National Strategic Stockpile description has suddenly changed. Why?
The description of the National Strategic Stockpile originally was described as "the nation's largest supply of life-saving pharmaceuticals and medical supplies for use in a public health emergency severe enough to cause local supplies to run out."
The description of the national Strategic Stockpile has suddenly changed in the last couple of days to "to supplement state and local supplies during public health emergencies. Many states have products stockpiled, as well. The supplies, medicines, and devices for life-saving care contained in the stockpile can be used as a short-term stopgap buffer when the immediate supply of adequate amounts of these materials may not be immediately available."
Why did this description change and who has the authority to change it?Can you give links to the before and after? A link showing who changed the wording would be helpful as well.
The two statements appear to have the same contexts. Yes, the wording has been changed.
"The Strategic National Stockpile's role is to supplement state and local supplies during public health emergencies. Many states have products stockpiled, as well. The supplies, medicines, and devices for life-saving care contained in the stockpile can be used as a short-term stopgap buffer when the immediate supply of adequate amounts of these materials may not be immediately available."
Several Dem Senators have asked for the word changes to be investigated. They want to know who ordered the changes. I would think we have larger problems these senators could be concentrating on.
"TheHill.com
Democratic senators want probe into the change of national stockpile description
BY JORDAIN CARNEY - 04/03/20 06:52 PM EDT 2,002
101,396
"A group of Senate Democrats want a federal watchdog to investigate the decision to change an online description of the country's Strategic National Stockpile following a press briefing with White House adviser Jared Kushner.
Four Democratic senators sent a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) office of inspector general saying that the change in language — which caught widespread attention on Friday — raised concerns about "potential improper interference ... to advance a political agenda."
"We request that HHS OIG launch an investigation ... to determine whether political appointees in the Trump administration directed the improper use of public resources on behalf of Jared Kushner or other political appointees to alter information on an official Federal agency government website," they wrote in the letter.
Sens. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) signed the letter."
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/491 … escription
ALTHOUGH --- It would appear the investigation requested by the senators will be a waste of time as well as money.
Ms. Katherine McKeogh, a spokeswoman for HHS said in a statement on Friday, per Politico, that " the updates to the webpage text had been in the works before Kushner spoke at Thursday's briefing"
So, at this point, one must point the finger for the changes in the wording in regard to the National Stockpile, not at J. Kushner but the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS)..
https://www.axios.com/national-stockpil … 905cc.html
"Katherine McKeogh, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said in a statement Friday that the edits to the stockpile’s webpage had been in the works prior to Kushner’s remarks.
“This is language we have been using in our messaging for weeks now,” McKeogh said. She added that the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response “first began working to update the text a week ago to more clearly explain to state and local agencies and members of the public the role of the [Strategic National Stockpile].”
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/0 … rks-163181
The Federal Public Health website previously had the description I stated. It has now been changed. Please see the present description at the link below
https://www.phe.gov/emergency/events/CO … fault.aspx
I am just trying to understand why it would be changed and who authorizes that if anybody has an answer.I actually don't see a lot of difference, other than the wording making it plain that it can only be a short term stop-gap solution. This should be obvious as it does not hold an infinite supply of anything, but I guess some people think it does.
I just don't understand if it was created for one purpose in 2003, and has not changed, why the wording change now, and who makes the decision to change it.
The wording was changed after Jarrod Kushner said something different from the original wording. No surprise at all as Jarrod is as honest as his pa-in-law.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … tockpiles/What part of the new wording do you find to be false, Randy?
As reporters quickly noted, that didn’t match with how the Department of Health and Human Services was describing the program. On its website, it said, “Strategic National Stockpile is the nation’s largest supply of life-saving pharmaceuticals and medical supplies for use in a public health emergency severe enough to cause local supplies to run out.” It continued to say, "When state, local, tribal, and territorial responders request federal assistance to support their response efforts, the stockpile ensures that the right medicines and supplies get to those who need them most during an emergency.”
Did you even read the changes, Dan?Yes, it says that. A statement of what it is and then a statement that says what it is for.
You didn't say - which one do you find false? Did you read the question, Randy?Yes I did, the wording was changed to match what Kushner said at the interview. You don't see what the difference is? Why did they change the wording, other than it didn't match up with what Jarrod said? Just for the hell of it?
If the intent is the same what's the problem?
Then why was it changed if it was the same? What was the intent of whoever changed it? To match Kushner's words is the only answer.
I wish nitpicky little questions were at the top of my list of things to worry about these days. I'd feel so much better.
"The only answer". Come on, Randy - leave your imaginary world and come into reality - I could come up with at least a dozen alternatives, although I doubt you would accept any of them because it doesn't give a chance to bash at Trump. Still, they would be viable alternatives, with at least as much chance of being right as your "only answer" is.
Try your speculation then. Must have been important to suddenly decided it needed changing overnight.
From your post: "No surprise at all as Jarrod is as honest as his pa-in-law.". I assumed that you found the new wording to be false, else why stick in that sentence?
What part do you find to be false, Randy? I keep asking but you aren't answering.
Perhaps as a warning that the stockpile cannot supply the needs of the country indefinitely? That it is only intended for short term use? That it is not unlimited?
I would say it may have been changed to clarify that it existed for all states. No reasonable person could have thought it was an infinite supply meant to take care of everyone, everywhere at any given time.
It probably got changed so people can understand that it isn't going to be completely depleted by one state demanding all of the resources. It's there for everyone. So if the state has a need they cannot fill the feds can help. But the state had to attempt to fill their needs first.Trump could not have answered the query better, Denise. Of course, you didn't end your opinion with, "believe me."
K
The difference between you and I appears to be that I like to see if there is a less than nefarious driver when a statement is made. You, the opposite, when it comes to anything not said by a Democrat.
At least you are 50% kind to your fellow man.
I think the American people have right to have an answer to the questions I asked in this post. It is a major deal when language is changed at will with no explanation to the citizens of this country during a pandemic. I still have not gotten or found an answer. Very worrisome.
It seems you and I are the only ones concerned about the abrupt change in wording, NayNay.
Ad me to the list of concerned, for whatever it's worth. I'm not counting on the feds for anything as long as the likes of Trump and his but-kissers are in charge. People saw what they did to Puerto Rico after the disaster there and thought Trump would never do it to "real Muricans." Sorry, he don't care if you're from Kansas or San Juan...just watch his rallies and scream his name while you're alive and have electricity. Then he'll say you are worthy for a minute or two.
And we keep hearing stories of supplies provided during the hurricane found hidden and intact, stolen by Puerto Rican authorities. Stories of wanton waste and corruption in Puerto Rico where funds provided line the pockets of Puerto Rican officials.
Funny how you muricans have a hard time following facts.Have you looked into any of the details of this issue—that might be the reason for your'concern'"?
Surely you are not just letting your disdain for the administration guide your opinion?
Did you know a former Democrat director of the HHS described the change in wording as "just semantics"?
Do you see any difference in the conveyed message of the two definitions? (they both conveyed the same message to me)
Do you really see something sinister in the change in wording—beyond your distrust of this administration?
. . . and, as the cherry on top, did you research the Puerto Rico allegations to be confident in your ". . . People saw what they did to Puerto Rico after the disaster there " inferred allegation?
You surprised me hard sun, I passed this comment a couple of times until my conscience forced me to come back. It isn't like you to jump on a bandwagon of such unsupported political charges. What changed your mind to do it this time?
GAand, as the cherry on top, did you research the Puerto Rico allegations to be confident in your ". . . People saw what they did to Puerto Rico after the disaster there " inferred allegation?
I thoroughly researched this. It's surprising you haven't.
In case you missed, I feel Trump is a danger to to our nation's very existence so I'm done giving him any benefit just like so many millions were done giving Obama any benefit of the doubt, and are still blaming all Trump's troubles on Obama. --Screw Trump...everything about the man-baby. That's where I'm at...none of the Democrat haters give a damn about the truth. No Trump supporter will admit he does ANYTHING wrong..so why should I give him ANY credit? They fight dirty so those who don't like him are supposed to bend over backward to give him credit?Regarding the SNS, (Strategic National Stockpile), description change my comment wasn't giving Pres. Trump any credit, or benefit of the doubt. The wording did just seem like a semantics argument to me. As noted, both descriptions conveyed the same message, so what could be the reason for the controversy?
Perhaps I didn't look into the Puerto Rico issue as deeply as you, but I did look deep enough to find stories of a warehouse(s?) of hurricane Maria supplies found undistributed 2 years later. And stories about government officials, (3?), fired for corruption related to that aid, and one story about 32 others charged with aid-related corruption and crimes.
I think there was also a matter of duplication of effort relative to their power grid—two different fund allotments for the same rebuilding purpose.
There was more, but that was enough to warrant, at least, concern about corruption relating to those billions of dollars of aid. As I understood it, the aid wasn't just arbitrarily withheld, it was conditioned with oversight commissions that the Puerto Rican government rejected/resisted.
However, all of that was just to explain why I can see reasons for corruption-concern delays. I can also see the possibility that the Puerto Rican people suffered from these delays due to over-zealous and too severe U.S. actions, (possibly at Pres. Trump's explicit direction), due to the actions of just a few of their government officials.
Either way, I don't think the Puerto Rica issue is non-issue like I think the SNS one is. Hence my question about why you were concerned about it.
GAYou do know about the golf resort there Trump was involved with, right Gus? It may explain why Trump didn't really want to help PR that much. His pettiness is something else...
I'm concerned about everything Trump does...he's a televangelist and I don't like those guys. I take the word of a couple of trusted people who live in Puerto Rico on what went down there.
One can see you are very angry. And I realize it must be very hard to hear anything negative about Obama. But facts speak loudly. Take for instance of the National Stockpiles that should have been kept up to pare. They were lacking. And Trump has been criticized for the lack of supplies And yes he is as responsible as Obama for not fixing that problem.
You need not give credit, but why belittle a job well done? You have offered your opinion of Trump supporters. Here is a mine of some Dem. Because I don't lump all in one "deplorable basket". H. Clinton.
I see many Dems as bitter, unrealistic, and many have skewed thought processes. Literally unable to accept facts they find simply goes against their views. Many are belligerent, rude, and unable to have a conversation that they don't add Trump's name in a disparaging insult. It seems some feel it is their opinion alone matters. Much of the time they are negative and project "what if" scenarios. They appear pleased at all costs to prove their view. For instance, seeing Trump fail in the handling of this virus crisis, not actually considering if he fails, more die... And then there is the big problem with disregarding and or twisting facts to suit their views.
As you can see, I have my view of what I consider your thought process. However, I would never, I mean never shared it. You and others like you share it right here daily, and maybe don't even realize you are doing it.
Well, ya just got a bit of what you dish out. And, it's long overdue.
So when you put me into a basket of "Democrat haters" be ready to be reminded who is being hateful... When you make a statement
They "fight dirty". That's you and yours. I very rarely see anyone but Dems getting rude on this small forum. That is just a fact.
Have a look at some of your comments as well as some of your other proud Dems. Just have a look.
No one has asked you to bend over, to be truthful I for one have little to no respect for your opinion, due to your lack of respect for others.
GA, and I pointed out facts. The conversation cornered you, and came out hysterically swinging. You did not answer questions or address facts. You diverted to insulting Trump supporters as well as Trump. As I said you just can't help yourself.
Just look at how this conversation progressed. Have a look who became hateful, and lashed out to direct blame. That was you.Sharlee, an excellent description of Trump derangement syndrome!
The Democrat party was called liberals till that label became a bad word so they changed it to progressives which now has unmistakably been replaced with TDSyndromocrats!"Just look at how this conversation progressed. Have a look who became hateful, and lashed out to direct blame. That was you."
Remind you of anyone in the Oval Office, Shar? Someone you'd defend to the limit?At this point, I was addressing Hard Sun attitude where he is directing attributes towards others here on HP. He opened a door, and it's time he receives a bit of what he felt he had the right to give. It goes to ways.
I was addressing the point of you accepting such behavior from the leader of the free world, but not here. Anyone who can condone Trump's behavior, and even defend him so often, shouldn't let a few harsh words bother them in the least, Shar.
Both sides dish it out regularly, but one side frequently complains about being insulted, as though they are special.
Bingo! And, it's going to take some hard-hardheadedness to defeat the Trump cult. I'm game. My children's future is at stake here with this anti-intellectual snake-oil salesman hijacking our nation. People should be angry..and they are. Just like people were angry when we had our first minority President.
Yup. You did it again. Called my a hypocrite, etc..and then played the victim card. It's from the Trump playbook. I sure can dish it out...just like Trump, our President and his followers who get triggered and angry every time anyone questions our President. He is OUR President right? I can criticize our President...and I will. Have fun..I know I sure will.
