Author Topic: Gov. Health= no flu shots (Read 478 times)

Scootter · « **on:** October 15, 2004, 02:28:34 PM »

We have Mrs. H. Clinton to thank for the shortage of flu shots, here why.

The Children Vaccine program developed by the former administration (seamed like a good idea) has caused drug manufactures to stop manufacturing vaccines due to low or no profit and high cost of litigation.

http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?docid=1G1:13839616&refid=ink_puballmags&skeyword=&teaser=

We now must buy much of our vaccines from overseas and the current problem with the flu shots is just the beginning.

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0%2C1249%2C565037411%2C00.html

http://www.whale.to/a/drugc.html

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040629-063134-5244r

Yet another reason to keep the Government out of the health care business and to push for tort reform.

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #1 on:** October 15, 2004, 02:31:16 PM »

Yeah well, I thought it was from the unncessary amounts of flu shots given to those who don't need them.

Last years "big flu scare", yeah - **** that and those *******s that perpetrated that scare. Got talked into getting shot up with that stupid ****ing vaccine - sickest I've ever been off of the flu.

Nuts to those flu vaccines, they didn't help my bellybutton one bit. Nevar forgit teh floo haxxine!
-SW

Goth · « **Reply #2 on:** October 15, 2004, 02:36:11 PM »

This thread almost belongs in the medicboy thread because I feel about this the same way I did in the other thread.

Litigation needs to be capped....pure and simple, but I can bet you that won't happen if certain people get elected...but let's not diverge from this thread on that issue. Litigation is killing this country. Malpractice lawsuits have gotten out of hand, and until it is regulated nothing about costs can be corrected.

I for one don't believe research and other associated costs involved increating vaccines are justifiable. Sure...research can cost millions, and we all know who really funds that, not the companies, but us, the taxpayers.

The federal government hands out so much money for research it's sickening. Having dealt with the CDC, I can tell you that is one agency run poorly.

Maybe it's a good thing that we have a shortage this year...and maybe next year too. Maybe the worlds population is getting a little out of hand. Hell, I don't even know how I feel about the human race anymore or whether I give a damn. I just know I'm sick and tired of abuse, and a big abuser of funds are those who work in some form or capacity in medicine.

Scootter · « **Reply #3 on:** October 15, 2004, 02:47:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Goth

The federal government hands out so much money for research it's sickening. Having dealt with the CDC, I can tell you that is one agency run poorly.

Having family members in the drug industry I can say that the amount of money the government contributes to research is extremely low and comes with many strings attached.

It is at the whim of both houses and is mostly attached as pork to bills that never get passed. The government controls places on what is researched are extreme and must meet both approval and political whim.

As it takes an average of 10 years to bring a drug to market and 80 percent of drugs are never approved or developed you can see how funding is neither full or constant.

This country develops over 75 percent of the world’s new drugs and this is due to the capitalist drive to invest in a potential profit, take that away and new drugs stop. The government funds only a fraction of any new development.

Goth · « **Reply #4 on:** October 15, 2004, 02:54:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Scootter
Quote
Originally posted by Goth

The federal government hands out so much money for research it's sickening. Having dealt with the CDC, I can tell you that is one agency run poorly.

Having family members in the drug industry I can say that the amount of money the government contributes to research is extremely low and comes with many strings attached.

It is at the whim of both houses and is mostly attached as pork to bills that never get passed. The government controls places on what is researched are extreme and must meet both approval and political whim.

As it takes an average of 10 years to bring a drug to market and 80 percent of drugs are never approved or developed you can see how funding is neither full or constant.

This country develops over 75 percent of the world’s new drugs and this is due to the capitalist drive to invest in a potential profit, take that away and new drugs stop. The government funds only a fraction of any new development.

So the researchers are in this only for the money? Is that what I am getting from your post?

Let's not kid each other. Take a simple pill like Prozac. It's a chemical twist on the old game, and then it is marketed like the new age drug.

I see more damn commercials on TV than I can shake a stick at. Why's that? Who is their target audience? Am I supposed to tell a doctor, a man who in all likelyhood spent 8 yrs in school to learn chemistry that I think this drug will work for me?

Drug research is a pure money making scheme, and I bet you if it was properly regulated like it should be, we would still have the same medications today without all the hype. Don't piss on me and tell me it's raining, the drug companies are in this strictly for the money, not to help their fellow man.

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #5 on:** October 15, 2004, 02:59:21 PM »

Do you feel tired, have anxiety issues, possible heart palpitations, hemerrhoids, dry skin, mood swings, abdominal gas, or a constant fear of falling?

Then maybe BULL**** is right for you. BULL**** has been clinically proven to stop these symptons. Ask your doctor if BULL**** is right for you. Warning BULL**** might **** up your brain, and has been shown to produce constant stomach irritation. Side effects may include ****ting uncontrollably, bloating, vomitting, heart attack, stroke, and in some rare cases death.

So ask your doctor if BULL**** is right for you today.
-SW

john9001 · « **Reply #6 on:** October 15, 2004, 03:00:39 PM »

tad devin, a heinz-kerry advisor, said it's bush's fault we have no flu shots.

Fishu · « **Reply #7 on:** October 15, 2004, 03:30:14 PM »

Why exactly would you need a "flu shot"?

It's only created against one influence and before the particular influence even comes to the country, it might have already mutated to something which the flu shot can't stop.
...and that one virus is not the only one.

Of course depending on the shot, it could also include some other types that might never come or might with a good chance also be mutated.

Waste of money if you ask me.
I'd only give those to people with poor health or such condition, which might make a flu very uncomfortable for the person.
Even then it's 50/50 or so.

For a healthy person it's not necessary.

john9001 · « **Reply #8 on:** October 15, 2004, 03:49:24 PM »

fishu, thats true,while anyone can get a shot they are normaly only recomended for small children and elderly people with health problems. i have never had a flu shot.

Dinger · « **Reply #9 on:** October 15, 2004, 03:50:03 PM »

US pharma companies have marketing budgets as big as their research ones.
Yes, the drug and insurance companies love to press the cost of litigation.
Capping the amount paid out in tort litigation is a stupid idea, unless you also cap the amount drugs cost.
If you want a fair system, eliminate jury awards from civil cases. Let a professional decide how much the drug and insurance companies should pay. You'll then still have the large awards in cases of gross negligence and criminal culpability: after all, as has already been pointed out, the window for a drug during which they can rape the market with their monopoly is 5-7 years. There's tremendous pressure in pharma corps to get their products to market, and not to run into any snafus with say the FDA. People can and do try to "Bend the rules" from time to time. If they do, they should be crucified.
I'm sorry, I've got no sympathy for the poor ailing drug and insurance companies in this country. The argument that unless we ensure a healthy profit to drug companies, our basic health needs will suffer is perverse: we're already ensuring a healthy profit, drug and health costs are skyrocketing, and the blame is being put on tort laws?

From what I've seen in the last four years, the Government running the Health Care Business is a hell of a lot better idea than the Health Care Business running the Government.
Although, to be honest, we need to reform the greedy lot of both.

Jackal1 · « **Reply #10 on:** October 15, 2004, 04:21:55 PM »

Screw their friggen flu shots. Took one and have never been so sick in my life. Never again.

Octavius · « **Reply #11 on:** October 15, 2004, 04:27:04 PM »

My immune system kicks ass. Why? Vitamins, water, and common sense. I laugh at killer flu.

Torque · « **Reply #12 on:** October 15, 2004, 04:46:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dinger

From what I've seen in the last four years, the Government running the Health Care Business is a hell of a lot better idea than the Health Care Business running the Government.

Xactly, cuz you can always vote them out for being inept.

rpm · « **Reply #13 on:** October 15, 2004, 04:47:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dinger
US pharma companies have marketing budgets as big as their research ones.
Yes, the drug and insurance companies love to press the cost of litigation.
Capping the amount paid out in tort litigation is a stupid idea, unless you also cap the amount drugs cost.
If you want a fair system, eliminate jury awards from civil cases. Let a professional decide how much the drug and insurance companies should pay. You'll then still have the large awards in cases of gross negligence and criminal culpability: after all, as has already been pointed out, the window for a drug during which they can rape the market with their monopoly is 5-7 years. There's tremendous pressure in pharma corps to get their products to market, and not to run into any snafus with say the FDA. People can and do try to "Bend the rules" from time to time. If they do, they should be crucified.
I'm sorry, I've got no sympathy for the poor ailing drug and insurance companies in this country. The argument that unless we ensure a healthy profit to drug companies, our basic health needs will suffer is perverse: we're already ensuring a healthy profit, drug and health costs are skyrocketing, and the blame is being put on tort laws?

From what I've seen in the last four years, the Government running the Health Care Business is a hell of a lot better idea than the Health Care Business running the Government.
Although, to be honest, we need to reform the greedy lot of both.

BRAVO! Well said.

Scootter · « **Reply #14 on:** October 15, 2004, 05:43:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dinger
From what I've seen in the last four years, the Government running the Health Care Business is a hell of a lot better idea than the Health Care Business running the Government.
Although, to be honest, we need to reform the greedy lot of both.

Fair enough, and a nice sound bite, but answer me this, The government can pass laws to reform the greedy drug companies but how are the drug companies going to reform the greedy government?

hmmmm