Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MillCreek on March 03, 2015, 04:19:36 PM
-
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/03/03/feds-crack-down-on-chinese-birth-tourism-scam/
I liked the part about after paying $ 40-80K, the birth tourists go to the local hospital in California, claim indigence, and stick the taxpayers with the medical bills.
-
Just keep in mind that it's not the kid's fault. =|
Easiest fix for this stuff? Remind the kids that they have to pay US taxes.... Even if they're not in the USA.
-
With twins do we get egg rolls?
I'm not for changing the rules about how citizenship is obtained. I am for changing how/when/why folks are allowed inside our borders and what we do if they are discovered to have violated the rules.
I'm trying to work out "anchor babies be damned".
stay safe.
-
*shrug*
While it likely happened before we took such a lax attitude on illegal immigration, it's more than a bit obvious that you'd get more of fraud like this with said lax attitude. Easy enough solution. Kid has citizenship, parents and other family do not.
-
One rule of economics is that you get a surplus of what you subsidize.
-
If neither birth parent is a US Citizen, why should the kid automatically be a US Citizen? Certainly if neither birth parent even lives here.
-
If neither birth parent is a US Citizen, why should the kid automatically be a US Citizen? Certainly if neither birth parent even lives here.
This.
It should be parental citizenship. If AND ONLY IF one or both parents are citizens, you are automatically a citizen, regardless of birth location...
In other words, right now, its:
If parent is citizen (regardless of location) OR born here, and I want to just nix the second half.
-
If neither birth parent is a US Citizen, why should the kid automatically be a US Citizen? Certainly if neither birth parent even lives here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Citizenship_and_civil_rights
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Background
Section 1 of the amendment formally defines United States citizenship and also protects various civil rights from being abridged or denied by any state or state actor. Abridgment or denial of those civil rights by private persons is not addressed by this amendment; the Supreme Court held in the Civil Rights Cases (1883)[26] that the amendment was limited to "state action" and, therefore, did not authorize the Congress to outlaw racial discrimination by private individuals or organizations (though Congress can sometimes reach such discrimination via other parts of the Constitution). U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph P. Bradley commented in the Civil Rights Cases that "individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject-matter of the [14th] Amendment. It has a deeper and broader scope. It nullifies and makes void all state legislation, and state action of every kind, which impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or which injures them in life, liberty or property without due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal protection of the laws."[27]
The Radical Republicans who advanced the Thirteenth Amendment hoped to ensure broad civil and human rights for the newly freed people—but its scope was disputed before it even went into effect.[28] The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment wanted these principles enshrined in the Constitution to protect the new Civil Rights Act from being declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and also to prevent a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote.[29][30] This section was also in response to violence against black people within the Southern states. The Joint Committee on Reconstruction found that only a Constitutional amendment could protect black people's rights and welfare within those states.[31]
This first section of the amendment has been the most frequently litigated part of the amendment,[32] and this amendment in turn has been the most frequently litigated part of the Constitution.[33]
Citizenship Clause
The Citizenship Clause overruled the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision that black people were not citizens and could not become citizens, nor enjoy the benefits of citizenship.[34][35] Some members of Congress voted for the Fourteenth Amendment in order to eliminate doubts about the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1866,[36] or to ensure that no subsequent Congress could later repeal or alter the main provisions of that Act.[37] The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had granted citizenship to all persons born in the United States if they were not subject to a foreign power, and this clause of the Fourteenth Amendment constitutionalized this rule.
There are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress and of the ratifying states, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment, as well as the customs and understandings prevalent at that time.[38][39] Some of the major issues that have arisen about this clause are the extent to which it included Native Americans, its coverage of non-citizens legally present in the United States when they have a child, whether the clause allows revocation of citizenship, and whether the clause applies to illegal immigrants.
Don't they teach civics any more? :old:
stay safe.
-
This.
It should be parental citizenship. If AND ONLY IF one or both parents are citizens, you are automatically a citizen, regardless of birth location...
In other words, right now, its:
If parent is citizen (regardless of location) OR born here, and I want to just nix the second half.
As Skidmark pointed out, it'd require a constitutional amendment. There's no way to end run the 14th amendment, nor should there be.
I concur, but it's fairly unlikely at this point. We can't even get illegals deported, so a Constitutional amendment is a bit of stretch.
-
Hypocrites.
Apparently the Obama administration hates Asians. That can be the only explanation for cracking down on Asian anchor babies while encouraging and supporting Hispanic ones.
-
Hypocrites.
Apparently the Obama administration hates Asians. That can be the only explanation for cracking down on Asian anchor babies while encouraging and supporting Hispanic ones.
Just wait and see if one of them figures out they can sue on racial grounds.
-
As Skidmark pointed out, it'd require a constitutional amendment. There's no way to end run the 14th amendment, nor should there be.
I concur, but it's fairly unlikely at this point. We can't even get illegals deported, so a Constitutional amendment is a bit of stretch.
Except there was and still is debate over the "and subject to the jurisdiction" part...but oh well. Yeah, you are mainly right, but perhaps once the C-P strategy works its way into the light, we can make changes.
-
As Skidmark pointed out, it'd require a constitutional amendment. There's no way to end run the 14th amendment, nor should there be.
I concur, but it's fairly unlikely at this point. We can't even get illegals deported, so a Constitutional amendment is a bit of stretch.
Meh, just an act of Congress.
1. There are specific provisions/laws enacted by Congress exempting certain folk from getting birth citizenship already.
2. It was to ensure that former slaves had citizenship in both the individual states in which they reside and the USA.
-
2. It was to ensure that former slaves had citizenship in both the individual states in which they reside and the USA.
What it was intended to do and what SCOTUS said it did/does are vastly different. And SCOTUS holds the trump card as Congress is/will be very reluctant to rewrite.
Have you ever looked at the process of attaining citizenship in other countries?
In response to the whole anchor baby situation - I keep coming back to Swift's "A Modest Proposal" but this time in reverse. Leave the kids alone and focus on the parents/siblings. Hold them for 30 days to check for transmissable disease organisms not rendered inert by processing. Texturized non-vegetable protien product.
stay safe.
-
Eh, just had a nasty thought. We know that if they're spending up to $80k to get their kid citizenship they're not indigent.
If they give birth at a US hospital, keep custody of the kid until they demonstrate their ability to care for it - by paying their hospital bill.
-
Eh, just had a nasty thought. We know that if they're spending up to $80k to get their kid citizenship they're not indigent.
If they give birth at a US hospital, keep custody of the kid until they demonstrate their ability to care for it - by paying their hospital bill.
I like this idea.
-
I'm trying to work out "anchor babies be damned".
I'm not. Send the parents back to wherever the parents came from, and send the anchor babies with them. Revoke their American citizenship. If we start doing it, the problem will take care of itself within a few years because people won't try to sneak in, expecting that their little "anchor baby" will allow the whole family to stay here.
After all, remember that Cuban kid in Miami. After a tremendous hue and cry, the D.O.J. decided that families should stay together, kids should be with their parents. Since the mother died en route, we sent the kid back to Cuba to live with his father. I see nothing different here. Kids belong with their parents. If the parents belong in Guatemala, so do the kids.
-
Don't they teach civics any more? :old:
Generally, no. In this case, what are they going to teach? That the courts don't really know what the Constitution says on the issue?
There are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress and of the ratifying states, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment, as well as the customs and understandings prevalent at that time.[38][39] Some of the major issues that have arisen about this clause are the extent to which it included Native Americans, its coverage of non-citizens legally present in the United States when they have a child, whether the clause allows revocation of citizenship, and whether the clause applies to illegal immigrants.
-
I'm not. Send the parents back to wherever the parents came from, and send the anchor babies with them. Revoke their American citizenship. If we start doing it, the problem will take care of itself within a few years because people won't try to sneak in, expecting that their little "anchor baby" will allow the whole family to stay here.
