Slashdot Mirror
Developing World's Parasites, Diseases Enter US
reporter alerts us to a story up at the Wall Street Journal on the increasing prevalance in the US of formerly rare, 3rd-world diseases such as toxocariasis, chagas, and cysticercosis. Health-care legislation pending in the House calls for a full report to Congress about the threat from this cluster of diseases, termed "neglected infections of poverty." "Parasitic infections and other diseases usually associated with the developing world are cropping up with alarming frequency among US poor, especially in states along the US-Mexico border, the rural South, and in Appalachia, according to researchers. Government and private researchers are just beginning to assess the toll of the infections, which are a significant cause of heart disease, seizures and congenital birth defects among black and Hispanic populations. ... 'These are diseases that we know are ten-fold more important than swine flu,' said [one] leading researcher in this field. 'They're on no one's radar.' ... These diseases share a common thread. 'People who live in the suburbs are at very low risk,' Dr. Hotez said. But for the 37 million people in the US who live below the poverty line, he said, 'There is real suffering.'" Update: 08/23 16:55 GMT by KD : The submitter pointed out that the usual "Related" link to the original submission was missing on this story. We are testing a new version of the story editor and this was probably caused by a bug; reported. Here's the original.
Every time I turn around the US government is finding new and innovative ideas in fomenting anti-immigrant sentiment. Scratch that. The US government is using the same old tried and true methods of fomenting anti-immigrant sentiment. They steal jobs. They bring crime. They bring disease. It's the same old song and dance.
In a world of modern transportation, it is essentially impossible to screen every person who crosses into our country for diseases. The solution isn't more border patrols on the Tex-Mex border, it's better healthcare for those who can't afford it. If the at-risk groups are the border towns and poverty-stricken, it makes sense to help them rather than try to cut off the flow of immigrants.
I used to fly internationally all the time, but with the growing anti-immigrant policies of the US, I find myself having a worse and worse time traveling even though I am a US citizen. The TSA and Immigration Control have made flying a mode of travel that is completely unattractive.
Well, half the voters don't even believe in public health. If the carriers of an epidemic are deemed unworthy of health care, the free market solution is to wait until everybody gets it, then treat those with money. Ultimately that costs vastly more than stamping it out in the first place, but at least nobody gets healthcare they didn't deserve, and isn't that the most important thing?
If it was easier to enter the country legally fewer people would do it illegally. Then it might be easier to apply health checks on the way in.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
"People are living squallor and poverty on an unprecedented scale in this country."
Bullshit. We are not near the poverty levels of the Great Depression, and the impact of poverty is greatly mitigated nowadays.
Our bitter refusal to control our borders ensures the human carriers of "Third World" diseases are free to circulate.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Well, at least there are no government bureaucrats standing between the sick people and the doctors who could detect and treat these diseases.
USA, USA, USA!
Or something ... it is quite disappointing to see the world's richest country with what is at times the best health care in the world unable to keep simple infections and parasites from affecting a large portion of its population.
I am sorry. Invasive species and diseases have been entering the U.S. since the first pilgrims got off the boat with their pock infested blankets. The U.S. has always turned a blind eye to the poor dying of them, until they spread to the middle class and rich. Now congress thinks this is an emergency?
I think author of this article needs to spend sometime getting to know their American history book. The only thing that has changed is there is now more poor. How about treating that disease?
Living in Chile
Lack of government healthcare != able to get help. It simply means that things are more expensive for those without healthcare in the short term if they need it.
No money = unable to get help if no government healthcare.
It's really that simple.
Lack of government healthcare != able to get help.
Right. We all remember Bush's answer to the healthcare crisis: let them go to the emergency room. ER care is significantly more expensive than proper preventive and general practice care.
It simply means that things are more expensive for those without healthcare in the short term if they need it.
Right. 62% of all personal bankruptcies in the U.S. in 2007 were caused by health problems and 78% of those filers had insurance. Citation That doesn't just make things more expensive for those with healthcare, it makes them more expensive for policy holders, anyone who wants a loan, small businesses, investors, and stockholders. And it's not just over the short term, it has an overall detrimental effect on our nation's economic well being which continues to mount.
In general there are a lot of "reactionary" people here in the US who will go to the doctor for -anything-, heck, wasn't it just a few years ago where because of the prevalence of people geoing to the doctors for every little thing was going to create more drug resista lnt illnesses?
it's not people going to the doctors that causes drug resistance, it's the repeated treatment of the same bacterial infections with a broad spectrum of antibiotics. This has a lot to do with tort liability, a subject I'm not as well versed on as I would like to be. I do think that tort reform should be a part of any comprehensive medical reform, but I think that we have to be careful.
In general, if it makes someone sick with obvious symptoms, they are going to get help here in the US. Its just the common reaction, not sure about in other countries (the US is the only country I've lived in for an extended period of time, though I have traveled to many different countries) but in the USA, a lot of people go to the doctor or even the emergency room for every thing.
