Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24

Thread: What if Only the Wealthy Could Receive a Covid Vaccine?

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    1,583
    Thanks
    329
    Thanked 541 Times in 367 Posts
    Rep Power
    4

    Default What if Only the Wealthy Could Receive a Covid Vaccine?

    One way to see health care is the benefit it provides for the whole society. Some look down upon Medicaid recipitents as if they are wards of the state, but what benefit is derived from poor people getting healthcare, specifically preventative care. Well, for one, it makes us all safer and reduces the expense that we all share when uninsured people overwhelm the healthcare delivery system.

    What if only those who can afford to get a vaccine could receive one?

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    2,074
    Thanks
    1,139
    Thanked 1,182 Times in 692 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: What if Only the Wealthy Could Receive a Covid Vaccine?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck Naill View Post

    What if only those who can afford to get a vaccine could receive one?
    Ah, the good ol' days. Kind of like a "return to fortitude," no?

    Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to TSherbs For This Useful Post:

    Chuck Naill (October 16th, 2021)

  4. #3
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,730
    Thanks
    793
    Thanked 805 Times in 430 Posts
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Re: What if Only the Wealthy Could Receive a Covid Vaccine?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck Naill View Post
    One way to see health care is the benefit it provides for the whole society. Some look down upon Medicaid recipitents as if they are wards of the state, but what benefit is derived from poor people getting healthcare, specifically preventative care. Well, for one, it makes us all safer and reduces the expense that we all share when uninsured people overwhelm the healthcare delivery system.

    What if only those who can afford to get a vaccine could receive one?
    Liberals would "discover" how many cheap and effective treatments are really available.
    Be your own tenth man.

  5. #4
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,730
    Thanks
    793
    Thanked 805 Times in 430 Posts
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Re: What if Only the Wealthy Could Receive a Covid Vaccine?

    You’re Being Gouged On Medicine You Already Paid For

    You’re Being Gouged On Medicine You Already Paid For
    Corporate Dems are trying to prevent the government from securing lower prices for drugs that the government already funded.

    David Sirota Oct 12, 2021

    Last week, we learned that Merck is planning to charge Americans 40 times its cost for a COVID drug whose development was subsidized by the American government. The situation spotlights two sets of facts that have also gone largely unmentioned in the legislative debate over whether to let Medicare negotiate for lower drug prices.

    Fact one: Americans are facing not merely expensive drugs, but prices that are examples of outright profiteering.

    Fact two: In many cases, the medicines we are being gouged on are those that we the public already paid for.

    These facts show us that pharma-bankrolled Democrats trying to kill drug pricing measures aren’t just bought and paid for in this particular skirmish — they are foot soldiers in the pharmaceutical industry’s larger multi-decade campaign to seal off and rig America’s alleged “free market.”

    From Profits To Profiteering

    First, there’s the price point of drugs. It’s not merely that Americans are paying the world’s highest prices for pharmaceuticals, it’s that in many cases, we are paying prices that aren’t even close to what consumers in other countries pay.

    A new Public Citizen analysis shows that the top 20-selling medicines generated almost twice as much pharmaceutical industry revenue in the United States as in every other country combined. Sure, as compared to others, Americans may buy a lot of prescription drugs, but this study reflects something much bigger at play: pharma-sculpted public policies that allow drug price levels to go beyond profits and into profiteering.

    That term “profiteering” is important here because drugmakers aren’t losing lots of money in other countries where they sell medicines at lower prices.

    Let’s remember: Pharmaceutical companies aren’t altruistic charities that offer their products abroad at a loss. On the contrary, they are still making healthy profits at lower world-market prices — and as The Intercept’s Lee Fang notes, they are making those healthy profits while boasting of innovation and job growth in countries that have allowed their governments to use bulk purchasing power to negotiate lower prices.

    The same arrangement could happen in the United States. We could significantly reduce medicine prices, which would save Medicare and individual consumers hundreds of billions of dollars, and in the process we would do little to significantly reduce pharmaceutical innovation. Indeed, a recent Congressional Budget Office study projected that even if profits on top drugs decreased by a whopping 25 percent, it would only result in a 0.5 percent average annual reduction in the number of new drugs entering the market over the next decade.

    We Already Paid For The Medicine

    The reason that reduction in new drugs would be so small gets to the other inconvenient fact being left out of the conversation in Congress right now: For all the pharmaceutical industry’s self-congratulatory rhetoric about its own innovations, the federal government uses your tax dollars to fund a lot of that innovation, research, and development.

    A study from the National Academy of Sciences tells that story: The federal government spent $100 billion to subsidize the research on every single one of the 200-plus drugs approved for sale in the United States between 2010 and 2016.

    Because we the public invested early in these medicines, we reduced the R&D costs for pharmaceutical companies. Therefore, on the back end, the public should have received some sort of return in the form of affordable prices. After all, we took the initial risk, and we lowered the overhead costs that the drug companies might need to recoup through higher prices. In business terms, the public is the early venture investor in these products, and we deserve a share of the returns when the product proves valuable.

    However, in the mid-1990s, that business axiom was tossed out when drug lobbyists convinced the Clinton administration to repeal rules that allowed federal officials to require government-subsidized drugs to be offered to Americans at a “reasonable price.”

    A few years later, Congress — with then-Senator Joe Biden’s help — voted down legislation to reinstate these rules, and later the Obama administration rejected House Democrats’ request that federal officials at least provide guidelines to government agencies about how they can exercise their remaining powers to combat drug price gouging.

    The result: We now routinely face immoral situations like last week’s news that pharmaceutical giant Merck is planning to charge Americans $712 for a COVID drug that cost only $17.74 to produce and whose development was subsidized by the American government.

    That’s just the latest example of the absurd paradigm: We take the risk of investing early in the product, but instead of that investment reaping us something valuable like affordable prices, we are rewarded with price gouging by the drugmakers that bankroll the lawmakers who’ve rigged the rules — and aim to keep them rigged.

    An Economy Walled Off For Maximum Manipulation

    All of this underscores how corrupt and insane the current conversation in Congress really is — and in truth, it’s way more corrupt than it even seems on the surface.

    We aren’t merely watching pharma-bankrolled lawmakers try to stop Medicare from negotiating lower prices for drugs — they are trying to stop the government from negotiating lower prices for medicines that the government already paid for, and that we are being charged the world’s highest prices for.

    This opposition is just the latest crusade to keep the American market walled off for maximum manipulation. Laws written by drug lobbyists prohibit wholesalers from importing lower-priced medicines from other countries, give drug companies 20-year patents on government-subsidized medicine, prevent the government from requiring reasonable prices for drugs the government pays for, and block Medicare from using its bulk purchasing power to negotiate lower prices.

    That’s not a “free market.” It is a top-down command economy perfectly calibrated for price gouging, and the pharmaceutical industry and its puppet politicians want to keep it that way.
    Be your own tenth man.

  6. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    496
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 209 Times in 165 Posts
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: What if Only the Wealthy Could Receive a Covid Vaccine?

    Last century weren't the polio vaccine and the smallpox vaccines "free" to the patient?

  7. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    1,583
    Thanks
    329
    Thanked 541 Times in 367 Posts
    Rep Power
    4

    Default Re: What if Only the Wealthy Could Receive a Covid Vaccine?

    Quote Originally Posted by kazoolaw View Post
    Last century weren't the polio vaccine and the smallpox vaccines "free" to the patient?
    The polio vaccine, a sugar cube, was provided to me in elementary school. I doubt my parents were aware or informed.

  8. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    1,583
    Thanks
    329
    Thanked 541 Times in 367 Posts
    Rep Power
    4

    Default Re: What if Only the Wealthy Could Receive a Covid Vaccine?

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    You’re Being Gouged On Medicine You Already Paid For

    You’re Being Gouged On Medicine You Already Paid For
    Corporate Dems are trying to prevent the government from securing lower prices for drugs that the government already funded.

    David Sirota Oct 12, 2021

    Last week, we learned that Merck is planning to charge Americans 40 times its cost for a COVID drug whose development was subsidized by the American government. The situation spotlights two sets of facts that have also gone largely unmentioned in the legislative debate over whether to let Medicare negotiate for lower drug prices.

    Fact one: Americans are facing not merely expensive drugs, but prices that are examples of outright profiteering.

    Fact two: In many cases, the medicines we are being gouged on are those that we the public already paid for.

    These facts show us that pharma-bankrolled Democrats trying to kill drug pricing measures aren’t just bought and paid for in this particular skirmish — they are foot soldiers in the pharmaceutical industry’s larger multi-decade campaign to seal off and rig America’s alleged “free market.”

    From Profits To Profiteering

    First, there’s the price point of drugs. It’s not merely that Americans are paying the world’s highest prices for pharmaceuticals, it’s that in many cases, we are paying prices that aren’t even close to what consumers in other countries pay.

    A new Public Citizen analysis shows that the top 20-selling medicines generated almost twice as much pharmaceutical industry revenue in the United States as in every other country combined. Sure, as compared to others, Americans may buy a lot of prescription drugs, but this study reflects something much bigger at play: pharma-sculpted public policies that allow drug price levels to go beyond profits and into profiteering.

    That term “profiteering” is important here because drugmakers aren’t losing lots of money in other countries where they sell medicines at lower prices.

    Let’s remember: Pharmaceutical companies aren’t altruistic charities that offer their products abroad at a loss. On the contrary, they are still making healthy profits at lower world-market prices — and as The Intercept’s Lee Fang notes, they are making those healthy profits while boasting of innovation and job growth in countries that have allowed their governments to use bulk purchasing power to negotiate lower prices.

    The same arrangement could happen in the United States. We could significantly reduce medicine prices, which would save Medicare and individual consumers hundreds of billions of dollars, and in the process we would do little to significantly reduce pharmaceutical innovation. Indeed, a recent Congressional Budget Office study projected that even if profits on top drugs decreased by a whopping 25 percent, it would only result in a 0.5 percent average annual reduction in the number of new drugs entering the market over the next decade.

    We Already Paid For The Medicine

    The reason that reduction in new drugs would be so small gets to the other inconvenient fact being left out of the conversation in Congress right now: For all the pharmaceutical industry’s self-congratulatory rhetoric about its own innovations, the federal government uses your tax dollars to fund a lot of that innovation, research, and development.

    A study from the National Academy of Sciences tells that story: The federal government spent $100 billion to subsidize the research on every single one of the 200-plus drugs approved for sale in the United States between 2010 and 2016.

    Because we the public invested early in these medicines, we reduced the R&D costs for pharmaceutical companies. Therefore, on the back end, the public should have received some sort of return in the form of affordable prices. After all, we took the initial risk, and we lowered the overhead costs that the drug companies might need to recoup through higher prices. In business terms, the public is the early venture investor in these products, and we deserve a share of the returns when the product proves valuable.

    However, in the mid-1990s, that business axiom was tossed out when drug lobbyists convinced the Clinton administration to repeal rules that allowed federal officials to require government-subsidized drugs to be offered to Americans at a “reasonable price.”

    A few years later, Congress — with then-Senator Joe Biden’s help — voted down legislation to reinstate these rules, and later the Obama administration rejected House Democrats’ request that federal officials at least provide guidelines to government agencies about how they can exercise their remaining powers to combat drug price gouging.

    The result: We now routinely face immoral situations like last week’s news that pharmaceutical giant Merck is planning to charge Americans $712 for a COVID drug that cost only $17.74 to produce and whose development was subsidized by the American government.

    That’s just the latest example of the absurd paradigm: We take the risk of investing early in the product, but instead of that investment reaping us something valuable like affordable prices, we are rewarded with price gouging by the drugmakers that bankroll the lawmakers who’ve rigged the rules — and aim to keep them rigged.

    An Economy Walled Off For Maximum Manipulation

    All of this underscores how corrupt and insane the current conversation in Congress really is — and in truth, it’s way more corrupt than it even seems on the surface.

    We aren’t merely watching pharma-bankrolled lawmakers try to stop Medicare from negotiating lower prices for drugs — they are trying to stop the government from negotiating lower prices for medicines that the government already paid for, and that we are being charged the world’s highest prices for.

    This opposition is just the latest crusade to keep the American market walled off for maximum manipulation. Laws written by drug lobbyists prohibit wholesalers from importing lower-priced medicines from other countries, give drug companies 20-year patents on government-subsidized medicine, prevent the government from requiring reasonable prices for drugs the government pays for, and block Medicare from using its bulk purchasing power to negotiate lower prices.

    That’s not a “free market.” It is a top-down command economy perfectly calibrated for price gouging, and the pharmaceutical industry and its puppet politicians want to keep it that way.
    Care to comment or do I have to read?

  9. #8
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,730
    Thanks
    793
    Thanked 805 Times in 430 Posts
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Re: What if Only the Wealthy Could Receive a Covid Vaccine?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck Naill View Post
    Care to comment or do I have to read?
    You said you don't have time for videos, and like to read. You don't have to do anything, but if I were to comment... how would you know, and how would you know what I wrote? Would you read it?

    The lengths you will go to so that you can avoid pertinent points, and the inventiveness of your ridiculous excuses are indeed amazing.
    Be your own tenth man.

  10. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    1,583
    Thanks
    329
    Thanked 541 Times in 367 Posts
    Rep Power
    4

    Default Re: What if Only the Wealthy Could Receive a Covid Vaccine?

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck Naill View Post
    Care to comment or do I have to read?
    You said you don't have time for videos, and like to read. You don't have to do anything, but if I were to comment... how would you know, and how would you know what I wrote? Would you read it?

    The lengths you will go to so that you can avoid pertinent points, and the inventiveness of your ridiculous excuses are indeed amazing.
    I never said I like to read. I read the books that I decide to read.

    I've never posted something without a context. This allows you to make a decision.

    Stop being such a dwerp. Your embarassing those of us with an education.

  11. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    2,074
    Thanks
    1,139
    Thanked 1,182 Times in 692 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: What if Only the Wealthy Could Receive a Covid Vaccine?

    Here's an opportunity, dneal. Digest this long cut and paste down to, say, 3 most salient points and summarize them (like Chip did for me about the New Zealand-America book). People can then decide whether they are interested enough to pursue it further and they get a sense of which parts of it you find most important and focused on.

    This approach might initiate an actual conversation.

  12. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    2,074
    Thanks
    1,139
    Thanked 1,182 Times in 692 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: What if Only the Wealthy Could Receive a Covid Vaccine?

    Quote Originally Posted by kazoolaw View Post
    Last century weren't the polio vaccine and the smallpox vaccines "free" to the patient?
    When, where, and for how long? I don't know. Are you asking because you know, or because you don't know?

    Nothing was actually "free," of course, so I assume that you mean, "no additional fee to the recipient." I don't know the answer. I too got the sugar cube at school, but I can't remember other shots specifically. I got some (in the 1960s) in the doctor's office, but my parents could afford it (my father sold insurance)

    Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

  13. #12
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,730
    Thanks
    793
    Thanked 805 Times in 430 Posts
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Re: What if Only the Wealthy Could Receive a Covid Vaccine?

    You guys are hilarious. I started an entire thread mocking your drive-by posting of links, and now you want commentary. I'm going to have to put on some hip-waders to get through the hypocrisy and bullshit.

    What is there to comment on? The whole thing is there, and a quick read. If you can't be bothered with something that takes a minute to read, and need someone else to break it down for you; it probably isn't worth the effort. Each of you derails nearly every topic you enter into (your circle-jerks being the main exception). Kazoolaw's analysis holds true, and can be demonstrated in an astounding assortment of threads here.

    Chuck - You might take a peek at your post history. You might find your assertion of context rarely holds true.

    --edit--

    Exhibit A (with posts from others omitted).

    Quote Originally Posted by kazoolaw View Post
    to give anyone unfettered access to our banking information:

    This proposal would create a comprehensive financial account information reporting regime.
    Financial institutions would report data on financial accounts in an information return. The annual return will report gross inflows and outflows with a breakdown for physical cash, transactions with a foreign account, and transfers to and from another account with the same owner. This requirement would apply to all business and personal accounts from financial institutions, including bank, loan, and investment accounts,2 with the exception of accounts below a low de minimis gross flow threshold of $600 or fair market value of $600.
    https://home.treasury.gov/system/fil...ons-FY2022.pdf


    And hire 80,000 new IRS agents.
    And give an additional $80 billion to the IRS


    In these proposals, who are the conspirators? Got $600? Apparently you are.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck Naill View Post
    This is a terrible way to post. Why should anyone have to work figure out what you want to discuss? Lazy!! 😝
    Quote Originally Posted by kazoolaw View Post
    Chuck,

    Let me break down the topic/post for you.

    The title is a question addressed to the reader: it asks the reader why anyone, specifically the reader, would want the IRS gathering all this detailed information about banking transactions.

    The quoted language, with a link to a government document^^, provides the exact language to be considered.

    The next two lines refer to further plans to grow the IRS' budget and numbers.

    The last two lines tells the reader that the government thinks you are a conspirator and the target of enhanced information gathering.

    Which brings you back to the focus of the original question, "Why would you agree to such an invasion of privacy?"

    Not terrible, just a different format.

    So Chuck, do you agree with these 3 proposals?

    ^^Unlike a number of posts in this Forum which contain no references for their assertions. Here, right from the horse's mouth
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck Naill View Post
    I don’t agree or disagree until I know. I don’t have to agree or disagree just because you post. Say what you want to say .
    Quote Originally Posted by kazoolaw View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck Naill View Post
    I don’t agree or disagree until I know. I don’t have to agree or disagree just because you post. Say what you want to say .
    That's OK Chuck, get back with us if/when you know.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck Naill View Post
    Were you for or against the Trump Tariffs?
    Yes, we see what happens when we "break it down" for you, Chuck. You respond with non-contextual gibberish.
    Last edited by dneal; October 16th, 2021 at 09:16 PM.
    Be your own tenth man.

  14. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    496
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 209 Times in 165 Posts
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: What if Only the Wealthy Could Receive a Covid Vaccine?

    Quote Originally Posted by TSherbs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kazoolaw View Post
    Last century weren't the polio vaccine and the smallpox vaccines "free" to the patient?
    When, where, and for how long? I don't know. Are you asking because you know, or because you don't know?

    Nothing was actually "free," of course, so I assume that you mean, "no additional fee to the recipient."
    Sorry, "last century" is the way I refer to my childhood in the Fifties. I remember hula hoops and yo-yo's but wouldn't have known if there was a charge for those vaccines. DPT shots l assume, without really knowing, were paid for.

    After your questions I did a little research and learned that smallpox vaccinations stopped in 1972 because smallpox was wiped out in the US. A successful government program. All I cared about was whether the scar on my arm would fade,away.

  15. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    2,074
    Thanks
    1,139
    Thanked 1,182 Times in 692 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: What if Only the Wealthy Could Receive a Covid Vaccine?

    Kazoo, do you object to governmental vaccine policies? As a case in point, was it wrong for our schools to have vaccinated those children in the 50s and 60s? (I am assuming that parents weren't really asked, but maybe I am wrong).

  16. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    2,074
    Thanks
    1,139
    Thanked 1,182 Times in 692 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: What if Only the Wealthy Could Receive a Covid Vaccine?

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    You guys are hilarious. I started an entire thread mocking your drive-by posting of links....
    yup
    Last edited by TSherbs; October 17th, 2021 at 07:32 AM.

  17. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    1,583
    Thanks
    329
    Thanked 541 Times in 367 Posts
    Rep Power
    4

    Default Re: What if Only the Wealthy Could Receive a Covid Vaccine?

    When I was a yound adult and Reagan said "“The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.”, I thought it was true. Odd that a man his age and experience could even have such a thought. Decades of swindleing government is readily observable with crumbling infrastructure and the inability of agencies from being able to respond effectivily. We could have done a much better job handing the pandemic.

    Mitch McConnel tries to say that government programs are socalistic. He knows this will energize his base. It is possible Republicans look upon their constituents as less than they see themselves thinking they will fall for anything. If January 6th showed anyyhing, it demonstrated the extent of a cultish party the Republians have become.

    The cost of the Middle Eastern wars is paralyzingly shocking when you consider the result. How much those expendatures could have been used to ensure that all Americans have access for WIFI so that when the schools closed, there would have been parity. The hospitals would not have had to limit access to equipment and personal protective equipment. These past actions of Mitch et al clearly demonstrated that Reagan was wrong, but it just sounded correct. The cost of which might be the loss of an entire generation of what otherwise might have been.

    There are moderate Republicans who are attempting to wrestle the cult of Trump and persuade the party to return, but I am afraid it's not enough.

  18. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    2,074
    Thanks
    1,139
    Thanked 1,182 Times in 692 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: What if Only the Wealthy Could Receive a Covid Vaccine?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck Naill View Post
    When I was a yound adult and Reagan said "“The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.”, I thought it was true.
    You think that Reagan used government subsidized health care as he faded at the end? He must have when he got that bullet in his lung...



    Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

  19. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    496
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 209 Times in 165 Posts
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: What if Only the Wealthy Could Receive a Covid Vaccine?

    Quote Originally Posted by TSherbs View Post
    Kazoo, do you object to governmental vaccine policies? As a case in point, was it wrong for our schools to have vaccinated those children in the 50s and 60s? (I am assuming that parents weren't really asked, but maybe I am wrong).
    Sorry for not getting back sooner, but sometimes it’s easier on the computer than an iPad to respond.

    I think I don’t object to all government vaccine policies. My memories of the 50s and 60s are dim, but I would be surprised if the polio and smallpox vaccines were done without parental approval. I think that there was more widespread support for fighting both of those diseases. I base this more upon my memory of polio: coverage of the crippling and fatal effects of polio were common, as I remember it. There were many TV plots involving people in iron longs. Does anyone born the century even know about iron lungs?

    How long did it take to develop the Salk vaccine? I ask this in connection with the very short period of time between development of the Covid vaccine, the initial statements that there was not sufficient testing/data to demonstrate its safety for children, and the decision that all children in schools, done to kindergarten, need to be vaccinated.

    Similarly, smallpox I think was seen as a common scourge. Going way out on a limb, I suspect the messaging was clear, people were united in the possibility of eliminating both diseases. There was also a feeling we could beat and eradicate those diseases. And it worked: smallpox has been wiped out, and I think the last case of polio which originated in the US was in the late 70s.

    I contrast this to the current vaccine policy which, to my mind, has been plagued with partisanship and posturing from the beginning. I’m not asking that anyone agree with one side or the other, but only agree that these events were real points of contention:
    • Shutting down travel from China was racist
    • no need to self-isolate, come party with us
    • I won’t take a vaccine associated with trump
    • Covid patients sent into nursing homes with vulnerable populations
    • Masks: we need them, we don’t need them, we should double mask, everyone should wear a mask; church and sporting events are super-spreader events, social events sponsored by politicians and entertainers are not, and so are exempt from mask rules
    • the government’s chief Covid spokesman turns out to have sent money to the Wuhan lab
    • children do/do not need to wear masks
    • people who have been vaccinated won’t spread Covid, so don’t need to wear masks
    • people have been vaccinated can spread Covid
    • 15 days will be enough to contain Covid/We can't celebrate Christmas because of the danger of spreading Covid/We can celebrate Christmas if were careful.
    • All students need to be vaccinated before attending school, unless you’re the governor of California.
    • Thinking that no one would care, and therefore not disclosing that the vaccine was developed using aborted fetal cells.
    • Wildly fluctuating statistics regarding infections and deaths.

    I have a hard time being able to summarize our current “governmental vaccine policy” as it seems to change constantly, and be applied differently, depending on your social and political status. So no, I do object to whatever the current governmental vaccine policy is, knowing that it might change tomorrow.



  20. The Following User Says Thank You to kazoolaw For This Useful Post:

    dneal (October 18th, 2021)

  21. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    1,583
    Thanks
    329
    Thanked 541 Times in 367 Posts
    Rep Power
    4

    Default Re: What if Only the Wealthy Could Receive a Covid Vaccine?

    My parents may have been asked about polio and small pox, or at least informed. I remember doctors being revered. That was a time when many people had only a few years of formal education and later generations having only a HS education. We had a community doctor that everyone called Doc Kennedy. He was the same age as my grandfather and distantly related. While he went to medical school, my grandfather only had six years of education and both from the same farming community. As a drug rep I got to call on him before he died. Wonderful encounter visiting him and that office in the Medical Arts building .


    A doctor friend spent a year in an iron lung. Another friend is 70 and has always used braces and sticks. I cannot imagine a parent saying not to a vaccine.


    My three infections proved to me just how much damage can occur. My first was at 32 contracting infectious arthritis, later 30’s herpes zoster, and in 2015 a tick bite. GIVE me the needle anytime.

    Had Trump not tried to put a smiley face on the pandemic and made Fauci and Bright an enemy, thousands may still be alive today.

    We just learned Colin Powell died. How did he come to contract the virus. For some, it’s impossible to isolate. Sometimes you just get worn out.

  22. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    81
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 47 Times in 31 Posts
    Rep Power
    3

    Default Re: What if Only the Wealthy Could Receive a Covid Vaccine?

    Quote Originally Posted by kazoolaw View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TSherbs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kazoolaw View Post
    Last century weren't the polio vaccine and the smallpox vaccines "free" to the patient?
    When, where, and for how long? I don't know. Are you asking because you know, or because you don't know?

    Nothing was actually "free," of course, so I assume that you mean, "no additional fee to the recipient."
    Sorry, "last century" is the way I refer to my childhood in the Fifties. I remember hula hoops and yo-yo's but wouldn't have known if there was a charge for those vaccines. DPT shots l assume, without really knowing, were paid for.

    After your questions I did a little research and learned that smallpox vaccinations stopped in 1972 because smallpox was wiped out in the US. A successful government program. All I cared about was whether the scar on my arm would fade,away.
    While they might have stopped for civilians, the military continues to administer the smallpox vaccination. I've gotten a total of 3 with the assurance that it should be fine.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •