Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

American Academy of Pediatrics loses HHS funding after criticizing RFK Jr.

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 53 posts

Re: American Academy of Pediatrics loses HHS funding after criticizing RFK Jr.

#41

Post by db48x »

rtollert wrote: post #38
db48x wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn’t say it was immoral, I said that canceling a grant to them doesn’t somehow reduce treatment to patients. Of course they’re going to claim that it will, because they want to be important. But the reality is that most of what they do is either unnecessary, or easily replaced. Telling new mothers not to drink during pregnancy is useful but we don’t require this particular group to do it. Anyone can tell new moth…

I'd want to see the grants in question (which infuriatingly haven't been linked to yet..?) before drawing further conclusions. And I continue to be annoyed at how nudge-based so much policy is nowadays... even more so when it seems to make an impact? Otherwise, fair enough.

Personally I take the lack of concrete information as a sign that the reporter knows that this is ultimately unimportant. If it were contracts for something important then those details would be included in the story, because they support the narrative that this is a bad move.

Re: American Academy of Pediatrics loses HHS funding after criticizing RFK Jr.

#42

Post by JumpCrisscross »

db48x wrote: post #39
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> American Academy of Pediatrics treats nobody. At best it’s a lobbyist group In their FYE 2025, the AAP spent 6% and 3% of its $113mm budget on advocacy and membership, respectively [1]. Most of its money goes to child health activities (43%), educational publishing (30%) and education activities (14%). [1] https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/AAP%20Financial%20Statemen...

Nature of Business The mission of the American Academy of Pediatrics (the Academy) is to obtain optimal … health and well-being for all …. The Academy seeks to promote this goal by encouraging and assisting its members in their efforts …, by providing support and counsel …, and by serving as an advocate … within the community at large. They don’t actually treat anybody. They spend $28 million a year on salaries and b…

> They don’t actually treat anybody

Neither does a pathologist. Or, more removed, anyone in research. Not everyone in medicine who doesn’t see patients is fluff.

I’m open to the idea that they’re a BS organisation. But saying they’re upstream from patient care is naïvely obvious; not every engineer is a car mechanic.

Re: American Academy of Pediatrics loses HHS funding after criticizing RFK Jr.

#43

Post by JumpCrisscross »

rtollert wrote: post #37
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #31

23% of the AAP’s revenue comes from grants and pledges [1], and their $100mm in investments could cover the shortfall for up to three years if all $28.5mm of that is HHS. A crisis, for sure. But not an urgent one. The AAP can fight. To that end: 1) Does the AAP have a case that RFK Jr. acted unconstitutionally? 2) Were these “grants…previously awarded” in a binding nature? Or does the government sign grants with a ge…

My recollection (apologies, I'm not able to turn up a citation on this) is that the AAP has not really shied away from gripping ideological third rails with both hands; they've taken very liberal-leaning positions on abortion rights, gun violence, trans healthcare, etc. (Of course, depending on how you look at things, such policy positions might appear either partisan or nonpartisan.) I would be surprised if Sen. Bar…

> I would be surprised if Sen. Barasso were a member

Hmm, I think you’re correct.

Re: American Academy of Pediatrics loses HHS funding after criticizing RFK Jr.

#44

Post by db48x »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #42
db48x wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nature of Business The mission of the American Academy of Pediatrics (the Academy) is to obtain optimal … health and well-being for all …. The Academy seeks to promote this goal by encouraging and assisting its members in their efforts …, by providing support and counsel …, and by serving as an advocate … within the community at large. They don’t actually treat anybody. They spend $28 million a year on salaries and b…

> They don’t actually treat anybody Neither does a pathologist. Or, more removed, anyone in research. Not everyone in medicine who doesn’t see patients is fluff. I’m open to the idea that they’re a BS organisation. But saying they’re upstream from patient care is naïvely obvious; not every engineer is a car mechanic.

I agree that it’s obvious, which is why I disagreed with someone who said that this decision would “kill” people. They clearly can’t tell the difference.

Re: American Academy of Pediatrics loses HHS funding after criticizing RFK Jr.

#45

Post by jmye »

db48x wrote: post #35
rtollert wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the content of the article sufficiently disproves your assertion. Actually, the headline does too IMHO. The idea that it’s immoral for NGOs (much less professional orgs) to represent themselves to legislatures is unserious.

I didn’t say it was immoral, I said that canceling a grant to them doesn’t somehow reduce treatment to patients. Of course they’re going to claim that it will, because they want to be important. But the reality is that most of what they do is either unnecessary, or easily replaced. Telling new mothers not to drink during pregnancy is useful but we don’t require this particular group to do it. Anyone can tell new moth…

The reality? Based on what? What specific healthcare background do you have? What, specifically, do you know that you didn’t literally learn in the six seconds you spent on their website that you seem to think has made you an expert?

I’m so, so tired of people who think that building some shitty React apps, or whatever, means they’re experts in everything they’ve spent 12 seconds thinking about.

Re: American Academy of Pediatrics loses HHS funding after criticizing RFK Jr.

#46

Post by etchalon »

wat10000 wrote: post #34
db48x wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

That’s not the point. This isn’t about a professional association losing some government money. This is about the government’s war on vaccines.

This is about the thin skin of a government official who can't stand the fact no one serious respects him.

Re: American Academy of Pediatrics loses HHS funding after criticizing RFK Jr.

#47

Post by db48x »

jmye wrote: post #45
db48x wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn’t say it was immoral, I said that canceling a grant to them doesn’t somehow reduce treatment to patients. Of course they’re going to claim that it will, because they want to be important. But the reality is that most of what they do is either unnecessary, or easily replaced. Telling new mothers not to drink during pregnancy is useful but we don’t require this particular group to do it. Anyone can tell new moth…

The reality? Based on what? What specific healthcare background do you have? What, specifically, do you know that you didn’t literally learn in the six seconds you spent on their website that you seem to think has made you an expert? I’m so, so tired of people who think that building some shitty React apps, or whatever, means they’re experts in everything they’ve spent 12 seconds thinking about.

I’m pretty tired of people who see an opinion they don’t like and immediately assume that they know everything about the commenter and their hypothetical “apps”. Ad hominem is so lame. Besides, the last app I wrote used XUL with XBL for reusable and composable widgets thank you very much.

Re: American Academy of Pediatrics loses HHS funding after criticizing RFK Jr.

#48

Post by lovich »

kr99x wrote: post #36
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am in favor of extremely strong free speech, legally and more importantly morally Sure. Whatever. Irrelevant. The point is the loudest voices in Silicon Valley who were all in on free speech, knowingly joined hands with an authoritarian who is trashing it in its most protected form, political speech.

Not irrelevant. I'm responding directly to somebody saying people like me basically don't exist so that I am a data point. We do exist. We're rare, but not that rare.

Frankly, I don't believe you without some strong evidence that you had fought or pushed back against this admin's censorship in some form, that is more than just words. Every single person I have met or read about who espoused your views, inevitably showed up on the side of censorship when they didn't like what the other guy said, or is still willing to vote for the candidate whose censoring others because of some social war bullshit.

For instance I used to be active in /r/Libertarian until the day the Mises Caucus took over and they banned anyone who said there were branches of libertarianism that were left leaning, for lying.

If, and I really stress the word "if" there, you are telling the truth, then cool, but you are exceedingly rare in that case

edit: Also lol, none of the "free speech absolutist" elon fanboys showed up, but my comments been flagged to reduce its viewership. Not really changing my mind on the opinion of people in this forum who wax poetic about free speech

Re: American Academy of Pediatrics loses HHS funding after criticizing RFK Jr.

#49

Post by lovich »

tpoacher wrote: post #23

[flagged]

you can always add to the discussion and be the agent of change to help improve the situation.

I'm with the other poster though, there is no nuance here. Sometimes a spade is just a spade, and the HHS is being run by an incompetent jackass with literal insane beliefs about reality who is now forcing those beliefs on us

Re: American Academy of Pediatrics loses HHS funding after criticizing RFK Jr.

#50

Post by wat10000 »

etchalon wrote: post #46
wat10000 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not the point. This isn’t about a professional association losing some government money. This is about the government’s war on vaccines.

This is about the thin skin of a government official who can't stand the fact no one serious respects him.

Same coin, other side.
Post reply on HN