This article was obviously not written by a Republican, and as I was reading it, even I rolled my eyes. Not because I disagreed with it, of course, but because it is so obvious, the only people who will read more than a paragraph of it, are already on the same team. I find that frustrating.
However, the penultimate paragraph raises an interesting question.
quote: There is more than a bit of irony, too, in the fact that the nation can be so galvanized by stirring televised images of thousands of people paying final respects while filing by the president's flag-draped coffin when pictures of similarly adorned caskets -- those of soldiers killed in action in Iraq -- are seen as somehow disrespectful.
Why is that?
You know, I was pretty sick when Reagan died and I didn't even know about it till Monday. And I was pretty young when Johnson died, but he was buried in 2 days. Kennedy in, what, one day? What's with the week long 24/7 coverage? I've only known about it for 4 days and I'm already over it. Is it just me that's had enough already?
I realize that both parties are trying to figure out how to use this to their advantage, which is just sick, but a week? Maybe I'm not entirely well yet. That must be it.
posted
The only reason people want to show the soldiers caskets is for liberal political points. Its NOT due to respect, like the Presidential funeral. As for Reagan, he was and still is considered a great president to a majority of people -- to some associating him with Lincoln. People are, by the way, STILL walking past his coffin to pay respects.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given that the Bush administration was pretty clearly trying to prevent use of such photos purely to avoid the political fallout, I'd say that makes both sides about even if everyone who wanted them shown is only doing it for political reasons.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
The Reagan Revolution began in 1980 in Philadelphia, Miss.
Philadelphia, a speck of town north and east of Jackson, is infamous as the place three young civil rights workers were murdered in 1964 for registering black people to vote. Now here came Ronald Reagan, Republican presidential aspirant, opening his campaign at a fair that for generations had served as a forum for segregationists, and offering thinly veiled support for their cause.
''I believe in state's rights,'' he said.
Ahh, I feel much better now. He really shouldn't take a whole week off. I get twitchy when he does, apparently.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The only reason people want to show the soldiers caskets is for liberal political points.
This makes me sad. There are actually people out there who don't view the people in the military as political chess pieces or a bunch of toy soldiers. There are people who see them as real human beings, individuals who have chosen to serve, suffer, and die for their country. They are not adjuncts to the president. Even if it makes him look bad, they deserve our honor and our respect.
In many cases, for me, supporting the troops meant being criticial of the way the war in Iraq was being carried out. Of course, I'm just a guy with relatives, friends, and people I grew up with on the ground there. If you want to check out the opinions of some military and ex-military, I recommend the Soldiers for the truth website. Focus especially on the Support the Troops section and notice who it is actually centered around supporting the troops as human beings instead of going along with whatever President Bush says.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: The only reason people want to show the soldiers caskets is for liberal political points. Its NOT due to respect
As noted, the reverse is equally true...the only reason people want to NOT show soldier's caskets is for conservative political points. Its NOT due to respect.
More concerning than a week long show and tell for Reagan is the week long praise for him. I tend to like Mr. Card's "Speaker for the Dead" for the simple, Speaking portion where a person's life is looked at with an unblemished eye, not just out and out praise (or out and out put down).
Even more concerning is the rapidfire nature of the praise. Our society has no patience and as soon as people die, they want monuments built to them. Sister Theresa died not too long ago but SOO many people wanted to leap-frog over centuries of precedent to make her a Saint, just because it must feel good and they want it NOW.
Same with Ronald Reagan. Heck, even before he was dead and soon to be buried they were trying to get statues in his name built where only long dead presidents stand. Typically, we try to wait a generation or two to dub saint or villain so that history may look with a more critical eye on what a person did while in office. George the Senior even spoke like this in his eulogy today. He pointed out that some said it would take 100 years to determine how good a president FDR was...but we won't need that with Reagan. I know it was touchy-feely eulogy stuff, but there are people already wanting to put his mug on the $20 bill (get that old Indian killer off of there!).
