Question for people who understand the MAHA mindset
-
I really don’t get this. I feel I have an understanding of how the original granola-chick MAHA types think, and I feel I have an understanding of how the newer MAGA converts think. But I can’t fit this in either model.
A few weeks ago, HHS quietly eliminated the committee that determines what diseases will be part of the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel for states to implement
as part of their newborn screening programs. I should point out states don’t have to implement these recommendations, but mostly they do over time. This is not coercive.After being pressed, the only comment they made was something like ‘it’s President Trump’s goal to reduce the size of government’. That seems like a non-answer given this is a volunteer committee which serves without pay.
They were just about to review Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD) for inclusion on the list.
For those unfamiliar, DMD is a disease that affects little boys and cripples them, 100% of the time. It usually starts its effects between 2-5 and the boys lose their ability to walk by their teens. They usually die of heart or respiratory complications in their 20s.
There are emerging gene therapies that could help these boys and maybe prevent the disease from manifesting in the first place.
Why the fuck would Kennedy kill this?
I should say I’m not asking anyone to defend it, just help me understand how this fits in with MAHA thinking.
-
You ask the question as if someone specifically decided not to screen for that particular thing. It's a government program in health care that got ended, and so "people will die" narratives can be crafted. I don't see what's not to understand, unless you don't think beyond that very particular narrative-based framing.
-
Good point, it’s just the disease that happened to be days away from consideration.
But believe me, the other diseases that get put on the list are also terrible.
There are terrible diseases not on the list that affect children, of course. To get on the list it has to be (1) a disease that otherwise won’t be diagnosed until it’s too late, and (2) an effective treatment has to exist. It’s usually advancements in #2 that cause new diseases to be added.
But I can’t see how anyone would disagree that testing for these conditions is a good idea. Let me add these are exclusively childhood diseases. It’s not a program that finds ‘patients in waiting’ for adult-onset diseases.
And again this committee costs nothing and states are not coerced into acting based on it.
So with that said I’ll repeat the question.
Why the fuck would Kennedy kill this?
-
It's a non-sequitur to go from eliminating the committee to accusing HHS of being against screening.
Obviously I'm not an expert on the thought processes, but I'll continue to go with the fact that "people will die" narratives can be crafted when any health care related program or committee is ended as part of a broad scale effort to minimize federal government. I think it would have been fine if the federal government had never developed its food pyramid, and left each state to decide on its own food recommendations. The "people will die" narrative here is not too convincing, since the states can refer to any recommendations they please, or develop their own. This is not something that requires the federal government. Is the federal government uniquely situated to develop this list? Is this a case where if they don't provide such a list, no such list of equal value will exist? How much magic are we ascribing to the process by which this committee develops this list?
-
Surely my question would be mooted if they replaced it with another process. Or if they said ‘the states should come up with their own lists’. But they’ve done neither.
Of course a ‘people will die’ narrative could be crafted on most any government action. But my question isn’t ’why do they want people to die’. My question is about motive.
Let’s say a committed libertarian came into office and zeroed out federal cancer research altogether. I wouldn’t be asking the question (even though people would die) because I understand libertarian principles quite well.
But if that same guy made it illegal to conduct cancer research even privately funded, I would be asking people ‘why would they do this, I understand libertarian principles and this doesn’t fit’.
So in one situation I’d have the question, in the other I wouldn’t, even though ‘people would die’ is true in both.
Because the source of the question is about motive and my lack of understanding how this fits in their worldview.
-
It just seems like you're reading a lot into this. A volunteer committee was disbanded as part of a larger effort to dismantle federal programs (like they say on the tin), and the non-coercive list they generated of screening recommendations will no longer be updated. Why do you need a motive beyond sloppiness, or laziness or, more charitably, collateral damage of a larger and valuable effort to disband a bunch of federal programs? Why engage in a futile search for a motive to suppress screening for certain diseases, a motive which probably nobody has? Such a motive does not necessarily exist, and it does not probably exist.
-
I’m with Horace, here. The conclusion that you come to is that without this committee and their recommendations, states won’t implement these screenings and that their own public health departments won’t be coming to their own conclusions. Or that private groups such as the Mayo Clinic and Hopkins aren’t advocating for the same? Now you state that the officials aren’t compensated for their time, but if they are employees of the NIH, then they are. Unless you propose that these activities do not interfere with their regular responsibilities?
The Brad
-
“I’m with you Jon. I don’t see how this fits with either flavor of MAHA. I’m guessing it was just sloppiness’ would be a reasonable answer.
@jon-nyc said in Question for people who understand the MAHA mindset:
“I’m with you Jon. I don’t see how this fits with either flavor of MAHA. I’m guessing it was just sloppiness’ would is a reasonable answer.
If I had been echoing what you said, I'd be ignoring the obvious simple answer of collateral damage from a broader effort to reduce government, and asking leading questions about unknown but wink wink sinister motivations for not screening for deadly diseases.
Reducing government is completely on-brand, so your shock at how this is completely out of left field, seems strained.
-
I’m with Horace, here. The conclusion that you come to is that without this committee and their recommendations, states won’t implement these screenings and that their own public health departments won’t be coming to their own conclusions. Or that private groups such as the Mayo Clinic and Hopkins aren’t advocating for the same? Now you state that the officials aren’t compensated for their time, but if they are employees of the NIH, then they are. Unless you propose that these activities do not interfere with their regular responsibilities?
@LuFins-Dad said in Question for people who understand the MAHA mindset:
I’m with Horace, here. The conclusion that you come to is that without this committee and their recommendations, states won’t implement these screenings and that their own public health departments won’t be coming to their own conclusions.
Nope. In fact I know they do because we’ve lobbied states ourselves and have done pilots in NY and FL. Ultimately states make their own decisions and some go far beyond what the RUSP recommends. But pretty much all states implement what’s on the RUSP eventually (though it may take years). And smaller/poorer states especially find it convenient to follow HHS lead.
Or that private groups such as the Mayo Clinic and Hopkins aren’t advocating for the same? Now you state that the officials aren’t compensated for their time, but if they are employees of the NIH, then they are. Unless you propose that these activities do not interfere with their regular responsibilities?
The people they convene are from places such as Hopkins and Mayo. HHS probably flies them in two or three times a year or at least they did before COVID. At any rate disbanding a volunteer committee of experts with the idea that 50 states can each duplicate it doesn’t strike me as government efficiency.