"in general" is a stretch in this case. Lots of conditions can't be taken care of in an emergent care setting. This may be true for broken limbs, allergic reactions, and like conditions, but it doesn't address the situation with regard to chronic conditions, diabetes, cancer, and so on. This is the situation that most urgently needs to be addressed. If there was a law like the 1986 "patient dumping" law that applied to chronic care as well as ERs it would cost the medical industry billions. as is they are only required to "stabilize." and then they can ask for your insurance card and or show you the door.
This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
I think the collapse of the US middle class is in large part the fault of the middle class itself. In a world of increasing sophistication, most people ignored it and didn't adapt to it, and they didn't instill into their children the importance of education. The idea that one can live very comfortably simply being unskilled labor was a foolish one that idea only worked for a generation or two. The economic hegemony of the US post WWII helped feed that idea, but part of that hegemony was sustained by malicious policies against other countries.
Maybe globalization made that middle class collapse happen faster, but an unsustainable situation like that wasn't going to stay that way forever. Closing borders to trade usually hasn't worked out well either, all that does is incite reciprocal action.
I do think that tort reform should be a part of any comprehensive medical reform, but I think that we have to be careful.
Which will never happen as long as the Democrats are in power. The attorneys, through their firms and state bar associations, are collectively among the largest donors to the Democratic National Committee, Democrat elected officials (i.e. Congressmen and Senators) and Democratic presidential candidates (like our current President Obama). There are two groups that you can bet the farm that Democrats won't cross: lawyers and unions (in that order). No attorney that I know of has ever supported laws which limit their ability to go to court and sue for lots of money (its like freedom of speech to them). The attorneys will fight tort reform tooth and nail and I would be shocked if Obama signs any bill, or at least any bill that actually has teeth, which puts a national cap on damages awarded at lawyerpoint.
If preventive medicine is more expensive than the failed system you currently have in place, then why is more spent per capita on healthcare in the US than any other western country, while your system continues to be ranked as one of the worst in the world, falling far behind those who do engage in preventive medicine.
Living embodiment of less for more.
There is an old adage. "An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure."
Your observations of how public healthcare works are deeply, and I do mean DEEPLY flawed.
Attention social evolutionists: poor people in the U.S. have guns and little to lose. When they have nothing to lose, the bullets will fly.
The infantile death rate in the US is one of the highest in developed countries.
A significant portion of your population is affected by diseases that are mostly present in third-world countries and can be handled easily with proper health care and social measures.
And some of you still think universal health care is a bad idea?
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
"If you want to make health care more affordable to have to do things to reduce the cost directly." The only way of doing that is cutting corners and reducing standards for medicine and medical equipment. That's a bad idea no matter how you put it.
Or fix stuff like my insurance company "negotiating" $900 worth of blood tests down to the $90 they actually pay the lab. If it's $90 worth of blood tests (which it is since the lab somehow stays in business), then say it's $90. That would open a whole world of people being able to get catastrophic coverage and pay out of pocket for the basics which would put people in touch with what it actually costs and provide price pressure.
As the system stands, the buyer has hardly any idea of what the seller is actually being paid. Nobody has any inclination of what the actual cost is. The insurance companies can throw their weight around and get reasonable prices, but the poor schmuck that doesn't have insurance pays MSPR. If I could pay the same "bulk rates" as the insurances companies, my medical costs, excluding anything catastrophic, would be less than what I pay for insurance.
People like to make a big deal out of free market medicine failing, but we don't have free market medicine because the actual cost has been abstracted away from so many of the consumers that there's no cost control.
You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
If your neighbor's house is on fire, would you let your house burn down too be cause you don't want to pay for a fire department?
Health care, much like fire protection, curbs the spread of disease.
Seriously, healthcare is no different than having a standing army. It is for the national defense.
A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.
That is where most of the rest of the (developed) world disagrees with you. Almost all medical problems happen by chance, to some unlucky person whose dice comes up the wrong way. Why should someone be forced into bankruptcy, or left die of some treatable disease, for something they have no control over? Let me put it another way: suppose that tomorrow you are diagnosed with some rare but treatable form of cancer. Unfortunately the treatment costs one million dollars, and your medical insurance (if you have any) refuses to pay. The cancer is rare enough that, spread across the whole population, the cost of treating all cases per year is rather small. Do you think you should be given the treatment? If so, who should pay?
It is a common argument, "I'm not going to get sick, why should I have to pay for everone else's healthcare?". It works just fine, right up until the moment where you do get sick.
I'm curious to why you think experts in countries with socialized medicine don't get paid.
Je ne parle pas francais.
I'm willing to believe that. But it's only worth voting the Democrats out of office on that issue if there's reason to believe that it would happen if the Republicans were in power. But the Republicans controlled both branches of government, with sizable majorities, for six years, and it didn't happen. Instead, we got a ridiculous government-funded prescription drugs entitlement in Medicare Part D---the exact opposite of any attempt at cost reduction.
To argue against the current party in power on an issue in a way that's convincing, you need to find an issue on which there is some viable alternative party that has a better position on that issue.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10