After all, remember that Cuban kid in Miami. After a tremendous hue and cry, the D.O.J. decided that families should stay together, kids should be with their parents. Since the mother died en route, we sent the kid back to Cuba to live with his father. I see nothing different here. Kids belong with their parents. If the parents belong in Guatemala, so do the kids.
I was approaching it more from the position that anchor babies are in fact citizens and you need to follow due process to make them stateless. As for their families - the law allows citizens to sponsor the immigration of family member provided the citizen can prove the capacity to financially support those immigrants. Pretty much a big "Nope!" for newborns.
Now follow along, kiddies.
There are all sorts of folks out there that are looking to adopt newborns and have no qualms about adopting one of the "right minority" infants. And some of them are stupid enough to believe that Asian kids come already above-smart to genius level.* (And by the time they find out otherwise the warranty has expired. =D)
No matter how or why the kid came to be born in America they are, at least under current ROE, American citizens. Their parents, siblings, near- and far-relations are not. If those foreign non-citizen parents don't want to give them up for adoption then set up some legally-here family member/friend/happens to be from the same country as the legal guardian of the kid and then work through the process to immigrate. Heck, milk the "hardship" clauses of being separated from your kid all you can.
stay safe.
* - OTOH, as has been pointed out being able to pay $80K+ to get here to drop a kid is some indication of not being destitute. And since Asian kids are above-smart to genius right out of the box it might be a worthwhile endeavor to get more Asian kids to offset the take-jobs-Americans-won't-do type. I'm throwing that out there because nobody seems to want to pick up and run with my reverse-"A Modest Proposal" proposal.
-
Why are we the only country on this earth to automatically grant citizenship to a child born within our borders?
-
I was approaching it more from the position that anchor babies are in fact citizens and you need to follow due process to make them stateless. As for their families - the law allows citizens to sponsor the immigration of family member provided the citizen can prove the capacity to financially support those immigrants. Pretty much a big "Nope!" for newborns.
I understood your position. I was just saying that we should make them (the anchor babies) stateless, or at least adopt a position that the parents can't stay here, so the child (even though an American citizen) belongs with the parents, ergo the whole fan-damily goes back to wherever they came from.
The kid can come back when he/she is emancipated and can show the means to support him/herself. Ih he/she then wishes to bring over the parental units, he/she must also demonstrate that he/she can support them.
-
Why are we the only country on this earth to automatically grant citizenship to a child born within our borders?
Because it was reasonable when it was your tired, poor, yearning to be free...but be prepared to work your ass off.
-
Why are we the only country on this earth to automatically grant citizenship to a child born within our borders?
Because clever slave owners came up with really good legal arguments as to why black people couldn't be citizens. Dred Scott to the 14th amendment is a straight line - in short, efforts to defend slavery and deprive an entire race of legal protections resulted in this rule.
The 14th amendment put the squabbling to bed with a hammer. The only tests are: 1) are you born in the US? and 2) are your parents somehow beyond the reach of US law, i.e., by being diplomats?
If yes to one and no to two, citizen. The rule has never been seriously questioned in any court decision since the Supreme Court first weighed in on the matter.
This is an example of what happens in a balance-of-power government when competing executives and legislatures try to get clever with each other. Blatant attempts to resist laws against slavery resulted in the 14th amendment. There's a whole body of judge made law from the 50's and 60's that followed similar attempts to preserve institutional racism.
In a great twist of irony the intellectual ancestors of modern racists are responsible for the US having this rule.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/03/03/feds-crack-down-on-chinese-birth-tourism-scam/
I liked the part about after paying $ 40-80K, the birth tourists go to the local hospital in California, claim indigence, and stick the taxpayers with the medical bills.
There's an obvious market solution to be had here - what about charging them $20,000, and taking 30% of the kid's income for life? If the feds agree to split the tax revenue with the hospitals it might be profitable.
-
Screw waiting around for the kid to begin getting an iincome.
Throw the parents out as illegal aliens. Declare the kid an abandoned child and put it in foster care on the fast track to terminating residual parental rights of the absent parents. Charge outrageous fees that will recoup the costs for the child-placing agency services of getting the child adopted. (No, that is not slavery by another name.) Adoptive parents have a new kid they are financially responsible for.
Welfare eliminated. Problem solved. Seem to have heard it somewhere before.
stay safe.
-
What people in this thread are literally advocating:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Faudio%2Fvideo%2F2010%2F2%2F19%2F1266607624275%2FElian-Gonzalez-held-by-Do-001.jpg&hash=07e3f5c1713d2f2729b040c75ecacbd361bcb85b)
-
What people in this thread are literally advocating:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Faudio%2Fvideo%2F2010%2F2%2F19%2F1266607624275%2FElian-Gonzalez-held-by-Do-001.jpg&hash=07e3f5c1713d2f2729b040c75ecacbd361bcb85b)
I am advocating that anchor baby does not get citizenship if he gets squeezed out on american soil and neither parent is an american citizen.
Now if the rat bastard opportunist parents dont unass the country with their kiddos sure arrest them then icarcerate them for a while before kicking them out.
-
People who pay $50,000 to ensure their child is an American don't strike me as "opportunists".
-
People who pay $50,000 to ensure their child is an American don't strike me as "opportunists".
The opportunity is an American passport for Junior and all that attends. 50 large for that is a wise and very do-able hedge for a crony capitalist in the PRC.
And the idea that folk who can drop $50k are not opportunists is foreign to my experience. How do you think they manage to have that sort of cash to throw around?
-
And the idea that folk who can drop $50k are not opportunists is foreign to my experience. How do you think they manage to have that sort of cash to throw around?
For not much more money they could be here legally and be well on the way towards citizenship themselves.
My biggest annoyance is the shafting hospitals with delivery bills.
Personally, I think we should chop the top end of the market off. Charge like $40k + hospital expenses* and let them do it completely legally. Somebody willing to drop that kind of money just to have their kid be a US citizen are likely to help their kid be successful in many more ways, making them a net benefit.
Just make sure to send them a letter when they turn 16 that if they expect to reap the rewards of Mom's investment, that they need to file for US income taxes...
*Or they deliver at 'home' with an insurance plan if things go more pear-shaped than normal.
-
Three years mandatory government servitude for the anchor baby once they turn 18.
-
Three years mandatory government servitude for the anchor baby once they turn 18.
Constitution also prohibits inherited punishments
-
Constitution also prohibits inherited punishments
Other than children dying as punishment for their anti-vax parents stupidity
-
Other than children dying as punishment for their anti-vax parents stupidity
That's one area where I think the extension of religious freedom starts to get questionable - unscientific and bass ackwards beliefs that don't hurt anyone are fine. I'm not sure the founders set out to protect religious cults that aim to make their flocks vectors for disease.
Mass vaccination has so many benefits it's hard to fathom that anyone would oppose it.
-
Constitution also prohibits inherited punishments
It also states something about not being infringed in the 2nd Amendment.
-
Mass vaccination has so many benefits it's hard to fathom that anyone would oppose it.
Besides the "We're from the government and we are here to help."?
-
Besides the "We're from the government and we are here to help."?
Why go down that road when talking about innoculations?
There are a LOT of myths about innoculation -- twaddle and nonsense that just doesn't wash when intelligent analysis is applied.
Innoculations and vaccinations have saved a great many lives over the decades. Remember polio?
No?
Well, say "thank you" to modern medicine.
Have to say it [ :facepalm: ] but DeSelby is right .... again..... ;/
-
Why go down that road when talking about innoculations?
There are a LOT of myths about innoculation -- twaddle and nonsense that just doesn't wash when intelligent analysis is applied.
Innoculations and vaccinations have saved a great many lives over the decades. Remember polio?
No?
Well, say "thank you" to modern medicine.
