"Moderates" Cut Spending On Pandemic Flu Preparedness

"Moderates" Cut Spending On Pandemic Flu Preparedness

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 09:33:16 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

High Broderism works its "magic:"

Famously, Maine Senator Collins, the supposedly moderate Republican who demanded cuts in health care spending in exchange for her support of a watered-down version of the stimulus, fumed about the pandemic funding: "Does it belong in this bill? Should we have $870 million in this bill No, we should not."

The Republicans essentially succeeded. The Senate version of the stimulus plan included no money whatsoever for pandemic preparedness. In the conference committee that reconciled the House and Senate plans, Obey and his allies succeeded in securing $50 million for improving information systems at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). But state and local governments, and the emergency services that would necessarily be on the frontlines in any effort to contain a pandemic, got nothing.

When policy does not matter, when High Broderism reigns supreme, this is the result.

Speaking for me only

< Welfare For Wall Street | Newsweek: Torture Does Not Merit Accountability >

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Home | About | RSS
E-Mail | Comment Policy |
Search
Login

Make a new account

Existing Users

Username:
Password:
Creator and Principal Author
- Jeralyn E. Merritt
TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections
Site Credits
- TalkLeft Graphics by C.L., Our Man in Hollywood (2006 - 2008)
- TalkLeft Header Graphic by Monk
- Powered by Scoop
Legal
- All Content Copyright ©2002-2023. Reprints only by permission from TalkLeft.com
- Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.
- TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.
"The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles"
© 1965 Bob Dylan

"Moderates" Cut Spending On Pandemic Flu Preparedness | 100 comments (100 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Consider how UHC would make caring for people (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by jawbone on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 12:10:22 PM EST

during a possible pandemic so much more effective. If people had ready access to a doctor, instead of having no insurance and having to wait until they were really, really sick and then going to the ER....

Not only do we need pandemic preparedness, we need, simply, universal health care.

And we really need to make out Dems aware of what we want. They hear from Big Insurance, other profit making players all the time; but from us?

Speaker Pelosi has publicly said single payer is "off the table"; but one of her aides, Dan Bernal, says she needs to see the faxes, emails, get the phone calls to MAKE HER DO IT. As FDR is reported to have said when speaking to some activists: yes, he agreed; they just had to make him do it. Get the public aroused and active.

See this comment for details on how you can have this site send a fax to our reluctant Dems, to make you voice heard.

Drat! Give me Edit or give me better proofreading (none / 0) (#18)
by jawbone on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 12:13:00 PM EST

skill! Should be "make our Dems aware of what we want" and "make your voice heard."

Parent

: Dems should not... (none / 0) (#20)
by Maise7 on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 12:36:10 PM EST

use this to promote universal health care, imo.

Parent

How? (none / 0) (#23)
by bocajeff on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 12:53:06 PM EST

Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand are dealing with this too!

Parent

: Single payer doesn't prevent illness or injury-it (5.00 / 1) (#100)
by jawbone on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 12:36:49 PM EST

just makes it more likely everyone will be treated in a good and timely manner. That was why I wrote that some sick people will not seek treatment until they are direly ill, especially if they have no insurance or insurance with high copays. If they have jobs where an absence means no pay, they will go to work until they are no longer able to do so. Making just one doctor's visit might wipe out more than a day's earnings. High copays can do the same.
That's why single payer, Everybody In-Nobody Out, could help to manage any communicable illnesses, but especially possible epidemics.

Parent
: Yes, but ... (none / 0) (#79)
by FreakyBeaky on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 11:31:47 PM EST

... they don't have to think about how many cases might be going unreported and untreated because forty-odd million people can't afford to go to the doctor.

Parent

Question (2.00 / 1) (#2)
by jbindc on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 09:53:22 AM EST

While this is a very serious topic, what "stimulus" would the pandemic preparedness brought to the table? Isn't this something that belongs in a regular budget as opposed to a "stimulus" plan?

Answer (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 09:55:38 AM EST

State government spending on pandemic preparedness.

Did you REALLY need that explained to you? Really?

Parent

I'll give it a shot at explaining it to you. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 10:19:18 AM EST

All spending is stimulative to some degree or another. Some spending is high yield - giving you more back on your dollar than some other spending which may be lower yield. Where spending on pandemic preparedness falls in that scale I do not know, but I do know that we saw a stimulus package pass for the first time in ages that actually made a real attempt to both stimulate the economy and do it in meaningful ways that would pay us back in more than just dollars. So like with the education money - not only were we keeping teachers on the payrolls, we were also giving kids an education. Duval Patrick had a great line about the education money which was that you can't tell a kid that he has to wait to go to second grade because there's a recession on. That kid gets no do-overs...

