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 one could argue that the United States is hobbled by an outdated constitution in responding to epidemics.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

Comments

Re:No difference here

[Jeremi]

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.

Re:No the constitution is fine..

[Jane Q. Public]

"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.

Federal Arbitration Act

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Republicans flip-flop, demand new "czar"

[IndieRafael]

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.

Shilling for Socialism

[Jodka]

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?

 

Re:Not Just Ebola

[DNS-and-BIND]

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.