Joe Biden and Ron DeSantis Trade Barbs as Florida's Monoclonal Antibodies Restricted

[ThatRobGuy]

Joe Biden and Ron DeSantis trade barbs as Florida's monoclonal antibodies restricted


Interesting conversation to be had on this one.

...and this is another one where I feel that both sides may have some explaining to do.

To the Democrat side:
If "human healthcare is a right, regardless of poor decisions" is a virtue, should certain life saving treatments be throttled, even if a state's current situation is the result of their own poor decisions?

To the Republican side:
If fiscal responsibility and people should have to live with the consequences of their own poor decisions, and If you want to make bad decisions, then go ahead, but I shouldn't have to pay for that are cornerstones of the conservative thought process, should federal resources (which everyone has to pay for) be subsidized for contingency plans for states where they're actively rejecting mitigation measures?


It seems to me that people on both sides are wanting to have it both ways on this one.

If one really believes "healthcare is a human right, no matter how poor their decision making is", then nobody should object to using federal resources to treat a person, even if that person did something stupid like trying to use Ivermectin instead of a free effective and safe vaccine.

If one really believes "everyone else shouldn't have to pay for your bad decisions, you live with the decision you make", then they shouldn't object to the restriction of Regeneron to states like Florida and Texas, where, the increased demand for such treatments is directly the result of people making poor choices with regards to virus mitigation and rejecting the vaccine in favor of quack treatments (or nothing at all).

 

[Tanj]

Joe Biden and Ron DeSantis trade barbs as Florida's monoclonal antibodies restricted


Interesting conversation to be had on this one.

...and this is another one where I feel that both sides may have some explaining to do.

To the Democrat side:
If "human healthcare is a right, regardless of poor decisions" is a virtue, should certain life saving treatments be throttled, even if a state's current situation is the result of their own poor decisions?

To the Republican side:
If fiscal responsibility and people should have to live with the consequences of their own poor decisions, and If you want to make bad decisions, then go ahead, but I shouldn't have to pay for that are cornerstones of the conservative thought process, should federal resources (which everyone has to pay for) be subsidized for contingency plans for states where they're actively rejecting mitigation measures?


It seems to me that people on both sides are wanting to have it both ways on this one.

If one really believes "healthcare is a human right, no matter how poor their decision making is", then nobody should object to using federal resources to treat a person, even if that person did something stupid like trying to use Ivermectin instead of a free effective and safe vaccine.

If one really believes "everyone else shouldn't have to pay for your bad decisions, you live with the decision you make", then they shouldn't object to the restriction of Regeneron to states like Florida and Texas, where, the increased demand for such treatments is directly the result of people making poor choices with regards to virus mitigation and rejecting the vaccine in favor of quack treatments (or nothing at all).

Healthcare in general and Regeneron antibodies in particular are a finite resource, so some kind of decision as to who gets what is going to have to be made. Your article says that 7 states are receiving 70% of the supply. That doesn't seem fair regardless of whether you are left or right.

Should it be equitable across States? I don't think so. Demographics works better for me...but then the concept of States in the US has never been about equity.

 

[Mayzoo]

Just curious, are folks who are refusing the vaccine due to it being "experimental" accepting the EUA monoclonal antibodies?

 

[Pommer]

Just curious, are folks who are refusing the vaccine due to it being "experimental" accepting the EUA monoclonal antibodies?

New believers.*


*not religious believers, necessarily.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Joe Biden

@JoeBiden

https://help.twitter.com/rules-and-policies/state-affiliated

https://help.twitter.com/rules-and-policies/state-affiliated

United States government official Republican governors in states like Texas and Florida are doing everything they can to undermine the public health requirements that keep people safe. They're playing politics with the lives of their citizens, especially children. I refuse to give in to it.4:41 PM · Sep 16, 2021·Sprout Social

This is so true. And if it wasn't for some Republican governor , news and media programs trying kissing up to Trump , and the extreme right . COVID-19 wouldn't have got so out of control. With that being said , I do believe patients. Should get the best treatment for COVID-19. And the cost should come out of Republican governor , news and media programs trying kissing up to Trump , and the extreme right .

 

[rambot]

Healthcare in general and Regeneron antibodies in particular are a finite resource, so some kind of decision as to who gets what is going to have to be made. Your article says that 7 states are receiving 70% of the supply. That doesn't seem fair regardless of whether you are left or right.

Should it be equitable across States? I don't think so. Demographics works better for me...but then the concept of States in the US has never been about equity.

How did previous presidents allocate resources to different states during a pandemic?

 

[Tanj]

How did previous presidents allocate resources to different states during a pandemic?

I have absolutely no idea, but some resources (like masks) one would assume can be sourced from multiple locations and are relatively cheap, or at least subject to market forces. a patented tech which only one company offers not so much.

 

[rjs330]

This is so true. And if it wasn't for some Republican governor , news and media programs trying kissing up to Trump , and the extreme right . COVID-19 wouldn't have got so out of control. With that being said , I do believe patients. Should get the best treatment for COVID-19. And the cost should come out of Republican governor , news and media programs trying kissing up to Trump , and the extreme right .

Pish posh. COVID has been out of control across the globe. Even in places where more mitigation was done as a federal mandate.

Since you feel the way you do, how about we use the same criteria for helping those that are poor due to their dumb decisions? Which is most of them.

 

[rjs330]

A pandemic is a pandemic. And no matter the decisions of a state or local governments it is a national issue. And even states with mandates still had up ticks in cases. Vaccinated people have gotten it. There is no guarantee that if you got a vaccine you would not get COVID. I know a guy who was in ICU due to COVID and he was vaccinated.

Since there is no guarantee there shouldn't be any kind of treatment rejection.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Healthcare in general and Regeneron antibodies in particular are a finite resource, so some kind of decision as to who gets what is going to have to be made. Your article says that 7 states are receiving 70% of the supply. That doesn't seem fair regardless of whether you are left or right.

Correct, but healthcare has always been a finite resource, the conservative argument has always been "if someone wants to <insert poor life choice here> why should my tax dollars have to pay for that??"

I would agree that's not fair.

Much like, if there was a finite supply of a drug that prevented severe reaction and death from food poisoning, and a handful of states were chewing up 70% of the supply due to the fact that they (the state governments) were employing "liberty-based" arguments for not having health codes in restaurants, one could rightfully say they're in a situation of their own doing, and other states (who are doing the responsible thing, and regulating food safety) shouldn't have to be inconvenienced because of that.

But, much of the arguments on the left with regards to healthcare have made "fairness" secondary to "needs based" concepts.


That's why I think there needs to be a nuanced approach to all of this.

It's not "fair" that DeSantis gets to chew up so much of the emergency use drug for infections that are being caused by him not only avoiding mitigation measures, but also to going out of his way to squash them at the city level when municipalities try to put them in place.

Much like it's not "fair" that someone like myself (who tries to eat right, exercise, and maintain a healthy body weight) would have to pay more in order to cover a person who wants to eat garbage all day, laze about and play video games, and balloons up to 350 pounds.

I would say that "fairness-based" and "needs-based" needs to be balanced as equally important countervailing interests.


It seems like certain Republicans want to heavily use Regeneron (a federally backed resource) to cover for poor decision making processes with regards to pandemic handling so they can turn around and say "see, we don't have any restrictions, and our death rates are low, we're doing just fine!"

Where, on the flip side, certain Democrats want to restrict Regeneron to those states as sort of a "make them reap what they sow" kind of thing.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Just curious, are folks who are refusing the vaccine due to it being "experimental" accepting the EUA monoclonal antibodies?

Of course they are...