Anyhow, the pandemic preparedness money would have allowed states to prepare, reinforce their local healthcare providers' ability to deal with an emergency such as the one we may be facing and would have employed people. It is a win-win - spending and a yield that is arguably very good for the people and this economy both prior to a pandemic and in possibly containing one. Did you know a pandemic can destroy an economy? If people can't go out and do their daily business, then we are really in trouble on top of everything else. If you have a good system of identifying and treating the victims of the flu, you have a good chance of minimizing the paralyzing effects of a threat like this one.

So it is stimulative, it is smart, and it could be effective in protecting the economy. What's not to like?

Parent

: "......pandemic can destroy an economy?" (none / 0) (#5)
by NYShooter on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 10:36:46 AM EST

It's begun....
Governments worldwide are telling their citizens not to travel to the U.S. & Mexico.
And, just as we're approaching the major travel/tourist season.

Parent

Does it matter? (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Molly Bloom on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 11:48:27 AM EST

If its good policy, its good policy.

Form over substance.

Parent

Actually, yes it does (2.00 / 2) (#19)
by jbindc on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 12:33:05 PM EST

Because the next time the Republican are in the majority and put something in a bill where it doesn't go, because they believe it is "good policy", then I want to see you giving the same answer.

Parent

This is the problem with relativism... (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by Thanin on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 12:40:42 PM EST

there's actual factual proof that something is good policy or not, so republicans simply calling something "good policy" doesnt mean anything.

Parent

The point was (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by jbindc on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 01:10:44 PM EST

The stimulus bill was for immediate stimulus to the economy. These vaccinations are important, and should be in regular spending bills - not jacked up, last minute, stimulus bills.

there's actual factual proof that something is good policy or not,

Really? Actually, no. There are some things that are generally good policy, but most of what the extreme wings of each party chatter on about is subjective, and each side can produce evidence that supports their position. I would suggest you look at any social issue that has been argued over in the last 20 years.

Parent

And its nice to know... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Thanin on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 01:44:13 PM EST

that you think things like equal pay, abortion, welfare, universal health care, gay marriage etc. have no bases for support other than the "subjective" craziness of us extremist liberals.

Parent

Abortion is a perfect example (none / 0) (#32)
by jbindc on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 01:53:11 PM EST

Of the muddiness of this statement because those who are opposed to it feel it is murder. Would you say it isn't good policy to outlaw murder if you were in the majority and this was the majority's position?

Stem cell research is another. Welfare (the funding and administration of it) is definitely another - so is foreign and military policy.

Just because "liberals" believe in something or believe something to be true, does not automatically make it good policy. If it's one thing this last election taught us is that Democrats are not pure and clean and they aren't always right (see: Obama / torture prosecutions, Obama / Congress / bank bailouts, etc.)

Most things in politics do not have a black / white or right / wrong answer.

Parent

Theres nothing muddy about abortion... (1.00 / 1) (#33)
by Thanin on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 01:59:39 PM EST

making it illegal wont stop it but lead to illegal abortions which would endanger the mother. And if you think Stem cell research and welfare are a tough call, then you out yourself as what Ive always known about you: youre just a republican here concern trolling.

And youre absolutely wrong about your last statement. All those examples I gave absolutely have a wrong answer. How can equal pay be a gray area? Torture? Gay marriage?

Parent

Ah,I get it now (3.50 / 2) (#37)
by jbindc on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:13:16 PM EST

nd if you think Stem cell research and welfare are a tough call, then you out yourself as what Ive always known about you: youre just a republican here concern trolling.

Squeaky must be on vacation.

Yes, you're right. "Liberals" are always right. There is no gray area on any policy matter. I bow to your superior arguing skills, for if you can't answer the questions, the response is always "you must be a Republican". Clarence Darrow for sure.

Parent

Pathetic... (3.00 / 2) (#39)
by Thanin on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:22:55 PM EST

look, maybe all your views are all subjective, logic and fact free, but there are people out there that look at evidence. But please, explain the gray areas of all these subjective views, as in how is gay marriage a gray area? Equal pay?

Parent

: No response I see... (1.00 / 1) (#41)
by Thanin on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:27:54 PM EST

again, completely unsurprised.

Parent

Thats a terrible point... (none / 0) (#30)
by Thanin on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 01:30:14 PM EST

So youre saying that preventive funding shouldnt be immediate because it wouldnt be going into the correct bill? Im sure the parents of the kids who'll die from this will appreciate your procedural sensibilities.