I think time should be taken to take a critical look with a bit of distance before proclaiming "greatest president" and such.
quote:When Franklin Roosevelt died in 1945, The New York Times wrote: "Men will thank God 100 years from now that Franklin D Roosevelt was in the White House."
It will not take 100 years to thank God for Ronald Reagan. But why? Why was he so admired? Why was he so beloved?
Nice bit of unity-building there, eh? The president who guided us through the depression and World War II gets to be used in a cheap shot to build Reagan up.
Just one more reminder that Reagan wasn't everybody's president.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Neither the Times article nor the speaker said that it would take a 100 years for people to realize FDR was a good president. It said that 100 years from now people would be thanking him. Whether you mentally add a "still" or a "finally" to that sentence is up to you.
posted
sndrake, I don't think that was his intention -- and you can be assured that President Reagan would not have said anything to rip into the foundations of FDR (after all, he was active in supporting FDR and the Democratic Party that existed then).
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The FDR thing hits a nerve for several reasons. Even before he was dead, there was a group of conservative Republicans in Congress lobbying to replace FDR on the dime with Ronald Reagan.
And, no matter what Reagan's support for FDR was in the past, a large focus of his administration was to try to dismantle the "entitlements" (also known as "safety nets" by other people) that trace back to the New Deal. The current president has some of that same zeal. Reagan met with only partial success in that effort. If the current deficit continues to grow, the current president may very well finish the work.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The dime bill was introduced in direct response to that libelous TV movie somebody made about him. That doesn't justify it, but it helps put the movement in the context of a very aggressive anti-Reagan push.
For the record, neither Nancy explicitly opposed the measure and stated Ronald would as well.
posted
Someone in USA Today suggested that Reagan be put on the $50 bill. No matter how bad you think Reagan is, I don't think it can be disputed that he was a better president than Grant. (I don't think...)
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would be fine with Reagan replacing either Grant or Jackson as the former was simply incompetent as president and the latter involved himself with some of the nineteenth centuries greatest atrocities. However, I think in both cases we should wait until sufficient time has passed to view his presidency objectively.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ike's on the dollar coin, not bill (or was, not sure if the silver dollar's still being minted).
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read an editorial recently that pointed out that FDR and Kennedy died in office--an immediate memorial was called for. I'm not sure of the reasoning behind that, but it seems to make emotional sense.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
AIDS? What the...? He spent around 6 billion on it, which, I believe, is more than he spent on cancer research.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tried the linky but it didn't work for me (had to sign up to read it?). But I know what you are talking about. Reagan finally did pony up some cash to research AIDS. But to say Reagan supported AIDS research doesn't really talk about the history. Saying that is like saying he suppored the MLK holiday. Sure, he signed off on it eventually, but not until after he tried to get around doing it and even went as far as to claim King was a Communist!
Reagan and his administration was informed about concerns with AIDS since 1981 but didn't even publicly comment on it until 1985 and he was nearly out of office by the time the money started rolling in. I think this is the point they are making. Maybe.
posted
Since Andrew Jackson was responsible for the death of quite a few of the people from my family's tribal background (Trial of Tears) I'd suggest Reagan be placed on the 20 dollar bill.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Since Andrew Jackson was responsible for the death of quite a few of the people from my family's tribal background (Trial of Tears) I'd suggest Reagan be placed on the 20 dollar bill.
Since Reagan (and now Bush) is responsible for bankrupting the future generations of my Tribe, I stick with my suggestion of the new Trillion Dollar Bill with Ron's face on it.
I agree that Jackson is a poor choice for money, though. Replace him with Calvin Coolidge. Wouldn't it be nifty to say, "Can I have 2 Cools and a 10 spot for that Fifty?"
posted
I consider the lack of coordinated response by President Reagan to the HIV epidemic to be one of the great tragedies of recent presidencies. For those of you who were too young to remember, Keith Griffith has posted a sorrowfully accurate account of the timeline of early evidence of AIDS and the US government's response to it at TalkLeft.com.