Have to say it [ :facepalm: ] but DeSelby is right .... again..... ;/
Let me state up front I am pro-vax. Kiddos, dogs, self, wife, get all the suggested ones, on schedule. I am seriously considering going in and re-upping all the vaxes I got in the service. You know, the ones for yellow fever, black plague, etc. All the suggested ones for travel anywhere on the globe. I also get the flu vax every year as early as possible.
That said, the argument in favor of the most common vaccines is not as strong as most the pro-vax crowd states.
At least three major flies in the pro-vax ointment:
1. The mortality rate for the common childhood diseases (esp measles, mumps, chicken pox, etc.) show a decline from the beginning of the 20th century in the USA. From the data I have seen, the decline in mort rates and numbers did not accelerate subsequent to the introduction of the vaccines for those particular diseases. If the vaccines had any particular efficacy beyond the phenomena already present, we ought to see an acceleration in mort rate declines. It has reached the point where deaths from adverse reactions tot he vaccine are greater than deaths from several of the diseases. The math, she is a female dog.
Fly #1 is pretty easy to explain, at least most of it. When they first hit the population, those childhood diseases were not childhood diseases, but horrifically lethal plagues. Over time, the human population is selected for hardiness vs that bug. Also, the bug itself changes to be generally less lethal but more transmissible. This is the usual path most bugs take over time when introduced to a new population. Measles, mumps, chicken pox, syphilis, etc. etc. and such. Toss in better personal hygiene and public sanitation and you see the 20th century decline in those bugs' lethality. Again, lethality which did not decline appreciably faster after the intro of vaccines for the particular bugs.
2. Flu vax is particularly problematic. The flu vax this last season did not cover 50% of the flu variants (or cases?) out there. Push that 0.50 up against some unknown probability of exposure and some probability that even if the flu vax protects against it, that it does not work. How far below a coin toss are we at this point? I mean, we STARTED at a coin toss. What is the cutoff probability of efficacy after which it is unethical to introduce the risks inherent with administering the flu vaccine?
Fly #2 is a toughie to explain. I still get it and figure I am hearty enough to suck up any adverse reaction.
3. The CDC turned studies on vax efficacy and adverse reactions into unethical junk science with their methodology. I should know better, but that one floored me. First, you have gov't calling the shots (heh) on childhood vax production with a monopsony. Second, you have gov't giving the companies that produce them serious protection against lawsuits for producing defective products. Third, you have gov't investigating itself to determine adverse reactions, efficacy, etc. This is not a recipe for rigor and accountability outside the masturbatory writings of good-government activists.
Fly #3 is a mike foxtrotter. Monopsony, self-policing, and no accountability.
The arguments for herd immunity are well and good. Problem is, when there is no reliable data for vax efficacy or adverse reactions, it knocks much of the support out from under it. When vax efficacy can not be determined due to shoddy methodology performed by unaccountable bureaucrats, what is the point? Frankly, I get my vax shots based on faith that some folk are getting paid and generally want to do a decent job. Because the risk/benefit data can't be used to make an informed choice. I also get them because we are letting in disease carriers willy-nilly from all over the world. (Hence the more exotic vax I am considering).
-
#1 The mortality rate is only a small portion of the issue. There are many life-shortening and life-altering effects from those diseases (Polio for instance). While they may not kill you now, they can and will cut years off your life. Not to mention, reduce your quality of life, job and earning potential. SO merely looking at the mortality rate doesn't tell anywhere near the full story. Just think of all the people not sick, nor caring for those that do get sick with those diseases.
#2 The Flu vaccine is generally a best guess as to what strains will be spread the most in the upcoming year. The thing is and what most don't realize is that as you get a new one each year, your body doesn't forget about the old ones you got. And yes, the sanitation thing has played a big part in reducing the lethality of the flu each year. But if you start with protection against 50% of the strains this year, then next year that goes up. Maybe to only 51%, maybe to 95% of the strains spreading in that year. Either way, it's better then 0%.