Parent

And that is the essence of the argument. (none / 0) (#34)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:10:33 PM EST

the kids who'll die from this

indeed.

Let's say you did fund the 900MM and 10 kids die. Does that mean 20 would have died at 450MM funding? 0 at 1800MM? Who should we blame if any kids die?

How much spending is actually enough? $100 more per person than the EU? $1 more? $100 less?

How much insurance is enough to carry on your home? Do you carry earthquake ins? Tornado? Hurricane? Terrorism? Meteor? How much?

If that guy over there has $1 more ins on his home than you, does that make you feel insecure? If you spend $1 more than him, does that make you feel confident you've spent enough?

Accidents at higher speeds are more dangerous than at lower speeds, how fast do you drive? Speed limit's 55, do you drive 55? 65? 50? Take surface streets?

how much should you spend on your children's college education? 0% of your life savings? 10%? 100%?

If you only spend 30% instead of 35%, will their lives be ruined? If so, will it be your fault?

Parent

Ridiculous... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by Thanin on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:17:10 PM EST

Youre seriously equating college funds and the speed of which car accidents happen to spending preventive healthcare on an epidemic? Yeah, ok...

Parent

Fine, keep your head in the sand. (none / 0) (#43)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:29:26 PM EST

Let's say you did fund the 900MM and 10 kids die. Does that mean 20 would have died at 450MM funding? 0 at 1800MM? [If so,] Who should we blame if any kids die?
How much [preventive healthcare spending on an epidemic] is actually enough? $100 more per person than the EU? $1 more? $100 less?

How much is actually enough?

Parent

I know that zero isnt. (none / 0) (#44)
by Thanin on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:31:58 PM EST

Parent

Exactly the response I expected. (none / 0) (#48)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:37:24 PM EST

Parent

Why give more... (none / 0) (#49)
by Thanin on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:40:44 PM EST

to such an obtuse question?

Parent

So don't think. It is your prerogative. (none / 0) (#51)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:46:16 PM EST

Parent

: What would you know about thinking? (1.00 / 1) (#52)
by Thanin on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:48:18 PM EST

Parent

Some more to back you up, sarcastic (none / 0) (#97)
by jbindc on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 10:09:41 AM EST

Because apparently logic has fled around here for a couple of posters.

Link

Parent

if it is good policy I will endorse it. (5.00 / 2) (#40)
by Molly Bloom on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:25:07 PM EST

They didn't make a policy argument for or against it. They exalted form over substance.

Just like you are.

If the Repbublicans make a proposal I will either endorse it as good policy or attack it as bad policy, i will not attack it on the basis that is is part of another worthy bill and I don't think it belongs there.

If the Republican ever get around to making a proposal that is actually good policy I have no problem endorsing it. They have done so in the distant past and I am sure sometime in the distant future they will again. Given their current proclivities I don't expect them to do so anytime soon, but I would be fine with it, if they prove me wrong on that point.

Parent

"Form over Substance" (none / 0) (#42)
by jbindc on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:28:51 PM EST

Isn't that why most folks here voted for Obama?

NOW you complain about it. Ironic.

Parent

I can't speak for everyone else (5.00 / 3) (#47)
by Molly Bloom on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:35:29 PM EST

but I voted for Obama because I agreed more with his views, ideas and plans than I did McCain. A lot more. Not a close call.

Your problem seems to be your candidate lost and you aren''t happy about it. If you think the funding for pandemic preparedness was a bad idea, then argue against it on the merits. Otherwise to be blunt about it, you are just making a fool of yourself.

Parent

I did say that (1.00 / 1) (#53)
by jbindc on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:48:29 PM EST

Pandemic preparation is something that should be in regular budget bills - you know - the ones voted on every year, and should not be in emergency stimulus bills. Which is what I said - reading comprehension is a good thing, so I'm sorry to say that you are looking foolish.

And actually, my candidate was Bill Richardson, so I appreciate your (wrong headed) analysis, as usual.

Parent

Then its back to form over substance (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by Molly Bloom on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:58:06 PM EST

and my analysis is mostly correct.

You think it is a good idea, but god forbid we put in the wrong bill.

So did you vote for McCain or Obama?

Parent

Bill Richardson (none / 0) (#98)
by Salo on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 10:25:42 AM EST

Mr Needles, is a hugely stupid man.

Parent

: Yes he is (none / 0) (#99)
by jbindc on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 10:38:57 AM EST

I jumped off that train pretty quickly.

Parent

And who says PUMAs are extinct? (1.00 / 1) (#46)
by Thanin on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:33:01 PM EST

Parent

Could you tell us, broadly, (none / 0) (#45)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:32:08 PM EST

what gvt spending you don't approve of?

