. More than 121,000 people have been infected worldwide and over 4,300 have died.

But most people recover. People with mild illness recover in about two weeks, while more severe illness may take three to six weeks, the WHO says.

In the Mideast, most of the nearly 10,000 cases are in Iran or involve people who traveled there. Iran's semiofficial Fars news agency said they include Vice President Eshaq Jahangiri. Iran's ministers for cultural heritage, handcrafts and tourism, and for industry, mines and business were also infected, the agency said.

In Qatar, cases jumped from 24 to 262. Kuwait announced a two-week shutdown of the country.

For the global economy, virus repercussions were profound, with increasing concerns of wealth- and job-wrecking recessions. U.S. stocks wiped out more than all the gains from a huge rally a day earlier as Wall Street continues to reel.

Wall Street's plunge followed a steep decline by markets across Asia, where governments there and elsewhere have announced billions of dollars in stimulus funds, including packages in Japan and Australia.

Italy's government announced Wednesday it was dedicating 25 billion euros (nearly $28 billion) to boost anti-virus efforts and soften economic blows, including delaying tax and mortgage payments by families and businesses.

Britain's government announced a 30 billion-pound ($39 billion) economic stimulus package and the Bank of England slashed its key interest rate by half a percentage point to 0.25%.

Normal life was increasingly upended, with Pope Francis live-streaming prayers from the privacy of his Vatican library as police barred access to St. Peter's Square, emptying it of tens of thousands of people who attend the weekly papal address. In Denmark, Prime Minister Minister Mette Frederiksen announced that all schools, preschools and universities will close as of Monday.

And in the U.S., the caseload passed 1,000, and outbreaks on both sides of the country stirred alarm. Officials in Seattle announced that public schools would close for about 53,000 students and large gatherings were banned in San Francisco and in Washington state, the hardest-hit U.S. state, with 25 deaths.

Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders, vying to take on President Donald Trump in the presidential election, canceled rallies Tuesday and left open the possibility that future campaign events could be impacted. Trump's campaign insisted it would proceed as normal, although Vice President Mike Pence conceded future rallies would be evaluated "on a day to day basis."

In Europe, Spain's number of cases surged Wednesday past the 2,000 mark and Belgium, Bulgaria, Sweden, Albania and Ireland announced their first virus-related deaths.

And at a Congressional hearing in Washington Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, sounded an alarm: "Bottom line, it's going to get worse."

In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel said that if the virus is not halted by vaccines and cures, up to 70% of the country's 83 million people could ultimately become infected.

Germany has about 1,300 confirmed infections and Merkel's comments fit a pattern of government officials using sobering warnings to convince people to protect themselves by washing their hands and not gathering in large numbers.

"It's terrifying," said Silvana Gomez, a student at Harvard University, where undergraduates were told to leave campus by Sunday. "I'm definitely very scared right now about what the next couple days, the next couple weeks look like."

#yessadirichards

0 notes

dwallison · 5 years

Text

A False Sense Of Establishing A Legitimacy Is Destroying Legacies

Life is full of ups and downs, wins and losses, successes and failures. It takes a fool to ignore all of the mention for the sake of establishing a legitimacy that was a failure on the planning table. Sometimes it’s best to accept the reality of the here and now, move on, and enjoy ill gotten gains of failure, rather than to try and redefine failure as success. For the second time since leaving the White House, Barrack Obama is trying desperately to sustain and maintain his legacy, but reality is not going to let him do so, for when it’s all said and done, he’ll still be a failure as the worst, bought and paid for, President of the United States and that will be a grave detriment for a number of other people’s legacies as well. During his eight years in Washington, Obama, like other, bought and paid for politicians has managed to become worth millions, $40 million to be exact. Reports has it when he ran for president, he was only worth $1.3 million as a community organizer. On a salary of only $400,000.00 a year, he can now afford multiple residents and his latest, a 29 acre estate at the tune of $15 million in Martha’s Vineyard proves he was a master at presenting himself as a purchasing option for world leaders, as well as domestic special interest groups, but a major failure at governing a country. This practice is as common as a cold in Washington. His political organization, Organizing For Action, which may or may not be responsible for at least some of his millions of dollars, is getting ready to take on President Trump’s re-election again, and that’s even though the bad fruits of the past attempt at derailing Trump’s campaign completely rotted out, as well as, are still in the headlines daily as it’s undergoes an extensive investigation. Obama’s legacy is gone, and although he’s alone now in his quest at legitimacy, he refuses to accept that reality. The pain of him getting involved again shows on the Democrat National Committee’s faces at the thought of him trying to determine the outcome of the 2020 elections. Their choice of Hillary Clinton defeating Trump in 2016 was a masterful failure, and with the prospects of Joe Biden even coming close to accomplishing a ‘Mission Impossible,’ makes the committee’s heart beats pause, especially when the results of all the extensive investigations comes to light. Regardless of the committee’s nomination choice, results of the 2016 coup will have to be defended and that’s going to be hard to do and neither candidate so far is capable of doing that in a reasonable fashion. The Inspector General’s first report was conducted in much the same fashion as the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s gross miscarriage of security as Secretary of State. James Comey, in the sense of Clinton was found guilty of multiple violations of FBI policies, but remnants of Obama’s legacy in the department, lawyers of all people, feel as though there’s no need to prosecute him and this makes both, he and Obama thrilled to no end, but now, remnants of Obama’s legacy is not out of the woods yet, for there’s supposedly three more investigations underway, and almost at completion of the Russian Collusion, spearheaded by the Obama administration to install a worthless individual into the White House so as to protect, continue and even advance the legacy, but Bill And Hillary Clinton would have thrown him under the bus as he did the DNC with OFA. Obama is not even mentioned in the 2020 campaigns, unless Trump does it in a very negative way. I remember Bill’s comment about Obama: ‘A few years ago, this guy would have been carrying our bags,’ as well as ‘A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee,’ and that attitude haven’t changed, especially after the defeat of his wife again. One would think, Hillary, if elected in 2016, would have systematically done away with his legacy and replaced them with her own. Besides, the Clinton Foundation’s practice of selling legislation had already, based on the assumption she would victorious in 2016, been firmly established. Obama’s legacy didn’t stand a snowball chance in hell of being continued. The OFA became the campaign tool for Obama, and for Obama only and that didn’t set well with the DNC, who was scrapping to support Congressional and Senate races in 2016. Donations went directly to Obama and his campaign. To insure another OFA doesn’t pop up during the 2020 elections, every candidate had to pledge not to follow in Obama’s footsteps and they did, but there was no mention of the consequences they’d suffer if they did not. So far in these investigations into the Russian Collusion disaster, nobody is taking the blame, nor, are they willing to place the blame, instead they are all defending a legacy that’s still, semi in place to protect themselves from within the dark corridors of the ‘deep state,’ and so far, it’s working to perfection, but at the detriment of an entire federal agency’s credibility, who’s lies are constantly flowing and getting stronger as they flow, but are starting to weaken on the scale of justice, as per the people’s perception of represents justice. The Russian Collusion was nothing but a coup: ‘a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government,’ which is federally considered to be treason: ‘the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.,’ and I don’t see the Justice Department taking a knee on this one. That action would destroy their decades old legacy, as well as their future legitimacy. To say the least, the lies of the participants in the coup are strong, but something will eventually go wrong. You just have to take a look at who the victims of the coup will be, the DOJ, the FBI, or remnants of the Obama administration? Comey is celebrating just a bit too soon, for it ain’t over until it’s over, and as far as, whoever the nominee will be, the results of the investigations during the 2020 elections will be one of those infamous, September, October, or November surprises. As for Obama, he either knew of the coup, or presided over the coup, or at least was an active participant in the coup. In any case, he once made a statement, ‘the buck stops with me,’ when it came to intelligence and security. That implies knowledge, presiding over, or active participation. Two other active members of the coup, James Clapper and John Brennan defends Comey, claiming he did what he thought was ‘the right thing.’ Claiming Comey was a ‘whistle-blower for the public,’ yet what he did was a clear cut violation of the DOJ protocol, as well as a clear and precise method of removing a duly elected President of the United States. There was never anything criminal associated with Trump, only the Obama administration, the DOJ, the FBI and Hillary Clinton. The coup is trying to hold on and destroy a re-election of the people’s favorite and that doesn’t look good for the coup, or Obama’s legacy. It takes a fool to ignore past failures, and more impending failures. If the Justice Department wants to polish it’s tarnished legacy, at least Clinton ought to be formerly charged, put on trial and convicted for her part in the Russian Dossier. That will lead to remnants of the Obama administration, and eventually to him. The Trump’s DOJ speaks of justice, returning the department back to it’s original foundation of justice, but that won’t happen until all involved in this coup is brought to justice, and the convictions of the Mueller Special Council’s victims are vacated, and the victims are allowed to seek compensation from the council, including Robert Mueller. The Washington Times is reporting: ‘The new attorney for retired Army Gen. Michael Flynn is putting the scandal-marred Trump-Russia investigation on trial in a bid to make federal prosecutors produce more evidence. In a court filing, Sidney Powell accused former special counsel Robert Mueller’s staff of being part of a broad “illicit operation” by FBI agents and operatives of 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton to spread and use a Democratic Party dossier filled with false allegations against President Trump.’ This should get the ball rolling on justice; put OFA in it’s place finally, clearly define Obama as a failure, and last but not least, make that ‘buck stop with him.’ Sources and other news can be found in Legacy Journal, September 4, 2019 issue.