"Ron DeSantis says this one is good, and it's not the vaccine that the libs are trying to tread on me with, so this one's okay"

...that combined with a little bit of "Uh oh, turns out this virus isn't fake like we thought, and I'm feeling really sick and I don't want to go to the hospital, can I get some of that EUA drug made by Big Pharma so I don't die?"

 

[ThatRobGuy]

A pandemic is a pandemic. And no matter the decisions of a state or local governments it is a national issue.

Well, yes and no.

In a purely semantic sense, yes it's a national issue, as the residents of those states are still US residents, therefore, the federal government should still care about them.

But we can't pretend that certain states don't have unique issues (in a variety of realms) that are the result of poor policy making at a state level.

A perfect inverse example:

Remember a year back when the state of Illinois was the only state to have a credit rating so low, that one more downgrade would've put them in "junk status"? And how they wanted to have their states debts paid down and union pension funds replenished by federal relief in a covid bill?

Everyone knows that their poor credit rating was due to them allowing public sector unions to walk all over them.

DeSantis (along with other republicans) were very vocal about not wanting federal resources to bail out Illinois for Illinois-specific mistakes.

The shoe's on the other foot now.

 

[Albion]

Interesting conversation to be had on this one.

...and this is another one where I feel that both sides may have some explaining to do.

To the Democrat side:
If "human healthcare is a right, regardless of poor decisions" is a virtue...

To the Republican side:
...should federal resources (which everyone has to pay for) be subsidized for contingency plans for states where they're actively rejecting mitigation measures?

It's not possible to argue incessantly for equal treatment, equal this or that, (which the left does)...and then also defend a policy that doles out medical care on an UNequal basis, period.

No rationalizations about some people's health being more important to the President than others can justify that! And by the way, what we're talking about here is not a matter of some state being "bailed out."

 

[rjs330]

Well, yes and no.

In a purely semantic sense, yes it's a national issue, as the residents of those states are still US residents, therefore, the federal government should still care about them.

But we can't pretend that certain states don't have unique issues (in a variety of realms) that are the result of poor policy making at a state level.

A perfect inverse example:

Remember a year back when the state of Illinois was the only state to have a credit rating so low, that one more downgrade would've put them in "junk status"? And how they wanted to have their states debts paid down and union pension funds replenished by federal relief in a covid bill?

Everyone knows that their poor credit rating was due to them allowing public sector unions to walk all over them.

DeSantis (along with other republicans) were very vocal about not wanting federal resources to bail out Illinois for Illinois-specific mistakes.

The shoe's on the other foot now.

It's not the same thing. We are talking about the difference between a NATIONAL pandemic which cannot be stopped and an individual state making spending decisions.

Illinois could have completely put a STOP to the spending with a stroke if the pen. You can't stop COVID with a stroke of a pen. And and other countries have proven even if you try it still has large waves of COVID.

This disease is from an outside source, not self inflicted. It's not like someone deliberately going out and spending all their money knowing for a fact they are absolutely going to not have enough. COVID is a risk assessment. It's like rock climbing. You know the risk when you climb rocks. If you accept the risk then you do it. If you fall then you deal with the consequences. We don't say, well you accepted the risk, therefore we are not going to spend any resources getting you out.

The mandates are NOT a guarantee you are NOT going to get COVID. It IS a guarantee that when you overspend tax dollars you WILL have money problems.

It's about guarantees not risk assessment.

As we have seen there are a LOT of people, the majority, that get COVID do not die and do not end up in ICU. There are are a lot of asymptomatic people, and people who have minor cases. It's risky assessment.

 

[Halbhh]

Joe Biden and Ron DeSantis trade barbs as Florida's monoclonal antibodies restricted


Interesting conversation to be had on this one.

...and this is another one where I feel that both sides may have some explaining to do.

To the Democrat side:
If "human healthcare is a right, regardless of poor decisions" is a virtue, should certain life saving treatments be throttled, even if a state's current situation is the result of their own poor decisions?

To the Republican side:
If fiscal responsibility and people should have to live with the consequences of their own poor decisions, and If you want to make bad decisions, then go ahead, but I shouldn't have to pay for that are cornerstones of the conservative thought process, should federal resources (which everyone has to pay for) be subsidized for contingency plans for states where they're actively rejecting mitigation measures?


It seems to me that people on both sides are wanting to have it both ways on this one.

If one really believes "healthcare is a human right, no matter how poor their decision making is", then nobody should object to using federal resources to treat a person, even if that person did something stupid like trying to use Ivermectin instead of a free effective and safe vaccine.

If one really believes "everyone else shouldn't have to pay for your bad decisions, you live with the decision you make", then they shouldn't object to the restriction of Regeneron to states like Florida and Texas, where, the increased demand for such treatments is directly the result of people making poor choices with regards to virus mitigation and rejecting the vaccine in favor of quack treatments (or nothing at all).

Interesting post. Especially where you wrote:
"If one really believes "healthcare is a human right, no matter how poor their decision making is", then nobody should object to using federal resources to treat a person, even if that person did something stupid like trying to use Ivermectin instead of a free effective and safe vaccine."

While back in 2010 I was writing a blog about health care reform, and some of the ideas I liked got into the ACA, one of things I proposed in my blog was that people that do risky things like smoking for example should not be subsidized in that extra health cost they are causing.

The non-smokers should not have to subsidize the smokers.

As I thought about it back then, it would be best to have a simple way of paying that incurred cost, such as:

"Further, good insurance reform would allow insurers to offer health incentives such as vouchers for certain health purchases such as exercise equipment/gym membership. The real health costs incurred by unhealthy foods and second-hand smoke can be handled separately via special sales taxes, with the sales-tax revenue sent into the federal health care budget."
Finding the Dream: Ranking the Public Options (updated)

Which is at least for smoking largely the case now, in that cigarette taxes are high.

Also, drivers that have a track record of poor driving pay more for insurance. So, we are at least for some things already doing this.

So, to me, it's not really one side or the other as you presented above that are all-correct, but instead both sides have pieces that are correct. I think the best solutions are going to incorporate in some way the good principles from both sides.

We need to 'have it both ways' in that sense.

 

[Tanj]

But, much of the arguments on the left with regards to healthcare have made "fairness" secondary to "needs based" concepts.

Don't think there's a difference between these two, and whilst I agree there's people out there from the left slavering in glee at what is happening in Florida, you have given no evidence that it reflects what the government is doing. Just because there's a lot of COVID in Florida doesn't mean there's not a fair bit of it elsewhere as well.

Until you can actually show that this lefty opinion is anything more than opinion, as opposed to actual laws/edicts De Santis has issued, it';s a very lopsided case you are making.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Don't think there's a difference between these two, and whilst I agree there's people out there from the left slavering in glee at what is happening in Florida, you have given no evidence that it reflects what the government is doing. Just because there's a lot of COVID in Florida doesn't mean there's not a fair bit of it elsewhere as well.

Until you can actually show that this lefty opinion is anything more than opinion, as opposed to actual laws/edicts De Santis has issued, it';s a very lopsided case you are making.

Actually, the news articles itself is showing that.

Biden is taking over distribution of the drug at a federal level (when Florida had been placing their own orders previously), and distributed less than what Florida had been ordering.

DeSantis has made policy prescriptions that suggest "I'll ban mask mandates in schools", "I'll ban vaccine passports", etc... Basically making it easier for anti-vaccine types to live in denial, and then have a safety net if/when they catch it and get a severe case.

Kentucky Governor Beshear pretty much (to his credit) explained the thought process that many entities are trying to prevent:

Beshear said Tuesday he worries that too many Kentuckians will hear about the antibody treatment and rely on getting it instead of a vaccination.

"What this shortage ought to tell you is that if you're unvaccinated and you get really sick, not only might there not be a bed in the hospital for you because they are so full, but that monoclonal antibody treatment might not be there for you, either," Beshear said.

Biden's team tightens grip on state use of Covid antibody treatments
Yet administration officials have bristled in recent weeks over the southern states’ reliance on expensive treatments paid for by the federal government — even as several governors have attacked Biden over his attempts to boost the vaccination rate and tamp down caseloads.

States such as Tennessee and Alabama that have relied heavily on the drugs are also among those with the lowest levels of vaccination against Covid-19.


Is COVID monoclonal antibody treatment a replacement for vaccines?

That's basically what Biden's new policy is aimed at... states where vaccinations aren't being encouraged enough, and Governors are pandering to anti-vaxxers, are heavily utilizing a federally funded "Plan B/Last line of a defense" drug instead of the thing they should be doing (which is getting vaccinated)


So it's right back to my original question.

Are we aiming for a "fairness-based" approach or a "needs-based" approach with this one?

If it's a "needs-based"/"humanitarian" approach, then the Federal government should ship southern states however much of the drug they need in order to keep the most number of people out of the hospital regardless of how short-sighted or stupid their decision making was. If it's a fairness-based approach, then Biden's admin is correct to do what they're doing and give DeSantis a little tough love. "If you want to keep your people out of the hospital, quit squashing mitigation measures"

There are many scenarios where "needs based" and "fair" can overlap, this isn't one of them.

The vast majority of people in states like Florida having to seek out that treatment are unvaccinated and made a really poor decision. Do we make DeSantis live with his decisions (fair), or do we bail him out (needs-based)?

 

[Pommer]

The vast majority of people in states like Florida having to seek out that treatment are unvaccinated and made a really poor decision. Do we make DeSantis live with his decisions (fair), or do we bail him out (needs-based)?

I could see a case made for letting Florida do as it will and providing the treatments necessary to keep its citizens from dying.

Since it looks like COVID is endemic and likely to be around for a generation or two, maybe having one state that relies on treatments rather than preventives could, (down the road) show us where the real wisdom lays?

Florida could be the control group?
I am not a Floridian, so, have at it!

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It's not the same thing. We are talking about the difference between a NATIONAL pandemic which cannot be stopped and an individual state making spending decisions.

We don't have to "stop" the pandemic, but it needs to get under control.

Illinois could have completely put a STOP to the spending with a stroke if the pen. You can't stop COVID with a stroke of a pen. And and other countries have proven even if you try it still has large waves of COVID.

Right, but there are things that could've reduced the massive need for "Plan B" measures with the "stroke of a pen".

There's a lot of problems that aren't "100% eliminate-able", but there certainly decisions that can greatly reduce or exacerbate a problem. (thus causing need for federal involvement)

This disease is from an outside source, not self inflicted.

The amount of spread can be self-inflicted.

The mandates are NOT a guarantee you are NOT going to get COVID.

Correct, but they show a pretty good track record of keeping it better controlled.

It's about guarantees not risk assessment.

There are no absolute diametric opposites in terms of public policy. Therefore, there's no such thing as a political guarantee. I can't think of a single administration that's been able to completely wipe out a problem and make it non-existent.

For instance, issues of substance abuse, theft, sex crimes, etc... are likely always going to be with us as a society and that we'll have to deal with. However, there are policies that make it worse, and policies that make it better.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I could see a case made for letting Florida do as it will and providing the treatments necessary to keep its citizens from dying.

Since it looks like COVID is endemic and likely to be around for a generation or two, maybe having one state that relies on treatments rather than preventives could, (down the road) show us where the real wisdom lays?

Florida could be the control group?
I am not a Floridian, so, have at it!

I lean a little toward that approach as well.

If more highly vaccinated states don't have the same level of need for them, then fine.

At least after they caught covid, they'll have some antibodies.

One way or the other, people are going to get their antibodies...it's a shame that so many people are willfully confining themselves to get them "the hard way" instead of the much easier way.