Parent

Is government spending per se bad? (5.00 / 3) (#50)
by Molly Bloom on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:42:38 PM EST

Off the top of my head, funding for torture...

Parent

Well, I guess that kinda explains it. (1.00 / 1) (#57)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 03:06:41 PM EST

Since, basically, absent spending on torture, all gvt spending is good spending, the process by which it gets approved to be spent is immaterial.

Parent

more form over substance. (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by Molly Bloom on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 03:19:32 PM EST

and silly as well. You asked is there any spending I objected to. I said yes and gave a single example, from that you extrapolate.

That is not debate, that is nonsensical trolling.

Parent

I actually asked (2.00 / 1) (#59)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 04:08:20 PM EST

Can you tell us, broadly, what gvt spending you don't approve of?

[my bolds] Which you answered by saying "torture." I can only read what you write, not what you think.

Regardless, you seem to be upset that Collins didn't debate the merits of the additional 900MM spending on pandemic preparedness but, rather, simply said it wasn't appropriate in that particular spending bill.

Since she's been holding hearings on exactly that, pandemic preparedness, as part of her role on the Senate Homeland Security Committee, I'm guessing she has a better idea of how to be prepared than some internet blog...

Parent

No I am pointing out that YOU (5.00 / 1) (#69)
by Molly Bloom on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 06:06:59 PM EST

are exaulting form over substance. Either this was a good idea
or it wasn't. If it was, who cares what bill it was in, if it wasn't then it shouldn't be passed at all. Collins, as I recall said it was a good idea, just not in this bill. You are taking the same tact. Form over substance.

You are doing your best to avoid this point.

Parent

Good/bad, binary thinking, never helpful. (1.00 / 1) (#71)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 06:48:11 PM EST

What if an idea is good but there are better ideas available or better ways to accomplish the idea?

Republican Sen. Susan Collins and nearly 20 of her colleagues felt the funding should go through the regular congressional appropriations process instead of being included in the stimulus bill, Collins spokesman Kevin Kelley said.

Especially since, as Collins surely was aware, and the internet blogs were/are not, the Obey money:

certainly wouldn't have made a difference in terms of the response to what's happening today

Hmm. That sounds familiar.

Parent

Still avoiding the point (5.00 / 1) (#73)
by Molly Bloom on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 07:27:07 PM EST

What if an idea is good but there are better ideas available or better ways to accomplish the idea?

If there were better ideas or better ways to accomplish the idea, they were not articulated, by Collins or by you. (side note, passing the same legislation in a different bill doesn't make it better legislation)

Your positions remain: NO! god forbid, not in this bill.

What are we left with?

Form over substance.

That Collins quote right now sounds like a prayer whistled in dark alley.

Parent

This is getting beyond silly. (5.00 / 1) (#76)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 10:06:41 PM EST

So is it any "good idea" that should just be jammed through w/o the regular congressional appropriations process? Or just this one?

Parent

Is it your contention (5.00 / 1) (#78)
by Molly Bloom on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 10:50:14 PM EST

that the pandemic funding provision would have somehow recieved more consideration buried in the budget bill?

You are right, you are beyond silly at this point. You have yet to articulated an intelligible position here. The pandemic funding would be bad in one bill, but the same legislation magically might be better in another bill.

Parent

That's certainly Collins' contention. (5.00 / 1) (#80)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:53:17 AM EST

But you knew that.

Parent

Oh, btw, (5.00 / 1) (#82)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:40:05 AM EST

February 8, 2009
With the $780 billion stimulus plan steaming toward expected passage in the Senate Tuesday[...]
He said the compromise hammered out between Senate Democrats and moderate Republicans - which has enough support to get it past any threat of a filibuster - was far better than that passed by the House on Jan. 29.
"All those little porky things that the House put in, the money for the [National] Mall or the sexually transmitted diseases or the flu pandemic, they're all out," Schumer said.

Chuck, Chuck, Chuck...

Parent

: Wake me when (none / 0) (#96)
by Molly Bloom on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 07:04:54 AM EST

you, Collins and Schumer individaully or collectively can articulate why this bill, which is conceded to be a good idea, is pork in a stimulus bill but magically transformed into anti-pork in the budget bill.
Otherwise the three of you exalt form over substance.

Parent

Oh yeah... (none / 0) (#60)
by Thanin on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 04:15:18 PM EST

pols always know best...

Parent

Oy. So pols don't always know best? (5.00 / 0) (#61)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 04:30:14 PM EST

You're not really helping the "Congressman Obey was right" argument.

