Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Friday released a policy prohibiting public comments during his department’s rulemaking process, ending more than 50 years of the public’s involvement in crafting his department’s rules.

In the policy statement placed in the Federal Register, Kennedy’s office appeared to argue that rescinding the policy goes back to the original intent of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Although the APA exempts the requirement for public comment on matters “relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts,” there has been a waiver, referred to as the Richardson waiver, on this exemption since 1971, allowing for interested parties to take part in the rulemaking process.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5170090-rfk-jr-hhs-public-comment-rulemaking-ends/

 

Looks like snowflakism is contagious in the Trump Administration.

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

Looks like snowflakism is contagious in the Trump Administration.

 

Looks like liberals can't post anything without childish name calling. 

4 hours ago, blaze master said:

 

Looks like liberals can't post anything without childish name calling. 

Childish?  First, The White House excludes journalists who's organizations use Gulf of Mexico instead of Gulf of America. That's not childish? Now Kennedy, who claims that the Department he heads has historically ignored the criticisms of Americans like him, now is excluding criticisms from everybody. 

"Snowflakism" is right on the money.

But if you think "suppression of free speech" is a more appropriate label, by all means go with that instead.

15 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Childish?  First, The White House excludes journalists who's organizations use Gulf of Mexico instead of Gulf of America. That's not childish? Now Kennedy, who claims that the Department he heads has historically ignored the criticisms of Americans like him, now is excluding criticisms from everybody. 

"Snowflakism" is right on the money.

But if you think "suppression of free speech" is a more appropriate label, by all means go with that instead.

 

Are you ok ? Here you are again telling me what I think. 

10 minutes ago, blaze master said:

 

Are you ok ? Here you are again telling me what I think. 

Wow! Someone else who needs a remedial reading lesson. In another thread I just explained to someone what the significance of conditional clauses governed by "if" mean and what they do not mean. It means that what is written is not advanced as a fact, but merely as a possibility.

Just now, placeholder said:

Wow! Someone else who needs a remedial reading lesson. In another thread I just explained to someone what the significance of conditional clauses governed by "if" mean and what they do not mean. It means that what is written is not advanced as a fact, but merely as a possibility.

 

I don't care. Why are you talking to me about all that crap ?

 

Let's not get into personal jabs shall we. As we know where that road leads.  

This is the administrative state the dems built.  Suck it lefties. 

3 minutes ago, blaze master said:

 

I don't care. Why are you talking to me about all that crap ?

 

Let's not get into personal jabs shall we. As we know where that road leads.  

If you don't want me talking to you about all that crap, keep out of the conversation.

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

If you don't want me talking to you about all that crap, keep out of the conversation.

 

Try to keep the childish name calling out then. And before you go back to but but but Trump.

 

Just be better. 

1 minute ago, Mike_Hunt said:

This is the administrative state the dems built.  Suck it lefties. 

What does your post have to do with the fact that Robert Kennedy is now proposing to suppress suppress public comments. Your post would only make sense if you believe that all Americans are lefties. He is suppressing the ability to speak freely about the actions and plans proposed by his department weather that speech comes from lefties or righties or those in between.  A right that those lefties who used to head the department didn't suppress.

Somehow, I suspect those "members of the public" who routinely tender submissions about the rulemaking process are not your average Mr or Mrs Joe Hunt.

 

More likely NGO's, big pharma, and various other assorted swamp creatures who believe they have skin in the game a chance to affect policy to their advantage. 

7 minutes ago, Gsxrnz said:

Somehow, I suspect those "members of the public" who routinely tender submissions about the rulemaking process are not your average Mr or Mrs Joe Hunt.

 

More likely NGO's, big pharma, and various other assorted swamp creatures who believe they have skin in the game a chance to affect policy to their advantage. 

 

100% true.

 

I'd have been blocked from giving input had I wanted to go in and testify how my vaccine injury has affected the quality of my life.  Now, they're also blocking the paid shills.  That seems fair.

 

9 minutes ago, Gsxrnz said:

Somehow, I suspect those "members of the public" who routinely tender submissions about the rulemaking process are not your average Mr or Mrs Joe Hunt.

 

More likely NGO's, big pharma, and various other assorted swamp creatures who believe they have skin in the game a chance to affect policy to their advantage. 

 

2 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

100% true.

 

I'd have been blocked from giving input had I wanted to go in and testify how my vaccine injury has affected the quality of my life.  Now, they're also blocking the paid shills.  That seems fair.

 

Speculation from one poster and and and unproven claim from another.

15 minutes ago, Gsxrnz said:

More likely NGO's, big pharma, and various other assorted swamp creatures who believe they have skin in the game a chance to affect policy to their advantage. 

So you mean right wing donors. Big Pharma has always given more to republicans, than dems. Somehow MAGA heads forget that fact or perhaps with the power of lying  claiming 'Fake News', feel they can get around uncomfortable facts like this.   

4 minutes ago, Dcheech said:

So you mean right wing donors. Big Pharma has always given more to republicans, than dems. Somehow MAGA heads forget that fact or perhaps with the power of lying  claiming 'Fake News', feel they can get around uncomfortable facts like this.   

Both parties get large sums of money from Big Pharma.

 

BTW..go <deleted> yourself. 

27 minutes ago, TedG said:

Both parties get large sums of money from Big Pharma.

 

BTW..go <deleted> yourself. 

It was Republicans who unanimously opposed the biden administrations plans to let Medicare negotiate prices with big pharma. Biden got something passed but it wasn't as strong as it could have been had there not been strong Republican opposition.

