Who gives a rat's ass about women's or children's health? Not the US.
Apparently the FDA thinks it's reasonable to commandeer 30% of dedicated women's health funding for general use.
The FDA intends to withhold $1.2 million of [a budgeted $4 million], apparently for use elsewhere in the agency. Because the remaining $2.8 million has already been spent or allocated for salaries and started projects, the office must effectively halt further operations for the rest of the year, according to a high-level agency official with knowledge of the budget plan, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the official is not authorized to speak publicly.
Oh well, that's okay after all, the money will get spent on other things that benefit women, right? Not so fast. The Office of Women's Health
funds research on male-female biological differences to ensure that women receive the most appropriate drug doses and treatments. It also produces heavily requested health information about menopause, pregnancy, birth control, osteoporosis and other topics. . . .
[It] was created in 1994 amid growing evidence that some sex-based differences in biology warranted special regulatory attention -- and a recognition that other offices within the FDA did not have the time, money or expertise to focus on women's special needs.
Like, oh, say prenatal care and reproductive health issues. But we don't really care about that shit, either: the feds are planning on restricting funding and eligibility for the Children's Health Insurance Initiative (which by the way, has in the past
granted waivers . . . to cover parents and even some childless adults. . . . [since] covering adults increased the likelihood that their children would stay on the rolls.
We gotta spend more money on the war, you see. As for women and kids, well,
Bush administration officials . . . said individual children did not have a legal entitlement to benefits. Michael O. Leavitt, secretary of health and human services, said he would work with Congress to find a short-term solution for states exhausting their allotments this year. He said states could avoid shortfalls by managing their programs better.
In his experience as governor of Utah, Mr. Leavitt said, when we were out of an allotment, we just discontinued enrolling people until we had room. Likewise, he said, states could cover more people if they provided less comprehensive benefits.
But hey. It's not like, a deliberate conspiracy or anything.
I think we can lay off the meth for the moment guys. The Bush administraation has made some pretty scary cuts in health care initiatives since he took office. This is by no means the first and I'm fairly scared that it wont be the last.
Bastard_ said:
I think we can lay off the meth for the moment guys. The Bush administraation has made some pretty scary cuts in health care initiatives since he took office. This is by no means the first and I'm fairly scared that it wont be the last.
The president's $2.9 trillion spending plan calls for saving $100 billion in Medicare and Medicaid payments, and for limiting eligibility in the State Children's Health Insurance Program -- a change that could result in the loss of health care for children in Massachusetts and other states.
Bastard_ said:
I think we can lay off the meth for the moment guys. The Bush administraation has made some pretty scary cuts in health care initiatives since he took office. This is by no means the first and I'm fairly scared that it wont be the last.
Bastard_ said:
I think we can lay off the meth for the moment guys. The Bush administraation has made some pretty scary cuts in health care initiatives since he took office. This is by no means the first and I'm fairly scared that it wont be the last.
So you mean the Bush Administration isn't targetting women, but simply continuing to slash funding for social programs? Awww, that's not nearly as shocking or sensationalist. Not the Bitch's style.
Bastard_ said:
I think we can lay off the meth for the moment guys. The Bush administraation has made some pretty scary cuts in health care initiatives since he took office. This is by no means the first and I'm fairly scared that it wont be the last.
So you mean the Bush Administration isn't targetting women, but simply continuing to slash funding for social programs? Awww, that's not nearly as shocking or sensationalist. Not the Bitch's style.
The president's $2.9 trillion spending plan calls for saving $100 billion in Medicare and Medicaid payments, and for limiting eligibility in the State Children's Health Insurance Program -- a change that could result in the loss of health care for children in Massachusetts and other states.
Cigarette said:
Yeah, who saw that one coming? Not me, I'll tell yeah! It's probably one of the most original jokes I've seen on this site in some time!
Cigarette said:
Yeah, who saw that one coming? Not me, I'll tell yeah! It's probably one of the most original jokes I've seen on this site in some time!
It's almost as rare as the "sinking ship!" joke!
I am all the day with my flogigng-a-dead-horse up.
funds research on male-female biological differences to ensure that women receive the most appropriate drug doses and treatments. It also produces heavily requested health information about menopause, pregnancy, birth control, osteoporosis and other topics. . . .
[It] was created in 1994 amid growing evidence that some sex-based differences in biology warranted special regulatory attention -- and a recognition that other offices within the FDA did not have the time, money or expertise to focus on women's special needs.
I bet the folks at the Office of Men's Health are hoping they don't have their budget cut, eh?
What I'm wondering is how they have billions of "surplus" dollars to spend on the war machine...but are cutting funding to programs like this? wtf? Get your facts straight Dub-ya
otaku said:
Maybe if the expectant mothers were using meth...
that is by far the most appropriate response.
No. It's really, really not. You guys can't bitch and complain about her beating a dead horse if you continue to beat it too. Just fucking drop it already. This is a good story and deserves relevant responses. Take your trollery elsewhere.
otaku said:
Maybe if the expectant mothers were using meth...
that is by far the most appropriate response.
No. It's really, really not. You guys can't bitch and complain about her beating a dead horse if you continue to beat it too. Just fucking drop it already. This is a good story and deserves relevant responses. Take your trollery elsewhere.
A troll is someone who starts multiple threads about the same topic just to be obnoxious.
Not someone whos points the trollery out.
Bitch had plenty of chances for people to take her seriously.
otaku said:
Maybe if the expectant mothers were using meth...
that is by far the most appropriate response.
No. It's really, really not. You guys can't bitch and complain about her beating a dead horse if you continue to beat it too. Just fucking drop it already. This is a good story and deserves relevant responses. Take your trollery elsewhere.
A troll is someone who starts multiple threads about the same topic just to be obnoxious.
Not someone whos points the trollery out.
Bitch had plenty of chances for people to take her seriously.
Bastard_ said:
I think we can lay off the meth for the moment guys. The Bush administraation has made some pretty scary cuts in health care initiatives since he took office. This is by no means the first and I'm fairly scared that it wont be the last.
So you mean the Bush Administration isn't targetting women, but simply continuing to slash funding for social programs? Awww, that's not nearly as shocking or sensationalist. Not the Bitch's style.
Your flippant disregard for the very serious consequences of this action disgusts me.
Yes, these are more in a long line of Bush Administration attacks on brutally under-funded social programs. Does that mean that the cessation of further activities in the Women's Health Office of the FDA should be ignored? Does the scale of the Bush Administration's misdeeds mean that the families who will undoubtedly suddenly find their children uninsured are meaningless? Or that the statement that "individual children did not have a legal entitlement to benefits" is any less appalling?
otaku said:
Maybe if the expectant mothers were using meth...
that is by far the most appropriate response.
No. It's really, really not. You guys can't bitch and complain about her beating a dead horse if you continue to beat it too. Just fucking drop it already. This is a good story and deserves relevant responses. Take your trollery elsewhere.
A troll is someone who starts multiple threads about the same topic just to be obnoxious.
Not someone whos points the trollery out.
Bitch had plenty of chances for people to take her seriously.
Yeah, rising above people is so lame.
That's not what I said.
She made her bed, she can lie in it.
otaku said:
Maybe if the expectant mothers were using meth...
that is by far the most appropriate response.
No. It's really, really not. You guys can't bitch and complain about her beating a dead horse if you continue to beat it too. Just fucking drop it already. This is a good story and deserves relevant responses. Take your trollery elsewhere.
A troll is someone who starts multiple threads about the same topic just to be obnoxious.
Not someone whos points the trollery out.
Bitch had plenty of chances for people to take her seriously.
Yeah, rising above people is so lame.
That's not what I said.
She made her bed, she can lie in it.
So it makes her article any less factual? If she said it was raining outside, would you look out a window? Weren't we all harping on her to change the subject already?
Bitch_PhD
I'm lost
February 2007
FEB 27, 2007 12:44 PM