by one vote

Right? Left? Centre?
Political news and debate.
Put your views and articles up for debate and destruction!
Post Reply
rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

by one vote

Post by rubato »

The gun-stupid lobby and the Republican party (one and the same) are kicked to the curb and we have a real surgeon general once again:

Murthy's nomination was held up for more than a year, leaving the United States without a permanent surgeon general since Regina Benjamin stepped down in July 2013.


Held up by .... ? Cowardly craven little weasels who suck up to the gun nut lobby?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... -powerful/

Vivek Murthy's nomination to surgeon general was confirmed by the Senate on Monday night, ending the suspense of whether the 37-year-old's nomination would be doomed because of previous comments linking guns to public health. One of those comments was a tweet from 2012: "Tired of politicians playing politics w/guns, putting lives at risk b/c they're scared of NRA. Guns are a health care issue."

That was enough to set off the gun lobby in full opposition to Murthy's nomination, with moderate Democrats from gun-friendly states also lining up against Murthy, who was educated at Harvard and Yale and was most recently a physician at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. Others have raised questions about his experience and prior advocacy for President Obama's health-care agenda.

Murthy, who was confirmed with 51 Senate votes, has promised to play nice on guns, though. In his confirmation hearing earlier this year, he said he would focus on public health issues where there's broad agreement, like fighting childhood obesity.

That also ignores the point of the office Murthy will now occupy into the next presidential administration (the surgeon general is appointed for a four-year term). As the nation's top doctor, the surgeon general is supposed to be a nonpartisan arbiter of medical fact — and at times, speak the uncomfortable truths that no one else is willing to.

The late surgeon general C. Everett Koop said Reagan administration officials told him not to talk about AIDS, but he did anyway — bringing the deadly virus front and center in Washington when the Reagan administration wouldn't acknowledge it. Another former surgeon general, David Satcher, told Congress in 2007 that the Clinton administration tried suppressing a report of his showing the effectiveness of needle exchange programs — but he went ahead and released the report. Richard Carmona, a surgeon general under President George W. Bush, said the Bush administration blocked his 2006 report calling on Americans to tackle global health problems because "the report did not promote the administration's policy accomplishment," The Washington Post reported at the time.

The office's most famous report in 1964 that linked smoking to deadly diseases was a wake-up call for the nation — U.S smoking rates dropped from 43 percent at the time to to 17.8 percent last year, the lowest rate on record. Knowing that the report would come under attack, the surgeon general at the time, Luther Terry, quit smoking three months before going public with the report.

Gun right advocates naturally don't want gun violence framed as a public health issue. Across the country, firearms are involved in almost as many deaths as car accidents — and in some states, gun deaths occur at higher rates, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The costs of firearm-related injuries cost the taxpayer more than a half-billion dollars each year, according to an Urban Institute analysis this year. It seems the public health case is there, if Murthy wants to make it.

But Carmona, a former surgeon general, worries that Murthy's tainted too politically before he even steps into the role.

"The fact is the surgeon general is not the doctor of either party," said Carmona, whose term as surgeon general ended in 2006. Carmona said he opposed Murthy's nomination because he believed Murthy lacked experience and further politicizes the surgeon general role. "The surgeon general is the doctor of the people, and they need someone there who is going to speak truth to science and power."

Carmona, a Democrat who ran and lost for a U.S. Senate seat in Arizona in 2012, suggested that the position of surgeon general should have a nonpartisan order of succession within the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, which the surgeon general heads. Murthy's nomination was held up for more than a year, leaving the United States without a permanent surgeon general since Regina Benjamin stepped down in July 2013.

"This should really be an area that's nonpartisan," he said.

But public health advocates have been supportive of Murthy, with the American Public Health Association calling him "fully qualified" to serve as surgeon general. "The next surgeon general should use the bully pulpit of the office to be an outspoken, science-driven, effective leader," APHA executive director Georges Benjamin wrote in the Huffington Post in February in support of Murthy's nomination.

We'll soon see just how capable Murthy will be in using that bully pulpit.

yrs,
rubato

wesw
Posts: 9646
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:24 am
Location: the eastern shore

Re: by one vote

Post by wesw »

if we lose our right to bear arms, even rube may be able to become dictator.

User avatar
Guinevere
Posts: 8990
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:01 pm

Re: by one vote

Post by Guinevere »

Oh good Christ. No one is taking away your stupid guns (or even wants too) - that's an entirely false assertion. Regulating them, yes, taking them away, hardly.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké

wesw
Posts: 9646
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:24 am
Location: the eastern shore

Re: by one vote

Post by wesw »

I disagree with guin

wesw
Posts: 9646
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:24 am
Location: the eastern shore

Re: by one vote

Post by wesw »

....many on the left want to get rid of our right to keep and bear arms, leaving us unable to defend the rest of our rights

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21464
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: by one vote

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Guinevere wrote:Oh good Christ. No one is taking away your stupid guns (or even wants too) - that's an entirely false assertion. Regulating them, yes, taking them away, hardly.
So... we're talking guin control? ;)
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

wesw
Posts: 9646
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:24 am
Location: the eastern shore

Re: by one vote

Post by wesw »

if you want to change the constitution go for it. until then it s "cold dead fingers" for me. probably after you change it too.

User avatar
Guinevere
Posts: 8990
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:01 pm

Re: by one vote

Post by Guinevere »

Oy.

(we've already had this discussion, I'm not going to rehash it, sorry I even brought it up)
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké

wesw
Posts: 9646
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:24 am
Location: the eastern shore

Re: by one vote

Post by wesw »

lol. agreed.

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: by one vote

Post by rubato »

wesw wrote:if we lose our right to bear arms, even rube may be able to become dictator.

A surgeon general who thinks that purchasing and possessing guns should be regulated is not even the slightest breath of a threat to gun ownership. No matter how much the gun-stupid lobby tries to whip up fear.


yrs,
rubato

wesw
Posts: 9646
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:24 am
Location: the eastern shore

Re: by one vote

Post by wesw »

....just making sure the pinko commies know what they are up against. I know the 50 cent army will be watching now that I wrote pinko commie, and chairman mau jackets in another thread. google alert!!!!!

that s why I stopped going to the Economist on line. I wanted to have intelligent discussions about the articles, but anything having to do with china was obviously gang attacked by propagandists. some of them were quite clever, and not obvious, some were quite clumsy. i felt obligated to take them on, but they just reported my posts as abuse whenever i did.

then i was introduced to you good people!!!!!

....and rube, I m worried more about you than the surgeon general

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21464
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: by one vote

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Guinevere wrote:Oy.

(we've already had this discussion, I'm not going to rehash it, sorry I even brought it up)
I wasted a good joke then.

OK it wasn't good per se.

Maybe, average.

For me.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
Guinevere
Posts: 8990
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:01 pm

Re: by one vote

Post by Guinevere »

I laughed, but there is no such thing as guin control. At least not in the Constitution.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 9101
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: by one vote

Post by Sue U »

Or anywhere else, either. You're irrepressible!
GAH!

Big RR
Posts: 14907
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: by one vote

Post by Big RR »

Well, back to the OP, I feel so much better now that we actually have a general (actually, I think he is an admiral if I'm not mistaken) in charge of surgeries.

Next we can look for a new laureate in charge of poetry? or a chaplain for congress?

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21464
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: by one vote

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Ooooh... sarcasm...
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

Big RR
Posts: 14907
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: by one vote

Post by Big RR »

With humor (of a sort (self deprecating sarcasm))--intentionally used.

eta: by the way, the admiral comments comes from my recollection of former surgeon general Koop who seemed to go in for elaborate uniforms; I think I read that the surgeon general has the rank of a vice (3 star) admiral.

Post Reply