0 notes

ihealthlove1-blog · 5 years

Text

Juggling: The Addictive New Vaping Trend Teens Are Hiding

Here’s what you will need to learn concerning Juul, the e-cigarette brand that contains double the nicotine and can be vaped out of a device that looks like a USB drive.

Forty years back, almost 29 percent of high school seniors reported smoking cigarettes daily, according to the Department of Public Health and Human Services. From 2015, this number was in an all-time low of 5.5 percent.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports a corresponding decline, together with 4.3 percent fewer middle schoolers and 15.8 percent fewer high-schoolers admitting to smoking cigarettes between 2011 and 2017.

But as using tobacco seems to be to the decline, still, another technique of nicotine utilization has was able to hook today’s childhood.

The exact same CDC report that discussed the decline of cigarette usage demonstrated an increase in vaping.

In 2017, 3.3 percent of middle schoolers reported using electronic cigarettes, and 11.7 percent of high schoolers reported exactly the exact same.

What parents Will Need to know about Juggling, the vaping apparatus in disguise

When it comes to tobacco use, cigarettes are considered a combusted or burned product. The smoke has to be lit, the cigarette burned, and the smoke inhaled.

Vaping, on the other hand, involves no combustion or burning. Instead, vaping products discharge an aerosol that is inhaled.

While many people make the error of assuming this aerosol is really as harmless as water vapor, so it is consists of fine particles comprising toxic compounds, a lot of which are associated with cancer, as well as heart and respiratory diseases.

Vaping devices, which include cigarettes and vape pens, were introduced to the industrial market in 2007. They routinely need to be plugged in or powered with battery thus a heating component will warm a liquid cartridge which releases the aerosol to be pressurized from the lungs.

“a whole number of these cartridges are actually marketed as health services and products,” Dr.explained. “They’ve’healthy’ tastes, things such as mango and berry that are associated with fats that are high. However, they truly are simply tastes. You’ll find no actual health advantages ”

The CDC has found that these tastes really are a big part of the main reason teens are latching onto those services and products. Worse,” Dr. told about a study where 60 percent of children believed that pods used in Juuls (a specific make of cigarettes ) were smoking free — once the reality is that 99 percent of these products contain nicotine.

In 2018, Juuls accounted for roughly 40 percent of the e-cigarette marketplace, totaled 150 million in retail sales the previous quarter alone. The appeal of this item specifically is they don’t seem like e-cigarettes. Juuls are small, could be mistaken for a USB drive, and are easily hidden in an individual’s hand.

In other words, this really is a product adolescent can make use of more discreetly, without drawing too much attention from their teachers and parents.

With the debut of Juggling, e-cigarette use among teens is on the upswing. So much so the Time and The Article recently had reported on Juggling and what parents will need to know about.

“These products are really creating a resurgence,” Dr. explained. “Each of the work that happened, each of the public health attempts, the billions of dollars spent to test to eradicate tobacco use to kiddies has been undone. We now have a huge number of teenagers currently hooked on nicotine.”

The dangers

A large number of individuals believe cigarettes are simply a more powerful way to absorb smoke, which nicotine isn’t harmful alone. But that’s not true.

Studies have found numerous unfavorable effects of smoking alone: on a metabolic process, increased cancer ailments and respiratory troubles, as well as more asthma attacks and symptoms experienced by people that vape.

“We know based on Juul’s own published testing that these products contain carcinogens. Group 1 carcinogens — probably the very potent carcinogens known,” Dr. unmasked.

There’s also another risk that parents ought to be conscious of in terms of teens and e-cigarette use — that the dependence could be harder to kick.

As stated by AAP, Juul pods contain almost double the concentration of nicotine compared to additional cigarette capsules. This is very concerning as the danger of dependency is already higher among adolescents.

Dr. explained, “The younger the developing brain is vulnerable to a cigarette, the stronger and more rapid the dependence. The sooner you become addicted, the harder it is to stop” But that is not all. Based on to Dr., addiction to nicotine at a youthful age actually causes brain remodeling, changing the threshold for addiction to additional substances.

In other words, children using nicotine sooner are more likely to fall in love with other medication in the future.

Strategies for speaking to kids before they start vaping

The dangers of Juggling and vaping for kids are real, making it even more crucial for parents to begin fixing these issues before their children opt to try those services and products.

She offered these tips for engaging in these discussions:

Educate yourself first. Get the facts on these items so that you know what you are talking about when you approach the conversation with your children.

Make a part model. Parents are in charge of shaping lots of their children’s thoughts and behaviors, so place the tone with your actions.

Establish a safe environment where the children can talk about their opinions and feelings without feeling anxiety.

Really listen and allow them to tell you what they understand.

It can occasionally be very helpful to provide them with something to read that you can then discuss together.

Help them find out ways to manage situations where they may be pressured to participate in these behaviors.

Create an idea, even specific matters in order for them to state such as, “I have asthma and my doctor says I might become very ill if I do this,” or, “I just do not believe that it looks trendy .”

Assist them to understand using will power to operate to peers is very hard, but will-power is much like a muscle — that the more you use it, the stronger it gets.

Dr. has this to add, “What the study says concerning tobacco use, which individuals can apply to Juggling and vaping, is that parents expressing how they feel about these items — their own strong negative remarks — actually can really make a big difference. Children may protest, however, they really do internalize their parent’s belief system” Winickoff says that this does work even though a parent uses the item themselves.

Talking about the negatives of the item, and roughly the way in which the addiction has taken hold and parents can not cease (even though they need to) can send a powerful message to teens about why they shouldn’t start.

What to look for

Whilst the age for purchasing the products is 18 in certain nations and 21 others. Dr.explained that lots of children are ordering them simply checking a box to validate that they are of legal age. Because of this, parents need to look closely at their adolescent’s on the web purchases and purchases that may possibly arrive at the email address.

Juul pods additionally look very similar to an average USB flash drive. Examine any suspicious apparatus closely.

Addressing a real problem

In case you realize that your adolescent is already Juggling, Dr.is evident it is important to recognize that than just a”bad habit.” It’s really a health problem which requires a significant response from the household, the child’s pediatrician, and also possibly a therapist to help get out that adolescent of under the smoking habit.

“It’s hard to get kids to stop. Their body craves it. They want it only to make it throughout the day. I can tell you out of an anecdotal experience only from my office, I’ve had a terrible time getting kids to provide up ecigs. They are locked in.”

Ducharme included, “If the problem seems out of control, it is the right time to speak with a psychologist or other mental health professional trained in dealing with adolescents and addictions.”

Now, there aren’t any addiction programs specifically geared toward teens and smoking use, which makes avoidance and enforcement of existing rules all the more important.

Dr.recommends advocating for zero-tolerance coverages in schools and tobacco-free zones around every school, mid-grade through college. He also recommends parents get involved from the Tobacco 2 1 movement, which intends to raise the legal age for purchasing tobacco products to 2–1. Up to now, six states have adopted such legislation.

0 notes

davewakeman · 5 years

Text

40 over 40: Folks That Are Doing Great Stuff That You Should Be Paying Attention To

I put together this 40 over 40 list because it became a little bit of a joke on marketing Twitter.

So I bit and I put together a list that is in no way comprehensive and might not even hit the ages of some of the folks exactly right, but this is 40 people in the range of 40 that are doing work that you should be paying attention to.

If I missed a few people that were definitely people I’d include because I didn’t know if they were over 40 or close, I’m sorry. I’ll make another list to include you on.

In the case of the few more famous people that I put on the list, they are there for a specific reason as well. Or, if there are obvious people that you know are over 40 that didn’t make the list, that is also for the reason that they might already have a lot of attention and what fun is it to include the obvious responses in every situation.

So check out my list of people and reasoning behind why I added them to my special list.

I know that I won’t make everyone happy and that’s great because I want you to tell me the people that I missed and why.

Without further explanation, here is my list:

Alan Weiss:

I wanted to kick off this list by highlight Dr. Weiss because he wrote a book about the topic of not allowing your age to define you, Threescore and More.

Dr. Weiss is a key figure in empowering people to take control of their lives and careers to build exactly what they want through his work as a coach, consultant, and teacher.

If you’ve ever heard the term, “Million Dollar Consulting” you’ve heard of him.

Ryan Wallman:

You might not know the name right off the top of your head, but you’ll know the Twitter handle, @Dr_Draper.

Ryan is a copywriter in Australia, but he is also a critic of the groupthink that seems to have strangled marketing and advertising over the last few decades.

He is constantly provoking and engaging with champions and critics to help drive a conversation about the quality of advertising and marketing thinking.

You’d do much worse than to check out his pinned tweet with his guide to what the keynotes at Cannes would look like…let’s just say he nailed it.