I'm quoting his timeline in full, although I usually make a point of not block-quoting others. The details of this are so compelling and so telling that I'd grieve for this part of our history to be misremembered. Griffith has given approval for this use.
quote:Ronald Reagan came to power at the precise moment that AIDS was taking hold in select populations in the USA. It had already been a killer elsewhere, but never had it shown up in North America, nor had any area of the world seen the full extent with which AIDS could and would ravage populations when Reagan was sworn into office in January, 1981. Even if you grant Reagan some allowance that AIDS seemingly came from nowhere, his administration had ample time to gear up the country to deal with the disease. Every victory that did come about came in spite of Reagan and because those who controlled the purse strings on Capitol Hill were held accountable by small bands of activists who popped up in cities hardest hit including San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York.
The facts are so clear and obvious that not much more need be stated than what we know to be true:
1. Ronald Regan becomes the 40th President of the United States in January, 1981.
2. The first reports of a disease that would come to be known as AIDS were reported in Americans in March 1981 (see Hymes, K.B., Greene, J. B., Marcus, A., et al. [1981] 'Kaposi's sarcoma in homosexual men: A report of eight cases', Lancet 2:598-600).
3. By the end of 1981, 323 individuals had been diagnosed with AIDS in the USA, and 122 died. At no point in the year did Ronald Reagan issue a statement nor was he asked to comment on the new disease by any member of the news media.
4. By June 1982 speculation was gaining among doctors with large practices of gay men that the disease was likely sexually transmitted. (see MMWR weekly [1882] 'A Cluster of Kaposi's sarcoma and Pneumocystis carinii Pneumonia among homosexual male residents of Los Angles and Orange counties, California', June 18/31 [23]; 305-7).
5. By the end of 1982, 1,170 individuals had been diagnosed with AIDS in the USA that year, and 453 died. Reagan remained silent about AIDS and the news media continued to not ask him about the disease.
6. In early 1983, it was confirmed that heterosexual transmission of AIDS was being seen in the USA. (see MMWR Weekly [1982] 'Epidemiologic notes and reports immunodeficiency among female sexual partners of males with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS)- New York' [1982], January 7,31 [52]; 697-8).
7. By the end of 1983, 3,076 individuals had been diagnosed with AIDS in the USA that year, and 1,481 died. Reagan remained silent about AIDS and yet again, the news media asked him no questions.
8. In April, 1984 US Health and Human Services Secretary Margaret Heckler called a news conference to report that HIV was the cause of AIDS. She added, "We hope to have a vaccine [against AIDS] ready for testing in about two years."
9. By the end of 1984, 6,247 individuals had been diagnosed with AIDS in the USA that year, and 3,474 died. Reagan remained silent about AIDS and of course the news media did not hold him accountable.
10. In 1985 reports became more and more common about persons with AIDS being denied services. Probably the most famous example was Ryan White, a 13-year old haemophiliac with AIDS, who was barred from school.
11. In April 1985 a small group, calling themselves Lavender Menace disrupted a meeting of the first international Conference on AIDS held in Atlanta.
12. In San Francisco, in a single act of civil disobedience, John Lorenzini chained himself to the Federal Building in that cities UN Plaza. Months later, on October 27 Steve Russell and Bert Franks along with a team of supporters chained themselves to the Federal Building at UN Plaza and refused to leave. This protest action would continue uninterrupted for years to follow.
13. On September 17th, President Reagan publicly mentioned AIDS for the first time, when he was asked about AIDS at a press conference. Reagan was asked whether he would send his children if they were younger to school with a child who has AIDS. His response, "It is true that some medical sources had said that this cannot be communicated in any way other than the ones we already know and which would not involve a child being in the school. And yet medicine has not come forth unequivocally and said, 'This we know for a fact, that it is safe.' And until they do, I think we just have to do the best we can with this problem. I can understand both sides of it." (Reagan R. [1985] 'The President's News Conference', September 17, www.reagan.utexas.resource/speeches/1985/91785c.htm).
