Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 43
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    "Take a deep breath," said Julie Gerberding, MD, MPH, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at an Oct. 5 news conference. "We are going to work through this as we have other shortages in the past."

    This year, by early October, the World Health Organization and the CDC reported limited flu activity.
    It is always interesting to see why people don't add the source of their quote. In this case, it is quite clear: the quoted article has a totally different tone than the "it isn't really a problem"-quote selected by Clairegrrl. The title is: "Flu shot shortfall: Physicians scramble to direct high-risk patients to scarce vaccine - The problems of massive vaccine shortages and the need to move vaccine to those who need it most marked the start of the flu season"

    Besides: if the problem was known before (as it indeed was), doesn't it make the present administration's inability to solve the problem worse?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    The point is you made the big deal about it...

    I dont want you riled...your blood pressure and all

    I just said that the flu vaccine should be a top priority, if that is making a big deal so be it.
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    20,000 or more elderly die from the flu every year. This year is certainly no different then many years past.. Since before Bush was elected, there have been years of shortage before as well as years where millions of flu doses have gone unused...
    Ah, but this is is quite a bit different then many years past.

    * Fact: This is no vaccine to be found in areas of large concentrations of elderly residents. My 84 yo father living in southern Florida cannot even get vaccinated from one of the largest VA hospitals in the country (he was a WWII POW and is entitled to VA care). The 20,000 deaths per year number is based on a population that has, in the past had widespread access to Flu vaccine

    *Fact: Vaccine makers have been exempt from Tort litigation (relating to innoculations) for quite some time now.

    *Fact: Fortune 500 companies, which for years have given free shots to their employees, have all cancelled their clinics. Any idea how much productivity will be lost this winter? Take a guess...

    * Fact: Go into an old cemetary sometime and check out family plots from the 1930s. You'll notice that many of the members (including very young children) all died in the same year. Wonder why? Try Google...

    *Fact: There is little profit in manufacturing Flu vaccines (Litigation not being one of the reasons). Ever wonder why the country is overflowing with Viagra and we can't get a US company to make vaccine?
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    Missed my point #2: It's now a pattern. My comment was strictly in regards to your comment about France. I had NOTHING (check my post again) to say about the DCD whatsoever.
    You have obviously missed the point...again
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  5. #25  
    I agree those in charge should take responsibility for others mistake. Therefore Bush has a few things he needs to come clean on:

    I had fun with an intern then perjured myself
    I transfered advanced nuclear and ballistic missile secrets to our enemies
    I ***** myself for Chinese money
    I pushed through a program that dropped the number of vaccine producers by 75% because I don't understand econonmics. People are in business for charitable reasons, not to make money. We can force people to sell stuff at a loss and still expect them to stay in business. Along this logic health care is free for all, everyone gets a new house, and minimum wage is $100 an hour.

    "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow citizens."
    -- Adam Smith, "The Wealth of Nations"
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bostonnerd
    *Fact: There is little profit in manufacturing Flu vaccines (Litigation not being one of the reasons). Ever wonder why the country is overflowing with Viagra and we can't get a US company to make vaccine?
    Exactly, and the question is why is there little profit. Because the government decided to take control of the vaccine industry.

    The number of vaccine producers fell from 20 to 5 after the gov't came in.

    Oh and why did the company invest millions to invent Viagra. Because they could make a profit. This goes for life saving medicines also.
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    By the way...the lawyer that represented the man in the flu shot law suit was a young ambulance chaser by the name of John Edwards.
    So the problem is the lawyers, then? It's not the law, judge and/or jury that supported their arguments, thereby allowing them to win their suit? Curious.
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by PatrickS
    So the problem is the lawyers, then? It's not the law, judge and/or jury that supported their arguments, thereby allowing them to win their suit? Curious.
    The law is the problem, look who refuses to change it (save you time Democrats). It is being done at the state level, the states that aren't doing it are hemorraging doctors.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    If your premise is indeed correct and France, Germany, Russia and China aided Iraq...
    This isnt my premise. This is in the findings of the Iraq Survey Group, better known as the Duelfer report.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by carter437
    Exactly, and the question is why is there little profit. Because the government decided to take control of the vaccine industry.

    The number of vaccine producers fell from 20 to 5 after the gov't came in.

    Oh and why did the company invest millions to invent Viagra. Because they could make a profit. This goes for life saving medicines also.
    Oh why am I getting into this discussion??? Anyway, your knowledge of Medical Economics and Public Health policy is truly mind boggling.

    * Government intervention in Public Health vaccinations is what completely eliminated the scourge of Polio in the 1950s! (just an fyi, it was a Republican administration, one with some foresight)

    * Wrong on the government control profit assumption also. Flu vaccine, by it's nature cannot be reused. The two reasons are the relatively short life of the egg based vaccine, and the Flu virus strain mutations that obsolete last year's formulation. In other words, any excess inventory is useless. Not the business model for obscene profits.

    * So, by your logic, 10s of thousands of people should die because the government will not subsidize the manufacture of Flu (or any other) vaccine. Wow....that is Darwin's survival of the fittest taken to a whole new level.

    * Oh yeah....look up the word pandemic on Google. Hopefully you or a loved one will not be affected in the future.
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by carter437
    The law is the problem, look who refuses to change it (save you time Democrats). It is being done at the state level, the states that aren't doing it are hemorraging doctors.
    This Edwards lawyer malpractice health care rhetoric is just that - a slam at Edwards and trial lawyers. Not one but two detailed studies one by the congressional budget office and one by the government accounting office found that states who capped malpractice liability decreased TOTAL health care costs around 1%. Its amazing that Bush keeps misleading us by ignoring these studies. Here is a link to these studies in factcheck.org:

    http://www.factcheck.org/article133.html

    What has the Bush admin done for health care? - it has sold out to the major pharmaceutical industries, and to the large health care insurance organizations, who are currently reaping the rewards of rising health care costs (while the consumers suffer).

    btw

    I am one of those "hemorrhaging doctors" from a state with no limits on medical liability awards and I have to pay for medical liability. Sure I don't like it, but you know something, doctors are the last people you should worry about making a buck, as long as there are sick people we will be around making good money. Look around at unemployment, how many doctors are unemployed, very few. And we are not starving either. Thanks though for your concern.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 10/25/2004 at 03:37 PM.
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bostonnerd
    Oh why am I getting into this discussion??? Anyway, your knowledge of Medical Economics and Public Health policy is truly mind boggling.

    * Government intervention in Public Health vaccinations is what completely eliminated the scourge of Polio in the 1950s! (just an fyi, it was a Republican administration, one with some foresight)

    * Wrong on the government control profit assumption also. Flu vaccine, by it's nature cannot be reused. The two reasons are the relatively short life of the egg based vaccine, and the Flu virus strain mutations that obsolete last year's formulation. In other words, any excess inventory is useless. Not the business model for obscene profits.

    * So, by your logic, 10s of thousands of people should die because the government will not subsidize the manufacture of Flu (or any other) vaccine. Wow....that is Darwin's survival of the fittest taken to a whole new level.

    * Oh yeah....look up the word pandemic on Google. Hopefully you or a loved one will not be affected in the future.

    I never said government intervention period is wrong. Secondly, I did not say government subsidies are wrong. This isn't about government subsidies but government interference and price control.

    If the government relies on private enterprise for vaccines and at the same time opens them up to lawsuits and implements forms of price control there is very little incentive to produce the stuff. Thats basic economics and is hardly mind boggling.

    You make statements like my "statements are mind boggling", "You're wrong on government control profit", and "So, by your logic, 10s of thousands of people should die", but offer no explanation. Please explain why I'm wrong on government profit control and how my logic entails thousands of deaths. Also I don't see the connection between vaccine reuse and government price control.
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    This Edwards lawyer malpractice health care rhetoric is just that - a slam at Edwards and trial lawyers. Not one but two detailed studies one by the congressional budget office and one by the government accounting office found that states who capped malpractice liability decreased TOTAL health care costs around 1%. Its amazing that Bush keeps misleading us by ignoring these studies. Here is a link to these studies in factcheck.org:

    http://www.factcheck.org/article133.html

    What has the Bush admin done for health care? - it has sold out to the major pharmaceutical industries, and to the large health care insurance organizations, who are currently reaping the rewards of rising health care costs (while the consumers suffer).

    btw

    I am one of those "hemorrhaging doctors" from a state with no limits on medical liability awards and I have to pay for medical liability. Sure I don't like it, but you know something, doctors are the last people you should worry about making a buck, as long as there are sick people we will be around making good money. Look around at unemployment, how many doctors are unemployed, very few. And we are not starving either. Thanks though for your concern.

    The concern is about affordable and accessable healthcare which requires afforadable and accessible doctors.

    The less doctors there are, the less accessible health care is. The high liability insurance doctors pay are passed on to the patient in terms of higher health insurance premiums. The higher liability insurance premium a doctor pays, the more it costs to employ a doctor. Tort reform would create a fairer system and a nice benefit to you, cellmatrix, would you would be able to keep more of your income.

    Could you explain further your statements about Bush.
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by carter437
    Exactly, and the question is why is there little profit. Because the government decided to take control of the vaccine industry.

    The number of vaccine producers fell from 20 to 5 after the gov't came in.
    There has been a strong consolidation process in the pharma industry for years now, one merger after the other for instance. To blame the Clinton administration for the reduction of vaccine producers doesn't make sense. If you don't believe me, maybe you believe the CEO of Merk, one the five remaining major vaccine producers:

    "Speaking at a Harvard Business School forum recently, Raymond V. Gilmartin said the vaccine industry needs to overcome hurdles that include a feeble distribution infrastructure, a thin pipeline of competition to inspire more innovation, and a poor diet of incentives for the development of vaccines for which there is no natural market such as vaccinations against anthrax or ricin.

    In his talk, Gilmartin, who is Merck's chairman, president, and CEO, offered several prescriptions for making the vaccine industry more competitive and effective...." (http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item.jhtml?id=3946&t=innovation).


    Gilmartin mentions several problems of the vaccine industry, but government price control is not one of them.

    You are just trying to divert attention from the simple facts: that the Bush administration was (among other things) incapable of addressing an important public health issue....
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  15. #35  
    It's my fault. I accidentally threw away Kerry's plan to produce more vaccines lol. He has so many plans, how was I to know.
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    There has been a strong consolidation process in the pharma industry for years now, one merger after the other for instance. To blame the Clinton administration for the reduction of vaccine producers doesn't make sense. If you don't believe me, maybe you believe the CEO of Merk, one the five remaining major vaccine producers:

    "Speaking at a Harvard Business School forum recently, Raymond V. Gilmartin said the vaccine industry needs to overcome hurdles that include a feeble distribution infrastructure, a thin pipeline of competition to inspire more innovation, and a poor diet of incentives for the development of vaccines for which there is no natural market such as vaccinations against anthrax or ricin.

    In his talk, Gilmartin, who is Merck's chairman, president, and CEO, offered several prescriptions for making the vaccine industry more competitive and effective...." (http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item.jhtml?id=3946&t=innovation).


    Gilmartin mentions several problems of the vaccine industry, but government price control is not one of them.

    You are just trying to divert attention from the simple facts: that the Bush administration was (among other things) incapable of addressing an important public health issue....

    Clulup,

    In the article you linked to it mentions one of the barriers to a thriving vaccine industry is arbitrary price controls on vaccines. This was implemented under the Clinton Administration. My last few posts this was my main point, price limits that are artificially low will drive people out of the market. As Bostonnerd said a government subsidy at the consumer end would be better than a price control.


    Prescription for reform
    He suggested three remedies:

    1. Improve the state of global private sector vaccine enterprise. Remove some of the barriers that stand in the way of competitive market profitability for those who risk capital to find vaccines the world needs. "In the U.S., we need to address the Institute of Medicine's call to reverse some of the consequences of the large government role in vaccine purchasing. We all agree that no child should be denied immunization because his or her parents cannot afford it." But people in the industry also have to analyze whether arbitrary price caps are the best way. Gilmartin said that government-supported research institutions could help shape an academic research agenda to enhance vaccine research.
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by carter437
    The higher liability insurance premium a doctor pays, the more it costs to employ a doctor. Tort reform would create a fairer system and a nice benefit to you, cellmatrix, would you would be able to keep more of your income.
    Tort reform is needed I agree, but it is a side issue, one does almost nothing to decrease health care costs, how many times do I need to say this?

    http://www.factcheck.org/article133.htm
    (go to factcheck archive, January 29, 2004)

    Sure, as a doctor I would get more money personally if I voted for Bush, so would for profit HMOs, the pharmaceutical industry and the health insurance industry.

    But who would lose? - the consumer, because health care costs would continue to rise.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 10/25/2004 at 04:51 PM.
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by carter437
    Clulup,

    In the article you linked to it mentions one of the barriers to a thriving vaccine industry is arbitrary price controls on vaccines.
    True, sorry for not noticing it. But it was quite a small point among many other, apparently more important ones. Sorry anyway!
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  19. #39  
    I disagree. Basic economics, the less doctors there are the more they cost. Supply and demand. Besides price is irrelevant when there is a shortage and one can not see a doctor. And there is no debate that the number of practicing doctors are declining in areas with very high malpractice insurance. A few of the countless examples

    http://www.scrantontimes.com/site/ne...d=415898&rfi=6
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/01/03/doctor.strike/

    Doctors are now having to refuse treating certain high risk patients (mothers with no prenatal care) because they can't afford risking their entire career.

    http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho.../18592153.html

    Even worse some have to refuse any patients above a certain number simply for insurance purposes

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,52684,00.html

    Its odd to me you worry about drug company's profits and HMO profits but not individual lawyer profits. This is where the problem is wether in direct costs or indirect costs due to lack of patient access.

    Mississippi had a huge malpractice problem and they changed the law. Now the lawyers are suing Mississippi.
  20. #40  
    Tort reform is great, and I support it, but capping medical liability does NOT signifcantly decrease health care costs, this has been well studied by the GAO and the CBO. Bush is wrong on this - period. Read the facts:

    http://factcheck.org/printerfriendly133.html
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 10/26/2004 at 07:17 PM.
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions