Peter Posted October 14, 2004 Posted October 14, 2004 I tried to find a place where I could get a flu shot. Right now, unless you are in a high risk group, you cannot get one. I wanted to get one to obviously avoid getting the flu, but also so that I do not give the flu to my 2 year old son. We also are trying to find a place where he can get a shot, but his doctor said that she is only giving them to "high risk" kids and he will have to wait. Given that the government is apparently rationing flu shots, aren't we engaging in some aspects of socialized medicine? I am not saying that I deserve the shot more than a 70 year old person with a heart condition. I am just making the observation. More fundamentally, how is it that we have allowed a shortage of flu shots. It seems like every couple of years there is a shortage. This year is more severe than others. Yet, it is a no brainer for people to get flu shots and we should never be in a position where we allow this to happen again. Just my two cents.
nobody Posted October 14, 2004 Posted October 14, 2004 Plain and simple the shortage happened because the British company that supplies 50 million vaccines for the US had contamination problems at their factory and had to destroy all the vaccines. There are 2 companies that provide nearly all of the vaccines to the US so half the supply was wiped out. There is little profit in these flu vaccines - the only way to make money is by volume. What the government could do is require all drug companies that make vaccines sold in the US to make a set number of flu vaccines. Something like give them X number of years more on patents for their profit making drugs to pay for the flu vaccines.
Gavin in Va Beach Posted October 14, 2004 Posted October 14, 2004 I am not saying that I deserve the shot more than a 70 year old person with a heart condition. I am just making the observation. 69734[/snapback] The cold, stark reality of the thing is that you DO deserve the shot more than a 70 year old person with a heart condition. You are young and working hard and paying taxes into the System. The System counts on many more years of productivity from you. The 70 year old with the heart condition is most likely retired and withdrawing from the System. While he probably paid into the System all his life, with inflation and the rising costs of healthcare, if he hasn't taken more from the Sytem than he put in he soon will.
MichFan Posted October 14, 2004 Posted October 14, 2004 Given that the government is apparently rationing flu shots, aren't we engaging in some aspects of socialized medicine? To think it is a shock to us but accepted practice across Canada and Western Europe. And this is where John Kerry wants to lead us.
DC Tom Posted October 14, 2004 Posted October 14, 2004 I tried to find a place where I could get a flu shot. Right now, unless you are in a high risk group, you cannot get one. I wanted to get one to obviously avoid getting the flu, but also so that I do not give the flu to my 2 year old son. We also are trying to find a place where he can get a shot, but his doctor said that she is only giving them to "high risk" kids and he will have to wait. Given that the government is apparently rationing flu shots, aren't we engaging in some aspects of socialized medicine? I am not saying that I deserve the shot more than a 70 year old person with a heart condition. I am just making the observation. More fundamentally, how is it that we have allowed a shortage of flu shots. It seems like every couple of years there is a shortage. This year is more severe than others. Yet, it is a no brainer for people to get flu shots and we should never be in a position where we allow this to happen again. Just my two cents. 69734[/snapback] The fact is that it (vaccinations in general, really) is a public health issue...which is socialized medicine. And very necessary. The point of vaccinations isn't to make sure individuals don't get sick...it's to make sure epidemics don't burn through the population as a whole. So it's socialized medicine. So what? It actually makes sense (unlike "universal" health care), and does some good (again, unlike "universal" health care).
KD in CA Posted October 14, 2004 Posted October 14, 2004 Plain and simple the shortage happened because the British company that supplies 50 million vaccines for the US had contamination problems at their factory and had to destroy all the vaccines. There are 2 companies that provide nearly all of the vaccines to the US so half the supply was wiped out. There is little profit in these flu vaccines - the only way to make money is by volume. What the government could do is require all drug companies that make vaccines sold in the US to make a set number of flu vaccines. Something like give them X number of years more on patents for their profit making drugs to pay for the flu vaccines. 69755[/snapback] Or, they could tell the John Edwards types of the world that no, you can't sue the drug company for a billion dollars if one person out of 100 million dies after getting a flu shot. If that were the case, more drug companies might be interested in entering this line of business. But lawsuits "only account for 1% of total HC costs", so never mind.
nobody Posted October 14, 2004 Posted October 14, 2004 You know what else is amusing - in the US you can buy a drug that is made in England but you can't buy a drug made in the US if you try to buy it in Canada.
Rubes Posted October 14, 2004 Posted October 14, 2004 The fact is that it (vaccinations in general, really) is a public health issue...which is socialized medicine. And very necessary. The point of vaccinations isn't to make sure individuals don't get sick...it's to make sure epidemics don't burn through the population as a whole. So it's socialized medicine. So what? It actually makes sense (unlike "universal" health care), and does some good (again, unlike "universal" health care). 69808[/snapback] Finally, some words that actually make sense.
BillsFanNC Posted October 14, 2004 Posted October 14, 2004 The manufacturing process for influenza vaccine is complex, labor intensive and strictly regulated. I believe the two manufacturers are currently looking into using a cell fermenter type application for propogating the virus strains instead of the currently used chiken egg approach which would likely simplify things substantially.
nobody Posted October 14, 2004 Posted October 14, 2004 The manufacturing process for influenza vaccine is complex, labor intensive and strictly regulated. If you can cut the cost of producing the vaccine then profits rise and other drug companies will perhaps decide to produce them as well.
Peter Posted October 14, 2004 Author Posted October 14, 2004 The flu shot is one of those things that should be a no brainer any way you look at it. Some companies have been smart enough to provide flu shots to their employees for free. They realize that it is a lot less costly to pay for the flu shot than to sustain the lost production. As far as I know, there is no price regulation with respect to flu shots. The market dictates (or should dictate the price). If the price were to go up, I think that people would pay for it. Indeed, health insurers also should see the wisdom of providing the shot to people. As they say, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
nobody Posted October 14, 2004 Posted October 14, 2004 As far as I know, there is no price regulation with respect to flu shots. The market dictates (or should dictate the price). I agree except you have to hate to see price gouging going on when it comes to people's health.
DC Tom Posted October 14, 2004 Posted October 14, 2004 If you can cut the cost of producing the vaccine then profits rise and other drug companies will perhaps decide to produce them as well. 69967[/snapback] Better yet, cut the cost of liability. The actual manufacturing costs are low (it's old, old technology for the most part. Eggs-and-incubators type stuff)...but the margins are too thin for the risk (which is mainly the risk of doing anything in a litiginous society) to be worthwhile. Again, people...1976-77. Federal Swine Flu vaccination program. Guillian-Barre syndrome. Look it up.
nobody Posted October 14, 2004 Posted October 14, 2004 Better yet, cut the cost of liability. Try blowing another note on that horn sometimes.
Peter Posted October 14, 2004 Author Posted October 14, 2004 Bush and some of you other guys love blaming everything on lawyers. Without lawyers, Bush would not even be President. Also, if a doctor or drug manufacturer screws up, are you saying that they should not be responsible for their actions?
stuckincincy Posted October 14, 2004 Posted October 14, 2004 The flu shot is one of those things that should be a no brainer any way you look at it. Some companies have been smart enough to provide flu shots to their employees for free. They realize that it is a lot less costly to pay for the flu shot than to sustain the lost production. As far as I know, there is no price regulation with respect to flu shots. The market dictates (or should dictate the price). If the price were to go up, I think that people would pay for it. Indeed, health insurers also should see the wisdom of providing the shot to people. As they say, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." 69980[/snapback] Then, since there are small risks, you would agree to hold domestic harmless against all litigation? Why would I, were I a manufacturer, want to sell in the US? Very few overseas manufacturer do. I disagree with your contention that employers should provide vaccination for free...you might be surprised at how many people with a nice plan and a pittance of a co-pay show up at emergency rooms for "free" treatment. One problem is that folks think that medical coverage pays for all. If your auto insurance covered oil changes, what do you think that policy would cost you? Visit a hospital ER some day..half are people that want free care - including folks that could afford same but don't want to pay, many are Medicaid (BTW, my morning n'paper had a syndicated article that pointed out that Medicare expenditures by the States now exceed expenditures for schools). Face facts; increasingly, people expect that other people must pay for their lives. Begining of the end... The New Mantra: The Federal Government is my DADDY. Stareted with Carter and became an art form with Clinton. Yet another reason for the break-up of the Union...
Peter Posted October 14, 2004 Author Posted October 14, 2004 Then, since there are small risks, you would agree to hold domestic harmless against all litigation? Why would I, were I a manufacturer, want to sell in the US? Very few overseas manufacturer do. I disagree with your contention that employers should provide vaccination for free...you might be surprised at how many people with a nice plan and a pittance of a co-pay show up at emergency rooms for "free" treatment. One problem is that folks think that medical coverage pays for all. If your auto insurance covered oil changes, what do you think that policy would cost you? Visit a hospital ER some day..half are people that want free care - including folks that could afford same but don't want to pay, many are Medicaid (BTW, my morning n'paper had a syndicated article that pointed out that Medicare expenditures by the States now exceed expenditures for schools). Face facts; increasingly, people expect that other people must pay for their lives. Begining of the end... 70024[/snapback] I am not saying that employers should be required to provide flu shots for free. What I am saying is that some employers have realized that it is in their self interest to do so to avoid lost production. It is just smart.
KD in CA Posted October 14, 2004 Posted October 14, 2004 Without lawyers, Bush would not even be President. Huh?
Peter Posted October 14, 2004 Author Posted October 14, 2004 Huh? 70108[/snapback] He won because of a team of lawyers who represented him in the recount fight as well as the five lawyers that voted for him on the Supremes. Bush should love lawyers given that he would not be President without their help.
Alaska Darin Posted October 14, 2004 Posted October 14, 2004 He won because of a team of lawyers who represented him in the recount fight as well as the five lawyers that voted for him on the Supremes. Bush should love lawyers given that he would not be President without their help. 70129[/snapback] Yeah, that's right. I remember all the post election recounts that went VP Gore's way. Oh yeah, there weren't any.
Recommended Posts