14. By the end of 1985, 11,794 individuals had been diagnosed with AIDS in the USA that year, and 6,877 died, among them Reagan friend Rock Hudson, the former movie and TV actor.
15. In 1986 Citizens for Medical Justice was formed in San Francisco, carrying out the first organized protest actions to enlist large numbers in protest. The first act was to close down the office of the California governor, followed soon by a miles long march to protest the high cost of AIDS medicines, among other actions.
16. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop issued the first report about how to prevent the spread of AIDS in 1986. Knowledge of how to prevent AIDS had been known among doctors, researchers and government officials as early as 1982.
17. By the end of 1986, 19,064 individuals had been diagnosed with AIDS in the USA that year, and 12,016 died.
18. In 1987 Reagan made his first ever voluntary public statement about AIDS in a public address, calling for abstinence as the way to stop the spread of AIDS. In another address, he would call for mandatory AIDS testing.
19. In March 1987 ACT UP New York goes public for the first time with a high profile disruption of business on Wall Street.
20. In April 1987 a White House official admitted that President Reagan had never discussed AIDS with his own Surgeon General Koop.
21. By the end of 1987, 28,599 individuals had been diagnosed with AIDS in the USA that year, and 16,194 died.
22. In May 1988 the United States finally launched a coordinated AIDS education campaign. The distribution took place of 107 million copies of "Understanding AIDS", a booklet by Surgeon General Koop.
23. On October 11, 1988 the Federal Drug Administration was shut down by demonstrations from various activist groups convening on Washington.
24. By the end of 1988, with only days left before Reagan would leave office, 35,508 individuals had been diagnosed with AIDS in the USA that year, and 20,922 died.
25. In January, 1989 Reagan leaves office.
In a 2001 speech at the Kaiser Family Foundation's National Symposium on U.S. AIDS Policy, former Surgeon General Dr. Koop acknowledged that due to "intradepartmental politics" he was effectively out of the loop on AIDS discussions for the first 5 years of the Reagan presidency. Quoting Koop, "Because transmission of AIDS was understood primarily in the homosexual population and in those who abused intravenous drugs, the advisors to the President took the stand, they are only getting what they justly deserve."
As Griffith notes, "Those first five years, also the first years of the epidemic in America, would have been critical in saving so many lives had only the word been allowed to spread about the existence of the disease and how it might be transmitted. ... 61,539 Americans died of AIDS (all statistics supplied by the Federal Centers for Disease Control) during the Reagan presidency. Even now, after living those years and helping many people die, it still seems unreal that this many Americans could die in the prime of their lives in the most medically advanced nation in the history of the world. How could it have happened?"
1.) Why does it require government action or funding to spread the news about how to prevent a disease?
2) Why is Reagan so criticized for this when AIDS spending was comparable to spending on research of other diseases? Just looking at the NIH timeline makes it clear research was ongoing throughout the Reagan presidency.
quote: 1) Why does it require government action or funding to spread the news about how to prevent a disease?
Dag, when tens of thousands of citizens of a developed country are dying of a particular new disease in a given year, that government should address it. Even though the response to SARS may have been overblown, I doubt that anyone would say it was outside the proper realm of local and federal formal government discourse -- despite its relatively miniscle effect on our citizenry. (Would you? I'm really curious, not just setting you up. Promise. )
The President is not only the Commander-in-Chief, he is also in charge of the Executive Branch's Cabinet, including the Department of Health and Human Services, of which the CDC is a primary agency. He nominates the Surgeon General, and he has responsibility for oversight over the public health of the nation, just as he has oversight over the military.
quote:2) Why is Reagan so criticized for this when AIDS spending was comparable to spending on research of other diseases? Just looking at the NIH timeline makes it clear research was ongoing throughout the Reagan presidency.
I've never, ever, in my life criticized Reagan for being responsible for not enough federal dollars being spent on HIV research. (You can quote me on that, too.) I think there are many public health problems which deserve a larger percentage of the dollars they get, but I'm not arguing for HIV research.
On the other hand, I do take him to task for not disseminating the information from his own Executive Cabinet Department. There is where I think he dropped the ball. And I'm pretty sure that actually consulting his Surgeon General about this matter (while there was so much uproar in the medical and lay media that it couldn't be ignored as an important issue) would have been the obvious first start.
Does my ire make more sense now, or am I still coming off as just another ranting Lefty?
I remember waiting for Reagan to say the word "AIDS" while I was a teenager. This terrible thing was happening, so many people were dying, and from the visible response of the government, as far as we citizenry could tell, almost nothing official was happening in response. This lead to a lot of misinformation and speculation being spread as fact. It wasn't until Koop came out with a pamphlet distributed to every house (as I recall) that any official accounting of the facts to date was made. This was in 1987, the year after the WHO declared AIDS to be "a health disaster of pandemic proportions." Reagan had yet to even use the word.
In a televised interview, Koop stated that he had these pamphlets preprinted before he broached the subject at a Cabinet meeting, as he believed the only chance of getting them distributed was to make it a waste of already-spent money not to do so. This summary of accurate information was spread despite the wishes of the president, not because of them.
quote:I doubt that anyone would say it was outside the proper realm of local and federal formal government discourse. (Would you? I'm really curious, not just setting you up. Promise.
I wouldn't say it's outside the realm of government discourse, and probably more should have been done by the government. But one thing that bothers my crusty conservative soul is this tendency to blame the government for things, or to expect them to fix every problem. There are lots of ways for private groups to spread information. Yet an inordinate amount of energy was spent getting the government to respond; that energy could have been directed at the problem itself to much greater effect.
Griffith said, "Those first five years, also the first years of the epidemic in America, would have been critical in saving so many lives had only the word been allowed to spread about the existence of the disease..." and this underscores my point. No one prevented the word from being spread; they just didn't commit enough of the executive branch resources to doing so as some people would have liked.
The fact that medical information dissemination seems to require the actions of a political branch of government should scare people.
quote:On the other hand, I do take him to task for not disseminating the information from his own Executive Cabinet Department. There is where I think he dropped the ball. And I'm pretty sure that actually consulting his Surgeon General about this matter (while there was so much uproar in the medical and lay media that it couldn't be ignored as an important issue) would have been the obvious first start.
Does my ire make more sense now, or am I still coming off as just another ranting Lefty?
That seems like a fair assessment.
However, I've seen time and again people blame Reagan for the AIDS crisis. When I saw him speak in 1988, I saw a sign that said "AIDS: Reagan's Vietnam - 50,000 dead." This seemed remarkably unfair, given that there are other means for disseminating information on the disease.
I'm not saying you said Reagan was to blame. But I've heard it, and been annoyed by it, enough that I decided to respond to this post.
quote:I'm not saying you said Reagan was to blame. But I've heard it, and been annoyed by it, enough that I decided to respond to this post.
Dag, you know I always appreciate your imput, crusty or not. I like your brain.
quote:But one thing that bothers my crusty conservative soul is this tendency to blame the government for things, or to expect them to fix every problem.
Not fix it -- just, when it's a substantial problem, to address it. I love the CDC, really love it. Here is one central clearinghouse for complicated, heavily-loaded information that is accountible and has rigorous oversight. I can't imagine that being done outside of federal funding and coordination.
quote:There are lots of ways for private groups to spread information. Yet an inordinate amount of energy was spent getting the government to respond; that energy could have been directed at the problem itself to much greater effect.
In this case, I don't think that any private group had the authority or reliability to do so. That's the reason for a centralized public health system via the DHHS.
quote: No one prevented the word from being spread; they just didn't commit enough of the executive branch resources to doing so as some people would have liked.
