April 27, 2009

"GOP Know-Nothings Fought Pandemic Preparedness."

The Democrats begin the week with an absolutely perfect issue.

242 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 242 of 242
Sofa King said...

Sofa King. I'm not an infectious disease expert. But I think the answer to your question is certainly "yes."

What relevance it has is hard to determine.

The relevance? The topic under discussion is whether additional funding was needed or not. If it wasn't needed, then the Democrats were right to drop it from the bill, weren't they? It it was needed, then they should have kept it in. Since you seem to be arguing that it was definitely needed, you must have some rationale for determining that "enough" has not yet been reached. I'm wondering what that rationale is.

garage mahal said...

Jesus, why can't we have smarter, more honest liberals than this pathetic gaggle? We've got the senile pants shitter, the copy/paster, the psychotic faggot, and the defeated Hillary lover without his own tag. That's the best you guys can offer us?.

Odd you would lump yourself in with liberals as the "psychotic faggot", I thought you hated liberals?. But I work alone. Sorry.

Jeremy said...

Dare To Be A Dolt - "...ah yes, the dullard brings up medicare, yet another failed federal government enterprise."

"Failed" in what respect?

Have you mentioned this to any of your elderly relatives or friends who are taking part in this "failed" enterprise for their health care and drugs?

Read, fool...read...before you comment.

Joan said...

St. Francis Preparatory School in Queens was closed. This is the school that has confirmed cases of swine flu.

Thanks for the correction, Palladian -- as of the last reading I had done, in the wee hours, the school closure wasn't mentioned, just the fact that we should be prepared for closures.

Jeremy said...

Sofa King said..."Is there any amount of funding that would be "enough?" If so, how would we know when we've reached that point?"

I'm not an expert, but I would think we would want the funding to be sufficient to handle whatever emergency arises...even if there's too much. Since it's related to the health of our entire nation, what would you or anyone else here suggest? As little as possible?
(What if you're wrong?)

We spend billions on weaponry we never use, and any number of other elements effecting the budget, so I think I would rather error on the side of whatever protects our citizenry from things of this sort.

I think the argument here is directed more to the politics of pulling things out of the budget while leaving other things less important in. (Remember Jundel making fun of volcano monitoring...right before a volcano began to make noise in the Northwest?)

What's important to one is not to another...and vice versa.

AlphaLiberal said...

Ah, yes. That's right. "Another example of Know-Nothing Republicans making America less prepared to handle emergencies:

All of this is playing out at a time when HHS nominee sits on the sidelines, her nomination held up at the behest of pro-life organizations who want to paint her as the "Abortion Queen." No-one in charge at Health and Human Services. Repubs are pretending that mellow, moderate Democrat Kathleen Sebelius is some danger to the Republic.

So Republicans are blocking her appointment, too. Obstruct, obstruct, obstruct.

Joe said...

I'm not an expert, but I would think we would want the funding to be sufficient to handle whatever emergency arises...even if there's too much.

to repeat:

whatever emergency arisesThis patently absurd. There isn't enough money in the world to handled this situation. It also embraces the conceit that man is capable of anything. What nonsense. Spend all the money available and you'll never remove risk from live. In just the health sector, what amazed me is that despite all the money we've spent, nothing in medicine has saved more lives than basic sanitation with vaccines and antibiotics and close second. Beyond that, extending life has been more a function of a sophisticated transport system, refrigeration, modern farming techniques and increased general wealth than of medicine.

(And isn't it interesting to once again note that despite it's questionable efficacy, TamiFlu was developed by the oft criticized BIG PHARMA. Seems that the capitalist system has and continues to excel where government fails miserably.)

AlphaLiberal said...

Sofa King:

The relevance? The topic under discussion is whether additional funding was needed or not..

No. You asked how much is enough. Not "why is this funding needed?"

I'm wondering what that rationale is..

- Remembering previous disease outbreaks from a few years ago where it came to light that Bush had allowed our vaccine stores to decline to dangerously low levels.

- Hearing in news the amount of vaccine we have now and thinking how little that is compared to our population.

- Other recollection of politicizing of the CDC, including political types editing public health reports to make them conform to ideology.

- Having learned a fair amount over the past few years about our risk for another pandemic and the impacts that would have. (See Jeremy's national defense analogy, above). We need more than an ounce of prevention given the great downside.

- Having greater confidence in Dave Obey than George Bush to make the right call on this.

Asked and answered.

Jeremy said...