What's more, in 2016 Trump campaign on enabling Medicare to negotiate drug prices with big pharma. He reneged on that promise after the election and even before he took office.

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

It was Republicans who unanimously opposed the biden administrations plans to let Medicare negotiate prices with big pharma. Biden got something passed but it wasn't as strong as it could have been had there not been strong Republican opposition.

What's more, in 2016 Trump campaign on enabling Medicare to negotiate drug prices with big pharma. He reneged on that promise after the election and even before he took office.

Biden had the House and the Senate at one point.   But, it is the Republican's fault.    Maybe the 6 million given to the dems from Big Parma helped. 

2 minutes ago, TedG said:

Biden had the House and the Senate at one point.   But, it is the Republican's fault.    Maybe the 6 million given to the dems from Big Parma helped. 

Unfortunately for Biden he had a couple of Dinos to deal with 

And, of course, you completely ignored the fact that Republicans were unanimously against it. Unanimously. And that Trump reneged on his promise to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices directly with big pharma.

 

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Unfortunately for Biden he had a couple of Dinos to deal with 

And, of course, you completely ignored the fact that Republicans were unanimously against it. Unanimously. And that Trump reneged on his promise to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices directly with big pharma.

 

How much did Big Pharmaceutical's money influence the Democrat's bill? 

15 minutes ago, TedG said:

How much did Big Pharmaceutical's money influence the Democrat's bill? 

Deflecting much?

I see you're still avoiding that fact that Trump reneged on his promise to allow Medicare to negotiate with big Pharma.

And you also are avoiding the fact the Republicans unanimously opposed this measure.

Keep wriggling. It won't change the fact that you're hooked.

Just now, placeholder said:

Deflecting much?

I see you're still avoiding that fact that Trump reneged on his promise to allow Medicare to negotiate with big Pharma.

And you also are avoiding the fact the Republicans unanimously opposed this measure.

Keep wriggling. It won't change the fact that you're hooked.

You are the deflator. My post on this topic was about money and big pharma.   Do you think the 7.2 million from Big  Pharma in 2020 and the 6.7 million in 2022 influenced Biden's bill? 

 

 

 

9 hours ago, placeholder said:

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Friday released a policy prohibiting public comments during his department’s rulemaking process, ending more than 50 years of the public’s involvement in crafting his department’s rules.

In the policy statement placed in the Federal Register, Kennedy’s office appeared to argue that rescinding the policy goes back to the original intent of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Although the APA exempts the requirement for public comment on matters “relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts,” there has been a waiver, referred to as the Richardson waiver, on this exemption since 1971, allowing for interested parties to take part in the rulemaking process.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5170090-rfk-jr-hhs-public-comment-rulemaking-ends/

 

Looks like snowflakism is contagious in the Trump Administration.

One of the first moves of any dictatorship is censorship.

Just now, TedG said:

You are the deflator. My post on this topic was about money and big pharma.   Do you think the 7.2 million from Big  Pharma in 2020 and the 6.7 million in 2022 influenced Biden's bill? 

 

 

 

Are you seriously suggesting that Big Pharma is happy with Medicare being authorized to negotiate with Big Pharma? Your question demands speculative answers. But if you've got actual evidence to show that Big Pharma bought its way into some sort of mitigation, prove it.

But it still won't change the fact the Trump reneged on his promise.

And the Republicans were unanimously opposed to giving Medicare authorization.

When it comes to cutting back on those huge expenses, somehow Trump and Republicans aren't so eager to accomplish that.

1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

100% true.

 

I'd have been blocked from giving input had I wanted to go in and testify how my vaccine injury has affected the quality of my life.  Now, they're also blocking the paid shills.  That seems fair.

 

How do you know your injury was caused by a vaccine?

 

Are you a medical professional?

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Are you seriously suggesting that Big Pharma is happy with Medicare being authorized to negotiate with Big Pharma? Your question demands speculative answers. But if you've got actual evidence to show that Big Pharma bought its way into some sort of mitigation, prove it.

But it still won't change the fact the Trump reneged on his promise.

And the Republicans were unanimously opposed to giving Medicare authorization.

When it comes to cutting back on those huge expenses, somehow Trump and Republicans aren't so eager to accomplish that.

Do you think all the money from big Pharma influenced the Dems? 

8 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

One of the first moves of any dictatorship is censorship.

 

How free is speech down under?   Who has more freedom of speech?  The USA or AU? 

5 minutes ago, TedG said:

Do you think all the money from big Pharma influenced the Dems? 

If it did, it clearly didn't influence them enough. On the other hand, if it did influence the Republicans, then it was a spectacular success. 

You really can't face the fact that Trump reneged on his promise to allow Medicare to negotiate with big pharma. And that Republicans and unanimously opposed too

The same people who proclaim that they want to reduce government spending somehow are too squeamish to apply the ax where it would really count.

 

1 hour ago, Gsxrnz said:

Somehow, I suspect those "members of the public" who routinely tender submissions about the rulemaking process are not your average Mr or Mrs Joe Hunt.

 

More likely NGO's, big pharma, and various other assorted swamp creatures who believe they have skin in the game a chance to affect policy to their advantage. 

Quite right.  Wouldn't want anyone with big contracts in, say, space aviation having a big say in Government oversight or spending would you?

 

PH

7 minutes ago, TedG said:

 

How free is speech down under?   Who has more freedom of speech?  The USA or AU? 

So that makes it okay for the Trump administration to undercut the right free speech? 

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

So that makes it okay for the Trump administration to undercut the right free speech? 

It's not undercutting free speech.  People still have the right to protest, etc.