Brad,

I believe I can offer several reasons for the lack of supply of flu vaccines. At this point in time there are only two suppliers of flu vaccine on whom we must rely. One is Chiron, whose plant problems in England are the primary source of the shortfall, and Aventis-Pasteur of France. If one of these fail to come through, as Chiron did, shortfalls occur. A better topic on which to focus thinking is why are there only two? Why aren't others in this business to offer redundant supply for times such as these? Clearly the demand is there, as evidenced by the lines of people waiting for their vaccination. The reason is the lack of profit. The reasons are two fold. Liability concerns have driven others out of the business. Secondly with the government buying the bulk of vaccines at a set price, it has essentially created price controls. Like it or not, these businesses exist to make a profit, and when this is minimized or destroyed, they bail out.

Greg, I admit I'm not all over this particular story, but from what I've read there's certainly a point to your post.

But in this day and age, when protecting our citizens from all sorts of potential viral attacks, what the heck does "profit" have to do with it? If the Bush Administration had their eye on the ball, and felt it *necessary* to the safety of our citizens to have enough flu vaccine, there would be enough flu vaccine. If they had to pay more money, they would have and could have.

Enough blaming of everyone else for this Administration's problems. It's not the trial lawyers, it's not the Democrats, and it's certainly not BILL CLINTON (as Rush tried to sell last week). The buck stops in the Oval Office. At least it used to. Nothing stops there anymore, except for excuses.

There was a lack of vaccine LAST YEAR. When it happens 2 years in a row...it's no one else's fault but Bush's.

Greg,

i hate to point this out but the issue of liability is bull. The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (enacted in 1988) has protected vaccine producers from lawsuits.

In terms of profit and government setting the price; that is another tissue of distortion. How many news stories have we seen in thepast week about the exponential rise in vaccine due to the shortage?

One last thing, Chiron didn't "fail to come through" (such a statement suggests that they fell short of production) but the produced bad vaccine. This American company producing in the UK produced a bad vaccine and now we are set to get vaccine to make up for it from Canada. And if Chiron and Aventis-Pasteur are the "only" two manufacturers of the vaccine, how is it that ID Biomedical of Vancouver BC is being contracted to supply the flu vaccine? You are simply wrong.

Well, it turns out many Americans are coming to Canada to get vaccinated. Apparently, they are paying 50 bucks a pop too.

If any of you wanna come on up, by all means.
Apparently, we've got plenty to go around (or so our radios are telling us).

I do think it's ironic though. *Some* Americans can do nothing but make fun of the Canadian Health Care system and look at them now.

Brad,

I have to disagree with you and some of the other posters. These producers are private businesses and are entitled to mak a profit. Until the day comes that their workers work for free, suppliers give them their equipment and materials for fee, taxes are waived and shareholders give them money without expectation of any return, these companies are goint to want to make a profit. Profit is not a dirty word.

As someone who works in the health care field, I think I can lend perspective to the issue of liability. When the risk of lawsuit outweighs the reward of profit, businesses will bail, and they have. That is their right to do so and choice to do so. Johnhp mentioned the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act as a law which protects vaccine makers ffrom lawsuits. The following link demonstrates the incomplete protection it offers.

http://www.hrsa.gov/osp/vicp/table.htm

It does not offer complete protection for all vaccines. If you scroll down the table about 2/3's of the way you will find reference to the flu vaccine (Haemophilus Influenzae), number IX. It shows that there are no adverese events attributable to this vaccine that can be covered by this act. While Johnhp is correct that this law exists, but it is clearly incomplete in its coverage. NOw maybe some of you out there feel that these manufacturers should be responsible for every perceived complication and have to pay big bucks to settle every lawsuit brought against them. However, the people that run these businesses can say that this doesn't make sense and do something else. In my home state of Illinois there is a large medical liability problem. The Chicago Tribune has run articles documenting the migration of MD's to states with tort reform (Wisconsin, Indiana). In thesouthern half of thes state south of Springfield, the capitol, for examples there are no longer neurosurgeons practicing because of this issue.

With regard to the other supplier of this vaccine, ID Biomedical, which Johnhp referred to, I stand corrected. That said, their vaccine isn't licensed for distribution yet in the USA and is probably not going to have a great impact on the shortage. See this article in the Toronto Star:

Johanna made a comment about people crossing the border for $50 flu shots I don't know much of this, but it wouldn't surprise me. It would appear that these businesses in Canada are trying to profit from the shortage here by charging higher prices. Supply and demand

Greg, you are right! Supply and demand and profits. Same with the oil and gas industry, it is always supply and demand and profits.

36,000 Americans a year die from the Flu.

If 36,000 Americans died from a terrorist attack in any year, we all know that America would pay *any* price to keep that from happening.

The Bush Administration screwed the pooch hard on the flu. Thousands will die because they didn't pay attention. End of story. Supply, Demand and Profits have nothing to do with it. But Paul, as a blindly partisan Bush Supporter will say and believe anything he is told to say and believe.

Brad,

I have to disagree. It is all about supply and demand. That is what matters in a free market economy. End of story

All of these companies are private businesses who will allocate capital as they see fit. If they don't see a chance to profit or even lose money they won't do it. Why take a chance on being sued or losing money and your business and throwing thousands potentially out of work? That makes no sense.

Greg, 36,000 deaths a year is nothing to sneeze at (pun intended).

What would the Bush Administration spend if terrorists killed 36,000 per year?

As to the "free market", the Government (including the Bush Admin!) gives loads of money to farmers to ensure they grow their crop and to cover any shortfalls.

There's no reason that the Bush Admin shouldn't mind "health the general welfare" of it's citizenry by doing the same thing. Cover any shortfalls for anything under 100,000 million doses that get sold.

They don't mind giving welfare/subsidies to Farmers for "socialized farming", but BushCo didn't want to be seen as creating "socialized" medicine. Even if THOUSANDS of lives would be saved in the process.

That *precisely* why we have a government --- according to the preamble of the U.S. Constitution anyway.

By the way, the congress passed a bill that would extend protection in law suits for vaccine makers to include the flue vaccine. The bill sits unsigned in the President's desk.

Your argument would also mean that auto manufacturers would never saw cars for fear of law suits. Preposterous.

Which bill is that . News to me. You should look at my earlier post regrading the vaccine compensation act.

see above

The Bill is H.R.4520 (Sec. 732) as introduced in House on 6/4/2004.

Passed by House on 6/17/2004 and sent to Senate.

Passed by Senate and sent to President for signature on 7/15/2004.

Sitting on President's desk unsigned until, without ceremony or announcement, he finally signed it on 10/22/04 - that's LAST FRIDAY!

"Liberal" Media, failed to have given it much coverage for some odd reason.

Greg hearing about it on 10/26/04 for first time.

See bill summary here.

BTW, any idea how many successful flu vaccine lawsuits since 1980? Find out here:

A comprehensive search from 1980 to the present found only 46 reported cases based on flu vaccine injuries. Of the 46 cases, 39 involved the swine flu vaccine,8 and only 7 involved the standard flu vaccine. In 5 of the 7 standard flu cases, the defendant prevailed, while the other 2 cases are unreported. Given the millions of vaccine doses dispensed every year, this is hardly a liability crisis.

Any other questions?

Brad,

This is the same sort of horse crap people on the Left throw about all the time with respect to liabilty. It is the same sort of head in the sand commentary that refuses to recognize people change their behavior to both real and perceived threats. In the medical field for example, a number of physicians ave narrowed the scope of their practice to avoid liability quagmires. Others have abandoned areas, ie low income areas because the POTENTIAL risk of liability and the cost it entails (malpractice insurance) FAR OUTWEIGHS the financial reward and personal fulfillment of treating those w/o insurance. The attitude is. "Why should I, the physician, put my livelihood and family's financial security at risk by taking on liability without potential of reward." Ignore this as much as you want, but you ignore the truth. This is one area I know VERY well.

Brad, in your earlier post you said the following billsitting on the President's desk waiting to be signed would extend lawsuit protections to makers of the influenza vaccine. YOur post was as follows:

The Bill is H.R.4520 (Sec. 732) as introduced in House on 6/4/2004.

"Passed by House on 6/17/2004 and sent to Senate.

Passed by Senate and sent to President for signature on 7/15/2004.

Sitting on President's desk unsigned until, without ceremony or announcement, he finally signed it on 10/22/04 - that's LAST FRIDAY!

"Liberal" Media, failed to have given it much coverage for some odd reason.

Greg hearing about it on 10/26/04 for first time.

See bill summary here." The link to which you refer is:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cg...20:@@@D&summ2=m&

The section to which you refer is below:

(Sec. 732) Adds the trivalent vaccine against influenza as a taxable vaccine for purposes of the excise tax on certain vaccines.

There Is NO Provision here protecting vaccine makers at all. YOu should research this more carefully before posting this malarkey as gospel.

You'll pardon if I'm working on about 7 different items at the same time, and don't wish to go slog again through the Thomas to track back the addition of the flu vaccine to those covered under the Vaccine Liability Act (or whatever it was called) that Bush could have signed in time to avoid to avoid what they are now claiming is the reason why we don't have enough vaccine and some 36,000 people who die every year from the flu cannot be spared. Do the legwork, you'll find *exactly* what I tracked back to.

In re: your general strawman argument about not possibly being able to ensure there's enough vaccine to save the lives of some 36,000 per year without tort reform, if you want to discuss general medical tort reform later (most likely after Nov 2nd, as I'm a little busy until then) we can do so.

To use that to make excuses for the extraordinary failure of an Administration who claims to be "making America safer" when you know damn well every penny in the world would be spent to fight a TERRORIST activity that killed 36,000 a year is simply making excuses for your guy. As I said, if we've got enough money to fight a decades long war against a country that was no threat to us, and if we've got enough money to pay every farmer in America for every ear of corn that doesn't get sold each year, I fancy we can afford to pay the makers of LIFE SAVING VACCINE the money they need to stay profitable, in business, and saving American lives.

I noticed you had nothing to say about the 2(!) cases since 1980 of a defendant losing a flu vaccine related lawsuit.

Your blindfold is showing, Greg.

Brad,

You still don't get it. It is the potential of suits in these areas that drives people''s decision making. Clearly for whatver reasons you have chosen to ignore all the points made in my posts above. What your post does not include are costs related to suits brought but not successful. It costs a FORTUNE to defend a suit, even when you win it. Unfortunately in this country we don't have a "Loser pays," system like the British do. Depending on your source, the average cost of defending a medical malpractice suit is $50,000.00, not chump change especially when added up. Furthermore the threat of litigation adds other costs. Physicians are more prone to getting additonal tests to protect against the threat of litigation. Tallied up, that is big bucks. I've seen estimates that this adds 28-40 billion dollars a year.

Furthermore when on looks at alll the potential causes for lost life they are many. Cancer, heart disease, traffic accidents etc. As funds for handling these are not unlimited, (Though those on the Left would believe otherwise!!), I expect the President to pick and choose battles. Defending this country against foreign nation or terrorist attack is a President's primary duty

Sorry, Greg. I have not ignored the points you made. I simply don't find them a compelling reason to risk the deaths of 36,000 Americans a year.

Why you've decided that "Defending this country against foreign nation or terrorist attack is a President's primary duty" but defending this country against disease and death where possible --- as such disease and death is *far* more prevalent and dangerous and likely to kill Americans than a terrorist attack --- is somehow not a "primary duty" is beyond me.

In other words, you're about a zillion times more likely to die from the Flu, than from a Terrorist attack. It's incredibly inexpensive (comparatively) for your Government to protect you from dying that way than from dying by terrorism. Yet Bush chose not to do so.

The points you raise about malpractice insurance, I have acknowledged, needs to be addressed. But don't you find it odd that the Drug companies are able to withstand such costs-of-doing-business in so many other instances? And that Bush did not take the opportunity to add the Flu Vaccine to the list of those which would be exempt from frivilous lawsuits as is the case with several other vaccines?

You're spinning. Which is fine. But you're not being honest about the facts.

Brad,

This is clearly like talking to a wall so apparently we wil have to agree to disagree. YOur point on the President not signing some bill which would increase liability protection from flu vacines has been refuted in one of my earlier posts. The link you cited offers no such protection at all. That bill refers to the excise tax on flu vaccines. THERE is NO provision there offering legal protection.

Yes. Agreeing to disagree. Were this not quite as "busy a moment in history", I'd go do the legwork through the Thomas to connect the dots for you. Perhaps after next Tuesday.

In the meantime, we'll agree to disagree. I think the President has the responsibility to (in his words) "move heaven and earth" to keep 36,000 Americans from needlessly dying each year, you disagree.

Either way, I appreciate the time you've taken to debate in a civilized --- albeit, blinders-on IMHO --- discussion of an important issue, Greg.

No blinders here, Brad. In my line of work as a physician I am very familiar with this particular issue.

And thank you for keeping this debate/discussion civil. We clearly are not going to agree but mutual respect and civility is worth a great deal.

Mention that to your knucklehead friend, Butterknife!