John Loken:

I know for sure that John is over 40!

He’s actually been working on promoting the idea that you aren’t dead at 40 as well.

His newest venture is focusing on creating mass live events. He has a history in the live entertainment business and called me one of his go-to resources for small business marketing. So I mean the compliment alone should be enough to get him on the list, but you should check out what John is up to.

Nicole Yershon:

I made a list of marketers I admire and learn from a few months back, which is likely where this list started building steam.

Nicole is on that list and she is on this list too.

Why?

Because she is brilliant.

Check out her book: Rough Diamond. It encapsulates all of her thinking on innovation, change, and leadership.

Soledad O’Brien:

Most of us remember Soledad from her time on CNN and other broadcast news organizations.

But she has started a new venture, Starfish Media Group.

This allows her to tell stories that might not be being told today. With her platform, she is able to shed light on people, places, and things and draw attention that might not be covered.

In the world we live in, we need more independent voices that are willing and able to tell stories that are vital to uncover and have a platform to share them with a larger audience.

That’s why Soledad is on the list…because that’s what she is doing. Using her reputation for the betterment of others.

Adrion Porter:

I don’t remember exactly how I came across Adrion, but his work speaks to me because he is talking to Generation X.

I know that I find most of these generational tags worthless, but I also know that there are legitimate cultural touchpoints that we all share in common.

In his work, he talks a lot about reinvention, leadership, and growth. A recent podcast episode talked about keeping your dreams.

Check him out!

Dean Caravelis:

I’ve been fortunate to know or meet a lot of the people on this list, but Dean and I have the longest history because we went to high school together.

That caveat out of the way, you should check out Dean for a number of reasons:

He has a great company in Orlando, Blezoo that creates promotional items for marketers.

He has a blog, Outrageously Remarkable. And, his blog meets that promise because he has had some of the smartest people you’ve heard of and some you likely haven’t. And, when I think about it, his blog is a platform much like my own and my Twitter feed to try and highlight ideas and people that aren’t always the ones we go right towards.

Corey Gibbs:

Corey’s name isn’t familiar to you if you aren’t in tickets. If you are in tickets, you’ve likely heard of Corey and his ideas.

Corey is like me, an Alabama man.

He also shares a belief in doing the right thing by his customers, understanding customer service is the best form of marketing, and, lately, he has focused heavily on innovation.

He also just became a doctor and is studying pricing and purchasing in tickets.

Annie Duke:

Annie is famous for playing poker.

But she really should be famous for writing one of the most interesting books I’ve read in a long time, Thinking In Bets.

Her book really takes the idea of certainty and puts a new spin on it. The reality is that we are never absolutely certain of anything, but we are often pretty certain.

Or, to put it another way, even when we are certain of something, there is still the likelihood that another outcome might present itself.

And, in your life and decisions, you are just trying to make decisions with the best data so that you can put the odds in your favor.

Lawrence Peryer:

I formally met Lawrence at INTIX this year in Dallas, but before that, I was a fan of his Twitter feed.

We’ve become friendly since then and we had a chance to talk on my podcast about all kinds of interesting things he’s done over the years including digital goods, Amazon Music, and a lot more.

The stuff that he is doing with Lyte is really interesting and cool. He’s working hard to return more of the value to the content producers especially at live festivals and he is a really thoughtful voice about music, events, and business.

Tammi Gaw:

When I met Tammi, she introduced herself to me with some variation of: “I’m known for my Twitter feed.”

And, she does get into on Twitter.

But that shouldn’t be the thing she is most known for.

In truth, she should be known for her fights for justice in all of its forms. Be that politically, in the legal system, or for student-athletes.

When I am looking at things that I’m confused about or concerned about, I will often look to Tammi’s point of view or ask for her insights.

Tom Peters:

Does Tom Peters need to be on my list?

I’d guess he’s fairly famous in his own right, but I think if you don’t know him already…where have you been living?

Tom has written many of the most famous business books of all time.

He is known for helping coin the idea of “Managing By Walking Around” and he is one of the most active users of Twitter around.

His Twitter feed calls out everyone and everything that he finds lacking in today’s business environment.

Tom has a really great ability to make things that are absolutes seem ridiculous. He also does a great job of making the complex simple.

I want to highlight him for one specific reason though, his devotion to helping find a way to encourage more entrepreneurs. I share that belief that helping people start their own things can transform people, their careers, and the economy for the better.

Jill Vedder:

Sure, Jill has a famous last name, but you should really be paying attention to Jill due to the work she is putting in for EB Research Partnership.

The skin disease that is known by EB is brutal. It is a genetic disease that causes kids skin to be as delicate as a butterfly’s wings and can shorten their lives, cause them great pain, and limit their ability to participate in normal kid activities.

It is an awful disease.

I found out about EB a few years back and I have been a dedicated supporter of the organization as long as I’ve known about it. I’ve had a chance to learn more about the organization and have become a real admirer of Jill and everyone involved in the organization.

Since it is a rare disease, I’m not sure how many people know about EB or how awful it is. Because she’s working to change that and cure the disease, Jill is on the list.

Richard Howle:

Richard Howle is my buddy and we get together every time I am in England.

He is also one of the smartest people about theatre, production, pricing, and events that I know.

He writes and speaks around the world on the topic of pricing, promotion, and ticketing. We had a great chat on my podcast where we discussed all kinds of ills that fall into the world of live entertainment and Richard is at the forefront of creating a better future where people have the chance to enjoy live entertainment.

Cassandra Calleja:

I’m not really sure how old Cassandra is. She might be too young to make this list.

That’s why I didn’t fact check.

But why I really wanted to have her on the list is because she is one of those people that can travel anywhere in the world and build relationships.

I think that is often in short supply in today’s world and I think having the mindset of building relationships is a huge plus.

She’s also a great sports marketing and partnership person. Like a lot of people I’ve included, she’s super dedicated to the customer as well.

Peter Shankman:

I’m not 100% sure how long I’ve known Peter for.

I do know that as long as I have known him, I’ve been a fan of his work.

Even though I’ve known him so long, I even still get a little fanboy about him.

But I just have that much respect for him and his work, especially his dedication to laying the ladder down for others to follow him up.

He writes, speaks, and works around the world…so it is likely you’ve heard of him.

But I want to take a moment to include him here because of the efforts he continues to make to ensure that his success doesn’t happen in a vacuum and that he helps others create opportunities to be successful as well.

Christian Davenport:

Christian writes about space and I find that fascinating.

As I’m writing this, he helped pull together the Washington Post’s coverage of the 50th anniversary of man walking on the moon.

At a time when science is taking on a larger place in our thinking and space seems like it will be the next frontier, you should be paying attention to Christian and his work.

Sukhinder Singh Cassidy:

Sukhinder has one of the toughest jobs in the world, she’s the President of StubHub.

I’d guess she’d also say it was one of the best jobs in the world.

I’m including her on this list because she has been really confronting a super sticky situation, trying to get the world outside of the United States to embrace the secondary market.

From my travels around the world, that’s a tough sell. But I do applaud the effort.

Another reason to watch her is due to her background in tech and applying that to a tech company that really is a marketing company for live experiences.

We are going to see a lot of change in this area over the next few years and she’s likely to be in the middle of a lot of it.

Faris Yakob:

Again, I don’t know if Faris is actually old enough to qualify for this list.

But it’s my list and he is on.

I don’t know if you follow him on Twitter, but you should.

He writes and thinks about the world of marketing and advertising. He also lives everywhere. As he and his wife, Rosie, have taken the ability to work from anywhere and put it to the test.

You should be paying attention to what he is writing and thinking about because it is likely a different take than the average run-of-the-mill thinking that you are going to get from far too many folks.

Harrison Monarth:

I had the chance to have dinner with Harrison a few months back at the invitation of another member of this list.

Harrison is great!

He is a bestselling author and focuses his efforts on leadership and executive presence.

I’m a fan of his idea of inclusive leadership and the work that he does to help people become stronger leaders.

The work he is doing now with regards to communication is something that is likely to be even more important as we move forward and the generation gaps become more pronounced.

Andrew Thomas:

Andrew is from the UK. He is an entrepreneur in the mold of all the best entrepreneurs meaning he’s focusing on creating value, filling unmet needs, and constantly reinventing himself.

This year he’s been out provoking the world with his idea of “how to be more like airlines” at a point when people don’t have a fondness for airlines.

He is also on the board of INTIX and has created a really special ticketing conference in England called the Ticketing Professionals Conference.

Like me, he also complains about the traffic in his neighborhood often.

You’ll want to keep an eye on him as he continues to push for more innovation in the world of events and tickets and uses his platform as a member of the board of INTIX to offer up his thoughts and ideas.

Dorie Clark:

Dorie has written a trio of books about you, your career, and the ideas that can allow you to thrive in the modern economy:

Reinventing You

Stand Out

Entrepreneurial You

If you haven’t heard of Dorie yet, you have been missing out. Her work is practical and focuses on actions you can take immediately.

Also, she doesn’t ever imply that the work ahead is easy.

