Mitch McConnell filed cloture on a drug corporation handout

Friend, “We may have defeated Trumpcare, but that doesn't mean Senate Republicans are done trying to exploit the American people. Sen. Mitch McConnell just filed cloture on the OPEN Act, which is an $11.6 billion handout to prescription drug corporations. We're delivering your signatures to every Senate office this week--we need you behind us! Stand with Social Security Works to oppose another billion dollar giveaway to drug corporations and say no to big pharma monopolies. You can read more abut the OPEN Act in our original email below. Thank you, Alex Lawson Social Security Works Friend, In 1983, Congress passed a law aimed at spurring innovation for drugs that treat rare diseases, offering tax credits and monopolies as incentives. But, as they so often do, pharmaceutical corporations immediately turned the law into yet another way to extract money from the people’s pockets. A year’s treatment can cost people with rare diseases more than a house. Pharmaceutical corporations’ ravenous hunger for profits leads to Social Security benefits that are increasingly eroded by medical co-pays and out of pocket expenses. And Congress has a new handout on the way. Stand with Social Security Works to oppose another billion dollar giveaway to drug corporations and say no to big pharma monopolies. The greed of the drug companies is boundless. Now, their Washington lobbyists are pushing a new bill―the Orphan Product Extensions Now (OPEN) Act―which would grant drug manufacturers six additional months of exclusivity, the monopoly power that allows the companies to charge as much as they like. It’s estimated that this new law would cost patients and taxpayers up to $11.6 billion over 10 years―padding the pockets of the greedy pharmaceutical industry and ensuring that we continue to pay the highest drug prices in the world! Former Congressman Henry Waxman of California, the author of the 1982 Orphan Drug Act, had this to say about how drug companies are manipulating the system: “We’re seeing the Orphan Drug Act used in ways that we never anticipated when the law was adopted. In the way people use the word ‘orphan status,’ it’s almost becoming a synonym for a monopoly price.” Stand with Social Security Works to oppose the OPEN Act, yet another billion dollar giveaway to big pharma corporations. If passed, the bill would allow drug companies to repurpose drugs that are already on the market, giving them “orphan” status. For patients this means competing drugs that might lower prices would be kept off the market, leading to budget busting drug prices for even longer for the people. Instead of padding the insurance company profits, Congress should be focusing on bills that rein in abuses by drug companies, and make sure people can afford the health care they need. Together, we’re fighting the greedy pharmaceutical industry and their powerful Washington lobbyists. “ Thank you, Michael Phelan Social Security Works

How about checking your facts once in awhile

Snopes and Urban Legends are the oldest fact-checking sites, but PolitiFact is probably the most efficient and popular.

Below is a list of sites I use:

• http://www.snopes.com/
• http://urbanlegends.about.com/
• http://www.truthorfiction.com/
• http://www.politifact.com/
• http://www.opensecrets.org/index.php
• http://factcheck.org/
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker
• http://www.factandmyth.com/    *
• http://www.factmonster.com/     *

* These are new sites that I have not yet completly vetted  

Can a fact-checking site be biased? Of course, but the critical point is to what degree, and even more important is that just because you disagree with the fact check that doesn’t make it biased. Too often, we look for confirmation of our own biased by rejecting any bias by others.

Ask yourself this:

• Does the site have a stated methodology in their evaluation of facts? Do they conform to that methodology?
• Does the site provide names, dates, verifiable quotes, and links to supporting references.
• Are the source and references independent of the fact-checking site? In other-words is the site quoting themselves or sister sites, opinion sites, or sites that are themselves biased.
• Always consider the opposing opinion. You can’t truly understand the complexity of debate if you can’t completely understand and explain the opposing view.
• Too many websites will contain a link to what is supposed to support a fact, but does it? I’ve seen many sites quote an article from SNOPES.COM, and then when I click the link, the SNOPES article doesn’t support the sites claim, sometimes it is unrelated, and sometimes it even disputes the claim. What is happening there is the site assumes that most people will be attracted to their headline and won’t read the article, and they think you are too lazy to click and read the SNOPES article. That’s them calling you stupid and lazy, not me. Always check sources and links; after a while, you learn what sites are honest and not.
• Can you make a critical and fact-based argument to support you view in the face of an unfavorable fact check?

After a while, you will learn what fact-checking websites are the most reliable and honest. Notice I didn’t say unbiased. If you want a fact checker that supports your biased then your not interested in the truth. If you want a website that has absolutely no bias then good luck. If you can accept a website that meets the above criteria with some, but minimal bias, then you are on the right track to getting at deciphering truth from opinion.

Never present opinion as fact, never ignore facts in the face of opinion, and don’t ever be afraid to weigh both fact and opinion equally.

These two sights are not fact-checking sites like the above but:

this one is great for looking up and reading the actual language of proposed laws. You can also look up laws passed in past congresses:

• http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php

and this one is great for looking up actual labor statistics. You know for those charts that keep appearing comparing on presidents effect on jobs against another, or one party against another.

• http://www.bls.gov/home.htm

When the site provides a link or reference, does it checkout? Usually, when you want to check an email, you can copy the title in the subject line of the email into the 'Search" box on the websites page. If someone has changed the subject line in the chain email, you may have to look for a key phrase or words to put into the search box.

I won't claim that any of these sights are free of bias, but I don't think any site or any of us can make that claim. The question should be how bias, that's why I usually look at more than two sights on any subject and sometimes will look at all of them to see if anyone has a counter-argument.

Over the years, I have responded to chain mails because I think that, just like old-fashion chain letters, they are, for the most part, deceitful and pray on the little old lady types who could be scared into keeping the chain going for fear of bad luck. That may never be the person's intention in forwarding the chain mail, but it is the intention of the person who originated it.

Sadly, it seems many people like forwarding chain emails. I say this because, over the years, as I have responded by correcting the chainmail's, I have received less of them. I suspect that too many people prefer to receive chainmail's that fit into their beliefs more so than they want to hear the truth or facts about someone they would rather hate than know the truth. (??)

I was receiving some chain e-mails so often that at one point, I started cataloging them on one this website to keep from having to re-answer the same chainmail every year. (Click the "Spitting Back" link) There are 20 posts under that topic, and they all won't appear in the same listing, so when you get near the bottom, look for the 'Older Post' link. There is also a link ('Spam and E-Mail Hoaxes') in the 'Information' box for an explanation of how and why people start chainmail's and why they can be putting your mailing list at risk.'

Sadly, it seems many people like forwarding chain e-mails. I say this because, over the years, as I have responded by correcting the chainmail's, I have received less of them. I suspect that too many people prefer to receive chainmail's that fit into their beliefs more so than they want to hear the truth or facts about someone they would rather hate than know the truth. (??)

GlennDL

MORE

125