Or is it that pols sometimes do know best - but only when you agree with them...

Enough of that, maybe you could show us the evidence that because Obey's 900MM got cut to 50MM the US's efforts to address this flu have been hampered.

Parent

The premise is flawed... (none / 0) (#62)
by Thanin on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 05:07:35 PM EST

when you suggest that being a senator automatically gives more weight and knowledge about an issue than someone on a blog. I suppose next you'll be saying how inhofe is the undisputed authority on global warming.

Parent

maybe you could show us the evidence (none / 0) (#63)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 05:16:34 PM EST

maybe you could show us the evidence that because Obey's 900MM got cut to 50MM the US's efforts to address this flu have been hampered.

Parent

So I have to prove to you... (none / 0) (#64)
by Thanin on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 05:23:40 PM EST

that spending 900 million dollars will provide more supplies and medical care to those in need than cutting it to 50 million would?

Parent

Prove to me that because the 900MM (none / 0) (#65)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 05:43:09 PM EST

got cut down to 50MM there is/will be a shortage of funds for those in need.

Parent

Or let me put this another way... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
by Thanin on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 05:55:23 PM EST

I'd rather spend too much and have too many supplies and too much help for those in need than have entire communities infected and dead for lack of funds.

Parent

Why gamble... (none / 0) (#66)
by Thanin on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 05:48:07 PM EST

with a near level 5 epidemic?

Parent

OK, prove that it's a gamble. (none / 0) (#68)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 05:59:59 PM EST

You've got nothing. Good night.

Parent

Why dont you prove... (2.00 / 1) (#70)
by Thanin on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 06:30:32 PM EST

that cutting the money was the right thing to do?

Oh thats right, you cant because you cant see the future. See, thats why its a gamble, because neither of us know. Its sad that that has to be spelled out to you.

Parent

Finally, you're starting to get it. (5.00 / 0) (#72)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 06:57:45 PM EST

In your opinion, the Obey money would be needed for this flu outbreak. Hey, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

However, people who have actually spent years studying this sort of thing, like the Trust for America's Health and Collins, don't agree with you.

Trust for America's Health, a nonprofit group that advocates for emergency preparedness, said officials had made progress but called on Congress to fully fund a $7.1 billion flu strategy proposed by President George W. Bush.
The group said $870 million of that sum was included in the government's fiscal 2008 budget and in the 2009 economic stimulus bill but removed in both cases before passage.
"It certainly wouldn't have made a difference in terms of the response to what's happening today, (but) it will slow down the level of preparedness that we could have at a later date," said Jeff Levi, the group's executive director.

Parent

You demand proof from others... (none / 0) (#74)
by Thanin on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 07:43:44 PM EST

yet offer only theory and opinion when asked to provide it. Thats fine, unsurprising, but fine. So the equivalent counter is what Obey believes:

Obey and other advocates for the spending argued, correctly, that a pandemic hitting in the midst of an economic downturn could turn a recession into something far worse -- with workers ordered to remain in their homes, workplaces shuttered to avoid the spread of disease, transportation systems grinding to a halt and demand for emergency services and public health interventions skyrocketing. Indeed, they suggested, pandemic preparation was essential to any responsible plan for renewing the U.S. economy

So when theres no actual proof either way, the best option is to err on the side of caution. I mean, if we can spend 850 billion dollars to kill citizens in the Middle East, I think we can fork over .1% of that to ensure our safety when theres the potential of a global epidemic.

Parent

Yes, you make a claim, (5.00 / 0) (#75)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 09:57:57 PM EST

and then you prove it.

See how that works?

Are you now claiming that Obey thinks - as you do - that because the 900MM got cut to 50MM, there will be a shortage of funds for those in need as a result of this flu?

If so, prove it.

(Hint, your quote has nothing to do with it and, trust me, Obey does not think that.)

As far as I go, I made no claims. I don't even think I gave an opinion, but then again, I'm far too lazy and bored with your lack of logic to go back and reread what I've written...

Parent

Trust me... (2.00 / 1) (#77)
by Thanin on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 10:33:39 PM EST

most people have been too lazy and bored to read what youve written. I only have because I enjoy watching others flail in failure.

Anyway, I like how you say youve made no claims not but one sentence after you make a claim. You know, the one you say "trust me, Obey doesnt think that." Now can you prove that claim, or are you just spouting BS?

As far as my own position, its the same as its always been: err on the side of caution when theres no actual proof of anything, especially when it involves the lives of people. Guess thats not a priority of yours though.

