September 2024 – Consumer Choice Center

Consumer Coalition Sends Letter to OPM Opposing Health Insurance Denials

On September 19th, the Consumer Choice Center, alongside individuals impacted by the actions of Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS), sent a letter to the Office of Personnel Management regarding BCBS denying legitimate medical claims from members of the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agencies for equipment needed to do their jobs safely and effectively.

Blatant denials in health insurance coverage are on the rise and pose a great threat to consumer choice. In 2022, an estimated 15 percent of all claims submitted to private payers faced denial, including treatments and services that received pre-authorization. However, the reality might be much worse considering the severe lack of quality data collected by regulators from health insurance companies regarding their coverage denial rates.

There is a clear need for health insurance reform. As the Consumer Choice Center has stated before, one easy solution is to require health insurance companies to be more transparent in their coverage decisions to ensure consumers are aware of a company’s denial rates and standards they use to determine what is and what is not a medical necessity.

Additionally, more preventative care and coverage should be encouraged. In the case of CBP and ICE agents, having better hearing protection now as a preventative safety measure will alleviate costs in the long term. The faster we can address and prevent a medical issue, the less people’s health and wallets will suffer.

This is why we hope that the Office for Personnel Management will take the necessary steps to ensure federal employees receive the equipment that they need to do their jobs safely and effectively.

Les patients canadiens devraient avoir accès au même choix que les patients européens

Ce n’est un secret pour personne : si vous avez besoin d’une opération chirurgicale au Canada, vous feriez mieux d’être prêt à attendre longtemps.

Le problème est-il une pénurie de médecins et d’infirmières ? Un sous-financement ? L’inefficacité administrative ? On a pratiquement rejeté la faute sur tout et sur tout le monde au fil des ans. Malgré des décennies de tentatives de réforme, les longs temps d’attente continuent de poser problème partout au pays.

Les listes d’attente interminables, la médecine de corridor et les fermetures de salles d’urgence sont une réalité pour la plupart des Canadiens et Canadiennes qui tentent d’avoir accès aux soins de santé. Peu importe la cause, nous connaissons le résultat : perte de revenu, douleur chronique et, dans certains cas, des décès évitables de patients.

Le Canada n’est pas le seul pays à être aux prises avec de tels problèmes. Certains pays européens ont également dû faire face à de longs temps d’attente. La différence est qu’ils ont pu résoudre le problème. Une partie de leur solution est venue de ce qu’on appelle la « directive transfrontalière ».

Cette politique permet aux patients européens de se faire soigner dans n’importe quel pays membre de l’Union européenne et d’obtenir un remboursement de leurs frais médicaux à un niveau équivalent à ce que leur plan national d’assurance maladie aurait couvert.

Comme la plupart des innovations politiques, cette directive est née d’une nécessité. Au début des années 2000, de nombreux citoyens britanniques se sont retrouvés aux prises avec de longues listes d’attente en santé.

Yvonne Watts, l’une de ces citoyennes, souffrait d’arthrite aux hanches. Incapable d’obtenir des soins en temps opportun au Royaume-Uni, elle a demandé en 2006 que son remplacement de la hanche soit couvert dans un autre pays de l’Union européenne. On le lui a refusé.

Décidant de prendre l’affaire en main, M^me Watts s’est fait opérer en France à ses frais, payant l’équivalent de 10 673 $ en dollars canadiens d’aujourd’hui. M^me Watts n’a jamais été remboursée pour le coût de son opération, mais elle a ouvert la voie à la directive européenne sur les soins de santé transfrontières.

Aujourd’hui, les patients qui se trouvent dans une situation comme la sienne peuvent décider de subir une intervention non urgente dans un autre pays, lorsque les temps d’attente nationaux sont trop longs. Grâce à la directive transfrontalière, plus de 450 000 patients européens ont pu bénéficier d’un traitement dans un autre pays d’Europe en 2022.

En plus de réduire les temps d’attente, l’implantation de cette politique a eu un autre effet remarquable : elle contribue à réduire le coût des maladies, tant pour les patients qui en souffrent que pour l’État qui paie la facture du traitement.

En effet, plus on attend avant de régler un problème de santé, plus le traitement coûtera cher, en raison d’un risque accru de complications. Plus cela prend de temps, plus il est probable que son intervention devra être plus invasive (et donc plus risquée) et qu’elle nécessitera plus de ressources.

Mais l’effet sur les dépenses n’est pas le seul dont il faut tenir compte. Les questions de santé peuvent également avoir un effet négatif sur les recettes publiques.

Bien que les traitements « électifs » ne soient pas considérés comme « urgents », les maux qu’ils espèrent traiter peuvent tout de même avoir un effet sur nos vies. Par exemple, certains de ceux qui languissent sur les listes d’attente ne peuvent pas travailler ou doivent réduire leur charge de travail en raison de la douleur qu’ils éprouvent. Certains ont même droit à une indemnisation pour les accidents du travail.

Même en considérant seulement l’aspect des revenus, il est dans l’intérêt de l’État de s’assurer que ces travailleurs reçoivent le traitement dont ils ont besoin pour qu’ils puissent recommencer à payer des impôts. Les laisser obtenir les soins médicaux nécessaires à l’extérieur de la province ou du pays — au même prix que le système paierait au pays — devrait être une évidence.

N’oublions pas combien de Canadiens et Canadiennes ne peuvent pas obtenir le traitement dont ils ont besoin dans les délais recommandés.

En 2019, 30 % des patients ayant besoin d’un implant du genou n’ont pas pu le recevoir dans le délai recommandé de 26 semaines. En 2023, ce chiffre était passé à 41 %. De même, la proportion de patients ayant besoin de prothèses de hanche qui ne pouvaient pas les obtenir dans les délais prescrits par la loi est passée de 25 % à 34 % au cours de la même période.

La couverture publique des soins transfrontaliers contribuerait à ramener ces chiffres plus près de zéro et à résorber l’important arriéré chirurgical. Cela permettrait au Canada de mieux répondre aux besoins des patients et d’avoir des systèmes de santé plus efficaces.

Originally published here

Why Europe’s ‘Farm to Fork’ policies collapsed

The new European Commission, the European Union’s executive body, will soon be tasked with “simplifying” agricultural regulations within the Union. “The Commission is taking strong and swift action to support our farmers at a time when they are facing many challenges and concerns,” explained Ursula von der Leyen, the current President of the European Commission.

What this German politician calls “simplification measures” are in fact deregulation efforts linked to agricultural subsidies. Following massive farmer protests this year, the European Union has scaled back most of its ambitions for agricultural reform, just four years after this same Commission presented them to great fanfare.

In the 2019 European election, Europe lived up to its environmental ambitions. Four years after the conclusion of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreements, Europe intended to become a global benchmark in environmental protection by radically reforming agricultural systems. This meant greater monitoring of farming practices, drastically reducing pesticide use, cutting back on fertilizers, reducing farmland use to allow for greater biodiversity, and massively increasing organic food production.

In the first year of these plans, there was little opposition. Europe and the global community were in the midst of a viral pandemic and farmers’ representatives were carefully assessing the Commission’s seriousness about these plans. Given the success of green parties in the 2019 elections, it seemed that this strategy dubbed “Farm to Fork,” was the logical next step in a political trend.

For months, the Commission didn’t even bother to publish an impact assessment.

Eventually, the USDA published its own independent assessment in November 2020, showing that Farm to Fork would increase consumer food prices, reduce European exports, and decrease overall agricultural production by 7-12 percent. The report attracted little attention.

It was first the farmers’ protests in the Netherlands, then in Germany, France, and the rest of Europe for most of this year, that brought the issue to the attention of policymakers. As it turned out, many of the stated aims of the Farm to Fork program were political and unscientific.

Take, for example, the goal to reduce the use of pesticides by 50 percent by 2030. Europe has by far one of the strictest regulatory regimes for plant protection products, thanks to the use of the “precautionary principle.” Chemicals, including the very commonly used glyphosate, have to be authorized by the European Council despite safety assessments provided by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

The sustainability objective behind the 50 percent target remains a mystery.

Are synthetic chemicals used in conventional agriculture harmful to human health? Not in the way they are currently used, or else regulators would have stopped their use already.

It is understandable how the European Commission’s approach would upset farmers, because instead of proposing a viable and affordable alternative to the chemicals in question, the Commission argued that farmers could choose organic alternatives. But with organics accounting for only as much as 10 percent of European consumers’ purchasing decisions, farmers faced the precarious risk of not finding buyers for their products, on top of the fact that compliance costs for organic products were even higher than those they were already facing.

All these factors, combined with the shortage of fertilizers and livestock feed, as well as the pressure exerted by retailers on the purchase prices of all agricultural products, made the situation untenable for producers.

Frustrations are running high for European farmers, because for decades every new regulatory burden has been solved with money.

The message is always the same. “Are you affected by the banning of a plant protection product and the resulting drop in yields? What if we gave you more subsidies?” Farmers aren’t interested in a business model that keeps them afloat with public funds, and consumers are looking for greater transparency.

Shoppers want to know the real price of food in the supermarket and when it is heavily subsidized. As it stands today, over 35 percent of the EU’s total budget is devoted to agricultural subsidies.

The EU has since moved far away from its 2019 ambitions. The latest “simplification” measures mean that farmers are subject to less oversight in order to access subsidies, and pesticide reduction regulation has been scrapped altogether. The Commission is now hustling to authorize genetically modified crops on the European market, a measure that would have been impossible to pass just a few years ago. The tone has changed in Brussels.

It’s no longer a question of reducing farmland but reducing the man-made barriers to managing them. Farmers have won the battle for hearts and minds, but the war to reduce Europe’s mountain of regulations on food production is just beginning.

Originally published here

La couverture publique des soins transfrontaliers aiderait à réduire les délais d’attente

Montréal et Vancouver, le 11 septembre 2024 – Permettre aux patients canadiens d’obtenir un remboursement du gouvernement pour des soins reçus hors du pays – comme en Europe – contribuerait à réduire les délais d’attente, selon une note économique publiée conjointement par l’Institut économique de Montréal et SecondStreet.org ce matin.

« Les longs délais d’attente en chirurgie au Canada ont des effets néfastes sur la qualité de vie et la santé des patients », indique Frederik Cyrus Roeder, économiste de la santé et auteur de l’étude. « Permettre aux patients canadiens d’aller se faire traiter ailleurs les aiderait à retrouver la santé, tout en cassant le cycle de rattrapage constant des systèmes de santé canadiens. »

Depuis 2011, les patients européens peuvent se faire traiter dans n’importe quel pays membre de l’Union européenne et obtenir un remboursement de leurs frais médicaux équivalent à ce que leur régime d’assurance maladie national aurait couvert chez eux.

Ce mécanisme est connu sous le nom de « directive transfrontalière » ou de « directive relative aux droits des patients ».

Read the full text here

Guerre commerciale avec la Chine : quel futur pour les constructeurs européens ?

Les tarifs douaniers nuisent aux consommateurs, au profit du Trésor public.

L’Union européenne a récemment décidé d’imposer des droits de douane sur les importations de véhicules électriques en provenance de Chine. La raison en est que le gouvernement chinois subventionne la fabrication de voitures électriques, ce qui désavantage les constructeurs automobiles européens.

Les Etats-Unis ont récemment imposé une hausse drastique des droits de douane, qui s’élèvent à 100% de la valeur d’importation de la voiture, ce qui signifie que la présence minuscule des voitures électriques chinoises sur le marché américain le restera.

Jusqu’à présent, l’Europe appliquait des droits de douane de 10%, qui seront désormais portés entre 17,4% et 37,6% selon la marque.

L’entreprise publique SAIC a été frappée par le nouveau tarif le plus élevé de 37,6%. Il s’agit du partenaire chinois de Volkswagen et de General Motors. Elle possède également MG, qui produit l’un des véhicules électriques les plus vendus en Europe, la MG4. La situation est différente pour BYD – le plus grand fabricant chinois de véhicules électriques – qui doit s’acquitter d’un droit supplémentaire de 17,4% sur les véhicules qu’il expédie de Chine vers l’UE. Geely, qui possède le Suédois Volvo, se verra appliquer un tarif supplémentaire de 19,9%.

Le nombre de véhicules électriques vendus par des marques chinoises dans l’UE est passé de seulement 0,4% du marché total des VE en 2019 à près de 8% l’année dernière.

Les droits de douane seront très probablement imposés vers la fin de l’année, car le gouvernement chinois devrait prendre une décision sur les droits de douane de rétorsion.

Pékin s’en est pris aux produits agricoles européens, tels que les produits laitiers français, qu’elle estime injustement subventionnés par l’Union européenne. Paradoxalement, certains constructeurs automobiles européens qui produisent des pièces de leurs véhicules en Chine seront également touchés par les droits de douane de l’UE.

En fin de compte, cette guerre commerciale comporte de nombreuses incohérences politiques.

D’une part, il est terriblement étrange que l’Union européenne sanctionne l’importation de véhicules électriques abordables sur le marché européen, alors qu’elle déclare simultanément qu’elle a besoin d’électrifier le secteur de la mobilité, ce qui constitue apparemment un besoin immédiat important. Mais il est également vrai que l’approche chinoise consistant à subventionner de manière transparente son industrie automobile viole tout principe de commerce libre et équitable et désavantage injustement les producteurs européens.

Il s’agit d’une version politique de l’idée d’avoir le beurre et l’argent du beurre.

En outre, la réponse de la Chine concernant les produits agricoles est tout aussi correcte. Aujourd’hui encore, les dépenses les plus importantes de l’Union européenne restent les subventions agricoles accordées aux producteurs qui ne se contentent pas de produire pour le marché local, mais qui pénètrent sur les marchés étrangers avec des produits compétitivement bon marché. Si la Chine est le débutant en matière d’utilisation des subventions, nous en sommes les experts.

La meilleure approche pour résoudre cette énigme serait que l’Europe soit plus décisive. Soit la Chine reste un partenaire commercial fiable, auquel cas les règles devraient être plus claires (par le biais de traités), soit l’UE devrait répondre aux pratiques commerciales déloyales par de véritables embargos.

Cela ne veut pas dire que ces mesures drastiques seront finalement nécessaires, mais il s’agit d’un appel à l’UE pour qu’elle soit plus décisive. En attendant, elle doit réaliser qu’un moyen plus efficace de stimuler la construction automobile européenne et ses avantages concurrentiels est de créer des incitations par le biais de la liberté économique.

L’Europe a une riche histoire en matière de construction automobile : nous disposons de concepteurs, d’ingénieurs et d’une expérience de la fabrication de grande qualité. Nous devrions être en mesure de créer un environnement réglementaire et fiscal qui favorise une production accrue, au lieu d’essayer de résoudre le problème à l’aide de subventions par l’intermédiaire d’un comité central.

En fin de compte, les tarifs douaniers nuisent aux consommateurs des deux côtés, au profit du Trésor public. Si les consommateurs chinois finissent par payer plus cher les produits laitiers, c’est à la fois une perte pour les fabricants français de produits laitiers et pour les Chinois qui apprécient les produits européens. Si les Européens paient plus cher les véhicules électriques chinois, cela durcira notre transition énergétique, réduira le choix et diminuera la concurrence nécessaire à la prospérité du marché.

Les politiques mesquines de tarifs symboliques sont mauvaises pour tout le monde. Il est vrai que la Chine, en raison de la nature de son régime totalitaire, est un cas particulier, mais son marché de consommation en pleine croissance est également une opportunité que nous ne voulons pas manquer. Il est temps que les décideurs politiques réfléchissent à ces questions à plus long terme.

Originally published here

Consumer Choice Center Urges Immediate Action on Insurance Denials for Federal Agents’ Protective Equipment

September 19, 2024

The Honorable Rob Shriver
Director
Office of Personnel Management
19000 E St NW
Washington D.C. 20415

Dear Director Shriver,

We are writing to you about an important consumer issue that requires your attention and immediate action. Our coalition is made up of consumer advocates and individuals that have been directly impacted by the actions of Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) who have decided to deny legitimate medical claims from members of the Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agencies for equipment needed to execute on their mission safely.

It has come to our attention that federal employees across a wide range of agencies and occupations are encountering issues of insurance delays and denials following the purchase of legitimate, medically necessary preventative equipment. Under Blue Cross Blue Shield’s federal insurance information, medical necessity is defined as “healthcare services that physician, hospital, or other covered professional or facility provider, exercising prudent clinical judgment, would provide to a patient for the purpose of preventing, evaluating, diagnosing, or treating an illness, injury, disease, or symptom.^[1]”

Despite the inclusion of preventive equipment in the clearly defined definition of medical necessity, Blue Cross Blue Shield has been unduly denying federal agents, specifically CBP and ICE agents, access to protective hearing equipment that can prevent permanent and irreversible hearing loss that would result in future claims for hearing aids on a regular basis for the remainder of the patient’s life. We have received numerous reports of CBP and ICE officers (many of whom have signed this letter) receiving denials for equipment that was previously accepted without issue.

Multiple federal employees have cited instances where they were able to receive molds for hearing protection from BCBS, only to later deny their claim. This indicates a concerning pattern of the insurance company reversing its opinion and promised action, not only creating legitimate medical concerns for officers, but also adding confusion and uncertainty to their roles.

Many of these same agents cite existing hearing loss sustained in the line of duty and have expressed concerns that continuing without this preventative equipment could result in further permanent hearing loss. Officers are routinely asked to engage in activities that involve routine exposure to loud noises, such as helicopters and ATV patrols. Additionally, several officers have been subject to unexpected loud explosions and weapon fire, as well as extremely loud environments in commercial vehicle settings, all of which pose a serious risk of long-term hearing damage.

Not only does denying federal agents access to medically necessary equipment compromise the safety of federal employees, but it also increases the risk of permanent injury, resulting in additional long-term costs for the individual and federal government overall. On principle, insurance companies cannot be allowed to pick and choose when they honor their policies. Allowing them to ignore, dispute, and deny legitimate claims is a dangerous precedent that the Office of Personnel Management has a statutory duty to address.

It is the responsibility of the Office of Personnel Management to “elevate and honor service to America by leading Federal agencies and the workforce in people management policies and programs.”

We trust that the Office for Personnel Management will take the necessary steps to ensure federal employees receive the equipment that they need to fulfill their mission.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Hicks

US Affairs Analyst

Consumer Choice Center

Aldo Aviles, Customs and Border Protection

Robert Nieto

David Neuss

CC:

The Honorable Kim Keck Chief Executive OfficerBlue Cross Blue Shield 200 E. Randolph Street Chicago, IL, 60601	The Honorable Pam Kehaly President Blue Cross Blue Shield Arizona 2444 W Las Palmaritas Dr Pheonix, Arizona, 85021
The Honorable Kevin Lanning Chief Executive Officer Compass Rose Health Plan 11490 Commerce Park Dr. Ste 220 Reston, VA, 20191	The Honorable Arthur A. Nizza Chief Executive Officer GEHA1900 E St NW Washington D.C., 20415
The Honorable Paul Hogrogian National President MHBPPO Box 981106 El Paso, TX, 79998	The Honorable Stephanie Stewart Director NALC 20547 Waverly Ct Ashburn, VA, 20149
The Honorable Thomas J. Grote Chief Executive Officer Aetna 151 Farmington Avenue Hartford, CT, 06156	The Honorable Brian Thompson Chief Executive Officer United Healthcare Insurance Company 9700 Health Care Ln Minnetonka, MN, 55343
The Honorable Randy Griffin Chief Executive OfficerAPWU Health Plan 6515 Meadowridge Rd STE 195 Elridge, MD, 21075

BANNING AIRBNB IN ONE BUDAPEST DISTRICT SETS A DANGEROUS NATIONAL PRECEDENT FOR HUNGARY

While those favoring the ban argue that it will reduce housing shortages and rent inflation, this approach overlooks the more significant systemic problems driving the housing crisis. The rising cost of living and limited housing projects are far more influential than short-term rentals in shaping the housing market. Even without Airbnb, housing affordability would remain a critical issue due to the scarcity of new housing and broader economic pressures.

Furthermore, the local ban raises concerns about a possible national-level restriction on short-term rentals, as a leading Fidesz politician hinted during the weekend. If this decision sets a precedent, a blanket ban on platforms like Airbnb could have unintended consequences. It may hinder tourism, which many local businesses and workers depend on, and it could affect the livelihood of those who supplement their income by renting out properties. Bans may also shift the housing market without solving the key issue: the supply of affordable homes.

International examples, such as in Barcelona, Paris, and New York City, demonstrate that Airbnb bans or severe restrictions have not resolved housing crises. In Barcelona, while strict regulations have reduced the number of available short-term rentals, they have also increased illegal listings, making enforcement challenging. Paris has seen a similar rise in non-compliant rentals, while in New York City, stringent rules have displaced Airbnb to the black market, complicating oversight and leaving both hosts and guests in legal grey areas. Moreover, consumers are now facing surging hotel room prices, as the supply of accommodation in cities banning short-term rents is still low, but the demand side is still relatively high. As for rent prices, they have still increased by 3.4%, even with rent control and the ban on short-term rentals.

Rather than treating Airbnb as a scapegoat, policymakers need to focus on meaningful reforms such as increasing the construction of extra housing, which makes for actual affordability, and providing rent subsidies. Addressing these core problems would have a far more lasting impact than banning short-term rentals, which serves as little more than a temporary patch on a much larger problem.

Considering these concerns, the decision in Terézváros appears more symbolic than substantive. It fails to engage the broader population in addressing the real challenges of the housing crisis while opening the door to overregulation at a national level that could harm the wider economy and Hungarian consumers.

Originally published here

Public coverage of cross-border health care would help reduce waiting times

Allowing Canadian patients to get reimbursed from the government for care received outside the country – just like Europeans do – would help reduce waiting times, according to an economic note published jointly by the Montreal Economic Institute and SecondStreet.org this morning.

“Long waiting times for surgery in Canada have damaging effects on patients‘ health and quality of life,” says Frederik Cyrus Roeder, health economist and author of the study. “Allowing Canadian patients to seek treatment elsewhere would help them regain their health, while breaking the cycle of constant catching up in Canadian healthcare systems.”

Since 2011, European patients have been permitted to seek treatment in any EU member country and receive reimbursement of their medical expenses equivalent to what their national health insurance plan would have covered at home.

This mechanism is known as the “cross-border directive,” or the “patients’ rights directive.”

Read the full text here

An RFK–Trump Union Would Be Total Chaos

The presidential bid of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ended where skeptics assumed it would, with a full-fledged endorsement of Donald Trump for president, setting off a battle by Kennedy to get his name removed from the ballot in battleground states such as Michigan, Wisconsin, and North Carolina. The universes of two political giants from opposite ends of the spectrum are merging, and speculation is growing that RFK could serve a role in a future Trump administration related to public health. At the least, Trump says RFK will be “very much involved” in matters related to “chronic health problems and childhood diseases.”

While some have backhandedly called this a political “marriage made in heaven” and said these two men are perfect for each other, they are worlds apart on the policies that matter most to RFK. It just happens they share a rising voter base that we’ll call the Dale Gribble voter, coined by Richard Hanania of the Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology.

What defines them? For Gribble voters, a reference to a character in the classic animated series King of the Hill, the credibility of American institutions bears the burden of proof, rather than highly online conspiracy theories about dark forces controlling the food supply, pharmaceuticals, and technology. On stage yesterday with Tucker Carlson and Vivek Ramaswamy, RFK called Trump’s GOP the “party of the common man” and the Democrats the champions of “Big Pharma, BigAg, Big Tech, the Big Banking Systems.”

You can imagine Dale Gribble raising his fist in the air as he smashes “repost” on X.

Kennedy’s unsuccessful independent campaign is built upon the lingering distrust of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 primary victory over Sen. Bernie Sanders, another leftward insurgent without deep loyalty for the Democratic Party brand. Those disaffected voters still decry the contest as ‘rigged’ and get their feedback loop from Breaking Points by Saagar Enjeti and Krystal Ball, alongside the Joe Rogan Experience and the occasional Michael Shellenberger post on Substack. These are the oddly absent hippie Democrats who used to loudly protest American militarism abroad, care about childhood obesity, and plot total bans on pesticides and GMOs.

Now that the left has categorized concern over obesity and diabetes as racist and part of class struggle, that mindset is most associated with Fox News’ outcast superstar, Tucker Carlson. In August, Carlson hosted guests Casey and Calley Means, who railed against the medical establishment as being designed to keep Americans sick and then make bank on their lifetime of hospital bills and prescription drugs. Less than two weeks later, RFK joined Carlson’s podcast to publicize his endorsement of Trump and echo those same guests almost word for word about the normalization of “chronic disease” in America compared to life in the 1960s.

Naturally, the culprit identified by Tucker’s roster of guests is processed food.

Kennedy then hopped over to Dr. Phil’s show to reiterate those sentiments, this time casting Ozempic as a conspiracy against the American people. He proposed that the US government intervene in the development of weight-loss drugs by providing three organic meals a day to all Americans, to cure diabetes nationwide “overnight”.

It’s no coincidence that when RFK sat with Carlson, he told the audience he had assurances from Trump that if reelected, the JFK assassination files would be released in full to the public. This is what Dale Gribble has been waiting for all his life. He hasn’t believed a word the government says about anything since JFK’s murder in 1963. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is the living avatar of that skepticism, and Trump was simply the first major political figure to speak to these particular voters. Both can sing the song of fighting entrenched bureaucrats, corrupt politicians, and corporate forces colluding against everyday Americans.

Could RFK serve inside a potential second Trump administration? RFK was right when he told Carlson that he’d never get Senate confirmation for CIA Director. He’d also struggle, but less so, to get the spot of Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary, which his old running mate, Nicole Shanahan, teased a few days ago. It’s very possible he could head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a post which he was denied in 2008 under President Obama.

Trump voters and disaffected Democrats don’t care about the inconsistencies between these two men on climate, abortion, or preserving Obamacare. It’s a simple “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” scenario, even if RFK is promoting the “chemtrails” conspiracy theory and renewing his usual pledge to jail those involved.

And here lies the problem with RFK’s endorsement, which he surely did not make to be made Trump’s ambassador to Afghanistan. He wants the EPA spot.

On policy, it would be an awkward fit. The actions of the Trump administration were at odds with Kennedy’s worldview, most notably when Trump’s EPA reauthorized the weed killer atrazine. Barack Obama’s EPA had pushed a reduction of minimum residue levels to such low levels that this essential herbicide became unusable on American farms.

Farming groups have been outspoken about how the EPA’s ambiguity on atrazine assessments is hurting the sector. RFK does not just believe that residue levels of atrazine could potentially harm growers and consumers, but he buys the conspiracy that atrazine is responsible for feminizing American males. It’s Alex Jones’ laugh line about he doesn’t want the government to “turn the frickin frogs gay”, a theory based on the long-debunked research of Tyrone Hayes.

No surprise, the claim about feminized frogs and American children resurfaced in Carlson’s aforementioned interview of the Means siblings.

If Trump were to get reelected and appoint RFK as head of the EPA, his mantra on crop protection chemicals would hit American farmers hard, most of which practice conventional agriculture, and all of which rely on the protective function of these products to provide reliable yields.

Understandably, the Trump campaign is seeking support from all corners, but it matters greatly to have some level of coherent policy overlap in an administration. It’s far from a match “made in heaven” when it comes to policy and not the concerns of Dale Gribble.

We know that Trump will at least be including RFK on his White House transition team, so RFK would be picking EPA and HHS staffers if he doesn’t lead an agency himself. This would mean chaos within the administration and chaos on American farms. Perhaps an RFK ambassador gig in Afghanistan wouldn’t be such a bad call for Team Trump.

Originally published here

Korea must balance immediate gains with long-term innovation

September 19, 2024
By Consumer Choice Center
In Recent Media, Tech Regulation, Technology
0 comments

In the rapidly evolving digital landscape, South Korea stands at a crucial juncture. As the nation considers new regulatory measures to address the growing influence of digital platforms, it is vital to carefully weigh the potential long-term impacts of these decisions. While the desire to ensure fair competition and protect consumers is understandable, we respectfully suggest that the Korean government adopt a market-based approach that prioritizes innovation, consumer choice and the country’s continued leadership in global technology.

Some governments, such as those in the European Union, have quick wins by implementing regulations that seem to open up platforms or dismantle walled gardens. However, it is worth noting that EU countries are not at the forefront of developing consumer technology. These short-sighted measures may have unintended consequences, especially in a sector propelled by rapid technological advancements. For instance, artificial intelligence (AI) is set to revolutionize the tech industry in unpredictable ways, potentially requiring certain levels of platform control to ensure authenticity and security. Prematurely forcing these systems to open up could stifle innovation and slow the adoption of transformative technologies like AI, ultimately limiting the options and benefits available to consumers.

A look at the history of mobile operating systems provides valuable insights into how market-driven competition can serve consumer interests. Despite Apple’s iOS being a closed system, its competition with Google’s Android has spurred continuous innovation, lowered prices and improved service quality. This rivalry has expanded consumer choice, driving the widespread adoption of smartphones and making advanced technology accessible to millions. The ongoing decline in mobile phone prices, even as features and capabilities have expanded, illustrates that a competitive market can effectively safeguard consumer interests without the need for heavy-handed regulation.

While regulation plays a role in protecting markets, it must remain targeted and focused on preventing clear abuses, such as bureaucracy and red tape, rather than imposing broad, sweeping rules that could stifle the market’s dynamism. Overregulation risks undermining the creativity and innovation that have positioned South Korea as a global leader in technology. Conversely, a market-based approach allows for a diverse range of solutions to emerge organically, driven by the innovation of market participants. This environment enables both large and small players to innovate and thrive, and consumers to benefit.

Read the full text here

Plastics bans make no legal or climate sense

Many Canadians let out a sigh of relief late last year when they heard Justice Angela Furlanetto had ruled that the federal government’s listing of all plastic items as toxic was “unreasonable and unconstitutional.” Ottawa had failed to show, she found, that every single plastic substance was toxic, and in any case its classifying them that way encroached on the rights of provinces. Such a listing would have allowed for bans well beyond just straws and grocery bags: every plastic product would have fallen under criminal law.

Plastic manufactured products are included in Schedule 2 of Canada’s Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) at the end of a long list of other materials deemed to be toxic. The rest of the list includes materials identified by their complicated chemical components, as well as other entries involving 64 categories, sub-categories and sub-sub categories specifying exactly which are considered toxic. In contrast, entry number 132 simply lists “plastic manufactured items” and nothing more. No wonder the judge felt the category was too broad.

The federal government is appealing the judge’s decision. In June, government lawyers appeared before the Federal Court of Appeal in Ottawa to argue that the court had made a mistake in ruling this listing of plastic as unreasonable and unconstitutional. They argued that all plastics could possibly be harmful and the point of the law was to reduce harm. In other words, let’s ban everything, just in case.

Organizations and parliamentarians are pushing back. The Canadian Constitution Foundation, acting as an intervener in this appeal, is arguing that while the government does have the constitutional authority to list toxic substances in the CEPA, it cannot constitutionally use that criminal law power to include every single possible plastic product. The CCF’s Christine Van Geyn explains that “the criminal law power is not a magical incantation. Invoking the words ‘criminal law’ does not transform any issue into something Ottawa can regulate … the Cabinet Order plastic ban is outside the scope of the federal power.”

In the House of Commons, Conservative MP Corey Tochor has proposed a private member’s bill to delete plastic manufactured items from the CEPA list. It’s unlikely to get support from the Liberals or NDP, but it could be revived by a future Conservative government, which would be a win for all Canadians.

We’re not opposed to sensible policies to address climate change. But the many different bans (and exemptions, such as for heating oil) that Ottawa has already put into place are far from that. The regulations governing single-use plastics that they released in 2021 included strange exemptions like how much heat and washing-machine lasting-power the items needed to have to be considered exempt. They also gave exemptions to heavier plastic bags that would actually use more plastic to manufacture, and inexplicably allowed people to ask for plastic bags that the retailer had to keep out of sight. None of this seemed scientific or backed by expertise.

The listing of all plastic as a toxic substance means such exemption options won’t be available to consumers, who will be forced to use alternatives such as paper bags, cardboard straws and cotton totes. Studies suggest these alternatives are often worse for the environment than their plastic versions and costlier to boot. Danish research concluded that in order to have the same life-cycle effect on the environment as a single-use plastic bag paper bags would have to be used 43 times. Cotton totes would have to be re-used 7,100 times. Paper bags are also 2.6 times more expensive than single-use plastic bags. For their part, paper straws are three times more expensive than their plastic alternatives.

Slapping plastics onto the end of the CEPA’s Schedule 1 and calling it a day was sloppy and counterproductive. If the government were truly committed to environmental change, it would look into alternatives like expanding “chemical depolymerization,” which is the recycling of plastic products in ways that allow them to be broken down and repurposed into new products.

Right now, only one per cent of plastic waste is chemically recycled in this way. But many entrepreneurial Canadian companies are working on such alternatives, which could well help save the environment in a more efficient, less expensive way. But that takes more effort than adding three words to a list and ignoring what might actually work both for the environment and for Canadians who end up paying the price for costly and ineffective mandated alternatives to plastic.

Originally published here

Paid plasma centres should be welcomed in Ontario

While Canada buys 80 per cent of its blood plasma via paid-donor sources from the United States, there still remains an inexplicable reluctance from politicians and activists to pay Canadians for their blood plasma, the yellow liquid that houses red and white blood cells.

Last year’s announcement that Canadian Blood Services has contracted Grifols, a Spanish pharmaceutical company, to collect paid plasma in Cambridge, Whitby and Hamilton sparked pushback from politicians and anti-paid plasma activists, citing concerns around potential exploitation, a loss of altruism and concerns about safety.

While it remains illegal to pay donors for blood plasma in Ontario, Canadian Blood Services is exempt from this law, and so is the company it has contracted to carry out this work. Unfortunately, resistance to paying Canadians for plasma will continue to result in not only the continuance of Canadian reliance on paying the U.S. for its paid-donor plasma, but will continue to deny patients access to these life-saving plasma-based therapies.

Hamilton may not end up getting a paid plasma centre after all, since it recently declared itself a “paid-plasma-free zone” after a motion that was put forth by Hamilton’s Mayor Andrea Horwath passed in city council. This move will affect Canadians who rely on plasma products for medications to treat burn and trauma patients, those who need treatments for auto-immune disorders and those seeking treatment for hemophilia, as well as other bleeding disorders. According to a 2022 analysis, there is a risk to life without immunoglobulin treatment and there is no alternative therapy. The projection is that there will be a five to seven per cent increase in Canadians needing plasma-based therapies every year.

The voluntary route is simply not meeting this growing demand, as the same analysis shows that Canada is at only 15 per cent plasma sufficiency, while it receives more than 80 per cent of its plasma from paid donors in the United States.

Arguments made by Mayor Horwath and anti-paid plasma activists often centre on the morality of allowing people to commodify their bodies. But, strangely enough, they don’t have objections to Canada relying on the U.S. for plasma, where donors are paid.

A submission for Bill S-252 by 16 professional ethicists and economists to the Canadian Senate stated that “in Canada, donors are paid about $40-$50 Canadian per donation which takes approximately 1.5 hours. This amount is neither extremely low (it is well above the minimum wage), nor is it so high as to cloud a potential donor’s judgment about what is best for her.”

Even if a low-income person has made the decision to get paid for their plasma, it should not be the role of the government to paternalistically say what is best for them. As one of the signatories of the Senate submission, Peter Jaworski, puts it, the moral point of plasma collection is to collect enough plasma to meet the needs of patients, not the intentions of donors.

Of course, an argument for paid plasma should not be seen as an argument against altruistic plasma donations. In fact, voluntary donations should continue to be encouraged, and even the government of Canada has stated “there is no evidence that paying plasma donors compromises the safety or weakens a country’s volunteer blood donor system.” The United States has more than 400 paid plasma sites and the number of voluntary donations remains some of the highest in the world. Germany and Austria, which also have paid plasma donations, have voluntary plasma donation numbers much higher than Canada’s.

Another argument is that paid plasma is not as safe as donated plasma. Due to changes in how we collect blood and plasma, there haven’t been any safety concerns in Canada since the tainted blood scandal in the 1980s. We know that the safety claim is false, again, because we import 80 per cent of the plasma therapies we need from the U.S., where donors are paid. Companies collecting plasma are required to be approved and licensed by Health Canada, all plasma donors are thoroughly interviewed before donating and their plasma is additionally tested for infectious diseases such as HIV and hepatitis. A first-time donor’s plasma is never used until a second donation is made to make sure they were not in the early stages of infection, and all donations are traceable to donors with fixed addresses.

During the manufacturing process, plasma goes through a process called fractionation which eliminates a range of viruses using heat treatments, filtration, chemical cleaners, pasteurization and acid treatments, a process that is successful in detecting and eliminating West Nile virus from donations.

Alberta, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick already have operational paid plasma centres. Ontario’s centres should be welcomed given the obvious advantages to patients, especially when it is an option that can work hand in hand with voluntary donations.

A majority of Canadians seem to find paying for plasma as morally appropriate, according to a 2019 survey. There is overwhelming evidence reported by ethicists, scientists and officials that shows paid plasma donation has little to no effect on exploitation, altruism or safety. So why are politicians and activists stalling? The more politicians and anti-paid plasma activists slow down the process, the more time it will take for those needing life-saving plasma-based therapies in Canada to get better. Where is the altruism in that?

Originally published here

Month: September 2024

Consumer Coalition Sends Letter to OPM Opposing Health Insurance Denials

Les patients canadiens devraient avoir accès au même choix que les patients européens

Why Europe’s ‘Farm to Fork’ policies collapsed

La couverture publique des soins transfrontaliers aiderait à réduire les délais d’attente

Guerre commerciale avec la Chine : quel futur pour les constructeurs européens ?

Consumer Choice Center Urges Immediate Action on Insurance Denials for Federal Agents’ Protective Equipment

Public coverage of cross-border health care would help reduce waiting times

An RFK–Trump Union Would Be Total Chaos

Korea must balance immediate gains with long-term innovation

Plastics bans make no legal or climate sense

Paid plasma centres should be welcomed in Ontario

Follow us

WASHINGTON

BRUSSELS

LONDON

KUALA LUMPUR

OTTAWA