Advertisements
Home

Another YGTBSM!!!

Leave a comment

Hat Tip Old NFO@Nobody Asked Me.

Thanks to Obummercare, and the latest hijacking of drug prices, this one has come back around… Still true 12 years later…

Let’s hear it for Costco!! (This is just mind-boggling!) Make sure you
read all the way past the list of the drugs. The woman that signed
below is a Budget Analyst out of federal Washington , DC offices.

Did you ever wonder how much it costs a drug company for the active
ingredient in prescription medications? Some people think it must cost
a lot, since many drugs sell for more than $2.00 per tablet. We did a
search of offshore chemical synthesizers that supply the active
ingredients found in drugs approved by the FDA. As we have revealed in
past issues of Life Extension, a significant percentage of drugs sold
in the United States contain active ingredients made in other
countries. In our independent investigation of how much profit drug
Companies really make, we obtained the actual price of active
ingredients used in some of the most popular drugs sold in America .
The data below speaks for itself. Go HERE for the story and the embedded link to pricing…

Since the cost of prescription drugs is so outrageous, I thought
everyone should know about this. Please read the following and pass it
on. It pays to shop around. This helps to solve the mystery as to why
they can afford to put a Walgreen’s on every corner. On Monday night,
Steve Wilson, an investigative reporter for Channel 7 News in Detroit
did a story on generic drug price gouging by pharmacies. He found in
his investigation, that some of these generic drugs were marked up as
much as 3,000% or more. Yes, that’s not a typo: three thousand
percent! So often, we blame the drug companies for the high cost of
drugs, and usually rightfully so. But in this case, the fault clearly
lies with the pharmacies themselves. For example, if you had to buy a
prescription drug, and bought the name brand, you might pay $100 for
100 pills.

The pharmacist might tell you that if you get the generic equivalent,
they would only cost $80, making you think you are ‘saving’ $20. What
the pharmacist is not telling you is that those 100 generic pills may
have only cost him $10!

At the end of the report, one of the anchors asked Mr. Wilson whether,
or not there were any pharmacies that did not adhere to this practice,
and he said that Costco consistently charged little over their cost
for the generic drugs.

I went to the Costco site, where you can look up any drug, and get its
online price. It says that the in-store prices are consistent with the
online prices. I was appalled. Just to give you one example from my own
experience, I had to use the drug, Compazine, which helps prevent
nausea in chemo patients.

I used the generic equivalent, which cost $54.99 for 60 pills at CVS.
I checked the price at Costco, and I could have bought 100 pills for
$19.89. For 145 of my pain pills, I paid $72.57. I could have got 150
at Costco for $28.08.

I would like to mention, that although Costco is a ‘membership’ type store, you do NOT have to be a member to buy prescriptions there, as it is a federally regulated substance. You just tell them at the door that you wish to use the pharmacy, and they will let you in. (This is true)

This is true in Canada, too. I went there this past Thursday and asked them.

I am asking each of you to please help me by copying this letter, and passing it into your own e-mail, and send it to everyone you know with an e-mail address.

Sharon L.
Budget Analyst
U.S. Department of Commerce

Gah… If things aren’t already bad enough, now the copays are going up (again), and the ones that are hurt the most are the elderly…

Advertisements

FDA TO BAN ARTERY-CLOGGING TRANS FATS

Leave a comment

This is from Breitbarts Big Government.

Here is a prime example of the Obama nanny state

over reach.

How much of a price increase will we see?

How will this change affect the taste and the shelf life of food?

 

WASHINGTON
Heart-clogging trans fats have been slowly disappearing from grocery aisles and restaurant menus in the last decade. Now, the Food and Drug Administration is finishing the job.

The FDA announced Thursday it will require the food industry to gradually phase out artificial trans fats, saying they are a threat to people’s health. Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said the move could prevent 20,000 heart attacks and 7,000 deaths each year.

Hamburg said that while the amount of trans fats in the country’s diet has declined dramatically in the last decade, they “remain an area of significant public health concern.” The trans fats have long been criticized by nutritionists, and New York City and other local governments have banned them.

The agency isn’t yet setting a timeline for the phase-out, but it will collect comments for two months before officials determine how long it will take. Different foods may have different timelines, depending how easy it is to find a substitute.

“We want to do it in a way that doesn’t unduly disrupt markets,” said Michael Taylor, FDA’s deputy commissioner for foods. Still, he says, the food “industry has demonstrated that it is, by and large, feasible to do.”

Though they have been removed from many items, the fats are still found in processed foods, including in some microwave popcorns and frozen pizzas, refrigerated doughs, cookies, biscuits and ready-to-use frostings. They are also sometimes used by restaurants that use the fats for frying. Many larger chains have phased them out, but smaller restaurants may still get food containing trans fats from suppliers.

Trans fats are widely considered the worst kind for your heart, even worse than saturated fats, which also can contribute to heart disease. Trans fats are used both in processed food and in restaurants, often to improve the texture, shelf life or flavor of foods. Diners shouldn’t be able to detect a taste difference if trans fats are replaced by other fats.

To phase them out, the FDA said it had made a preliminary determination that trans fats no longer fall in the agency’s “generally recognized as safe” category, which is reserved for thousands of additives that manufacturers can add to foods without FDA review. Once trans fats are off the list, anyone who wants to use them would have to petition the agency for a regulation allowing it, and that would likely not be approved.

The fats are created when hydrogen is added to vegetable oil to make it more solid, which is why they are often called partially hydrogenated oils. The FDA is not targeting small amounts of trans fats that occur naturally in some meat and dairy products, because they would be too difficult to remove and aren’t considered a major public health threat on their own.

Scientists say there are no health benefits to trans fats and say they can raise levels of so-called “bad” cholesterol, increasing the risk of heart disease _ the leading cause of death in the United States.

Many companies have already phased out trans fats, prompted by new nutrition labels introduced by FDA in 2006 that list trans fats and an by an increasing number of local laws that have banned them. In 2011, Wal Mart pledged to remove all artificial trans fats from the foods the company sells by 2016.

As a result of the local and federal efforts and many companies’ willingness to remove them, consumers have slowly eaten fewer of the fats. According to the FDA, trans fat intake among American consumers declined from 4.6 grams per day in 2003 to around one gram per day in 2012.

Dr. Leon Bruner, chief scientist at the Grocery Manufacturers Association, said in a statement his group estimates that food manufacturers have voluntarily lowered the amount of trans fats in food products by 73 percent.

The group, which represents the country’s largest food companies, did not speculate on a reasonable timeline or speak to how difficult the move may be for some manufacturers. Bruner said in a statement that “consumers can be confident that their food is safe, and we look forward to working with the FDA to better understand their concerns and how our industry can better serve consumers.”

FDA officials say they have been working on trans fat issues for around 15 years _ the first goal was to label them _ and have been collecting data to justify a possible phase-out since just after President Barack Obama came into office in 2009.

The advocacy group Center for Science in the Public Interest first petitioned FDA to ban trans fats nine years ago. The group’s director, Michael Jacobson, says the move is “one of the most important lifesaving actions the FDA could take.”

He says the agency should try to move quickly as it determines a timeline.

“Six months or a year should be more than enough time, especially considering that companies have had a decade to figure out what to do,” Jacobson said.

 

My Daughter Died From the Abortion Drug 10 Years Ago Today

Leave a comment

This is from Life News.

These are the stories the Obama Media will not carry.

As it does not promote the pro abortion template.

Obama is worried about the children of Syria being killed.

What about the thousand’s murdered by abortion each day?

The U.S. Supreme Court recently accepted a case Cline v. Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice, challenging Oklahoma’s regulation of the abortion drug Mifeprex commonly known as mifepristone, RU-486, or The Abortion Pill.​

The case is an appeal by the state of Oklahoma from a ruling by its Supreme Court striking down a 2011 law that requires prescribing physicians to follow the FDA’s protocol for administering the Mifeprex abortion pill regimen using a combination of two drugs; mifepristone and misoprostol.

The Oklahoma law does not ban the use of the Mifeprex regimen, nor does it ban any abortion before or after 49 days gestation. It simply requires that the medical abortion regimen be administered in the way deemed safest by the FDA. The Act imposes no obstacle or undue burden to women seeking access to an abortion.

Monty Patterson’s Participation in the Case

As part of this Supreme Court case, I submitted an “Affidavit of Monty Patterson, father of Holly Patterson” in support of the “Brief of Women and Families Hurt by RU-486.”

My daughter, Holly Patterson, tragically died in 2003, seven days after the initial start of her 7-week-old pregnancy termination from a massive infection known as Clostridium sordellii toxic shock syndrome that was associated with a medically induced abortion.

Planned Parenthood prescribed my teenage daughter an unapproved, off-label RU-486 medical abortion regimen touted to be equally as safe an effective as the FDA protocol. Holly, barely 18-years-old, took advice from her provider and was persuaded to choose their alternative medical abortion regimen.

Holly did not receive accurate and truthful information concerning medical abortion in order to make an informed decision about her safe reproductive healthcare.

Since my daughter’s death, I have researched and studied the risks of mifepristone and misoprostol medical abortion and have built an educational website http://abortionpillrisks.org/ that discusses and details the facts that reveal significant safety concerns for women who consider an early pregnancy termination.

In the past 13 years, since FDA approval of RU-486, there have been an alarming number of serious health complications and injuries to women, including death.

The FDA has evaluated these injuries and deaths and publicly reported the off-label uses of the Mifeprex regimen has resulted in serious or sometimes fatal adverse events.

Personally, I do not believe any medical abortion pill regimen using mifepristone and misprostol to terminate early pregnancy is safe.

My focus is not to be pulled into the larger national abortion debate that has divided the United States into pro-choice and pro-life camps.

The United States Supreme Court has made it landmark decision on the issue of abortion. Women have certain legal rights to access and reproductive health care choices under the law.

With the legalization of abortion, a woman and her family should therefore be entitled to all the facts and risks to properly make informed decisions that are in their best interest, safety, health and welfare. This includes the choice of medical abortion with the drug regimen of mifepristone and misoprostol.

Abortion providers are promoting the use of unapproved off-label medical abortion regimens that may not have received the same degree of scientific scrutiny as the FDA approved mifepristone protocol. This problem needs to be addressed.

I have made it my focus to help educate women, families, researchers, even health care professionals to become informed of the facts and health risks of medical abortion to terminate an early pregnancy.

Significant issues of concern to me are: What are acceptable medical abortion practices? How are medical abortion providers exposing women to unnecessary health risks to already a potentially dangerous procedure?

The issue of legalized medical abortion should not be in question, but the issues of safe medical abortion protocol(s) and practices remain to be answered.

Off-Label Loopholes and Practices

Special interest groups and abortion providers have been taking advantage of huge loopholes in our drug regulatory system. Once medical abortion was approved by the FDA in 2000 and put on the market, there is absolutely nothing to prevent any abortion provider from using an alternative drug regimen in any manner, in any dose, for any patient he or she chooses. The drug’s labeling contains the indications approved by the FDA and these alternative uses are called “off-label” use of drugs.

Medical Abortion advocates contend that “doctors use drugs off-label all the time!” Organizations like Planned Parenthood are taking matters into their own hands when it comes to the use of medical abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol on their women patients. Sometimes these patients are teenage adolescents as young as 14 years old.

Common off-label usage of drugs in general does not prove it is a good idea, especially where safe medical abortion practices are critical to a woman’s health. Should medical abortion providers continue to promote their off-label prescribing as they continue to gain more confidence in what has been a serious mistake resulting in thousands of injuries and at least 14 deaths?

Medical abortion advocates claim off-label uses are not considered experimental to patients because their regimens have been “demonstrated by scientific research to be safer and more effective.”

Who makes the decisions if the medical abortion industry-sponsored research is sound scientific evidence? Who are these scientific bodies? Is it an organization of professionals trying to protect the special interests of their members?

Medical abortion providers using unapproved off-label regimens represents both a cavalier disregard for the safety of women and a total lack of faith in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s drug regulatory system.

Isn’t the whole purpose of FDA approved on-label use to provide assurances to the patient there is sound scientific evidence?

Providers Ignore FDA Public Health Advisories

The argument that the approved FDA protocol is an “old guideline” and considered to be “bad medicine” does not appear to be embraced by FDA officials.

