Well, it's not George Bush's lack of planning... Instead, ask John Edwards... http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/793dgqvs.asp
No, of course not. George Bush, and his administration, has demonstrated a remarkable ability to plan very well; just look at... ... ...
Well Karl, if you will kick off another independent, centrist liberal-bashing thread with such independent, centrist bibles like the Weekly Standard ... BTW - congratulations on getting a whole two posts into a thread without using the word "venal". Whatever they're doing for you, it's clearly working.
I got to the paragraph in which the writer criticized federal regulations for making the vaccine business a "low-profit" enterprise and stopped reading. Yes, how dare the government make the public health a priority.
Here is a bit of history on this. In 1996, the Federal Government negotiated a price with several drug companies to supply various government agencies with flu vacine. That price has not been changed. In the meantime, the cost of business doing business has gone up dramatically. A significant part of that is the result of the need for tort reform which influences the "defensive medicine" tactics that Bush has cited. (Sorry Kerry supporters, Bush is right on this one. Just ask me how I know.) The result is that no US producer is still capable of supplying the vacine at the 1996 contract price. Consequently, the US wound up having to go to a British company, not bound by many of the liability laws that affect US companies, was able to supply the vacine. Unfortunately, the vacine was contaminated. Fortunately, we discovered that before it went out for use. In the meantime, Canada, also not bound by US liability laws, offered to supply vacine. After testing, that vacine has been accepted. Unfortunately, the Canadian company cannot gear up fast enough to meet all the need. Funny thing about all this; last year when there was plenty of vacine to go around, the main flu strain that was most prevalent turned out to be different that what the vacine was supposed to prevent. Hence, all the people who were given the shots were not protected anyway. Sometimes you just can't win. But a greater lesson here is that we need to learn that "the government" is not the answer. We relied on the government, which sought to isolate itself from market forces, and the market always wins.
Whose "at fault" for our flu vaccine shortage? Gee... you might start with the trial lawyers who put every medicinal manufacturer through the hoops for any potential side affect of medicine, then put them out of business as a bonus! President Bush spoke about these trial lawyers and how they are putting flu vaccine manufacturers out of business and jeopardizing the health of Americans, then Kerry replied by putting one on his ticket! IntheNet
You're half-right on this. Yes, the strain was different than the strains covered by the vaccine. However, it was close enough that the vaccine basically provided protection.
How do you know? (genuinely curious) Edit: and to follow up on bojendyk's slight correction, I've got one of my own. Or a question, at least. It's my understanding that while some batches from the England factory owned by Chiron were id'd by that company as having been contaminated earlier this year, that was only a small percentage. Until a couple of weeks ago, Chiron still fully expected to be able to provide roughly 46% of the US flu vaccine supply. What happened a couple of weeks ago was not the discovery of more contamination, per se, but the identification of procedural problems in the plant's system for making the vaccine, which suggested the possibility of further contamination without said further contamination actually having been positively discovered. Is this still correct, or is your assertion that the entire batch is contaminated correct?
Yes, I recently saw the entire executive board of Eli Lilly panhandling at the Indianapolis airport. Those med mal insurance providers are soon to go belly up as well. dj43 makes some interesting points, but even if it is government policy that prevents manufacturers here from making the vaccine, then the government has a responsibility to recognize the potential for a problem and to try and deal with it. Did they know about the potential problem? If no, that is a problem. If yes, then did they plan for the potential problem? Throwing your hands in the air and blaming the trial lawyers only goes so far. If the trial lawyers are such a big friggin problem that Bush blames for high health insurance cost, low vaccine supplies, OBGYNs not being able to practice their love with their patients, then why in God's name was it not a priority over the last four years. I know, there is one partisan heavy bill out there that never got passed, but the question is why? Bush got his tax cuts through. He got his Iraq war through. He's got a friggin Republican Congress. Why is it that NOW, within a month of the general election, tort reform and the evil trial lawyers are responsible for all of our domestic problems, and yet Bush has utterly failed to address this gathering darkness?
Yeah, you have to wonder when pharmaceuticals are spending billions in consumer advertising, getting their sales rep to wine and dine doctors so they'll prescribe whatever new drug they're pushing this month, and lobbying politicians against regulations and marijuana research, yet they complain that they can't make vaccines because litigation is too expensive. Forgive me for being skeptical when corporations cry about the need for tort reform. You know that story about that woman who burned herself when she was driving with her coffee held between her knees and the coffee spilled on her, then sued McDonald's for millions? And how that's the example of exactly what's wrong with our lawsuit-happy culture? Well, it's an urban legend. And so are these. The problem of frivlous lawsuits and outrageous punitive damages is real, but ridiculously overstated, and there are people whose interests are helped when these urban legends are spread and taken as truth, and large corporations can hire public relations firms to spin their own version of the "truth". It's easier for corporations to blame lawyers than to take responsibility for their own actions.
Hence, Karl, the importance of a retraction. The issue isn't being wrong, it's denying accountability for being wrong.
IOU rep. I *hate* people bringing up the McDonald's case as an example of a frivolous lawsuit. EDIT - answering Smiley - McDonald's admitted to knowingly selling a dangerous product. I don't see how much more clear-cut you can make a case for negligence.
The article is silly. The author insinuates that Aventis Pasteur and Chiron, as non-US based companies, are somehow immune from this massive legal liability risk that forced US companies to withdraw from the market. Of course, that's just completely wrong. The US ethical pharma market just simply rewards companies for developing blockbusters more than churning out vaccines, so they've focused their resources on things like Viagra and Celebrex. In Europe and Canada, with the price of new brand-name drugs lower due to centralized purchasing, companies make different choices on where to spend their resources. Vaccines are profitable business. If they weren't, Chiron and Aventis Pasteur wouldn't be doing it. It's just that companies like Lilly, J&J, Merck, etc. don't want to use up research and production on them. Trying to frame this issue differently doesn't change that fact.
You Pusillanimous Pip-squeak, you Traitorous Tintinnabulation, you Irresponsible Winebibber, you Blithering Blatherskite. You leftist Adlepated Amateur. Oh the pain, the pain. http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Towers/3332/smith.html
My favorite is the one from 20 years ago, here in San Francisco. A cabbie chased down a purse-snatcher and trapped him in a dead-end alley. The purse snatcher got his leg broken in the process. The purse-snatcher sued and a jury made the cabbie pay $25,000 to the purse-snatcher. And that McDonald's suit was frivolous, too. What did she expect when she held the coffee between her knees?
The problem with the British vaccine was not something anyone without a crystal ball would have seen. It was simply an unforeseeable situation. However, the greater issue here is that whenever you rely on a single vendor, the possible negative consequences can be disastrous. That is what happened here. That is also the greatest danger in any single provider system whether that is the government or private industry. It is also why the free market system is the best, most efficient way to provide the product or service. It is also the reason the US has the best medical services in the world. As to your question about tort reform, that was a significant portion of Bush's platform in 2000. However, Democrats, lobbied extensively by the American Bar Association, blocked any efforts to even get 2 bills out of committee and onto the floor. Thank Tom Daschle and friends for that one. Go check out Congressional records for your proof.
It must have been hard work cutting and pasting these talking points, but riddle me this. If the problem is the tort system, why wasn't there a shortage last year? The tort system hasn't changed. What HAS changed is that this factory had a problem. Me, that's where I'd point the finger. But I'm not an independent centrist, so what do I know?