Looks like vaccination is going away

[Swammerdami]

That H.R. 1 effectively transfers funding from the poor to the rich is plainly visible.

Why on earth do you think that's a substantive argument? What the heck ...
...
As you look at your bill for 19% of your assets, would you think "Score! The government just transferred me 17% more wealth!"?

Is it your point that NO "baseline" can exist? In that case, doesn't any comparison become difficult or impossible?
Or, is there an appropriate baseline? If you already presented your choice in the thread, sorry -- I've either already forgotten it or missed it to start with.

For me, comparing

* What the net result of taxes and transfers would be without policy changes; and​

* What the net result of taxes and transfers will be under the Big Beautiful Bill Act​

is the most logical and meaningful way to evaluate the net effect of the Big Beautiful Bill Act on taxes and transfers.

Can you use copy/paste to remind us of, and to help us understand your allegedly superior methodology?

 

[Bomb#20]

That H.R. 1 effectively transfers funding from the poor to the rich is plainly visible.

Why on earth do you think that's a substantive argument? What the heck ...
...
As you look at your bill for 19% of your assets, would you think "Score! The government just transferred me 17% more wealth!"?

Is it your point that NO "baseline" can exist?

Of course not. Of course a baseline can exist. Infinitely many can exist. This is not rocket science.

In that case, doesn't any comparison become difficult or impossible?
Or, is there an appropriate baseline?

Yes. The appropriate baseline depends, obviously, on precisely what question is being asked. You can certainly ask questions for which your preferred baseline would be the appropriate one; but those aren't the question at hand. For the question at hand -- the correctness or otherwise of Elixir's upthread claims -- zero-based-budgeting is the obviously appropriate baseline.

If you already presented your choice in the thread, sorry -- I've either already forgotten it or missed it to start with.

For me, comparing

* What the net result of taxes and transfers would be without policy changes; and​

* What the net result of taxes and transfers will be under the Big Beautiful Bill Act​

is the most logical and meaningful way to evaluate the net effect of the Big Beautiful Bill Act on taxes and transfers.

Yes, we know, you already told us. What you haven't told us is whether on getting a bill from Thailand for 19% of your assets, you would think "Score! The government just transferred me 17% more wealth!". Did you not understand the question or are you refusing to answer it?

Is comparing with the previous policy also logical and meaningful when you're the target of a government helping itself to someone's property, or is it only logical and meaningful when the target is somebody else?

Can you use copy/paste to remind us of, and to help us understand your allegedly superior methodology?

Post #19. https://iidb.org/threads/looks-like-vaccination-is-going-away.29520/#post-1289580

"The 2025 budget was $711,733.765. The administration's budget request for 2026 is $769,212.611. Trump asked Congress to authorize a $57 billion raise for Medicaid next year."

The rest is commentary.

 

[Swammerdami]

That H.R. 1 effectively transfers funding from the poor to the rich is plainly visible.

Why on earth do you think that's a substantive argument? What the heck ...
...
As you look at your bill for 19% of your assets, would you think "Score! The government just transferred me 17% more wealth!"?

Is it your point that NO "baseline" can exist?

Of course not. Of course a baseline can exist. Infinitely many can exist. This is not rocket science.

Pompous and sarcastic noise. Does this contribute to the debate?

My "Is it your point that NO "baseline" can exist?" may also have been inappropriate. HOWEVER after you REJECTED what seemed to me to be the most logical and appropriate baseline for comparison, I honestly thought that you might be arguing that ANY baseline would be controversial.

In that case, doesn't any comparison become difficult or impossible?
Or, is there an appropriate baseline?

Yes. The appropriate baseline depends, obviously, on precisely what question is being asked. You can certainly ask questions for which your preferred baseline would be the appropriate one; but those aren't the question at hand. For the question at hand -- the correctness or otherwise of Elixir's upthread claims -- zero-based-budgeting is the obviously appropriate baseline.

"The question at hand"?? Setting aside that the thread title is about vaccination, the question at MY hand is whether the QOPAnon-Trump policies and the BBB Act specifically are progressive or regressive. Pursuing the validity of Elixir's specific claims, or pursuing the validity of your rebuttal to Elixir, or even pursuing the validity of my surrebuttal is just another way to fall down a rabbit-hole.