The FDA has published Mifeprex “Public Health Advisories” when women have been seriously injured or suffer fatal consequences as a result of Mifeprex off-label medical abortion practice. These advisories state that the safety and effectiveness of other Mifeprex dosing regimens, including use of oral misoprostol tablets intra-vaginally has not been recognized or accepted by the FDA.

The FDA continues to stand by the Mifeprex protocol they evaluated and publicly remind abortion health care professionals of the approved Mifeprex dosing regimen.

Medical abortion practitioners continue to ignore every FDA Public Health Advisory. They continue to use modified regimens, by increasing the gestational age limit, shortening the process, decreasing their costs, changing the dosing regimen, decreasing physician oversight by allowing women to administer misoprostol at home (instead of at the provider’s clinic) and reducing the number of patient’s return visits back to the clinic. Some practitioners advise their patients to repeat misoprostol dosing to try to improve on abortion success rates.

These practitioners have turned their off-label regimens into  the “Do it Yourself” at home procedure where women are shouldering the responsibility for their own health, safety and well-being.

Making The Case For Safety

Medical abortion rights advocates are trying to make the case that off-label regimens are a safety improvement over the current FDA protocol. They oppose any action where providers may be required to prescribe three-times-more Mifeprex, essential for pregnancy termination, than they think is called for. No matter if it violates FDA approved protocol.

What about the off-label prescribing of the second drug misoprostol?

Is it considered a safety improvement for abortion providers to double the dose of buccal or vaginally administered misoprostol to further induce labor and increase contractions to expel the embryo and placental tissues? Further, additional doses of misoprostol may be prescribed for incomplete abortion complications.

Misoprostol carries its own boxed warnings, but they can’t be found in the Mifeprex drug labeling or the Patient Agreement and Medication Guide. Why aren’t providers informing women about uterine rupture that has been reported when misoprostol is administered to induce labor beyond the eighth week of pregnancy?

Providers have increased medical abortion gestation age limits from 7 weeks to 9 weeks to make it available to more women. Is that another safety improvement?

Mifeprex is being prescribed at a 1/3 reduced dose because medical abortion providers understand the cost benefits of misoprostol over Mifeprex. Mifeprex is expensive but misoprostol is a very cheap and readily available. To increase profits, misoprostol is used by providers as the predominant abortifacient agent in the regimen (not mifepristone) to terminate early pregnancy.

Medical evidence points to the fact that off-label uses of Mifeprex have resulted in more serious adverse health events, including death, than the FDA-approved regimen.

Medical abortion rights advocates claim this action is about punishment and discrimination against women who seek Mifeprex to induce medical abortion. Did the FDA have that in mind when they approved the drug sponsor’s application for distribution and prescribing of Mifeprex?

The off-label prescribing of medical abortion drug regimens has resulted in disastrous health consequences for thousands of women. Every recorded U.S. death, as in the case of Holly Patterson, has been a result of off-label Mifeprex and misoprostol use to terminate early pregnancy.

Medical abortion can be an unpredictable and dangerous alternative, especially when abortion providers choose to ignore and circumvent the FDA approved protocol.

Medical Opinion Or Evidence?

FDA’s approval of mifepristone is supposed to be based on controlled studies and independent analysis of data by qualified doctors and scientists designated to review and monitor clinical medical research.

If abortion researchers and providers believe they have regimens that are “safer and more effective” than the one approved by the FDA in 2000, then they should submit them to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, along with their unbiased and so-called “evidence-based” studies, for rigorous FDA review and evaluation. Obviously, they haven’t, and don’t intend to do so.

After all, shouldn’t women deserve quality information to ensure the medical community has all of the available facts on which to base medical abortion treatment decisions that aren’t biased, industry-sponsored and motivated by profit and market expansion?

If medical abortion advocates, providers, and their researchers were really looking out for the best interest of women’s reproductive health care, this contentious debate requiring a U.S. Supreme Court decision may have been avoided.

 

 

Abortion Drug RU 486 Has Killed Two Million Unborn Children in the U.S.

1 Comment

This is from Life News.

If it isn’t the Kermit Gosnell‘s of the world murdering babies and killing women.

It is now some pill that is murdering babies and hurting and killing women.

