Lack of preparedness for Swine Flu?

Meanwhile the GOP has been busily trying to obstruct the appointment of Kathleen Sebelius as Health and Human Services. The vote is going to be tomorrow. Might be a good idea for the party of NO to rethink it's strategy.

party42 wrote:

Artie, I understand your frustration with the GOP, but really, does EVERY thread have to be political?

Party,This is a public health issue and the public has a right to know how Republicans have stood in the way. In fact,they managed to cut $780 million for pandemic-flu preparedness out of the stimulus package.

Here's Susan Collins R-Maine commenting on it...
" border="0" alt=""/>

Well, as Artie said,i t seems that there were provisions for Pandemic flu funding in the Economic recovery act, but Senate and House Republicans pushed to have the funding removed. The party of no strikes again. It seems the Republicans really do hate their grandchildren, as flus like this strike young children very hard.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/27/gop-cut-flu-funding/

Quote :

In Attempt To Placate The Right Wing, Collins and Specter Endorsed Pandemic Flu Funding Cut
On February 5, Karl Rove took to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to argue against President Obama's Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act because, in his view, the spending was not targeted to create or preserve jobs. In particular, Rove complained about the fact that the bill included "$900 million for pandemic flu preparations." He contended that such spending was unnecessary because the health care sector "added jobs last year."

Rep. David Obey (D-WI) included the pandemic preparation funding in the package because he believed "that a pandemic hitting in the midst of an economic downturn could turn a recession into something far worse." But Rove was not concerned with the actual substance of the funding.

Maybe this is why I heard today that only 21% of Americans admit to being Republicans....

Republican Obstructionism and Swine Flu
by mcjoan
Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 04:32:04 PM PDT

We're in a public heath emergency and we don't have an HHS director because of GOP obstructionism not over Kathleen Sebelius's qualifications for the job, but because of her views on late-term abortion. The vote is coming, but Republicans are still making threats:

Quote :

As you know, Senate Republicans have been filibustering Sebelius over lingering questions about her views on late-term abortions and some campaign contributions she received from an abortion doctor. Late last week, the Senate Dem leadership announced that in the face of GOP opposition, they had agreed with Republicans to bring Sebelius’ confirmation to the floor for a vote tomorrow that would indeed require the 60 votes.

The outbreak of the flu epidemic had led some Dems to hope that the GOP would drop their filibuster, which would mean the 60 vote threshold would no longer apply. And even GOP Senator Susan Collins called for the Senate to expedite her confirmation today.

But McConnell spokesperson Don Stewart tells me she’ll still have to clear the 60 vote threshold.

A public health emergency doesn't trump politics for these people. If there was ever a time when we needed someone in place to work with DHS and other agencies to coordinate the response, it's now. This very well might not turn into a pandemic, but a quick and efficient response on the part of all involved agencies of government will help prevent a larger emergency.

Republicans could very easily drop the filibuster, drop the 60 vote threshold. They care more about a political win on a single issue than the public good--even in the face of a public health emergency.

Oh good gawd man. Does everything have to be about the Republicans? If you really want to go there this thing in Mexico didn't even pop up until Obama and his super majorities in Congress were in power, so on this one in fairness it's all on the Dems.

Unfortunately some here not only want the GOP to pay for it politically but the US taxpayer to pay for it financially. Nothing new there, I guess.

You are blaming a U.S. political party for an internation flu situation?

Mirage wrote:

Unfortunately some here not only want the GOP to pay for it politically but the US taxpayer to pay for it financially. Nothing new there, I guess.

Ahhh the Republican Health care plan........Don't get sick! If you do,you're on your own.

Or just get a good job with benefits so you can contribute instead of just sitting home on the progressive socialism plan.

Not always easy to find a job with benefits. Hubby got a new job in December - deductible finally dropped to $1,500 per person per year.

KarenT wrote:

Not always easy to find a job with benefits. Hubby got a new job in December - deductible finally dropped to $1,500 per person per year.

Ah! see there is the problem. Under progressive socialism it's hard for anybody to get a job because who wants to create new jobs just so the goberment can tax and regulate them into ruin and then actively take over the company like with the banks and car companies, just to mention 2. It's kinda like the story of the Little Red Hen.

For free market capitalism to thrive the government needs to be a helpful partner to the business community, not an anchor or a dictator.

Mirage wrote:

Unfortunately some here not only want the GOP to pay for it politically but the US taxpayer to pay for it financially.

So that's the plan? Seriously? Ignore any and all preventative response to such biological threats and instead rely on private insurance (if you have it) to contain the mess?

Well... this would elimate the poor or jobless, and rather quickly. Maybe that's the plan.

Missing the rather obvious point there by majoring on the symptom rather than the disease, aren't you? If more people had good jobs with good benefits less people would need the government to pick up the tab.

If illegal aliens were not getting their medical bills paid by various government taxing units there would be more funds available for our own citizens who are in true need. Again, I supported Bush's revised immigration plan because by my reasoning it was better than doing nothing. And here we are with the strain of illegal immigrants on the taxpayer dime still eating away at our resources.

We have people with insurance. We have people on public aid getting their healthcare met, sometimes better than those who work to pay the taxes to pay for it. So we are really talking about the people between the extremes. So does it make sense to wreck the healthcare system under the guise of equality? And while we're at it why haven't we heard anything about improving the VA since the Dems took over? I thought it was urgent that we correct those problems? At least some claimed it was during the campaign.

I saw a doctor from Texas who just wanted to charge his patients a flat $79 monthly membership fee and just toss out all the red tape of government regulation. Perhaps you will recall that thread? In short, the state claimed such a practice was unfair to insurance companies and HMO plans so he was forced to compromise and charge for unplanned office visits.

Mirage wrote:

If more people had good jobs with good benefits less people would need the government to pick up the tab.

And if wishes were horses, we'd all be eatin' steak. Reality, however, is a far better basis for national policy that wishful thinking and "if onlys", no? Besides, what good does relying on private insurance for preventing such outbreaks? They usually only work once you contract the disease. That does you no good if the contagion happens to be fatal.

Mirage wrote:

So does it make sense to wreck the healthcare system under the guise of equality?

Swine flu prevention will "wreck the healthcare system"? Really?

Can't remember where I read it, but somewhere I read that medicare and/or medicaid is all that is keeping some hospitals open right now due to uninsured people who aren't paying their bills.