That’s what is cool about her work. She tells you it is possible, but that you’ll have to work hard.

At the same time, she isn’t one of those people that are telling you to never let up as she talks about her transformation into someone that not only recognizes the need for balance but works at creating balance in her life.

She’s someone else that I’m totally not sure is old enough to be on this list.

Heidi Browning:

Heidi is the CMO of the NHL.

I’ve been watching what she’s working on closely because I’ve always felt that the NHL had the most room to grow as a popular sport in the States.

There are so many great marketing and advertising initiatives going on with the NHL right now from the Stanley Cup’s twitter feed to videos with Snoop Dogg promoting hockey that it is tough to point to just one effort that is likely driving increased attention to the NHL.

I’m excited by hockey and I’m excited to see someone from outside of sports business have the chance to market the sport because I think the meeting of sports business and a consumer-facing background creates a lot of really cool opportunities.

Shaji Prabhakaran:

Shaji is the President of Football Delhi!

He is working to sell the sport to India and get people out to play.

I mean those are two things I can really get behind, helping people play together and learning a new sport.

I found out about Shaji when I first started my podcast and was looking for cool people around the world to highlight and while we haven’t had the chance to record a podcast just yet, Shaji is doing great work.

Bruce McTague:

I’m not sure how I came across Bruce, but one day we got into a discussion about what is going on with messaging and the Democratic Party.

At which point Bruce sent me a detailed strategy and messaging plan that he shared with the Clinton campaign that probably mirrored many of the ideas I was offering up to the people I know in politics.

In general, you should follow Bruce because he is in the same vein that I am of taking an idea that has the stench of conventional wisdom and trying to flip it on its head, shake it so he can see what falls out of its pockets.

Susan Oh:

Susan is a former journalist and now she is taking the journalist’s eye to business.

Check out Muckr.ai and see how Susan is applying AI to fight the idea of “fake news” and in her words, bullshit.

As we have to deal with technologies that can manipulate us more and more, this kind of focus on helping truth see the light of day is essential.

Ian Nuttall:

Ian has created a whole bunch of really cool things that should be drawing attention and do.

He has the Ticketing Biz website, Xperiology, and Stadium Business…basically, if you want to know about the business of fun, if you aren’t paying attention to me, you likely should be paying attention to him.

Bonnie Bernstein:

I dig what Bonnie is up to because like a lot of people on this list, she’s reinvented herself over the years to reflect her interests.

I remember her from being on CBS specifically.

Like Soledad, she is working on telling stories and she is a promoter of health and fitness.

Colin Lewis:

I have to say that if I wrote a column for Marketing Week, I might write one just like Colin’s.

He is a really incredible marketing thinker and clear writer.

I’ve gone back and forth with him over the last few months about starting a marketing podcast called “Above Average Intelligence.”

I think it would be a good idea if only because it would allow more people to find Colin and his work.

Soomean Chang:

Soomean was a client of mine back in the days that I was selling tickets and that’s how I became familiar with her work.

She calls herself a creative director and if you see her social media posts you’ll notice that there is a vibrancy to the way that she approaches things and it is refreshing. She also curates her content in a way that decidedly shows her point of view…and that is also great.

Derek Palmer:

Derek paid me one of the nicest compliments I’ve ever received when he told a group of sports business executives something along the lines that I was the only “marketer he knew that wasn’t full of it.”

I mean that alone would get him on my list. (Hint: for future lists, flattery isn’t a disqualifier.)

Derek is also one of the real innovators in the ticket business. He has sold technology that helps teams market and sell their inventory more effectively all over the world, but now he is working on a new idea that will make dynamic pricing and marketing even more successful for organizations that are struggling to compete in the experience economy.

He doesn’t always tweet about business, but he’s been doing it a little more often lately.

Amy Pritchard:

There are a few people on this list that were nice to me when I really couldn’t expect people to be nice to me, Amy is one of them.

When I first moved to DC, I didn’t know anyone.

Amy helped change that.

Amy is the kind of political consultant that is in the business for the right reasons and she is one of the handful of political consultants that I respect the most. (I think she works with almost all of the rest of them.)

She is a great advocate for progressive causes, fighting for women, and doing good around the globe.

I can also say without knowing Amy I would have never had the opportunity to work on some really high level, national political campaigns which have been a real highlight.

Simon Mabb:

If you’ve read my blog or followed along with my work for any length of time, you know Simon name.

But he deserves to be on this list despite the fact that we are friends because the work that he has done changing insurtech into a customer-focused venture through his work at Booking Protect makes him a global leader in customer service and innovation.

It is Simon’s dedication to the vision that just because you are working with an insurance company or a refund product doesn’t mean you have to be stuck with bad service and a poor customer interface has driven tremendous growth in the ways that customers protect their ticket purchases, their holiday bookings, and their nights out.

I should note that when people ask me how I became a Spurs fan, I point at Simon.

Stu Heinecke:

Stu coined the term “contact marketing” and it has changed the way that I approach marketing.

From following Stu’s lead, I realize that one right action can change the course of your career. That one correct touch point can begin a new relationship. And, that marketing can and should have a bit of fun, whimsy, and, always, creativity to it.

Ruby Newell-Legner:

I love Ruby’s idea of 7-star service so much.

The concept encapsulates so much of what I talk about as well:

Customer focused

Earning repeat business

Wowing your guests

Ruby has taken her idea all over the world and if you ever meet her, ask her to show you the photos of some of the hotels she has visited because until you see what Ruby calls “world-class” service, you have no clue what world-class service really is.

Alastair Thomson:

I’ve included Alastair on this list because he is a CFO that isn’t fighting marketing.

In fact, he gets into marketing conversations pretty regularly.

Chatting and learning from Alastair should be viewed as an opportunity for anyone in a revenue-generating role because hearing his opinions on what a CFO is looking at when we discuss marketing, sales, and branding is pretty valuable.

Lisa Bowman:

Lisa is the CMO of the United Way.

The United Way is powerful because they fight for people in every community in the country. I’ve seen their work help create real, positive change in the DC area. So imagine the impact of a positive partner in every community in the country.

When you are marketing that kind of power and impact, you better pay attention to the person telling those stories.

So check out Lisa’s work.

JP Hanson:

Okay, like Colin Lewis, JP is sort of a marketing spirit animal for me.

He takes a common sense approach to marketing that can’t be taken for granted.

As with a lot of marketers I admire, he says things and puts them into words that I might have been thinking and couldn’t quite get them out.

And, sometimes he doesn’t pull punches on topics that I might have.

Lynne King Smith:

Lynne is an entrepreneur and she empowers women through her work at INTIX, TicketForce, and, Thrive Co-Working For Women.

Also, anyone that says they are fueled by craft beer is alright by me.

Mitch Slater:

A decade ago, Mitch spent time with me when he didn’t have to.

I lost touch with him and a while back he popped up in people I should follow on Twitter.

Again, when I look at my list, I see reinvention and Mitch has reinvented himself to focus on finance and he has a podcast that is really great called, Financially Speaking. His guest list is phenomenal. Check out his conversation with Larry King. At heart, his podcast is about business, finance, marketing, and life.

You’ll also dig his Twitter feed because he is undeniably a Springsteen superfan, a Mets’ fan, and a relentless critic of Donald Trump and things that politically don’t make a whole lot of sense.

As for me, I can’t put myself on my own list:

But if you are just getting to my work, check me out on Twitter, LinkedIn, or by signing up for my newsletter where I discuss value, strategy, marketing, and revenue.

Who did I miss? And, know if there are people that already have huge audiences, they likely just didn’t make it because what fun is it to highlight the more obvious people?

Please follow and like us:

40 over 40: Folks That Are Doing Great Stuff That You Should Be Paying Attention To was originally published on Wakeman Consulting Group

#accounting #consulting #finance #marketing #professional services #sales #sportsbiz

0 notes

toldnews-blog · 5 years

Photo

New Post has been published on https://toldnews.com/business/quadriga-the-cryptocurrency-exchange-that-lost-135m/

Quadriga: The cryptocurrency exchange that lost $135m

Image copyright Facebook/Quadriga

Image caption Gerald Cotten

When the 30-year-old founder of a Canadian cryptocurrency exchange died suddenly, he took the whereabouts of some C$180m ($135m; £105m) in cryptocurrency to his grave. Now, tens of thousands of Quadriga CX users are wondering if they will ever see their funds again.

In 2014, one of the world’s biggest online cryptocurrency exchanges – MtGox – unexpectedly shut down after losing 850,000 Bitcoins valued at the time at nearly $0.4bn (£0.3bn).

Its meltdown shook investors in the volatile emerging marketplace – but the calamity at the Tokyo-based company proved a boon for a new Canadian online cryptocurrency exchange.

“People like the fact we’re located in Canada and know where their money is going,” Quadriga CX founder Gerald Cotten said at the time.

Some five years later, Cotten’s sudden, untimely death has left thousands of his customers scrambling for information about their own missing funds.

“We don’t know whether or not we’re going to get our money back,” Tong Zou, who says he is owed C$560,000 – his life savings – told the BBC.

