When Greed Dominates the Public Interest we get this! Pharmaceutical Giant Finds New Use for Viagra - Screwing the Public!

.

Prolonged Erection Proves Profitable!

IT'S OFFICIAL: Pfizer agrees to a $160 billion deal to avoid US taxes

By Sam Ro 

The pharmaceutical giants Pfizer and Allergan will combine to form a $160 billion global drug behemoth.

Allergan shareholders will be receiving $363.63 worth of Pfizer stock as payment. Specifically, for each share of Allergan, investors will receive 11.3 shares (based on the Pfizer's Friday closing price of $32.18) of the new combined company.

Importantly, the combined businesses will be renamed Pfizer Plc but legally will be combined under Allergan Plc. This means the combined company will officially be domiciled in Ireland.

"Upon the closing of the transaction, the combined company is expected to maintain Allergan's Irish legal domicile," management said.

This type of deal, also known as a tax inversion, has been embraced by more and more US companies as a way to dodge relatively high US tax rates by moving to low-tax regions like Ireland.

For Pfizer, this means billions of dollars in savings.

"Pfizer anticipates the transaction will deliver more than $2 billion in operational synergies over the first three years after closing," management said. "Pfizer anticipates that the combined company will have a pro forma Adjusted Effective Tax Rate of approximately 17%-18% by the first full year after the closing of the transaction."

"The proposed combination of Pfizer and Allergan will create a leading global pharmaceutical company with the strength to research, discover, and deliver more medicines and therapies to more people around the world," Pfizer CEO Ian Read said. "Allergan's businesses align with and enhance Pfizer's businesses, creating best-in-class, sustainable, innovative, and established businesses that are poised for growth."

The combined company will continue to trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker PFE.

Here are the bullets summarizing the deal via Pfizer:

·                          Creates a new global biopharmaceutical leader with best-in-class innovative and established businesses

·                          Enhances revenue and earnings growth profile of innovative and established businesses

·                          Broadens innovative pipeline with more than 100 combined mid-to-late stage programs in development

·                          Transaction expected to close in the second half of 2016

·                          Expected to be neutral to Pfizer's Adjusted Diluted EPS1 in 2017, accretive beginning in calendar year 2018 and more than 10% accretive in 2019 with high-teens percentage accretion in 20202

·                          Expect combined Operating Cash Flow in excess of $25 Billion beginning in 2018

·                          Increased financial flexibility facilitates continued investment in the United States

·                          Preserves opportunity for a potential future separation of innovative and established businesses

.

Hillary says she is most proud Republicans are her enemy. Compares members of the GOP to NRA, health insurance companies, drug companies, and the Iranians.

.

If Republicans are her proudest enemy, what does that make Independents?

In the most recent Democratic Presidential candidates debate at CNN, CNN's Anderson Cooper asked, "which enemy are you most proud of?"

Clinton replied

“In addition to the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the Iranians, probably the Republicans.”

Never has a presidential candidate demonstrated such polarization toward an entire group of politically affiliated people as Hillary did when she condemned the entire Republican party to being her enemy.

As for the Independents who are already fed up with political polarization, Hillary seems to have slammed the door on them as well.  Independents are already fed up with politicians and after Hillary spoke we know why.

Most polls show 50-75% of the voters are still somewhat undecided on who to vote for in the general election.  Well Hillary sent a clear and concise message to the Republicans and Independents in that category that she considers them the enemy.

Of course, that is just one half of the impact from what she said as her statement also included a holier than thou claim health insurance and drug companies are also enemies and she is proud of it.

As you will also note from the following articles, the health and drug companies have showered Hillary, and Bill, and the Clinton Foundation with millions of dollars in contributions.  Perhaps she should have said "now that I fleeced the health and drug companies, they no longer serve me any purpose.  I got the millions!", cackle, cackle.

Did anyone else note that she has developed a cackle like the Wicked Witch of the West?  I first noticed it in the debate.  You take millions and condemn the donors.  With all accounts paid up why not, it keeps the progressives and liberals from looking at her contributors since she is the newly incarnated Queen of Progressives, at least until she wins the democratic nomination.

Once she takes the big primary prize then she will start becoming a conservative like her husband who stole the Republican platform in 1992 to run on and to use while president.

It worked once for the Clintons, why not work again?  Still, there is something to be said for a little laughter in politics and the bevy of photos in this article show you the lighter side of the Washington drama kings and queens.

