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?
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.
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 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.
I'm curious to why you think experts in countries with socialized medicine don't get paid.
Je ne parle pas francais.
France, Canada, Britain and Japan, together with America, are the top 5 leading nations in healthcare. I doubt any of them get third-world "discounts". Aside from possibly Japan, all have horribly bad eating habits - obesity in Britain isn't that much lower than that in the United States.
But let's look at the figures. Britain, PER CAPITA, has half the rate of heart attacks and spends half as much as the US. The four nations I mention pay, on average, 50 cents for every $200 spent on health-care in the US. I'm not sure about Japan, but the rest ALL manage to have public health services.
Now, let's look at the other side, competition. Britain has the NHS which is universal. It also has BUPA (private healthcare that's so profitable it can even afford to run its own damn hospitals), Standard Life, Orchid, HealthTrust, PatientChoice, AXA PPP, Essential Healthcare, HSA, Norwich Union Healthcare, General & Medical,... In short, not what I'd call a shortage.
So, go on. Tell me how a public health service would "ruin" the private insurance companies. Convince me BUPA is just an illusion. Go ahead. Persuade me that Japan is getting medicines "on the cheap" as part of foreign aid shipments to poor nations. Convince me that even those medical marvels invented in Canada, Britain or Japan are more expensive in America solely in order to recoup the costs.
Yes, the top 5% of Americans CAN pay more, and prices have been adjusted to maximize profits not availability, so cater TO those 5%. What about the other 95%? Since America has never been able to adjust the ratio, it will always be 5:95, and that means it doesn't matter what the 95% earn. The prices will simply go up because the profits are all with the 5%.
You happen to be one of the 5%. So is everyone on Slashdot, because nobody in the 95% is spending time talking. Me, well, although I'm in the top 5% as well (or I wouldn't be here), I have medical conditions which make getting insurance a real pain and which mean I spend $250+ a month to stay alive because insurance won't touch me.
I know three people with spinal injuries who would LOVE to get away with something so cheap and none of them have my earning power. They each spend more in a week than I do in a month - those weeks they have enough money to spend on such luxuries. With those kinds of injuries, most work is right out of the question, which means you either have to start off very rich OR live your life on the bread line.
Assuming the people I know are roughly representative of the population, traumatic injuries and life-threatening conditions are likely more common amongst those 95% than serious illness is amongst the 5%.
When I look at America as it exists today, I see a world that is socially backwards, something out of a Dickens novel. Britain hasn't had workhouses for the poor since the Victorian era and abolished slavery in 1770. Even the fruit-pickers in Britain have unions and have a far better standard of living than those in the "land of opportunity".
I happen to think Britain is regressive and repressed in many other ways, and that America has got quite a bit right, but American society is so.... backwards! It's barely better than it was when the Mayflower arrived. In some ways, it might even be worse - I'm fairly sure they didn't have a 1% prison population.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I had lymphoma and went through the UK system. I had paid up front through taxes, it is a type of insurance but without the profit motive. I got the best treatment from dedicated doctors and nurses. The treatment was the most up to date. I was also admitted directly onto the haematology ward when I got an blood infection. Their dedicated microbiologist cultured the infection and identified the correct antibiotic
I paid nothing at the point of delivery, there was no one from the insurance company telling me what I could or could not have.