Does it matter that we don’t have a surgeon general in place right now?

[spanone]

In the midst of the Ebola crisis, the United States doesn’t have a confirmed surgeon general in place.

President Obama’s choice to be the nation’s “top doctor” couldn’t get the votes in the Senate in March, largely because of pressure from the National Rifle Association.

Vivek Murthy, the president’s nominee to be the next surgeon general, was too politically outspoken for some. He was an Obama supporter and an advocate for Obamacare. But he also said gun violence in America is a public health issue. So senators, including some Democrats, withheld support.

But does it matter? Depends where you fall politically, it seems. MSNBC published an op-ed, titled “How the NRA is making the Ebola Crisis Worse,” in which anchor Krystal Ball and MSNBC producer Anne Thompson make the case that it would be helpful to have the country’s top doctor on hand to speak to the American people about public health. Right-wing blogs scoffed. Conservative blog Hotair wrote in response that “the idea that only a political appointee at the cabinet level can fill this void is rather laughable.” (The surgeon general isn’t actually a cabinet-level position.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/wp/2014/10/08/does-it-matter-that-we-dont-have-a-surgeon-general-in-place-right-now/

[kestrel91316]

1. The Surgeon General isn't at CDC and plays no role in infectious disease emergency response.

[gratuitous]

2. It certainly doesn't help

Like so much Republican mischief, it's hard to say that any one of their little shenanigans is the decisive one. But not having a Surgeon General, along with the cuts to the budgets of the Centers for Disease Control and other public health agencies, as well as the general tenor of their "government bad, Republicans smash" philosophy, all serve to handicap our response to a public health episode like ebola.

In the leadership vacuum that Republicans have created, all manner of hustlers and charlatans come rushing in to spread misinformation and disinformation, rumor monger, and generally seek to profit personally from the uncertainty and chaos they've spawned.

Would having a Surgeon General, in and of itself, fill the void Republicans have made? No. But would the public health apparatus be better served and better positioned to respond to ebola? Of course. People are going to die because of Republican policies. But because some unscrupulous assholes are going to personally profit from this bad situation made worse, nobody will care. And assholes like the folks at Hotair will try to sell the notion that these wholly preventable deaths is actually the preferable situation to a functioning public health system.

However, if any of the fuckheads currently cheerleading the dismantling of the public sphere fall victim to their own stupid policies, they'll be the first ones in line to complain about how the government is failing its citizens.

[FSogol]

3. No. The bigger point is that Republican's policies of budget cuts and small government

has tied hands in dealing with this crisis. Is the US still behind on payments to the UN and WHO? Has Boehner recommended any Emergency funding? Has Perry requested Federal Emergency $$$S?

[ZombieHorde]

4. We have an acting Surgeon General.

I don't know what he is doing, or if the Commissioned Corps is involved in the Ebola thing, but he's probably doing whatever a SG would do in this situation.

[Earth_First]

5. Why? Is there still some marijuana interdiction to be had...?