Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
solarhydrocan
solarhydrocan's Journal
solarhydrocan's Journal
December 26, 2013
One might think that an article like this would point out that the Feds own a patent
on the use of cannabinoids.
It's bizarre, that so many ignore it.
United States Patent 6,630,507
Hampson , et al. October 7, 2003
Assignee: The United States of America as represented by the Department of Health and Human Services (Washington, DC)
Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants
Abstract
Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia...>
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6630507.PN.&OS=PN/6630507&RS=PN/6630507
Also fails to mention that a piece of this patent has been awarded and cannabinoid medicine is being sold by a company called Kannalife
Cannabinoid Patent Exclusivity Only Applies To One Condition
(The Company Just Awarded An Exclusive Cannabinoid License By The Federal Government)
http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2011/12/cannabinoid_patent_exclusivity_only_applies_to_one.php
At some point one just has to conclude that basic reasoning doesn't exist anymore. People are just too dumbed down.
What jury would convict someone for growing a medicine that the government has found so effective that they have patented the use of?
Of course, the "War On Drugs" has brought the government many benefits and they wouldn't want to lose any.
December 24, 2013
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to Mr. Ed Snowden, Patriot
Thanks Ed for following your oath
Many fought and died for our Bill of Rights.
Clapper needs a trial and a cell.
December 23, 2013
SEN.BERNIE SANDERS-AUDIT THE FEDERAL RESERVE!!
It's not a left/right issue, it's an American issue. And the American people are running out of time!
Why
is it that private central banks issue the public currency as a loan at interest when the Constitution allows the Government to do the same thing?
The public currency must return to being a public utility, as it was when this nation was founded.
Dennis Kucinich: Federal Reserve No More "Federal" Than Federal Express!
SEN.BERNIE SANDERS-AUDIT THE FEDERAL RESERVE!!
It's not a left/right issue, it's an American issue. And the American people are running out of time!
December 22, 2013
The US is stupid for allowing Germany to take the lead in PV.
Solarpark Neuhardenberg
Solarpark Finsterwalde
Solarpark Kothen
Solarpark Senftenberg
While Germany has been building Solarparks the US has been building these:
Germany is not stupid
Germany is the world's top photovoltaics (PV) installer, with a solar PV capacity of 35.308 gigawatts (GW) at the end of October 2013.[2]
Germany has a goal of producing 35% of electricity from renewable sources by 2020 and 100% by 2050.[5]
...On midday of Saturday May 26, 2012, solar energy provided over 40% of total electricity consumption in Germany, and 20% for the 24h-day. The federal government has set a target of 66 GW of installed solar PV capacity by 2030,[8] to be reached with an annual increase of 2.5–3.5 GW,[9] and a goal of 80% of electricity from renewable sources by 2050.
From 3.5 GW to 4 GW are expected to be installed in 2013. Solar power in Germany has been growing considerably due to the country's feed-in tariffs for renewable energy which were introduced by the German Renewable Energy Act. Prices of PV systems have decreased more than 50% in 5 years since 2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany
Germany has a goal of producing 35% of electricity from renewable sources by 2020 and 100% by 2050.[5]
...On midday of Saturday May 26, 2012, solar energy provided over 40% of total electricity consumption in Germany, and 20% for the 24h-day. The federal government has set a target of 66 GW of installed solar PV capacity by 2030,[8] to be reached with an annual increase of 2.5–3.5 GW,[9] and a goal of 80% of electricity from renewable sources by 2050.
From 3.5 GW to 4 GW are expected to be installed in 2013. Solar power in Germany has been growing considerably due to the country's feed-in tariffs for renewable energy which were introduced by the German Renewable Energy Act. Prices of PV systems have decreased more than 50% in 5 years since 2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany
The US is stupid for allowing Germany to take the lead in PV.
Solarpark Neuhardenberg
Solarpark Finsterwalde
Solarpark Kothen
Solarpark Senftenberg
While Germany has been building Solarparks the US has been building these:
December 20, 2013
It's important because a Cannabis smoker could pay non smoker premiums thinking they are insured and then something happens and when they go to use their insurance they find out that they aren't covered.
