Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Deregulate!
What do you do with Federal agencies that are supposed to keep corporate malfeasance at least under some scrutiny, like polluters (the EPA) or financial scammers (the CFPB, the consumer financial protection bureau).

Well, you deregulate, obfuscate, simply not follow complaints, reduce transparency, fail to act, etc. etc. This is what Scott Pruitt is doing at the EPA (the real scandal, but the press is focusing on his private abuse). Mick Mulvaney is doing much the same at the CFPB:

Quote:A new report reveals the CFPB has received more than 20,000 complaints about Equifax since the data breach. Mick Mulvaney hasn’t yet acted — and wants to make the complaints system private.
The CFPB has received 20,000 Equifax complaints since the data breach - Vox
Reply
Quote:Some 5 million older Americans are financially exploited every year by scammers like the ones who targeted Jones. The elderly are also suffering at the hands of greedy, desperate or drug addicted relatives and friends, among others. The total number of victims is increasing as baby boomers retire and their ability to manage trillions of dollars in personal assets diminishes. One financial services firm estimates seniors lose as much as $36.5 billion a year. But assessments like that are “grossly underestimated,” according to a 2016 study by New York State’s Office of Children and Family Services. For every case reported to authorities, as many as 44 are not. The study found losses in New York alone could be as high as $1.5 billion.
America’s Elderly Are Losing $37 Billion a Year to Fraud - Bloomberg

But we don't need a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which Mick Mulvaney is wrecking as we speak..
Reply
Quote:A team at the Department of Education that looked into abuses at for-profit colleges has been significantly dismantled, according to a report from the New York Times on Sunday.  According to the Times, who interviewed current and former employees of the department, members of the team, which was created in 2016, have been “marginalized, reassigned or instructed to focus on other matters.” There are only three employees on the team now, who focus on student loan forgiveness and compliance cases. They are no longer investigating DeVry Education Group, Career Education Corporation, or Bridgepoint Education, which are prominent for-profit college companies. Under the Obama administration, the department was investigating for-profit colleges’ recruiting practices and job, according to the Times. 

Many for-profit colleges have used deceptive marketing, messed with job placement rates to make students think they’d have a better shot after graduation than they actually do, and targeted low-income students, which resulted in students carrying debt they struggle to pay off with the incomes they have post-graduation.
The Education Department dismantled the team investigating for-profit colleges – ThinkProgress
Reply
And we don't need to regulate this either, or..

Quote:Doctors who had just one extra meal paid for by an opioid company were more likely to prescribe opioids than doctors who got fewer free meals, according to a new research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine. The study, from researchers Scott Hadland, Magdalena Cerdá, Yu Li, Maxwell Krieger, and Brandon Marshall, helps show how shady marketing practices by opioid companies contributed to America’s opioid epidemic, which now kills tens of thousands of people in the US each year.
How drug companies caused the opioid epidemic, in one chart - Vox
Reply
While the Trump government goes after illegal immigrants as the source of the US drugs problem, in reality there are much more powerful drug pushers domestically. They're called big pharma, using hard sell methods to get patients hooked:

Quote:Around 2015, just before overdoses sweeping the country started making national news, a pharmaceutical sales representative in New Jersey faced a dilemma: She wanted to increase her sales but worried that the opioid painkiller she was selling was addictive and dangerous. The medication was called Subsys, and its key ingredient, fentanyl, is a synthetic opioid 100 times stronger than morphine. When the rep, who requested to go by her initials, M.S., voiced her concerns to her manager, she was told that Subsys patients were “already addicts and their prospects were therefore essentially rock-bottom,” according to a recently unsealed whistleblower lawsuit that M.S. filed after leaving Insys in 2016. To boost her numbers, the manager allegedly advised M.S. to “behave more sexually toward pain-management physicians, to stroke their hands while literally begging for prescriptions,” and to ask for the prescriptions as a “favor.” ...

Insys employees took doctors to strip clubs, fancy dinners, parties, and shooting ranges “so that the doctor then returns the ‘favor’ to the sales representative by prescribing SUBSYS,” Guzman alleged. The US complaint details how such an exchange played out in 2013, when sales executives Burlakoff and Rowan took out Florida pain specialist Dr. Bart Gatz
“Behave More Sexually:” How Big Pharma Used Strippers, Guns, and Cash to Push Opioids – Mother Jones
Reply
Quote:Ruhi Maker, a senior staff attorney at the New York nonprofit law firm Empire Justice and a member of the Consumer Advisory Board (CAB), described the bureau’s move as “infuriating” in a phone interview. “We now have a CFPB which has political advisers who essentially are not interested in protecting American consumers,” she said. “They are interested in serving those people who prey on American consumers and make profits on the backs of American consumers who have the least ability to afford it.”
Mick Mulvaney strikes again at the CFPB, disbanding consumer advisory board - Vox
Reply
Quote:But maybe we should. Because it turns out the story about the health effects of moderate drinking is shifting pretty dramatically. New research on alcohol and mortality, and a growing awareness about the rise in alcohol-related deaths in the US, is causing a reckoning among researchers about even moderate levels of alcohol consumption. In particular, an impressive meta-study involving 600,000 participants, published in April in the Lancet, suggests that levels of alcohol previously thought to be relatively harmless are linked with an earlier death. What’s more, drinking small amounts of alcohol may not carry all the long-touted protective effects on the cardiovascular system.

For years, there was a sense that there was an optimal level which was not drinking no alcohol but drinking moderately that led to the best health outcomes,” said Duke University’s Dan Blazer, an author of the paper. “I think we’re going to have to rethink that a bit.” Alongside this study have come disturbing reports of the alcohol industry’s involvement in funding science that may have helped drinking look more favorable, as well as a growing worry that many people are naive about alcohol’s health effects. How many people know, for example, that as far back as 1988, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer designated alcohol a level-one carcinogenSome say too few..
How much alcohol is too much? The science is shifting. - Vox
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)