Forums | MacLife

The more I read about this program Res, the less your claims make sense:

Mayor Bill White ordered a halt Wednesday to the city health department's privately funded drive to offer flu vaccinations at early voting sites in predominantly Hispanic and black neighborhoods, amid conservative criticism that the effort would boost Democratic turnout.

About 1,300 flu shots were given to people age 50 or older in the past three days under the program, which didn't require the recipients to vote. Health officials said they were only trying to reach people in medically underserved communities.

White defended the program Wednesday but said he decided to abandon it to avoid the perception that it was an attempt to draw certain voters to the polls. White is a former chairman of the state Democratic Party and served in the administration of former President Clinton.

"There was no political motive whatsoever to do it," he told reporters after the City Council meeting. "I don't want to have to spend more money in defending a baseless lawsuit than we're giving away in vaccine or allow anybody to question the integrity of the political process."

Williams said he hopes to get permission from Amerigroup Foundation, which helped get the vaccinations with funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, to offer the remaining 1,600 doses at less controversial locations.

Before launching the program, Williams' staff consulted with Republican Harris County Clerk Beverly Kaufman, the county's top election official, who offered support provided that the initiative complied with applicable laws.

Kaufman's spokesman, David Beirne, said erroneous media reports might have fueled the perception that voting was related to receiving something of value, which could violate the law. "It's not tied to the voting practice, which is a critical element," he said. "We did not see anything on its face to indicate that it would be a clear violation of election law."

Scott Haywood, a spokesman for Texas Secretary of State Roger Williams, also a Republican, said in an e-mail that "there is nothing wrong with a health clinic being located at the same site that voting is taking place," provided that people weren't required to vote to get the service.

Link.

Williams said he hopes to get permission from Amerigroup Foundation, which helped get the vaccinations with funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, to offer the remaining 1,600 doses at less controversial locations.

So the Robert Wood Johnson foundation has a stipulation that they be done at polling stations, requiring him to get permission to do it elsewhere?

Sorry - but that's still awfully fishy.

Why did they choose polling stations as the only authorized place to do it? I'm guessing there are very few people over 50 that visit a polling station more often than they visit a pharmacy, where these vaccinations are frequently done.

What do they do in non election years?

Last edited by resedit (2006-11-04 6:14 pm)

From the PDF - they require they be done at a polling station. Many people involved may have honest good intentions, but tying the money to a polling station is wrong.

Many people give things away for many different reasons. The local rock station just yesterday was giving free stuff away at the grand opening of our local "Bad Ass" coffee house. Why were they giving stuff away? They wanted to reach a certain demographic, and bring them to a coffee house.

In a democracy with as low of a voter turnout as the US has, getting a certain demographic out to vote CAN impact the election. There is nothing wrong with doing that. It's part of running a campaign. However, a polling station is under Federal law and is used for Federal election purposes, and therefore can not be used as part of an election campaign.

The fact that they only offer this program when it is tied to a voting poll means this shot, which needs to be administered every year, is only given away by them every OTHER year, not every year as needed. The fact that they tie the funding to a polling station and do not allow it to be run at other locations seniors frequent, such as a wallgreens or bingo hall or other function, is also rather suspiciuos.

Some of the intentions may be good, but this is still using a federal election polling station for the purpose of attracting a certain demographic, and that *is* a nono. There are other places they can give away free flu shots, yet they explicitly state that to be part of the program (in that PDF) it MUST be a polling station.

The program is illegal, and if the foundation really cared about getting flu shots to older people, they would offer it every year - and not tie it to the polling stations.

I'm sure they are going to offer all kinds of statements claiming they are good guys.
Point is - they still REQUIRE that they take place at election polls, no other place is acceptable - and they only offer their services during election years, not every year.

As I'm sure you are aware, this years flu shot won't do smurf for next years flu season.

For whatever reason, they have tied their services to elections, so much so that they refuse to offer their services away from the polling stations - why would they do that if their motive was the better health of senior citizens?

If polling stations were one of many acceptable locations, maybe you would have a point. But it is the ONLY acceptable location.

jerwin wrote:

crap, res, if a charity dispensed TB meds, and they did under the stipulation that only those who could be expected to complete the course would get the medication, you'd probably scream that they were being mean and nasty.

and since when did the aged need an incentive to vote?

Many demographics need an incentive to vote. We have a fairly poor voter turnout in this country.
I've nothing against targeting groups to get them to vote, but you can't use a polling station to do so. That's crossing a line.

It's crossing a line that's in your head, resedit.

here's the grant results

Take care not to become a venue for a political campaign. Involving a nonpartisan group (such as the League of Women Voters) in events promoting Vote and Vaccinate projects will demonstrate their nonpolitical nature. Be careful about including political candidates at such events, because they may be tempted to use their support of Vote and Vaccinate as an opportunity to draw good press for their campaigns. (Project Director, ID# 051988)

Speaking of social undesirables, many precincts continue to site their polling locations in schools. Besides interfering with the primary educational mission of these schools, this decision has the effect of attracting parents who have the incentive of picking their children up from school. No, polling plaes should be located in abandoned mines, with traps for the unwary. Voting is a privilege, not a right. And if voting is hard, perhaps those who participate will value their contribution to democracy.

Schools are different, because that more evenly appeals across the political spectrum. A flu vaccination, statistically, does not.

I realize your mine thing was some type of joke, but I don't see the point.

I wish my precinct were at a school. That priest repellant isn't cheap.

Don't conservatives get the flu?

bedstuy wrote:

Don't conservatives get the flu?

Apparently it seems they're somehow immune.

I don't understand how "Free vaccines" = Dem voters either.

Read the RWJ literature.

One cautionary note: Vote and Vaxcampaigns are not exercises in political partisanship. Public
health campaigns work because they promote good health in the community without reference to
any person’s political affiliation. Immunizers should therefore provide vaccinations to all appropriate
recipients regardless of whether they vote. Vote and Vaxclinics are in no way designed for the
exclusive benefit of voters, nor should they be used as “get out the vote” activities. The integrity
of these efforts depends on assuring politically equitable access to immunization services.

Vote and Vaxclinics should always offer immunizations to voters after they have voted. Please
coordinate your activities with polling place personnel responsible for directing the flow of voters, and
be mindful of the signage, traffic cones and handicap ramps. At peak times there will be a crowd,
and wherever there are large crowds, local law enforcement will be making sure there is adequate
security. It is important for the immunizing agency to work closely with them in directing individuals
to their destination.

Appendix
SAMPLE LETTER OF AGREEMENT
The following text serves as an example of a letter of agreement that must be obtained from the
local election authority. This letter should appear on the authority’s letterhead and can be tailored
to local requirements:
<Date>
Dear <insert name>:
We have been requested to permit <NAME OF ORGANIZATION>to operate an immunization clinic
on Election Day, November 7, 2006, in proximity to the following polling places:
<NAME AND ADDRESS OF POLLING PLACE(S)>
The <NAME OF LOCAL ELECTION AUTHORITY>has no objection to this activity where it
is in compliance with state and local laws and regulations, including the following:
• <NAME OF PUBLIC HEALTH AGENCY>will abide by all local regulations regarding the
placement of activities in proximity to polling places.
• <NAME OF PUBLIC HEALTH AGENCY>will in no way impede the free flow of persons to
or from the polling place.
• <NAME OF PUBLIC HEALTH AGENCY>will not engage in any partisan political activity in
connection with operating the immunization clinic.
• <NAME OF PUBLIC HEALTH AGENCY>will locate the clinic at a mutually agreed upon
location a reasonable distance from the polling place.

Maybe the best way of assuring non-partisanship is

Madam, Sir, I see that you have voted. Would you be interested in a flu shot?

but from a public health standpoint, it's less than desirable. And since the public health  benefit is the purpose of the program, well...

As for not being able to provide flu shots in odd years, it's hoped that educational materials will prompt at risk individuals to seek out flu shots on their own. An outreach effort, if you will.

res mentioned walgreens. Is that like a pharmacy or something?

Again, from their PDF we linked but you probably didn't read:

Health and politics do not always mix well, but Donna and our nursing colleagues around the community began to explore an idea that had been piloted in the South, but that no one was trying in New England. Could SPARC and its collaborators offer flu shots to seniors on voting day? Older Americans, more than any other group, show up at the polls for Election Day—which happens to fall right in the middle of flu shot season. Donna read a few articles on the topic and made some phone calls. Before long, everyone we contacted in the health care community was on board.

That's the short history how they started the program.

Last edited by mahakali (2006-11-05 5:00 am)

after-life wrote:

Last time I checked, liberals and conservatives are equally likely to catch the flu, so where's the partisan slant?

Lower income people over 50 tend to like what democrats "promise" - free healthcare, cheaper prescriptions, etc. - and thus would be more likely to vote democrat.

Upper income people over 50 usually have medical insurance that covers things like this, and already see a doctor at least once a year. Thus, they won't show up to vote just because of a free vaxination taking place.