Tag: Premium

Ezekiel Emanuel believes a small change in packaging could make a big difference in overdoses:

A good way to kill yourself is by overdosing on Tylenol or other pills. About 90 percent of the deaths from unintentional poisonings occur because of drugs, and not because of things like household cleaners or bleach. There is a simple way to make medication less accessible for those who would deliberately or accidentally overdose — and that is packaging…. Pills should be packaged in blister packs of 16 or 25. Anyone who wanted 50 would have to buy numerous blister packages and sit down and push out the pills one by one. Turns out you really, really have to want to commit suicide to push out 50 pills. And most people are not that committed.

He cites a British experience as evidence:

In September 1998, Britain changed the packaging for paracetamol, the active ingredient in Tylenol, to require blister packs for packages of 16 pills when sold over the counter in places like convenience stores, and for packages of 32 pills in pharmacies. The result: a study by Oxford University researchers showed that over the subsequent 11 or so years, suicide deaths from Tylenol overdoses declined by 43 percent, and a similar decline was found in accidental deaths from medication poisonings. In addition, there was a 61 percent reduction in liver transplants attributed to Tylenol toxicities. (Although it was a long and detailed study, some studies got a different result. One in Ireland, for example, found no reduction in overdoses.)

Update from a reader:

Such packaging would be disastrous for one of the largest groups of people who use pain-killers and anti-inflammatories: those with arthritis. Many can’t even manipulate a “child-proof” cap (hence the sale of larger quantities in bottles specifically touted as “arthritis-friendly”); imagine their frustration in trying to get a pill or two out of a blister pack.

A reader comments on a recent Malkin Award nomination:

I really, really hate that I’m about to defend Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson, but I’m not so sure this qualifies as “shrill, hyperbolic, divisive and intemperate right-wing rhetoric.” Short-sighted, rather ignorant, and driven by deeply questionable motives, sure. But at the same time, there’s actually an important point subsumed here (at least as I read it). Attacking carbon emissions with the utmost gusto, at this point in time and with currently existing technology, could well have implications for lifting the global bottom two billion out of energy poverty; and, it would almost certainly create additional cost burdens for individuals in the developed world. Climate impacts will be most acutely felt by those in the bottom socioeconomic rungs; but so too is it going to be harder for folks at the bottom to pay for higher energy costs – wherever they may live – if they’ve got to rely on renewables, or coal with carbon-capture.

So it’s something of a balancing act, I’d argue.

Contra Exxon, this consideration is not a reason not to act, of course; people just need to be clear-eyed about potential trade-offs. Brad Plumer wrote about this with some concern a while back, and he is surely not worthy of a Malkin Award! There’s a legitimate conversation to be had about the future trajectory of human development, the trade-offs between competing goals, and the advantages or disadvantages of the various supply – and demand-side steps we can take to achieve them.

I also understand the context here. Exxon is probably one of the worst corporate actors on climate. Their record and outlook is shameful, and flies in the face of what IEA, the World Bank, and other bodies say we need to be doing. Obviously Tillerson is using this argument as a shield, not in good faith. But just because he can use this argument as an excuse for poor corporate citizenship doesn’t necessarily mean it belongs with the Malkins.

Dana Milbank pans the congressional investigations attempting to connect Obama to the IRS scandal, accusing them of not only “placing the sentence before the verdict, they’re putting the verdict before the trial”:

Congressional investigators have not produced evidence to link the harassment of conservative groups to the White House or to higher-ups in the Obama administration. But the lack of evidence that any political appointee was involved hasn’t stopped the lawmakers from assuming that it simply must be true. And so, they are going to hold hearings until they confirm their conclusions.

Ed Kilgore cautions that “if it’s possible to screw up this can’t-lose situation, it may well be that House Republicans are capable of it”:

I figure congressional Republicans and their media friends have about a week to make the IRS investigations interesting and/or revelatory before it begins to look like conservatives are quite literally just talking to themselves, at which time the whole thing could backfire. But they don’t exactly seem to have a firm grip on the ball or a clear play to run.

Ramesh offers advice to Republicans:

Republicans had a better response to the last round of IRS scandals, in the 1990s. In 1997, congressional hearings revealed that IRS agents were being pressured to meet quotas for back taxes and penalties. Agents, sometimes anonymously, admitted that these quotas had led aggressive collectors to squeeze taxpayers for money they didn’t really owe. … The earlier IRS scandals produced useful reforms partly because the Republicans who did the most to publicize them weren’t focused on pinning the blame on President Bill Clinton. They instead wanted to demonstrate the dangers of letting the federal government have too much power, and in finding ways to reduce those dangers.

Good luck with that, Ramesh. And I’m not being snarky there. But I suspect they’re a lost cause and this will be the only thing the House cares about in this session.