Premiums paid, no insurance when actually needed, and perhaps being sued for fraud. That's a possible outcome of not checking the right box on the application.
Cannabis smokers might want to think twice about whether they can claim non smoker status- especially if they have a state card or have posted evidence on places like Facebook or even here on DU. A simple blood test would reveal THC, although not necessarily smoked THC. Then there is the fact that all citizens are under 24/7/365 NSA surveillance.
Anyone know the official policy?
ACA Question: Are Cannabis smokers considered smokers
and subject to the 50% premium increase?
This is all a limited search turned up:
Smoking Penalty under Obamacare Could Hit Pot Users Hard, But Where's the Science?
Seattle Weekly.com By Nina Shapiro Tue., Feb 12 2013
Smokers received some bad news recently when a little-noticed provision of President Obama's health care overhaul got a good look. Some may have choked on their cigarette to find out that they can be charged up to 50 percent more for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. Here in Washington, where marijuana use just became legal, that raises a new question: Does the penalty apply to pot smokers?
Stephanie Marquis, spokesperson for the state Insurance Commissioner's office, says the federal rules aren't entirely clear yet. The feds are in the process of creating a definition for smoking, which Marquis expects will mostly tackle issues like how often you need to smoke to be labeled a smoker. Once in the last twelve months? Once a day? But she doesn't expect that the feds will delve into whether there's a difference between tobacco and pot.
Nor does Washington state law, which already allows insurance companies to charge smokers more, although only by up to 20 percent. "My understanding is that smoking is smoking--whether it's cigarettes, cigars or pot," Marquis says.
..more
http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/thedailyweekly/942662-129/marijuana
Seattle Weekly.com By Nina Shapiro Tue., Feb 12 2013
Smokers received some bad news recently when a little-noticed provision of President Obama's health care overhaul got a good look. Some may have choked on their cigarette to find out that they can be charged up to 50 percent more for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. Here in Washington, where marijuana use just became legal, that raises a new question: Does the penalty apply to pot smokers?
Stephanie Marquis, spokesperson for the state Insurance Commissioner's office, says the federal rules aren't entirely clear yet. The feds are in the process of creating a definition for smoking, which Marquis expects will mostly tackle issues like how often you need to smoke to be labeled a smoker. Once in the last twelve months? Once a day? But she doesn't expect that the feds will delve into whether there's a difference between tobacco and pot.
Nor does Washington state law, which already allows insurance companies to charge smokers more, although only by up to 20 percent. "My understanding is that smoking is smoking--whether it's cigarettes, cigars or pot," Marquis says.
..more
http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/thedailyweekly/942662-129/marijuana
It's important because a Cannabis smoker could pay non smoker premiums thinking they are insured and then something happens and when they go to use their insurance they find out that they aren't covered.
Premiums paid, no insurance when actually needed, and perhaps being sued for fraud. That's a possible outcome of not checking the right box on the application.
Cannabis smokers might want to think twice about whether they can claim non smoker status- especially if they have a state card or have posted evidence on places like Facebook or even here on DU. A simple blood test would reveal THC, although not necessarily smoked THC. Then there is the fact that all citizens are under 24/7/365 NSA surveillance.
Anyone know the official policy?
December 19, 2013
If the tech to remote control a 720 existed in the early '80s imagine how much better it must have been in 2000. So good, it's easy to imagine that a Boeing 4 jet airliner could have been remotely flown into the ANTENNA on the top of the WTC building- not just the building itself.
I'm not saying that I believe that the jets were remotely controlled. I'm just pointing out that the capability existed.
It's a fact that remote capability to fly 4 engine Boeings has existed since 1984
The Controlled Impact Demonstration (or colloquially the Crash In the Desert) was a joint project between NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) aimed at acquiring data, as well as demonstrating and testing new technologies, with the intent of improving occupant crash survivability, by crashing a Boeing 720 aircraft. The tests involved the efforts of NASA Ames Research Center, Langley Research Center, Dryden Flight Research Center, the FAA, and General Electric, and required more than 4 years of work before the test occurred...
