337
Gotta cater to your crazies!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
“Certainly, we’re not going to fund them,” the Florida Republican governor said during a wide-ranging interview with ABC News recorded Wednesday from Midland, Texas, where he announced his domestic energy policy.
The comment comes as DeSantis has ramped up his attacks in recent weeks on former President Donald Trump, the front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination, over his administration’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic.
We’re going to hold people accountable and we’re going to ensure that in the United States, you’re never infringed upon by some health bureaucrat trying to take away your freedom,” DeSantis said in Spencer, Iowa, in late August.
As some limited, local mask mandates have returned, DeSantis held a roundtable last week on the new Covid-19 shots from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna, where his surgeon general recommended people under 65 against receiving them.
The governor said the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cannot be trusted – a response that elicited a prolonged on-air clarification about the scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of coronavirus vaccines from ABC anchor Linsey Davis.
Asked to contrast himself with Trump, DeSantis rattled off a list of differences, touching on their upbringings and early adult life while continuing to push pragmatic arguments about their capacity to serve.
The original article contains 716 words, the summary contains 206 words. Saved 71%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Who needs public health?
Look America, we need more leadership like this. Vaccines? What next, a living wage?? A consumer protection agency??! What’s wrong with you? John Fetterman was dressed like a hardworking, knowledgeable, worker today and that’s not what we’ve been about! We have been about protestant work ethic and child labor and that’s who we need to fight the next war we make up!!!
Well DeSantis is never going to get elected so he won't be able to implement that.
That being said, at what point do we cut funding for the vaccine? Why are we subsidizing a product that is making pharmaceutical companies tons of money? It's not like they are broke.
Additionally, when are we going to revoke the Emergency Use Authorization for these products?
Both Pfizer and Moderna got full approval for the original vaccines; I'm not sure if NovaVax is approved yet or not.
I believe that the newest formulations for Pfizer and Moderna are under EUA.
Oh that's good. I didn't see they had gotten the full approval.
I think there will need to be a point though where we determine that those who are not at risk don't need to get the vaccine and those at risk should still get it.
The pharmaceutical companies are pulling in tons of money based on the strong push that "everyone must get it". Unfortunately that money gets funneled into their lobbying power and thus continues the viscous cycle.
There is a reason the US provides approximately half the pharmaceutical sales in the world. https://www.statista.com/statistics/272181/world-pharmaceutical-sales-by-region/
For some odd reason that's not resulting in longer average lifespans. According to United Nations estimates, the US ranks 47th in life expectancy.
https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/life-expectancy/
At some point we need to cut the pharmaceutical companies loose because we are not seeing our money's worth.
this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2023
337 points (96.7% liked)
politics
19135 readers
1141 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS