So... you think that government-run health care is going to be more efficient and more capable of handling the job of distributing health care services than the private sector?

CDC concedes vaccine production behind schedule - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/21/AR2009102100847.html)




CDC concedes vaccine production behind schedule


The Associated Press
Wednesday, October 21, 2009 1:56 PM

WASHINGTON -- A top-ranking official of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says production of a vaccine for swine flu virus is behind schedule and people should take precautionary steps to prevent its spread.

Dr. Anne Schuchat (SHU'-kit) said "more vaccine is coming out every day" but production isn't where it was expected to be at this juncture. Interviewed on CBS's "The Early Show" Wednesday, Schuchat said "we wish we had more vaccine, but unfortunately the virus and the production of the vaccine aren't really cooperating."

For people anxious about getting their vaccinations, she said officials expect "widespread availability" by mid-November. Schuchat heads the CDC's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.


washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/20/AR2009102001792.html)


Fairfax cancels two swine flu vaccine distributions

By Derek Kravitz
Tuesday, October 20, 2009 1:01 PM



Fairfax County has canceled two mass swine flu vaccine distributions after the Washington region's most populous locality was told it would receive only a fraction of the vaccine doses it had expected.

Officials had originally planned on administering 50,000 H1N1 flu vaccine shots to schoolchildren next weekend at 10 public middle schools. Instead, a smaller, targeted distribution for infants and pregnant women has been scheduled for 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Saturday at the Fairfax County Government Center. Children ages 6 months to 36 months and pregnant women are eligible.

Health officials had been expecting about 120,000 vaccine shots by the end of the month but now anticipate only about 10,000 vaccine doses will be delivered. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced last week that the flu vaccine shots were taking longer to produce and that only 28 million to 30 million doses, instead of the planned 40 million doses, would be delivered to local and regional health departments by the end of October.

"Certainly the ideal would have been to have enough vaccine to be available for everyone," said Gloria Addo-Ayensu, Fairfax County's health director. "We won't have as many as anticipated but we do know who our highest target priority groups are and that's who we are focusing on. Certainly not everyone who should come down with H1N1 will be severely ill."

Vaccine is still being produced and is expected to be available in the coming weeks, Addo-Ayensu said.

But the vaccine shortage comes at a time when the spread of the H1N1 flu virus to children and teenagers has been especially acute. Earlier this month, health officials announced that 19 children nationwide had died from flu strain in a single week. Most of those children had health problems that made them vulnerable but roughly 20 to 30 percent of those who have died from the virus this flu season were otherwise healthy, officials said. As of Oct. 14, about 265,000 H1N flu vaccine doses have been shipped to Virginia.

Depending on the quantities of vaccine available each week, doses might still be made available to potentially vulnerable groups at Fairfax health department offices. Officials have promised to keep residents aware of vaccine availability through the county's flu Web site and on its Twitter and Facebook accounts.

Fred Ellis, director of the Office of Safety and Security for the Fairfax County public schools, urged parents to be patient and said teachers at county schools have been instructing children to wash their hands and cover their nose and mouth when sneezing or coughing.

Consent forms and vaccine information is available on Fairfax County's Web site.

So, let me get this straight... the "experts" in Washington have told us that the swine-flu pandemic is a potentially life-threatening hazard. The WHO (World Hysteria Organization) has called it one of the greatest potential threats to mankind in history. For the past 6-8 months the government experts have known about the supposed danger, and have supposedly been planning, developing and manufacturing flu vaccines for us.

And yet, for all the planning they have done, they can't handle the distribution load.

Now, I have no idea whether swine flu is as dangerous as they say it is. Personally, I doubt that it is that dangerous. But THEY have argued that it IS that dangerous, and they have been making their plans based on the danger that THEY say the swine flu represents. And yet their plans have come to naught, because they are having massive shortages and distribution problems all over the country.

So if this is how poorly the government handles an "emergency" that is "one of the greatest threats to mankind in history", how well do you think they are going to handle the mundane, day-to-day job of managing you regular health care?

If they can't get the swine flu vaccine right, what makes you think they are going to get your cancer treatments or your heart surgery or even your regular ongoing care right?