Proverbs 6:16-17

King James Version (KJV)

16 These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

 

The dangerous RU 486 abortion drug has nearly claimed the lives of two million unborn children in the United States since its approval at the end of the Clinton administration.

The Food and Drug Administration, which approved the drug in late 1999, estimated in April 2011 that 1.52 million American women had taken RU-486 to induce an abortion. According to CDC reports, about 16.5 percent of the estimated 1.2 million abortions that take place annually in the United States involve the mifepristone drug, commonly known as RU 486.

In other words, about 198,000 abortions take place each year with the drug, or 16,500 each month, and the RU 486 drug has claimed the lives of approximately 462,000 unborn children in the 28 months since the FDA released its April 2011 estimate — for a total of 1,982,000 abortions. With the Planned Parenthood abortion business pushing increased usage of the mifepristone abortion pill via webcam abortions over the last few years, it’s likely the number of two million abortions involving the RU 486 abortion pill since its approval in the U.S. has already been surpassed.

In addition to the number of unborn children whose lives have been lost to the abortion drug, women have suffered as well, as a Planned Parenthood study admitsat least one woman is seriously injured from the abortion pill daily.

Following its approval during the Clinton administration, the FDA released a report in 2006 that received widespread attention for showing more than 1,100 women had been subjected to “adverse effects” resulting from their taking the abortion drug.

The FDA, with no fanfare, released its April 2011 report showing 14 women in the United States alone have died from using the mifepristone abortion drug and 2,207 women have been injured by it.

Of the women experiencing medical and physical problems resulting from the abortion drug, 612 women required hospitalizations, 339 experienced blood loss significant enough to require a transfusion, 256 experienced infections and 48 women experienced what the FDA labeled as “severe infections.” Given that the RU 486 abortion drug caused sepsis, a potentially lethal infection that resulted in the deaths of women from around the world, the “serious infections” were very likely life-threatening situations.

“Severe infections generally involve death or hospitalization for at least 2-3 days, intravenous antibiotics for at least 24 hours, total antibiotic usage for at least 3 days, and any other physical or clinical findings, laboratory data or surgery that suggest a severe infection,” the FDA report stated.

Women developing infections from usage of the RU 486 abortion drug experienced endometritis (involving the lining of the womb), pelvic inflammatory disease (involving the nearby reproductive organs such as the fallopian tubes or ovaries), and pelvic infections with sepsis (a serious systemic infection that has spread beyond the reproductive organs).

The FDA figures also reveal that abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood are still misusing the abortion drug.

Despite the FDA indicating, “Administration of mifepristone and misoprostol is contraindicated in patients with confirmed or suspected ectopic pregnancy (a pregnancy outside the uterus,” the abortion drug was given to women in 58 cases where they had an ectopic pregnancy at that time.

An FDA panel eventually investigated the deaths and found that the vaginal, rather than oral, use of the abortion drug was likely contributing to the deaths. Planned Parenthood had been going against the FDA guidelines on using the abortion drug and changed its protocols to allow for oral use after women died at their facilities.

In 2012, Chris Gacek, who received a Bachelors of Science in economics from the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, a Masters and Ph.D. in political science from Stanford University, and a J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Lawauthored a comprehensive report on mifepristone.

On the unsafe effects of RU 486 for women:

Dr. Ralph Miech, emeritus professor at Brown University’s medical school, has published two peer-reviewed articles describing potentially undesirable effects related to RU-486 and its anti-glucocorticoid properties.[8] First, he believes that RU-486′s blockade of cortisol receptors on bacteria-destroying white blood cells may impede the antibacterial defense mechanism of the innate immune system. Such interference, he hypothesizes, played a significant role in the deaths of at least five North Americans in which there was a post abortion, bacterial invasion of the uterus and subsequent septic shock.[9] Second, prompted by an article describing mifepristone-related adverse events with significant and unexpected levels of hemorrhage, Miech’s second article argues that RU-486 appears to interfere with the body’s ability to control uterine hemorrhage.[10] Such interference, if true, would be a dangerous feature of an abortion procedure that is designed to produce a simulated miscarriage. As will be noted below, the number of hemorrhage/transfusion and serious infection cases revealed by FDA support Miech’s concern about RU-486 and hemorrhage.

