Goodby HHS Kathleen Sebelius! (not...a sad goodby I hope!)

[Berylanna]

What's up with this and where does Ms. Burwell likely stand?


Kathleen Sebelius to Resign as Health Secretary - NBC News

Replacement: Sylvia Mathews Burwell, director of the Office of Management and Budget

Remember that Elaine Keller and other CASAA board members talked to OMB and found them very interested in listening to the impact of possible FDA "deeming regs" on American businesses. Dare we hope for improvement?

 

[aikanae1]

I don't see HHS connected to FDA.
HHS is usually involved with CMS, not NIH, CDC or FDA.

I do find OMD -> HHS kinda curious since I don't agree that health should have a profit motive and that's what OMD deals with. But you know that it probably doesn't matter. There are those that are going to oppose anything from the whitehouse, including their own ideas. For that reason there's probably a good chance the seat will remain vacant for years.

 

[Berylanna]

From Wikipedia:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or USFDA) is an agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, one of the United States federal executive departments.

From ECF forum:

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ov-ireland-us-pa-fl-ga-mi-il-mn-sd-co-ut.html

I think it would be difficult to find someone worse than Ms. Sebelius from the vaping viewpoint. Difficult, but possible.

I'd rather see HHS be about, oh, Health. Human Services. But I'm also from a medical family and see no reason for good doctors not to make a good living (very good) and I've heard tales from countries with socialized medicine that when they start over-controlling and under-paying doctors, medical care DOES suffer.

However, IMO the U.S. insurance companies managed to make it even worse here for a lot of people. My Mom's boss retired in a big snit one day when an 18-year-old (we HOPE!) clerk at an insurance company informed him that his patient did not need the medicine he wanted to prescribe, he could use a cheaper one. (This is often the case but this was a REALLY good doctor who had long-since used generics when they will actually WORK!)

In addition, both Bill Godshall and, a few months later, Elaine Keller and Julie Woessner talked to the OMB, here's Elaine's blog on the meeting which seems pretty positive: CASAA: CASAA Testimony to OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs January 2, 2013

So, fingers crossed. And thumbs.

And toes.

 

[aikanae1]

Well my fingers and toes are always crossed. I have not looked up what the change could mean on any other sources and I'm sure there's plenty of opinions around. I just find it odd that a person not involved with hands on experience with running a medical/public health program is the likely nominee. That's not good/bad, but an observation. It could also be a lack of familiarity on my part.

Just because she's a nominee doesn't mean she'll get the appointment either. To my knowledge, every single nominee in the past six years has been challenged just "because" they can. Even the ones they approve of.

I may get some time to look up the scuttlebutt on this.

 

[Berylanna]

Well my fingers and toes are always crossed. I have not looked up what the change could mean on any other sources and I'm sure there's plenty of opinions around. I just find it odd that a person not involved with hands on experience with running a medical/public health program is the likely nominee. That's not good/bad, but an observation. It could also be a lack of familiarity on my part.

Just because she's a nominee doesn't mean she'll get the appointment either. To my knowledge, every single nominee in the past six years has been challenged just "because" they can. Even the ones they approve of.

I may get some time to look up the scuttlebutt on this.

If OMB is business-friendly, Obama should threaten someone really really liberal as an alternative and maybe we can pray she will get in and tell the FDA to be BUSINESS-friendly, which is not the same as Giants-only-friendly.

 

[aikanae1]

I didn't find a lot of opinion on Burwell yet. It does sound like her nomination might recieve push-back from Republicans (what's new?). Most of them seem to be objecting to the ACA in general and not her. That's a tough postion to win approval.

I would have preffered someone less connected to corporate ties and more academic/evidence oriented (ha-ha-ha). I'm not sure a "good budget manager" will push back legacy industries and the best outcome might be patched compromise (that hopefully can be improved later).

But I have never heard of her before today, so I don't know squat. I'm sure more will be revealed.

Burwell, 48, is no stranger to top-level administrative positions, having served as deputy White House chief of staff during the Clinton administration and in top roles at the Treasury Department and the National Economic Council.

She served at the Office of Management and Budget twice, as deputy director under Jack Lew from 1998 to 2001, and took over as director about a year ago. She helped the administration manage its response to a shutdown of the federal government brought on by a budget battle with Republicans in October.

In the intervening years, she worked at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and as head of the Wal-Mart Foundation.

Burwell "seems to have a strong background in management, and that's what we need now," said Timothy Jost, a healthcare expert who teaches at Washington and Lee University.

 

[aikanae1]

If OMB is business-friendly, Obama should threaten someone really really liberal as an alternative and maybe we can pray she will get in and tell the FDA to be BUSINESS-friendly, which is not the same as Giants-only-friendly.

Yea, right. Has Obama ever used that tactic?

He doesn't negotiate. He puts all his marbles straight up on the table and then turns his back, telling Congress to figure it out since it's their job "to make the laws". He signs whatever they come up with. Sometimes I honestly don't know who I'm more frustrated with.

At best, Obama is Republican-Light, a centrist, not progressive or liberal. Burwell is another Clinton. That should be proof of corporate rule and little change. However that also means a bit more rational than the worst outcome. It's always a choice of the lessor of the evils.

The good news is that massive public pressure on Congress has very good potential of working. Dems cave in easily.

The bad news is that vaping is not a single issue voting item in an election year; it has to compete with war on women, war on poor, war on Medicare, war on Medicaid, war on healthcare, war on wages, war on immigration, war on everything and everyone that isn't white, rich old men that cling to an ideological 30 year old plan. That's tough competition.

 

[Berylanna]

Then some of the good news should be that vaping is not a single-issue voting issue for the general public, either, so if they realize it's more important to vapers than to the general public, maybe we can get some sanity.

 

[aikanae1]

Are you sure? I thought it was more likely they thought it wouldn't hurt to throw us under the bus. It's not like there's a lot of voting choices. I was poking around DU last night (it's been apx 3 yrs since I'd posted there) and asking fellow vapers for some ideas to get the issue out of groups and into forums. Vaping doesn't rate within the top 10.000 issues right now.

 

[AgentAnia]

I spent some time researching Burwell last night and couldn't find any info on where she stands on HHS-related issues. Remember she's a political appointment, so her politics will probably come into play more than her position on substantive issues.

What gives me an iota of hope is that she seems an able manager and administrator, so maybe she'll make some headway in untangling HHS's (ergo FDA's, ergo CTP's) bureaucratic mess. And maybe (this may be just wishful thinking) her direction as head of OMB was in some way responsible for that agency's willingness to listen to the likes of CASAA.

 

[Berylanna]

My point is that of course they think they can throw vapers under the bus but they need to know that nobody will bite them for NOT throwing vapers under the bus.

 

[aikanae1]

I guess it depends on what a person considers a win. As a manager, her role would be to negotiate between interested parties so everyone feels like they get a slice of the pie. I'd consider it a win to have someone in the role who could take a look at evidence and say "Hey wait a minute, this needs a chance and a bigger slice if we are to move forward with what's best for all". Instead we'll end up with a patchworked compromise that no one is truly happy with, sorta like the ACA, or "something is better than nothing". In that vein, she doesn't have ties with FDA or other interested parties, so we might get a seat at the table and that's better than we had previously.

It still stands that the more noise we make, the bigger our seat will be. At least to the level of comedy.

Bill O'Reilly on America's 'Grievance Industry' - The Colbert Report - Video Clip | Comedy Central

Our problem is that vaping needs better jokes.

 

[DC2]

My point is that of course they think they can throw vapers under the bus but they need to know that nobody will bite them for NOT throwing vapers under the bus.

I think it would be best if they knew they WOULD get bitten for throwing vapers under the bus.

That is why I have always advocated that every vaper educates those in their circle.
The people that care about us need to be ready to stand up for us.

20% of the population smokes.
And every smoker must know a few people that care about them.

Our story is compelling, if marketed properly.
But the real win will come when we can show the world the truth.

Unfortunately the media isn't helping us in either respect.
My big question is why.