It is my understanding that the Reagan administration treated AIDS as a local problem instead of a national problem. Additionally, there was active discouragement about addressing this publically as a public health concern. I do not have cites available, but I will try to dig up this specific information, as I'd like to have it sorted out clearly in my own head.
(This is pending my return from a trip to the Cave of the Mounds -- no innuendo, please -- with my husband today.)
quote:The fact that medical information dissemination seems to require the actions of a political branch of government should scare people.
On the contrary, I would argue that the dissemination of accurate medical information is a primary responsibility of government (which is, by its very nature, political). Again, I loves me some CDC, and the politics there are rampant.
However, we can agree to disagree. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: On the contrary, I would argue that the dissemination of accurate medical information is a primary responsibility of government
My argument would be that if a task can be done by just about anybody but the government, then it shouldn't be done by the government.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lessee...during the years of Reagan's presidency I was between 5 and 13. As grouchy as I can be nowadays, I was grouchier then, and my response to STDs was always pretty much the same as those of some of Reagan's advisors: "Stop sleeping around!"
Granted that my attitude has become more charitable since those firebrand days, I still find it hard to understand why people don't respond to a deadly disease by not doing the things that'd transmit it. But I suppose I can find a space in my heart to be annoyed that Reagan didn't take a stand on his public platform and say exactly that.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:As grouchy as I can be nowadays, I was grouchier then, and my response to STDs was always pretty much the same as those of some of Reagan's advisors: "Stop sleeping around!"
If you were relying on that to protect you, Mabus, you were wearing blinders. Not only were we not sure how many vectors this disease had, we were sure that it was transmitted by more than just sex.
Recall that there was no test available for the blood supply until the first one in 1985, and it wasn't until 1992 did we begin routine screening for both HIV-1 and HIV-2. In 1996 the more accurate testing for the HIV p24 antigen became available, and that was the time when people in the public health arena finally could finally sit down to take a deep breath.
Which is why it is useful to not turn off our brains when we hear something is associated with sex. Often, there is more to the story, as "sex" is not some magical activity that can be tainted in isolation from other physical attributes.
quote:My argument would be that if a task can be done by just about anybody but the government, then it shouldn't be done by the government.
mph, are you serious? Who are you nominating to take on the task of the CDC, Public Health Districts, and other agencies of the DHHS?
What private entity could or would do this remotely well? [Edit: I don't mean to be snarky, I'm really just utterly flabbergasted. Perhaps I'm too close to this to see other viable alternatives, but I'm really at an utter loss to come up with anything.]
posted
CT, I freely admit that you are right. At the time, I was barely aware of either sex or AIDS. I also had minimal knowledge of how the immune system worked and was convinced that AIDS had to be genetic; I couldn't conceive of how a virus could infect a cell designed to eat it--it seemed like trying to kill a shark by swimming down its gullet. Since then I have learned a great deal more.
Nonetheless, it would certainly have greatly restricted the transmission of AIDS if people were more circumspect about their sexual partners. Stopped it completely? Obviously not. But it might not ever have become an epidemic.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mabus, I don't sleep around. I'm actually a fairly boring and conventional person in my personal life. But I have learned -- in my professional life -- that it is a big mistake to ever separate "sex diseases" (whatever those may be, as I know of no disease only spread by sex) from general healthcare. Viruses and bacteria don't restrict themselves on moral grounds.
Yes, there are many infections which can be minimized in transmission by limiting sexual contact or by being choosy about partners. But these are the same infections which can be spread by breastfeeding a baby, by transfusing blood, or even by breathing the air coughed by someone else in an elevator -- depending on which bug it is your pleasure to discuss.
I can't justify treating infectious agents which may be transmitted by sex any differently than any other infectious agents. They don't care. They really don't. They don't have the brains to make moral judgments; they just have the encoded predisposition to "figure out" how to spread genes more and more plentifully. And as soon as we're sure we've pinned one bugger down to just sex -- even if we then do away with sex -- I'm certain it will find a way to bite us in the proverbial bum. Or ear, or what have you.
This means that accurate information about the transmission of sexually transmitted infections has to include information about sexual transmission. (Well, duh. ) But that's never the whole story, and it's never enough to pretend that it is, and it's never sufficient for a medical provider to rest on smug haunches in the belief that he and his select will be respected by an unthinking chunk of DNA.
All things considered, my preference is to "go like the rain among the just and the unjust." (And yes, to remember my own failings quite clearly as I go.) We don't have the luxury of having a virus or bacteria that infallibly selects out between the just and the unjust for us.
posted
I remember once that OSC remarked on his displeasure at having his tax dollars go to HIV research, as he and his wife didn't engage in the sort of behavior that would make such research applicable to him.
I wondered then at whether he was bothered by his tax dollars funding research into sickle cell anemia, Tay-Sachs disease, or any other number of diseases unlikely to ever enter his life. I wondered then (and now) if he would be troubled by other taxpayers not wanting to fund research into congenital disorders, were they under the belief that their own families were magically protected from such a taint, or from such "bad genes."
Just remembering that gives me the willies, but it was an eye-opening lesson in how other issues permeate how we think about health, disease, and medicine.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: displeasure at having his tax dollars go to HIV research
when are people going to demand that the money set aside for medical research go to the researchers instead of the politicians and the lobbyists. but then... maybe this belongs in a different thread...
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no problem with government funding for AIDS research. The problem I have is when people assume that the only way to tackle this problem is with government initiative. I think it leaves societal resources that could be dedicated to the problem on the sidelines.
That's why this particular line of criticism about Reagan resonates with me. People spent a lot of resources disrupting scientific meetings and religious ceremonies in order to get someone else to convey the message they wanted conveyed. Clearly, these activists had the capability to convey that message.
posted
Dag, it's just as much the president's job to tackle major medical problems as it is his job to tackle major military ones. Isn't that why we have a Department of Health & Human Services in the Cabinet, as well as a Department of Defense?
The Executive Branch Cabinet is formed by the Vice President and, by law, the heads of 15 executive departments. Each of those departments is formally recognized as a responsibility of the President.
You can't tell me that getting a formal proclamation from the President wouldn't mean 100X as much as a fringe-group protest, both emotionally and in terms of getting taken seriously.
posted
Of course it would. And it probably should have been made.
My problem is the implication (not by you, but I think present in Griffith's article) that absent government action outside the course of normal public health channels, no effective response to a new disease is possible.
The government took major steps to combat the disease. Some people think some other steps should have been taken. But this doesn't translate into a moral failing. Rather, it highlights some of the problems inherent in government programs, even necessary ones.
quote:The government took major steps to combat the disease. Some people think some other steps should have been taken. But this doesn't translate into a moral failing. Rather, it highlights some of the problems inherent in government programs, even necessary ones.
CT has said it better, but I think it boils down to timing. Sure, they did spend money on it but it took 5 or 6 years to even acknowledge its existence which looks less like inefficient government and more like pointed ignoring.
For example, there has been a HUGE (and rapid) response to the West Nile virus in the US. In 2003, there were just over 260 deaths in the US due to this infection AND there was a huge and immediate response to this from both Federal and local governments (as it should be). By the time the Reagan administration began to respond to AIDS and HIV, though, THOUSANDS of people were dying of the disease each year.
I would see that as a point in favor of thinking maybe the Reagan administration dragged feet on this a bit. Reagan didn't have to snap his fingers and make a cure pop out. Like West Nile, education was more important than cure. Think about how many more West Nile cases would have happened if people didn't know how to best prevent the disease? Simply getting rid of a lot of standing water in the neighborhood is one of the best ways to prevent the spread of this. At the time of HIV and AIDS in the 80's, as CT pointed out, simply having some real info how there on how to protect oneself would have been a huge benefit to people.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
CT.![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
mph, are you serious? Who are you nominating to take on the task of the CDC, Public Health Districts, and other agencies of the DHHS?