Hillary Takes Millions in Campaign Cash From ‘Enemies’

Clinton named the drug and insurance industries among her “enemies,” but has accepted millions in donations from them.

By Kimberly Leonard Oct. 14, 2015 | 4:25 p.m. EDT

When asked during the Democratic presidential debate what enemies she was most proud to have made, Hillary Clinton named pharmaceutical and health insurance companies at the top of her list. But that hasn’t stopped the Democratic front-runner from accepting millions of dollars in campaign cash from both industries in the course of her political career, financial disclosure records show.

Since her first bid for Senate in 2000, Clinton has accepted nearly $1 million from drug and health companies and more than $2.7 million from the insurance field and its related sectors, according to an analysis of public records from the Center for Responsive Politics. While the analysis did not include campaign finance figures for the 2016 cycle, some of the same donors and patterns can be seen in Clinton’s lone financial disclosure filed in July.

Contributions tied to some of the same firms that gave to her 2008 presidential campaign appear in the latest disclosure, including donations connected to pharmaceutical companies Pfizer Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.; and insurers Aetna Inc., MetLife Inc. and Centene Corp., the latter of which is among Clinton’s largest donors this year.  

In the course of her 2008 presidential bid, records show that Clinton was the third-largest recipient of campaign donations from drug and health product companies, receiving $738,359 in donations. The industry also contributed $86,875 to her 2000 Senate run, and spent $157,015 supporting her re-election in 2006.

The insurance industry – which includes health insurers and also car, life and property insurance – donated $1,260,400 to her 2008 campaign, making her the third-highest recipient of cash from the industry that year and also in 2006, when she raised $397,110 for her re-election to the Senate. During her first bid for the Senate in 2000, she raised $167,550 from the industry.

She was the second-highest recipient of cash in 2008 from the health services sector and HMOs, receiving $636,670, and the highest earner in 2006, at $183,770. In 2000, she raised $70,575. 

More recently, the Clinton Foundation has also benefited from these groups’ donations. Donors and grantors who have given between $1 million and $5 million include Pfizer, the Procter & Gamble Co., Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina and Humana Inc.

But Clinton seems to have turned on the pharmaceutical industry in particular in recent weeks, releasing a plan to improve on President Barack Obama’s health care law, the Affordable Care Act, by tackling drug costs. The plan includes allowing Medicare, the government’s health plan for adults over 65 and disabled Americans, to negotiate lower drug costs – a measure the industry heavily opposes.

Her policy proposal also stated that she plans to reduce the amount of time a pharmaceutical company has exclusive rights to biologics, which are drugs made of living cells that are expensive to develop and can be difficult for patients to afford. Though she supported the bill that led to a 12-year exclusivity while in the Senate, her new proposals say she would reduce the patent to seven years, allowing the drug to be copied by other manufacturers and therefore reducing its price. Drugmakers are against this proposal, saying they need to recoup the massive costs of developing the drugs and to invest in new treatments and cures.

When Clinton was secretary of state, she supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which includes provisions that strengthen patent protections for drugmakers. Last week, however, she said she opposes the deal.

When asked for a response to Clinton calling the pharmaceutical industry “enemies,” Tina Stow, a spokeswoman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, said the group has a long history of supporting and working with candidates and policymakers on both sides of the aisle.

“We will continue to do so as we look to advance a pro-patient, pro-innovation, pro-jobs agenda,” she wrote in an email. PhRMA has publicly come out against Clinton’s plan for prescription drugs, saying it would restrict patients’ access to medicines, result in fewer new treatments, would cost jobs and would end the country’s standing as a leader in biomedical innovation.

It’s unclear to what extent insurers and drug companies will continue to support her campaign, particularly after the comments during CNN’s debate, although it would not be the first time Clinton has been at odds with the industries.

Asked to explain the financial relationship between Clinton’s campaign and the industries, campaign officials pointed to the contentious war fought against Clinton when she was first lady and head of the Task Force on National Health Care Reform in 1993. The health insurance industry ran millions of dollars of ads against a health care plan she championed that would have overhauled the system, playing a large role in ultimately killing it. They also point out that her positions to tackle drug costs have been unpopular among pharmaceutical lobbying groups, which could help to demonstrate she ultimately isn’t beholden to the industry’s interests.

In total, Clinton raised $245.8 million for her 2008 presidential run, $51.6 million for her 2006 Senate campaign and $30.2 million for her 2000 Senate bid.

Pharmaceutical companies and insurers are typically generous with members of both parties, giving slightly more to Republicans. Clare Krusing, press secretary for America's Health Insurance Plans, says its political action committee supports candidates of both parties and, in particular, candidates who support policies aligned with the industry's priorities around affordability.

In recent years, both industries have contributed more to Democrats. Obama was the top recipient during the 2008 presidential election, and again during his re-election in 2012, with his Republican opponents – first Mitt Romney, then Sen. John McCain – receiving slightly less from pharmaceutical companies.

 International Business Times

Wednesday, October 21, 2015 As of 7:52 AM EDT

Democratic Debate 2015: Hillary Clinton’s ‘Enemies’ In Pharmaceutical and Insurance Industries Have Supported Her Campaigns, Foundation

By Andrew Perez @AndrewPerezDC andrew.perez@ibtimes.com
David Sirota @davidsirota d.sirota@ibtimes.com on October 14 2015 12:42 AM EDT

Bill Clinton famously tried to parse what the meaning of “is” is -- and now his wife, Hillary Clinton, seems to be challenging the precise definition of “enemies.”

In an exchange toward the end of the Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas on Tuesday, the candidates were asked who their biggest enemies had been over the course of their careers. Clinton responded by saying, “In addition to the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the Iranians -- probably the Republicans.”

It is true that the National Rifle Association and the Republicans have been Clinton’s nemeses, and she has been involved in tense negotiations about international policy toward Iran. But health insurance companies and drug companies have been some of her biggest financial supporters.

In 2008, Clinton was the among the three biggest recipients of campaign cash from pharmaceutical-related companies, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. In all, the watchdog group reports that she raised $738,000 from employees of pharmaceutical manufacturers and companies classified as “Pharmaceuticals /Health Products.” The center reports that Clinton also raised more than $1.2 million from the insurance industry -- which includes health insurers.

On top of those campaign contributions, the Clintons and their family foundation have benefited from their ties to the pharmaceutical and insurance industries.

In 2011, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) -- the primary trade association representing drug companies -- paid Bill Clinton $200,000 for a speech, as the organization was lobbying the Hillary Clinton-led State Department. Last year, the Drug Chemical and Associated Technologies Association, a trade group whose members include major pharmaceutical companies, paid her a $250,000 speaking fee.

Meanwhile, the Clinton Foundation has received between $1 million and $5 million worth of donations separately from drug manufacturers Pfizer and Procter & Gamble, and from health insurers Humana and Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina. Some of those companies made donations as recently as this year, according to the foundation’s website.

That largesse was part of a friendship forged after those industries opposed her 1993 health care initiative -- and which continued after she won reelection to the Senate in 2006.

As secretary of state, Clinton repeatedly championed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which critics say includes provisions that strengthen patent protection for drug manufacturers. (Last week, she declared that she now opposes the trade deal.) As a presidential candidate in 2008, she promoted the idea of a federal mandate effectively requiring Americans to buy private health insurance.

Those Clinton positions were strongly supported by the same drug and insurance industries that she now calls “enemies.”

. 

What have we learned from the Ferguson tragedy?

.

After non-stop media bombardment in the countdown and release of the Grand Jury decision regarding the killing of Michael Brown, what is our 21st century lesson from what happened?

This may take a little time.

Our first lesson, we know bias and racism remain as underlining currents in America although anyone not knowing this lives in a bubble.

The bias exists between races, cultures, and even within races.  There is economic bias, class bias, opportunity bias, wealth bias, education bias, language bias, and a host of other biases that have nothing to do with race or color.

Then again, what can you expect in a nation that serves as a melting pot for all people of the world.  No other country in the world welcomes anyone and everyone like we do and when you get here, if you try to preserve your national culture, you are most likely biased.

Bias is such a monumental issue in America our founders made special provision in the Constitution and Bill of Rights to guarantee equal opportunity to everyone regardless of the prevailing biases.  They also made special provision in the Constitution and Bill of Rights to protect every American from any abuse resulting from such biases.  Finally, they established a system of justice to protect Americans abused because of bias.

On June 21, 1788, the Constitution was ratified.  We now have over 226 years of experience in enforcing the Constitution and we still have incidents of bias like the Ferguson, Missouri tragedy.

No doubt, we have come a long ways.  Way back when, only White landowners were citizens.  Minorities were not citizens, nor women regardless of color, nor all the immigrants we welcomed from around the world.  Not even the Original Americans were citizens.

Thanks to the Dutch, English and French, slaves came to America and they were not citizens.  When the Chinese came here to build the railroads, they were not citizens.  Nor were the Mexicans brought to harvest the American crops.

Even when we opened our doors to those fleeing desperate conditions, like the Irish potato famine, wars, unrest in Europe or Asia, the so-called Soviet crop failures, and the flight to escape Nazism, they received sanctuary yet had to earn American citizenship.         

I think bias may be a permanent human condition dictated by our programming throughout life and the culture in which we live.  If only we could learn to respect the biases of others perhaps, they could learn to respect ours and we could all live in harmony and peace.

Our second lesson, the media in America has lost its prestige that gave it special mention in the Bill of Rights.  Never was bias more apparent than in the media coverage of the Ferguson affair and few times in our history has the media led such an assault on our judicial system as the media reaction to the Grand Jury decision saying there was no probable cause for indicting the police officer, Darren Wilson, who shot Michael Brown.

For example, there is a ratings race between MSNBC and CNN and both cable networks have decided they have no chance to break the Fox News stranglehold on conservative and moderate America.  For well over a decade, FOX has dominated cable news with ratings two to ten times more than their competition.

That leaves the other two, MSNBC and CNN, in a dogfight to prove which is most liberal to the left wing extreme, so they have to out liberal each other.  What a shame since the liberals have not won a national election since, oh probably forever.

Lyndon Johnson and Franklin Roosevelt were about the most liberal presidents of the 20th century and they got us into the most devastating wars of our history, World War II and Viet Nam.  Indeed, they gave us the "New Deal" and "Great Society," but we also had the worst riots and urban warfare ever seen.

What is it about liberal movements that results in so much hate, disruption, and polarization?  Now that we have cable and national television networks fighting it out for the liberal spoils of ratings, we are right back in the midst of the discomfort zone.

Make no mistake; there are great liberal programs, services, and philosophies that benefit all people.  Yet just like with the conservatives, the good liberal programs were often hijacked by the lunatic fringe of the movement or were overshadowed by partisan polarization.

Social Security and Medicare have saved our older generation, whether conservatives or liberals.  Head Start is one of the few bright lights in the dismal performance of our education system.  Such liberal programs have distinguished America from other nations.

           

Liberal activists like Elizabeth Warren, when it comes to fighting Wall Street, are the only hope for ever curbing the abuses of wealth and power.  Yet, in order to secure the backing of the liberal media and liberal politicians, she and any other liberal must sell out many of the centrist principles of the real America to be part of the national debate.

Perhaps the greatest abuse of bias is obvious from the failure of the liberal media, when attempting to fan the ratings flames of the Ferguson tragedy, to acknowledge the existence of the toxicology report on Michael Brown on that fateful day.

A host of people and so-called experts are paraded before the cameras to tell us how flawed the grand jury system may be, or to discredit the testimony of the policeman regarding the condition of the victim Michael Brown.  When people have predetermined the outcome of a legal action, facts and truth have no role in the debate.

Well the fact is according to the toxicology report Michael Brown was stoned to a level equal to being drunk and incapable of driving.  So stoned on marijuana he walked into a store just before the incident, grabbed some boxes of cigars, and stormed out without paying.

Then walked down the middle of the street in broad daylight as if driving a car and not knowing which lane he occupied.  People do crazy things when they are stoned.  Charles Manson killed people.  Many others killed themselves.

The fact Michael Brown had a bag of pot in his possession indicated this was no first time use of drugs.  Why does the media refuse to expose the fact he may have been just another victim of drug abuse and when someone weighing 280 pounds is stoned, robbing stores, and walking down the middle of streets, perhaps they really are possessed by demons.

America needs to hear the rest of the story now hidden by the biased media.  We deserve the truth.  Then, we may be able to address the tragic conditions in our society that allow young men like Michael Brown to fall under the evil influence of drugs just like so many have fallen under the evil influence of another addiction, alcohol.

The full toxicology report story as contained in the Grand Jury documents is in the next CPT story about the Ferguson tragedy.

.       

Obama's ‘il dolce far niente’ - the sweetness of doing nothing

.

Leave it to the Italians to define the Obama presidency.  Of course in Italy "doing nothing" means taking the time to enjoy life unlike the Americans who are supposed to be so motivated in life they are not capable of doing nothing, and that includes being happy, less stressful and having time for your family.

 

With over half our population on prescription drugs for stress, I think the Italians just might have something.  When I worked for the governor in New Jersey I had an Italian secretary, a true Joisey girl, who introduced me to the wonderful world of ‘il dolce far niente’ through her immediate and extended family in the Ironbound section of Newark, New Jersey.

 

 

The Ironbound is one of the most incredible pockets of Old World cultural preservation anywhere in America.  I know there are Italian and Portuguese sections but I never got beyond the Italian.  We had a governor's office in Newark, the main office being in Trenton, and for a time I was assigned to the Jersey Department of Energy located in Newark.

 

Over a period of six years I got to witness the art of sweet nothingness where you could drop into a dinner of 15 underway without notice and have plenty to eat.  At the table the language was more often than not Old World Italian yet you always knew you were welcome and appreciated.

 

 

As for topics discussed around the table, anything under the sun as long as you contained your passion out of respect for those who might disagree.  I was a very motivated and well-informed chief of staff so I was always prepared to talk about the state, the federal government or international affairs.

 

 

It seems the Italians had such few expectations for our governments they did not spend much time on the subject.  It was also a potential source for stress.

 

 

One time one of the many uncles around the table asked me what I did for the Energy Department and I said that week we were working on the clean up of Three Mile Island, the worst nuclear accident in American history.  He rolled his eyes and made some comment which I assumed meant "and that is another reason we don't talk about the government."

 

 

Makes sense.  Family dinners are no place to discuss nuclear catastrophes and TMI is a lot more likely to stress out someone than comparing pastas.  Everyone should have occasion to join an extended Italian family for a three hour dinner before they start taking those prescription mind benders.

 

 

In time I went to the marriage of my former secretary in the largest Basilica in America and to the wedding party where lobster was an hors d'oeuvre sitting on carts around the grounds of the party palace.  There is nothing like an ethnic Italian wedding.

 

 

As for Obama, well he has the "sweetness of doing nothing" down pat but it costs the taxpayer over a billion dollars a year for our president to do nothing.

 

In the process he continues to set back international relations week by week as all the "Arab Spring" incidents have backfired on America.  We can't even leave Iraq and Afghanistan behind after a decade of wars without alienating someone and leaving civil unrest in our place.

 

 

 

Forget about the two nations in the best position to help us with Syria, Iran or North Korea, our mortal enemies if you are to believe White House spin.  Russia and China are so put off by Obama that no problems between our nations have been resolved and they have blocked us from using the United Nations to punish the rogue trio.

 

Then there is the forever lingering "financial crisis."  Our greed seems to have spilled over to the rest of the world and we nearly brought down the global financial system in a series of amazing rip offs of government.

 

 

Anyone who believed the American financial system, the most powerful by a long ways in the world, ever intended to serve the public interest as opposed to their own selfish interest is obviously under-medicated.

 

As near as I can tell it costs us about $27 million a week for the president and his White House operation.  That is a lot to pay someone to do nothing.  Throw in the cost of congress and military protecting us around the world and we are suddenly paying about $19 billion a week.

 

 

The World Health Organization estimates we spent $8608 per capita on health care in 2011.  In other words, about $2.7 trillion, or put in other terms, another $50-60 billion a week.

 

I don't care how you cut it, we seem to be paying way, way too much for people to enjoy ‘il dolce far niente’ on a 24/7 basis.  People like that need a wake up call, like being dropped kicked through the end zone goalposts.

 

 

So health care prices including medication, treatment, hospitals and health insurance continue to increase and we have a long ways to go to even begin to implement the law.  Nowhere in the law do we address in a meaningful way the cost of health care although the law talks a lot about Medicare fraud.

 

Unfortunately, the biggest fraud in Medicare is not even addressed.  When it comes to diseases and drugs profit is the first consideration and there is no profit in getting you well.  Instead we get a battery of meaningless tests to prove what we do not have, all the while being given multiple prescriptions of dangerous drugs to keep us happy during the many tests.

 

There is nothing good about a system where healing comes way down the priority list.  Nor is there when a system can spend tens of thousands of dollars or more when cat scans or other exotic tests are given.

 

 

Our medical community lives in a constant conflict of interest and makes money off everything they do to keep you sick, keep you medicated and keep you believing that doctors and medical people are the most trustworthy people in America.

 

 

So maybe our president and congress can enjoy ‘il dolce far niente’ because they have conditioned us to accept nothing as good for the country.  Just think of how many things would be wrong if they actually passed more laws and did something.

 

 

 

One the other hand, we would all be a lot happier and better off spiritually and morally at least if we did follow the advice of our Italian friends,‘il dolce far niente’, enjoy the sweetness of doing nothing.  

.