I don't want to add to the fear-mongering but...

Krgrecw said:
Thethe, I think the biggest threat to us living in America is the rise of liberalism and all that entails: weaker foreign policy, not closing the borders, spending money we don't have, keeping low income people down, dividing the country by race, more government programs, etc.

That's what I'm worried about. And that **** is happening here and now.
Click to expand...

MUWAHAHAAHAHAH!!!!11011

YOULL NEVAR STOP US LIBRULSSSZZERZZZ111!!!11010101
 
57Brave said:
why isnt the Surgeon General involved?
Click to expand...

Wondered that myself. Why have a political hack czar when there is suppose to be a Surgeon General? And wasn't there already a point person set up before for this sort of thing? I mean didn't something like this get established back several years ago? The memory ain't what it use to be.
 
BedellBrave said:
Wondered that myself. Why have a political hack czar when there is suppose to be a Surgeon General? And wasn't there already a point person set up before for this sort of thing? I mean didn't something like this get established back several years ago? The memory ain't what it use to be.
Click to expand...

you know we don't have a surgeon general cause republicans won't let the appointment happen cause he talked about the nra, right?
 
goldfly said:
you know we don't have a surgeon general cause republicans won't let the appointment happen cause he talked about the nra, right?
Click to expand...

Well you can spin it that way if you like. And the other bureaucrats that should be doing the job? None of them can come to work either because of the nasty Rs?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, same song 50 millionth verse.

Let's hire another political hack for another political hack job cause it'll make people feel safe and all.
 
BedellBrave said:
Well you can spin it that way if you like. And the other bureaucrats that should be doing the job? None of them can come to work either because of the nasty Rs?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, same song 50 millionth verse.

Let's hire another political hack for another political hack job cause it'll make people feel safe and all.
Click to expand...

uh, that's some spin if i have ever seen it if i do say so myself.

i don't think we should have a czar either but i think the rest of your rant is very talk radio call inish that overlooks the actual problem of your first question so you can rant about something

Cruz: Obama's surgeon general pick is not a 'health professional'

The lack of a surgeon general -- the federal government’s top public health spokesperson -- has become a point of contention as the public panics about Ebola. Sen. Ted Cruz said President Barack Obama is to blame for the fact that the position hasn’t been filled.

"Look, of course we should have a surgeon general in place," Cruz, R-Texas, said on CNN’s State of the Union Oct. 19. "And we don’t have one because President Obama, instead of nominating a health professional, he nominated someone who is an anti-gun activist."

Obama nominated Dr. Vivek Murthy in November 2013, but Senate Republicans blocked his confirmation the following spring because of alleged anti-gun leanings. The National Rifle Association, which scores policymakers’ records on gun rights, announced that it would ding senators who voted for Murthy.

It’s up for debate how much of an impact the surgeon general would have in the current Ebola situation.

But it’s bogus for Cruz to imply that Murthy -- a graduate of Yale School of Medicine -- is not primarily a health professional. It’s also a bit of a stretch to call Murthy an "anti-gun activist."

A career in public health

Here are some of Murthy’s credentials as a health professional:

Received his doctor of medicine degree in 2003 from the Yale School of Medicine;

Is a physician and Harvard Medical School instructor at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital, one of the best hospitals in the country;

Has contributed to vaccine development and cancer research published in several medical journals, including the Journal of the American Medical Association, Science, and the Journal of the National Cancer Institute;

Co-founded TrialNetworks, which provides medical researchers with information technology systems for managing clinical trials;

Member of the U.S. Presidential Advisory Council on Prevention, Health Promotion and Integrative and Public Health.

Also of note: As a student, Murthy co-founded two India-based public health projects, one while as an undergraduate at Harvard University and the other while at Yale. The first focused on AIDS prevention, and the latter trained women in rural areas to address community health issues.

Political leanings

Where Murthy starts to get in hot water with Republicans is with Doctors for America, which he founded and currently heads. Doctors for America is a pro-Affordable Care Act health care reform advocacy group. They started out in 2008 as Doctors for Obama, an arm of the Obama presidential campaign.

Doctors for America’s primary cause is health care reform and expanding access to medical services. However, the group also considers gun violence a public health problem, and they have pushed gun control legislation. At a 2013 conference, they held a reducing gun violence workshop.