Falling down a rabbit-hole is not a path to illumination. If this is the default debate style here at IIDB, then include me out.

For me, comparing

* What the net result of taxes and transfers would be without policy changes; and​

* What the net result of taxes and transfers will be under the Big Beautiful Bill Act​

is the most logical and meaningful way to evaluate the net effect of the Big Beautiful Bill Act on taxes and transfers.

Yes, we know, you already told us.

(To fit in with your style, should I say you've already told us that I already told you? )

What you haven't told us is whether on getting a bill from Thailand for 19% of your assets, you would think "Score! The government just transferred me 17% more wealth!". Did you not understand the question or are you refusing to answer it?

Have you stopped beating your wife?
Most intelligent useful questions go unanswered at this message-board. Do you really expect us to bother with inane "straw-man" questions?

Is comparing with the previous policy also logical and meaningful when you're the target of a government helping itself to someone's property, or is it only logical and meaningful when the target is somebody else?

Can you use copy/paste to remind us of, and to help us understand your allegedly superior methodology?

Post #19. https://iidb.org/threads/looks-like-vaccination-is-going-away.29520/#post-1289580

"The 2025 budget was $711,733.765. The administration's budget request for 2026 is $769,212.611. Trump asked Congress to authorize a $57 billion raise for Medicaid next year."

The rest is commentary.

It might be nice to understand that figure; do you discuss it in your "commentary"? How much of the increase is due to demographics or rising medical costs? How much is due to red states' reducing their own spending and opting into tailored largesse? I don't know; and researching such questions is far from a high priority for me. Can you fill us in?

Spending seven seconds on "research" produces "Medicaid spending was $871.7 billion in 2023." I doubt if spending has actually gone down so much: Instead this figure just demonstrates how hard it will be to get a good handle on the numbers.

That's why, for the purpose of understanding the net effects of the BBB Act on taxes and transfers, the table I copied from CBO is a good reference. The "C" in "CBO" stands for Congressional and the ".gov" in "cbo.gov" stands for the U.S. government presently controlled by Donald Trump. Thus we needn't assume the table was propaganda generated by Marxo-terrorist sex traffickers in the Democrat Party!

 

[Bomb#20]

Medicaid is not being reduced. Your "AI" is mindlessly reciting disinformation it was fed.

I'm not going to address the AI, just the reality.

Medicaid should be expected to scale at least linearly with population and the cost of healthcare. Anything less than that is in the real world a cut.

(And, in practice, the cost should be expected to rise faster because improved medical care means some people that would have been dead end up disabled instead.)

If millions lose health insurance it will be caused not by nonexistent cuts but by the Medicaid payments being reprioritized to different patients. Total funding increases even as some patients are turned away, because cost per patient is going up, because medical professionals keep raising their prices.

I believe that 11 million is those that were caught between Medicaid and the ACA. The ACA has a flaw, the highest subsidy band doesn't extend down to $0 as it was expected Medicaid would be covering them. Those caught below the bottom of the band pay full price--which would be a large percentage of their income.

Wait, are you telling me Americans can do socialized medicine, we just can't do it intelligently? Who'd a thunk?

", and imposes new restrictions and paperwork requirements on Medicaid recipients, which is expected to further reduce access to these services." -- a fact not in dispute, but that's an element of the Medicaid payments being reprioritized to different patients.​

Except it's not. You're acting as if the changes are sane, but in reality it's just breaking everything they can break.

Except it is; and I offered no opinion on whether the changes are sane -- I'm just following the money. "Just breaking everything they can break" is perfectly compatible with my observation that the money is being shunted elsewhere in the medical system rather than being pulled out and given to billionaires.

Your … uh … misrepresentation thst “social services have increased funding” remains BS.

I misrepresented nothing. Your hostility to zero-based-budgeting doesn't make it incorrect.

Zero based budgeting is an atrocity. Unpredictability greatly reduces the benefit.

Your hostility to zero-based-budgeting doesn't make it incorrect either. You appear to be trying to derive an "is" from an "ought".

And any service provided to the population should be expected to scale with the population.

And any spending should be expected to scale with inflation.

The population is growing at 1%. Inflation is at 3%. Federal spending on Medicaid is going up 8%.

What they're paying for is the U.S. medical industry raising its prices faster than inflation for decades on end and gobbling up an ever-increasing fraction of total production. If you have any evidence that the money is actually being given to billionaires or to corporations in general outside the medical industry, I'm all ears.

Because the medical world is accomplishing a lot more than it used to.

Simple illustration: I recently had a kidney stone removed. Completely asymptomatic, in the old days it would not have been caught until it caused kidney damage. <etc.>

That's an argument for why the fact that the money is staying in the medical industry because medicine is gobbling up an ever-increasing fraction of total production is justified; it's not evidence that the money is being given to billionaires. You appear to be trying to derive an "is" from an "ought" again.

 

[Emily Lake]

All you're accomplishing is to nitpick over bullshit, Emily.

You posted something that was incorrect, on a topic where there's a lot of misinformation. I think it's entirely reasonable to correct that inaccuracy.

You could have just left me the fuck alone.

1) You're not special. I would have corrected ANYONE who posted what you did, for the exact same reason. Why do you think you should merit special treatment and be allowed to post misleading statements without being challenged?

2) Right back at you. You're presumably capable of managing your own emotional reactions. You could have clarified what you said without being rude. You could have chosen not to respond at all. You could put me on ignore. There are many options available to you.

Seriously, you respond to me more often than I respond to you. And when you do respond to me, you are uncivil, rude, and extremely antagonistic.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In my twenty plus years working in the finance department of the largest healthcare system in the region I've seen some pretty damned stupid spending. The board and top admin get free memberships and dues to the local private golf country club. Free membership and dues to the snobby private social club. Their personal tax return processing is paid for by the Hospital at over a thousand dollars a pop. Monthly (sometimes more) luncheon meetings with the board and entire management team at the before mentioned social club (meals and drinks not covered by monthly dues) that the hospital pays for even though there are very nice and large conference rooms off of both of the main campuses cafeterias. Probably more.

I was never privy enough to get the full total of all that spending but I could see it reaching probably a half million.

I'm sure there's stuff like this. But what % of the total is it? Drop in the bucket.

Is that the purpose of a (non profit) hospital? That's all money that could be spent to improve patient care. Two new hospitalist physicians (starting pay $180K), five more registered nurses. The list could go on.

Your apologia for the rich and greedy by just saying the word percentage is sickening.

You miss the point.

I'm not saying it was a good thing. I'm saying fixing it wouldn't meaningfully change the overall picture. You're focusing on the candle and ignoring the bonfire.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Just read the text, it's right there in the original quote: at best they cause much more mold mild versions of what happens during a normal infection.

I'm arguing with you because your premise is essentially that homeopathy works, and it expresses a considerable misunderstanding of how traditional vaccines actually work.

Now, if you'd like to cop to expressing yourself poorly, that's fine. I'll happily accept that you just did a bad job of it, and move on.

You have a serious case of cart-horse here.

We are saying that in some cases vaccines produce side effects similar to what the disease would cause. They are undesirable but unavoidable as they are caused by the body's reaction to the existence of the pathogen rather than by the pathogen itself. Homeopathy is about creating very (as in completely) mild versions of the symptoms--a desired endpoint rather than an undesired side effect.

 

[ZiprHead]

In my twenty plus years working in the finance department of the largest healthcare system in the region I've seen some pretty damned stupid spending. The board and top admin get free memberships and dues to the local private golf country club. Free membership and dues to the snobby private social club. Their personal tax return processing is paid for by the Hospital at over a thousand dollars a pop. Monthly (sometimes more) luncheon meetings with the board and entire management team at the before mentioned social club (meals and drinks not covered by monthly dues) that the hospital pays for even though there are very nice and large conference rooms off of both of the main campuses cafeterias. Probably more.

I was never privy enough to get the full total of all that spending but I could see it reaching probably a half million.

I'm sure there's stuff like this. But what % of the total is it? Drop in the bucket.

