You’ve rejected about 12 hypotheticals as being unknowable in the last 2 pages.
The ability for abstract and extrapolative thought evolved roughly 1.2 million years ago in humans.
Now please don’t embarrass your ancestors on the Savannah and let us know what you think the CDC should do. Or continue to dodge the question in confusion as an Australopithecus might.
You’ve managed to dodge my very simple questions, Lucy.
Yes, just sitting around and waiting is boring. I am not on a internet discussion board to experience reality or whatever. I am here to discuss.
I agree that almost everything can be painted as good or bad with hypotheticals. But that's no to stick one's head in the sand and give up.
Questions like "will fewer women get vaccinated if insurance policies change" and "are fewer vaccinations bad for public health" along with "are insurance policies likely to change" all seem rational and not difficult to predict given we have seen policy changes like this before.
If government “fails” people, is that the end?
Do we just give up on corporate responsibility? Insurers are just going to let infants die in the NICU because the CDC is not forcing them cover the cost of a vaccine? Do pharmaceutical companies just say that they are not offering the vaccine at a more affordable price because the CDC is not recommending something that is costing the lives of droves of infants? Are these companies just going to let the infants die in great numbers and not do anything about it?
Do we give up on personal responsibility ($200 to save my child’s life does not seem to be a steep price) because the CDC determined that the recommendation isn’t warranted?
Personal and corporate responsibility can more than cover for the CDC no longer having a recommendation for pregnant women to receive a vaccine. We’re not so weak that we need government to recommend everything.
I’m liberal on the majority of issues, but I understand that there is responsibility outside of government.
Yes, we ration medical care because it's expensive you can't go to ER and get an MRI to check for an aneurysm every week for free, even though that would save a few lives a year.
Things are recommended and paid for insurance only if they are safe, effective, and meet some cost-benefit threshold. This threshold is normally quite low, especially in the US, and we collectively pay (through insurance pools and government subsidies) for lots of things here!
If you argument is that "its too expensive to cover COVID vaccinations for mothers" then say that!
Plenty of things are not covered because of cost-benefit and we as a society have to make, partially qualitative, choices about what to cover!
Here I am critiquing the qualitatively driven decision to reduce access to the COVID vaccine. I think the data support continuing to force insurers to cover it!
Pharmaceutical pricing is by-and-large not exploitative and and hand-wavy argument that pharma should just charge less so everyone can afford everything is just Marxist wishing.
Do we just give up on corporate responsibility? Insurers are just going to let infants die in the NICU because the CDC is not forcing them cover the cost of a vaccine? Do pharmaceutical companies just say that they are not offering the vaccine at a more affordable price because the CDC is not recommending something that is costing the lives of droves of infants? Are these companies just going to let the infants die in great numbers and not do anything about it?
Do we give up on personal responsibility ($200 to save my child’s life does not seem to be a steep price) because the CDC determined that the recommendation isn’t warranted?
Personal and corporate responsibility can more than cover for the CDC no longer having a recommendation for pregnant women to receive a vaccine. We’re not so weak that we need government to recommend everything.
I’m liberal on the majority of issues, but I understand that there is responsibility outside of government.
Yes, we ration medical care because it's expensive you can't go to ER and get an MRI to check for an aneurysm every week for free, even though that would save a few lives a year.
Things are recommended and paid for insurance only if they are safe, effective, and meet some cost-benefit threshold. This threshold is normally quite low, especially in the US, and we collectively pay (through insurance pools and government subsidies) for lots of things here!
If you argument is that "its too expensive to cover COVID vaccinations for mothers" then say that!
Plenty of things are not covered because of cost-benefit and we as a society have to make, partially qualitative, choices about what to cover!
Here I am critiquing the qualitatively driven decision to reduce access to the COVID vaccine. I think the data support continuing to force insurers to cover it!
Pharmaceutical pricing is by-and-large not exploitative and and hand-wavy argument that pharma should just charge less so everyone can afford everything is just Marxist wishing.
“If you argument is that "its too expensive to cover COVID vaccinations for mothers" then say that!“ Nope. Not my argument. Vaccinations are quite cheap.
Pharma pricing doesn’t have to be exploitive, but to say it could/should be more affordable if it saves lives of infants, right?
