posted on October 17, 2004 10:41:18 AM new
1) GW isn't responsible for the contamination of the flu vaccine.
2) GW is responsible for the lack of preparedness and strategy to handle a problem if something like this was to happen. His Surgeon General must be on one of those vacations that the Bush Admin loves to take. This once again shows his lack of planning for the future as in Iraq.
3) According to GW, prescription drugs need to be screened for their safety, even when they are purchased from Canada. Canada, by the way, purchases their drugs from the same manufacturers and distributors as in the USA. Drug companies have cited Research and Development for their skyrocketing pricing, yet consistently, drug companies spend a huge amount of their American budgets on Marketing and Advertising which directly impacts the pricing of their pharmaceuticals. Beyond that, they also have learned to work with this current Administration to benefit their profit margins at the sake of Senior Benefits.
4) It isn't ironic that the President wants to block the purchase of Prescription Drugs from Canada, but will urgently seek Flu Vaccines from Canada. It is exactly what GW refers to as, "bait and switch". He baited the American people to think that prescription drugs from Canada could be unsafe, only to switch his stance for the sake of politics.
posted on October 17, 2004 11:45:57 AM new
Helen , I was just scrolling through previous posts and saw your picture of bush. Does this man look in control? Does he look calm and competant? He looks like a maniac!
The caption should read.....
"Shut the f--- Up and Give me a damn DRINK!"""
posted on October 17, 2004 12:11:36 PM new
Now, think of this on a more practical level. As far as flu shots go, the old people are useless to society as the government doesn't consider them productive species any longer and they wouldn’t have to pay out Social Security if they kicked off from a flu bug. As for the young, if they can't survive a flu bug they may not be strong enough for future military service to the empire.
posted on October 17, 2004 12:16:50 PM new
Helen-This comment was made in the other flu thread, which didn't need to be started and was only because bigpeepa wants the spotlight.
"My parents also waited in line to get a flu shot only to be turned away. Ahead of them were young men and women (18 - 30s approx. according to my parents) who could most likely withstand a bout of the flu. How can any healthy young individual get the flu shot while the vulnerable elderly cannot and then do it with a clear conscience?"
You cannot tell by the looks of humans as they how they feel. Sometimes the most healthy looking people are really the sick ones because they take care of their looks. Now this poster was assuming something that should never been assumed. There are many circumstances that are assumed in here by reading these posts and not only in this thread.
From what I understand and maybe it is not where you live but Attending Physicians have received flu vaccine to be given to their high risk patients. Ask your attending physician if you are a high risk and if he says yes then ask if there is any at his office. It's easy to stand in line and complain but it pays to ask questions.
posted on October 17, 2004 12:23:13 PM new
Thanks for that answer septembermom...kiara and I are just joking here...
"Now, think of this on a more practical level. As far as flu shots go, the old people are useless to society as the government doesn't consider them productive species any longer and they wouldn’t have to pay out Social Security if they kicked off from a flu bug. As for the young, if they can't survive a flu bug they may not be strong enough for future military service to the empire."
Lol, Kiara...you too are getting into that viciously pragmatic territory. Who needs a dam flu shot anyway. Let's see... if I can paraphrase it...Why in the hell should a government supply these dam lily livered whiners with flu shots if they tax my cigarettes and won't let me smoke anywhere I want to? <g>
posted on October 17, 2004 01:16:35 PM new
Helen - did did all of the twisting and turning that you did to get that statement out of what I said make you dizzy at all?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on October 17, 2004 11:40:58 PM new
Septembermom says,
Great Yeager it is nice to know that our US dollars have spent that kind of money on you as it does on any person that has transplants. One reason for the high cost of health care. Your physician is responsible for your flu shot not the US government.
Well here is my though about you. You must be a really cold hearted bit*ch. I did nothing to cause my situation. I didn't use drugs or abuse alcohol either. Your comments are really uncalled for. It happens to be the LAW that people who suffer from kidney disease are entitled to such treatments and operations. I strongly believe that your child(ren) were to be diagnosed with kidney disease, you would use the same programs to keep them alive as I did. Or would you just let them die and take pride that you saved the US government some money? Are you against saving lives with medicine, and medical practices?
For you information, I did call my doctor for a shot and was told there is none in the area. That IS NOT the fault of my doctor. He is NOT in the business of overseeing the manufacturer and distribution of the vaccine. The federal government is.
When a local municipal government awards a contract for let's say road repair, they usually require a surety bond to make sure the job is completed. The federal government should have taken the same necessary steps to make sure this contractor had the complete ability to finish the deal.
And as for the government not being responsible for me acquiring a flu shot, then why are they involved in the first place.
Final note. In regard to your comment about my using too much of the taxpayers money for medical treatment, and your belief of the resulting high cost of health care......
You need to kiss my hairy ass!
Bigots are miserable people. Prevent Bigotry through Education.
posted on October 17, 2004 11:47:15 PM new
::He is NOT in the business of overseeing the manufacturer and distribution of the vaccine. The federal government is. ::
No - They are not. Why is it that no one seems to get this basic fact?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on October 17, 2004 11:57:08 PM new
If they are not, then who or what makes the decision of what lab and the standards that will be used in making the vaccine and shipping it here for use in the US? I think the US government has some say in it. Maybe the Food and Drug Administration??? Maybe the Center for Disease Control???
Isn't that true in the fact we have national standards for the vaccine. I think it's safe to think that the minimum medical standard for the vaccine would be the same here in Michigan as say in Florida? Minimum standards are obtained by having a single authority making the decision, and in this case, it would be the federal government.
Bigots are miserable people. Prevent Bigotry through Education.
posted on October 18, 2004 12:14:43 AM new
PUt it this way - there are safety standards that must be upheld but the federal governemnt is no more in charge of the manufacturing and distribution of the vaccines than the Consumer Product Safety Administration in charge of toy manufacturing.
The FDA certifies a manufacturer but they do not oversee the actual day to day manuafacturing process and the actual vaccines are purchased by various private agencies, not the federal government.
I could see blaming the government if providers were purchasing from the feds who purchased a national supply but that is not that case, nor should it be. Take a close look at government services today guys... do you really want a government agency in charge of this? It would cost $75 a shot and we'd get them in March.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on October 18, 2004 12:26:48 AM newI could see blaming the government if providers were purchasing from the feds who purchased a national supply but that is not that case, nor should it be.
That statement doesn't make any sense. Aren't the government and the feds the same thing? Who is in charge of providing the supply if the federal government isn't?
Bigots are miserable people. Prevent Bigotry through Education.
posted on October 18, 2004 05:21:09 AM new
ROFL
Septembermom
The governement doesn't owe you a flu shot, even though the FDA decides what drugs are safe, that is for importation and use... they do not distribute the drug and decides who receives a shot...
Your doctor failed you yeager, no one else... he knew that as a transplant patient you would be one the priority... he didn't plan very well now did he...
posted on October 18, 2004 09:15:01 AM new
:: Who is in charge of providing the supply if the federal government isn't? ::
There is no national mandate for flu vaccinations. They are not a legal entitlement and so health cae providers are in charge of them, not the fed.
Is this really such a hard concept for people to grasp? If this thread has not been a clear demonstration of the American attitude of entitlement, I don't know what is.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
Prevent Bigotry through Education.