OT: Congressional Vaccine Hogs- DeLay First in Line

[Fred Bloggs]

Tom Seim wrote:

Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<417AFB41.3030309@nospam.com>...

Tom Seim wrote:

Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<417AA2B8.6000806@nospam.com>...


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6308203/


Gee, I see some Dems on that list. Nothing like being fair and
balanced fredfraud:

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D.-Calif., come on down!

"Sen. Barbara Boxer, 63, also got a flu shot, her spokeswoman said.
Boxer is on a campaign bus tour outside of Bakersfield and not
available for comment."

She's not the only Dem there, but look at her age. You can't get away
from seeing all the "me first" male Republican pigs on the list. I
wonder how many old people will die this winter because of DeLay's
monstrous selfishness.


Kerry criticized Cheney for getting a flu shot. Now, not only is
Cheney Boxer's age, but, more importantly, he is a heart patient.

More Dem hypocrisy.

Cheney has been a heart patient for the past 30 years. There will be
people with much more serious conditions who are deprived of a flu shot
because of Cheney. There was a time when good leaders would go last.
Cheney is not a leader- he is a criminal and as such puts himself above
every other consideration.

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <JD%ed.18385$nj.14210@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
Clarence <no@No.com> wrote:

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:clht00$58a$2@blue.rahul.net...
In article <7_Wed.34275$QJ3.7284@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
Clarence <no@No.com> wrote:

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:clhbph$ndu$5@blue.rahul.net...
In article <6KVed.34240$QJ3.603@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
[...]
You said none, but clearly you don't know. "I did not buy the vaccine for
Canada" So You are relying on a third party for the information. So it is
Hearsay. Not reliable.

It was reported in several places including G. W. Bush, NPR and CBC news.
Unless you have some contrary evidence, I'll stand by my statement.

The US does not have system for tracking vaccine that has been bought by
the various government branches and hospitals etc. There was 6.4M doses
purchased, delivered and not yet used. They managed to track the
purchases to who had bought it and asked them if they have remaining
stocks.

Wrong again! Drugs in the us are tracked to the manufacturer and the batch
numbers.

Site please.

Go back and re-read what I said. What you claim does not contradict my
statement. What in what I said are you claiming is wrong? My statement,
I thought, was quite clear. There is no system to track the purchases.

You correctly point out that you can trace from the drug back to the
maker. This is a far different thing than tracing drug purchases by the
various institutions.



I didn't say it was wrong, just not the answer to the implied question.

What "implied question" are you suggesting I didn't answer?

I answered the question about Canada's supply not being the rejected
product, even though the answer to that question was obvious.

I also answered the question as to how 8.6M doses were "found". I
explained the meaning of "found" in this case.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <KD%ed.18386$nj.17125@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
Clarence <no@No.com> wrote:
[...]

I agree, and do not think that the Canadians should be able to buy drugs for
less than American citizens. Under any circumstance whatever!

Why not? Don't you think that drug companies should be allowed to sell
drugs for whatever the going price is?

Although there is some question about whether any of them are safe, and no one
seems to know anything about it.

There is as much of a question about whether any US drugs are safe. You
don't know that they are aren't, do you?
--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Clarence wrote:

"xray" <notreally@hotmail.invalid> wrote in message
news:jk3pn0lu0doeidb1sf4trur54e0uqsljc4@4ax.com...

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 04:51:54 GMT, "Clarence" <no@No.com> wrote:


snip

Hey, I replied to some of your useless crap, so don't feel bad about the
temptation, just fight it.

No one seems to want to hear from you anyway.

I enjoy xray's posts- he is an ex-grunt and worthy of respect- he has
mine. You on the other hand are some kind of defective idiot who was
beaten too much by his parents for wetting his pants- with that
undersized penis. You are a despicable little wimp who should be off'ed.

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 15:14:52 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

Right- and this winter will be colder than usual and with record high
heating oil and natural gas prices

A data point comes from my "oil man" when he dropped by, today. My cost of
heating oil (#2 kerosene) was $1.99/gal for a purchase of 250 gallons. While he
was pumping it, he mentioned that he also sells gasoline for cars to commercial
outfits in similar quantities and that it is selling (by way of comparison) for
about $1.94/gal, but that this includes the 48+ cents per gallon of "road tax,"
so the actual price they are getting for it is $1.45/gal, with the extra going
to the state and feds. He has no idea why such a difference in price, except
perhaps for some games being played right now. His boss, who does all the fuel
purchasing and watches the spot markets trying to strategize a little about when
to buy, hasn't seen this kind of strange differential, either. Neither of them
know what is going on, right now. (His boss owns the small business and just
three trucks and a couple of smallish reverse tanks, so they aren't "big
business" around here -- just a small company with a few employees.)

I don't know, either, but figured I'd toss this out.

