3 ms·
> My guess: The government had enough masks / PPE on paper, but never actually checked it was usable. No one intended this to happen, it just sort of fell thro
by paulmd 7y ago
> My guess: The government had enough masks / PPE on paper, but never actually checked it was usable. No one intended this to happen, it just sort of fell through the cracks, and all the paperwork said everything was OK.
No, Republicans in congress very specifically cut the budgets that were supposed to be used to rotate out expired materials. It wasn't accidental, it's a case of refusing to pay the insurance bill and then acting shocked when you're in a car crash.
It also took a big hit from the sequestration, like everything else in the government, but the budget was already underfunded to begin with because DHHS was associated with Obamacare and Republicans wouldn't approve any spending there.
They did the best they could with the money they had and focused on drugs instead of things like masks, which have a harder "cut off" for efficacy and were seen as easier to acquire in the heat of a crisis. But masks eventually have an expiration date too, and if you never rotate them they will eventually go bad too.
https://www.propublica.org/article/us-emergency-medical-stockpile-funding-unprepared-coronavirus https://www.propublica.org/article/us-emergency-medical-stoc...
> After using up the swine flu emergency funds, the Obama administration tried to replenish the stockpile in 2011 by asking Congress to provide $655 million, up from the previous year’s budget of less than $600 million. Responding to swine flu, which the CDC estimated killed more than 12,000 people in the United States over the course of a year, had required the largest deployment in the stockpile’s history, including nearly 20 million pieces of personal protective equipment and more than 85 million N95 masks, according to a 2016 report published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine.
> “We recognized the need for replenishment of the stockpile and budgeted about a 10% increase,” said Dr. Nicole Lurie, who served as the assistant secretary for preparedness and response at the Department of Health and Human Services during the Obama administration. “That was rejected by the Republican House.”
> Republicans took over the House of Representatives in the 2010 midterms on the Tea Party wave of opposition to the landmark 2010 health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. The new House majority was intent on curbing government spending, especially at HHS, which administered Obamacare.
...
> “It just was never funded at the level that was needed to purchase new products, to replace expiring products and to invest in what we now know are the really necessary ancillary products,” said Dara Lieberman, director of government relations at the Trust for America’s Health, a nonpartisan public health advocacy and research group.
- m0zg 7y ago> Republicans in congress very specifically cut the budgets that were supposed to be used to rotate out expired materials. Bold claim. Care to support it with a reference?
- greedo 7y agoYou've been regularly replying with unhelpful at best commentary. The parent included a link to an article on ProPublica.
- m0zg 7y agoThe article (which wasn't referenced initially) says the budget was cut by 12% - hardly a catastrophic cut. The parent makes it sound as though the budget was cut completely. Also the article says that under Trump, Congress allocated more funds to the stockpile that was requested, supporting Trump's assertion that "Obama depleted the stockpile". Quote: "During the Trump administration, Congress started giving the stockpile more than the White House requested." ProPublica is a highly biased leftist publication as well: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/propublica/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/propublica/, it's also quite literally funded by George Soros. So if you want to provide "helpful" commentary, please post a less biased source.
- knowaveragejoe 7y agoIs this a serious question?