Sounds like some of your points run counter to Harambe. Perhaps, you two need to have a discussion.
Yes, just sitting around and waiting is boring. I am not on a internet discussion board to experience reality or whatever. I am here to discuss.
I agree that almost everything can be painted as good or bad with hypotheticals. But that's no to stick one's head in the sand and give up.
Questions like "will fewer women get vaccinated if insurance policies change" and "are fewer vaccinations bad for public health" along with "are insurance policies likely to change" all seem rational and not difficult to predict given we have seen policy changes like this before.
If government “fails” people, is that the end?
Do we just give up on corporate responsibility? Insurers are just going to let infants die in the NICU because the CDC is not forcing them cover the cost of a vaccine? Do pharmaceutical companies just say that they are not offering the vaccine at a more affordable price because the CDC is not recommending something that is costing the lives of droves of infants? Are these companies just going to let the infants die in great numbers and not do anything about it?
Do we give up on personal responsibility ($200 to save my child’s life does not seem to be a steep price) because the CDC determined that the recommendation isn’t warranted?
Personal and corporate responsibility can more than cover for the CDC no longer having a recommendation for pregnant women to receive a vaccine. We’re not so weak that we need government to recommend everything.
I’m liberal on the majority of issues, but I understand that there is responsibility outside of government.
There’s responsibility on both sides, of course, but you are desperately avoiding the question still.
If personal and corporate responsibility can “more than cover” the CDC lacking evidenced based recommendations then are you saying we don’t need the CDC? Should we care about accuracy in government agencies that affect doctors decisions and insurance reimbursements?
The fact that people can make a correct decision despite the incompetence of the CDC does not mean we shouldn’t demand that the CDC act competently, no?
Yes, we ration medical care because it's expensive you can't go to ER and get an MRI to check for an aneurysm every week for free, even though that would save a few lives a year.
Things are recommended and paid for insurance only if they are safe, effective, and meet some cost-benefit threshold. This threshold is normally quite low, especially in the US, and we collectively pay (through insurance pools and government subsidies) for lots of things here!
If you argument is that "its too expensive to cover COVID vaccinations for mothers" then say that!
Plenty of things are not covered because of cost-benefit and we as a society have to make, partially qualitative, choices about what to cover!
Here I am critiquing the qualitatively driven decision to reduce access to the COVID vaccine. I think the data support continuing to force insurers to cover it!
Pharmaceutical pricing is by-and-large not exploitative and and hand-wavy argument that pharma should just charge less so everyone can afford everything is just Marxist wishing.
“If you argument is that "its too expensive to cover COVID vaccinations for mothers" then say that!“ Nope. Not my argument. Vaccinations are quite cheap.
Pharma pricing doesn’t have to be exploitive, but to say it could/should be more affordable if it saves lives of infants, right?
Sounds like some of your points run counter to Harambe. Perhaps, you two need to have a discussion.
What’s the point of having a government body if they make incompetent decisions and you just throw up your hands and say “ah well we can cover for them at the corporate and personal level”
Extremely silly reasoning that you wouldn’t defend outside of this narrow corner you’ve argued yourself into where everyone should be responsible except the government who gets a free pass.
Do we just give up on corporate responsibility? Insurers are just going to let infants die in the NICU because the CDC is not forcing them cover the cost of a vaccine? Do pharmaceutical companies just say that they are not offering the vaccine at a more affordable price because the CDC is not recommending something that is costing the lives of droves of infants? Are these companies just going to let the infants die in great numbers and not do anything about it?
Do we give up on personal responsibility ($200 to save my child’s life does not seem to be a steep price) because the CDC determined that the recommendation isn’t warranted?
Personal and corporate responsibility can more than cover for the CDC no longer having a recommendation for pregnant women to receive a vaccine. We’re not so weak that we need government to recommend everything.
I’m liberal on the majority of issues, but I understand that there is responsibility outside of government.
There’s responsibility on both sides, of course, but you are desperately avoiding the question still.
If personal and corporate responsibility can “more than cover” the CDC lacking evidenced based recommendations then are you saying we don’t need the CDC? Should we care about accuracy in government agencies that affect doctors decisions and insurance reimbursements?
The fact that people can make a correct decision despite the incompetence of the CDC does not mean we shouldn’t demand that the CDC act competently, no?
