Slashdot Mirror


Who's In Charge During the Ebola Crisis?

Lasrick writes: Epidemics test the leadership skills of politicians and medical infrastructures, which is clear as this article goes through the different ways West African countries have dealt with the Ebola crisis. Now that fears are spreading about a U.S. outbreak (highly unlikely, as this article points out), it may be time to look at the U.S. medical infrastructure, which, of course, in many ways is far superior to those West African countries where the virus has spread. But there is an interesting twist to how disease outbreaks are handled in the U.S.: "The U.S. Constitution—written approximately 100 years before the germ theory of disease was proven by French chemist Louis Pasteur and German physician Robert Koch — places responsibility for public health squarely on the shoulders of local and state political leaders ... one could argue that the United States is hobbled by an outdated constitution in responding to epidemics. State and local jurisdictions vary tremendously in their public health capabilities."

279 comments

  1. General Alexander Haig is in charge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Because he is in line.

    1. Re:General Alexander Haig is in charge by russotto · · Score: 1

      Dammit, beat me to it. Further, Haig is dead, which makes him immune to Ebola.

    2. Re: General Alexander Haig is in charge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Barack Hussein Ebola II

    3. Re: General Alexander Haig is in charge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really stupid comment, but it made me laugh. Thanks for the laughs! :)

    4. Re:General Alexander Haig is in charge by Z00L00K · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ebola is in charge - nobody controls Ebola right now.

      The only way to come to terms with the disease is isolation. It is the black plague of our time.

      Involving politicians into this means that there will be petty bickering all the time while the disease spreads.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    5. Re:General Alexander Haig is in charge by aminorex · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Essentially, the OP is militating for a centralized dictator to deal with the emergency. "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." Thus spake Rahm Emanuel. The tradition extends from Sulla to Napoleon to every petty Don, triad leader, or military dictator of our own era.

      In fact, when stuff gets real, there will be no lack of opportunists seizing all infrastructurally available power to respond to the crisis. The best process known for dealing with the pre-crisis stage is the democratic process. It is sub-optimal for any given threat, but has the merit of being a tolerable living condition which is capable of responding to the broad range of threats which arise in the ordinary course of events.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    6. Re:General Alexander Haig is in charge by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Just don't handle his corpse and you should be safe too.

  2. I am by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Everything is fine.

    1. Re:I am by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would we want a B. M. Fleather wallet? If you're going to make fake leather, please use plastic...

  3. Ebola is in charge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not us.

  4. Obvious by slashmydots · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's whoever has the most guns! In case of a tie, hand sanitizer and lysol can be used as a tie breaker.

    1. Re:Obvious by rs79 · · Score: 2

      Guns will spray the virus everywhere. In all directions. Guns are suicide now.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    2. Re:Obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what do you suggest, chainsaws?

    3. Re:Obvious by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Cordon the affected areas with nerve gas.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    4. Re:Obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck that shit. I'll be taking bleach baths under high-intensity UV lights, thank you very much.

    5. Re:Obvious by Maven0 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, i am in the pool on vacation too.

    6. Re:Obvious by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      If guns are outlawed, only deadly microbes will have guns.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  5. No the constitution is fine.. by niftymitch · · Score: 2

    "general welfare" as part of the spending power section is all that congress
    needs to craft well considered laws.

    Federal agencies could be funded to establish top level technical resources.
    States could then move forward.

    Emergencies open doors as well....

    As scary as Ebola is it may not qualify as an emergency we have
    common problems from influenza, food poisoning, pneumonia that
    kill more...

    However congress could declare Ebola in Africa and others problems
    as a health risk to the US and fund emergency actions.

    My gut reaction is if citizens were to take personal responsibility
    and act on all the common influenza, food handling, common cold
    basic sanitation programs Ebola would vanish only to be found in
    footnotes referencing a small number of individuals and hospitals in
    the US. Sadly Africa is still behind the eight ball in this disaster.

    --
    Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
    1. Re:No the constitution is fine.. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "general welfare" as part of the spending power section is all that congress needs to craft well considered laws.

      Not true. The historical record very clearly shows that the "general welfare" clause was a restrictive clause, not a permissive one.

      The point is that any Federal law which is otherwise Constitutional also has to be "for the general welfare", as opposed to for the welfare of just one, or a few, or some subgroup of the populace.

      The General Welfare clause does NOT grant license for the Federal government to exceed the powers enumerated in the Constitution. Period. It grants no new power at all, in fact. It does the opposite. It restricts all Federal laws to be for the good of everybody. That was its whole purpose.

    2. Re:No the constitution is fine.. by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Not true. The historical record very clearly shows that the "general welfare" clause was a restrictive clause, not a permissive one.

      The meaning of the "general welfare" clause has been controversial since the start of the union.

      It's kind of amazing how many arguments we have today that have existed from the beginning. The argument over whether privatization is better, or government run is better? I've found in a newspaper an argument over government dug canals in the early 1800s.....saying anything government does is bound to be inefficient.

      In another 200 years, we'll probably still be arguing whether we need more regulation or less regulation. And the argument will be just as inane.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:No the constitution is fine.. by MildlyTangy · · Score: 1

      As scary as Ebola is it may not qualify as an emergency we have
      common problems from influenza, food poisoning, pneumonia that
      kill more...

      Wait, the flu, food poisoning and pneumonia kill 70% of those infected!?

      WTF, why didnt you start telling us all that beforehand! This is a global catastrophe!!! Once the flu season hits again, billions of people are gong to die! BILLIONS!

      FUCK, the end of civilization is less than a year away! What are we going to do!? ...oh wait a second.....is this for real, or are you talking absolute shit and know figuratively nothing about ebola and its previous outbreaks?

      Please let me know, so I can decide whether to start planning for the end of the world or not.

    4. Re:No the constitution is fine.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "general welfare" as part of the spending power section is all that congress
      needs to craft well considered laws.

      Not true. The historical record very clearly shows that the "general welfare" clause was a restrictive clause, not a permissive one.

      The point is that any Federal law which is otherwise Constitutional also has to be "for the general welfare", as opposed to for the welfare of just one, or a few, or some subgroup of the populace.

      The General Welfare clause does NOT grant license for the Federal government to exceed the powers enumerated in the Constitution. Period. It grants no new power at all, in fact. It does the opposite. It restricts all Federal laws to be for the good of everybody. That was its whole purpose.

      This clause?
      Article I, Section 8. The Congress shall have Power
        To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and General Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; ...
      and ends with:
        To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, of in any department or Officer thereof.

      "General Welfare" means what the Supreme Court says it means, and mid-20th century forward, they have not taken your position: that "general welfare" is a restrictive clause.
      I think it's the ending phrase "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, of in any department or Officer thereof." that has screwed us over.

    5. Re:No the constitution is fine.. by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My gut reaction is if citizens were to take personal responsibility
      and act on all the common influenza, food handling, common cold
      basic sanitation programs Ebola would vanish only to be found in
      footnotes referencing a small number of individuals and hospitals in
      the US.

      The USA is seeing a resurgence of formerly conquered diseases because of the anti-vaccination movement.
      Whooping cough, diphtheria, measles, mumps, and rubella are all making a comeback.

      Stopping Ebola in the USA is trivial compared to stopping the repeated outbreaks of diseases we already have vaccines for.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    6. Re:No the constitution is fine.. by rs79 · · Score: 1

      70% is optimistic, the CDC knows it's higher. That's a sanitized WHO number. That ends with a zero? Unlikely.

      In some parts of Africa it's 98%.

      That's more than 3X the rate of the Spanish flu of 1918 that killed... a third of the western world or some damn thing.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    7. Re:No the constitution is fine.. by stoploss · · Score: 2

      "general welfare" as part of the spending power section is all that congress
      needs to craft well considered laws.

      Not true. The historical record very clearly shows that the "general welfare" clause was a restrictive clause, not a permissive one.

      This is the only sane interpretation; otherwise, the entire Constitution is subsumed by this this one clause and the Constitution then becomes, "Fuck it all, guys, do whatever you want."

      Which, of course, is what happened. I dislike having a written constitution for this very reason: it's insulting to my intelligence for the Supremes to take the verbiage of this document and twist it around to rubber stamp whatever the feds have decided to do anyway.

      Because the feds cannot be restrained—they are going to do whatever they want regardless—I'd prefer they not lie and tell me that this is what the founders intended. I vastly prefer the straight-up honesty of an unwritten constitution followed by, "Pray I don't alter it any further..."

    8. Re:No the constitution is fine.. by psmears · · Score: 1

      That's a sanitized WHO number. That ends with a zero? Unlikely.

      Not really that unlikely, especially as fatality rates are often given to the nearest 5%...

    9. Re:No the constitution is fine.. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      That's more than 3X the rate of the Spanish flu of 1918 that killed... a third of the western world or some damn thing.

      Well, if 3% is 1/3, then you're right.

      Otherwise, your estimates for the 1918 flu are a bit off, and I'll assume your other estimates are similarly off....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    10. Re:No the constitution is fine.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how do you square this with Obamacare? Your theory would make that unconstitutional as well. Clearly we have no problem letting the federal government exercise power there, but now when it could actually do some good, you want to whip out the constitution?

    11. Re:No the constitution is fine.. by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      That clause is in the preamble. It and everything else in the preamble should not be read as operative, it merely provides context in which to read the rest of the document. In that sense the idea it functions as a restrictive clause is more reasonable it limits possible interpretations of the other powers.

      Its like the description before the ingredients list on a recipe. If you just had the title and then it launched strait into the contents and cooking instructions you'd have no idea what to do when you encounter something vague like bake 10-14min @ 350.

      Should it be 10 or 14 how do I know? Well it helps to know the objective was: A delicious light by dry cake to be served with coffee.

      That helps now you know to err on the side of more done, but not burred, as opposed to worrying the cake is loosing to much moisture.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    12. Re:No the constitution is fine.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and what set of fucking crazies started that idea?

      Vaccinate your goddamn kids you stupid shits. Herd immunity only works when the majority of the herd is immune.

    13. Re:No the constitution is fine.. by Loopy · · Score: 1

      Drop. In. The. Bucket versus what's coming across our southern border. Watch the news in El Paso or Nogales some time.

    14. Re:No the constitution is fine.. by niftymitch · · Score: 1

      As scary as Ebola is it may not qualify as an emergency we have
      common problems from influenza, food poisoning, pneumonia that
      kill more...

      Wait, the flu, food poisoning and pneumonia kill 70% of those infected!?

      WTF, why didnt you start telling us all that beforehand! This is a global catastrophe!!! Once the flu season hits again, billions of people are gong to die! BILLIONS!

      FUCK, the end of civilization is less than a year away! What are we going to do!? ...oh wait a second.....is this for real, or are you talking absolute shit and know figuratively nothing about ebola and its previous outbreaks?

      Please let me know, so I can decide whether to start planning for the end of the world or not.

      In one case we have tens of thousands infected and in the other case we have (today) less than a dozen in the US.
      70% is nasty but 70% of a dozen small compared to the thousands of fatalities associated with influenza alone.

      My point is that if we diminish the impact of viral infections we know how to manage we would free up
      staff to address Ebola correctly. Todays news noted that there had been 5000 false alarms.
      The same news noted that it takes 20 trained professionals to care for a patient in full quarantine.
      If Ebola and influenza+49 others get mixed at the intake of hospitals to the point that all influenza and food poisoning
      cases require twenty professionals for 48-72 hours our system will crumble.

      Since sanitation is the common best tool society at large has at its disposal... and since
      hand washing is low cost, requires minimum training and has good impact to the larger problem
      I believe it is an important and necessary activity to encourage.

      Time for me to wash my hands and go and give blood.

      --
      Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
    15. Re:No the constitution is fine.. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      The meaning of the "general welfare" clause has been controversial since the start of the union.

      Did you read your own reference? The first two paragraphs claim exactly what I already stated.

      It is only "controversial" to those who have not done their historical research, and who want to assign a different "modern" meaning to it. In the same way Obama has played games with the rest of the Constitution.

    16. Re:No the constitution is fine.. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      It appears twice. Only one is in the preamble. The other is in what you might call "the tax-and-spend authorization" section. Which only stands to reason.

    17. Re:No the constitution is fine.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't forget shipping illegal immigrant children to unannounced secret locations all over country has done wonders for spreading ed-68 common in south america.

    18. Re:No the constitution is fine.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good god where have you been "Congress craft well considered laws" those idiots are incapable of anything that the tea pary fools dont agree with. And as everyone knows "ebola is a government plot to take over west africa (shorter flight) so that the realestate handlers of congress can have new low cost beach front property to develop".

      Yes they need a better coordinated response to pandemics, look what they did during the 1918 influenza pandemic, they shipped sick soilders all over the country and spread the desease at the maximum speed of transportation in those day's. In this country Ebola is not a great concern since we have outstanding medical services and more hospitals than we know what to do with and every state has a health and human serivices office. More of a threat will be say the bird flu or some variant thereof. It kills a high percentage of folks wiht compromized imune systems is infectious as hell and can spred at 600 miles and hour rather than 40.

      People, especially scared people are dangerous unpredictable animals, the first post about guns, and nerve gas makes my point.

      In some ways your right the government needs to be better prepared, but that is not letting the idiots in congress tell the experts in publih health how to do their jobs. You need to vest the power to suspend unlimited travel in and out of badly effected areas wihtout screening, you need rapid deployment teams to setup field hospitals and qualified people to staff them to contain outbreaks. We need better training for hospital staff, texas is a good example its the nurses who broke protocall but since they are in intimate high frequency contact its clear they need better training or protective systems. The government needs to vest the emergency powers to contain virulent disease and quarentine the effected and their care providers, allowing a medical professional to go home after working wiht ebola is maddness (texas again their following 77 people) take a quick look at an exponential growth curve goes.

      Yes we need better systems and better levels of control not an everyman for himself approach. The be reasoned and analytical in our approach and leave the emotion and the politicians out of the decision making process.

  6. Who, you ask? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    >> Who's In Charge During the Ebola Crisis?

    Ebola is.

    1. Re:Who, you ask? by rs79 · · Score: 1

      Nailed it.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    2. Re:Who, you ask? by rs79 · · Score: 1

      No. It's a virus so old it predate all dinosaurs. It mutated to encode for a molecule that messes up humans in fairly recent times, sometimes in the past million or two years in a certain place for a certain reason. It's old old old.

      You don't need to weaponize Ebola, nature did that for you.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    3. Re:Who, you ask? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      No. It's a virus so old it predate all dinosaurs. It mutated

      Doesn't every living thing (including the dinosaurs) predate the dinosaurs once you take mutation into account?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    4. Re:Who, you ask? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the virus has existed for millions of years, but why the sudden mutation lately? Ebola outbreaks have only happened in the past 20 years, the time we have been able to do genetic engineering. There were a few prior outbreaks that didn't get far, failures on the CIA's part. But now this one seems to be doing its job.