Parent

I know I know, pols don't always know what's best. (5.00 / 0) (#84)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 02:00:17 AM EST

If only they would listen to you.

[Dem. Sen.] Harkin and public-health experts, such as Thomas Inglesby of the Center for Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh, said there was no sign that stripping the funds from the stimulus had significantly slowed the preparation of pandemic-flu vaccines.
"This capacity is not there yet and would not be if we had appropriated the money," Harkin spokeswoman Kate Cyrul said in an email. "But the current outbreak reminds us that we need to be prepared."

During the stimulus debate, moderate Senate Republicans -- joined by some moderate Democrats -- negotiated the deal that blocked most of the funding for pandemic flu. Critics said the spending wouldn't stimulate the economy in the short term and didn't belong in the $787 billion spending bill, which at one point was close to $1 trillion.
People on both sides agree the money wouldn't have helped much in the current swine-flu outbreak because there wasn't time for the money to reach federal agencies.

I presume you'll jump all over the word "much" and equivocate endlessly. Well, have at it...

Parent

Heh... (none / 0) (#85)
by Thanin on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 02:08:29 AM EST

"I presume you'll jump all over the word "much" and equivocate endlessly. Well, have at it..."

Yeah its too bad when words get in the way of making flawed points. Maybe try to find quotes that dont qualify their assertions?

Parent

Sure, no qualifications: (none / 0) (#87)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 02:26:44 AM EST

[Dem. Sen.] Harkin and public-health experts, such as Thomas Inglesby of the Center for Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh, said there was no sign that stripping the funds from the stimulus had significantly slowed the preparation of pandemic-flu vaccines.
"This capacity is not there yet and would not be if we had appropriated the money," Harkin spokeswoman Kate Cyrul said in an email. "But the current outbreak reminds us that we need to be prepared."

Any more equivocations?

Parent

By the way... (5.00 / 1) (#90)
by Thanin on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 02:39:46 AM EST

you do realize that all this petty back and forth just makes us both look bad, right?

Parent

As long as some other readers (5.00 / 0) (#93)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 03:00:07 AM EST

get it that despite the criticism of Collins, the people who've spent years - careers maybe - actually studying pandemic prevention agree that the 900MM cut to 50MM will not hamper our response to this flu outbreak (something you apparently do not have the confidence to admit) I'm all good.

I have no illusions that you'll back away from your outlier position.

Parent

: Well I can respect that... (none / 0) (#95)
by Thanin on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 03:13:56 AM EST

sticking to what you think is most important even if you know you'll look like a fool, as back handed a compliment as that sounded.
But really, that argument just reminds me of things like experts claiming global warming isnt real. Just because someone has studied something a long time and is an "expert" doesnt necessarily mean theyre always right. And in a possible disaster like this, why cut funding based on the word of a bunch of fallible people?

Parent

Are you just going to keep throwing out... (none / 0) (#89)
by Thanin on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 02:36:55 AM EST

opinions or are you ever going to provide factual proof?

Parent

: Equivocate, equivocate, equivocate... (none / 0) (#92)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 02:52:43 AM EST

Parent

You have stated that (none / 0) (#81)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:26:00 AM EST

because the 900MM got cut to 50MM that the US's response to this flu will not be enough, and you've said that Obey thinks the same.

When asked to provide proof of both assertions, you've come up with nothing.

You're flailing, and failing, wildly.

Parent

This is what happens... (none / 0) (#83)
by Thanin on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:56:59 AM EST

when two people are two sides of the same coin: a lot of stupid, pointless arguing that makes them both look foolish...

Show me where I have stated that 50 million will absolutely, incontrovertibly not be enough.

Moreover, you have yet to prove that 50 million will be enough, nor have you proven Obey thinks an amount of money other than what he's asked for will be enough.

And youve got to admit that it was kind of humorous how you not only made a claim that you've yet to make a claim, but that you'd just made another claim in the previous sentence, contradicting your non-claim claim.

Parent

Oy. (5.00 / 1) (#86)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 02:24:19 AM EST

Show me where I have stated that 50 million will absolutely, incontrovertibly not be enough.

You criticized the cuts, you suggested

kids who'll die from [the cuts]

and

entire communities infected and dead for lack of funds. [because of the cuts]

I feel for you though, I'd be embarrasses if I wrote such ridiculous things too.

Moreover, you have yet to prove that 50 million will be enough, nor have you proven Obey thinks an amount of money other than what he's asked for will be enough.

Hello? I never claimed it was enough, I never made any claims about it's sufficiency at all. You've really got to read more carefully.

In my opinion, Obey is not a maroon and that he is one of those who

agree the money wouldn't have helped much in the current swine-flu outbreak because there wasn't time for the money to reach federal agencies.

