MSNBC’s Al Sharpton Ludicrously Claims Small Biz Backs ObamaCare

The “journalists” at MSNBC continued to fawn over ObamaCare on Friday’s Morning Joe, even in the midst of startling criticism for the bill from David Gregory, liberal host of Meet the Press. The discussion over the president’s massive health care overhaul came after reports that the IRS official in charge of the agency’s unfair treatment of conservative groups during its targeting is now leading the IRS’s efforts to implement ObamaCare.

Gregory pointed out that the Medicare surtax that is funding “Obamacare across the board” is “a lot of money.” “You may not know how it helps you,” he noted, “but you know what it's taking away from you.” Of course, dutiful defenders of Obama like MSNBC Politics Nation host the Rev. Al Sharpton and Huffington Post’s Sam Stein were on hand to defend ObamaCare [see video below the page break].

For his part, Stein seemed to be just fine with the burdensome tax, because it redistributes money into the pockets of “other people.”

David's point – hold on, there is a surtax issue that everyone is going to feel. But that surtax, that money goes to subsidize people's health care. While people will feel a tax issue a lot of other people are going to feel the money in their pocket to buy health care.

Stein’s redistribution of wealth argument wasn’t even the most offensive, though. Sharpton dismissed Gregory’s claim that “costs just keep going up,” touting the “certainty” that Obamacare brings to small segments of the population. Mika Brzezinski even offered a helping hand to Sharpton’s passionate defense of the bill.

GREGORY: Costs just keep going up.

SHARPTON: But there is certainty for people that had preexisting conditions and couldn't get insurance that are now insured.

BRZEZINSKI: Exactly. Young people.

SHARPTON: There is certainty for young people that are now covered that would not have been covered.

BRZEZINSKI: There's preventative care now.

SHARPTON: Preventative care. There's certainty in a lot of areas that people were left out.

What Gregory was trying to point out, and Sharpton dismissed, was the “uncertainty” that millions of Americans and small business owners now face with rapidly-increasing taxes and health care costs under Obamacare.

Then Sharpton declared, with his typical lack of evidence, that small business owners “have come forward and supported Obamacare.” Well, this argument is simply false. As NewsBusters pointed out on Monday, even the ObamaCare-favoring Washington Post admitted that “Small-Business Owners Dread” the new taxes under Obamacare (even though they stuffed the story in the back, on page A15).

We expect Al Sharpton to spout his liberal views day in and day out on MSNBC, but we should expect better than outright lies, especially from a man of the cloth.

View the transcript after the jump:

MSNBC
Morning Joe
05/17/13
7:33 a.m. Eastern

DAVID GREGORY: But here's what else people know about Obamacare. They may not know exactly how it helps them. They do know this: if they're employed, if they’re a salaried employee, and they get their pay stubs...when they get their paycheck on Fridays, what do they see is a new line item. And it's called the Medicare surtax. And it's a lot of money. It's new taxes that we are paying to fund Obamacare across the board. You may not know how it helps you but you know what it's taking away from you.

(...)

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Let me say Vern, quickly. I want to follow up on that point, because we have a lot of people in Washington talking about Obamacare, a lot of people in Manhattan talking about Obamacare. I don't know what they're saying on the subways about this, Donny, we were talking about what they were saying on the subways. I can tell you what they're saying, though, small business owners across Pensacola, northwest Florida, middle America, Iowa: they're saying this is going to cost my small business a lot of money.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Not small businesses...

SCARBOROUGH: And the regulations are going to be high. And we're going to have to also cut some of my best employees to below 30 hours or else I can't afford to stay in business. This – and this is all going to hit, Vern, in 2014.

CONGRESSMAN VERN BUCHANAN: Yeah. I think a lot of people when they hire an employee, this is the thing that gets missed. Twenty years ago you hired an employee, paid him $50,000, there was a 22 percent cost – additional costs in hiring that employee in terms of benefits. Today it's 42 to 44 percent someone was telling me the other day. At the heart of that is the whole thing on health care. I get questions all the time where someone has 72 employees, they say “I'm going to have to cut back to under 50.” So there's a lot of uncertainty, a lot of angst out there, and just the cost of health care in general is completely and totally out of control for anybody in small business. It's not unusual for someone to say they're paying $2,000 a month for their family of four for health care today.