#3 That the State Science Institute CDC becoming politicized is a very sad state of affairs. But again, once it conquered the major killers (small pox, polio, measles, rubella) if was an agency in search of a mission. Yeah, there is always Cancer, but there are so many that it's doesn't have the big splash like "Small Pox Ended". So just like at NASA, the science types yielded to the Social Justice/Liberal types. It became an agency in search of a mission. Hence, the "healthcare issue" of guns.
Second, There are times when a monopsony works. By dictating price, the government is able to ensure that universal vaccination is possible and affordable. The .gov (to include the USDA) should protect companies from tort liability, if there is the imprimatur of being approved by the .gov, via its rigorous testing and trials regimen. While there have been cases of adverse effects to INDIVIDUALS to vaccines, those INDIVIDUALS have been able to successfully sue without the entire vaccine being pulled from the market as is done with other drugs where tort lawyers have created class action lawsuits to line their own pockets and deprived many people of any number of worthwhile medications.
Third, I think the .gov actually does a fairly good job of listening to medical experts as to adverse reactions, etc. Most doctors also do a fairly good job of being kept up to date on the latest in patient care.
-
Three years mandatory government servitude for the anchor baby once they turn 18.
Death to the slaver.
-
#1 The mortality rate is only a small portion of the issue.
I just had a thought, the decreasing mortality rate Rooster mentioned:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvaxtruth.org%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F03%2FFigure-4-Polio_thumb.jpg&hash=686e191573ecb446dc599caa27f9480b2e0f971c) (http://vaxtruth.org/2012/03/the-polio-vaccine-part-2-2/)
Note that they say 'death rate', and go by percentage, and somehow it exceeded 100% in GB.
I'm willing to bet that they're not graphing something like 'polio deaths per 100k'. They're graphing something like 'deaths of infected people'. IE, those infected with polio severely enough for it to reach medical people and be recorded. Also, they set the percentage to some arbitrary year(quite possibly an unusually high year), to make the situation look like it's improving even more. So, sure, as we develop better medicine the death rate drops. But it's the vaccine that dropped the number of infections.
Oh, and in the last decade we've actually managed to 'cure' a couple developed cases of rabies. The trick to it? Six months in a medical coma. I don't know about you, but even though the mortality rate from Rabies has dropped from 100%, I'd still rather have the vaccine...
That's why the line doesn't show some massive decline after vaccination is introduced - because they're looking only at the outcome of infections, which are still happening. Plus, it took years to vaccinate everybody in the USA or GB, much less the world, it's not like a game where you develop a counter for a disease and it's all cured in one turn.
#2 The Flu vaccine is generally a best guess as to what strains will be spread the most in the upcoming year.
Don't forget that many people mistake the common cold for flu, and the vaccine doesn't protect against colds.
-
Plus, it took years to vaccinate everybody in the USA or GB, much less the world,
Could have fooled me way back then. Seemed like every school kid in the US was lined up on the same day and told to suck a sugar cube. Mom & Dad got word to bring me and my sister to the nearest embassy/consulate/military medical center RFN where we were made to suck a sugar cube. Some years later they came out with an improved version and we were redosed. IIRC that one was the injection.
stay safe.
-
Could have fooled me way back then.
Note: "Kids" and 'seemed'. It took longer to reach many of the adults and probably some of the schools.
I'll note that with finding out that one grandfather was almost killed by polio, and suffered lifelong walking problems because of it, which I knew about since I was a kid, and recently finding out that my paternal grandmother had to relearn how to walk from it, I think it's a good thing that I've been vaccinated at least 3 times* for it.
*The military didn't care that I'd been vaccinated for it as a kid and brought my shot records showing it. I got the vaccine again.
-
#1 The mortality rate is only a small portion of the issue. There are many life-shortening and life-altering effects from those diseases (Polio for instance). While they may not kill you now, they can and will cut years off your life. Not to mention, reduce your quality of life, job and earning potential. SO merely looking at the mortality rate doesn't tell anywhere near the full story. Just think of all the people not sick, nor caring for those that do get sick with those diseases.
