GOP Congressman clueless about Surgeon General

[Minoosh]

Should the CDC concern itself with every human activity? I say that's ridiculous. That isn't the role of the government.

Horseradish. Many believe it isn't the role of government to force women to bear unwanted babies, yet others claim it is the role of government to protect life. IMO the CDC should concern itself with preventable causes of death or harm. This does not always involve communicable disease. Harm reduction is a valid concern of government. By comparison with the rest of the world the U.S. tolerates a high rate of gun violence. It's a valid exercise for someone in government to look at possible preventative measures. The CDC doesn't legislate but I see no reason to bar public health officials from studying preventable causes of death or harm.

 

[DavidJames]

Oh, I'm not saying either statement is incorrect at all, simply that they're both unsupported digs at the other side and I get a bit hacked off with it.

I understand, but what gets me hacked off is when people try to excuse their side with a bizarre attempt of equivalence (now I see that is not what you were trying to do).

I withdraw the comment completely and will now return you to your regularly scheduled progamming.

 

[RandFan]

Well, since my argument was hyperbolic satire, your statement is the argument I was making. I didn't think I needed a smiley.

 

[RandFan]

Since when did guns come in packs of twenty with a health warning from the Surgeon General? Huh?

Since when could you get guns in light and menthol? Huh?

Point taken. Though I think a .22 cal is the light version and the .50 cal is the extra long.

 

[eeyore1954]

The President is free to nominate whoever he desires for the position and the Senate has the right to vote as they desire.

But if he was looking for an appointment based upon merit instead of politics here is a good choice. The current acting Surgeon General.

Rear Admiral (RADM) Boris D. Lushniak, M.D., M.P.H.
1) Oversees the operations of the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) Commissioned Corps, comprising of approximately 6,800 uniformed health officers who serve in locations around the world to promote, protect, and advance the health and safety of our nation.
2) Starting out in the Epidemic Intelligence Service in 1988
3) Spent the next 16 years with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, working on assignments in Russia, Kosovo and Bangladesh.
4) served as the Chief Medical Officer, Office of Counter-terrorism Policy and Planning in the Office of the Commissioner
5) Studied in the six-year Honors Program in Medical Education at Northwestern University and completed his Bachelor of Science degree in Medical Sciences in 1981 and obtained his medical degree (M.D.) in 1983.
6) In 1984, he completed the Masters of Public Health (M.P.H.) degree at Harvard University.
7) He completed a residency in family medicine in 1987 at St Joseph Hospital in Chicago
8) In 2004, he transitioned from the CDC to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as the Chief Medical Officer of the Office of Counterterrorism,
9) In 2005 became Director of the Office of Counterterrorism and Emerging Threats within the Office of the Commissioner

As opposed to
Vivek Murthy
1) Murthy received an MD from Yale School of Medicine and an MBA in Health Care Management from Yale School of Management in 2003
2) Murthy is a physician at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston
3) Vivek was the co-founder and president of “Doctors for America,” which began as “Doctors for Obama in 2008".
4) Dr. Murthy was appointed to serve as a Member of the Advisory Group on Prevention, Health Promotion, and Integrative and Public Health.

 

[sunmaster14]

The President is free to nominate whoever he desires for the position and the Senate has the right to vote as they desire.

But if he was looking for an appointment based upon merit instead of politics here is a good choice. The current acting Surgeon General.

Rear Admiral (RADM) Boris D. Lushniak, M.D., M.P.H.
1) Oversees the operations of the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) Commissioned Corps, comprising of approximately 6,800 uniformed health officers who serve in locations around the world to promote, protect, and advance the health and safety of our nation.
2) Starting out in the Epidemic Intelligence Service in 1988
3) Spent the next 16 years with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, working on assignments in Russia, Kosovo and Bangladesh.
4) served as the Chief Medical Officer, Office of Counter-terrorism Policy and Planning in the Office of the Commissioner
5) Studied in the six-year Honors Program in Medical Education at Northwestern University and completed his Bachelor of Science degree in Medical Sciences in 1981 and obtained his medical degree (M.D.) in 1983.
6) In 1984, he completed the Masters of Public Health (M.P.H.) degree at Harvard University.
7) He completed a residency in family medicine in 1987 at St Joseph Hospital in Chicago
8) In 2004, he transitioned from the CDC to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as the Chief Medical Officer of the Office of Counterterrorism,
9) In 2005 became Director of the Office of Counterterrorism and Emerging Threats within the Office of the Commissioner

