No Flu Shot For You!! Healthcare Ruined By Lawyers.

That article is interesting but how does it explain the flu vaccine problem? Are pharmaceutical companies being sued?

BTW, RfromP was quoting your original post on this thread.

If Clinton hadn't kept the vaccine companies from making money there would be more companies making the flu shots. Why do democrats hate the free market so much, especially when they make money off of it. I guess it is ok till they have made theirs then they don't want anyone to make money. Shut down the market and hamstring everyone else. Good thing they fail most of the time.

Lets not forget to thank Bill Clinton for the current loss of jobs to over seas companies. Lets thank NAFTA and the trade agreement with China.

Lawyers my backside. The truth is that there is very little profit in it. In addition there is no guaranteed market. In years when the strain is virulent all of the product will be sold in other years the manufacturers will be stuck with a vaccine. A vaccine that is useless since the strain changes every year.
It has been suggested government set the number of doses to be prepared and pay for those if any that are unsold.

I posted this on another thread. However, I noted someone mentioned Clinton and outsourcing.


BUSH MISLEADS ON FLU VACCINE

President Bush has tried to avoid any responsibility for the flu vaccine shortage by making misleading statements. During the presidential debate last Wednesday, President Bush said the problem was that "we relied upon a company out of England."[1] That isn't true. Chiron Corp., the company whose vaccine plant was contaminated, is a California company - subject to regulation by the U.S. government - that operates a factory in England.[2]

During the debate, President Bush also said, "we took the right action and didn't allow contaminated medicine into our country."[3] That isn't true either. It was the British authorities who, after inspecting the plant, revoked the factory's license on October 5th.[4]

In June 2003, the United States Food and Drug Administration inspected the Chiron plant.[5] Initially, the FDA found that the plant was contaminated with bacteria but later announced, "the problems were corrected to their satisfaction," and allowed the plant to continue to operate.[6]

Sources:

1. "Transcript of Debate Between Bush and Kerry, With Domestic Policy the Topic," New York Times, 10/13/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=63315.
2. "Both candidates stretched facts on key issues," Philadelphia Inquirer, 10/14/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=63316.
3. "Transcript of Debate Between Bush and Kerry, With Domestic Policy the Topic," New York Times, 10/13/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=63315.
4. "With Few Suppliers of Flu Shots, Shortage Was Long in Making," New York Times, 10/17/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=63317.
5. Ibid., http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=63317 .
6. Ibid., http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=63317 .

Oops duplicate post.

Re: No Flu Shot For You!! Healthcare Ruined By Lawyers.

Where did I say all lawyers from the "Lawyer's Lobby" were Democrats? Where did I say the problem was all Democrat's faults? And, I suggested you all vote for Bush...? I said none of that.

RfromP just assumed it, or fabricated it.

Re: No Flu Shot For You!! Healthcare Ruined By Lawyers.


You didn't have to say it. Why else would you post this with no facts to
I didn't have to assume because it speaks for itself.

Re: No Flu Shot For You!! Healthcare Ruined By Lawyers.
RfromP--

You jumped to some simplistic, inane conclusions. You say lawsuits have no effect on healthcare costs, and the current refusal of pharms to produce vaccines?

Re: No Flu Shot For You!! Healthcare Ruined By Lawyers.


I made no such conclusions. It seems you're the one jumping to simplistic, inane conclusuions. If I did I would have posted the facts to back any such assertion.

Healthcare » In the Media
What ails John Kerry's drug plan?, AIMS in the Globe
Globe & Mail
Dated: 14/10/04
What ails John Kerry's drug plan?
Brian Ferguson

In Florida, Democratic presidential candidate Senator John Kerry, recently denounced the Bush administration for not permitting the re-importation of pharmaceuticals from Canada, so that seniors, many of whom are Florida swing voters, could get cheaper drugs.

So does this mean Mr. Kerry, formerly a protectionist, has become a free trader? Will he allow Americans to import other goods at world prices when those prices are below US prices? Canadian softwood lumber, maybe?

Dream on. Despite the fact free trade in lumber would reduce the cost of rebuilding the homes owned by hurricane-devastated Florida voters, Mr. Kerry is too dependent on the protectionist wing of the Democratic Party, and too hungry for votes in swing states which blame their economic decline on unfair foreign competition.

Hypocrisy aside, does the senator seriously believe Canada's tiny domestic production industry could supply the American market? There are some firms producing drugs here, of course, but surely he knows the bulk of our prescription drugs come from the same US-owned Puerto Rican factories that supply most of the American market. Why does he think it's called "re-importation"?

Perhaps it's all part of a new "Kerry Doctrine" where American policy is subjected to international tests. France will decide when the United States may go to war (British support apparently not counting) and Canada will decide what Americans pay for pharmaceuticals. But does he really believe drugs would remain cheap if large-scale re-importation were permitted? They do now only because the trade has been tiny relative to the U.S. market. Large scale re-importation would require a different distribution system, causing cross-border price differentials essentially to disappear.There's another reason, though, that hasn't got the attention it deserves. Lawsuits.

The U.S. is a litigious society; American juries are prone to making massive awards to people who do things like spilling McDonald's coffee on themselves. What many don't realize, though, is the impact lawsuits have had on the U.S. pharmaceuticals market. For example, lawsuits against makers of childhood vaccines drove most suppliers out of the market, with the result that the vaccine supply there is precarious. According to one published study, between 1982 and 1986 the price of DPT vaccine rose from $0.11 a dose to $11.00 a dose; over 70% of the increase was for an insurance reserve. And according to a 1997 study, published in the Journal of Law and Economics, fully half the price difference between Canadian and U.S. drugs can be explained by the need to set aside reserves against litigation awards.

Canadian firms would not be immune; where millions of dollars are involved, lawyers will find a way. Large scale re-importation from Canada would require some business presence in the U.S., and that would be vulnerable to American juries. Or they could simply make the U.S. parent companies pay on the grounds something bad had probably happened when these drugs crossed into Canada. We are, after all, the country they blame for introducing mad cow disease into their food supply, and most of these drugs would have crossed the Canadian border twice on the round-trip to US consumers.

Worryingly for candidate Kerry, his running mate, Senator John Edwards, made his fortune suing doctors. He convinced juries many children with cerebral palsy would have been born healthy if only they had been delivered by C-section, despite the absence of any medical evidence supporting his argument. When it comes to U.S. health care costs, Mr. Edwards is part of the problem.

If Mr. Kerry truly believes the Canadian approach to drug pricing is the best way to bring U.S. drug prices down, he should do two things. First, he should announce a Kerry administration would impose serious tort law reform.

Second, if, like so many people, Mr. Kerry really believes price controls keep drug prices down, he should simply announce his administration would impose made-in-USA ceilings on prescription drug prices. But then he'd have to take full responsibility for the declines in investment, innovation and employment in the biopharmaceutical sector that are the documented outcome of such policies. Politically how much better to support the apparently innocuous practice of trying to import price controls via the back door from Canada, even if a moment's thought would reveal to the senator the vacuousness of this "solution".
John Kerry may or may not be fit to command, but he's certainly doesn't seem fit to run a corner drug store.

Prof. Brian Ferguson, a health care economist at the University of Guelph, is preparing a paper on the economics of drug policy for AIMS.
---------
This is one of about 125,000 choices. Google Kerry blame lawsuits healthcare vaccine. Its so widespread, I thought you were aware.

Lash, that's fine to cut & paste a story from an author that supports your position to prove your point. I could find plenty of articles to support another position. The bottom line is that Bush has been in office for almost four years and could not see this coming? If so, what did he do to prevent it? That's where I'm coming from. Bashing Kerry isn't a solution.

Wouldn't this be a legislative issue and not an executive one?

When the same party controls everything, there's hardly a difference anymore....

Cycloptichorn

Sure there is, especially when you're trying to throw blame around.

O.k., we can look at it from that angle too. Well if what Lash says is true



then why hasn't this been fixed by the GOP controlled Congress?

Because they all have healthcare, so they don't really see there being a problem at all.

They also own stock in pharmacutical companies, so they really don't see there being a problem there at all.

Cycloptichorn

That's a fine narrow-minded response there, Cycloptichorn.

Remember that those guys in congress all have constituents that elect them, many of whom do not have insurance and they have a good lobbby. If they fail to do their jobs, they will not be re-elected.

Here in NYS, I am hoping for a complete elimination of the current house as every seat is up this year. No incumbant shall get my vote in local races this time around.

What?

Since when does a senator failing to do his job keep him from being re-elected?

Hell, our president has failed to do his job (opinion, I know) and HE may get re-elected, why wouldn't a senator?

Cycloptichorn

McG
Let's not be naive you know as well as I that as a president whose party controls both houses of congress. Bush can get almost any legislation he wants passed through congress. You seem to think that any success that is achieved by government [I have yet to see any] would be attributable to Bush and any failure is someone else's fault. I understand Bush can do no wrong. He speaks to God and is omnipotent.

Victory at Hand for GOP Tort Reform?
Posted Jan. 28, 2004
By Christopher Whalen

There are few issues that generate as much political heat in Washington as tort reform, both pro and con, and equally few on which so little progress occurs year after year. During 2003 the Republican leadership promised action on several proposals, including legislation to limit medical-malpractice claims, curb the authority of state courts to hear class-action lawsuits, and negotiate a national settlement to billions of dollars in asbestos claims. None of this was passed.

The Senate also failed to act to overcome a threatened Democratic filibuster of a House-passed measure to limit liability of gun manufacturers and dealers for misuse of firearms by criminals. With strong backing from the White House, Senate Republicans came within one vote of the necessary 60 needed to overcome Democratic threats to filibuster the Class Action Fairness Act (S 1751) in October. But Senate Democrats, said by critics to be in thrall to the trial lawyers and big labor, blocked both initiatives. A similar effort to conclude a national settlement of asbestos claims was blocked by big labor in the waning days of 2003.

Since none of these proposals moved through Congress last year, there has been considerable doubt among their advocates that any progress would be made during 2004, an election year. But reports of a bipartisan compromise fashioned by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) on class-action lawsuits may have put tort reform at the top of the Republican list. Indeed, the Bush White House wants to make tort reform a top "achievement" to boost its 2004 fund-raising efforts.

According to Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security, legislation on class-action lawsuits and the national asbestos settlement have a good chance of passage before the 2004 election-year frenzy begins.

But Kyl says the issue of reforming medical malpractice lawsuits remains problematic. "We believe that there are now sufficient votes to pass the class-action-lawsuit legislation," he told Insight before Christmas, referring to a bill that would limit the amount of damages paid in such lawsuits and make it harder for plaintiffs to forum shop for favorable judges. "The Class Action Fairness Act would protect the legal rights of all citizens while ensuring that court awards and settlements go to those who are wrongfully injured rather than to a few wealthy trial lawyers," said a White House insider after the 59-39 Senate vote on Oct. 22, 2003.

Democrats and their supporters generally are opposed to tort reform - with a few key exceptions. The Wall Street Journal reported in November that Senate Democrats Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, and Charles Schumer of New York wrote to Frist saying that "there is no reason" the bill cannot be revived. Landrieu's had been the holdout vote that prevented passage last October.
-------
Democrats are the ones stopping tort reform.