“There’s just a lot of uncertainty.”

This month, Quadriga – which had grown to become Canada’s largest cryptocurrency exchange – was granted temporary bankruptcy protection in a Canadian court.

The firm said it had spent the weeks since Cotten’s death trying desperately to “locate and secure our very significant cryptocurrency reserves”.

Image copyright Reuters

Image caption Broken representations of the Bitcoin virtual currency

In court documents, Quadriga says it owes up to 115,000 users an estimated C$250m – about C$70m in hard currency and between C$180m an C$190m in cryptocurrency, based on recent market rates.

It believes – though it’s not certain – that the bulk of those millions in reserves was locked away by Cotten in cold storage, which is an offline safeguard against hacking and theft.

For now, all trading has been suspended on the platform.

Bitcoin explained: How do crypto-currencies work?

‘Wild West’ Bitcoin ‘should be regulated’

Bernie Doyle, CEO of Refine Labs and head of the Toronto chapter of the Government Blockchain Association, calls what’s happening at Quadriga a “seismic event” in the industry.

The world of digital currency has little regulatory oversight and a history of volatile prices, hacking threats, and minimal consumer protection.

Mr Doyle says this only adds to the nascent sector’s already “checkered history”.

But he says “it’s really unfortunate that the ecosystem takes a hit” amid one firm’s problems.

Image copyright Reuters

Image caption The theft involved the lesser-known IOTA cryptocurrency

What happened at Quadriga?

Court documents filed in late January offer some insight into the company.

Quadriga had no offices, no employees and no bank accounts. It was essentially a one-man band run entirely by Cotten wherever he – and his laptop – happened to be, which was usually his home in Fall River, Nova Scotia.

It used some third-party contractors to handle some of the additional work, including payment processing.

His widow, Jennifer Robertson, says she was not involved in the company until her husband died suddenly on 9 December in India from complications related to Crohn’s disease.

In an affidavit, she says she has searched the couple’s home and other properties for business records related to Quadriga, to no avail. The laptop on which he conducted all the business is encrypted and she doesn’t have the password or recovery key.

An investigator hired to assist in recovering any records had little success.

It was also recently revealed the company somehow inadvertently transferred Bitcoins valued at almost half-a-million dollars into cold storage in early February and now can’t access them.

But Quadriga’s troubles didn’t start with missing coins. The company’s liquidity problems began months earlier.

In January 2018, Canadian bank CIBC froze five accounts containing about C$26m linked to Quadriga’s payment processor in a dispute over the real owners of the funds, an issue that ended up in court.

Image copyright Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Image caption A photo of bank drafts submitted in Quadriga court documents

The company says it also has millions in bank drafts it has been unable to deposit because banks have been unwilling to accept them.

Ms Robertson’s affidavit to the court included photos showing stacks of bank drafts placed on a kitchen stove.

Those banking disputes contributed to a “severe liquidity crunch” at the company, with frustrated users facing delays and difficulties trying to access funds.

Who was Gerald Cotten?

In photos and interviews, Cotten comes across as a clean-cut business school graduate who tended to favour the casual shirts and jeans uniform of a tech entrepreneur.

In a statement, Quadriga called him a “visionary leader” who was in India for the opening an orphanage for children in need when he died.

His friend Alex Salkeld described Cotten as a helpful, easy-going young man keen to contribute to the community of cryptocurrency enthusiasts.

“I don’t think you’ll find anyone willing to say anything bad about him,” he told the BBC.

Mr Salkeld said once a week Vancouver Bitcoin Co-Op members would all head over to the Quadriga’s then-offices “and just talk Bitcoin”.

Like others at the time, he said Cotten saw Bitcoin as a technology with the potential to change the world – a virtual currency free of governments and the banking system.

Mr Salkeld said that since Cotten died, those who knew him have been going back-and-forth over how he could possibly have failed to have a contingency plan in place.

Image copyright Courtesy Alex Salkeld

Image caption Gerald Cotten in 2014 showing Alex Salkeld’s daughters how to use a Bitcoin automatic teller

But amid rampant talk online about possible fraud related to the missing coins, Mr Salkeld said that, to him, “it’s looking like a tragic series of unfortunate events strung together in a really unlucky way”.

Cotten’s last will and testament also gives some hints as to his life and assets.

The document, signed shortly before his ill-fated trip to India, shows he appointed Ms Robertson as executor of the estate and left her the bulk of his property.

It offers some detail into those assets: a Lexus, an airplane – he was an amateur pilot – a sailboat, and real estate in the Canadian provinces of Nova Scotia and British Columbia.

He even planned for the care of his two chihuahuas, Nitro and Gully.

The case against Quadriga

There are many who are suspicious of Quadriga’s story and who doubt claims that Cotten had the only key to reserves valued in the tens of millions of dollars.

Online sleuths and industry experts have analysed the public transaction history of Quadriga wallets – which are used to store, send, and receive cryptocurrency – and have raised the possibility that the cold storage reserves might not exist at all.

Tech Tent – is it curtains for crypto?

Is blockchain living up to the hype?

That has led to concern there is more at play than poor business practices and internal company chaos in the wake of Cotten’s death.

Others have wondered whether Cotten faked his own death and that this is all part of an “exit scam” to abscond with the funds.

Amid those rumours, Ms Robertson’s affidavit included a copy of statement of death from a funeral home in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

The hospital in Jaipur where Cotten was treated also released a statement detailing the medical interventions he received prior to his death.

JP Morgan creates crypto-currency

His widow says she has received death threats and “slanderous comments” online since Quadriga publicly announced its troubles.

An independent third party monitor has also been appointed to oversee the court proceedings, and is currently in possession of Cotten’s laptop and other devices.

What happens next?

In an online message to its users, Quadriga said it filed for creditor protection to give it time to ensure the future viability of the company.

It also admitted it is in “the early stages of a long process and [does] not have all the answers right now”.

According to court filings, Quadriga is also investigating whether some of the cryptocurrency could be secured on other exchanges and it said it’s considering selling the platform to cover its debts.

A number of affected users, including Tong Zou, have retained lawyers and are seeking representation in the proceedings.

Meanwhile, Canada’s main securities regulator, the Ontario Securities Commission, has confirmed it looking into Quadriga “given the potential harm to Ontario investors”.

0 notes

opioidjusticeteam · 4 years

Text

NAS Baby Lawsuit

NAS baby lawsuit offers hope to families ravaged by America’s opioid crisis

By Donald Creadore

Few women in the United States have seen the effects of the opioid-abuse crisis on the nation’s kids like Kathy Strain. After her children struggled with addiction, the Berks County, Pennsylvania, woman turned her anger and anxiety into activism – especially on behalf of a growing number of grandparents unexpectedly raising babies who are suffering the lasting health impacts of exposure to opioids in the womb.

“It really is a big group of kids, with all of the issues, and nobody knows,” said Strain. She is talking about the estimated 250,000 children born every year in America diagnosed with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome, or NAS, as well as other health or developmental issues caused by opioid exposure. or NAS – a medical diagnosis assigned to the hundreds of thousands of U.S. kids exposed to opioids as a fetus developing in their mother’s womb.

Strain – who was once a Pennsylvania moderator for a popular internet message board called The Addict’s Mom – talks regularly to family members who worry about physical symptoms like clenched jaws or grinding teeth in their children, or see developmental or psychological difficulties such as attention-deficit problems, autism-like symptoms or memory issues.

It’s because of her work and dedication to families struggling with the ill-effects of in utero opioid exposure Strain is now a leading national advocate for an NAS baby lawsuit – a legal effort launched in late 2019 by a non-profit group that aims to hold responsible the large pharmaceutical companies that caused the opioid crisis, including paying for the massive cost of monitoring these children and making sure they receive proper care.

“We owe it to these kids — and future generations – to develop a tracking system and to study and see why developmental delays and defects may be happening with these children,” said Strain, referring to the lawsuit’s demand for a medical monitoring fund to follow children diagnosed with NAS or other opioid-related injuries.

Strain believes that the Nation’s surge in the number of prescriptions of opioid painkillers, and its ready availability, can be traced back to aggressive marketing tactics by these large pharmaceutical companies which, most alarmingly and egregiously, continued well after the addictive qualities of these drugs and their adverse impacts upon children had become evident to industry. .

NAS injures 250,000 babies every year

It’s been reported that about one-in-three pregnant women in America — or roughly 1.3 million out of the 3.8 million women annually — were given a prescription for opioid painkillers. Our legal team has done the math and determined that a baby with serious problems due to opioid exposure is born somewhere in the United States every 15-20 minutes. That would mean about 250,000 babies requiring specialized treatment are born every year – a number that’s been grossly underestimated by the federal government. The absence of uniform diagnostic and reporting protocols, coupled with underreporting and misdiagnosis by medical workers, unintentional or otherwise, are responsible for gross inaccuracies that unfairly and unjustifiably punish newborn children.

Dr. Brent Bell has analyzed NAS research from around the globe as a retained expert for the Opioid Justice Team and, according to him “the amount of opioid use, the time of exposure in the pregnancy and the length of exposure may show up years later in social, interactive, behavioral, cognitive and educational deficits of the child, even if the born child tests negative.