Looking at specific cases of the abortion drug hurting women:

FDA’s April 2011 RU-486 Adverse Events Summary states that “[t]he estimated number of women who have used mifepristone in the US through the end of April 2011 is approximately 1.52 million women.” As noted above, FDA calculated that by that date there had been 2,207 adverse event reports submitted to FDA.[25] Prior to a 2006 oversight hearing on RU-486 safety, FDA told Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.) that it had received 1,070 AERs.[26] Thus, in the second five years of mifepristone marketing in the United States, the FDA received an additional 1,137 AERs-a total which seems consistent with the first five years.

The April 2011 RU-486 Adverse Events Summary states that there were 612 reports of hospitalization received as of April 30, 2011.

FDA’s April 2011 RU-486 Adverse Events Summary indicates that 339 women “experienced blood loss requiring a transfusion” after taking the RU-486 abortion regimen.

By April 2011 FDA had fifty-eight reports of ectopic pregnancy cases – with two resulting in death – in conjunction with mifepristone-misoprostol use.

In the April 2011 RU-486 Adverse Events Summary FDA associated fourteen American deaths to the use of the mifepristone-misoprostol abortion regimen.

And, according to a study on medical abortion’s safety and effectiveness published in Obstetrics & Gynecology and that Gacek noted, the abortion drug is more dangerous for women than surgical abortions:

“Overall, medical abortion had roughly four times the rate of adverse events than surgical abortion did: 20.0% of women in the medical-abortion group and 5.6% of women in the surgical-abortion group had at least one type of adverse event.  Hemorrhage, as an adverse event, was experienced by 15.6% of medical abortion patients compared with 2.1% for surgical patients. Incomplete abortions were experienced by 6.7% of medical abortion patients while only 1.6% of surgical patients had incomplete abortions. The rate for surgical (re)evacuation of the uterus was 5.9% (medical) versus 1.8% (surgical) for all causes (hemorrhage, infection, incomplete abortion).

Supermarkets cry foul as FDA proposes new food labeling rule under ObamaCare

Leave a comment

This is from Fox News Politics.

You thought Obamacare was to make medical treatment free.

Now we know Obamacare will cause higher prices and higher taxes.

Now we know Obamacare will mean higher insurance premiums.

Obamacare will also cause raising food prices due to new labeling rules.

 

 

Supermarket owners argue a pending federal food-labeling rule that stems from the new health care law would overburden thousands of grocers and convenience store owners — to the tune of $1 billion in the first year alone.

Store owner Tom Heinen said the industry’s profit margins already are razor thin. “When you incur a significant cost, there is no way that that doesn’t get passed on to the customer in some form,” he said.

The rule stems from an ObamaCare mandate that restaurants provide nutrition information on menus. Most in the restaurant industry were supportive of the idea, but when the FDA decided to extend the provision to also affect thousands of supermarkets and convenience stores, the backlash was swift.

The proposed regulation would require store owners to label prepared, unpackaged foods found in salad bars and food bars, soups and bakery items. Erik Lieberman, regulatory counsel at the Food Marketing Institute, said testing foods for nutritional data will require either expensive software or even more costly off-site laboratory assessments.

Lieberman said failure to get it right comes with stiff penalties: “If you get it wrong, it’s a federal crime, and you could face jail time and thousands of dollars worth of fines.”

The FDA says much of ObamaCare is aimed at helping Americans live healthier lives, and these proposed labeling requirements would help them do just that. In the text of the proposed regulation, the FDA states: “[The information] should help consumers limit excess calorie intake and understand how the foods that they purchase at these establishments fit within their daily caloric and other nutritional needs.”

An Executive Order issued by President Obama in 2011 says agencies are supposed to calculate a cost-benefit analysis for each new regulation and attempt to use the least burdensome regulatory methods possible. Critics of the FDA’s food labeling proposal say the agency didn’t comply.

“They are required to do it, and they didn’t,” Lieberman said. “They simply said, ‘We can’t quantify a benefit from this rule,’ and that’s because they really can’t.”