What makes you have so much trust in your government when they constantly demonstrate their lack of ability to accomplish their tasks?

Elliot

In all fairness I have to say the government doesn't actually make the vaccine, though "the government itself ran into a delay in developing the tests required to assess each batch before it is cleared for use." However, the more the feds become involved in health care the more their iincompetence will be revealed.

This is interesting though, they aren't very good at projecting (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hDG1Y2pO9MZlJLNboKJOSSY9xWTwD9BFOG0O4):


Federal officials initially projected that as many as 120 million doses of the vaccine would be ready to dispense by mid-October. They later reduced their estimate to 45 million. As of Tuesday, only 12.8 million were available. (Health officials say a single dose will protect adults, while children under 10 will need two doses.)

If the availability amounts to only about a tenth of their projection what does that say about the government projecting the cost of Obamacare?

If the availability amounts to only about a tenth of their projection what does that say about the government projecting the cost of Obamacare?

Or their ability to project how much of every medical service, therapy or drug will be required and make that amount available.

Good point.

Elliot

In all fairness I have to say the government doesn't actually make the vaccine,

Under government-run health care, the government wouldn't be producing the product either... they would be reliant on the doctors, hospitals, drug companies, etc. to produce the product/service. The government would just be the entity that handles the logistics and makes the payments. So I think that their handling (or MIShandling) of the swine flu vaccine is parallel and is a good example of things to come.

Elliot

Speaking of government miscalculations (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/64221-miscalculation-delivers-loss-for-reid-on-doc-fix)...


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) lost the first floor battle of the healthcare reform debate Wednesday when 12 Democrats and one Independent joined all Republicans to defeat a bill to halt Medicare cuts affecting doctors.

The $247 billion bill, which would have imposed a 10-year freeze on cuts in Medicare payments to doctors, was an important part of Reid’s plan for passing the broader healthcare reform bill later this year.

But Reid couldn’t secure enough votes to bring the bill up for debate, with the procedural vote failing 47-53...

Reid brought the bill to the floor in an effort to secure the support of doctors groups such as the American Medical Association (AMA) for the future fight over an overhaul of the nation’s healthcare system.

Reid’s gambit, however, backfired, leaving Reid blaming the AMA for failing to secure GOP votes and the AMA retorting that the leader misinterpreted its pledge.

Reid told colleagues that the AMA said it could deliver 27 Republican votes for the legislation, according to two Senate Democratic lawmakers, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Some Democrats wondered whether it was reasonable to expect that as many as 27 Republicans would support a 10-year freeze in light of the fact that only 17 Senate Republicans voted for a one-year freeze last July. Of that group, only 11 remain in the Senate.

But Reid reiterated the claim during a news conference on Wednesday.

“I was told by various people that we would have 27 Republican votes, which was pretty reasonable to assume since one of the co-sponsors of this legislation was [Sen.] Jon Kyl [Ariz.], the assistant Republican leader,” Reid told reporters.

Never mind that Reid has a veto-proof majority in the Senate, those dog gone tonsil-ripping doctors couldn't deliver him the votes.

And yet, for all the planning they have done, they can't handle the distribution load..... What makes you have so much trust in your government when they constantly demonstrate their lack of ability to accomplish their tasks?Hello Elliot:

Couple things.. I don't know what makes you think your private doctor would do a better job... As a matter of fact, although I'm sure you didn't mean to, but you pointed THE reason for having government involved in health care...

Why?? Because your private doctor isn't in the job of protecting the populace. In your scheme of things there is NOBODY protecting the populace. When a pandemic comes down the pike, somebody has to be in charge of the effort to protect us. Who is going to do it? Pharma?? The insurance companies?? Their lobbyists?? Your congressmen?

I don't disagree with you, in that government doesn't do a very good job... But, they do the job, because nobody else will do it. The service is better delivered half assed, than not delivered at all.

excon

The service is better delivered half assed, than not delivered at all.

That's quite an evolution from the Katrina days when inefficent government response was unacceptable.