Nate Silver considers the choices facing Governor Christie after the death of New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg:

There are conflicting interpretations of exactly what New Jersey’s law requires — whether a special election should be held this November, when Gov. Chris Christie will be up for re-election, or in November 2014, when Mr. Lautenberg’s term was set to expire. In the interim, Mr. Christie, a Republican, has the option of appointing a senator, but he is not required to do so. Though Mr. Christie’s decision could have some implications for how is perceived as a potential 2016 presidential candidate, it may not have much effect on who eventually wins the election for Mr. Lautenberg’s seat. …

If Mr. Christie wants to maximize the G.O.P.’s chances of holding on to the seat, the path is fairly straightforward. He would want to appoint a moderate Republican who had held a prominent elected office before, who could raise money quickly and who could scale up to the effort that a statewide campaign would require.

But he decided to hold a special election, further enraging the derps. Money quote:

“I think this ends his 2016 chances. It’s year after year with this guy,” complained one senior Republican official.

The GOP’s one hope for reaching the middle is thereby frummed out of the race. John Fund meanwhile, downplays concerns about pushback from New Jersey’s conservatives:

Democrats say Christie faces an excruciating choice on whom he appoints. As David Axelrod, the strategist behind President Obama’s 2008 and 2012 victories put it: “Fascinating dilemma for Christie. Does he name interim who reflects his more moderate state, or feed Tea Party for ’16?” … [E]very New Jersey conservative I spoke with is realistic. “As much as I’d like to see a Steve Forbes or Bret Schundler get the appointment, I realize Christie’s not going there,” one told me. “I think we can get someone who is solid on the key issues and also can win in the Northeast.” He points out that, of the 22 Senators from the region, the GOP currently has only three – Kelly Ayotte from New Hampshire, Susan Collins from Maine, and Pat Toomey from Pennsylvania.

James Hohmann ponders the implications of the death of Frank Lautenberg, “the Senate’s last World War II vet”, at age 89:

The New Jersey Democrat, who enlisted in the Army at 18 and shipped off to Europe, was the last of 115 senators who served during World War II. They were more likely to work together and avoid petty partisanship than their successors. Most, including Republicans like Bob Dole of Kansas, came home believing that government could be a force for good. They internalized a leeriness of war and were committed to caring for fellow veterans. …

A dwindling number of senators served in subsequent wars. Only 14 of 100 senators now have worn the nation’s uniform, and three of them have announced plans to retire. In the House, it is fewer than one in five. [Rep. John] Dingell said those who have fought in war are often leeriest about using force.

Amy Davidson hopes that he will serve as an inspiration to a new generation of veteran legislators:

Lautenberg enlisted in the Army in 1942, the year he turned eighteen, and was an ordinary soldier in the Signal Corps for the rest of the war. One of his many legislative battles was to expand the education benefits connected to the G.I. Bill, which had helped him to attend Columbia. His status as the last of his war’s veterans in the Senate is worth reflecting on, but one wonders, even more, what younger veterans going into politics now will do with what they learned. There is an empty space for his cohort in the Senate, but an emerging one for veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan in the House. Their ranks include women like Tulsi Gabbard and Tammy Duckworth, whose presence is no eccentricity. It is part of the America Lautenberg, and the liberalism he aspired to, helped build.

(Photo: U.S. Senator and World War II veteran Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) speaks at a free veterans job fair at Rutgers University on March 29, 2010 in Newark, New Jersey. Public and private sector employers attended along with agencies providing support to veterans. First time jobless claims numbers fell to their lowest level in six weeks last week as the economy shows possible signs of recovery. By Mario Tama/Getty Images)

Kevin Bonham criticizes the Union of Concerned Scientists for their opposition to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and genetic engineering (GE) of produce:

I should be clear that I support UCS generally, and their work on agriculture specifically. Their roadmap for healthy farm policy is a wonderful and succinct explanation for what’s wrong with the way we currently grow food, and policy proposals to make it better. But GE is a technology (among others) that can help us make it better. Yes, they should be regulated, but so should new varieties produced by techniques like mutation breeding. Yes, we need to move away from monoculture and industrial farming practices, but that’s true of GE and organic farming alike. Genetic engineering, like any other technology can be used for good and for ill. It can be helpful and it can be dangerous. New regulations and policies should be technology-neutral, and focus on outcomes.

PZ Myers similarly downplays concerns about GMOs:

[T]here is established policy in many countries and states to prohibit use of GMO crops. When a small patch of GMO wheat was found in Oregon, Japan responded by shutting down all wheat imports from Oregon. That’s nothing but fear based in ignorance. All of our crops, everyone’s crops, are heavily modified genetically. Wild strawberries are tiny little things. Corn is a hybrid monster shaped by centuries of selection, twisted from a seedy little grass into this weird elaborate conglomeration. Wheat and barley and rye are the product of thousands of years of genetic reshuffling and selection. Walk into the produce section of your grocery store — do you really think all those fruits and vegetables are unshaped by human hands?