Joe said...(whatever emergency arises) - "This patently absurd. There isn't enough money in the world to handled this situation. It also embraces the conceit that man is capable of anything."

As I said: "I'm not an expert."

But what would YOU propose?

Should we spend just enough to handle as little as possible?

As for your comment that "It also embraces the conceit that man is capable of anything..."

Jonas Salk would probably get a kick out of that bit of "conceit."

AJ Lynch said...

Alpha:

Per Wikipedia, Congressman David Obey [Alpha Liberal's prefered science expert] majored in political science in college.

He worked as a real estate broker prior to entering Congress.

MadisonMan said...

I for one think Reid is an idiot for not holding roll call votes because he can't beat a filibuster. Let it percolate into the consciousnesses of the American Public that the Republican Party wants to do nothing but say No. That's all they've got, and it's weak.

Peter V. Bella said...

The reason drugs in the United States cost more than anywhere else in the entire world...is because the drug companies are looking out for our citizens.

Nope. You are wrong. The reason the costs are so high are the loops, swirls, and the never ending abysmal vortex of R&D the companies have to go through thanks to all the bureaucratic red tape at the FDA, which allegedly is looking out for the citizens. Then they have to make a profit after they lost so much money. You are an American, are you not, Jeremy? A true American? A patriot? You do beleive in capitalism? You do understand that companies price products on supply and demand, cost recovery, and profit margins? You do understand that R&D in the drug industry is the most expensive cost they incur?

Or do you believe that companies should just give products away for free?

Gee, I thought you said you were a business man. I guess you lied about that too.

AlphaLiberal said...

AJ, Rep Obey is one of the longest-serving members of Congress. His college days are not relevant.

Peter V. Bella said...

house, you are right. You do not get it by eating pork.

I saw the moron from Arizona, Napolitano, on TV. Now I know how it got the name Swine Flu.

AJ Lynch said...

Another factor in the cost of drugs:

I think drugs (legal & illegal) are more expensive here because America is affluent and so this is where the money is.

Let's face it- Have you ever bought a staple item in the Borgata casino gift shop? Cigarettes, soda, gum?

AJ Lynch said...

Alpha;

That is where you are wrong. It is the long-serving fossils in Congress who have stood by and / or helped wreck this country.

Obey, Byrd, McCain, Kerry, Specter and many others have fiddled while the country burned.

AJ Lynch said...

Alpha:

And if Al Gore never passed a college-level science course, that is not relevant either?

Sofa King said...

Do I understand you correctly, AlphaLiberal, that so long as there is any justification for proposed spending, that is sufficient to know that not enough is being spent?

My larger point is, presuming that we in fact are able to deal with this particular threat, are you going to concede that we actually did spend enough? If having sufficient resources to deal with the problem won't convince you, then I think it's only fair to ask what would?

Jeremy said...

Peter V. Bella said..."Nope. You are wrong. The reason the costs are so high are the loops, swirls, and the never ending abysmal vortex of R&D the companies have to go through thanks to all the bureaucratic red tape at the FDA, which allegedly is looking out for the citizens."

Peter, the drugs that are sold in other countries are exactly the same as the drugs sold here. They go through the exact same process of R&D, vetting and testing.

I've been going into Mexico for decades, buying the exact same drugs available here, manufactured by the same drug companies, but for pennies on the dollar.

As for the standard "are you an American" swipe, sure I am. And I don;t like seeing my fellow Americans getting it stuck to them by greedy drug companies.

Why do you think it's some kind of patriotic duty for Americans to pay more for the same drugs people in other countries pay less?

Other than just wanting to argue the point?

Jeremy said...

Peter V. Bella said..."I saw the moron from Arizona, Napolitano, on TV. Now I know how it got the name Swine Flu."

And yet another moronic comment from a man whose career doesn't compare:

Janet Napolitano:

She graduated from Santa Clara University in Santa Clara, California, where she won a Truman Scholarship, and was valedictorian.

She then received her Juris Doctor (J.D.) from the University of Virginia School of Law.

She won the Arizona gubernatorial election of 2002. (In November 2005, Time magazine named her one of the five best governors in the U.S.)

In November 2006, Napolitano won the gubernatorial election of 2006.

Now run your resume by us so we can compare.

hdhouse said...

babsheep300 said...
W"Second, regarding government being involved with disease control, of course it should be, it is a national defense issue."


NO IT ISN'T a national defense issue. It is a public health issue.

Perhaps if you started on the right road going in the right direction you wouldn't get so balled up by your brain.

The reason I get so pissed off about this issue is that it is a Science Issue and science has some important distinctions from politics. there are methods, rules, cause and effects that are inviolate. You are seeing one now but if you insist on ignoring science in many cases, particularly in this one, you are going to get bit on the ass ya'betcha!

ohhhh where is Sarah P. when you really need a good laugh.

TosaGuy said...

There is supposedly some "savings" in porkulus project bids out there. Projects granted under the amount authorized. Congress could take 10 minutes away from its witch hunt of the day and reallocate those dollars to pandemic flu prevention. They could have had it done before Obama was done with the 18th hole. However, that would allow the libs to "waste a good crisis."

Buford Gooch said...

" rhhardin said...

What's being done about asteroids?"

Preparation H.

LonewackoDotCom said...

I realize Althouse doesn't do the serious side of things, so for those who want it here's what's wrong with the article she links to.

Christy said...

Oddly enough, in my experience, Democrats tended to be anti-science until the Stem Cell issues erupted. I insist that if you take the issues around abortion and the right to die out of the equation, they still are.

Tell me true, do you think more Democrats or Republicans practice or support homeopathy medicine?

Peter V. Bella said...

Oh Jeremy,
You are soooo smitten by BO and his appointees. You left off the fact that she suffers from feet in the motuh disease. Maybe she got one of those handicapped scholarships for retards or an athletic scholarship from the Special Olympics.

Eli Blake said...

Look, I'm willing to cut the GOP anti-pork crusaders some slack on this, especially since

1. it's still early but at least from what little we do know this doesn't look to be the civilization-threatening pandemic that we know can happen;

and

2. even if the money remained in the stimulus bill, it would not have gotten out there yet, especially to state and local responders to be ready to deal with this.

HOWEVER: IF THE SAME REPUBLICANS choose to oppose funding for preparation for a pandemic the NEXT time it's in the budget by calling it 'pork,' then they WILL deserve everything political that will come with it.

Because just like a major terrorist attack in New York City or a hurricane breaching the New Orleans levy system, anyone who thinks that a major pandemic won't occur sometime so therefore funding designed to make us more ready to deal with it when it does happen is "pork", is a fool.

daredevil-66 said...

typical liberal dumbass jeremy "I'm encapable of logic I just don't want people to go without!" If you want to help why don't you and the other tax dodgers on on obama's cabinet pay your taxes? Then we can throw as much money as possible at any imaginary problem we can find and then everything will be perfect

Arturius said...

Dare To Be A Dolt - "...ah yes, the dullard brings up medicare, yet another failed federal government enterprise."

"Failed" in what respect?
.

Solvency?

Peter V. Bella said...

My, my.

All this rabid anger and angst over what? How many Americans have come down with Swine Flu so far?

How many have died? How many hospitalized?

Sheesh, you'd think the Black Plague had struck and there were bodies piling up and ying all over the streets.

Some of you people should really get a grip. The Democrats are only doing what they do best, never letting a good crisis, real or imagined, go to waste.

IBO!

Synova said...

"I'm not an expert, but I would think we would want the funding to be sufficient to handle whatever emergency arises...even if there's too much."

In an actual emergency there is no sufficient funding. There can not be too much nevermind something even remotely approaching "enough."

There is no possible way for, as an example, the government to even be prepared deal with flooding in Fargo, much less flooding in New Orleans. And those things aren't even *catchy*.

There is no possible way for government to adequately fund preparations to handle a true pandemic. Not *even* for manufacture of vaccines. Private industry resources will have to be used for ALL of it. Manufacture *and* distribution. Who's labs? Who's aircraft and semi-tractor trailers?

Mobilizing National Guards and active military, all police departments and fire departments, *might* serve to maintain order during the distribution of medicine or immunizations. Those forces *might* be enough to enforce quarantine.

You sad fellows don't think big enough. Boo-hoo we didn't spend more money on Pandemic Preparedness. We *do* spend on it. It *is* funded. Perhaps a bit more funding would be helpful or even necessary. But that funding will not set the government up as the *provider* of resources to handle the outbreak.

Not to prompt any pants-wetting... but how long will it take to do the Census? And how big an undertaking is that? Now figure the very short time frame necessary to address a true pandemic in conjunction with the disruption of commerce, services, and travel that would necessarily exist.

There is no *enough*.

Synova said...

"Because just like a major terrorist attack in New York City or a hurricane breaching the New Orleans levy system, anyone who thinks that a major pandemic won't occur sometime so therefore funding designed to make us more ready to deal with it when it does happen is "pork", is a fool."

SARS or Bird Flu or what? This happens every year or other year. I recall some community college professor from Texas waxing poetic over the possibility of an 80% human die-off not long ago at all.

NOT saying that it's not entirely possible for some virulent strain of something to sweep over the whole world... it's one of the more likely things that could happen.

Just saying that if what it takes is *this* little bit of pork-flu to sound the alarm, a whole lot of people haven't been paying attention or have excessively short memories.

Appropriate funding should be in the *regular* budget.

Peter V. Bella said...

"I'm not an expert..."

You should have stopped right there.

Arturius said...

This happens every year or other year. I recall some community college professor from Texas waxing poetic over the possibility of an 80% human die-off not long ago at all..

The problem with the constant doomsday predictions is that like the terrorist threat level, people just get numb to it. Swine flu from the 70s was supposed to be a pandemic then AIDs then SARS and the bird flu is about a decade overdue to wipe out huge swaths of nations. That's not counting the end being nigh with global cooling, global warming, MAD,
Y2K and planet killing asteroids.

babsheep300 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
babsheep300 said...

Alphaliberal, your comment is a good example of how some people can warp their personal reality. You provide an insult, then try to equate talking about a possible threat with actually taking action.

That is like talking about your great diet that will lose weight versus taking actual action to lose the weight. Or the other analogy, talking about the fire in the kitchen versus actually picking something up and putting it out.

The administration has done nothing up to now except point out there is a possible threat. Woohoo! We could have hired any one person to figure that out and communicate it. Now what are the other thousands of government resources doing? Screening inbound passengers, controlling our ports and border crossings, getting the vaccines ready and distributed? They have all the resources to carry these actions out. No, they are publishing talking points about how this is all the fault of the republican party because they didn't get approval to spend another $900 MM in February, none of which would have been spent or made any difference now.

If you are going to live in a different reality, at least make it one where people are nice and don't resort to insults when they don't have anything to support their "argument".

Methadras said...

" hdhouse said...

The will of which people? the minority who so clearly got their butt whipped last november?"

Will of the people is/was a general term in the context I was referring too. Not just for conservatives, but for everyone.

"we are supposed to follow the lead of the minority here? what in the world are you talking about?"

Well, your bankrupt and rancid death cult ideology always loved using the canard that The Constitution was to protect the minority, but now now you refer to yourself as WE, as in We the congressional/executive majority.

If you have to ask what I'm talking about, then I can't help you. It's not my fault your cluelessness extents to actual critical thinking when speaking in political terms that I'd hoped you and your moronic ideological ilk could fathom. But then again, your a great defender of leftist/liberal ideologies that brought the world things like tyrannies, fascism, and despotism as a working function of the dangerous and diabolical ideology you subscribe too.

Your little meager defense of something so meaningless and utterly backwards as a 900 million dollar CDC pandemic funding proposal as a means to bash conservatives over the head is a farce and is indicative of the petty idiocy your side chooses to hang it's hat on daily. I hope you have better luck finding a new canard to display again.

paul a'barge said...

oops

Ofc. Krupke said...

I'm sure all the liberals on this thread who insist that the government get "adequate funding" for every possible threat that might menace our fair republic are big supporters of ballistic missile defense.

Right?

Ofc. Krupke said...

Peter, the drugs that are sold in other countries are exactly the same as the drugs sold here. They go through the exact same process of R&D, vetting and testing.

I've been going into Mexico for decades, buying the exact same drugs available here, manufactured by the same drug companies, but for pennies on the dollar.
.

Jeremy brings up an interesting point, even if only by accident. Many drugs cost less in other countries simply because their govermments pass laws dictating what drugs can cost.

Now, you may think this is a great idea and we should do it here. But there's a problem: mandating drug prices does nothing to erase the massive R&D costs associated with their development. So the drug companies recoup their losses in the markets where they can: here at home. In a very real way, other countries' miraculously low drug costs are subsidized by the American consumer.

Is this fair? Hell no it's not. And the other countries know it, too. Why do you think the Canadians laughed politely in John Kerry's face when he floated the idea of "drug re-importation" in the 2004 election?

fav.or.it said...

酒店 ,酒店小姐 ,酒店經紀 ,酒店兼職,酒店小姐, 酒店上班,酒店喝酒

sent from: fav.or.it

fav.or.it said...

酒店 ,酒店經紀 ,酒店公關 ,酒店兼職,酒店小姐, 酒店上班,酒店喝酒,酒店工作

sent from: fav.or.it

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 242 of 242   Newer› Newest»