TOPICS:
MAY 21, 2008 05:20 PM
MAY 21, 2008 05:23 PM
MAY 21, 2008 05:25 PM
MAY 21, 2008 05:31 PM
bald_eagle said:
LSlice said:
by the way:
http://www.wired.com/medtech/genetics/news/2008/05/newborn_screening
The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007 (S.1858/H.R. 3825), signed into law on April 24, empowers a committee to provide guidelines to all states on how -- and for how long -- they should store blood.
They're empowered to set up guidelines. Oh, noes! We're ruined! 
Guidelines killed my best friend, man. I seen things!
MAY 21, 2008 05:31 PM
MAY 21, 2008 05:32 PM
bald_eagle said:
LSlice said:
by the way:
http://www.wired.com/medtech/genetics/news/2008/05/newborn_screening
The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007 (S.1858/H.R. 3825), signed into law on April 24, empowers a committee to provide guidelines to all states on how -- and for how long -- they should store blood.
They're empowered to set up guidelines. Oh, noes! We're ruined!
As I have pointed out, they will set up guidelines which dictate the receiving of federal funds if states comply. There is a provision that in the event of a national health emergency, the program becomes mandatory for all states.
MAY 21, 2008 05:35 PM
MAY 21, 2008 05:38 PM
MAY 21, 2008 06:02 PM
bald_eagle said:
LSlice said:
bald_eagle said:
LSlice said:
by the way:
http://www.wired.com/medtech/genetics/news/2008/05/newborn_screening
The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007 (S.1858/H.R. 3825), signed into law on April 24, empowers a committee to provide guidelines to all states on how -- and for how long -- they should store blood.
They're empowered to set up guidelines. Oh, noes! We're ruined!
As I have pointed out, they will set up guidelines which dictate the receiving of federal funds if states comply. There is a provision that in the event of a national health emergency, the program becomes mandatory for all states.
The only federal funds I see that have anything to do with this are grants to institutions for carrying out this type of program. You make it sound as though they will have to comply in order to receive any federal funding.
And the provision in case of emergency is merely a plan to draw up a proposal in case of emergency. I don't see any mandatory compliance in it:
`(h) National Contingency Plan for Newborn Screening-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary, acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and in consultation with the Associate Administrator, shall develop a national contingency plan for newborn screening for use in the event of a public health emergency.
`(2) REQUIREMENTS- The contingency plan developed under paragraph (1) shall include a plan for--
`(A) the collection and transport of specimens;
`(B) the shipment of specimens to State newborn screening laboratories;
`(C) the processing of specimens;
`(D) the reporting of screening results to physicians and families;
`(E) the diagnostic confirmation of positive screening results;
`(F) ensuring the availability of treatment and management resources;
`(G) educating families about newborn screening; and
`(H) carrying out other activities determined appropriate by the Secretary.
I can't tell whether you're intentionally misrepresenting the law or doing so out out ignorance.
Here is the text of the Senate version.
Let's look at a historical example of how this works. Now, there is no national law that mandates the drinking age to be 21. However, there are laws that offer federal funding to states, but only if they have a drinking age of 21. Not wanting to be left out, all states have the same law.
http://www.federalgrantswire.com/enforcing-underage-drinking-laws-program.html
MAY 21, 2008 06:26 PM
MAY 21, 2008 06:30 PM
MAY 21, 2008 06:33 PM
MAY 21, 2008 07:19 PM
bald_eagle said:
LSlice said:
bald_eagle said:
LSlice said:
bald_eagle said:
LSlice said:
by the way:
http://www.wired.com/medtech/genetics/news/2008/05/newborn_screening
The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007 (S.1858/H.R. 3825), signed into law on April 24, empowers a committee to provide guidelines to all states on how -- and for how long -- they should store blood.
They're empowered to set up guidelines. Oh, noes! We're ruined!
As I have pointed out, they will set up guidelines which dictate the receiving of federal funds if states comply. There is a provision that in the event of a national health emergency, the program becomes mandatory for all states.
The only federal funds I see that have anything to do with this are grants to institutions for carrying out this type of program. You make it sound as though they will have to comply in order to receive any federal funding.
And the provision in case of emergency is merely a plan to draw up a proposal in case of emergency. I don't see any mandatory compliance in it:
`(h) National Contingency Plan for Newborn Screening-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary, acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and in consultation with the Associate Administrator, shall develop a national contingency plan for newborn screening for use in the event of a public health emergency.
`(2) REQUIREMENTS- The contingency plan developed under paragraph (1) shall include a plan for--
`(A) the collection and transport of specimens;
`(B) the shipment of specimens to State newborn screening laboratories;
`(C) the processing of specimens;
`(D) the reporting of screening results to physicians and families;
`(E) the diagnostic confirmation of positive screening results;
`(F) ensuring the availability of treatment and management resources;
`(G) educating families about newborn screening; and
`(H) carrying out other activities determined appropriate by the Secretary.
I can't tell whether you're intentionally misrepresenting the law or doing so out out ignorance.
Here is the text of the Senate version.
Let's look at a historical example of how this works. Now, there is no national law that mandates the drinking age to be 21. However, there are laws that offer federal funding to states, but only if they have a drinking age of 21. Not wanting to be left out, all states have the same law.
http://www.federalgrantswire.com/enforcing-underage-drinking-laws-program.html
This law simply does not do what you represented that it does.
1) It does not provide for mandatory compliance in the event of a health emergency.
2) It does not tie federal funding for anything other than grants under this specific law to meeting guidelines.
Coming up with a tortured analogy doesn't change the fact that you made untrue allegations about what this law does.
On point 2, yes. I didn't argue otherwise. On Point 1) No, adoption of the guidelines would be mandatory. You are correct that is not explicit in the bill that the recommended guidelines wil include mandatory screening, but since that is the way the majority of the states mandate it, it if highly probable those will be the guidelines that are adopted.
On a more general point, do you often read congressional bills? They are rarely transparent.
SockPuppet
I'm lost
July 2006
MAY 21, 2008 03:25 PM