This strange unfounded fear of GMOs is unfortunately most strongly expressed in the political left. It’s embarrassing that political progressives are being made to look bad by raging superstition and unscientific claims. … Sometimes I wonder if the GMO controversy isn’t just a giant red herring thrown into the debate about the future of agriculture just to distract us from what should be real concerns.

(Photo: People hold signs during a demonstration against agribusiness giant Monsanto and genetically modified organisms (GMO) in front of the White House in Washington on May 25, 2013. By Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images)

Lyle Denniston recaps yesterday’s SCOTUS ruling:

Treating the solution of unsolved crimes as a legitimate part of routine police station “booking” procedures, a divided Supreme Court on Monday upheld the power of government at all levels to take DNA samples from every person legally arrested for a “serious” new crime.  What a suspect may have done in the past, the Court majority ruled, is a part of the profile that police may constitutionally begin to assemble at the time of arrest for a separate offense.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for a five-four majority, insisted that the ruling in the case of Maryland v. King (docket 12-207) involved little more than what happens when police take a suspect’s fingerprints or mug shot.  But Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the dissenters, said the Court had validated the use of scientific evidence taken without a warrant not to make an identification but to gather evidence to solve cold cases — something he said the Court has never allowed before.

Lauren Kirchnem wonders, “Is the DNA-fingerprint comparison an accurate one?”:

 In an age when an artist can pick up an old piece of chewing gum from the sidewalk and create a 3-D model of the gum-chewer’s face, it sounds a bit naïve.

Orin Kerr’s perspective:

It’s hugely important as a practical matter, but it’s not very interesting from a theoretical or academic standpoint. The difference between the two opinions largely hinges on how you characterize the purpose of the search. For the majority, per Justice Kennedy, taking and analyzing DNA samples upon arrest is okay because taking DNA is generally about identifying the person under arrest, which is a very important government interest and renders the search constitutional. For the dissent, per Justice Scalia, taking DNA isn’t okay in this case because it really had nothing to do with identifying the person and was just about collecting evidence of other crimes.

Doug Mataconis is uncertain about the wisdom of the ruling:

As the dissent notes, some 23,000,000 people will be arrested or one reason or another before their mid-20s. In many cases, they will be completely innocent of the charges they are arrested for. Under the Court’s logic, every single one of these people will now be required to give up a DNA sample regardless of whether there was probable cause to ask for such evidence or not.

Noah Feldman is less conflicted:

If DNA sampling was actually like fingerprinting, this argument might be convincing. But of course it isn’t. Fingerprints are a phenotype that reveals nothing except a random pattern that no two individuals share. DNA, however, is your genotype: the blueprint for your entire physical person. If the government has my fingerprints, it’s like they have my randomly assigned Social Security number. If it has my DNA, it’s like they have the entire operating system.

After Tesla’s early repayment of their DoE loan recently, CEO Elon Musk posted the above tweet arguing against government subsidies for low-carbon or carbon-free technologies. Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus argue that he shouldn’t be so quick to disparage a program that benefited Tesla so much:

The argument for a carbon tax is that it corrects distortions in the market due to the externalized costs of emitting carbon, which in turn would allow companies that produce zero-emission vehicles, like Tesla, to compete on a level playing field without further public assistance. This argument allows Musk to elide just how dependent his companies—both those that offer low carbon benefits and those, like SpaceX, that don’t—have been on direct public support for the development and commercialization of the technologies upon which they were built.

While a carbon tax might have provided some benefit to Tesla or Musk’s residential solar company, Solar City, there is no imaginable carbon tax that would begin to approximate the value of the $7,500 tax credit that the federal government offers to buyers of electric cars. Or the $2.4 billion dollars that the federal government invested in battery manufacturing through the 2009 stimulus. Or the half-billion dollar loan that financed the factory in which Tesla manufactures the Model S. Or the 20 years of funding from the American and Japanese governments that have resulted in dramatic advances in the lithium batteries that power the Model S.

Christopher Koopman describes how the subsidies Shellenberger and Nordhaus reference were instrumental in Tesla’s success in recent years:

These subsidies have become so central to Tesla’s business model that it advertises them to customers as a way to cover the cost of a down payment. And for states that do not yet offer subsidies for electric cars? Tesla’s website provides links to help consumers encourage state and local legislators to subsidize the purchase of such vehicles. The company’s site even goes so far as to recommend consulting a tax professional.

Even with the support of federal and state politicians, Tesla would still be reporting losses were it not for its ability to profit off of other auto manufacturers in California. In the first quarter of 2013, Tesla reported its first-ever quarterly profit by using special credits from California’s Air Resources Board, which rewards auto manufacturers for the production of “zero-emission” vehicles. So far this year, Tesla was able to turn what would have been a $57 million loss into an $11 million gain by selling $68 million worth of these credits to other auto manufacturers in California.

Recent Dish on Tesla’s early loan repayment here.