There’s responsibility on both sides, of course, but you are desperately avoiding the question still.
If personal and corporate responsibility can “more than cover” the CDC lacking evidenced based recommendations then are you saying we don’t need the CDC? Should we care about accuracy in government agencies that affect doctors decisions and insurance reimbursements?
The fact that people can make a correct decision despite the incompetence of the CDC does not mean we shouldn’t demand that the CDC act competently, no?
Are you saying access is now limited?
There are absolutely doctors or pharmacists who will not give the vaccine absent a CDC recommendation. People who want the vaccine now need to spend extra time and money to get the vaccine if they want it and their doc/pharm won’t give it. So yes access is limited compared to before!
As an example, you could argue I could synthesis the vaccine myself in my basement if RFK banned the vaccine, therefore access wasn’t truly limited and never could be as long as the patent for the vaccine is accessible.
This post was edited 24 seconds after it was posted.
"Do you think fewer pregnant women will get vaccinated if it's not fully covered?"
I answered previously.
You said this: "Unknown. We don’t know if it will not be fully, partially or not covered by any insurers."
Again, I didn't ask if it's going to be fully covered or not. I asked "Do you think fewer pregnant women will get vaccinated if it's not fully covered?"
Let's try again - yes or no works for all of these:
Do you think fewer pregnant women will get vaccinated if insurance coverage for the COVID vaccines i
1) reduced 2) kept the same 3) expanded
In future you can respond to all questions that depend on whether vaccination rate will change by providing an answer based on each hypothetical... that way you don't have to worried we will assume your predictions what you believe to be reality :)
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
Do we just give up on corporate responsibility? Insurers are just going to let infants die in the NICU because the CDC is not forcing them cover the cost of a vaccine? Do pharmaceutical companies just say that they are not offering the vaccine at a more affordable price because the CDC is not recommending something that is costing the lives of droves of infants? Are these companies just going to let the infants die in great numbers and not do anything about it?
Do we give up on personal responsibility ($200 to save my child’s life does not seem to be a steep price) because the CDC determined that the recommendation isn’t warranted?
Personal and corporate responsibility can more than cover for the CDC no longer having a recommendation for pregnant women to receive a vaccine. We’re not so weak that we need government to recommend everything.
I’m liberal on the majority of issues, but I understand that there is responsibility outside of government.
There’s responsibility on both sides, of course, but you are desperately avoiding the question still.
If personal and corporate responsibility can “more than cover” the CDC lacking evidenced based recommendations then are you saying we don’t need the CDC? Should we care about accuracy in government agencies that affect doctors decisions and insurance reimbursements?
The fact that people can make a correct decision despite the incompetence of the CDC does not mean we shouldn’t demand that the CDC act competently, no?
There’s responsibility on both sides, of course, but you are desperately avoiding the question still.
If personal and corporate responsibility can “more than cover” the CDC lacking evidenced based recommendations then are you saying we don’t need the CDC? Should we care about accuracy in government agencies that affect doctors decisions and insurance reimbursements?
The fact that people can make a correct decision despite the incompetence of the CDC does not mean we shouldn’t demand that the CDC act competently, no?
Not what I’m saying.
Ok, feel free to clarify what you mean when you say “more than cover.” What are your expectations for the CDCs role in protecting infants from preventable diseases.
There are absolutely doctors or pharmacists who will not give the vaccine absent a CDC recommendation. People who want the vaccine now need to spend extra time and money to get the vaccine if they want it and their doc/pharm won’t give it. So yes access is limited compared to before!
As an example, you could argue I could synthesis the vaccine myself in my basement if RFK banned the vaccine, therefore access wasn’t truly limited and never could be as long as the patent for the vaccine is accessible.
Must I remind you of your post the first page on this thread?
Harambe wrote:
Looks like he isn’t content with that alone but considering this stunt does not actually limit access to the vaccine at all, his bloodthirst may not be quenched.
You said this: "Unknown. We don’t know if it will not be fully, partially or not covered by any insurers."
Again, I didn't ask if it's going to be fully covered or not. I asked "Do you think fewer pregnant women will get vaccinated if it's not fully covered?"