Over a series of 14 flights, General Electric installed and tested four degraders (one on each engine); the FAA refined AMK (blending, testing, and fueling a full size aircraft. During the flights the aircraft made approximately 69 approaches, to about 150 feet (46 m) above the prepared crash site, under remote control.
...On the morning of December 1, 1984, the test aircraft took off from Edwards Air Force Base, California, made a left-hand departure and climbed to an altitude of 2,300 feet (700 m). The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled Vehicle Facility. All fuel tanks were filled with a total of 76,000 pounds (34,000 kg) of AMK and all engines ran from start-up to impact (flight time was 9 minutes) on the modified Jet-A. It then began a descent-to-landing along the roughly 3.8-degree glideslope to a specially prepared runway on the east side of Rogers Dry Lake, with the landing gear remaining retracted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Impact_Demonstration
Over a series of 14 flights, General Electric installed and tested four degraders (one on each engine); the FAA refined AMK (blending, testing, and fueling a full size aircraft. During the flights the aircraft made approximately 69 approaches, to about 150 feet (46 m) above the prepared crash site, under remote control.
...On the morning of December 1, 1984, the test aircraft took off from Edwards Air Force Base, California, made a left-hand departure and climbed to an altitude of 2,300 feet (700 m). The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled Vehicle Facility. All fuel tanks were filled with a total of 76,000 pounds (34,000 kg) of AMK and all engines ran from start-up to impact (flight time was 9 minutes) on the modified Jet-A. It then began a descent-to-landing along the roughly 3.8-degree glideslope to a specially prepared runway on the east side of Rogers Dry Lake, with the landing gear remaining retracted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Impact_Demonstration
If the tech to remote control a 720 existed in the early '80s imagine how much better it must have been in 2000. So good, it's easy to imagine that a Boeing 4 jet airliner could have been remotely flown into the ANTENNA on the top of the WTC building- not just the building itself.
I'm not saying that I believe that the jets were remotely controlled. I'm just pointing out that the capability existed.
December 18, 2013
how many Democrats would have supported it?
Not Keith Olbermann that's for sure
k/r
If McCain had won in 08 (YES I'm glad he didn't) and a Republican Senate and Republican House had passed a law requiring every citizen to buy corporate insurance with no promised public option
how many Democrats would have supported it?
Not Keith Olbermann that's for sure
December 18, 2013
Here's the original paper by Stewart Butler, Heritage foundation.
Notice how they used the Auto insurance argument so popular with third way "liberals"
Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans
Why is anyone surprised? Obama told us all his policies are republican ones from the 80's
Yes it was
The health insurance mandate in the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is an idea hatched in 1989 by Stuart M. Butler at Heritage in a publication titled "Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans".[21] This was also the model for Mitt Romney's health care plan in Massachusetts.[22]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_foundation#Policy_influence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_foundation#Policy_influence
Here's the original paper by Stewart Butler, Heritage foundation.
Notice how they used the Auto insurance argument so popular with third way "liberals"
Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans
2) Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance. Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seatbelts for their own protection. Many others require anybody driving a car to have li a bility insurance.
But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement. This man d ate is based on two important principles.
First, that health care protection is a responsibility of individuals, not businesses. Thus to the extent that anybody should be required to provide coverage to a family, the household mandate assumes that it is the family that carries the first responsibility. Second, it assumes that there is an implicit contract between households and society, based on the notion that health insurance is not like other forms of insurance protection.
If a young man wrecks his Porsche and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance, we may commiserate but society feels no obligation to repair his car. But health care is different. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not h e has insurance. If we find that he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services - even if that means more prudent citizens end up paying the tab.
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/assuring-affordable-health-care-for-all-americans
But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement. This man d ate is based on two important principles.
First, that health care protection is a responsibility of individuals, not businesses. Thus to the extent that anybody should be required to provide coverage to a family, the household mandate assumes that it is the family that carries the first responsibility. Second, it assumes that there is an implicit contract between households and society, based on the notion that health insurance is not like other forms of insurance protection.
If a young man wrecks his Porsche and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance, we may commiserate but society feels no obligation to repair his car. But health care is different. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not h e has insurance. If we find that he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services - even if that means more prudent citizens end up paying the tab.
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/assuring-affordable-health-care-for-all-americans
Why is anyone surprised? Obama told us all his policies are republican ones from the 80's
December 17, 2013
And his energy policy looks fantastic. Finally a Democrat willing to DO something.
This guy is super (so far).
k/r Schweitzer looks good so far
His little excursion to Canada with Seniors to buy medicine is a fine example.
Candidate Hits Road With Health-Costs Crusade
They were among 35 retired people from Montana, all on Medicare and all with out-of-pocket pharmaceutical bills of well over $1,000 a year, who took a daylong bus trip today to buy medicine in this ski-resort town across the United States border with Canada. Typically in Canada, having a prescription filled costs a third to a half of what it costs in the United States.
The trip was organized by Brian Schweitzer, the Democratic candidate for the Senate from Montana, who has made the high cost of drugs to uninsured retirees in the United States the centerpiece of his uphill campaign to unseat the Republican incumbent, Conrad Burns.
''This is about embarrassing Congress,'' Mr. Schweitzer told the group, ''so your pharmacist can get drugs for the same price as pharmacists around the world.''
If he is elected, Mr. Schweitzer promises, he will fight to repeal the law that prohibits prescription medicine from being imported into the United States, and he will work for Medicare coverage of drugs....more
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/12/15/us/candidate-hits-road-with-health-costs-crusade.html
They were among 35 retired people from Montana, all on Medicare and all with out-of-pocket pharmaceutical bills of well over $1,000 a year, who took a daylong bus trip today to buy medicine in this ski-resort town across the United States border with Canada. Typically in Canada, having a prescription filled costs a third to a half of what it costs in the United States.
The trip was organized by Brian Schweitzer, the Democratic candidate for the Senate from Montana, who has made the high cost of drugs to uninsured retirees in the United States the centerpiece of his uphill campaign to unseat the Republican incumbent, Conrad Burns.
''This is about embarrassing Congress,'' Mr. Schweitzer told the group, ''so your pharmacist can get drugs for the same price as pharmacists around the world.''
If he is elected, Mr. Schweitzer promises, he will fight to repeal the law that prohibits prescription medicine from being imported into the United States, and he will work for Medicare coverage of drugs....more
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/12/15/us/candidate-hits-road-with-health-costs-crusade.html
And his energy policy looks fantastic. Finally a Democrat willing to DO something.
Promotes clean coal in Montana. (Jun 2008)
America should cut energy consumption and produce biofuels. (Jun 2008)
We can reduce our carbon footprint and also consume energy. (Jun 2008)
Develop renewable energy: ethanol, wind and hydrogen. (Nov 2004)
Supports spending resources to stop Global Warming. (Sep 2000)
Letter to Congress supporting renewable energy tax credit. (Nov 2011)
Set goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025. (Jan 2007)
http://www.ontheissues.org/Brian_Schweitzer.htm#Energy_+_Oil
America should cut energy consumption and produce biofuels. (Jun 2008)
We can reduce our carbon footprint and also consume energy. (Jun 2008)
Develop renewable energy: ethanol, wind and hydrogen. (Nov 2004)
Supports spending resources to stop Global Warming. (Sep 2000)
Letter to Congress supporting renewable energy tax credit. (Nov 2011)
Set goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025. (Jan 2007)
http://www.ontheissues.org/Brian_Schweitzer.htm#Energy_+_Oil
This guy is super (so far).
December 17, 2013
How he convinced a whole party to embrace Republican "health care" ideas might be a good question. It's fascinating though- if you don't support a republican health care plan you must be....a REPUBLICAN! Hilarious.
Obama himself said his policies are republican
How he convinced a whole party to embrace Republican "health care" ideas might be a good question. It's fascinating though- if you don't support a republican health care plan you must be....a REPUBLICAN! Hilarious.
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Sep 6, 2013, 05:01 AMNumber of posts: 551