GREGORY: Costs just keep going up.

AL SHARPTON: But there is certainty for people that had preexisting conditions and couldn't get insurance that are now insured.

BRZEZINSKI: Exactly. Young people.

SHARPTON: There is certainty for young people that are now covered that would not have been covered.

BRZEZINSKI: There's preventative care now.

SHARPTON: Preventative care. There's certainty in a lot of areas that people were left out. And a lot of small businesses have come forward and supported Obamacare. I think that – I understand the Republicans’objection. They lost it. And I think that –

SCARBOROUGH: I'm not just talking about Republicans. I'm talking about – you know, I don't know if you know...I know that Democrats own small businesses too.

SHARPTON: They do.

SCARBOROUGH: Democrats are concerned about this as well.

SHARPTON: And many of those small businesses supported Obamacare for some of the reasons I named and other reasons. And I think that it is very important that we understand that a lot of Americans want to see all Americans in a position to be insured that were not insured before we had this legislation.

BRZEZINSKI: Anybody at this table not think, or on the panel not think, that Americans should have access to health care? All of them?

DONNY DEUTSCH: David's point – the argument becomes very simple for the Republicans, it costs more money.

SAM STEIN: David's point – hold on, there is a surtax issue that everyone is going to feel. But that surtax, that money goes to subsidize people's health care. While people will feel a tax issue a lot of other people are going to feel the money in their pocket to buy health care.

GREGORY: The question is though, do you trust the government to administer the program?

SCARBOROUGH: Yes, do you trust the government to administer the program? And that's come out this past week. And also, those people may have more money in their pockets but if their small businesses shut down or they have to get rid of them because they have to cut below 50 employees, then suddenly it ends up hurting them more than helping them. It's a terrible balancing act and I think it's going to be following the White House throughout 2014. And they're going to have to make some adjustments on the fly.

View the original article here

Michigan Governor Backs Off ‘Unfair’ Electoral Rigging Plan: ‘I Don’t Think This Is The Right Time’

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R)

The prospects of a proposal to rig Michigan’s electoral votes in favor of Republicans took a nosedive on Tuesday as Gov. Rick Snyder (R) came out against the plan this year.

Snyder had previously been considering the plan to shift Michigan’s presidential system from a winner-take-all system to divvying electoral votes by congressional district.

However, in an interview with Bloomberg, Snyder backed off, saying he was “very skeptical” of the idea, noting it would “change the playing field so it’s an unfair advantage.” He finished by saying, “I don’t think this is the appropriate time to look at it.”

HUNT: There is a move in your state by some Republican legislators to change the presidential electoral system from a winner-take-all to doing it by congressional districts. If that happened last November, Barack Obama–who carried this state by a huge margin, almost double-digits–would have won only 4 of the 14 congressional districts. It would tilt the tables tremendously in the Republicans’ favor. You have said you wanted to look at it, let’s see what it is. Gov. McDonnell of Virginia, Haley Barbour and others have said it’s a bad idea. Are you still neutral or are you becoming convinced it’s a bad idea?

SNYDER: I’m very skeptical of the idea and the timeframe that would be done, because I really view it as a question of you don’t want to change the playing field so it’s an unfair advantage to someone. A lot of ways, we want to make sure we’re reflecting the vote of the people, and this could challenge that. So in many respects, the right time to do it is if people are looking as, we should do it before census is taken and before redistricting takes place and it should be a bipartisan effort.

HUNT: So if you do it, you do it much later.

SNYDER: Yeah. I don’t think this is the appropriate time to look at it.

Watch it:

State Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville (R) also cast doubt on the proposal Tuesday, saying of the current system, “I don’t know that it’s broken, so I don’t know that I want to fix it.” The state’s House Speaker, Jase Bolger (R), supports the plan.

This is potentially a major victory for opponents of the electoral rigging plan. In addition to holding the governorship, Republicans currently enjoy an 8-seat majority in the State House and a 15-seat majority in the State Senate.

View the original article here

Key Democratic Senator Backs Universal Background Checks, And Indicates A Bipartisan Bill Is In The Works

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV)

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), once thought to be a possible roadblock to some of President Obama’s proposed gun control measures, told a West Virginia talk show host Thursday morning that he supports legislation requiring a background check for anyone who wants to buy a gun.

Manchin has long been a darling of the National Rifle Association, and has consistently earned A ratings from the organization since he assumed his Senate seat in 2010. In December, days after the mass school shooting at Sandy Hook elementary school, Manchin signaled an openness towards rethinking his past resistance to new gun control regulation, but his comments to radio host Hoppy Kercheval on Thursday suggest that the blue dog Democrat is already working on a bill to introduce universal background checks:

KERCHEVAL : Do you think there should be universal background checks on anybody who wants to buy a gun? Right now it’s done only through federally licensed firearms dealers.

MANCHIN: I’m working on a bill right now with other Senators — Democrats and Republicans — we’re trying to get it, and looking at a background check that basically says that if you’re going to be a gun owner, you should be able to pass a background check, to be able to get that. With exceptions. The exceptions are: Families, immediate family members, some sporting events that you’re going to — that if you’re just going to be using them at the sporting events. So we’re looking and talking to people with expertise. I’m working with the NRA, to be honest with you, and talking to them.

Recent polling has shown that more than nine in ten Americans are in favor of universal background checks, but the NRA has thus far refused to lift its opposition to any substantial new regulations on gun ownership. But Manchin is now the second Democrat to reveal that the NRA has been party to ongoing negotiations over background checks.

Presently, as many as 40 percent of all guns sales are done with no background checks at all.

(HT Greg Sargent)

View the original article here

UPDATE 1-FDA advisory panel backs J&J diabetes drug approval

* FDA panel votes 10-5 in favor of canagliflozin approval

* Panel members would like longer-term follow-up on heart risk

* Drug is first in new class of treatments for Type 2 diabetes

(Updates with details from panel discussion)

Jan 10 (Reuters) - A panel of advisers to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommended the agency approve an experimental new treatment for diabetes developed by Johnson & Johnson, potentially making it the first drug of its type to be approved in the United States.

The FDA's Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drug Advisory Committee voted 10-5 on Thursday to recommend the agency approve the drug, canagliflozin, for Type 2 diabetes, saying that it proved effective at lowering blood sugar in patients with diabetes, though some panelists had lingering concerns about its potential to cause cardiovascular problems and recommended longer term follow-up.

Canagliflozin, which will be sold under the brand name Invokana, is a member of a new class of diabetes drugs known as sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors which lower blood sugar by blocking reabsorbtion of glucose by the kidney and increasing the excretion of glucose in urine.

In its discussion, the panel weighed the relative risks and benefits of canagliflozin, especially in relation to any potential it might have to increase the risk of heart attack or stroke.

A clinical trial of patients at especially high risk of cardiovascular disease showed that within the first 30 days, 13 patients taking canagliflozin suffered a major cardiovascular event compared with just one patient taking a placebo. After that the imbalance was reversed. The drug also caused a slight increase in unhealthy LDL cholesterol.

The majority of panelists felt the overall risk benefit profile was acceptable but that longer-term data will be needed to fully assess the impact on patients of the higher LDL levels. The y were unable to determine conclusively that the imbalance in cardiovascular events seen in the first 30 days was a statistical anomaly.

Diabetes is a condition that affects the body's ability to metabolize glucose and is often caused by obesity. Left untreated, the disease can cause nerve disease leading to amputation, as well as kidney disease and blindness. It affects roughly 26 million people in the United States.

The panel also weighed the relative benefit of the drug for patients with impaired kidney function -- a common feature of patients with diabetes. They concluded that since the drug is less effective in patients whose kidney function is damaged, the risks may well outweigh the benefits in those patients.

Jeff Jonas, an analyst with Gabelli & Co, who estimates the drug will generate at least a billion dollars in annual sales for J&J, said he believes the FDA will approve the drug.

"It clearly works, and the side effects were not a major issue. If a patient has impaired kidneys, I think the FDA will say no, don't use it."

Damien Conover, an analyst at Morningstar, believes the drug could generate peak annual sales of more than $2 billion.

The vote in favor of canagliflozin follows the agency's rejection last January of a similar drug made by Bristol-Myers Squibb Co and AstraZeneca Plc. That drug was subsequently approved in Europe, however, under the brand name Forxiga. European regulators concluded that concerns cited by the FDA about a potential increased risk of cancer or liver injury were addressed by warnings in the drug's product label.

A recent report by market research firm Decision Resources estimated that the market for Type 2 diabetes drugs will nearly double over the next decade, increasing from $26 billion in 2011 to nearly $50 billion in 2021 in the United States, Japan and the main markets of Europe.

The FDA is set to rule on whether to approve the drug by March 29th. The agency is not required to follow the advice of its advisory panel but typically does so.

(Reporting By Toni Clarke in Boston; additional reporting by Ransdell Pierson and Bill Berkrot in New York; editing by Carol Bishopric)

View the original article here

Eli Lilly Backs Rosy 2013 View Despite Patent Woes

Options Action 101 Web Extra: Is Eli Lilly's Rally Unhealthy? Is it time to get bearish on pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly? Scott Nations has a way for you to cash in if the stock takes ill.

Analysts expect earnings of $3.72 per share on $22.87 billion in revenue.

Lilly's revenue slipped last year after it lost patent protection for its all-time best selling drug, the antipsychotic Zyprexa. That exposed the drug to cheaper generic competition.

This year, Lilly loses patent protection for the antidepressant Cymbalta in December and for the insulin Humalog in May.

Cymbalta replaced Zyprexa as Lilly's top seller.

View the original article here

Tech at Night: FTC makes a move, FCC still trouble, NAM backs SECURE IT

So we already had the coming FCC battle over Verizon’s attempts to acquire the spectrum it needs, the Senate fight over ‘cybersecurity,’ and a possible Congressional fight over Internet sales taxation. But now there’s a new issue to keep track of: the FTC is taking it upon itself to regulate the Internet on the grounds of protecting privacy. Jim Harper seems thinks it’s nothing new, but under the Obama administration, I’m more concerned. Still Adam Thierer also says it could have been worse, though, but also mentions those dirty words ‘personal responsibility.’ Can’t have that.

Democrats are eager to empower the Obama administration, of course. That’s why we need a Republican Senate to go with a Republican House.

They’re not calling it Net Neutrality now that it’s all about restricting choice and empowering government to regulate the Internet, but the George Soros-funded Public Knowledge is called for Net Neut action against Comcast. On the Open Internet, your choices of Internet service are closed to what government decides you are allowed to have.

More FCC: the push continues for the FCC to continue to be a spectrum roadblock against Verizon, contrary to every goal of universal access it claims to have. That’s because universal access is supposed to be code for subsidies, not actual pro-growth, pro-investment policies that allow market signals to guide spectrum to the more efficient uses.

Naturally the White House opposes FCC reform which would return power back to legislators, not regulators. Can’t have that. Too much respect for the Constitution, which is over 100 years old.

I’ve actually been reading up on export controls lately, so when I see this seemingly-harmless plan to control export of censorship technology to unfree countries, I question whether it’s a good idea. We already have many cabinet-level departments doing export controls, plus a new directorate Obama created in 2010 which complicated the situation further. We might need simplification before we add more complication.

Apple and its publisher allies are probably about to get smacked hard as the agency pricing scandal comes out, where Amazon was pressured into taking the deal Apple wrote.

Support for the broad-based GOP alternative cybersecurity bill, SECURE IP, grows with NAM praising the proposal. SECURE IT’s light touch, and information sharing approach is much better than the massive power grab of the Lieberman-Collins bill.

View the original article here