Of particular concern for the NRA is a letter Doctors for America sent to Congress Jan. 14, 2013, following the Sandy Hook school shooting. Murthy’s signature is on the letter.

The letter lays out several policy suggestions, including a ban on assault weapon sales, instituting universal background checks and removing laws that prohibit doctors from asking patients if they own a gun -- similar to other Doctors for America proposals.

These policy proposals are relatively mainstream and expected from someone who is a political ally to the president. They are also similar to policies supported by other medical associations, such as the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics. But the NRA has painted the Doctors for America policy proposals as radical.

The NRA and Senate Republicans also made hay with Murthy’s Twitter. In 2012 and 2013, he tweeted occasionally about gun violence -- expressing plainly that he believes in more gun control and that he considers it a health care issue.

But does this mean he’d be an advocate for gun control as surgeon general?

When we asked Cruz's office for comment, spokesperson Catherine Frazier told us this: "It is wrong to cherry-pick one line out of context from the argument that Sen. Cruz was making, which is that the president’s nominee is no mere health professional, he is a liberal activist that has indicated he would use his position to further a gun control agenda. Both Republicans and Democrats have voiced concern over the nomination."

In Murthy’s opening statement at his surgeon general confirmation hearing, though, he listed other public health issues as priorities -- including obesity (his stated primary cause), vaccine-preventable diseases and tobacco use. He did not mention gun control.

Later in the hearing, Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., read aloud one of Murthy’s tweets. In response, Murthy said he would not use the surgeon general role as a "bully pulpit for gun control."

He added: "The role is not to be a legislator or a judge. The role is to be a public health educator and to bring the country together around our most pressing health care challenges, and I believe at this point that obesity is the defining public health challenge of our time. That is where I intend to put my primary focus."

Our ruling

Cruz said, "President Obama, instead of nominating a health professional, he nominated someone who is an anti-gun activist."

Murthy has a long list of credentials showing he is a health professional, including his position as an attending physician at a leading hospital. Murthy runs a health care reform organization that has pushed for gun control measures, and he has expressed personal support for gun control. But enacting gun control is not Murthy’s main cause and not part of his public surgeon general platform.

It’s no secret that Murthy is a political ally for Obama and backs his positions on gun control. But it's inaccurate to say he's an anti-gun activist but not a health care professional. We rate Cruz’s claim False

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...bamas-surgeon-general-pick-not-health-profes/
 
The point is that Obama could have made somebody 'qualified' like Murthy head of the Ebola response team as opposed to Joe Biden's bitch boy.

He even could have said, 'Hey, I wanted this guy to be the Surgeon General a long time ago but the Republicans were too busy playing politics ... and now look, we have an Ebola catastrophe! Merde a dieu!'

'So I'm taking matters into my own hands because I'm the President and y'all elected me to do this ****.'

It's pretty hilarious, actually -- we don't have an Attorney General right now, either, because Dems are scared enough to want to wait until after the elections to attempt to make an appointment.

:facepalm:
 
It seems like every year there's some disease that's supposed to scare the ever living **** out of us.
 
and every one is Obama's Katrina.

" I don't want to add to the fear-mongering but... "
But what?
If that wasn't the purpose than what was? I can't believe people still fall for this crap. Every time !!

/////////////////////////

The same pundits and writers that push the Ebola story are the same ones that led right wing people by the nose into this abyss.
http://billmoyers.com/2014/06/26/iraq-the-war-card/

At some point people you have to take into account who is telling you what and why
 
Ebola was never going to take root in this country unless our cleanliness regimen went down the ****ter. Literally.
 
57Brave said:
and every one is Obama's Katrina.

" I don't want to add to the fear-mongering but... "

But what?

If that wasn't the purpose than what was?
Click to expand...

The OP wasn't supposed to be taken seriously.

There is no question that for a few weeks there the ebola thing was a pretty bad screw up by the the CDC director. I mean we never should have had 2 nurses get Ebola after it was known that patient zero had ebola. I just don't see how anyone can rationalize that away. I think the supposed overreaction is the reason the CDC started to get their act together. They pretty much started doing everything they should have been doing.

And I think we need to be a bit careful in not underestimating ebola going forward. Sure I'd be very surprised if it become a major epidemic in our country, but we should still take reasonable measures to make sure that doesn't happen. Just simple things that could have been implemented in Dallas and maybe some tweaks to the screening process. Don't get too cocky. Mother nature.... she's a mother
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top