The FDA said Wednesday it has received hundreds of public comments on the proposal and will take them into consideration when finalizing the regulation. It is likely to be released later this spring, and the agency says it will “include a final economic analysis.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/06/jail-time-for-food-labels/#ixzz2L64MrTs1

 

If the Food and Drug Administration gets its way, your trip to the grocery store could get a tad pricier.

Supermarket owners argue a pending federal food-labeling rule that stems from the new health care law would overburden thousands of grocers and convenience store owners — to the tune of $1 billion in the first year alone.

Store owner Tom Heinen said the industry’s profit margins already are razor thin. “When you incur a significant cost, there is no way that that doesn’t get passed on to the customer in some form,” he said.

The rule stems from an ObamaCare mandate that restaurants provide nutrition information on menus. Most in the restaurant industry were supportive of the idea, but when the FDA decided to extend the provision to also affect thousands of supermarkets and convenience stores, the backlash was swift.

The proposed regulation would require store owners to label prepared, unpackaged foods found in salad bars and food bars, soups and bakery items. Erik Lieberman, regulatory counsel at the Food Marketing Institute, said testing foods for nutritional data will require either expensive software or even more costly off-site laboratory assessments.

Lieberman said failure to get it right comes with stiff penalties: “If you get it wrong, it’s a federal crime, and you could face jail time and thousands of dollars worth of fines.”

The FDA says much of ObamaCare is aimed at helping Americans live healthier lives, and these proposed labeling requirements would help them do just that. In the text of the proposed regulation, the FDA states: “[The information] should help consumers limit excess calorie intake and understand how the foods that they purchase at these establishments fit within their daily caloric and other nutritional needs.”

An Executive Order issued by President Obama in 2011 says agencies are supposed to calculate a cost-benefit analysis for each new regulation and attempt to use the least burdensome regulatory methods possible. Critics of the FDA’s food labeling proposal say the agency didn’t comply.

“They are required to do it, and they didn’t,” Lieberman said. “They simply said, ‘We can’t quantify a benefit from this rule,’ and that’s because they really can’t.”

The FDA said Wednesday it has received hundreds of public comments on the proposal and will take them into consideration when finalizing the regulation. It is likely to be released later this spring, and the agency says it will “include a final economic analysis.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/06/jail-time-for-food-labels/#ixzz2L64MrTs1

 

 

Obamacare May Hike Your Pet’s Health Care Bills

2 Comments

This is from the Heritage Foundation‘s The Foundry.

Obamacare is going to screw us over in ways never imagined.

We are going to see jobs lost and doctor’s offices closing.

Once more time I will say elections have consequences.

 

 

American health care consumers aren’t the only ones who will be hit by slated Obamacare tax hikes. Medical bills for their pets may go up as well.

According to a rule published Friday by the Internal Revenue Service, some medical devices used in veterinary practices will be hit by Obamacare’s 2.3 percent device tax. Many of their manufacturers are expected to hike prices, meaning higher veterinary costs for the nation’s pet owners.

The tax will not hit devices that are used exclusively for veterinary purposes. But a host of such devices are manufactured for use in both human health care and veterinary practices. Those devices’ manufacturers will have to pay the tax.

The IRS rule states:

Section 4191 [of the Internal Revenue Code] limits the definition of a taxable medical device to devices described in section 201(h) of the [Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act] that are intended for humans, but does not provide that the device must be intended exclusively for humans. Under existing [Food and Drug Administration] regulations, a device intended for use exclusively in veterinary medicine is not required to be listed as a device with the FDA, whereas a device intended for use in human medicine is required to be listed as a device with the FDA even if the device may also be used in veterinary medicine.

According to the FDA, common “dual use” medical devices are “examination gloves, sterile catheters, infusion pumps, etc.”

The device tax is expected to raise costs for consumers. A recent survey of 181 manufacturers found that a 52.5 percent majority plan to “pass along some or all of the increased cost [of the tax] to our consumers.” Among North American manufacturers, the portion who said they would raise prices was an even higher 58 percent.

“Across the board there is bigger inclination among firms to raise prices and pass on costs to customers as a way to deal with the US tax,” the survey found.

Pet owners already spend more than $12 billion on veterinary care annually. Obamacare may make it even more expensive to care for your pet.

 

%d bloggers like this: