About Those Children

Did you know that thanks to what Hillary Clinton did for the children over ten years ago we're now facing a shortage of health vaccines? h/t Mark Levin

The plan, promoted by the Children's Defense Fund, was to use federal power to ensure universal immunization. So the government agreed to purchase a third of the national vaccine supply (the President and Mrs. Clinton had pushed for 100 percent) at a forced discount of half price, then distribute it to doctors to deliver to the poor and the un- and under-insured. As a result:

Where 30 years ago, 25 companies produced vaccines for the U.S. market., today only five remain, and there is only one producer for a number of critical shots.
Recent years have brought shortages of numerous vaccines, including those for whooping cough, diphtheria and chicken pox. The Institute panel in effect said that one of Senator Clinton's pet projects is a bust.

There's a growing theme I've been hearing from certain Democrats this political season, maybe you've picked up on it:

Nancy Pelosi: Let's hear it for the children. We're here for the children ... for these children, our children and for all of America's children, the House will come to order.

Since announcing for President, Hillary Clinton has surrounded herself with children:

a federal children's health-care program

Hillary shares stage with kids

Though it's the obvious intent, notice how they never seem to say your children? It's always just the children, or our children. That could be because of how you might instinctively respond if someone from the government said I'm doing this for your child, or children. It sounds a bit intrusive, doesn't it? I doubt it tested very well with the message folks. But think about it.

What do you most often hear as a reason someone tries to get a better job, a better education, or pursue a better career? Don't they often do such things for their children? At least I think people often claim that as a reason for doing things - their children. Not for the, or our children, unless it's a couple ... no, when you break it down, it's always really my child or children they're saying. Your children are often a wonderful motivator, in many ways, don't you think? Unless it happens to be a politician trying to motivate you, then it's always the, or our children, never yours.

It's hard to resist ... this doing things for the children, isn't it? Even if the net effect of the effort is just the opposite while growing government, increasing taxes and often ultimately providing poorer services or choices for your children in the end? How can you possibly deny the children?

Democrats are strongly linked to the NEA. They do things for the children all the time, don't they? Aren't you thrilled with the way they educate your children today? How well they've secured your schools, ensured that your children graduate able to read, write and think critically? Or have they been doing that together for the children forever and seemingly offering worse and worse results with no help in sight for longer than you can remember?

Do you remember Haleigh Poutre? The state of Massachusetts almost murdered her.

One of those State agencies tasked specifically with doing things for the children, sadly in Haleigh's case abused ones, failed her. That led to her being almost beaten to death. It was only after that that they failed her again before she recovered by trying to remove her from life support, almost murdering her.

Do you trust, or expect government to perform effectively when you're doing something as perfunctory as renewing a drivers license? registering a car?

Faced with some presumably mundane task of any kind which requires you to call or visit a government office, do you walk in confidently knowing your issue will be handled expeditiously and without error, or do you dread it, going in hoping against hope that it won't result in another frustrating, time consuming interaction with a government that somehow seems to always tick you off and let you down, more frequently than it does efficiently satisfy a current need?

Maybe that's why politicians always say they're going to do something for the children, or our children. If they actually said what they meant, that they were going to something to for your children, you might just turn around and run away as fast as you could - being sure to take your child with you, of course.

But your child is precisely who they have in mind when they invent these grand plans that somehow always seem to crash down upon the rocks of reality. They just don't want you to conceive of it quite that way.

Do yourself a favor, call it an experiment ... the next time Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton, or even President Bush or any politician claims they are going to do something for the children, turn it over in your mind a second and imagine it's your child the government is talking about, then see how you react.

You might just find yourself thinking, No, thanks. It's my child. And all things considered, I think I'd rather do it myself, thank you.

How about they start leaving children out of the discussion and just start talking plainly about what it is they really plan to do, while giving us an opportunity to weigh all the consequences of their actions? You never know, just like the vaccine example above, what they have in mind for the children might just end up hurting your children before they're through.

It's a thought, anyway. One I imagine they'd rather you not think about too much, if at all. If they did, they'd just say your child or children in the first place. And I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon. If it did, you might actually think about what they have in mind, as opposed to signing onto to the next idea designed to help the children, which, in a sense, don't really even exist.

Comments

[Steel]

Far be it for me to rise to Hillary's defense, but the vaccine industry has been besieged with lawsuits for the last two decades and as a result, many companies choose to forego that aspect of pharmaceuticals. Particuarly onerous are the suits that claim autism is a result of some mercury component common in immunizations and the flurry of suits brought by advocacy groups on behalf of the military deployed in Desert Storm. The payback for vaccines is not sufficient to incur the risk. That's because there are no proprietary rights to those vaccines, they've long since lapsed. The big bucks is in new drugs where the maker owns the rights. This country is facing a very real crisis vis a vis vaccines and their production. Chances are, we will pay dearly for being so short-sighted as to allow the industry to falter under the weight of frivilous lawsuits and the likes of John Edwards et al. Personally, I consider tort reform third in priority behind TWOT and illegal immigration. The days of genetically engineered viruses are upon and a weak pharma sector is of national security interest.

[Dan Riehl]

the vaccine industry has been besieged with lawsuits for the last two decades

I understand that Steel, but reducing their profit margin was designed to help that situation how, exactly?

[larry]

yeah, but she *meant* well. so she's still better than us.

[TheSpartan]

Dan, I notice you use two dates to prove your point a very typical slight of hand tactic. First, you say Clinton's plan started ten years ago and then you note that 30 years ago there were 25 companies making vaccines. That's a 20 year gap, I'd be willing to bet there were far fewer companies at the start of Hillary's plan. You're also missing another piece, the avian flu crisis was unforseen and the increased vaccine demand caught everyone (governments and producers alike) off guard. Of course I'm sure you and Roger Ailes can find a way to blame the Clinton's for that as well.

http://www.in-pharmatechnologist.com/news/ng.asp?id=64109-gsk-chiron-avian-flu

[seekeronos]

"Thier children"...?

The Democrat elites don't worry tweet for _thier_ children, who get ensconced away in prestigious academies. As for the rest of us "proles"... well, we will get poopy end of the stick to be sure.

[scarshapedstar]

The Democrat elites don't worry tweet for _thier_ children, who get ensconced away in prestigious academies.

Like Yale undergrad and Harvard biz?