      We have done genetic engineering in the lab. It's not too farfetched to think we engineered this variant of the ebola virus and unleashed it in Africa. And conveniently in Africa, as well as all the other things I mentioned in my post? It's too perfect for it to be natural.

      Nature does the "weaponizing", but the CIA did the "designing". Once it's on the loose, it will do its job. And it's almost impossible to trace back to the source and find the culprits, although the NSA probably has spied on them and ten years or so, the truth will come to light. You'll never see it on America's mainstream media though, except maybe as a small story next to some celebrity's latest mishap.

      And lastly, I see my post has been downmodded. I know censorship makes you feel powerful, but my post was not spam or trolling or offtopic. It was a valid, although uncommon, argument that was demonstrated logically, and many people have such a viewpoint, but either keep it to themselves for fear of being labeled a kook or get censored the way I did. Please just try to have an open mind, and do some research on your own (not just listening to CNN and FOX and MSNBC, or even sites like Slashdot.) Try some alternative media to get another viewpoint that is intentionally marginalized to protect the government's interests, as well as placate the masses. Do some research using alternative sources, and if after doing so, you still think I'm nuts, then by all means, ignore me. But please just don't mod this down. Let others do their own research and come to their own conclusions. Thank you.

    5. Re:Who, you ask? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A good conspiracy theory, except for the problem that ebloa outbreaks have occurred to my knowledge at least as long ago as the 1970s. It is not credible that the CIA had the genetic engineering technology to create the family of ebolaviruses either from scratch or from other related filoviruses at that time.

  7. Re:Outdated constitution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nope, that power was taken from the states by the 14th Amendment. Congress can ban Ebola (with a 2/3 vote to override the veto).

  8. Hypocritic Oath by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Everyone knows that Dr. Nancy Snyderman is on the job and in charge. Soup for everyone!

  9. The President... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After all, he promised you could keep your doctor, you could keep your insurance, healthcare would be cheaper, more transparency, and hard drives that won't crash.

    1. Re: The President... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So when it does start spreading here, it's not big governments fault, it's little governments?

    2. Re: The President... by rs79 · · Score: 2

      Somebody on Fox is *asking* for Fema camps now.

      I am not making this up.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    3. Re: The President... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somebody on Fox is *asking* for Fema camps now.

      I am not making this up.

      We All Know that Hussein Obama had Ebola weaponized to kill White Christians so that all would be left behind were his Liberal cronies.

  10. Who's in charge? by slashdime · · Score: 2

    Who's in charge?
    WHO's in charge.

    1. Re:Who's in charge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dr. Who?

    2. Re: Who's in charge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hu used to be in charge of china.

    3. Re: Who's in charge? by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 2

      I don't know. Hu?

    4. Re:Who's in charge? by MrDoh! · · Score: 1

      You know, WHO. Communism was just a *ahem* red herring.

      --
      Waiting for an amusing sig.
    5. Re:Who's in charge? by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 2

      No but The Doctor, of Doctor Who did previously play a WHO Dr.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    6. Re:Who's in charge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rihanna's in charge!

    7. Re:Who's in charge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://youtu.be/umDkjjvQm9s?t=58s

    8. Re: Who's in charge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Third base!

    9. Re:Who's in charge? by David_Hart · · Score: 2

      Horton... Because he heard a WHO!

    10. Re:Who's in charge? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      No, Who's on First.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    11. Re: Who's in charge? by some+old+guy · · Score: 1

      Hu's on first.

      --
      Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
    12. Re: Who's in charge? by aminorex · · Score: 1

      "Wei" did you say that?

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    13. Re:Who's in charge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      very well put.

  11. No difference here by damn_registrars · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In the US, the people in charge are still the health insurance companies. They will call the shots during this situation just as they have for decades (including during the writing of the 2010 "health care reform" bill). They will dictate who gets which care, and who gets to die in which ways. The 26 year old nurse in TX has probably already had her policy cancelled for a pre-existing condition (ie, she was alive and hence had the potential to be infected with ebola in her hazardous occupation).

    Just wait until the insurance companies quietly release their 2014 profit reports in another year or two and we see how handsomely we rewarded their top executives for this.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:No difference here by Jeremi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The 26 year old nurse in TX has probably already had her policy cancelled for a pre-existing condition

      Ah, good old "probably". A sure indicator that the poster hasn't bothered to actually research what he's claiming, but rather is just making something up that would support his pet conspiracy theory, if it were true.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    2. Re:No difference here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not before they double you premium. Don't worry, the goverment will raid your retirement account to pay for your aids treatment. And probably mine too.

    3. Re:No difference here by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Insightful

      is just making something up that would support his pet conspiracy theory, if it were true.

      If you haven't been fucked by your insurance company yet, just wait until you're a bit older. I can guarantee you it will happen, it is only a matter of when and how badly. This is not a conspiracy theory, this is a guarantee. They hold all the cards and they set the rules of the game; you can't win or even hope to break even.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    4. Re:No difference here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's what trial by jury is for.

    5. Re:No difference here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good. Fucking. Luck. Insurance companies have vast resources of money and lawyers to make sure that you'll be dead long before any court action forces them to pay a dime.

    6. Re:No difference here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's the nature of insurance. It's a sick gamble, and they're the "house": you bet that you'll become sick, that you'll use more of their funds than you pay them. For some individual cases, there are (theoretically) "winners" who get sick enough to require very expensive treatment. In the aggregate, however, the gamblers (the insured) have to put more money into the system than they take out; otherwise the house goes broke and the insurance company goes out of business (or gets bailed out). It's a net loss for society (yes, a few insurance jobs get generated, but not enough to compensate for the incredible inflation in healthcare in America, where healthcare is far more expensive than anywhere else). It would be better in the aggregate either to do away with insurance and make families responsible for their entire health costs, or to socialize medicine and make it a fully non-profit endeavor (with a strong sense of the Hippocratic Oath).

    7. Re:No difference here by jddeluxe · · Score: 1

      If I had mod points today you would get them...

    8. Re:No difference here by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You're insane. The insurance companies are at the end of the line here. Things are going to happen way too fast for insurance companies to change their policies, treatments are going to be medically necessary, the only question is whether the extra costs entailed by the infection precautions are going can be charged back to the patient's insurance (likely with a subsequent hissy fit about actually paying it).

      No one is going to call Aetna and say 'can we treat Ms. Doe for potential Ebola exposure?' - that's not the way the system works. This sort of thing is something insurance companies hate - fast moving problems that can't rationally be refused. And hospitals are already on the hook for uninsured patients due to the EMTALA laws.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    9. Re:No difference here by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Informative

      You do realize that one thing that the ACA (aka Obamacare) does is take the teeth out of pre existing clauses, do you not? Or are you too busy ranting and raving to actually look at the real world?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    10. Re:No difference here by fustakrakich · · Score: 1, Informative

      In the US, the people in charge are still the health insurance companies.

      Hey, you handed it to them on a silver platter. You voted for the guy, I didn't... And save your "lesser evil" crap.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    11. Re:No difference here by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      In the US, the people in charge are still the health insurance companies. They will call the shots during this situation just as they have for decades (including during the writing of the 2010 "health care reform" bill).

      Your view is popular, but just simply wrong.

      Center For American Progress President Shares Part In Obamacare: "I Helped Write The Bill"
      Obamacare Architect: ‘Insurance Companies As We Know Them Are About To Die’

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    12. Re:No difference here by nbauman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Texas didn't enact the Affordable Care Act, and they have (I think) the lowest rate of people with health insurance in the country. Adam Smith, in Wealth of Nations, said that it was a government responsibility to provide for health care. Wealth of Nations was published in 1776, so those ideas were around when the Constitution was written. You don't need the germ theory of disease to see that diseases spread. I don't know where free market types get the idea that people who can't pay for health insurance should be left to suffer; maybe from Milton Friedman or Ayn Rand. Or Thomas Malthus.

      The article http://thebulletin.org/who%E2%... said

      If the first question asked in most American emergency rooms concerns insurance status, the uninsured and illegal aliens will likely continue to delay seeking treatment....

      Policy makers should understand that having a large fraction of the US population uninsured poses a national security threat during deadly epidemics such as Ebola. If changing to a single-payer national system is, for political reasons, out of the question, then, at the very least, the Affordable Care Act must be fully implemented in all states. In addition, as it now stands, the CDC must wait until a state invites it to conduct epidemiologic investigations, and national disease surveillance depends on states voluntarily submitting data. This is a ridiculous and dangerous state of medical affairs.

    13. Re:No difference here by nbauman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And hospitals are already on the hook for uninsured patients due to the EMTALA laws.

      No, the article said:

      The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) of 1986 was enacted to prevent hospitals from refusing care to anyone needing urgent care and presenting at a hospital’s emergency room, regardless of insurance status. Unfortunately, EMTALA has sometimes been viewed as a mandate not funded by the federal government, and violations occur without reprisals or corrective actions.

      It's even worse in Texas. They refused to implement Obamacare, fought it, and kicked people out of Medicaid. I think MedPage Today's KevinMD had a blog entry by a doctor at one of the charity clinics who said that the hospitals were referring uninsured people to them (after the hospitals kicked them out) even though the clinic didn't even have an x-ray machine.

      Texas is a good example of the Republican health care plan -- you get sick, you die. http://online.wsj.com/articles... Legal Loophole Ensnares Breast-Cancer Patients; Shirley Loewe Chooses The Wrong Clinic And Starts Long Ordeal

    14. Re:No difference here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't it be funny if insurance companies refused though?
      Wouldn't it be funny if health care workers refused?
      Wouldn't it be funny to expose capitalism for the hollow shell that it is?

    15. Re:No difference here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is why if you want a tolerable healthcare system you look to a European model like the French healthcare system or the UK NHS. They are paid for from general taxation, and as they cover you from birth (and are run for the general good rather than by profiteering asshats) there are no get-outs for pre-existing conditions. Of course they have other issues (they are perpetually resource-hungry) but intentionally hanging you out to dry when you need care isn't one of them. We find the inequality in the US healthcare system kind of appalling by comparison, and perhaps a symptom of many of the other ills that plague your poor fractured country.

    16. Re:No difference here by aminorex · · Score: 1

      That's why Samuel Colt gave us repeating side-arms.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    17. Re:No difference here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't that damn Socialist ACA do away with the "pre-existing conditions" loophole?

      Damn Socialists!

    18. Re:No difference here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm on medication that runs $60k a year. I will be, barring an unexpected breakthrough, for the rest of my life.

      I live in Texas. Funnily enough, my insurance company hasn't been a problem at all.

    19. Re:No difference here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troll much?

      If the ideas were around when the constitution was written than why wasn't it written in the original Bill of Rights? Because back then the recognized that the PEOPLE should get to choose at a local level what they want and the federal government should stay out of it. Our forefathers are probably turning over in their grave with all the crap the federal government is dictating. And don't even talk about all the career politicians these days, the forefathers knew that good representation comes from people with real experience in business and real leadership experience(i.e. the military).

    20. Re:No difference here by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      If you haven't been fucked by your insurance company yet, just wait until you're a bit older. I can guarantee you it will happen, it is only a matter of when and how badly. This is not a conspiracy theory, this is a guarantee. They hold all the cards and they set the rules of the game; you can't win or even hope to break even.

      I've got news for you - government run healthcare in the US has denied people medical treatment while offering them a suicide pill, and we're not even talking about the VA here. You might want to think about that too.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    21. Re:No difference here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last time I switched insurance (under the pre-existing conditions ban), I had to fight with my insurance company to cover a medication for the pre-existing condition.

      Their explanation? They didn't have proof it was medically necessary. My doctor needed to call them, I had to call them, I had to send in my entire medical records, I had to call them again, my doctor had to call them again, and a few weeks later I finally got them to cover the prescription.

      Mind you, this is the textbook drug for my condition. It's a drug I've been on for most of my life. Every doctor has prescribed it for me.

      They denied it without reason and then dragged their heels when their behavior was called out.

    22. Re:No difference here by MooseTick · · Score: 1

      Just because insurance doesn't cover a problem, doesn't mean you can't get treatment. They can easily say no, we don't cover that. Then the Dr/hospital/clinic will just send you the bill (assuming you live).

    23. Re:No difference here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually i liked my insurance policy - then the government told me it was no longer "standard" and it was cancelled.

      i also hear government is telling people I know with very very good or "Cadillac" plans that they are also too good for them and need to be taxed out of existence.

      but we have to wait until after the next election to even see the rate increases for this year.

      and i last i checked there are about the same number of uninsured people in the country.

    24. Re:No difference here by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      If you haven't been fucked by your insurance company yet,[...]; you can't win or even hope to break even.

      Well, while you probably didn't have any say in being born in America, you (probably, criminal record and skills permitting) have the option of leaving to live in the civilized world somewhere. Maybe the Canadians would accept you?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    25. Re:No difference here by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      If you haven't been fucked by your insurance company yet,[...]; you can't win or even hope to break even.

      Well, while you probably didn't have any say in being born in America, you (probably, criminal record and skills permitting) have the option of leaving to live in the civilized world somewhere. Maybe the Canadians would accept you?

      As someone who has looked into doing exactly that, I can tell you that is actually a lot more difficult than what some want us to believe it to be. If you are an American and you want to move to Canada, you need to have a job offer first, and then you still need to take the entrance exam to determine if you will be allowed to emigrate. You can't just simply drive across the border and start looking for work. Furthermore there is little (if any) incentive for Canadian employers to hire Americans; you have to be a really truly exceptional applicant for a very highly skilled position in order for the employer to be able to justify hiring you.

      I'm not sure where the free world is, but Americans are generally not welcomed in it.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    26. Re:No difference here by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      If you are an American and you want to move to Canada, you need to have a job offer first,

      Yes. I went through that when I was last working in Canada. And the employer has to prove to the Canadian government that they've advertised the job adequately in Canada.

      You've got good skills, I take it? So, this isn't a problem.

      and then you still need to take the entrance exam to determine if you will be allowed to emigrate.

      Skills, languages, income ... again, this isn't a problem. They waived the languages tests for me (and my colleagues) because we weren't looking for settlement, just employment, but that wouldn't have been a problem anyway. My French is adequate, my Spanish workable (not that I need either very often). My Russian isn't worth much, but I can navigate my way around the country without getting lost or shot, so it's not useless.

      Might be worthwhile getting some of those useful rarer skills.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  12. No, that's not the problem by PapayaSF · · Score: 4, Interesting

    one could argue that the United States is hobbled by an outdated constitution in responding to epidemics

    The USA has handled many epidemics in the past. The experience of Western Samoa vs. American Samoa during the Spanish Flu epidemic is an interesting example. The TL;DR: version: Western Samoa decided they couldn't stopping the importation of plantation laborers, and as a result 20-25% of the population died. American Samoa self-quarantined, and nobody died.

