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 one could argue that the United States is hobbled by an outdated constitution in responding to epidemics.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."
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!
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!”
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.
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.
from the commentary linked in the summary:
"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