Despite the pervasiveness of the country’s opioid crisis, there’s been far too little reporting and debate about the medical impacts and sufferings, both short-term and long-term, upon children exposed to opioids in utero as a developing fetus. The most frequent diagnosis is NAS, arising from clinical observation and monitoring, following birth, of its most common conditions manifesting themselves in various forms, including but not limited to body shakes, excessive crying or yawns, feeding problems, diarrhea, sleeping problems, fever, or a runny nose.

Also reported, albeit infrequently, are reports of birth defects (related to opioid exposure in utero), such as club foot, spina bifida, heart defects, cleft palate, hydrocephalus, esophageal atresia, gastroschisis, anorectal atresia, or diaphragmatic hernia. And as these opioid-exposed children mature, many experience behavioral problems, cognitive delays, mental or motor deficits, or attention-deficit disorder (ADD), among other maladies.

Fighting the stigma of opioid addiction

After first learning of her children’s struggle Strain was so distraught and paralyzed by fear, she lost her job and was forced to collect unemployment benefits. Strain decided to become an activist because of this experience and her realization of the lack of resources available to families, like hers. Despite her best efforts to become educated on addiction and best practices, her middle son died from an overdose while he was seeking treatment. But, to her credit, she overcame her fears of public speaking and began her mission to warn other parents about the dangers of opioids. “I didn’t want any family to experience the shame and the stigma that I’d felt,”, says Strain.

Strain is now a local leader with Not One More, a family support group, in addition to acting as a moderator on popular websites for parents and grandparents. To her further credit, Strain now works for a non-profit grant funded program in Pennsylvania on a program aimed at ending substance use in the workplace and educating employers on what issues employees that have a loved one struggling with addiction may be experiencing. The plight of Strain’s family, like many of the families belonging to her friends and co-workers, is not unusual within her community, nor nationwide. To the contrary, the impact on America’s adults is both mindboggling and sweeping. Sadly, over 400,000 Americans have reportedly died from opioids during the period of 1999-2017 (from opioids obtained legally in addition to illegal street drugs). This figure is roughly equal to the number of U.S. soldiers killed in World War II, to provide some perspective to the enormity of the current opioid health crisis.

In addition, the number of children removed from their parents’ custody and placed in foster care or with relatives has spiked- for example, in Vermont, that number grew by 40% from 2013 to 2016. Similarly, nearly 7,000 West Virginia children find themselves in state care today, a 70% increase from a decade ago.

Strain says there’s still a lot of work to be done in educating would-be mothers, as well as the doctors and medical staff who treat them, about the risks of opioid use while pregnant upon their fetus. . “Women of child-bearing age and, especially, those women seeking to conceive or are pregnant, need to be made fully aware of the danger posed by their use of opioids.” she said. “That wasn’t happening, and I don’t know that that’s happening now.”

In March, the lawyers of the Opioid Justice Team filed in federal court a request for a preliminary injunction requiring women of child-bearing age to test negative for pregnancy as a condition to prescribing her an opioid product.

It’s hardly a radical idea. Especially when one considers that doctors in the United States who treat young women of child-bearing age for acne are already being required to administer a urine pregnancy test before prescribing Accutane, a drug that’s been positively linked to birth defects. This protocol is uniform and, as importantly, demonstrates that doctors, patients, pharmacies and the big pharmaceutical companies are all perfectly capable of acting affirmatively and in the public interest towards protecting young mothers, fetal development, and improving outcomes for both the mother and her newborn.

Yet this simple, common-sense idea – which could dramatically reduce the number of babies exposed to opioids in the womb – remains on hold.

NAS baby lawsuit offers a shot at justice

In the federal court case, our team of attorneys is fighting hard to get children born to mothers that has used opioids while pregnant to become recognized as their own legal class within the national opioid litigation, which is currently before U.S. District Court Judge Daniel A. Polster in Cleveland, Ohio. The same team of lawyers has also filed lawsuits in nearly 40 states, each one also seeking recognition for the legal rights of these kids and their families.

The aim of the NAS babies’ lawsuit is a legal settlement, whereby pharmaceutical companies that had manufactured and aggressively marketed these painkillers – including Purdue Pharma, the firm behind Oxycontin – contribute funds necessary to establish and administer a medical monitoring fund for these children, one of the main goals of family-health-activists such as Strain. The same companies would also be required to provide funding for long-term health care, therapies, counseling and tutoring.

Many of the lawyers on our team vividly memories of a similar case that occurred two decades ago – the lawsuit against Big Tobacco companies, seeking justice in the form of compensation for the decades of harm caused by cigarette smoking, and the failure to warn the public about those health risks. The chief plaintiffs in that case were state and local governments, and the settlement (in the late 1990s) resulted a multi-billion-dollar windfall that only led to government entities spending the money to plug holes in their budgets rather than assisting the victims of smoking, as intended. North Carolina, most brazenly, spent 75 percent of its settlement money to bolster tobacco production

In fighting for justice on behalf of opioid-exposed children, our goal is to make sure that history doesn’t repeat itself in the current case against Big Pharma, even as many of the same states and localities are back again at the bargaining table. That’s why we sought meaningful representation concerning the ongoing settlement talks occurring in Cleveland, as well as in the ongoing bankruptcy case involving Purdue Pharma, to ensure these NAS-affected children have a voice.

There is still an opportunity for new plaintiffs to join other families and our team of attorneys in the lawsuits filed behalf on behalf of children exposed to opioids in utero and their guardians. I hope you’ll join us and help us make sure that any national financial settlement over the opioid crisis goes to the families and the communities that need help as this generation of kids grows up.

The post NAS Baby Lawsuit appeared first on Opioid Justice Team.

from Opioid Justice Team https://opioidjusticeteam.com/nas-baby-lawsuit/

0 notes

bountyofbeads · 4 years

Text

This is a MUST READ 📖 on what's REALLY HAPPENING out in America NOT the 🌹 rosy picture that Trump is projecting. AMERICANS are SUFFERING and in a STATE of DESPAIR and are DYING. Add to that the COVID-19 PANDEMIC our HEALTHCARE system, ECONOMY and SOCIETY is are BREAKING. The TRUMP administration has COMPOUNDED the PROBLEM 10-fold. PLEASE SHARE😢😭

Why Americans Are Dying from Despair

The unfairness of our economy, two economists argue, can be measured not only in dollars but in deaths.

By Atul Gawande | Published March 16, 2020 | The New Yorker Magazine | Posted March 16, 2020

t all started with a bad back. For more than a decade, the Princeton economist Anne Case had suffered from chronic lower-back pain, and nothing seemed to help. She’d made her name studying the connections between health and economic patterns in people’s lives; her research showed, for instance, a connection between your health in early childhood, or even in utero, and your economic status later in life. So she decided to research the patterns of pain in the population. And as she pulled on this thread she found a bigger, more alarming story than she ever expected.

The question she began with, in 2014, was whether pain had grown more or less prevalent in the United States over the past few decades. Given advances in labor-saving technologies and in pain treatments, she expected that the prevalence reported in population surveys would have fallen. Instead, it had gone up. Some hundred million Americans now suffer from chronic pain—that is, they’ve been in pain on most days for the past three months. And the rates are especially high in middle age: Americans in their fifties, unlike their counterparts in other countries, have higher rates of chronic pain than those in their seventies and eighties.

Case’s husband, Angus Deaton, is also an economist at Princeton. In 2013, he published a sweeping economic history, “The Great Escape,” which traced the way people had become healthier and wealthier in the past couple of centuries, though at a cost to economic equality. During his research, he’d noticed that people’s happiness was largely disconnected from this story. As wealth rose, so did health and quality of life; happiness did not necessarily follow. He was struck, then, when his wife told him that pain rates had not declined, either.

Was there a link? They combed through survey data together and found that communities with higher rates of chronic pain also had higher rates of suicide. What’s more, rates of both had risen markedly for middle-aged, non-Hispanic white Americans—but not for black or Hispanic Americans. And the data grew only more curious and concerning the further they looked. As Case and Deaton recount in their new book, “Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism” (Princeton), they dug deeper into national vital statistics and compared rates of suicide with those of other causes of mortality. “To our astonishment, it was not only suicide that was rising among middle-aged whites; it was all deaths,” they write.

This was nearly unfathomable. Outside of wars or pandemics, death rates for large populations across the world have been consistently falling for decades. Yet working-age white men and women without college degrees were dying from suicide, drug overdoses, and alcohol-related liver disease at such rates that, for three consecutive years, life expectancy for the U.S. population as a whole had fallen. “The only precedent is a century ago, from 1915 through 1918, during the First World War and the influenza epidemic that followed it,” Case and Deaton write. Between 1999 and 2017, more than six hundred thousand extra deaths—deaths in excess of the demographically predicted number—occurred just among people aged forty-five to fifty-four. Case and Deaton first wrote about the rise in deaths from suicide and self-poisoning—what they came to call “deaths of despair”—in a 2015 paper. The editors at JAMA and The New England Journal of Medicine, the two most prominent medical journals, somehow missed the paper’s significance and rejected it without even a formal review; it was eventually published in a more technical journal, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, in November of that year. A few weeks before it appeared, Deaton was named the winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, for his earlier work in development economics. But he considered this new paper to be as important as anything he’d done in his life. Sure enough, when the paper came out it was discussed on television, talk radio, and social media, drawing the sort of public response that seldom greets economic research. It had put numbers on a long-simmering but inchoate sense among many people that something had gone profoundly wrong with the American Dream.