True...but equally true before and after development of a vaccine for a particular infectious disease.
Deaths as a proxy for magnitude/virulence, etc. is pretty standard. For one, dead bodies are the most concrete of evidence to count and thus we have the harder death stats than say, "hours lost to measles due to measles-related doc office visits" and the like. Sort of like murders as both a stat in and of itself, but as a proxy for all violent crimes.
#2 The Flu vaccine is generally a best guess as to what strains will be spread the most in the upcoming year. The thing is and what most don't realize is that as you get a new one each year, your body doesn't forget about the old ones you got. And yes, the sanitation thing has played a big part in reducing the lethality of the flu each year. But if you start with protection against 50% of the strains this year, then next year that goes up. Maybe to only 51%, maybe to 95% of the strains spreading in that year. Either way, it's better then 0%.
Last year it looks like 50% was the absolute tops. Assume it was 75% effective, 0.75 * 0.50 = .0375, so 37.5%. Bump that up against a prob of encountering enough of the flu bugs to matter, say 75%? Down to 28%. We're approaching "Why bother?" territory, here.
But better than the risk of adverse reaction? In my own case, I think "yes" so I get my flu shot as early as available. But, still, how many other med treatments are we and the FDA happy with, say, a 10% or 25% efficacy rate a randomized sample with the risk of adverse reactions being....what?
#3 That the State Science Institute CDC becoming politicized is a very sad state of affairs. But again, once it conquered the major killers (small pox, polio, measles, rubella) if was an agency in search of a mission. Yeah, there is always Cancer, but there are so many that it's doesn't have the big splash like "Small Pox Ended". So just like at NASA, the science types yielded to the Social Justice/Liberal types. It became an agency in search of a mission. Hence, the "healthcare issue" of guns.
Second, There are times when a monopsony works. By dictating price, the government is able to ensure that universal vaccination is possible and affordable. The .gov (to include the USDA) should protect companies from tort liability, if there is the imprimatur of being approved by the .gov, via its rigorous testing and trials regimen. While there have been cases of adverse effects to INDIVIDUALS to vaccines, those INDIVIDUALS have been able to successfully sue without the entire vaccine being pulled from the market as is done with other drugs where tort lawyers have created class action lawsuits to line their own pockets and deprived many people of any number of worthwhile medications.
Third, I think the .gov actually does a fairly good job of listening to medical experts as to adverse reactions, etc. Most doctors also do a fairly good job of being kept up to date on the latest in patient care.
Of what use is universality and affordability if it is either not effective or adverse reactions are a rather large in proportion to efficacy? For horrifically deadly and catching diseases, maybe it is worth it. For less serious diseases maybe not so much. Why is gov't making these decisions?
And then there is the problem where you have a centralized planner making decisions on production and the like. That does not work out so well, as we have seen some years where the vax runs out. A company subject to market forces would be a much better decision-maker.
Sounds like gov't centralized planning of the vaccine market is a response to the failure of gov't to impose discipline on the tort market. Loser pays and the like seem a better response than soviet centralized planning.
-
Note: "Kids" and 'seemed'. It took longer to reach many of the adults and probably some of the schools.
I'll note that with finding out that one grandfather was almost killed by polio, and suffered lifelong walking problems because of it, which I knew about since I was a kid, and recently finding out that my paternal grandmother had to relearn how to walk from it, I think it's a good thing that I've been vaccinated at least 3 times* for it.
*The military didn't care that I'd been vaccinated for it as a kid and brought my shot records showing it. I got the vaccine again.
So, we would have seen an acceleration of the decline over a short period until the population is immunized. Still don't see it for lots of the childhood diseases. There are other larger and more powerful phenomena at work, especially given the great decline seen between 1900 and the years the particular vaccines were introduced. My bet is on the bugs in question mutating to be less deadly and more infectious and humans being culled in favor or those more resistant. Toss in personal and public sanitation for things like cholera.
