aedeade541de…

Dr. Hillary’s going to make it all better

Now, please bend over…

In their conniving to use the ruse “for the children” to further their centralized power schemes Bill & Hill and the dear old CDF caused children more problems. (Notice I didn’t even mention Edwards & the lawyers!).

Wingo on September 18, 2007 at 3:36 PM

Thanks for the reminder about the vaccine shortage. I’d forgotten. If any of you aren’t familiar with it, here’s a brief summary from August of 2003:

Hillary’s Vaccine Shortage:

Everyone knows America’s vaccine industry is in serious trouble, with an ever dwindling number of producers and recent severe vaccine shortages. What everyone also should know is that the National Academy of Science’s Institute of Medicine has now pinned much of the blame on the government vaccine-buying program promoted by former First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The panel of doctors and economists issuing a report on vaccines last week identified as a fundamental cause of the problem the fact that the government purchases 55 percent of the childhood vaccine market at forced discount prices. The result has been “declining financial incentives to develop and produce vaccines.”

The root of this government role goes back to August 1993, when Congress passed Clinton’s Vaccines for Children program. The plan, promoted by the Children’s Defense Fund, was to use federal power to ensure universal immunization. So the government agreed to purchase a third of the national vaccine supply (the President and Mrs. Clinton had pushed for 100 percent) at a forced discount of half price, then distribute it to doctors to deliver to the poor and the un- and under-insured. As a result:

* Where 30 years ago, 25 companies produced vaccines for the U.S. market., today only five remain, and there is only one producer for a number of critical shots.

* Recent years have brought shortages of numerous vaccines, including those for whooping cough, diphtheria and chicken pox.

The Institute panel in effect said that one of Senator Clinton’s pet projects is a bust.

That article links to the WSJ as a source. The WSJ also stated:

Apart from price controls, the other great threat to vaccine makers has been tort lawyers. Congress took a significant step to solve this problem in 1986, creating the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, and requiring the injured parties to seek redress there before they can sue in regular courts. But plaintiffs’ lawyers have been crafty in finding ways around the VICP, most notoriously by claiming damages due to the discontinued but harmless vaccine additive thimerosal. There’s still work to be done here.

The Institute of Medicine panel deserves credit for highlighting the threat to vaccine makers from government price controls. Mrs. Clinton is a powerful Senator now with Presidential ambitions. It took some guts for the Institute panel to say in effect that one of her pet projects is a bust…

Here’s something from CDC about the shortages:

Shortages of several of these vaccines necessitated temporary changes in recommendations for their use. During that period, summary information about the shortages including projected duration and recommendations for temporary changes in the childhood immunization schedule were provided.

Some are still short. Anyone know more?

In the meantime, they realize that if they can only cut down on unhealthy or dangerous behavior, they enact more regulation to protect us from ourselves, going beyond the seatbelt and helmet laws enacted for that same purpose to increase taxes on alcohol, tobacco, etc.

Later they argue that the private insurance companies are discriminatory because they cater to those who can afford it- either directly or through their employer- while low income people are being discriminated against in the inferior federal program… you see where this is going.

We Canadians are intimately familiar with how incredibly stupid the idea of universal health care is. Even our lefty party (the Liberal Party) concedes that we can’t have a “free” health care system anymore. It’s one of these ideas that sounds all nice and fuzzy and warm, but it just doesn’t work.

I truely hope her Republican challenger will bring these things to light during the general election campaign. Health care under the control of any of the dems would be an absolute nightmare.

When Peter is robbed to pay Paul, Paul never complains.

right2bright on September 18, 2007 at 2:49 PM

In an America not to far in the past, Paul would have complained and returned what wasn’t his to begin with.

If it bankrupts a nation, is it worth it? If for decades the middle class suffers under the extreme burden of taxes, is it worth it? If only the wealthy (read leaders) can receive immediate health care, is it worth it? If thousands die because health care is rationed, is it worth it? When your baby dies waiting in line for a shot, is it worth it? And when the rationing creates a lottery for health care and your number is too high, is it worth it? And is it worth is to have a special system for congress so they never have to wait in line, wait for a doctor? If we made Hillary wait 3 months to see a doctor about a lump in her breast, would she think it is worth it? We will never know, because they will always have special priviledge. If they have others pay, it will be worth it.

When Peter is robbed to pay Paul, Paul never complains.

Also, no new bureaucracy, but how is are the individual and employer mandates enforced? How will the not-to-exceed-a- percentage-of-family-income provisions be handled?

Finally, do we get performance yardsticks? If the plan comes in over cost projections, or we see insurers failing or consolidating, or the cost savings needed to finance the program don’t materialize, will she declare it a failure and lay in a course correction? What is she promising? What are the benchmarks? What are the specific predictions regarding the program’s performance?

CyberCipher on September 18, 2007 at 11:00 AM

Here’s a little something for your nausea and anyone else not “ready for change.”

The Department of Transportation and your local DMV
FEMA
Veterans Affairs
Foreign Affairs
Social Services
…and every single other department that the government can’t run efficiently or properly.

Our average life spans will drop 10 years while the age for Social Security eligibility will be upped by 15.

Yay for socialism!

Turn your head and cough.

To pay for this, Clinton would tap a number of funding sources. She’d rescind part of the Bush tax cuts, ask large employers to contribute money if they don’t provide their workers with insurance, and wring some savings from modernization and improved efficiency. She’d also yank back some of the unnecessary subsidies government now throws at private insurers through the Medicare drug benefit — while letting the government use its bargaining leverage to get better prices for Medicare beneficiaries.

The obvious bogus sources of revenue are all there. What I like best is the idea she’d “ask” large employers to contribute if they didn’t provide workers with insurance.

Hillary: Would you be willing to contribute the money you’re keeping by not paying for health insurance?

Employers: Why, yes! Yes, of course, we’d be delighted to!

I work in healthcare and am acutely aware of many problems related to getting paid. But Hillarycare is NOT the answer. Definitely not.

Just like Cuba.

Since when are Democrats content with individual choice?

Or is the government choosing for you the change she’s talking about?

Speakup on September 18, 2007 at 12:01 PM

One step at a time. First it’s this and then it’s that.

Uni healthcare will drive up costs which will bankrupt Health Insurance Companies.

Bankrupting health insurance will wreck non-union corporations benifits packages which will feed the unions.

Now the whole us is a union worker.

Tie that with the fact that every american is bot a union worker and a wellfare recipient. . . . welcome to the USSA.

- The Cat

Hillary: “How much of this money would it take for you to vote for me?”

Voter: “Hey, that’s my wallet!”

fogw: Last time it was a mistake, this time exactly the same thing will not be a mistake.

This is the leftist mindset in a nutshell case.

Why is the left so married to nationalized health care? Is it just “romantic Marxism” or self-delusion or what?

The answer lies in allowing doctors and patients to do what is necessary, and whether that’s paid for by private insurance or medical savings accounts or other instruments should be nobody’s business. And the states should have every right to offer their own version of insurance as well.

I cannot imagine the nightmare we would have if we nationalized health insurance.

Or is the government choosing for you the change she’s talking about?