But what, exactly? Why was this happening here and not elsewhere? Case and Deaton’s original paper offered no explanation, but their new book does. And their explanation begins by dismantling several others.

Was the source of the problem America’s all-too-ready supply of prescription opioids? For decades, drug companies notoriously played down their addictive properties, and we physicians, to our lasting shame, gave out the drugs like lollipops. Looking back, I am aghast at the glib reassurance I gave patients who hesitated about taking oxycodone after surgery. “Don’t worry,” I’d say. “Addiction is unusual after surgery.” But it wasn’t, and I should have known. Studies revealed that three to eight per cent of surgery patients who took narcotics for the first time after brief hospital stays were still taking the drugs as much as twelve months later. Abuse became widespread in the early years of this century. After regulations tightened the legal supply of opioids, users turned to other sources. About a million Americans now use heroin daily or near-daily. Many others use illicitly obtained synthetic opioids like fentanyl.

Yet white Americans with bachelor’s degrees have accounted for only about nine per cent of overdose deaths in the past quarter century. Such deaths are even rarer among black Americans. As Case and Deaton note, most people who abuse or become addicted to opioids continue to lead functional lives and many eventually escape their dependence. The oversupply of opioids did not create the conditions for despair. Instead, it appears, the oversupply fed upon a white working class already adrift. And, although opioid deaths plateaued, at least temporarily, in 2018, suicides and alcohol-related deaths continue upward.

Could deaths of despair be related to the rising incidence of obesity? Obesity is known to increase chronic illness and joint pain, and its regional and demographic patterns track with deaths of despair. But Case and Deaton report that we’re seeing the same troubling health trends “among the underweight, normal weight, overweight, and obese.”

Is the problem poverty? Death rates for the white working class have seen no decline for nearly three decades, even as poverty rates fell during the nineteen-nineties, rose during the Great Recession, and fell again in the years afterward. Overdose deaths are most common in high-poverty Appalachia and along the low-poverty Eastern Seaboard, in places such as Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Delaware, and Connecticut. Meanwhile, some high-poverty states, such as Arkansas and Mississippi, have been less affected. Black and Hispanic populations are poorer but less affected, too.

How about income inequality? Case and Deaton have found that patterns of inequality, like patterns of poverty, simply don’t match the patterns of mortality by race or region. California and New York, for instance, have among the highest inequality levels in the country and the lowest mortality rates.

A consistently strong economic correlate, by contrast, is the percentage of a local population that is employed. The numbers have undergone a long decline nationally. In the late nineteen-sixties, Case and Deaton note, all but five per cent of men of prime working age, from twenty-five to fifty-four, had jobs; by 2010, twenty per cent did not. In 2018, well into the recovery from the Great Recession, fourteen per cent were still not at work. Of that fourteen per cent, only a fifth reported that they were looking for work and were therefore counted in official statistics as “unemployed.” The rest were not in the labor force. What Case and Deaton have found is that the places with a smaller fraction of the working-age population in jobs are places with higher rates of deaths of despair—and that this holds true even when you look at rates of suicide, drug overdoses, and alcohol-related liver disease separately. They all go up where joblessness does.

Conservatives tend to offer cultural explanations. You see this in J. D. Vance’s “Hillbilly Elegy” and Charles Murray’s “Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010,” not to mention a raft of state initiatives that would impose work requirements on Medicaid recipients. People are taking the lazy way out of responsibilities, the argument goes, and so they choose alcohol, drugs, and welfare and disability checks over a commitment to hard work, family, and community. And now they are paying the price for their hedonism and decadence—with addiction, emptiness, and suicide.

Yet, if the main problem were that a large group of people were withdrawing from the workforce by choice, wages should have risen in parallel. Employers should have been pulling out the stops to lure people back to work. But they haven’t. Wages have stayed flat for years.

So what does explain the rise of deaths of despair among white Americans without college degrees? Case and Deaton argue that the problem arises from the cumulative effect of a long economic stagnation and the way we as a nation have dealt with it. For the first few decades after the Second World War, per-capita U.S. economic growth averaged between two and three per cent a year. In the nineties, however, it dipped below two per cent. In the early two-thousands, it was less than one per cent. This past decade, it remained below 1.5 per cent.

Different populations have experienced this slowdown very differently. The earnings advantage for those with college degrees soared. Anti-discrimination measures improved earnings and job prospects for black and Hispanic Americans. Though their earnings still lag behind those of the white working class, life for this generation of people of color is better than it was for the last.

Not so for whites without a college education. Among the men, median wages have not only flattened; they have declined since 1979. The work that the less educated can find isn’t as stable: hours are more uncertain, and job duration is shorter. Employment is more likely to take the form of gig work, temporary contracting, or day labor, and is less likely to come with benefits like health insurance.

Among advanced economies, this deterioration in pay and job stability is unique to the United States. In the past four decades, Americans without bachelor’s degrees—the majority of the working-age population—have seen themselves become ever less valued in our economy. Their effort and experience provide smaller rewards than before, and they encounter longer periods between employment. It should come as no surprise that fewer continue to seek employment, and that more succumb to despair.

The problem isn’t that people are not the way they used to be. It’s that the economy and the structure of work are not the way they used to be. This has had devastating effects on the family and on community life. In 1980, rates of marriage by middle age were about eighty per cent for white people with and without bachelor’s degrees alike. As the economic prospects of those two groups have diverged, however, so have their marriage prospects. Today, about seventy-five per cent of college graduates are married by age forty-five, but only sixty per cent of non-college graduates are. Nonmarital childbearing has reached forty per cent among less educated white women. Parents without bachelor’s degrees are also now dramatically less likely to have a stable partner for rearing and financially supporting their children.

Religious institutions previously played a vital role in connecting people to a community. But the number of Americans who attend religious services has declined markedly over the past half century, falling to just one-third of the general population today. (The rate is lower still among non-college graduates.) Union membership has declined even more precipitously. Case and Deaton see a picture of steady economic and social breakdown, amid over-all prosperity. Physicians like me attend to the individual circumstances of illness and mortality. We see the seeds of suicide in pain, depression, or addiction, perhaps germinated by a life event, such as a breakup, a financial crisis, or a new health problem. But climate—the amount of social and economic instability not only in your life but also in your family and community—matters, too. Émile Durkheim pointed out more than a century ago that despair and then suicide result when people’s material and social circumstances fall below their expectations. The connection appears to be just as powerful for other forms of self-harm, such as drug and alcohol abuse.

et why has the steep rise in deaths of despair been so uniquely American? Case and Deaton identify a few factors. The United States has provided unusually casual access to means of death. The availability of opioids has indeed played a role, and the same goes for firearms (involved in more than half of suicides); we all but load the weapons of self-destruction for people in misery. The U.S. has also embraced automation and globalization with greater alacrity and fewer restrictions than other countries have. Displaced workers here get relatively little in the way of protection and support. And we’ve enabled capital to take a larger share of the economic gains. “Economists long thought that the ratio of wages to profits was an immutable constant, about two to one,” Case and Deaton point out. But since 1970, they find, it has declined significantly.

A more unexpected culprit identified by Case and Deaton is our complicated and costly health-care system. There is, to be sure, a strong correlation between lack of health coverage and increased risk of suicide (not to mention over-all mortality), but the problem doesn’t end with the plight of the uninsured. The focus of Case and Deaton’s indictment is on the fact that America’s health-care system is peculiarly reliant on employer-provided insurance.

As they show, the premiums that employers pay amount to a perverse tax on hiring lower-skilled workers. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, in 2019 the average family policy cost twenty-one thousand dollars, of which employers typically paid seventy per cent. “For a well-paid employee earning a salary of $150,000, the average family policy adds less than 10 percent to the cost of employing the worker,” Case and Deaton write. “For a low-wage worker on half the median wage, it is 60 percent.” Even as workers’ wages have stagnated or declined, then, the cost to their employers has risen sharply. One recent study shows that, between 1970 and 2016, the earnings that laborers received fell twenty-one per cent. But their total compensation, taken to include the cost of their benefits (in particular, health care), rose sixty-eight per cent. Increases in health-care costs have devoured take-home pay for those below the median income. At the same time, the system practically begs employers to reduce the number of less skilled workers they hire, by outsourcing or automating their positions. In Case and Deaton’s analysis, this makes American health care itself a prime cause of our rising death rates.

It also means that, in order to revive the American Dream for people without college degrees, we must change the way we pay for health care. Instead of preserving a system that discourages employers from hiring, retaining, and developing workers without bachelor’s degrees, we need to make health-care payments proportional to wages—as with tax-based systems like Medicare. Democrats are split over whether our health care should involve a single payer or multiple insurers. But that’s not the crucial issue. In other advanced economies, people pay for health care through wage-based taxes. In some countries, such as Germany and Switzerland, the money pays for non-government insurance; elsewhere, the money pays for Medicare-like government insurance. Both strategies work. Neither undermines the employment prospects of the working class.

So far, the American approach to the rise in white working-class mortality has been to pour resources into addiction-treatment centers and suicide-prevention programs. Yet the rates of suicide and addiction remain sky-high. It’s as if we’re using pressure dressings on a bullet wound to the chest instead of getting at the source of the bleeding. Meanwhile, people whose life prospects have deteriorated respond, publicly, with anger (sometimes cynically inflamed) toward nonwhites and immigrants, whose prospects, though worse than their white counterparts’, may have improved compared with those of their forebears. But Case and Deaton want us to recognize that the more widespread response is a sense of hopelessness and helplessness. And here culture does play a role.

When it comes to people whose lives aren’t going well, American culture is a harsh judge: if you can’t find enough work, if your wages are too low, if you can’t be counted on to support a family, if you don’t have a promising future, then there must be something wrong with you. When people discover that they can numb negative feelings with alcohol or drugs, only to find that addiction has made them even more powerless, it seems to confirm that they are to blame. We Americans are reluctant to acknowledge that our economy serves the educated classes and penalizes the rest. But that’s exactly the situation, and “Deaths of Despair” shows how the immiseration of the less educated has resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives, even as the economy has thrived and the stock market has soared. To adapt the old Bill Clinton campaign motto, it’s the unfair economy, stupid.

“We are not against capitalism,” Case and Deaton write. “We believe in the power of competition and of free markets.” But capitalism, having failed America’s less educated workers for decades, must change, as it has in the past. “There have been previous periods when capitalism failed most people, as the Industrial Revolution got under way at the beginning of the nineteenth century, and again after the Great Depression,” they write. “But the beast was tamed, not slain.”

Are we capable of again taming the beast? In earlier eras, reform involved child-labor laws, worker-safety protections, overtime requirements, social security, a minimum wage. Today, the battles are over an employer-based system for financing health care, corporate governance that puts shareholders’ interests ahead of workers’, tax plans that benefit capital holders over wage earners. The dispiriting politics of stasis and scapegoating can prevail for a very long time, even as the damage comes into clearer view. We are better at addressing fast-moving crises than slow-building ones. It wouldn’t be surprising, then, if we simply absorbed current conditions as the new normal. We are good at muddling along.

But unexpected things happen, as the coronavirus pandemic demonstrates. One reality in particular will surely fester. Because economic policy is inseparable from health-care policy, the unfairness of the health system is inseparable from the unfairness of the economy—an unfairness measured not only in dollars but in deaths. The blighted prospects of the less educated are a public-health crisis, and, as the number of victims mounts, it will be harder to ignore. ♦

_____

Published in the print edition of the March 23, 2020, issue, with the headline “The Blight.”

*********

0 notes

kansascityhappenings · 4 years

Text

WHO declares global coronavirus crisis is now a pandemic

ROME — Expressing increasing alarm about mounting infections, the World Health Organization declared Wednesday that the global coronavirus crisis is now a pandemic.

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who heads the U.N. agency, said the WHO is “deeply concerned by the alarming levels of spread and severity” of the outbreak. He also expressed concern about “the alarming levels of inaction.”

“We have, therefore, made the assessment that COVID-19 can be characterized as a pandemic,” he said at a briefing in Geneva.

“All countries can still change the course of this pandemic. If countries detect, test, treat, isolate, trace and mobilize their people in the response,” Tedros said.

Italy weighed imposing even tighter restrictions on daily life and announced billions in financial relief Wednesday to cushion economic shocks from the coronavirus, its latest efforts to adjust to the fast-evolving health crisis that silenced the usually bustling heart of the Catholic faith, St. Peter’s Square.

In Italy, Premier Giuseppe Conte said he would consider requests from Lombardy, Italy’s hardest-hit region, to toughen the already extraordinary anti-virus lockdown that was extended nationwide Tuesday. Lombardy wants to shut down nonessential businesses and reduce public transportation.

These additional measures would be on top of travel and social restrictions that imposed an eerie hush on cities and towns across the country from Tuesday. Police enforced rules that customers stay 1 meter (3 feet) apart and ensured that businesses closed by 6 p.m.

Milan shopkeeper Claudia Sabbatini said she favored stricter measures. Rather than run the risk of customers possibly infecting each other in her children’s clothing store, she decided to close it.

“I cannot have people standing at a distance. Children must try on the clothes. We have to know if they will fit,’’ she said.

Conte said fighting Italy’s more than 10,000 infections — the biggest outbreak outside of China — must not come at the expense of civil liberties. His caution suggested that Italy is unlikely to adopt the draconian quarantine measures that helped China push down new infections from thousands per day to a trickle now and allowed its manufacturers to restart production lines.

China’s new worry is that the coronavirus could re-enter from abroad. Beijing’s city government announced that all overseas visitors will be quarantined for 14 days. Of 24 new cases that China reported Wednesday, five arrived from Italy and one from the United States. China has had over 81,000 virus infections and over 3,000 deaths.

But the vast majority of people recover. According to the World Health Organization, people with mild illness recover in about two weeks, while those with more severe illness may take three to six weeks to recover.

In the Mideast, the vast majority of the nearly 10,000 cases are in Iran or involve people who traveled there. Iran announced another increase in cases Wednesday to 9,000. Iran’s semiofficial Fars news agency said they include Vice President Eshaq Jahangiri, who had not been seen in photos of recent top-level meetings. Fars said Iran’s ministers for cultural heritage, handcrafts and tourism, and for industry, mines and business were also infected.

Cases in Qatar jumped from 24 to 262. Kuwait announced a two-week shutdown of the country.

For the global economy, virus repercussions were profound, with increasing concerns of wealth- and job-wrecking recessions. U.S. stocks sank again in early trading Wednesday, wiping out most of a huge rally from a day earlier as Wall Street continues to reel from worries about the coronavirus.

The Wall Street plunge followed a steep decline by markets across Asia, where governments there and elsewhere have announced billions of dollars in stimulus funds, including packages revealed in Japan on Tuesday and Australia on Wednesday.

Italy’s government announced Wednesday it was earmarking 25 billion euros (nearly $28 billion) to boost anti-virus efforts and soften economic blows, including delaying tax and mortgage payments by families and businesses.

Britain’s government announced a 30 billion-pound ($39 billion) economic stimulus package and the Bank of England slashed its key interest rate by half a percentage point to 0.25%.

Normal life was increasingly being upended.

With police barring access to St. Peter’s Square, emptying it of tens of thousands of people who usually come on Wednesdays for the weekly papal address, Pope Francis instead live-streamed prayers from the privacy of his Vatican library.

In France, the government’s weekly Cabinet meeting was moved to a bigger room so President Emmanuel Macron and his ministers could sit at least 1 meter (more than 3 feet) apart.

Athletes who usually thrive on crowds grew increasingly wary of them. Spanish soccer club Getafe said it wouldn’t travel to Italy to play Inter Milan, preferring to forfeit their Europa League match rather than risk infections.

Olympic champion skier Mikaela Shiffrin said she would be limiting contact with fans and fellow competitors, tweeting that “this means no selfies, autographs, hugs, high fives, handshakes or kiss greetings.”

In the U.S., the caseload passed 1,000, and outbreaks on both sides of the country stirred alarm.

Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders, who are vying to take on President Donald Trump in the presidential election, abruptly canceled rallies Tuesday and left open the possibility that future campaign events could be impacted, too. Trump’s campaign insisted it would proceed as normal, although Vice President Mike Pence conceded future rallies would be evaluated “on a day to day basis.”

In Europe, deaths soared among Italy’s aging population. Authorities said Italy has suffered 631 deaths, with an increase of 168 fatalities recorded Tuesday. In Spain, the number of cases surged past the 2,000-mark on Wednesday. Belgium, Bulgaria, Sweden and Albania announced their first virus-related deaths.

“If you want to be blunt, Europe is the new China,” said Robert Redfield, the head of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Also sounding the alarm at a Congressional hearing in Washington was Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

“Bottom line, it’s going to get worse,” he said.

In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel said that if the virus is not halted by vaccines and cures, up to 70% of the country’s 83 million people could ultimately become infected, citing estimates that epidemiologists have been putting forward for several weeks. Germany has some 1,300 confirmed infection. Merkel’s comments fit a pattern of government officials using sobering warnings to try to get people to protect themselves, most notably by washing their hands and not gathering in large numbers.

from FOX 4 Kansas City WDAF-TV | News, Weather, Sports https://fox4kc.com/news/who-declares-global-coronavirus-crisis-is-now-a-pandemic/

from Kansas City Happenings https://kansascityhappenings.wordpress.com/2020/03/11/who-declares-global-coronavirus-crisis-is-now-a-pandemic/

0 notes