As opposed to
Vivek Murthy
1) Murthy received an MD from Yale School of Medicine and an MBA in Health Care Management from Yale School of Management in 2003
2) Murthy is a physician at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston
3) Vivek was the co-founder and president of “Doctors for America,” which began as “Doctors for Obama in 2008".
4) Dr. Murthy was appointed to serve as a Member of the Advisory Group on Prevention, Health Promotion, and Integrative and Public Health.

I'm surprised that this hasn't earned Murthy a Nobel Prize in Medicine yet. The Nobel committee is either asleep at the switch, or they're waiting for some substantive progress on gun control.

 

[Minoosh]

The Surgeon General is not the head of (or even part of) the CDC, but of the United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. Your response makes no sense.

This thread is about the surgeon general, and controversy around his focus on guns. I draw an analogy that points out that a past surgeon general focused on smoking. If that's too big of a conceptual leap for you I'm not sure I can help.

The CDC worked itself into the thread somehow, legitimately IMO as another agency tasked with public health that is having issues.

 

[Ziggurat]

This thread is about the surgeon general, and controversy around his focus on guns.

That's where it started, but it already moved to other subjects. The specific topic of discussion that I was addressing in what you quoted was indeed the CDC. I was not the one who originally brought up the CDC either. But given that what I said was indeed specific to the CDC, your response to me made no sense. And your followup doesn't make it make sense either.

If you want to talk about the surgeon general and the appropriateness of his involvement with gun issues, and not the CDC, there's no reason for you to have quoted that post of mine. If that's too big of a conceptual leap for you I'm not sure I can help.

 

[a_unique_person]

Easy: because their position is popular. Next question?

They were marching on the streets because Obama's nomination was so unpopular.

 

[a_unique_person]

Are you complaining that the representatives of the people listen to their constituents? Heaven forbid.

The NRA are a lobby group, not their constituents.

 

[marplots]

The NRA are a lobby group, not their constituents.

How is that even possible? If a government official is creating legislation that affects me, I damn well should count as a constituent. I should also have a voice in how that legislation is crafted.

 

[fishbob]

Its not all about you.

 

[marplots]

Its not all about you.

Yeah, except for that part that is.

 

[casebro]

This thread is about the surgeon general, and controversy around his focus on guns. I draw an analogy that points out that a past surgeon general focused on smoking. If that's too big of a conceptual leap for you I'm not sure I can help.

The CDC worked itself into the thread somehow, legitimately IMO as another agency tasked with public health that is having issues.

di you mean "Tissues"?

 

[RandFan]

How is that even possible? If a government official is creating legislation that affects me, I damn well should count as a constituent. I should also have a voice in how that legislation is crafted.

I could be wrong but when I was a member of the NRA they never sought my input through questioners or polls. Perhaps they did and I don't remember or didn't notice. Perhaps they do now. How exactly do they know what your voice is?

If they did know what your voice was and the voice of the majority of gun owners, would they side with the members or gun manufacturers?

Four independent polls taken in the previous month showed that some sort of expansion of background checks earned the support of between 83 percent and 91 percent of respondents, a level of backing we think qualifies as "overwhelming."

How The Gun Industry Funnels Tens Of Millions Of Dollars To The NRA

Since 2005, the gun industry and its corporate allies have given between $20 million and $52.6 million to it through the NRA Ring of Freedom sponsor program. Donors include firearm companies like Midway USA, Springfield Armory Inc, Pierce Bullet Seal Target Systems, and Beretta USA Corporation. Other supporters from the gun industry include Cabala's, Sturm Rugar & Co, and Smith & Wesson.

The NRA also made $20.9 million — about 10 percent of its revenue — from selling advertising to industry companies marketing products in its many publications in 2010, according to the IRS Form 990.

Additionally, some companies donate portions of sales directly to the NRA. Crimson Trace, which makes laser sights, donates 10 percent of each sale to the NRA. Taurus buys an NRA membership for everyone who buys one of their guns. Sturm Rugar gives $1 to the NRA for each gun sold, which amounts to millions. The NRA's revenues are intrinsically linked to the success of the gun business.

If your voice mirrors that of gun manufacturers then I'm sure the NRA is happy with that. Otherwise I honestly don't think they give a damn about what you or any citizen thinks. Just that you pay your dues and vote as they tell you.

 

[marplots]

I could be wrong but when I was a member of the NRA they never sought my input through questioners or polls. Perhaps they did and I don't remember or didn't notice. Perhaps they do now. How exactly do they know what your voice is?

You pay your membership dues on time. But Wiki tells us they are run by a 76 member board of directors who are elected by the membership (the prolls) at an annual meeting. If that's so, the NRA does represent the membership.
(I'm unwilling to dig into the matter further and am not a member myself.)

Originally Posted by politifact
Four independent polls taken in the previous month showed that some sort of expansion of background checks earned the support of between 83 percent and 91 percent of respondents, a level of backing we think qualifies as "overwhelming."

Logically, if the counter-opinion represents that much support, even a dollar per person would swamp all the money from the NRA and its backers. And, not surprisingly, there are organizations such as the BradyCampaign.org willing to take donations for that exact purpose.

If they did know what your voice was and the voice of the majority of gun owners, would they side with the members or gun manufacturers?

I don't know. I expect the two run in parallel, since the manufacturers want to sell guns and their customers want to buy them. In a sense, the manufacturers have to be responsive to their customers as well.

To me, it seems a simple matter of a clear issue enjoying support partly because it is so clear: "We are against all forms of gun regulation." The single issue focus probably helps a great deal.

 

[RandFan]

You pay your membership dues on time. But Wiki tells us they are run by a 76 member board of directors who are elected by the membership (the prolls) at an annual meeting. If that's so, the NRA does represent the membership.

I will concede that there is some input from members. Not exactly impressive.

The National Rifle Association claims to speak for more than 4 million gun owners. But the shots are really called by a hush-hush group of 76 directors. The majority are nominated via a top-down process and elected by a small fraction of NRA members. A breakdown of the current board, based on their official bios:

• 87 percent are men. 93 percent are white.
• 25 percent are current or former federal, state, or local lawmakers or officials.
• 22 percent are current or former law enforcement officers. 30 percent are current or former members of the military.
• 24 percent are lawyers.
• 12 percent are entertainers or athletes.
• 64 percent are hunters. 71 percent are sport or competitive shooters.
• At least 71 percent were nominated, endorsed, or selected by the NRA's Nominating Committee.

I don't know. I expect the two run in parallel, since the manufacturers want to sell guns and their customers want to buy them. In a sense, the manufacturers have to be responsive to their customers as well.

To me, it seems a simple matter of a clear issue enjoying support partly because it is so clear: "We are against all forms of gun regulation." The single issue focus probably helps a great deal.

I don't think it is at all clear. The members of the NRA is not monolithic. When I and my boys were members we didn't agree with all that the NRA does. I doubt you really think that every member agrees with everything the NRA does.

What is most telling is that when it is demonstrable that the membership is not in agreement with the NRA that the NRA will side with the gun manufacturers.

Seriously, I don't think they give a damn what gun owners think.

polls show 90 percent of Americans and 74 percent of NRA members support criminal background checks before all gun buys

More recently, according to the results of a national January 2013 poll presented in the March 21, 2013, New England Journal of Medicine, 84 percent of gun owners and 74 percent of NRA members supported requiring a universal background-check system for all gun sales.