Notice how I insult Trump and his supporters take it as a personal insult. That's telling. I'm very comfortable with my views and how I express them. I'm not comfortable with how Trump expresses his views...this makes Trump supporters uncomfortable. Cult-like.I made my point, and you laughably just proved me so right...
"It's from the Trump playbook. I sure can dish it out...just like Trump, our President and his followers who get triggered and angry every time anyone questions our President. "
"--Screw Trump...everything about the man-baby. That's where I'm at...none of the Democrat haters give a damn about the truth. No Trump supporter will admit he does ANYTHING wrong..so why should I give him ANY credit? They fight dirty so those who don't like him are supposed to bend over backward to give him credit?"
"Democrat haters" I now they just don't "give a damn about the truth". "They fight dirty" All seems pretty preachy to me.
I gave you just as good as you gave... I realize I over spoke, just like you did. I did exactly what you did speak my mind. Let me guarantee you it could have been much worse. I feel pretty much as discussed with some on the left as you feel on the right. Imagine that...and believe it.
How I see it, you spoke your mind, I spoke mine."I feel pretty much as discussed with some on the left as you feel on the right."
What? You think we're talking about you behind your back, Shar?
Randy, Please note the word "some" in the sentence you quoted. Please erred my comment to HS, and note I took care using words such as some, many, their, they. I try very hard not to use a wide brush when giving my opinion. And you know why, I look at people as individuals, with complex personalities. I am very aware people are not all about politics. I have come to respect many here for their personalities and opinions, even though they differ from mine. And yes my comment was sarcastic, mean spirited, but as I saw it he opened the door by giving his honest feeling about "anyone that has supported Trump". Well, HS form of honesty promoted me, to be honest. I don't expect my views to be excepted by all, but I have as much right as anyone that posts here to let them be known.
My Comment --"I see many Dems as bitter, unrealistic, and many have skewed thought processes. Literally unable to accept facts they find simply goes against their views. Many are belligerent, rude, and unable to have a conversation that they don't add Trump's name in a disparaging insult. It seems some feel it is their opinion alone matters. Much of the time they are negative and project "what if" scenarios. They appear pleased at all costs to prove their view. For instance, seeing Trump fail in the handling of this virus crisis, not actually considering if he fails, more die... And then there is the big problem with disregarding and or twisting facts to suit their views.
AS you can see, I have my view of what I consider your thought process. However, I would never, I mean never shared it. You and others like you share it right here daily, and maybe don't even realize you are doing it.
Well, ya just got a bit of what you dish out. And, it's long overdue.
So when you put me into a basket of "Democrat haters" be ready to be reminded who is being hateful... When you make a statement
They "fight dirty". That's you and yours. I very rarely see anyone but Dems getting rude on this small forum. That is just a fact.
Have a look at some of your comments as well as some of your other proud Dems. Just have a look.
No one has asked you to bend over, to be truthful I for one have little to no respect for your opinion, due to your lack of respect for others.
GA, and I pointed out facts. The conversation cornered you and came out hysterically swinging. You did not answer questions or address facts. You diverted to insulting Trump supporters as well as Trump. As I said you just can't help yourself.
Just look at how this conversation progressed. Have a look who became hateful, and lashed out to direct blame. That was you.
And no I do not feel anyone is talking about me behind my back. I responded to HS words alone.It was a joke, Shar. You used the word "discussed" instead of "disgusted" in your comment. I thought is was a typo, but maybe not?
Blame my spell check ... Hey, I ripped when I should have kept zipped. I am human.
Don't worry Shar.
It reminded me of a MASH episode when Frank accused Hawkeye and Trapper of "discussing" him.
Hawkeye responded with, "Yes we discussed you, and we decided you were disgusting."We all need to laugh more, Shar. Been re-reading Mark Twain's complete short stories for the last few days to try and forget about all of this virus stuff.
I highly recommend it for a few laughs. The Diary of Adam and Eve is one of my favorites.I agree I have dusted off "Gone With The Wind". Huge book!
My mom--who's soon to be 99 years of age--has read it numerous times as she's a granddaughter of the Confederacy. Her grandfather was a slave overseer on a cotton plantation who ran away with the plantation owner's daughter right before the Civil War.
Her grandmother--the daughter of the plantation owner--was said to never having to do anything for herself because the slaves were there, not even rinsing out a handkerchief.
She was disowned by her father, who subsequently lost his plantation and means to run it, and learned to work as well as anyone after the war ended.
My mom's side of the family are famous for several things, wonderful musicians and the love of fishing. We get it from these two people. The former is the overseer, and the latter the runaway daughter.
I wonder why Mom likes GWTW so much?I can see you have a very interesting heritage. It's wonderful that you had it passed down generation after generation. I joined Ancestry a few years back and did the DNA test. I got hooked big time. I have found It's so interesting tracing my genealogy.
I read Gone With The Wind years ago and really enjoyed it. I thought it would be a good time to reread it. The stay at home order is brutal, I like to be out doing. Hard to be trapped in the house other than walks.
I did sneak over to my sons on Easter morning at 7 am to leave a surprise basket for my six-year-old grandson. Hard not to be able to be with family and friends. But, this too will pass.Yes, my mom still has the overseer's bible he carried through the war, and my cousin is still playing the old fiddle which accompanied him as well.
The one who plays the old fiddle and our other cousin played 8 shows a day at the World's fair in Tennessee until they were too weary to continue at that pace.
You can see and hear my cousin Henry play the old fiddle on my hub, Rosin in the Blood if you are interested, Shar.
I'm done with the Trump cult...that's what we need a vaccine for. Crazy.
and I will give you the last word. I will say, your last did not disappoint. LOL
I know I should not, but here I go... I assume you have read both the old as well as new wording for the National Stockpile. What word or words are you having a problem with? How do you think these words change context of the document?
In my opinion, it purveys the same meaning.
Perhaps much more precise.
I must ask, do you feel the Government is not stepping up financially to help citizens and businesses during this time of crisis? In my opinion, they have left no stone unturned.
In regard to Kansas and San Juan.
GUAYNABO, Puerto Rico – FEMA has awarded $61 million in additional funds to Puerto Rico to cover costs related to Hurricane María. These awards bring the amount of funds obligated under FEMA's Public Assistance program to $5.4 billion.
It seems like a pretty good chunk of cash.
The statement was clarified.
"Ms. Katherine McKeogh, a spokeswoman for HHS said in a statement on Friday, per Politico, that " the updates to the webpage text had been in the works before Kushner spoke at Thursday's briefing"
"Katherine McKeogh, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said in a statement Friday that the edits to the stockpile’s webpage had been in the works prior to Kushner’s remarks.
“This is language we have been using in our messaging for weeks now,” McKeogh said. She added that the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response “first began working to update the text a week ago to more clearly explain to state and local agencies and members of the public the role of the [Strategic National Stockpile].”
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/0 … rks-163181
Although I'm confused why this matters so much to you I will say that, in the past, when we've tried to find out when the change and why the change for wording in government documents no one seems to be able to answer it with a definitive response.
Which is a head scratcher to me. A bunch of bureaucrats should be able to easily say when something changed and who changed it. The why is something they probably wouldn't know.
Related Discussions
- 2
What is the best way to get state law wording changed?
by Laura Schneider 14 years ago
What is the best way to get state law wording changed?
- 9
Changing the Wording in a Poem
by Genna Eastman 13 years ago
Is there ever a time when you are not happy with a word or words in a poem? Do you spend time trying to change the word and/or wording, or move on?
- 11
Why has my profile page layout changed without my say-so? I don't like it - do
by Ann Carr 11 years ago
Why has my profile page layout changed without my say-so? I don't like it - do others agree?Why, not having changed the layout of my profile page, has it changed anyway? I do not like the new layout and do not wish to have it, which is why I haven't changed it myself. I'm...
- 33
Changing what an editor did on an article
by Nathan Bernardo 4 years ago
How do you deal with a change that was made to an article by an HP editor? They unnecessarily changed the title of the article, I'd like to change it back to what it was. Is that what everyone else does when this kind of thing happens? Curious.
- 9
What did you want to be when you grew up and did it change, if so when and why?
by Charlu 12 years ago
What did you want to be when you grew up and did it change, if so when and why?
- 17
Should I change over to the new Profile design? Why or Why not?
by J Antonio Marcelino 11 years ago
Should I change over to the new Profile design? Why or Why not?So I was looking at the recently published hubs of topics I follow and saw this (see attached image) change. It says that the change over is permanent once accepted. For those currently using it? What are some of the...