Is that the purpose of a (non profit) hospital? That's all money that could be spent to improve patient care. Two new hospitalist physicians (starting pay $180K), five more registered nurses. The list could go on.

Your apologia for the rich and greedy by just saying the word percentage is sickening.

You miss the point.

I'm not saying it was a good thing. I'm saying fixing it wouldn't meaningfully change the overall picture. You're focusing on the candle and ignoring the bonfire.

And you are doing it again.

 

[Jarhyn]

You have a serious case of cart-horse here.

We are saying that in some cases vaccines produce side effects similar to what the disease would cause. They are undesirable but unavoidable as they are caused by the body's reaction to the existence of the pathogen rather than by the pathogen itself. Homeopathy is about creating very (as in completely) mild versions of the symptoms--a desired endpoint rather than an undesired side effect.

Exactly. Actually, homeopathy is even worse.

Homeopathy "works" (is a scam based on) on the absurd notion that by putting the agent in the water/pill/whatever and then taking it out unto nothingness, you can imbue the base with some absence of the symptoms, and so when you imbue it, you will somehow inherit the cleansed-ness of the whatever, for the symptoms that agent causes, I think?

It's absolutely fucking nutso.

 

[Emily Lake]

We are saying that in some cases vaccines produce side effects similar to what the disease would cause.

If the vaccine is for influenza or maybe covid, you're spot on. If the vaccine is for tetanus or diphtheria or shingles or mumps, you're just wrong.
With extremely few exceptions, vaccines all cause the SAME SIDE EFFECTS REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE DISEASE IS - aching joints, slight fever, fatigue, potentially a mildly upset stomach.

They are undesirable but unavoidable as they are caused by the body's reaction to the existence of the pathogen rather than by the pathogen itself.

They're caused by production of antibodies, but the body is usually NOT exposed to the pathogen, or even "the existence of the pathogen" although I'm not sure what that phrase is supposed to mean. Bilby's post on this was excellent, more knowledgeable than me. The whole point is that with extremely few exceptions, vaccines never expose the individual to the pathogen at all. In layman's terms, vaccines provide the body a "blueprint" that can be used to produce antibodies ahead of time, so that if the individual is ever exposed to the actual pathogen, the antibodies can hop out and kill it quick before it gets a foothold.

Homeopathy is about creating very (as in completely) mild versions of the symptoms--a desired endpoint rather than an undesired side effect.

Homeopathy argues that we can use a small amount of a bad thing to produce very mild symptoms and teach the body to protect itself against the bad thing. It's not all that far off as an analogy. What was suggested earlier is that vaccines cause a mild version of the illness that is being vaccinated against.

It was never intended to be a perfect analogy, just to point out the logical error.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We are saying that in some cases vaccines produce side effects similar to what the disease would cause.

If the vaccine is for influenza or maybe covid, you're spot on. If the vaccine is for tetanus or diphtheria or shingles or mumps, you're just wrong.
With extremely few exceptions, vaccines all cause the SAME SIDE EFFECTS REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE DISEASE IS - aching joints, slight fever, fatigue, potentially a mildly upset stomach.

They all cause the standard effects of infection. A few also cause effects due to the body's reaction to the specific pathogen.

They are undesirable but unavoidable as they are caused by the body's reaction to the existence of the pathogen rather than by the pathogen itself.

They're caused by production of antibodies, but the body is usually NOT exposed to the pathogen, or even "the existence of the pathogen" although I'm not sure what that phrase is supposed to mean. Bilby's post on this was excellent, more knowledgeable than me. The whole point is that with extremely few exceptions, vaccines never expose the individual to the pathogen at all. In layman's terms, vaccines provide the body a "blueprint" that can be used to produce antibodies ahead of time, so that if the individual is ever exposed to the actual pathogen, the antibodies can hop out and kill it quick before it gets a foothold.

The body is exposed to a non-infectious copy of the pathogen. We have pretty much harmless variants for polio and for the poxes. Most other vaccines used to be dead pathogens. Now we are using recombinant techniques and mRNA techniques to produce only the distinctive features of the pathogen.

And in the case of Covid that distinctive feature also causes a bit of myocarditis. I do not know the details of what happens with the dengue vaccine, only that it causes the same problem of a second case being more severe that you get with real dengue.

Homeopathy is about creating very (as in completely) mild versions of the symptoms--a desired endpoint rather than an undesired side effect.

Homeopathy argues that we can use a small amount of a bad thing to produce very mild symptoms and teach the body to protect itself against the bad thing. It's not all that far off as an analogy. What was suggested earlier is that vaccines cause a mild version of the illness that is being vaccinated against.

It was never intended to be a perfect analogy, just to point out the logical error.

Most do not. Some do.

 

[Emily Lake]

You know, you could just say "I see what you mean, and I was unclear in what I said. What I meant was that vaccines cause a general low-level immune reaction, not that vaccines cause mild symptoms of the illness for which they're vaccinating" and then we could move on. This doubling down on a relatively minor misrepresentation is annoying.

 

[Jarhyn]

the same problem of a second case being more severe that you get with real dengue

I can only assume this is due to some auto-immune reaction to something similar within the body that flares up when the vaccine is administered.

The body seems to kind of "flare" reactions at itself, when something it has previously aligned against is detected.

I am actually quite curious if a second administration of the vaccine would evoke the same side effects as an infection following vaccination?

This would indicate something within the body is similar enough to the immune target that the symptoms of the disease, with respect to "second" infections being worse, might be caused by an auto-immune reaction against whatever tissues bear this electromagnetic similarity to the antigen, that causes immune reaction.

The first time, I would hypothesize, the body simply wouldn't have the force behind the "wave" to cause this sharp reaction and strong symptoms.

The second time, it comes in hot and heavy and lots of friendly fire goes out because the threat looks kinda like a friendly.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

If they expand the program it would presumably reduce jury-tried lawsuits. Am I missing something?

Yes, the obvious unintended consequences of this change in policy. Do you need it to be explained as to what they most likely will be?

What they most likely will be, I presume, is "Looks like vaccination is going away". What I need to be explained is the mechanism by which expanding the program will obviously have that consequence.

It's right here in the article, if you can read:

Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said he is worried that Kennedy may make it easier to “bring bogus lawsuits to civil court claiming vaccine injuries,” forcing vaccine companies to exit the business.

Anyway I trust the opinion of a medical expert like Offit more than some rando internet poster.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Round 2:

RFK Jr. Warns Docs of Liability if They Stray From CDC on Vaccines

'Misleading,' expert says

www.medpagetoday.com

If you exceed our nerfed schedule you aren't protected by the VCIP.

 

[ZiprHead]

Did anyone have typhus on their bingo card?

Typhus, a disease with flu-like symptoms, spiking this summer in Texas

One Highland Park woman is spreading awareness on the importance of testing after battling Typhus for three months.

www.ksat.com

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Did anyone have typhus on their bingo card?

Typhus, a disease with flu-like symptoms, spiking this summer in Texas

One Highland Park woman is spreading awareness on the importance of testing after battling Typhus for three months.

www.ksat.com

I have practically every disease on my bingo card at this point.

 

[Tammuz]

Trump and RFK Jr. to Ban COVID-19 Vaccine ‘Within Months’​

The Trump administration will move to pull the COVID vaccine off the U.S. market “within months,” one of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s closest associates has told the Daily Beast.

Dr. Aseem Malhotra, a British cardiologist who has repeatedly claimed in the face of scientific consensus that the vaccines are more dangerous than the virus, told the Daily Beast that Kennedy’s stance is shared by “influential” members of President Donald Trump’s family. Like Kennedy himself, no Trumps hold any scientific qualifications.

Malhotra is a leading adviser to the controversial lobby group Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Action, which is seen as an external arm of Kennedy’s agenda as Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary.

He told the Beast that many of those closest to RFK Jr. have told him they “cannot understand” why the vaccine continues to be prescribed, and that a decision to remove the vaccine from the U.S. market pending further research will come “within months,” even if it is likely to cause “fear of chaos” and bring with it major legal ramifications.

The guy is gonna fuck you over.