Under government-run health care, the government wouldn't be producing the product either... they would be reliant on the doctors, hospitals, drug companies, etc. to produce the product/service. The government would just be the entity that handles the logistics and makes the payments. So I think that their handling (or MIShandling) of the swine flu vaccine is parallel and is a good example of things to come.

Oh I agree absolutely, we have more than enough examples to go by and I can't believe some people are so eager to hand over this very personal and critical part of their life to the government.

At least we have a new and more accurate theme for health care reform: Obamacare, half assed health care.

I say we run with it.

I like it

http://logobama.com/wp-content/themes/logobama/img/obama/thumb/10131118701.jpg
Obamacare,
half assed health care

I like it

http://logobama.com/wp-content/themes/logobama/img/obama/thumb/10131118701.jpg
Obamacare,
half assed health care

Is that The Goracle behind that mask?

Hello Elliot:

Couple things.. I don't know what makes you think your private doctor would do a better job...

Well, I got the standard flu shot, covered by my insurance company, just last week. No muss, no fuss. They even came to my office to give it to me.

Compare that to the distribution madness of the government's plan.

That's what makes me think that the private sector would do a better job.


As a matter of fact, although I'm sure you didn't mean to, but you pointed THE reason for having government involved in health care...

Why?? Because your private doctor isn't in the job of protecting the populace. In your scheme of things there is NOBODY protecting the populace. When a pandemic comes down the pike, somebody has to be in charge of the effort to protect us. Who is going to do it? Pharma?? The insurance companies?? Their lobbyists?? Your congressmen?

The government IS in the job of protecting the populace... AND THEY ARE FAILING AT IT BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION.

Seems to me that a one-time distribution of the vaccine to the entire population would be a lot less complex than the ongoing, constant provision of individualized health care for the entire population, with each person having their own needs, wants and desires.

If they can't get the SIMPLE task done, what makes you so sure that they can handle the much more COMPLEX task of ongoing health care?


I don't disagree with you, in that government doesn't do a very good job... But, they do the job, because nobody else will do it. The service is better delivered half assed, than not delivered at all.

Excon

If the choices were only "half assed" or "not at all", you MIGHT have an argument. But it seems to me that, with most Americans reporting satisfaction with their health systems, there is a third choice... which is satisfactory delivery of service.

I was quite satisfied with how I received my flu shot last week. I'm pretty sure that everyone in my office who chose to take the shot at the same time I did was satisfied as well. And it was done by private insurance, not the government.

Darn!! I had a good picture to use, bit I can't get it to download properly.

Elliot

HALF-ASSED
The Democratic Party at Work

Try that again only don't use the "insert image" feature. Upload it from "manage attachments" when you post.

GOT IT!!


Half-Assed Health Care
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=25796&stc=1&d=1256228663
The Democratic Party At Work!!

Try that again only don't use the "insert image" feature. Upload it from "manage attachments" when you post.


Thanks, it worked.

Elliot

Thanks, it worked.

Oops? Either it didn't or I'm having problems getting it now. You should see the name of the file after you've uploaded it above the "manage attachments" button. For instance this one says "bill_the_cat.gif (2.8 KB)." Then be sure and click the "submit answer" button below that, not the first one.

Hello again:

Let me know when your half assed efforts produce a visible image...

excon

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=25796&stc=1&d=1256228663

How about now?

I'm gettin' nothing. If it's on the web use "insert image," if it's on your hard drive attach it... and one more clue, it will show up on the preview if it worked.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=25796&stc=1&d=1256228663

How about now?Hello again, Elliot:

All I get is a teeny little square that is absolutely unintelligible. But, it IS consistent with your other half assed efforts of late. They're unintelligible as well.

excon

Last attempt.

Out of interest who is manufacturing your vaccine, is it a government run organistation or a private company awarded the contract?

There is no single manufacturer . HHS has contracts with 5 manufacturers Sanofi Pasteur, Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline ,MedImmune and CSL .Those evil big Pharma companies that create life-saving drugs.

The problem with the delay is in the cultivation of vaccine . It has to be made in an egg. That and the fact that there is also a demand for regular flu vaccine.

So any delay in bringing the product to market is with industry and not the government?

Don't know all the details. The gvt projections were certainly unrealistic.

Out of interest who is manufacturing your vaccine, is it a government run organistation or a private company awarded the contract?

From what I can tell, there is a mix of foreign and domestic companies making the vaccine. Here is the breakdown of who is producing the vaccine:

Novartis - 46% (Switzerland)
Sanofi Pasteur - 26% (France)
CSL - 19% (Australia)
MedImmune - 6% (USA - subsidiary of AstraZeneca)
GlaxoSmithKline - 3% (UK)

Elliot

So any delay in bringing the product to market is with industry and not the government?

Not necessarily. It could be (and in part was) due to the government's over-regulation... they made several of the companies go back and do more unnecessary testing, which wasted production time. (There's that 'regulation' thing again.)

Furthermore, the government is SUPPOSED to be able to manage such timelines for such large projects. THEY claim to be able to do so, anyway. That is the basis for arguing that they would be just as or more efficient at managing health care as private companies. For them to be off by a few percentage points on production and availability amounts is understandable. For them to be 90% off their initial projections is unacceptable.

Elliot

If you were in their shoes, surely you wouldn't do anything different

If you brought a product to the market that turned out to cause side effects of massive deformaties in babies

This article is about the production of thalidomide, a real classic when it comes to letting chemical companies do what they want without intervention

Corporate Crime and Violence (http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1987/04/thalidomide.html)

If you were in their shoes, surely you wouldnt do anything different

If you brought a product to the market that turned out to cause side effects of massive deformaties in babies

This article is about the production of thalidomide, a real classic when it comes to letting chemical companies do what they want without intervention

Corporate Crime and Violence (http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1987/04/thalidomide.html)

I know about thalidomide. I have a cousin who is highly developmentally disabled because her mother used the stuff when she was pregnant.

But the swine flu vaccine is just a variation of standard flu vaccines. It's not a "new drug" in the sense that thalidomide was. It's just a manipulation of an already existing product to make it more effective for a particular strain of flu. The seasonal flu virus goes through the same sort of manipulation every year to target the new flu strain, and the government doesn't require that level of testing. This testing was overkill.

Elliot

Give me a pill that has been over tested please - you can have the one that has been tested to an acceptable standard :)

I know of Glaxo and AstraZenica . But do they also manufacture in the UK or do they manufacture and R&D in nations where they can expect a profit from their efforts ?

Choosing profit over safety is not something I want to be a part off if I can help it

It is not an either or proposition. As Elliot has already explained ;it is in the manufacturers best interest to put a safe product on the market.

Give me a pill that has been over tested please - you can have the one that has been tested to an acceptable standard :)

That would be the one that either you personally or your national health plan can't or won't pay for because it's too expensive.

You can have that one.

I'll take the affordable one. :D

Elliot

This is what half assed health care means...

That would be the one that either you personally or your national health plan can't or won't pay for because it's too expensive.

You can have that one.

I'll take the affordable one. :D

Elliot

The NHS has suffered from postcode lottery, so if there wasn't enough funds in the pot then it would not be provided for

However, another county could afford it and have provided the expensive pill to the patient

This is all now stoppping and if a pill is available from an NHS trust in one prt of the country, you can obtain

It may still require an argument to achieven this, but the possibility is there for freedom of choice

The expensive pills can still be boughtby the patient

But, Elliot, doesn't this create the system you want, the reqards go to those that have worked for it? And doesn't this create the system that I want, a basic level of health care for all

I know of Glaxo and AstraZenica . But do they also manufacture in the UK or do they manufacture and R&D in nations where they can expect a profit from their efforts ?

Hi Tom these companies manufacture and distribute in my country where there is a highly regulated pharmaceutical system so regulation just cuts back the profit a little. Drug companies are in the business of selling drugs so they will kick and scream but they understand about maintaining volume to recoup their R&D. you see Tom they can make a profit in most places, the markup is that good. Don't believe the hype that government cannot manage for the good of the individual and still keep business alive and well. By the way we don't have a system where the drug companies give away drugs to those who cannot afford it, everyone pays something or the Government covers it off for drugs that are part of the scheme