Of course, this is not to discount the no-bull and dramatic effects vaccines have on some of the other bugs out there.
-
Last year it looks like 50% was the absolute tops. Assume it was 75% effective, 0.75 * 0.50 = .0375, so 37.5%. Bump that up against a prob of encountering enough of the flu bugs to matter, say 75%? Down to 28%. We're approaching "Why bother?" territory, here.
Sometimes they manage a 'slam dunk' at targeting the correct viruses for an upcoming flue season. Sometimes they miss. This year was a miss.
As for the math, well, better people with more access to data than us have crunched the spreadsheets and figured out that the costs and risks of the flu vaccine are outweighed by the costs and risks of the resulting flu.
Why is gov't making these decisions?
Because we created the CDC? Seriously, 'general welfare'. Though I want to take a step back, they're recommending vaccinations, not mandating them. It's individual states, and more specifically the school districts, that are mandating the CDC recommended list(because the CDC crunched the heavy numbers), for students to attend classes where, if infected, they would potentially expose many other students, so it's a group safety thing.
And then there is the problem where you have a centralized planner making decisions on production and the like. That does not work out so well, as we have seen some years where the vax runs out. A company subject to market forces would be a much better decision-maker.
I don't think the CDC is making the decision on how much to produce. They recommend everybody get it, of course, but then also make decisions on who needs it most - IE kids and elders first, those who work with large numbers of people, etc...
They recommend this because the more people that get the shot every year, rather than waiting to see if it's going to be a 'bad' flu season, the more consistency, and the more consistency, the better able the vaccine manufacturer is able to match demand with supply.
Sounds like gov't centralized planning of the vaccine market is a response to the failure of gov't to impose discipline on the tort market. Loser pays and the like seem a better response than soviet centralized planning.
I don't think we've gone that far. The CDC doesn't have the ability to order the vaccine manufacturers to produce, or not produce, a given amount of product.
-
Sometimes they manage a 'slam dunk' at targeting the correct viruses for an upcoming flue season. Sometimes they miss. This year was a miss.
As for the math, well, better people with more access to data than us have crunched the spreadsheets and figured out that the costs and risks of the flu vaccine are outweighed by the costs and risks of the resulting flu.
Because we created the CDC? Seriously, 'general welfare'. Though I want to take a step back, they're recommending vaccinations, not mandating them. It's individual states, and more specifically the school districts, that are mandating the CDC recommended list(because the CDC crunched the heavy numbers), for students to attend classes where, if infected, they would potentially expose many other students, so it's a group safety thing.
I don't think the CDC is making the decision on how much to produce. They recommend everybody get it, of course, but then also make decisions on who needs it most - IE kids and elders first, those who work with large numbers of people, etc...
They recommend this because the more people that get the shot every year, rather than waiting to see if it's going to be a 'bad' flu season, the more consistency, and the more consistency, the better able the vaccine manufacturer is able to match demand with supply.
I don't think we've gone that far. The CDC doesn't have the ability to order the vaccine manufacturers to produce, or not produce, a given amount of product.
The same folk who crunch the spreadsheets are the ones who produced the junk/politicized science. Go ahead and look at how the CDC had to fess up in some of their relatively recent publications. Not pretty. It is not a smoking gun showing the MMR vax causes autism, acne, ADHD, hair loss, erectile dysfunction, cervical cancer, and messy bedrooms. But it did destroy the validity of many of their studies looking at adverse outcomes. For folk like me, who take data seriously, they had best get cracking and use proper methodology on some new studies. Used to be, all they had to worry about was nutters like Jenny McCarthy and such, but now--due to their laziness and/or arrogance--they have stepped on their richard but good.
It is my understanding that gov't contracts for all/most the common childhood disease vaccines and buys them, then sells them at cost/discount. Thus, monopsony. In such a market, no rational vax maker will produce other than for gov't contract/at gov't behest. At any time non-contract product can be undercut by gov't subsidy. No need to forbid other manuf to make similar vaccines. If I am wrong, I would like to know and see data so stating.