Lastly,

And youve got to admit that it was kind of humorous how you not only made a claim that you've yet to make a claim, but that you'd just made another claim in the previous sentence, contradicting your non-claim claim.

You've completely lost me on this, but what I do think is humorous is that you are now backing away from your criticism of Collins. Wise choice, as the ice that criticism is standing on is getting thinner and thinner...

Parent

I never made a claim... (none / 0) (#88)
by Thanin on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 02:34:45 AM EST

stating absolutely that the cuts would be disastrous. Thats your poor reading comprehension at work (as demonstrated when you got "completely lost" reading the last paragraph).

What I have said is that they could lead to something bad and that more money would equal more supplies and more help, which you never countered.

But to be fair you have been too afraid to actually make a claim directly about the money, so let me ask, do you think the 50 million will be enough?

Parent

You really want to equivocate on this one? (none / 0) (#91)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 02:49:29 AM EST

by Thanin on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 10:30:14 AM PST
So youre saying that preventive funding shouldnt be immediate because it wouldnt be going into the correct bill? Im sure the parents of the kids who'll die from this will appreciate your procedural sensibilities.

Maybe if you'd said "If kids die from this...blah blah blah" I'd give you a "fair enough" and move on. But you didn't. Do you want to throw in some "ifs" now?

I think our country's response to this flu outbreak will not be hampered by cutting Obey's 900MM to 50MM, therefor I find nothing to criticise Collins for w/respect to this.

So, how about you? Do you now still think the cuts will leave "entire communities infected and dead for lack of funds," or not?

Parent

: So is your contention... (none / 0) (#94)
by Thanin on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 03:06:27 AM EST

that no kids will die from this?
And I didnt state in your quote that the deaths would come directly from cuts, but instead I was saying that the parents of those kids that die will blame those who took away the funding, which is exactly how I would feel if that happened to my family. The political backlash was what I was referring to here and was hoping democrats would try to avoid that. But I can see how you wouldnt have understood that, seeing all the things youve yet to understand.
So nice try, but not so much.
And beyond the politics of this my point has always been that no one 100% knows for sure what the outcome here will be, so when we're dealing with a possible worldwide contagion, err on the side of caution. And youve yet to either prove or disprove anything.

Parent

I didn't say gov't spending was bad (3.50 / 2) (#54)
by jbindc on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:53:31 PM EST

I'm all for it. But stuff like this should not be part of emergency stimulus packages - THAT'S playing politics with it. Being prepared for pandemics is not stimulative (except to the one or two drug companies that make the drug). You are not putting more doctors to work. You are not permanently hiring more nurses, you are not building more hospitals.

Parent

: Youre wrong that its not stimulus... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by Thanin on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:57:35 PM EST

Please read inclusiveheart's post, #4.

Parent

Part of the stimulus as advertised (none / 0) (#35)
by ruffian on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:12:05 PM EST

was to put money back into various projects that had been cut by the previous administration. this was one of them.

Parent

Prime Minister Susan Collins made us less safe (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 09:40:38 AM EST

But I'm sure we'll still hear more about the handshake with Hugo Chavez and Dick Cheney's indigestion of the day.

Huh, (none / 0) (#22)
by bocajeff on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 12:48:15 PM EST

My understanding is that Obama is President and he signed the bill. Pelosi is Speaker of the House and Reid is Majority Leader. Point fingers at her all you want, but she's the wrong person. Her position may be wrong, but I hold the leadership responsible.

Parent

: Exactly (none / 0) (#36)
by ruffian on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:13:03 PM EST

If Obama-Pelosi-Reid don't want to be blamed for things, they should not let them happen. This is decidedly on their watch.

Parent

A Children's Anthology of Additional Facts (none / 0) (#6)
by Addison on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 10:44:01 AM EST

The Democratically-controlled Congress slashed funding -- funding requested by President Bush and his HHS Dept -- by 90% in the 2007 omnibus bill.

Also, Collins wasn't alone, Chuck Schumer called the pandemic prevention fund, a "little porky thing."

Additionally, essentially the same money went through in March's omnibus bill.

All of this money stems from a $7.1 billion pandemic prevention program that President Bush proposed back in 2005.

I think Collins' and Schumer's opinion that pandemic prevention doesn't relate to economic recovery is wrong. I think that is obvious. That the money did go through a month later, however, is fortuitous. Anyway, there is a lot more going on in this discussion than the Nation article or Dailykos diaries are letting on.

Two facts that I think are most important: Democrats have not been stellar on this issue in the past (Obama, notably, has been good) and the money we're talking about got through, if a month late.