Jon

 

[Julie]

Fred Bloggs wrote:

The US has been screwing up vaccine production for too many years now.
Shortage is something we have come to expect. Last year the vaccine was
worthless because it was for the wrong strain- they knew this
beforehand, but when problems developed in producing that vaccine, it
was also canned and they just re-ordered the vaccine from the previous
year- hence the epidemics in the western states. So those vaccines were
little more than placebo- no real scientific difference between that and
this year with no vaccine period. This mismanagement of the influenza
vaccine is not an isolated incident- it is an example of the rule that
you can't expect much from the government- and to think that so many
sorry-assed ignorant swine, especially the Bush supporters, think that
anything will be different with a much bigger mess called Dept Homeland
Security- that is the biggest laugh going these days!

I just searched through the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and subsequent
Amendments, and found nothing relating to government providing vaccination,
regardless of which administration is in power.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Julie wrote:

Fred Bloggs wrote:

The US has been screwing up vaccine production for too many years now.
Shortage is something we have come to expect. Last year the vaccine was
worthless because it was for the wrong strain- they knew this
beforehand, but when problems developed in producing that vaccine, it
was also canned and they just re-ordered the vaccine from the previous
year- hence the epidemics in the western states. So those vaccines were
little more than placebo- no real scientific difference between that and
this year with no vaccine period. This mismanagement of the influenza
vaccine is not an isolated incident- it is an example of the rule that
you can't expect much from the government- and to think that so many
sorry-assed ignorant swine, especially the Bush supporters, think that
anything will be different with a much bigger mess called Dept Homeland
Security- that is the biggest laugh going these days!


I just searched through the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and subsequent
Amendments, and found nothing relating to government providing vaccination,
regardless of which administration is in power.

Hmm- so much for your research skills. So Madison did not explicitly use
the word "vaccine" and you conclude it is a non-provision? Try thinking
about the term "general welfare" and one of the fundamental purposes of
establishing a Federal government being to provide same.

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <cdbqn0h6dl0025tmp9kvptto52a7as5um3@4ax.com>,
Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:48:46 +0000 (UTC), the renowned
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <KD%ed.18386$nj.17125@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
Clarence <no@No.com> wrote:
[...]
I agree, and do not think that the Canadians should be able to buy drugs for
less than American citizens. Under any circumstance whatever!


Why not? Don't you think that drug companies should be allowed to sell
drugs for whatever the going price is?

Dumping drugs at cut-rate prices (but well above marginal cost)

I thought "dumping" meant selling below cost to drive the other domestic
producers out of business. If they are selling above marginal (I assume
you mean the same as "incremental") cost is not dumping as I know it.

in
foreign markets is probably in the drug companies' medium-term
interests- it kills off the competition.

It also makes them a profit so it is at least partly in their short term
interest. If they had the choice between selling at the lower cost and
not selling, it would definately be the way for them to go.

Pharmaceuticals are not that
hard to make- there are >70 companies within a half-hour bike ride of
me.

It is the patent that holds the price high. Some countries have suggested
that drug patents run for a shorter time.



--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 02:30:30 +0000 (UTC), the renowned
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <cdbqn0h6dl0025tmp9kvptto52a7as5um3@4ax.com>,
Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:48:46 +0000 (UTC), the renowned
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <KD%ed.18386$nj.17125@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
Clarence <no@No.com> wrote:
[...]
I agree, and do not think that the Canadians should be able to buy drugs for
less than American citizens. Under any circumstance whatever!


Why not? Don't you think that drug companies should be allowed to sell
drugs for whatever the going price is?

Dumping drugs at cut-rate prices (but well above marginal cost)

I thought "dumping" meant selling below cost to drive the other domestic
producers out of business. If they are selling above marginal (I assume
you mean the same as "incremental") cost is not dumping as I know it.

Dumping is selling abroad below the market price in the home market OR
selling below production cost (two different definitions). In the
first case, it certainly can be above the
variable/marginal/incremental cost.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&as_qdr=all&oi=defmore&q=defineumping

in
foreign markets is probably in the drug companies' medium-term
interests- it kills off the competition.

It also makes them a profit so it is at least partly in their short term
interest. If they had the choice between selling at the lower cost and
not selling, it would definately be the way for them to go.


Pharmaceuticals are not that
hard to make- there are >70 companies within a half-hour bike ride of
me.

It is the patent that holds the price high. Some countries have suggested
that drug patents run for a shorter time.

Patent length is negotiable. As is the time starts from (the actual
invention or when it is approved). AFAIUI, in developing countries the
drug companies trade local investment $$ for favorable patent
protection.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[Rich Grise]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 02:30:30 +0000, Ken Smith wrote:

I thought "dumping" meant selling below cost to drive the other domestic
producers out of business. If they are selling above marginal (I assume
you mean the same as "incremental") cost is not dumping as I know it.

All dumping is in the mind of the self-perceived dumpee. It means whatever
they declare it to mean, to swindle voters with. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Julie]

Fred Bloggs wrote:

Julie wrote:
Fred Bloggs wrote:

The US has been screwing up vaccine production for too many years now.
Shortage is something we have come to expect. Last year the vaccine was
worthless because it was for the wrong strain- they knew this
beforehand, but when problems developed in producing that vaccine, it
was also canned and they just re-ordered the vaccine from the previous
year- hence the epidemics in the western states. So those vaccines were
little more than placebo- no real scientific difference between that and
this year with no vaccine period. This mismanagement of the influenza
vaccine is not an isolated incident- it is an example of the rule that
you can't expect much from the government- and to think that so many
sorry-assed ignorant swine, especially the Bush supporters, think that
anything will be different with a much bigger mess called Dept Homeland
Security- that is the biggest laugh going these days!


I just searched through the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and subsequent
Amendments, and found nothing relating to government providing vaccination,
regardless of which administration is in power.

Hmm- so much for your research skills. So Madison did not explicitly use
the word "vaccine" and you conclude it is a non-provision? Try thinking
about the term "general welfare" and one of the fundamental purposes of
establishing a Federal government being to provide same.

Ok, so "Federal government" provides "general welfare" -- I can agree w/ that.
So, the vaccine 'failure' is a problem of the Federal government (_all_
applicable branches, departments, etc., and not just limited to a particular
party or administration).

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Rich Grise wrote:
[...snipped usual display of ignorance...]

The controlling authority is Helvering v. Davis (1937), a case deciding
the Constitutionality of the Social Security Act of 1935, wherein one of
the greatest jurists in American history, Justice Benjamin Cardozo, held
that "Nor is the concept of the general welfare static.... What is
critical or urgent changes with the times."

But dohntcha ya'll pahyuh eny atentshun to heee-im, yall juz goh on an'
reed tha' their dokumnt eny ol wahye yall wann-oo.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 06:55:51 -0700, Julie wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:08:59 -0700, Julie wrote:
[a response to Fred]
Remember, it's the communists that want government to "provide"
stuff.

Don't complain to me about the terms, talk to Fred. I'm just using his
terminology.

OOpps. Sorry for the misattribution.

I will pay better attention from now on.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Fred Bloggs]

John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:38:59 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote:



Tom Seim wrote:

Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<417AFB41.3030309@nospam.com>...


Tom Seim wrote:


Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<417AA2B8.6000806@nospam.com>...



http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6308203/


Gee, I see some Dems on that list. Nothing like being fair and
balanced fredfraud:

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D.-Calif., come on down!

"Sen. Barbara Boxer, 63, also got a flu shot, her spokeswoman said.
Boxer is on a campaign bus tour outside of Bakersfield and not
available for comment."

She's not the only Dem there, but look at her age. You can't get away

from seeing all the "me first" male Republican pigs on the list. I

wonder how many old people will die this winter because of DeLay's
monstrous selfishness.


Kerry criticized Cheney for getting a flu shot. Now, not only is
Cheney Boxer's age, but, more importantly, he is a heart patient.

More Dem hypocrisy.

Cheney has been a heart patient for the past 30 years. There will be
people with much more serious conditions who are deprived of a flu shot
because of Cheney. There was a time when good leaders would go last.
Cheney is not a leader- he is a criminal and as such puts himself above
every other consideration.



Bill Clinton just got a flu shot, too.

John

Right- he is still on an immunosupressive regimen of drugs from his
heart surgery- so it is an absolute necessity for him. He is an
incredibly courageous and dedicated man to be making the campaign
circuit for Kerry- a truly great American. The same could be said for
Jimmy Carter- rather sprightly for an octogenarian wouldn't you say- now
he should receive vaccine too.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:38:59 +0000, Fred Bloggs wrote:

Cheney has been a heart patient for the past 30 years.

So, you're saying it's really true! Heartlessness really does manifest
in the physical realm!

I stand exonerated.

Thanks!
Rich

 

[Julie]

Rich Grise wrote:

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:08:59 -0700, Julie wrote:

Fred Bloggs wrote:

Julie wrote:
Fred Bloggs wrote:

The US has been screwing up vaccine production for too many years now.
Shortage is something we have come to expect. Last year the vaccine was
worthless because it was for the wrong strain- they knew this
beforehand, but when problems developed in producing that vaccine, it
was also canned and they just re-ordered the vaccine from the previous
year- hence the epidemics in the western states. So those vaccines were
little more than placebo- no real scientific difference between that and
this year with no vaccine period. This mismanagement of the influenza
vaccine is not an isolated incident- it is an example of the rule that
you can't expect much from the government- and to think that so many
sorry-assed ignorant swine, especially the Bush supporters, think that
anything will be different with a much bigger mess called Dept Homeland
Security- that is the biggest laugh going these days!


I just searched through the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and subsequent
Amendments, and found nothing relating to government providing vaccination,
regardless of which administration is in power.

Hmm- so much for your research skills. So Madison did not explicitly use
the word "vaccine" and you conclude it is a non-provision? Try thinking
about the term "general welfare" and one of the fundamental purposes of
establishing a Federal government being to provide same.

Ok, so "Federal government" provides "general welfare" -- I can agree w/ that.
So, the vaccine 'failure' is a problem of the Federal government (_all_
applicable branches, departments, etc., and not just limited to a particular
party or administration).

Maybe look up "Promote the general welfare"

and look up, in any ordinary dictionary, the word "promote"

and look up, in any ordinary dictionary, the word "provide".

They're not the same, you know.

Remember, it's the communists that want government to "provide"
stuff.

Don't complain to me about the terms, talk to Fred. I'm just using his
terminology.