Let's try again - yes or no works for all of these:
Do you think fewer pregnant women will get vaccinated if insurance coverage for the COVID vaccines i
1) reduced 2) kept the same 3) expanded
In future you can respond to all questions that depend on whether vaccination rate will change by providing an answer based on each hypothetical... that way you don't have to worried we will assume your predictions what you believe to be reality :)
There are absolutely doctors or pharmacists who will not give the vaccine absent a CDC recommendation. People who want the vaccine now need to spend extra time and money to get the vaccine if they want it and their doc/pharm won’t give it. So yes access is limited compared to before!
As an example, you could argue I could synthesis the vaccine myself in my basement if RFK banned the vaccine, therefore access wasn’t truly limited and never could be as long as the patent for the vaccine is accessible.
Must I remind you of your post the first page on this thread?
Harambe wrote:
Looks like he isn’t content with that alone but considering this stunt does not actually limit access to the vaccine at all, his bloodthirst may not be quenched.
What changed your mind?
Since you’ve insisted on splitting hairs on the idea of “limits” let me explain the nuance:
1) anyone can still get the vaccine who wants it
2) those people may have to spend more time and money
It’s going to depend on how you define and threshold “limit.”
Thank you for spurring some interesting discussion there. Perhaps RFK will get the infant blood he seems to desire. Texas wasn’t enough!
Ok, feel free to clarify what you mean when you say “more than cover.” What are your expectations for the CDCs role in protecting infants from preventable diseases.
If I’m misunderstanding you, please clarify
Absent any attempt clarify I’m going to assume my read of your opinion is substantially correct:
There’s responsibility on both sides, of course, but you are desperately avoiding the question still.
If personal and corporate responsibility can “more than cover” the CDC lacking evidenced based recommendations then are you saying we don’t need the CDC? Should we care about accuracy in government agencies that affect doctors decisions and insurance reimbursements?
The fact that people can make a correct decision despite the incompetence of the CDC does not mean we shouldn’t demand that the CDC act competently, no?
Since you’ve insisted on splitting hairs on the idea of “limits” let me explain the nuance:
1) anyone can still get the vaccine who wants it
2) those people may have to spend more time and money
It’s going to depend on how you define and threshold “limit.”
Thank you for spurring some interesting discussion there. Perhaps RFK will get the infant blood he seems to desire. Texas wasn’t enough!
I’m not splitting hairs. It’s your own statements in this thread. What changed your mind?
We had a good discussion about the meaning of “limits” and I realize that there is a limiting of the vaccine availability immediately after the recommendation change.
Anyone who wants the vaccine can still get it, but they plausibly have to expend more time and effort to do so, which is absolutely a limiting!
It’s like if RFK said only one pharmacy in the state could dispense the vaccine. Everyone who wanted one could still in theory get it, but that’s obviously a severe limiting of access - kind of like abortion clinics in red states.
So yeah, RFKs change is already killing infants on the margin. Charming! And you still think the CDCs recommendation doesn’t matter because personal or corporate responsibility should cover for it.
Effectively excusing the government killing infants! And for what? Politics it seems.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
You said this: "Unknown. We don’t know if it will not be fully, partially or not covered by any insurers."
Again, I didn't ask if it's going to be fully covered or not. I asked "Do you think fewer pregnant women will get vaccinated if it's not fully covered?"
Let's try again - yes or no works for all of these:
Do you think fewer pregnant women will get vaccinated if insurance coverage for the COVID vaccines i
1) reduced 2) kept the same 3) expanded
In future you can respond to all questions that depend on whether vaccination rate will change by providing an answer based on each hypothetical... that way you don't have to worried we will assume your predictions what you believe to be reality :)
What do you believe?
What do I believe? I believe Harambe agrees with me.
Harambe wrote:
Looks like he isn’t content with that alone but considering this stunt does not actually limit access to the vaccine at all, his bloodthirst may not be quenched.
What do I believe? I believe Harambe agrees with me.
Harambe wrote:
Looks like he isn’t content with that alone but considering this stunt does not actually limit access to the vaccine at all, his bloodthirst may not be quenched.
Nah I changed my mind as I explained above. While I don’t think this will accomplish the “banning” of the vaccine that RFK wants but can’t actually seem to execute (low agency! Probably from the steroids and heroin abuse) it’s absolutely a limiting of access
This post was edited 22 seconds after it was posted.