    One of the core problems today is that the CDC has lost focus, and instead of controlling infectious disease, they spend money things like playground safety, workplace accidents, guns, and birth defects. And then there was the NIH grant to study why gay men are often thin and lesbians are often obese.

    We don't need to change the Constitution, just the spending and research priorities of a bunch of bureaucracies.

    --
    Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
    1. Re:No, that's not the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      American Samoa self-quarantined, and nobody died.

      Some might argue that it's easier to impose a quarantine when you're a tiny group of islands way out in the middle of the Pacific.

      But it would put a big smile on my face if the USA were to really get serious about imposing a quarantine: absolutely no one allowed into or out of the USA - and also full quarantine between individual states (e.g. no one allowed into or out of Texas) - and also full quarantine between individual cities (surround the major cities with National Guard troops) - and, ideally, also 24 hour curfews (anyone outside their house is shot on sight). I mean, if the risk is as dire as people here on Slashdot are claiming then survival of the USA is at stake and nothing short of a full lock-down is acceptable. :)

    2. Re:No, that's not the problem by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Interesting

      One of the core problems today is that the CDC has lost focus [usatoday.com], and instead of controlling infectious disease, they spend money things like playground safety, workplace accidents, guns, and birth defects. And then there was the NIH grant to study why gay men are often thin and lesbians are often obese. [newsmax.com]

      This.

      CDC needs to get back to its original mandate, which is to study infectious disease. When it got involved in these political issues, it started handling them both badly and dishonestly. And that's very bad, because it ruins their credibility about the things they're supposed to be doing.

      We don't need to change the Constitution, just the spending and research priorities of a bunch of bureaucracies.

      That too.

    3. Re:No, that's not the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you do that in areas like DC, Maryland and Virginia, where many people cross the borders on a daily basis?

    4. Re:No, that's not the problem by vanyel · · Score: 1

      Indeed, while *handling* an epidemic locally is a local responsibility, there's nothing stopping federal agencies from setting guidelines and providing information on how best to handle any given situation.

    5. Re:No, that's not the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then there was the NIH grant to study why gay men are often thin and lesbians are often obese.

      Why? It's quite simple.

      A good-looking guy gets up in the morning, looks in the mirror, and says, "I'm not going to waste this on a woman!"

    6. Re:No, that's not the problem by perryizgr8 · · Score: 0

      And then there was the NIH grant to study why gay men are often thin and lesbians are often obese.

      Why is this a problem? Research should always be done, however ridiculous your hypothesis may be. The freedom to do such insane research is what has made USA the leader of all sciences.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    7. Re:No, that's not the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Good grief.

      ~675,000 fucking Americans died during the Spanish Flu epidemic. I'd hardly consider that successly fending off infectious disease.

      What kind of fucking argument is this? This is considered insightul? One misrepresented sample from almost 100 years ago. THINGS ARE FUCKING PEACHY.

      Then it devolves into "the current government is just broken though. But if we just stuck to this ragged old document. We've just lost our way at being the best ever."

      Shit n hellfire. This forum. 'News for nerds. Oh and US Libertarian slanted bullshit.'

    8. Re:No, that's not the problem by PapayaSF · · Score: 2

      Why is this a problem? Research should always be done, however ridiculous your hypothesis may be. The freedom to do such insane research is what has made USA the leader of all sciences.

      Of course research is generally good, but priorities must be decided. Right now, I suspect people would rather that money had been spent researching Ebola.

      --
      Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
    9. Re:No, that's not the problem by sexconker · · Score: 2

      And then there was the NIH grant to study why gay men are often thin and lesbians are often obese.

      Why is this a problem? Research should always be done, however ridiculous your hypothesis may be. The freedom to do such insane research is what has made USA the leader of all sciences.

      Useless research on my fucking dime should absolutely not be done, let alone to the exclusion of useful research.

    10. Re:No, that's not the problem by rs79 · · Score: 1

      What he said.

      (and the other guy)

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    11. Re:No, that's not the problem by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. :-D

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    12. Re:No, that's not the problem by nbauman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's not a local responsibility any more. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, the states are cutting back. Those state health departments that tracked the contaminated steroid injections from the New England Compounding Center, which killed about 100 people, were in the process of being disbanded. So if it happened again, we'd have people dying of a mysteriously transmitted disease and we wouldn't be able to figure it out.

      Realize that when people start getting sick, you don't necessarily know whether an infectious disease is causing it, or whether it's an environmental factor like arsenic in the drinking water.

    13. Re:No, that's not the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... especially a fat one.

    14. Re:No, that's not the problem by nbauman · · Score: 3, Informative

      And then there was the NIH grant to study why gay men are often thin and lesbians are often obese.

      Why is this a problem? Research should always be done, however ridiculous your hypothesis may be. The freedom to do such insane research is what has made USA the leader of all sciences.

      You mean "insane-appearing research." Some of the most important medical research looked insane, especially to the uninformed. Medical insurance is like going to the racetrack, with very good odds.

      For example, a marine scientist studying sea sponges discovered Adriamycin, which was one of the first drugs that cured cancer, and formed the basis of all of our cancer drugs.

      Of course these right-wing Congressmen would have a field day with that. Our government money going to study Spongebob.

    15. Re:No, that's not the problem by vanyel · · Score: 1

      Whether or not they're acting on the responsibility, it's still their responsibility... and generally local people are best equipped to take into account local environmental factors. When they abdicate their responsibility, well then you have to decide whether to be a nanny or not.

    16. Re:No, that's not the problem by PapayaSF · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Since there are about 4-5,000 workplace fatalities a year, virtually all of them preventable, that's a good return for the money. [...] So if CDC doesn't do this stuff, nobody will.

      Then what is OSHA for?

      --
      Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
    17. Re:No, that's not the problem by jabuzz · · Score: 2

      Given obesity is the biggest public health crisis facing the U.S.A. that the Center for Disease Control (and many people consider it a disease) is spending a small amount of money looking into unexplained differing rates of obesity in different sections of the population is surely a sensible and prudent decision.

    18. Re:No, that's not the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woah there. The NECC thing was a corruption issue. And Massachusetts state health agencies are pretty goddamn awful; full of lazy, inept, and corrupt workers. Much like the rest of the state government. It's actually a serious problem here that no one wants to address ever.

    19. Re:No, that's not the problem by nbauman · · Score: 2

      Whether or not they're acting on the responsibility, it's still their responsibility... and generally local people are best equipped to take into account local environmental factors. When they abdicate their responsibility, well then you have to decide whether to be a nanny or not.

      Some parts of public health can be handled locally, and some parts of public health can only be handled on a national or international level. They can't figure out the pattern of an epidemic based on local occurrences alone. They have to look at the national or international patterns, and they need national and international expertise. When doctors have people dying in one city, and another city, of something new, they can't figure out what it is until they collect all the reports together on a national level.

      That's not a political or economic decision, it's one of the requirements of science. That's what happened with the New England Compounding Center contaminated steroids (and every drug adverse event epidemic). That's what happened with AIDS.

      State health departments don't have the equipment and expertise to do a lot of things. Hospital disease laboratories are only equipped to identify infections that are common in their area. Why stock a laboratory with expensive agents that you'll never use? When hospitals get a patient with an unusual disease, they can't identify it in their own labs and they have to send the samples to the CDC.

      You can't give somebody a responsibility without giving them the resources (financial and otherwise). The states are now cutting the budgets for their local public health departments. The people who are abdicating their responsibility are the lawmakers who are cutting the budget.

      We as a society have decided, thousands of years ago, that we would be a "nanny." Humans knew how about infectious diseases since ancient times. Adam Smith wrote in Wealth of Nations that treating disease was a proper role of government. You can't fight an epidemic with a free market. Many people can't afford to pay for health care. When your neighbor gets sick, you will get sick.

    20. Re:No, that's not the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NIH isn't the CDC.

    21. Re:No, that's not the problem by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Since there are about 4-5,000 workplace fatalities a year, virtually all of them preventable, that's a good return for the money. [...] So if CDC doesn't do this stuff, nobody will.

      Then what is OSHA for?

      That's a good question. I'll remember it next time I talk to somebody from one of those agencies.

      I would observe from reading their reports that there are a lot of diseases and injury patterns that overlap. There are electrocutions in the workplace and elsewhere. You can learn a lot by studying electrocutions as a workplace accident, but you can also learn a lot by studying electrocutions in general.

      And OSHA is directed more at enforcement in the workplace. They go around making sure that workers are following safe practices, and can give fines to employers if they're not. CDC doesn't go around to IV drug users and tell them how to shoot up safely; they just analyze the data.

    22. Re:No, that's not the problem by vanyel · · Score: 1

      Some parts of public health can be handled locally, and some parts of public health can only be handled on a national or international level. They can't figure out the pattern of an epidemic based on local occurrences alone.
      ...
      State health departments don't have the equipment and expertise to do a lot of things. Hospital disease laboratories are only equipped to identify infections that are common in their area. Why stock a laboratory with expensive agents that you'll never use? When hospitals get a patient with an unusual disease, they can't identify it in their own labs and they have to send the samples to the CDC.

      That part I agree with - pattern analysis and research are definitely in the purview of higher levels.

      You can't give somebody a responsibility without giving them the resources (financial and otherwise).

      That part, however, I don't: where do you think that money comes from in the first place? It makes no sense to send money to a central location just to beg for it back (except for emergencies that overwhelm the local region). The day to day stuff should be funded locally.

      Although it's a different topic, the same goes for transportation funding: it makes no sense for Portland to pay for Boston's big dig and Boston to pay for Portland's light rail, and Wyoming shouldn't have to pay for either. There's a case to be made for the reverse: helping rural areas with transportation needs, though only to a limited extent.

    23. Re:No, that's not the problem by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Why is this a problem? Research should always be done, however ridiculous your hypothesis may be. The freedom to do such insane research is what has made USA the leader of all sciences.

      Yep, freedom is good. You should be free to do such research, barring any potential harm you might do to your subjects and that they are participating voluntarily. That kinda deals with their freedom. So why is the previous statement showing a problem?

      And then there was the NIH grant ...

      Ahhh, taxpayer funded research. There's the problem. You lept from a comment about taxpayers paying for your freedom to do research into a comment about freedom to do research in general.

      There is a significant difference between freedom to do research on stupid things and government handing out other people's money to do stupid things. If Bill Gates wants to give you money to do something where the answer is obvious, that's one thing. When it is the money taken from the public being used to do stupid things, that's something different. Your freedom to do something stupid is not dependent upon the government paying you to do it. You need look no further than the first amendment to see an example: you have freedom of speech, but the government doesn't have to pay for you to speak.

      For example, a marine scientist studying sea sponges discovered Adriamycin, which was one of the first drugs that cured cancer, and formed the basis of all of our cancer drugs. Of course these right-wing Congressmen would have a field day with that. Our government money going to study Spongebob.

      Your example is ridiculous, and you're putting words in other people's mouths. Studying sea sponges doesn't even begin to meet the criterion of "something stupid". "Why do paperclips interconnect while stored in their box", that's something stupid.

    24. Re:No, that's not the problem by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Your example is ridiculous, and you're putting words in other people's mouths. Studying sea sponges doesn't even begin to meet the criterion of "something stupid". "Why do paperclips interconnect while stored in their box", that's something stupid.

      After the fact, studying sea sponges seems like a great idea.

      But before the importance becomes obvious, or for the many equally valid studies that need to be done for every one that pans out, congressmen and anti-government types denounce them. One of Proximire's Golden Fleece awards was for a study of the sex life of the screw-worm fly, which sounds silly until you think for ten seconds about the agricultural significance of this parasite.

      Another Golden Fleece awards was for the study of activities in a Peruvian brothel, the significance of which should be obvious to anyone who heard of AIDS. (Come to think of it, I probably have to spell it out for you: Doctors have to know what sexual activities people participate in, and whether they spread AIDS, in order to save lives. If you are an MD, and you disagree, I will be interested in your opinion.)

      There is no government-funded research on "Why do paperclips interconnect while stored in their box?" Like most anti-government conservatives, you are reduced to making things up. That's because if you picked a real NSF grant, it would obviously have value.

      Every developed country in the world developed their industry with heavy use of government-subsidized research. Everybody who is actually in industry running businesses bigger than a gas station knows this.

      I remember years ago when some anti-government anti-tax Republicans tried to shut down the NSF, NIH and other government research institutions, and free the American corporations to do their magic in the marketplace. The strongest objections came from the American corporations, many of which were started with government-funded academic research, and others of which were developing research that was done in academic labs with NSF grants. These corporations are also big contributors to the Republican Party, so there's no debate any more, except on street corners and the Reason web site.

    25. Re:No, that's not the problem by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      After the fact, studying sea sponges seems like a great idea.

      Well, we can disagree about that. I'd say that "before the fact", studying a large player in the ocean environment is a good idea. YMMV.

      Another Golden Fleece awards was for the study of activities in a Peruvian brothel, the significance of which should be obvious to anyone who heard of AIDS. (Come to think of it, I probably have to spell it out for you: Doctors have to know what sexual activities people participate in,

      And to do that they have to spend US dollars studying brothels in Peru. Right. You're stretching things quite a distance here. Peruvian brothels are such a considerable source of the AIDS epidemic, right?

      There is no government-funded research on "Why do paperclips interconnect while stored in their box?" Like most anti-government conservatives, you are reduced to making things up.

      No, you're right, I didn't have to make things up, I just had to wait for you to provide examples for me.

      Every developed country in the world developed their industry with heavy use of government-subsidized research.

      That is hardly an excuse to waste limited resources on useless or trivial research. No matter how much the spenders want to pretend, tax revenue will always be a limited resource and wasting it will always be bad.

      But that's not the point I replied to. What I was pointing out is that "freedom to do research" doesn't depend on the taxpayer funding that research. You didn't respond to that, so I assume you agree.

    26. Re:No, that's not the problem by nbauman · · Score: 1

      You can't give somebody a responsibility without giving them the resources (financial and otherwise).

      That part, however, I don't: where do you think that money comes from in the first place? It makes no sense to send money to a central location just to beg for it back (except for emergencies that overwhelm the local region). The day to day stuff should be funded locally.

      Unfortunately, the states are not funding their local health departments, and are instead cutting back. That came out in the morning-after analysis of the New England Compounding Center epidemic. Many of the epidemiologists who worked day and night to figure out the cause of the epidemic that killed 100 people knew that they were being fired.

      It seems to be a result of the anti-tax movement.

      New York City had a world-class health department at the beginning of the nineteenth century. They traced epidemics. They created new vaccines. They did basic research. They were a model for the country. Unfortunately, after one of NYC's budget crises, during the 1960s, they were cut back significantly, and Giuliani turned them into a forensics lab.

      Although it's a different topic, the same goes for transportation funding: it makes no sense for Portland to pay for Boston's big dig and Boston to pay for Portland's light rail, and Wyoming shouldn't have to pay for either. There's a case to be made for the reverse: helping rural areas with transportation needs, though only to a limited extent.

      Medical research doesn't work that way. They're national (and international) problems, not local problems. Texas has a problem with hookworms. Rockefeller University in NYC has a team of researchers working on the basic science of hookworms (they actually do), and out of that basic research effort they have a good understanding of how to deal with hookworms. When Texas gives money to their agriculture department to deal with hookworms, all the Texas agriculture department knows how to do is teach farmers how to spray DDT to kill the hookworms. They don't have anybody to deal with the molecular biology of hookworms (if they did, he would probably go to Rockefeller). Rockefeller's research benefits everybody. The Texas agriculture department has to show the legislature how they benefited local people. Basic research is hard to justify to legislators.

    27. Re:No, that's not the problem by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Another Golden Fleece awards was for the study of activities in a Peruvian brothel, the significance of which should be obvious to anyone who heard of AIDS. (Come to think of it, I probably have to spell it out for you: Doctors have to know what sexual activities people participate in,

      And to do that they have to spend US dollars studying brothels in Peru. Right. You're stretching things quite a distance here. Peruvian brothels are such a considerable source of the AIDS epidemic, right?

      As a matter of fact, there were cases of AIDS coming into the US from Peru, but that's not the point. We had a new viral disease that nobody had ever seen before, it was killing 5,000 Americans a year before they had developed drugs for it, and doctors had very few ways to deal with it. One of the few things they could do is prevention, by discouraging people from engaging in the activities that spread AIDS. But they didn't know what that activities were. Some politicians wanted to forbid AIDS patients from food handling. It was like terrorism today. I don't know why they picked Peru but if you read the grant application I guarantee they gave a good reason. They probably had researchers who had been working in Peruvian brothels for a long time, which they didn't have in the US.

      So they were public health researchers trying to figure out how to stop 5,000 Americans from dying every year. Which is pretty important if your mother needs a transfusion during surgery in a hospital.

      There is no government-funded research on "Why do paperclips interconnect while stored in their box?" Like most anti-government conservatives, you are reduced to making things up.

      No, you're right, I didn't have to make things up, I just had to wait for you to provide examples for me.

      I can't deal with people who make things up. When you've decided to tell the truth, let me know.

    28. Re:No, that's not the problem by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      ... by discouraging people from engaging in the activities that spread AIDS. But they didn't know what that activities were.

      And studying a Peruvian brothel was the only and correct way to find out. Right. I'm sorry, but there is a difference between studying something in a reasonable way and doing it frivolously.

      I can't deal with people who make things up.

      I used a fictional example. It's done during discussions a lot. It was meant to represent an entire class of wasted money and didn't need to be specific. Most people, I wager, got the idea. I'm sorry that it offended you.

      When you've decided to tell the truth, let me know.

      I've written the truth all along here. You just don't agree with it. That happens. Calling someone a liar because you disagree with his opinions is rather trite. Or perhaps you disagree that studying why paperclips link up in the box would be a waste of money? Is that it?

    29. Re:No, that's not the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe
      But the CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL seems to have a very well defined field of interest. Unless lesbian give the fat (and the gay) to normal girls, it's not really a disease.

    30. Re:No, that's not the problem by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      Enforcement of laws and regulations, looks like. Which is not the same as studying causes and preventions of things.

      So I should ask, What do you know about the CDC and OSHA, besides what you get from anti-government opinion pieces?

    31. Re:No, that's not the problem by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I can't deal with people who make things up. When you've decided to tell the truth, let me know.

      Isn't it amazing what you can find when you actually look at what is happening?

      Here's something that Trojan could never come up with on its own, plus a bunch of other stuff. I bet it is a revelation that male fruit flies prefer hot, sexy younger female fruit flies, and who could have guessed (or really cared) that it was because old hag fruit flies don't have as much female hormones to attract them. (Headline: "Female fruit flies suffer from menopause, film at 11!") Perhaps most useful of all: most chimpanzees are right handed. The manufacturer of chimpanzee scissors is ecstatic to get that information to help his business.

      The NIH is also dumping almost a quarter million dollars into industry to get them to develop more products that they could have paid for with a pittance of their current profits and will be selling for a goodly amount of money. Do you really think the taxpayer should have to pay a company to develop a product that apparently nobody wants because no company is currently producing it already?

      Would you like to know why fat girls can't get dates? Was there really any question that drunk men sometimes try to coerce women into unprotected sex?

      Should we mention the CDC?

      Among them: spending $1.75 million over seven years on a "Hollywood liaison" whose job was to help movie and television studios develop accurate plot lines about diseases. To pay the position, the CDC tapped into an account that was supposed to be used to develop responses to bio-terrorism.

      Yes, a movie being more accurate about a disease is a good way to respond to a biological agent. And God knows that the movie industry couldn't have paid for someone to help them make movies more accurate.

      Defend the NIH for the right things it does, but don't let that blind you to the stupid stuff it does. And don't let it confuse you into thinking that "freedom to perform research" requires public tax dollars. If you look at this article, which I believe is talking about the same Origami product my first link is, you'll note:

      Also supporting innovative condom research is the Gates Foundation's Grand Challenge Explorations grants, a commitment of $100M to encourage scientists to expand the pipeline of ideas to fight our greatest health challenges.

      So the idea that private money cannot fund "freedom of research" is just ridiculous.

    32. Re:No, that's not the problem by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Just let me deal with the condoms.

      First, what the fuck does Howie Katz know about NIH grants? If he knew anything, he'd know how to cite the grant so that somebody else could look it up and find out whether it was true. I checked NIH database and couldn't find it.

      Second, the condoms he's talking about, as far as I can figure out, had funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, and the Small Business Administration.

      Third, the most common way AIDS is transmitted in this country is through anal intercourse, and this condom seems to be designed for the purpose of presenting that. The cost of treating AIDS over a patient's lifetime is about $500,000, which is usually paid by Medicaid or Medicare, and a lot of them go on disability, so anything that reduces the spread of AIDS is going to pay back the cost of development several times over.

      Any stupid right-wing blogger can get a list of NIH grants, post it on his web site and say, "Look at how stupid they are," but in fact every grant has to give good reasons why this is a good use of government money, and the wingnuts leave that part out.

    33. Re:No, that's not the problem by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      First, what the fuck does Howie Katz know about NIH grants?

      I've seen this story in so many places that what this Howie Katz fellow does or doesn' t know seems to be irrelevant.

      Second, the condoms he's talking about, as far as I can figure out, had funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, and the Small Business Administration.

      The article I linked talked about $2.4 million from NIH. A second article said that the Fenway group was working with NIH but didn't list the amount. But of course, taxpayer dollars from the SBA are still taxpayer dollars.

      Third, the most common way AIDS is transmitted in this country is through anal intercourse,

      The POINT is, which you are deliberately ignoring, that PRIVATE MONEY can just as easily fund this kind of "research", and it doesn't have to take taxpayer dollars to get companies to make these products, it only requires that there will be a market. If there is no market nobody is going to make them anyway, so throwing taxpayer dollars down the toilet to design this stuff is a waste of money. And when the grant recipient uses the money for other things, as the stories report, it is fraud as well as waste.

      You are free to research ass condoms all you want. Go for it. Get Bill Gates to pay for it. It doesn't take public money to do it. Your freedom to conduct this research is not hindered by a failure of the NIH to fund it. In fact, your freedom to do research is ENHANCED when the government isn't funding it. The well-known federal ban on stem cell research is a ban on FEDERALLY FUNDED stem cell research using other than the existing lines.

      Any stupid right-wing blogger can get a list of NIH grants, post it on his web site and say, "Look at how stupid they are,"

      And anyone else can look at that list and agree. Right-handed chimpanzees, why fat girls cannot get dates, that drunk men might coerce women into unprotected sex, that's all ridiculous research. I understand why you cherry-picked one item on the list. It's because you have a hot-button disease that you can tie it to. Anyone who objects to public funding for this kind of research must be -- gasp -- a homophobe! That's why you ignored all the other examples I gave and focused on this one.

      But the fact remains, a lot of money is wasted, and even the grant you are supporting could be done just as well by funding only through private sources. And finally, the freedom to do that research is not limited.

      but in fact every grant has to give good reasons why this is a good use of government money,

      No, they don't. They need to give reasons, but nothing says they have to be good reasons. All they have to do is get by the granting agency. When money is involved, you don't think that people can make up all kinds of "good" reasons to spend public money on something? You seem to be able to do it for the one grant you selected to defend. And nothing says that this research cannot be done without public money being thrown at it, which is the main point. Why SHOULD public money go into designing the next product a large corporation will try to sell -- and then probably fail because nobody wants it?

      Your freedom to do research does not mean the taxpayer has to fund it, any more than your freedom to carry a gun means the taxpayer has to buy you one.

    34. Re:No, that's not the problem by nbauman · · Score: 1

      I read about new medical research all day. It's my job. I just went to a conference last week on new medical technology. I talk to corporate executives about how they're financing their business. I talk to scientists about where their money is coming from. So I know a little bit about who invests money in new research, what they invest in, and what they don't.

      Nobody in the industry or in academic medical research believes that private investment could fund the kind of research the NIH does. And I talk to the people in private industry who are looking to invest money. Bill Gates only "investing" in these companies as a charity, not because the investors will make a profit.

      I also meet people who believe that the government can't do anything, and we should leave everything to private industry.

      They're ideologues. They believe what they want to believe and they can't be changed by facts. The latest research by psychologists found that the more strongly the facts show that they're wrong, the more strongly they believe in their wrong ideas. They're like those doomsday cults that predicted the end of the world, and then, when the world didn't end, they just went on believing.

      So I realize that you believe the government is wasting money on NIH research, no facts will convince you otherwise, and it's a waste of time trying.

      I thought you had maybe a glimmer of willingness to consider ideas outside your preconceived beliefs. But now I see you don't.

    35. Re:No, that's not the problem by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I read about new medical research all day. It's my job.

      Let's cut this short. That's nice. You read about research. The comment you made that I replied to was concerning the FREEDOM TO DO SUCH RESEARCH. People should be free to study insane things, as you put it. And I AGREED. No question. But that's not good enough for you.

      You seem to think that NIH has to fund insane research in order for people to be free to do it. You've completely abused the word "free" by starting at "freedom" and winding up at "at taxpayer expense". Your "freedom" to keep and bear arms does not incur a governmental responsibility to buy you a gun so you can be "free", any more than freedom to do research incurs a government responsibility to pay for it, and you've said nothing that would even begin to argue otherwise.

      Nobody in the industry or in academic medical research believes that private investment could fund the kind of research the NIH does.

      That's insane. I'm in academia (not medical, but medical has no special status when it comes to having their hand out for grant money) and I fully expect condom companies to spend their own money developing new kinds of condoms. That's private industry funding precisely the kind of "research" that NIH has become involved with. You even pointed out that Bill Gates is dumping $100M into such projects, and that's "private investment" writ large.

      And when it comes to why fat girls can't get dates, or whether drunk men accost women, I don't care if NIH is the only place that could or would fund such ridiculous research, they shouldn't be doing it. If YOU want to know why a fat girl can't get a date, you pay for it. If you care which hand chimpanzees use to fling their poo (right-handed, BTW) that's nice, but it's hardly worth spending taxpayer money on. It's a waste of NIH money when they're complaining they don't have enough to fund important research. That makes them hypocrites as well as money-wasters.

      I note that the only research you chose to defend was the ass condoms, which is a pretty clear admission that you cannot defend the other examples. Yet, you insult me when I point out the wastes and won't accept them as valid, valuable, fundable research projects. Hmmm. It appears you think NIH can do no wrong when it hands out money, and that NIH has to hand it out or people aren't free anymore. You cherry pick one example of money wasting research and try to defend it as part of the overall "AIDS research" (when it is not research into curing AIDS but into commercial development of a commercial product that a commercial company could do just as well), but the others you cannot defend at all.

      I also meet people who believe that the government can't do anything,

      I think they call this a "straw man" argument. Since you can't show where I've said anything close to that, your attempt at insulting me with the statement fails even the briefest sniff test.

      So I realize that you believe the government is wasting money on NIH research, no facts will convince you otherwise,

      You've provided exactly zero new information, so why should I have changed my mind? I agreed with your statement that people should be free to do insane research, but you've not said anything that would show that the government has to fund insane research. "It's AIDS!" Well, that's nice, but most of the examples weren't. "They had a reason." Sorry, I know how grants are written and everyone comes up with a "reason" their research is important and critical and vital and crucial and novel and new and should be funded. That's the grant writing process. Some universities run workshops on how to do that; what key words to use in your proposals to improve the chance of them being approved. You can expect EVERY grant request to contain a plethora of reasons why it should be funded, but not every grant request will actually contain research that should be funded. The

    36. Re:No, that's not the problem by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Oh, now I understand. You're reciting right-wing talking points.
      http://www.redstate.com/2014/1...

      No wonder you're incapable of an intelligent discussion.

  13. Duh- Ebola! by AndyKron · · Score: 2

    Ebola is in charge during an Ebola crisis.

    1. Re:Duh- Ebola! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This.
      Stop fighting and let ebola-chan into your life, and your bloodstream.

    2. Re:Duh- Ebola! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Nah, Doctor Allcome.

  14. What happens if terrorists use it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They could put ebola fluids on money.

  15. Who is in charge by rossdee · · Score: 1

    Well its either the World Health Organization or Peter Capaldi.

    1. Re:Who is in charge by Jizzbug · · Score: 1

      And here are the World Health Organization's regularly updated situation reports:
      http://www.who.int/csr/disease/ebola/situation-reports/en/ [who.int]

      Growth rate is down to 87%, that's from 100% last month and 133% the month before.

      At 87% population growth rate, it would consume the world in about 3 years...

      --

      -=/\- Jizzbug -/\=-
  16. Ebola Victims Died To Pay the Wages of Your Racism by Baldrson · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    A clear example of why the a strong Federal government is necessary is the case of Louisiana's attorney general telling Texas authorities not to bring Ebola victim waste to a disposal site in Louisiana.

    Of course, State sovereignty is the moral equivalent of slavery so it is essential that the racists in Louisiana be taught a lesson by Obama commandeering the Louisiana National Guard to air drop waste from Texas Ebola victims on racist Louisiana with its badges of slavery -- especially the waste of Ebola victims that died for your racism -- sorta like Jesus or something. And if you think that's insane or horrifying or something, it just means you're in need of a "teachable moment" yourself before you start bull-whip crackin' that black man whose been comin' roun' to see hair-of-golden-brown, Lilly Belle you Southern Man you.

  17. Not Just Ebola by camperdave · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Not just ebola, but one could argue that the United States is hobbled by an outdated constitution in responding to a wide variety of modern day issues. For example, airports and borders, traveller's rights, electronic surveillance, intellectual property rights, and a host of other issues.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:Not Just Ebola by Baldrson · · Score: 1

      Yeah you know what's _really_ outmoded?

      Control groups as a means of teasing causation out of correlation.

      I mean, just think what would happen if *shudder* there were 50 different governments each controlling their own borders, testing out different social theories?

      People with bad social theories might leave you and those that agree with your good social theory to benefit only yourselves, while they would go off and form another experimental group providing additional human ecology data for the social sciences.

      They might figure out that you are the slimy parasite you are and that would be bad .

    2. Re:Not Just Ebola by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You know, the US Constitution was written explicitly to prevent tyranny. When you start bumping up against its limits and grouching that you need more power, and this damned document won't let you, this means you're on the wrong side.

      When the editorial pages of the New York Times express admiration for tyrants abroad and your fundraisers openly state that the executive needs more power (what, being the President of the United States isn't enough power, WTF) then you have a problem and you need to go through and re-think your entire worldview, starting from base principles. Either that, or We The People need to introduce you dictatorial fuckheads to hemp rope and cottonwood trees.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:Not Just Ebola by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US created a standing army before the US Consitution was even written. You're going off in a wrong direction that leads to the territory occupied by cranks.

    4. Re:Not Just Ebola by nbauman · · Score: 1

      then you have a problem and you need to go through and re-think your entire worldview, starting from base principles. Either that, or We The People need to introduce you dictatorial fuckheads to hemp rope and cottonwood trees.

      You never recited the Pledge of Allegiance, did you?

    5. Re:Not Just Ebola by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..go through and re-think your entire worldview, starting from base principles. Either that, or We The People need to introduce you dictatorial fuckheads to hemp rope and cottonwood trees.

      Or Rule .308, heheh.

    6. Re:Not Just Ebola by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can blame the assholes in the south that hitched state-rights to slavery in the 1800s. The southern states are entirely to blame for the increased centralization of the federal government. They were completely irresponsible with their rights and got them taken away from everyone.

    7. Re:Not Just Ebola by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you mean the one where we repudiate the constitution and glorify the federal government?

    8. Re:Not Just Ebola by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      In what way is the Constitution outmoded?

      In all of those areas, the people charged with responsibility have demonstrably overstepped what is authorized, but they could have solved the same problem a different way without conflicting with the Constitution. It would be better for everyone if they did, in fact. Due process, transparency, reason, and all of that.

      I think you have heard something that fit your world view, and are repeating it without understanding the line of thought that went into it.

  18. Statist bullshit by Tailhook · · Score: 0

    A year or so from now, after Ebola has run its course in the third world and the only Ebola the US has suffered came from the travelers the Feds refused to impede in any way, will there be a follow up story asking if the local and state governments and corporate health care system should be recognized for their effectiveness?

    Didn't think so.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    1. Re:Statist bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if it turns out isolation was the right choice but not profitable enough?

  19. Re:Ebola Victims Died To Pay the Wages of Your Rac by Livius · · Score: 0

    I think you may have a fever. Perhaps you should isolate yourself.

  20. *sigh* ... Lack of problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Control the outbreak with 4 simple steps.
    1. If you are there you are staying there.
    2. If you go there you are staying there.
    3. If you try to leave we (the world, but primarily the US of course) kill you with fire.
    4. Focus all the worlds efforts on the people there.
    Result: The outbreak is wholly contained and either runs through it supply of isolated/quarantined people or the focus of immense resources stops it.

    Everything else is political bullshit and pussy fucktwit hand-waving.
    Thousands are dead. Thousands more will die. And Billions are at risk, not because of a problem but because of lack of will.

    --habit

    1. Re:*sigh* ... Lack of problem. by Qzukk · · Score: 2

      Focus all the worlds efforts on the people there

      Yep, the world has no shortage of people wanting to take a one-way trip to ebolaland.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    2. Re:*sigh* ... Lack of problem. by sexconker · · Score: 2

      You' ll be modded down, but it really is this fucking simple.

    3. Re:*sigh* ... Lack of problem. by shilly · · Score: 2

      Where is "there"? The whole of Africa?

      Are you proposing that you can create an impermeable land and sea border for the whole of Africa? A border that can be maintained in the face of the breakdown of multiple societies due to the combination of Ebola, other current and very severe problems in these countries eg Boko Haram, malaria, etc, and the economic embargo you're effectively imposing through the border?

      Yeah, well, let us know how that works out for ya.

    4. Re:*sigh* ... Lack of problem. by biodata · · Score: 1

      I think you may have underestimated the difficulty of sealing the borders of several countries. The more this goes on the more people will try to leave. There are not enough soldiers in the world to stop a population fleeing imminent death.

      --
      Korma: Good
    5. Re:*sigh* ... Lack of problem. by stdarg · · Score: 1

      There are enough drones though.

      In all seriousness, there's no need for US to prevent people in Africa from migrating around. If Nigeria wants to seal their border, they can do that. We don't have to do it for them.

      And when it comes to people from that region traveling to the US, which we're responsible for, then they should go through a 28 day quarantine. No need to deny people from coming and going, especially medical volunteers. But if you volunteer over there, you do not get to come back and reintegrate into society before we know you're still healthy. That's how it should be anyway.

  21. "crisis"? Hardly! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What Ebola "crisis"? It's not airborne, until it is, fuck off!!

    1. Re: "crisis"? Hardly! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The handles people hold on subways, trains, and stairs are not air borne either.

      And if you care to be precise, Ebola spreads sans contact via air carried droplets.

  22. A bit early by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There has been one case of Ebola transmitted in the U.S. Isn't it a wee bit early to be writing an epitaph for the Constitution? Especially since none of that crap was part of TFA?

    TFA's commentary on patient zero being sent home with a bottle of antibiotics (for a virus, of course) was spot on though. That's what happens when you insist on running healthcare as a business.

    1. Re:A bit early by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > wee bit early

      No. The Republicans have already passed hundreds of laws and written nearly two hundred thousand lines of new regulations in this power grab. We will never be able recover. As Orwell described Republican control, " If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." That is where we are now. They already rule over nearly every moment of our lives, and there is no turning back after the past month.

    2. Re:A bit early by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are delusional

    3. Re:A bit early by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      TFA's commentary on patient zero being sent home with a bottle of antibiotics (for a virus, of course) was spot on though. That's what happens when you insist on running healthcare as a business.

      The suspicion is that either the ER Doctor(s?) ignored the nurse's notes,
      or the hospital's electronic health record (EHR) software didn't let the Doctor see the nurse's notes.
      http://www.ihealthbeat.org/articles/2014/10/6/dallas-hospital-issues-correction-says-no-flaw-in-ehr-system

      I first heard about this from an ER doc who was explaining that pretty much every hospital updated their intake protocol overnight to ask about foreign travel and contact with individuals who have traveled.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    4. Re:A bit early by sjames · · Score: 1

      The article you pointed to said the Hospital retracted it's claims about the EHR system.

      That still doesn't explain sending him home with antibiotics for what looked like a viral infection, even if they thought it was a run of the mill flu. It also doesn't explain the DOCTOR not talking with the patient.

    5. Re:A bit early by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Yes, the hospital retracted its claim. However, the questions is, did they retract their claim because the EHR system was supplied by a powerfully connected company, a company which has the majority market share for EHR systems, despite not following the laws requirements for inter-connectivity to competitors systems (at least according to several sources I have come across. I have not taken the time to confirm the information).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    6. Re:A bit early by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Nurses can't discharge patients.
      2. Ever been to an ER in America? Much less, a shitty one?
      3. He was patient 0 (kind of..), in America. At the time, fears about Ebola showing up in an E.R. weren't realistic, when they should have been The Government, and media, did everything to make this false sense of security happen.

      There's plenty of blame to go around. From West Africa, to the CDC/TSA/US-Customs, to your local hospital for rapid reponse protocol preparedness. Blame doesn't really matter though, as Ebola is already in the US.

    7. Re:A bit early by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      That still doesn't explain sending him home with antibiotics for what looked like a viral infection

      Antibiotics to deal with secondary infections resulting from a viral illness aren't exactly unusual. Nor are they necessarily medically wrong.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    8. Re:A bit early by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Antibiotics to deal with secondary infections resulting from a viral illness aren't exactly unusual. Nor are they necessarily medically wrong.

      Yes they are, unless there is a secondary infection actually present. If there isn't then giving the patient antibiotics just for the hell of is causing the growing problem of antibiotic resistance, for example MRSA.

    9. Re:A bit early by flink · · Score: 2

      TFA's commentary on patient zero being sent home with a bottle of antibiotics (for a virus, of course) was spot on though. That's what happens when you insist on running healthcare as a business.

      The suspicion is that either the ER Doctor(s?) ignored the nurse's notes,
      or the hospital's electronic health record (EHR) software didn't let the Doctor see the nurse's notes.

      I spent 15 years designing/implementing hospital information systems and later HIEs. In every instance I can think of where a doc was denied access to a portion of the chart, we gave implementers the option of enabling a "break glass" button that would let them see the entire unredacted record in case of an emergency. Using the button would trigger an administrative alert to prevent abuse or routine use. A competently designed system should never get ion the way of the delivery of urgent care.

    10. Re:A bit early by sjames · · Score: 1

      For point 1, there is a difference between a doctor looking at a chart, writing a script and saying "go home" and a doctor talking to the patient to find out what's wrong.

      Yes, I have. That only supports my argument that we have 3rd world healthcare here.

      As for 3, many articles have pointed out that they knew he had just been in an ebola hotspot. His symptoms clearly showed a viral infection of some sort. So they gave him an antibiotic?!?

    11. Re:A bit early by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      Im sure that there are now a list of "dark colors" that ring many many bells in most intake protocols. hmm we could have

      Navy: patient is a LEO/EMT
      Forest: patient is Undead
      Saddle: patient is a Lawyer
      Maroon: Possible "Hot Zone" patient
      Black: patient may explode
      Gold: patient is current/possible Donor

      what do y'all think??

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    12. Re:A bit early by spectrumlogic · · Score: 1

      This point has been rendered in error as of this morning...the new patient is another Texas Presbyterian nurse who apparently was self monitoring but took a flight back from Cleveland to Dallas after her temp began to rise...with a 100+ souls on board. This tragedy of errors (and this thread) reminds me very much of Camus' "The Plague"...surprising detail and accuracy...almost as if he were here. See http://evankozierachi.com/uplo... for an old fashioned nervous chuckle.

    13. Re:A bit early by sjames · · Score: 1

      Still not a problem with the Constitution. It is an update with new events. That is all. Let's see if they start taking things seriously now. But the nurse should NOT have been traveling while self-monitoring for a deadly disease.

      It does support my point about the actual quality of healthcare in the U.S. They treat ONE patient and manage to create two more in the process. They're doing better than that in the 3rd world.

  23. Constitution is plenty fine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As an elected official, there are numerous groups that provide "model" legislation to serve as frameworks on public policy to implement in blocks of states at a time.
    It's not outdated, it's just not easy to understand how powers are delegated, state constitutions, and statutes work. Here's a quick patchwork of legal medical emergency powers: https://www.networkforphl.org/_asset/80p3y7/MSEHPA-States-Table-022812.pdf. There's plenty of broad interpretation built in some statutes, and in a crisis of *significant* concern, gov't can get things done.

    This article is nothing more than backdoor advocacy for universal healthcare. There's always a call for more significantly more money. It's always acceptable to throw more money at a problem when it's other people's money though (sarcasm). Legislating results =/= efficiency...

    1. Re:Constitution is plenty fine. by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "Damn liberals, wanting waste money on Ebola research that only black people get."

      I don't think you understand public health policy. And this is your job? Wow.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    2. Re:Constitution is plenty fine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and that demographic was hit very hard by the AIDS virus. I am sure the govt. will do as good a job containing Ebola as they did AIDS.

  24. Re:Ebola Victims Died To Pay the Wages of Your Rac by Baldrson · · Score: 1

    Is sleep deprivation an early stage symptom?

  25. Federal Arbitration Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That's what trial by jury is for.

    Nope. SCOTUS says "Can't have; not yours."

    http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/adr/articles/winter2013-032713-federal-arbitration-act.html

    the U.S. Supreme Court sent a clear message to all state courts that the Federal Arbitration Act precludes any interference with arbitration proceedings based upon valid arbitration agreements, even if those proceedings seek to enforce a contract provision that violates state law

    You no longer deserve a day in court even if the health insurance contract is prima-facie illegal. There is good reason that more people with life-threatening illnesses are appealing to the court of public opinion for their fights with the insurance companies...

    1. Re:Federal Arbitration Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what trial by jury is for.

      Nope. SCOTUS says "Can't have; not yours."

      http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/adr/articles/winter2013-032713-federal-arbitration-act.html

      the U.S. Supreme Court sent a clear message to all state courts that the Federal Arbitration Act precludes any interference with arbitration proceedings based upon valid arbitration agreements, even if those proceedings seek to enforce a contract provision that violates state law

      You no longer deserve a day in court even if the health insurance contract is prima-facie illegal. There is good reason that more people with life-threatening illnesses are appealing to the court of public opinion for their fights with the insurance companies...

      If my insurance company ever denies me the right to live, I'll do the same to their nearest office full of gestapo.

    2. Re:Federal Arbitration Act by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      Umm, your quote uses the phrase "state law". The ACA, which makes that whole pre-existing condition thing illegal is FEDERAL law.

      Might want to check up on Supreme rulings about the primacy of Federal law....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:Federal Arbitration Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, your quote uses the phrase "state law". The ACA, which makes that whole pre-existing condition thing illegal is FEDERAL law.

      Might want to check up on Supreme rulings about the primacy of Federal law....

      You should read Justice Black's dissent in Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395 (1967). Especially this part:

      If Prima’s allegations are true, the sum total of what the Court does here is to force Prima to arbitrate a contract which is void and unenforceable before arbitrators who are given the power to make final legal determinations of their own jurisdiction, not even subject to effective review by the highest court in the land.

      The intended primacy of federal law is moot when:
      1) the health insurance company can keep you in arbitration until you're dead
      2) the decisions of arbitrators cannot be constrained by any law nor overturned by any court.

  26. Courts, medical teams, camps are ready by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    What are the options for the USA?
    Got that negative pressure or half-facepiece respirator ready, full facepiece or hood or helmet per medial team member?
    Or is the just in time supply track on the way with more expensive kit?
    How many negative-pressure airborne infection isolation rooms are ready per city, state?
    With all that potential for aerosolising fluids the infection-control teams really have to start thinking fast per city.
    Home stay with a box of food and expert medical care visit per home per city?
    Big new tent outside a regional teaching hospital? Your local Care Camp is ready too ie a drip and a camp bed.
    Then you have the contractors to clean up the used camp bed and get that hermetically sealed casket.
    The legal system is ready per state. The expert camp contractors are ready to feed, wash, clean and care for huge numbers of people at short notice. The caskets have always been ready.
    The only question is are people ready to stay home, hope that powered air-purifying respirator was fitted correctly every day for all staff or wait for the legal order to get ready for that local camp?
    So dont worry, the state and federal legal system will get people into well funded camps. The contractors have all the quality hermetically sealed caskets needed per camp.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:Courts, medical teams, camps are ready by rs79 · · Score: 1

      Best thing to do is figure out this riddle.

      http://www.documentation.ird.f...

      It's something they eat. And it gives them ZEBOV fighting super powers. What could it be?

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
  27. Re:Hear Hear by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Did the guy who entered the White House recently and spit on all the furniture have Ebola! Uh Oh! For the Democratic High Command! Dead bodies. Yea! Good for us. Citizens of the U.S.A.

    Only if the president then chairs a join session of Congress and sneezes on everyone.

  28. Dr. ANgela Hwelett, calls Ebola "highly infections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nebraska top ebola specialist, Dr. ANgela Hwelett, calls Ebola "highly infections disease".

    She did not get the same memo we got.

  29. Responsibility on who? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    "The U.S. Constitution—written approximately 100 years before the germ theory of disease was proven by French chemist Louis Pasteur and German physician Robert Koch — places responsibility for public health squarely on the shoulders of local and state political leaders"

    Tell that to our President and the Congressional representatives that enacted the ACA. And the Supreme Court that then remade it into a tax.

    It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  30. Re:Hear Hear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad Clintion still isn't in charge. We could rely on his special relationship with the interns. And if Hilary was in charge, well, she'd probably have special relations with the exact same interns, just so they'd be too tired for Bill.

  31. WHO is in charge during the Ebola Crisis by Jizzbug · · Score: 1

    And here are the World Health Organization's regularly updated situation reports:
    http://www.who.int/csr/disease/ebola/situation-reports/en/

    Growth rate is down to 87%, that's from 100% last month and 133% the month before.

    At 87% population growth rate, it would consume the world in about 3 years...

    --

    -=/\- Jizzbug -/\=-
  32. Charles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Charles in charge.

  33. Not Just Ebola by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about starting with a standing army. That was definitely against the Founders' wishes: that's why the second amendment guaranteed the right to bear arms in militias rather than providing for a central, standing army.

  34. Another Advantage for State Level Control by Nova+Express · · Score: 1

    Without a top-down bureaucracy calling the shops, states can try 50 different methods to control the pandemic, and compare results to see who has the best one. They're not stuck mindlessly doing what Washington has dictated, even if it's wrong.

    The CDC is swearing up and down Ebola can be transmitted by airborne infection, but what if they're wrong about this strain?

    The federal government is much more likely than the states to continue a wrong course of action long after it's been proven a bad idea than the states. See also: Welfare, agribusiness subsidies, the food pyramid...

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

    1. Re:Another Advantage for State Level Control by dcollins · · Score: 2

      One state doing the wrong thing + free travel = nation-wide epidemic. That seems pretty obvious. If the chance for one state to get it wrong is just 2%, then the chance of a nationwide epidemic is 1-(1-0.02)^50 = 64%.

      And as usual, the thinker who came up with the parent post couldn't get their nonsense argument even grammatically correct ("Ebola can be transmitted by airborne infection...")

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    2. Re:Another Advantage for State Level Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The chance that the nanny-state will get it wrong is 100. You can see that from everything they've attempted, ever.

      Your internal organs may dissolve and seep out through every orifice, including one or two you didn't have before. But what's much more important is the fact that you're free.
      --
      roman_mir

  35. Department of Emergency Preparedness by PPH · · Score: 1

    Director: Xavier Onassis.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  36. We train people for this. ebola.healthcare.gov by raymorris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yep. Where I work, we train first responders, mayors, governors and all sorts of people regarding their roles in an emergency.
    The states have their roles, the cities and county health departments and leadership have theirs, as do the hospitals, etc, and the CDC and others at the federal level.

    What we don't need us a mandate that everything has to be done through a federal agency, maybe via ebola.healthcare.gov.
    One interesting drill that covers not only infectious disease but also riot is the zombie drill. In the drill, their is a microbe that turns people into zombies. Healthcare workers practice inoculating a lot of people in a hurry, while treating those already infected. City managers and the like practice communications with FEMA,CDC, and other agencies to get the needed information and resources, public information officials stand in front of our TV cameras and practice getting the most important information out in a clear manner, etc. Instructors watch everything via one-way mirrors and record all phone calls, then review the students' performance.

  37. Republicans flip-flop, demand new "czar" by IndieRafael · · Score: 5, Interesting
    President George W. Bush appointed 36 positions in the executive branch to head offices coordinating interagency efforts. Republicans in Congress did not complain. According to one tally, Bush had 36 czar positions filled by 46 people during his eight years as president. When Obama continued doing the same thing, Republicans screamed bloody murder. Back on July 15, 2009, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) introduced H.R. 3226, the "Czar Accountability and Reform Act" which would have banned federal funds from paying the head of any office who was not confirmed by the Senate. It was cosponsored by 123 Republican colleagues, which is a major accomplishment. Their goal was to rein in the out-of-control White House.

    Now, several Republican members of Congress demand that the President immediately designate an "Ebola Czar". The hypocrisy is extreme. On Oct 4, 2014, Rep. Kingston told the Washington Examiner: "Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., said Saturday that while he "hate[s] to invoke the term 'czar,'" President Obama needs one to combat the spread of the deadly Ebola virus."

    Meanwhile, Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) issued a statement (flash required) on Oct 3, 2014 that criticized the President:

    "The AdministrationÃ(TM)s neglect at having a single individual in charge of coordinating AmericaÃ(TM)s Ebola response has caused difficulty with interagency coordination.... We need a designated leader, backed by the President, who can meet the urgency of this crisis head on and protect the American people, and end the confusion about who is charge of our total response effort."

    To be clear, when Kingston, Burr (and Sen. John McCain, R-AZ, and others) urges fast action to put someone in charge, he can't mean confirming someone through the Senate, which takes months or even more than a year.

    Final related note: The position of US Surgeon General has limited powers and would not be the supreme leader on Ebola. Still, it would not hurt to have someone in the job, and that person can play a key role communicating with the public. However, the US has no confirmed, permanent Surgeon General because the NRA is blocking the Senate confirmation of President Obama's nominee, Dr. Vivek Murthy. He is an MD and an MBA. He practices and teaches at Brigham and Women's Hospital and teaches at Harvard Medical School. He cofounded a clinical trials company, and an HIV education organization. But he supports an assault weapons ban and tweeted that he thinks guns are a health care issue. So the NRA's opposition means his nomination will never come to a vote. It is dead. Even if one disagrees with Dr. Murthy's position on guns, he has no power over guns whatsoever, and it's reasonable that a President get his people if they are more or less qualified and mainstream (not hacks or crazy radicals). Republicans are right to seek smaller government in some places. But to just throw the monkey wrench in the gears of government for political gain is not constructive. It's just politics.

    1. Re:Republicans flip-flop, demand new "czar" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It wasn't the same thing.

      Most of the appointments Bush made were confirmed by the Senate. Almost all of Obama's were not. There is nothing hypocritical in urging the President to put someone in charge as long as he works with the Senate.

    2. Re:Republicans flip-flop, demand new "czar" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, we get it. politicians are two-faced motherfuckers, and you dont like the ones that have an "R" proceeding their name in particular. got any other mind-blowing revelations for us?

  38. Re:Ebola Victims Died To Pay the Wages of Your Rac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    +2 interesting? This? It's so crazy it's not even trolling. Each sentence is crazier than the last. My best shot at a response is: probably no one is going to drop infectious ebola waste on Louisianans as punishment for being racists.

  39. Shilling for Socialism by Jodka · · Score: 5, Interesting

    from the commentary linked in the summary:

    " If changing to a single-payer national system is, for political reasons, out of the question, then, at the very least, the Affordable Care Act must be fully implemented in all states. "

    "Single-payer." Like the VA. Because unaccountable, lying government officials and patients dying while on fake waiting lists are exactly what we need during an ebola epidemic.

    And Obamacare. Because of Obamacare I can not afford medical care. My premiums are about 3x before Obamacare. My deductible is $5,000.00. I am taxed $300.00/month on my health insurance because I am employed at a small company which can not purchase the plan directly from an insurer. (Obamacare revokes the tax exemption for employer-subsidized health insurance.) I am buying the least-expensive plan mandated by Obamacare to avoid the penalty and paying about $1,300.00 per month in insurance and taxes. I had a shoulder injury, went to an in-network doctor and had to pay for the entire visit, treatment and the physical therapy myself.

    To summarize, now, because of Obamacare, I am required by law to pay $1,300.00 per month for health insurance and taxes at a minimum and on top of that I have to pay for my own medical expenses. Because of Obamacare, unless I am absolutely certain that I am dying I will not be going anywhere near a health care provider. By both making the patients poorer with higher insurance premiums and by raising the cost of treatment with higher deductibles Obamacare has created a massive financial disincentive to seeing medical care during an epidemic. And then also there is the decreased access to health care because of shrinking provide networks.

    In addition to advocating for evidently broken and corrupt systems, the author wants to re-write the Constitution. You know, that document which guarantees citizens rights. What could possibly go wrong?

     

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    1. Re:Shilling for Socialism by Zordak · · Score: 1

      To summarize, now, because of Obamacare, I am required by law to pay $1,300.00 per month for health insurance and taxes at a minimum and on top of that I have to pay for my own medical expenses. Because of Obamacare, unless I am absolutely certain that I am dying I will not be going anywhere near a health care provider. By both making the patients poorer with higher insurance premiums and by raising the cost of treatment with higher deductibles Obamacare has created a massive financial disincentive to seeing medical care during an epidemic. And then also there is the decreased access to health care because of shrinking provide networks.

      You say this as though it's something other than exactly what the lobbyists who wrote the law intended. They get more of your money, and they pay for less care. It's a win-win from their perspective.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    2. Re:Shilling for Socialism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI, Obamacare is the opposite of socialism. If any leader in a European country tried that shit, there would be a revolution before the afternoon the same day...

    3. Re:Shilling for Socialism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To summarize, now, because of Obamacare, I am required by law to pay $1,300.00 per month for health insurance and taxes at a minimum and on top of that I have to pay for my own medical expenses. Because of Obamacare, unless I am absolutely certain that I am dying I will not be going anywhere near a health care provider. By both making the patients poorer with higher insurance premiums and by raising the cost of treatment with higher deductibles Obamacare has created a massive financial disincentive to seeing medical care during an epidemic. And then also there is the decreased access to health care because of shrinking provide networks.

      You say this as though it's something other than exactly what the lobbyists who wrote the law intended. They get more of your money, and they pay for less care. It's a win-win from their perspective.

      Anyone who is not mentally retarded or a left-wing zealot blinded by progressive ideology can see that Obamacare, enacted on the basis of shameless lies told by an incompetent and deceitful President, is a multi-trillion dollar con benefiting only the insurance industry, which now enriches itself by using the power of government to compel us to purchase overpriced insurances policies and to guarantee its profits at taxpayer expense. The GP was simply contributing the observation that in addition to the normal and expected shittiness of progressive policy, that of profiting large corporations by compromising the rights of individuals, that Obamcare also makes us more susceptible to epidemics for the reason that it discourages patients from seeking treatment by raising prices.

    4. Re:Shilling for Socialism by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      You say this as though it's something other than exactly what the lobbyists who wrote the law intended. They get more of your money, and they pay for less care. It's a win-win from their perspective.

      And billions are going to insurance companies

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Shilling for Socialism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The American medical system is a bit too monopolistic and poorly (tho heavily) regulated.
      If you go into a hospital and want a bandage, they charge you $12.00 for a $0.10 band-aid; A HMO makes a contract to purchase 50,000 band-aids for $0.11 each, but invoice the customers insurance for what it 'would cost in a walk-in' $12.00. They do this with beds, common surgeries, anything/everything.

      When I first heard of ObamaCare, it was so glaringly the WORST possible thing to do; unless you wanted to generate more profits ;p

      If anyone really wanted to improve the American system, they would only need to throw a 'tiny bit' of socialism into the mix; Price caps on COMMON medical services/supplies. This would allow the wealthy to still buy their way into more costly/experimental life prolonging treatments/research, but the average wage slave not lose their shirt from what should be relatively inexpensive. ie: no $3000-5000 for a hospital bed for a night, Canada caps theirs at $535. Why are common antibiotics 1/5th the cost in Canada?

    6. Re:Shilling for Socialism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To summarize, now, because of Obamacare, I am required by law to pay $1,300.00 per month for health insurance and taxes at a minimum...

      I'd like to *make* $1,300.00 per month. Honestly, how much of your monthly income are you spending on health insurance? Do you literally make enough to retire in something like 20 years if you saved appropriately?

      ...and on top of that I have to pay for my own medical expenses.

      Yea, that's basically where I'm at with health insurance.

      Because of Obamacare, unless I am absolutely certain that I am dying I will not be going anywhere near a health care provider.

      Funny, but that has about zero to do with Obamacare. Health care costs are so outrageous that nearly anything is ridiculously priced and most insurance won't cover much of any of it until you've paid out thousands of dollars. Hence, you really only want to go if you're dying since thousands of dollars to save your life is an acceptable trade-off.

      Seriously, as much as I think Obamacare was absolutely the wrong approach to the problem, all you're highlighting is just how incredibly broken the health care system is in the US. It's little wonder that the lower middle class and poor merely go to emergencies room and pawn off all their costs on the public/others who are insured. They have all the loveliness of doing much more of the dangerous manual labor and nothing remotely like the means to pay their deductibles or actually pay for healthy insurance--heavy subsidies from people like you are just another way to shift the cost from the public.

      The solution? Some nature of universal health coverage. Ah, but...

      In addition to advocating for evidently broken and corrupt systems, the author wants to re-write the Constitution. You know, that document which guarantees citizens rights. What could possibly go wrong?

      Speaking of a broken system... Have you heard what your FBI and NSA have been doing with the War on Drugs and the War on Terrorism and those "guarantee[d] citizens rights"? But, then, somehow I imagine you'll blame Obama. It couldn't have anything to do with a systemic problem of self-centeredness upon voters who think "their" Congressmen are okay yet are so politically uninvolved they actually believe their bullshit or at least pretend to because their Congressmen push through pork barrel crap to their districts "to create jobs". Nah, fuck, why bother trying to fix a broken system when you can wallow in it and blame people who actually try--and I would definitely agree, Obama only superficially counts as trying (which is about 1000x better than Congress).

    7. Re:Shilling for Socialism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if it were not for big govt., companies would have to compete on a fair playing field. But when govt. gets that power they go straight to it, donate to politicians reelection fund, and get to illegalize all competition. Good work if you can find it. And the people who want to make govt. bigger have no idea that when they do they are making giant corporations even more powerful.

    8. Re:Shilling for Socialism by Kalium70 · · Score: 0

      So, you do not want to pay for "ObamaCare"? Now, let's consider what happens if you are seriously injured crossing the street. Possibility 1: You are transported to the nearest hospital. You receive care, without which you would DIE. The hospital have health insurance, so the hospital is compensated for saving your life. Possibility 2: You are transported to the nearest hospital. You receive care, without which you would DIE. The hospital cannot legally refuse to provide you services even though you cannot afford to pay (EMTALA law). This happens frequently at this hospital. Since the doctors and other healthcare professionals do not work for free, the hospital can no longer afford to stay in operation. Possibility 3: You are transported to the nearest hospital. You receive care, without which you will DIE. You are unconscious, and the hospital workers see no proof that you have the means to pay for your care. Since EMTALA no longer exists, the hospital has no legal obligation to treat your injuries, so the allow you to DIE in their surgical pay and sent a bill to your estate for the disposition of your corpse.

      The problem is that people don't want to have single-payer, where there is a general tax on the population for health care services, but they don't want to be forced to buy insurance, yet when they need health care, they don't want to be left to DIE.

    9. Re:Shilling for Socialism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if it were not for big govt., companies would have to compete on a fair playing field.

      In which dreamland do you image this would happen? Seriously. If there weren't government regulation the big companies wouldn't compete at all, they'd form monopolies and cartels. How do I know this? BECAUSE IT'S WHAT THEY FUCKING TRY TO DO WITH GOVERNMENT REGULATION.

    10. Re:Shilling for Socialism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have read studies published by the VA on the outcomes of people treated at different VA hospitals for conditions like prostate cancer colorectal cancer, and I've talked to VA doctors.

      My grandmother and grandfather experienced VA medical care firsthand. It was a rather different experience than the rosy picture you just paint.

    11. Re:Shilling for Socialism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To summarize, now, because of Obamacare, I am required by law to pay $1,300.00 per month for health insurance and taxes at a minimum and on top of that I have to pay for my own medical expenses.

      Well lets see - under the ACA, if you are paying $1,300/mo and you don't mention any subsidies, we can calculate you are earning at least 4x as much as the federal poverty level for your family size.

      I understand being pissed that premiums have increased, and part of that is because insurance companies are now required to actually pay out (where before, yearly and lifetime limits were the norm, and the pre-existing condition requirement let insurance companies go after any expensive patients and find a way to retroactively disquality them. But $1,300 seems insane for one individual. I'm a 35 year old male smoker and I'm paying 1/10th of that. Have you tried going through your state health insurance exchange? Perhaps not buying a plan through your employer would be a better option. Alternatively, if you are near 4x the federal poverty level, you could see about dropping your income down to qualify for subsidies.

      And just keep in mind - even before the ACA, the US had the most expensive healthcare in the world - about twice as expensive as the next nearest country. Even though we're roughly on par for patient outcomes. Our system is broken. There's a few things I like about the ACA. The removal of pre-existing conditions clause means I can afford healthcare without an employer. The elimination of lifetime and yearly caps means medical bills won't be likely to cause my financial ruin. But it still feeds into the US's inefficient system, and it supports a capitalistic healthcare system which by design will try to drive up prices.

  40. Supreme Leader ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A Freudian slip there, buddy ?

  41. One could argue by flopsquad · · Score: 1

    One could argue that the United States is hobbled by an outdated constitution in responding to epidemics.

    One could argue that, but one would be wrong. It's such a foolish, sensationalist, clickbaity thing to say that it obviates the need to even look at TFA.

    The federal government, and specifically the executive, have constitutional authority to handle crises like an epidemic, coordinate a nationwide response, declare martial law, etc etc, whatever is necessary to address an existential threat. It's not even controversial. You'd get more pushback on renaming post offices

    Yes, states have sovereign powers, and there are situations where that creates conflict. This is not one of those situations. If shit gets real (Outbreak style, though ebola isn't airborne), have not a shred of doubt that the CDC will take point and the US Army will roll in if need be. And the states will welcome them with open arms, because states do not have CDCs, or armies, or nationwide strategic stockpiles of medical supplies, or warzone-sized containment apparatus, or the world's best repurposed contact tracing agency, the NSA.

    Next issue.

    --
    Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
  42. Bull by tsotha · · Score: 2

    We've had many epidemics in the US. We've had scarlet fever, tuberculosis, cholera, typhus, polio, dengue, malaria, leprosy, influenza named after various places and creatures... the list is endless.

    The problem is the CDC lost focus. With a relative lack of communicable diseases for going on five decades, like all bureaucracies with not enough to do they started expanding their portfolio to include lots of things you wouldn't think belong under "disease control" and took their eye off the ball. Now that we have a bona fide health threat all they know how to do is hold press conferences telling us not to worry.

    The one thing the CDC doesn't need is more power and money. They already have broad emergency powers, and if they have enough money to do gun control studies and lesbian weight gain studies they already have too much money.

    As a side note, the director would be a lot easier to support if he wasn't obviously lying when he says there's nothing to worry about. We're not children, buddy, so don't treat us like children. Obviously this strain of Ebola is quite a bit more contagious than earlier strains, and it falls in about the middle of the lethality range normal for that disease (20%-80%). We should be restricting travel from affected countries, and anyone coming in from those countries should be quarantined for 21 days.

    1. Re:Bull by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that would lessen profits!!

    2. Re:Bull by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      What would you rather they do? And are you really convinced that press conferences is all they do? You are repeating talking points and making an ass of yourself.

      The CDC has published procedures on how to deal with Ebola. They can't individually contact every Doctor, Nurse, and any other position likely to be in contact with an infected person, to give them information that has been available for years.

      Should they be beating the drum of self-quarantine? That's not the obvious step here. So I'm really wondering what could be done now.

      http://www.cdc.gov/media/relea...

      Start there. It's a biased source. But they are obviously doing nothing but giving press conferences.

    3. Re:Bull by tsotha · · Score: 1

      I hope you didn't write anything good after the first sentence, because I didn't read past that.

  43. Freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The point is that if I want to live in a state with a faith-based approach to Ebola prevention, why should the federal government interfere?

  44. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  45. You're Already Dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    During the start of the AIDS pandemic, I pictured my state following with the norms they established for communicable diseases.

    I couldn't have been more mistaken.

    While a person could be required to have treatment or face quarantine for testing positive for TB, or kept from attending public schools for refusing vaccinations; AIDS became mired in accusations (justified or not) of homophobia, and politicized to a degree that lead to it being exempted from public health norms and lead to its spread.

    I fully expect claims of racism to be the undercurrent of ebola while certainly more than what needs to will died,

  46. But measure roughly products equal Pregnancy small by blanchettemary6 · · Score: 1

    bowman you what a fluid is same. You cannot be careful how comfortably Ketone Slim XT

  47. States by markdavis · · Score: 2

    >"one could argue that the United States is hobbled by an outdated constitution in responding to epidemics. State and local jurisdictions vary tremendously in their public health capabilities."

    One could also argue that this is EXACTLY the way it is supposed to be. USA States are SUPPOSED to have control over most of what happens in their area and not be puppets to a huge, inefficient, out-of-touch, expensive, slow, borderline fascist, federal government overloard.

    1. Re:States by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just crazy talk, the federal government just needs a little more of your money and everything will start running perfectly smooth.

    2. Re:States by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      USA States are SUPPOSED to have control over most of what happens in their area and not be puppets to a huge, inefficient, out-of-touch, expensive, slow, borderline fascist, federal government overloard.

      Correct! They should be puppets to a huge, inefficient, out-of-touch, expensive, slow, borderline fascist, state government overlords. These are at least controlled by a few powerful people and business leaders who actually live near by what they are affecting.

  48. Re:Hear Hear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holy fuck, I've finally seen something more annoying than ApK's hostfile copypasta spam.

  49. Shilling for Socialism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Someone is taking you for a ride. That's not even approaching what I'm paying, $600/month, and this is for a plan *far* from being the least-expensive plan for mandated coverage: %100 coverage ( $0 deductible for in-plan doctors ), and an expenditure account. I'd suggest trying to find out who's lying to you. The average price of a "bronze" plan across states for someone in their 40's is like, $350/mo.. and a platinum plan is like, $500. If your premiums really are that high, the "lying" may be somewhere less obvious. Research to see if your state did something stupid with the implementations that screwed it's citizens, and direct complaints there.

    "I am taxed $300.00/month on my health insurance because I am employed at a small company which can not purchase the plan directly from an insurer" I'm not even sure what this is saying. This was removed for all businesses, not just small businesses. All employees are now taxed on the income that used to be "pre-tax" income used to buy health insurance. If a business is somehow hiding the cost of health insurance for it's employees and not reporting it as income, that's illegal AKAIK.

          In any case, trying to wrap that into the "cost of your insurance" as an extra $300/mo seems pretty disingenuous to me.

  50. Re:Dr. ANgela Hwelett, calls Ebola "highly infecti by rs79 · · Score: 1

    The R-naught of two only applies in the terra typica where roads don't exist. We knoe know it's on the skin and can live for hours on say, a touch screen. Like apartment buildings have. Like the one I'm in. Where health care workers live. Across the road from a suspect Ebola Zaise case in Ontario whowalked in from Sierre Leone and DID NOT BRING ME A KILLIFISH.

    I'm gonna pretend I"m in charges cause I think I figured this out. Do you lke puzzles? Let's find out:

    http://www.documentation.ird.f...

    What do fruit bats and man have in common? It says right in the paper, bone up, there'll be a quiz.

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
  51. Re:Hear Hear by rs79 · · Score: 1

    16 people outside of Africa, every continent except antarctica. at least 2 are unreported as well as of monday midnight.

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
  52. Shilling for Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Isn't it funny how right wing blowhards have all had their premiums and deductibles triple while statistically health care costs are rising at their slowest pace in decades?

    "I'm just a constitution lovin' Obama-hatin patriot who believes in freedumb.

    My premiums went up 500% to $2000 per month and my deductible went from rose to $6,000

    I used to go to the doctor but since Obamacare my physician has started making advances at my wife while administering my prostate exam."

  53. Who's In Charge During the Ebola Crisis? by Truth_Quark · · Score: 1

    The viruses.

  54. Re:Dr. ANgela Hwelett, calls Ebola "highly infecti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agreed. Neverneedlessly I 4:1 would present flight response upon cyclic being handed to myself from swashplate with said ebola gay. Safer can say sorry :{ or can say Yahzee! First Replicants and deniers die first in line. All who take cuts regards.

  55. Re: "crisis"? Hardly! by rs79 · · Score: 1

    They say now it's on the skin and fluids don't matter, also it lived for several hours. Bleach kills it.

    Now about all those touch screens in lobbies and elevators and...

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
  56. Re:Obama's October Surprise by rs79 · · Score: 1

    I know schizophrenia when I see it.

    You need to get some help buddy. People will want to talk to you again if you do it. When you're tired of this, go.

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
  57. No, that's not the problem by nbauman · · Score: 0

    One of the core problems today is that the CDC has lost focus [usatoday.com] , and instead of controlling infectious disease, they spend money things like playground safety, workplace accidents, guns, and birth defects. And then there was the NIH grant to study why gay men are often thin and lesbians are often obese. [newsmax.com]

    We don't need to change the Constitution, just the spending and research priorities of a bunch of bureaucracies.

    Who says? Some right-winger who doesn't know anything about public health and has never been responsible for saving the life of a dying child, in an editorial that only gets one side of the story?

    The CDC is setting its priorities according to the morbidity and mortality of the causes of illness, which is a rational way to do it.

    Since there are about 4-5,000 workplace fatalities a year, virtually all of them preventable, that's a good return for the money.

    There are about 30,000 firearms deaths a year, and when Congress, after NRA lobbying, cancelled the CDC's firearms research 15 years ago, nobody else did scientific research.

    So if CDC doesn't do this stuff, nobody will. Particularly not the states, which are cutting back their local health departments.

    I'm speaking as someone who has talked with CDC scientists, and read their MMWR regularly, so I know what they do.

    What do you know about the CDC, besides what you get from anti-government opinion pieces?

  58. history repeats itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two words: Avian influenza.
    I wonder how much vaccin this time countries will buy.

  59. Re:Hear Hear by psmears · · Score: 1
    Dude, learn about the

    tag!

  60. Another Advantage for State Level Control by nbauman · · Score: 1

    Without a top-down bureaucracy calling the shops, states can try 50 different methods to control the pandemic, and compare results to see who has the best one. They're not stuck mindlessly doing what Washington has dictated, even if it's wrong.

    The CDC is swearing up and down Ebola can be transmitted by airborne infection, but what if they're wrong about this strain?

    The federal government is much more likely than the states to continue a wrong course of action long after it's been proven a bad idea than the states. See also: Welfare, agribusiness subsidies, the food pyramid...

    People who do these things for a living in real life would disagree with you.

    By the time you try 50 different methods and compare the results, the epidemic will be all over (or out of control, depending on your luck). Why don't we disband Homeland Security and let 50 states deal with the terrorists in their own way?

    If you have a mysterious disease spreading across the country, such as the spinal infections caused by the contaminated injections distributed by the New England Compounding Center last year, it's a lot harder for a state agency to figure out what's going on from 2 or 3 cases than it is for the CDC to figure out what's going on from 2-300 cases. And it turned out that the NECC was regulated by the states, not the federal government. After the disaster, everybody involved decided that maybe the federal government should have a little more oversight in this matter.

    But even if you were right, unfortunately the (Republican, tax-cutting) states have been disbanding the very state health agencies that did such good reporting work on the New England Compounding Center disaster. I remember years ago California had a great occupational safety and health department, which was identifying how workers were dying and figuring out ways to stop it. They found that the major cause of electrocutions were (1) boom trucks hitting overhead wires, which could be prevented by just warning drivers about the hazard, and (2) short circuits in power tools, which could be prevented with a 25-cent ground fault interrupter. CAL OSHA was disbanded by Ronald Reagan.

  61. Shilling for Socialism by nbauman · · Score: 4, Informative

    from the commentary linked in the summary:

    " If changing to a single-payer national system is, for political reasons, out of the question, then, at the very least, the Affordable Care Act must be fully implemented in all states. "

    "Single-payer." Like the VA. Because unaccountable, lying government officials and patients dying while on fake waiting lists are exactly what we need during an ebola epidemic.

    I have read studies published by the VA on the outcomes of people treated at different VA hospitals for conditions like prostate cancer colorectal cancer, and I've talked to VA doctors. The VA has some of the best outcomes in the world. They did some of the major studies in cardiology to find out what works and what doesn't work, and every cardiologist in the world follows the recommendations of the VA studies. If I had cancer or a heart attack, I would be confident in any major VA hospital. (Although like all health care providers, they do have problems in rural areas.)

    The reason they had that problem with waiting list fraud (which is unexcusable) is that their managers gave them politically-mandated targets for appointments, without giving them the money that they needed to hire more doctors to meet those targets. (Would you have predicted any problems with that?) That's what corporate-style management by financial incentives gets you. Now they're giving them more money to hire doctors.

    But it doesn't affect their main purpose, which is to save the lives and health of veterans, many of whom have service-related injuries. In rehabilitation medicine, they've been doing a great job since at least WWII. I know a lot of veterans in their 70s and 80s who go to the VA and are very happy with it. You're seeing a doctor who is on salary and trying to treat you with the best possible medicine, not a doctor who gets 10 minutes to see you and gets paid for the procedures he does on you, even if they do more harm than good.

    And Obamacare. Because of Obamacare I can not afford medical care. My premiums are about 3x before Obamacare. My deductible is $5,000.00. I am taxed $300.00/month on my health insurance because I am employed at a small company which can not purchase the plan directly from an insurer. (Obamacare revokes the tax exemption for employer-subsidized health insurance.) I am buying the least-expensive plan mandated by Obamacare to avoid the penalty and paying about $1,300.00 per month in insurance and taxes. I had a shoulder injury, went to an in-network doctor and had to pay for the entire visit, treatment and the physical therapy myself.

    To summarize, now, because of Obamacare, I am required by law to pay $1,300.00 per month for health insurance and taxes at a minimum and on top of that I have to pay for my own medical expenses. Because of Obamacare, unless I am absolutely certain that I am dying I will not be going anywhere near a health care provider. By both making the patients poorer with higher insurance premiums and by raising the cost of treatment with higher deductibles Obamacare has created a massive financial disincentive to seeing medical care during an epidemic. And then also there is the decreased access to health care because of shrinking provide networks.

    In addition to advocating for evidently broken and corrupt systems, the author wants to re-write the Constitution. You know, that document which guarantees citizens rights. What could possibly go wrong?

    I am no fan of Obama or Obamacare, which was designed on a Republican model (Romneycare) and on a proposal put out by the Heritage Foundation, which now denies it.

    And how do you like those free-market insurance company bureaucracies? Good thing you don't have to deal with government bureaucracies like Medicare.

    The big problem with Obamacare is that, instead of expanding Medicare, as the progressives wanted, it gives the insurance companies about 30% of your health care premium, and that's the main reason why i

  62. Re:Dr. ANgela Hwelett, calls Ebola "highly infecti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You forgot the Goatse link.

  63. Dr. ANgela Hwelett, calls Ebola by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "It's really hard to catch, there has to be intimate contact."

    Caught by medical staff despite the best isolation efforts of first world medical teams, and by a Deputy after visiting an infected man's home.

    Something tells me either we're being lied to or this outbreak is just naturally more contagious than previous outbreaks and the leadership haven't recognised this yet.

    1. Re:Dr. ANgela Hwelett, calls Ebola by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Precursor engineering has finally come home to roost, motherfuckers! Look it up.

      We are under attack!

    2. Re:Dr. ANgela Hwelett, calls Ebola by BrianPRabbit · · Score: 1

      The Nurses catching the disease did have direct contact with bodily fluids. Kind of hard to be more intimate than that. Also, the Deputy does not have ebola and this was known as late as 5 days before this comment: http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/09/.... Methinks AC has not researched enough.

  64. pre-existing condition the jail / prsion will cove by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    per-existing condition the jail / prison will cover you as they don't have that in there plan.

  65. *sigh* ... Lack of problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems obvious. The fireman doesn't put out a fire by bringing embers back to firehouse.

  66. Re:Hear Hear by aminorex · · Score: 1

    yeah, well, i won't give the penguins at the bronx zoo long to live.

    --
    -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
  67. Re:Ebola Victims Died To Pay the Wages of Your Rac by Talderas · · Score: 1

    My best shot at a response is: probably no one is going to drop infectious ebola waste on Louisianans as punishment for being racists.

    Probably?

    --
    "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  68. niggers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/c

  69. Most make it to 65 by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    without serious medical issues. After that they go on America's socialized medicine program, Medicare. This is by design. The elderly are not profitable to insure and are reliant on health care. They would demand socialized medicine one way or the other. This keeps them from becoming a voting block for broad scale Single Payer healthcare

    Now, if you're one of those Americans without a great job and with a bunch of health problems, yeah, you're in for a world of hurt. But by then you're heavily marginalized. You're much too busy surviving to vote...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  70. Folks I know on VA by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    and making under $150k/yr wouldn't trade it for private insurance. And we all go single payer at 65 unless we're making 10 times that. While I'm on the subject, I've never met a Canadian or Britain who would trade their health care for ours.

    And what world do you live in where Obamacare is single payer? It isn't even close. It's an awful compromise created when the insurance companies spent half a billion dollars in _one_ year flooding every possible media channel with stories of death panels for Grandma (who, ironically, is already on Medicare, a single payer system). It's the best we can get with the current political system and folks like yourself with an irrational fear of a system that works great everywhere else in the world.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Folks I know on VA by bhv · · Score: 1

      "....While I'm on the subject, I've never met a Canadian or Britain who would trade their health care for ours...."

      Canadian system (which is really a bunch of individual provincial systems with some oversight) has caused my family plenty of pain/grief. Speaking strictly of OHIP and AHC, never dealt with other provinces.

      The issues with the American system typically revolve around cost to the individual while the Canadian systems have more to do with quality and timeliness of care.

      As it stands right now, I'd take quality over cost. So, if responding to a /. post qualifies as "meeting someone" then you can never say the above again. If not, then continue your misinformed FUD.

    2. Re:Folks I know on VA by MeNotU · · Score: 1

      Opposite experience for me, and I have experienced both systems. OHIP was/is WAY better than the American system. I had no trouble getting the care I needed and with real quality vs the American way where it is very expensive, the doctors don't care (seem to just want to shuffle you through the assembly line to get as many paying patients in for the least effort and time). No actual diagnosis, just passing the buck to other specialists to ensure they don't get sued, who then opt for super expensive diagnostic tests without actually doing simple cheap ones first (more money for the doctor).

      I could say the grand parent poster is right on, and you are the one spreading FUD, but I can hold the thought that not everyone has the same experiences in something as big as the most populous province in Canada. Given the research and data to date however, I'd say my experience is a lot more common than yours.

  71. Haha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who do you think wrote the ACA? It sure wasn't congress. It was written by insurance companies to benefit themselves.

  72. Re:Hear Hear by slashdice · · Score: 1

    Yeah, the exact same interns, 20 years later! After the fat chicks turned into dykes.

    --
    Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
  73. Does the fact that Ebola is not a disease make any by fredrated · · Score: 0

    difference? It is a cure: for people, the most biosphere-damaging organism since the last mass extinction.

  74. Re:Dr. ANgela Hwelett, calls Ebola "highly infecti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Haha! You jest, but those posts are actually commands for a botnet. Muahahaha!

  75. Simple solution by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    The simple solution is that the states just seed control over this particular problem to the feds. There's nothing stopping state legislatures from passing laws that allow federal jurisdiction in this area. All the constitution does is say the states can decide for themselves. There's plenty of reason for the ruling. What if the feds tried to "Cure" ethnic heritage like the Germans did?

    1. Re:Simple solution by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      the states just seed control

      Cede. Try not to write words you've never seen in print.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  76. The quote misses the point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ". . . one could argue that the United States is hobbled by an outdated constitution in responding to epidemics. State and local jurisdictions vary tremendously in their public health capabilities."

    And one could also argue that it is one of the strengths in our nation, that the founders did not want a central government always taking control the moment an emergency happened. Central governments throughout history have had a penchant for granting themselves 'special powers' in emergencies and then conveniently holding on to them later after the emergency is past. If any help is given by the central government authority, it should be advisory. Any direct help as in 'muscle' should clearly be under the final authority of the state or local leadership. If they don't like it, they should stay out.

    My take on this also comes from what I've heard of FEMA coming in to "assist" with emergencies and their leadership sending away local help - that was later much needed. Sure, many of the FEMA leaders may have more experience with emergencies but they cannot replace local knowledge and experience. Even if they have the best equipment and great advice for emergency managment I'd still give those more local to the area the clear edge in knowing priorities, getting the most from people, and not using one-size-fits-all types of solutions.

  77. Have you heard of amendments to the Constitution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop calling the U.S. Constitution outdated.

    It can and has been changed with amendments. The difficulty of passing an amendment is what it should be.

    Go look up a list of amendments and see how recently it has been changed.

    The state vs federal responsibilty has been decided by the courts many times.

  78. It's FEMA so we're doomed.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work for a Health Department and our protocols basically give power/authority straight to FEMA and we have to report to them.

    As such, we are doomed. I would rather stay home and die slowly with my family than work the front lines, being attacked by sick/dying people over supplies.

  79. No that's funny.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "one could argue that the United States is hobbled by an outdated constitution in responding to epidemics."

    So you think big G can do it better? May I refer you to a more simple matter that the govt totally botched - Katrina.

  80. POTUS by Richy_T · · Score: 1

    "The bug stops here". I saw it in a photo once.

  81. Obviously? by mrego · · Score: 1

    Admiral Boris Lushniak (US Surgeon General), Dr. Wanda Jones, and Slvia Burwell would be in charge.

    1. Re:Obviously? by mrego · · Score: 1

      I take it back. Admiral Dr. Nicole Lurie is in charge. Supposedly.

  82. All in the plan... by LVSlushdat · · Score: 1

    At the risk of being considered a conspiricy nut.. I gotta funny feeling this is all in the plan.. Nationwide problem, therefore the problem gets "nationalized".. A perfect excuse for martial law.. The shitstain currently in the Whitehouse has been praying to Allah/Satan for just such an excuse. I expect the announcement any day now..

    Since I know I'll get modded down by the majority of Communist/Liberals who infest /. I'll put this right here.. I'm neither an (R) or a (D) (shudder).... I'm A FUCKING AMERICAN and I'm sick and tired of the road this country is going down... The road is soon to be REALLY REALLY bumpy......

    --
    THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
  83. It's okay... by JasonGoatcher · · Score: 0

    People haven't taken the constitution seriously in years, why on earth would they start during an Ebola epedemic?

  84. Who Cares? by gelfling · · Score: 1

    We blamed all the evil fat white Republicans. We're done. Go home and wait for Dear Leader to declare Zombie Martial Law.

  85. How about a "Surgeon General" by mspohr · · Score: 1

    The Republicans have been blocking the appointment of a new U.S. Surgeon General because of guns. The NRA doesn't want anyone to know that guns are a health hazard.
    Also, the Republicans have gutted funding for the CDC Emergency Response (down about 50% in the past few years).
    So, Republicans are very bad for your health.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    1. Re:How about a "Surgeon General" by LessThanObvious · · Score: 1

      Guns are not a "health hazard" and gun policy is so far outside the scope of what the Surgeon General should be concerned with it's laughable, or it would be laughable there weren't so many idiotic threats to our 2nd amendment rights.

  86. Re:Republicans flip-flop, demand new by IndieRafael · · Score: 1

    Most of the appointments Bush made were confirmed by the Senate. Almost all of Obama's were not.

    Do you have a source you can link to? Are you saying most of the "czars" appointed by Bush were eventually confirmed?

    There is nothing hypocritical in urging the President to put someone in charge as long as he works with the Senate.

    When you say "he works with the Senate", do you mean: As long as the appointee is eventually confirmed by the Senate?

    Thank you for clarifying.

  87. There is a Surgeon Genera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He is Rear Admiral Boris D. Lushniak, M.D., M.P.H. He was the Deputy Surgeon General for two years before becoming the acting Surgeon General. He worked for the CDC for a couple of decades doing disparate stuff - disaster response, anthrax investigations, stuff at ground zero for NIOSH. He was the director for the FDA's office of counter-terrorism on emergent threats, and was the deputy incident commander for the pandemic response to hurricane Katrina. He's well qualified and presumably doing a fine job. The Surgeon General isn't the HHS spokesperson. The CDC director has more complete and up to date information on quickly evolving situations. Historically the Surgeon General steps in after a situation has codified. Take the response to the swine flu. The CDC disseminated information to the public when the situation was fresh and evolving. After some time the Surgeon General stepped in with a campaign urging the public to get vaccinated. You can see how the Surgeon General fits into the HHS organization here.

    http://www.hhs.gov/about/orgchart/
    http://www.hhs.gov/about/orgchart/ophs.html

  88. There is a Surgeon Genera by IndieRafael · · Score: 1

    Good point. The Acting Surgeon General sounds very qualified. I understand the position's powers are limited, and CDC takes the lead.

  89. If you've got the money to afford... by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    American style health care why not move here? That's one thing that we win out in. If you've got tons of money our health care is great. As someone who's had family who are only alive today because of socialized medicine though I find our system terrible. We've let people die for lack of health care.

    Then again, grass is always greener.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  90. Editor's note FTFA by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

    Editor's note: Laura Kahn is the author of Who's in Charge? Leadership during epidemics, bioterror attacks, and other public health crises.

    This article is advertising for a book. The only prompt on the question of who is a brief "This might explain why the question, âoeWhoâ(TM)s in charge?â is inevitably asked after failures in response to public health crises." And that question is a link to CNN asking the question. And it is answered there:

    It's a partnership between the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and state and local governments where an Ebola case occurs, said CDC Director Tom Frieden.

    But local officials ultimately are in charge of each case, he said.

    The linked article at thebulletin.org is tilting towards using this to push for universal insurance/healthcare, not even remotely pushing for a universal dictator like you claim. Most importantly, there is no support for the claim "The US Constitution ... places responsibility for public health squarely on the shoulders of local and state political leaders." This is frequently argued, but it relies on interpretations of phrases like "provide for" and "general welfare".

    The article is clearly written for a specific audience, one that is impressed by the number of hyperlinks without reading what is linked. Blame the author, and blame the idiots who buy her horseshit. But mostly blame yourself for inferring something that isn't really there. OP cherry picked bits of the article to create something that it seems even the author didn't mean to convey.

  91. Blocking the nomination of chief health officer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US is hobbled by the punitive blocking of its Attorney General nominee. This discombobulates coherent action on Ebola. Why? The nominee Dr. Vivek Murthy really pissed off conservatives by pushing a gun regulation that states to the public that "Guns can be hazardous to your health." Duh. The National Rifle Association (NRA) a super supporter of conservatives and rabidly anti-Obama, has pushed this and blame the President.
    http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/10/14/after-smearing-surgeon-general-nominee-fox-wond/201147