Good ffor George Bush (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 11:02:32 AM EST

Bad on Schumer.

Your point?

Parent

No point beyond presentation of the facts (none / 0) (#8)
by Addison on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 11:14:29 AM EST

Upon seeing the direction the conversation was taking over at Dailykos I decided to post this information. People are focusing almost exclusively on Collins and it'll backfire pretty easily if that's the target, given the origin of the funding, Schumer's comment, and past Dem Congressional action.

People deserve all the information so they don't assume that the anti-Collins Nation article or articles derived from that article are comprehensive on the subject. I anticipate the focus will be better set if people have more information rather than less.

Schumer and Collins' reasoning is pretty dumb, IMO, and additional information doesn't change that.

Parent

Excuse me (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 11:16:00 AM EST

The fundong was IN the stimulus bill. COLLINS bragged about taking it out.

BRAGGED ABOUT IT!

If Schumer wanted it out too, then he can take the heat also.

Your point is no point at all.

Parent

And of course, Schumer was not (none / 0) (#10)
by andgarden on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 11:20:15 AM EST

threatening to block the whole thing unless the funding were removed.

Parent

True! (none / 0) (#12)
by Addison on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 11:28:22 AM EST

This is true. The root cause of this cash being in March's omnibus bill instead of February's stimulus bill is because Republicans demanded it and the moderates made it so. That is not in dispute at all. Although, in light of the fact that the money did end up going through in March's omnibus bill Schumer's designation of the pandemic prevention cash as being one of a number of "little porky things" is certainly unhelpful. I'm still a little unclear on why he chose that language or lumped the pandemic prevention funding in with, for instance, the National Mall renovations.

Parent

What, you think renovation (none / 0) (#13)
by andgarden on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 11:32:16 AM EST

of the National Mall is not a worthy project? I can think of little that would be better suited to a stimulus program.

Parent

: I actually agree with that! (none / 0) (#14)
by Addison on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 11:37:15 AM EST

I actually can think of some better stimulus programs but in fact I argued at the time that renovation of the National Mall was perfectly well suited to be an economic stimulus bit.
That said, it is still sort of pork in that it provides funding to a certain district (albeit an unrepresented one, probably why the funding got cut in the first place). However, I am not against "pork," though, at all. I like a lot of it.
Pandemic prevention funding seems to me to be in a different (more systemic) category. I don't know why Schumer would put this funding in that category, as rhetorically damaging as it is in the wider media context. That is what confused me.

Parent

Yes... (none / 0) (#11)
by Addison on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 11:23:13 AM EST

...as I noted no amount of information about the subject makes Collins' or Schumer's reasoning -- that (a) the money was part of an economic stimulus package or (b) that the money was "porky" -- make any more sense whatsoever. Their arguments for taking the money out (and bragging as Collins did or being dismissive of the funding as Schumer was) are still dumb and objectionable.

The attention can remain on those two -- and anyone else whom we can unearth statements for -- but obviously the more information people have the more narrow focus of they can be in exactly why these people were wrong in what they did, what the history is of this funding, and what the consequences were. More information will make for a better argument for people watching this situation and one less prone to overreaching statements.

Parent

What we need are... (none / 0) (#16)
by desertswine on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 12:04:15 PM EST

trainloads of Tamiflu. Where's Rumsfeld and CSX when you need them? There are fortunes to be made.

For reasons I'll leave unexplained... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Addison on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 01:01:35 PM EST

...I have a box (5 pills) of Tamiflu. TO EBAY & RICHES!

Parent

Wait, it's 10 pills... (none / 0) (#25)
by Addison on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 01:04:38 PM EST

...in a box.

Parent

I would hold on to them if I was you (none / 0) (#27)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 01:11:47 PM EST

just in case people start having strange dreams about an old black woman or a weird guy with red eyes and a disarming laugh.

Parent

Eh... (none / 0) (#28)
by Addison on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 01:26:17 PM EST

...I'm pretty sure that my pills have been thoroughly degraded via longterm exposure to high heat (though they aren't expired yet, which I had assumed they were).

And, in any case my general plan is to avoid contracting swine flu, and if I get it to just take it easy, and if a "cytokine storm" starts up to start drinking heavily to supress my immune system.

But hey, I'm not a doctor, I don't know if that "plan" will work.

Parent

: in a couple of weeks (none / 0) (#29)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 01:28:01 PM EST

you may still be able to sell them for enough to pay off your house.

Parent

"Moderates" Cut Spending On Pandemic Flu Preparedness | 100 comments (100 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment