Developing World's Parasites, Diseases Enter US 337
reporter alerts us to a story up at the Wall Street Journal on the increasing prevalance in the US of formerly rare, 3rd-world diseases such as toxocariasis, chagas, and cysticercosis. Health-care legislation pending in the House calls for a full report to Congress about the threat from this cluster of diseases, termed "neglected infections of poverty." "Parasitic infections and other diseases usually associated with the developing world are cropping up with alarming frequency among US poor, especially in states along the US-Mexico border, the rural South, and in Appalachia, according to researchers. Government and private researchers are just beginning to assess the toll of the infections, which are a significant cause of heart disease, seizures and congenital birth defects among black and Hispanic populations. ... 'These are diseases that we know are ten-fold more important than swine flu,' said [one] leading researcher in this field. 'They're on no one's radar.' ... These diseases share a common thread. 'People who live in the suburbs are at very low risk,' Dr. Hotez said. But for the 37 million people in the US who live below the poverty line, he said, 'There is real suffering.'" Update: 08/23 16:55 GMT by KD : The submitter pointed out that the usual "Related" link to the original submission was missing on this story. We are testing a new version of the story editor and this was probably caused by a bug; reported. Here's the original.
Evil Hollywood plot (Score:3, Funny)
The US isn't all first world. (Score:3, Insightful)
People are surprised by this? Our inner cities are rotting. Our economy is in shambles. People are living squallor and poverty on an unprecidented scale in this country. We're a breeding ground now for all manners of disease, both social and medical.
Re:The US isn't all first world. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I might sound evil, but don't hate the messenger:
It actually is quite possible, in terms of natural selection, that in the long run, this would mean a more successful nation. Because only those who are successful, would survive.
The first problem is, that money is not exactly what should be our scale to measure success and worth to survive. We can do better than that.
And the second point is, that it would of course be even *more* successful, to pull them *all* up. But is that possible?
The only thing th
Re: (Score:2)
A successful person currently between jobs (thus no insurance) getting hit by a car driven by a stupid person and being unable to pay the bill to save his life is NOT NATURAL SELECTION.
Re:The US isn't all first world. (Score:5, Insightful)
Lack of government healthcare != able to get help. It simply means that things are more expensive for those without healthcare in the short term if they need it.
No money = unable to get help if no government healthcare.
It's really that simple.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It should be sold as one too. Hell the Department of Defense should provide it too! It would pass too. No one votes against national defense.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
because its the governments job to force everyone else to pay for you?
healthcare is not a right. its a good, a service, a professional trade practiced by trademan who deserves to get paid for what he does. and it's not my job to pay for your use of his skills.
Re:The US isn't all first world. (Score:5, Insightful)
If your neighbor's house is on fire, would you let your house burn down too be cause you don't want to pay for a fire department?
Health care, much like fire protection, curbs the spread of disease.
Seriously, healthcare is no different than having a standing army. It is for the national defense.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I agree with you that healthcare is like a fire or police department. Neither of those, however, should be (or have historically been) federally funded. They, like healthcare, should be a local issue (if we're going to cast it in the light of a security issue at all).
And what are we talking about when we're talking about 'healthcare'? Are we talking about prescription drugs for people who have lived poorly (diabetes) when they refuse to change their lifestyle? Should the fireman risk his existence to save t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Seriously, healthcare is no different than having a standing army"
Thomas Jefferson described standing armies as "inconsistent" with freedom. Elbridge Gerry described them as the "bane of liberty" and James Madison said that the "greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies."
I therefore concur with your conclusion. Allowing our Federal government ro run healthcare is a danger to liberty, and completely inconsistent with freedom.
Note: One would think that after the Federal government lied abou
Re:The US isn't all first world. (Score:5, Insightful)
That is where most of the rest of the (developed) world disagrees with you. Almost all medical problems happen by chance, to some unlucky person whose dice comes up the wrong way. Why should someone be forced into bankruptcy, or left die of some treatable disease, for something they have no control over? Let me put it another way: suppose that tomorrow you are diagnosed with some rare but treatable form of cancer. Unfortunately the treatment costs one million dollars, and your medical insurance (if you have any) refuses to pay. The cancer is rare enough that, spread across the whole population, the cost of treating all cases per year is rather small. Do you think you should be given the treatment? If so, who should pay?
It is a common argument, "I'm not going to get sick, why should I have to pay for everone else's healthcare?". It works just fine, right up until the moment where you do get sick.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My daughter had Leukemia, she passed away earlier this year. It still works fine, I still shouldn't have to pay for your health care. We got help for hers, but it wasn't all payed for, I still owe money.
But if it wasn't for those tradesmen, with a skill that they worked hard to learn, and if it wasn't for their interest in hematology, and oncology, my daughter would not have gotten the care she did.
Those doctors helped her beat the cancer, (She got sick from having no immune system, that's what we lost her
Re:The US isn't all first world. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm curious to why you think experts in countries with socialized medicine don't get paid.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(And nothing prevents the experts from starting a private clinic either)
Re:The US isn't all first world. (Score:5, Informative)
I had lymphoma and went through the UK system. I had paid up front through taxes, it is a type of insurance but without the profit motive. I got the best treatment from dedicated doctors and nurses. The treatment was the most up to date. I was also admitted directly onto the haematology ward when I got an blood infection. Their dedicated microbiologist cultured the infection and identified the correct antibiotic
I paid nothing at the point of delivery, there was no one from the insurance company telling me what I could or could not have.
Re:The US isn't all first world. (Score:4, Informative)
And, had that happened to you and your daughter here in the UK, you would have received exactly the same care, you just wouldn't have to pay for it, other than through your NI taxes, which are considerably less than US insurance premiums (when the actual cost of the premium is considered).
There are a lot a myths about universal healthcare, all of them regularly circulated by people like Faux News and the right wing shouty talk radio hosts, and Big Pharma and Big Medical who have a vested interest in keeping the US system the way it is.
The myth that doctors, nurses, researchers and other medical professions under a Universal system don't get paid properly for their "trade" (in the UK, doctors are handsomely paid for their work) is a total lie. The myth that "the government decides whether you get treated" is also an utter fabrication.
I am very sorry your daughter died and that sometimes, even with the current advances in medicine, that people sometimes can't be saved, but universal care is not the demon that the bought-and-paid for interests in the US advertise it as.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, it is. Employer-covered plans are heavily subsidised with group rates, and the costs can still be over $500 per employee.
I personally know several Americans who pay over $1000 per month in premiums (and that doesn't include the cost of drugs or other things that the insurance company won't pay for).
Health insurance is ludicrously expensive in the US.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The US isn't all first world. (Score:4, Informative)
they already cant turn you away if you are unable to pay
Well that's not entirely true. They are in fact only obligated to provide stabilizing care for actual emergencies by the 1986 patient dumping law. Anything chronic is generally out.
I've met a few people that go there for anything, on the public's tab.
That's not exactly how it works. The government doesn't reimburse the hospital for patients who come into the ER but have no insurance. The hospital bills the patient. The patient either pays the bill or it goes to collections. If it goes to collections, and eventually the patient does pay, chances are the hospital will only see 25% of that money. The cost to the hospital of "ER Abuse" is distributed across the rest of the hospital and passed on to insurers and eventually gets paid by policy holders. So you're right to imply that the public is still picking up the tab, it's just only the insured, and not all taxpayers who shoulder that particular burden.
Re:The US isn't all first world. (Score:5, Insightful)
Lack of government healthcare != able to get help.
Right. We all remember Bush's answer to the healthcare crisis: let them go to the emergency room. ER care is significantly more expensive than proper preventive and general practice care.
It simply means that things are more expensive for those without healthcare in the short term if they need it.
Right. 62% of all personal bankruptcies in the U.S. in 2007 were caused by health problems and 78% of those filers had insurance. Citation [businessweek.com] That doesn't just make things more expensive for those with healthcare, it makes them more expensive for policy holders, anyone who wants a loan, small businesses, investors, and stockholders. And it's not just over the short term, it has an overall detrimental effect on our nation's economic well being which continues to mount.
In general there are a lot of "reactionary" people here in the US who will go to the doctor for -anything-, heck, wasn't it just a few years ago where because of the prevalence of people geoing to the doctors for every little thing was going to create more drug resista lnt illnesses?
it's not people going to the doctors that causes drug resistance, it's the repeated treatment of the same bacterial infections with a broad spectrum of antibiotics. This has a lot to do with tort liability, a subject I'm not as well versed on as I would like to be. I do think that tort reform should be a part of any comprehensive medical reform, but I think that we have to be careful.
In general, if it makes someone sick with obvious symptoms, they are going to get help here in the US. Its just the common reaction, not sure about in other countries (the US is the only country I've lived in for an extended period of time, though I have traveled to many different countries) but in the USA, a lot of people go to the doctor or even the emergency room for every thing.
"in general" is a stretch in this case. Lots of conditions can't be taken care of in an emergent care setting. This may be true for broken limbs, allergic reactions, and like conditions, but it doesn't address the situation with regard to chronic conditions, diabetes, cancer, and so on. This is the situation that most urgently needs to be addressed. If there was a law like the 1986 "patient dumping" law that applied to chronic care as well as ERs it would cost the medical industry billions. as is they are only required to "stabilize." and then they can ask for your insurance card and or show you the door.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Right. 62% of all personal bankruptcies in the U.S. in 2007 were caused by health problems and 78% of those filers had insurance. Citation [businessweek.com] That doesn't just make things more expensive for those with healthcare, it makes them more expensive for policy holders, anyone who wants a loan, small businesses, investors, and stockholders. And it's not just over the short term, it has an overall detrimental effect on our nation's economic well being which continues to mount.
Health care is too expensive, no question. We're not going to fix it with preventive medicine (source 1 [abcnews.com] source 2 [politifact.com], may be related I didn't check). Spreading out the cost sounds great until you realize that a lot of people don't have insurance because they can't afford it, and won't be paying their full share if they go for a public option either, so the same people who are paying more now will be paying more then too. If you want to make health care more affordable to have to do things to reduce the cost dir
Re:The US isn't all first world. (Score:5, Insightful)
If preventive medicine is more expensive than the failed system you currently have in place, then why is more spent per capita on healthcare in the US than any other western country, while your system continues to be ranked as one of the worst in the world, falling far behind those who do engage in preventive medicine.
Living embodiment of less for more.
There is an old adage. "An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure."
Your observations of how public healthcare works are deeply, and I do mean DEEPLY flawed.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, for starters I'd imagine we pay more because we CAN pay more. We pay more, and this creates big companies that develop drugs that get sold for less to the rest of the world - at least it sure feels like it. I'd be happy to see someone contradict that.
We also pay more because many of our diseases are products of our lavish lifestyle - a lifestyle other countries are just now adopting. I'd expect healthcare costs to skyrocket worldwide as diabetes, heart disease and cancer climb to US rates.
Also, doe
Re:The US isn't all first world. (Score:4, Insightful)
He could have started small and been successful but he bit off more than he could chew.
He repeatedly said throughout the campaign that one of his major 1st year issues was going to be health care reform, and outlined most of what has transpired here. If you voted for him because you listened to him during the election, you should have known this was coming.
I also fundamentally disagree that he should have "started small" because it's not like we have a lot of time to dick around with this. The last time major healthcare reform happened in the US was over 40 years ago. The time to make big changes is now, and no matter if he had gone big or small, the other side of the aisle was going to make it ugly for him.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We pay more, and this creates big companies that develop drugs that get sold for less to the rest of the world - at least it sure feels like it.
Pharmaceuticals only account for about 8% of US health scare spending, and the government already funds a substantial amount of drug development. In fact, the government and nonprofit foundations already fund a huge amount of medical research.
If we can't fix medicare/medicaid we don't have a chance of building a sustainable, effective general health plan.
We don't have a sustainable private system right now either. Insurance companies are doing everything they can to reduce coverage while increasing premiums. How is this better than a public option? One thing Medicare does quite effectively is drive down the costs of c
Re:The US isn't all first world. (Score:5, Interesting)
France, Canada, Britain and Japan, together with America, are the top 5 leading nations in healthcare. I doubt any of them get third-world "discounts". Aside from possibly Japan, all have horribly bad eating habits - obesity in Britain isn't that much lower than that in the United States.
But let's look at the figures. Britain, PER CAPITA, has half the rate of heart attacks and spends half as much as the US. The four nations I mention pay, on average, 50 cents for every $200 spent on health-care in the US. I'm not sure about Japan, but the rest ALL manage to have public health services.
Now, let's look at the other side, competition. Britain has the NHS which is universal. It also has BUPA (private healthcare that's so profitable it can even afford to run its own damn hospitals), Standard Life, Orchid, HealthTrust, PatientChoice, AXA PPP, Essential Healthcare, HSA, Norwich Union Healthcare, General & Medical,... In short, not what I'd call a shortage.
So, go on. Tell me how a public health service would "ruin" the private insurance companies. Convince me BUPA is just an illusion. Go ahead. Persuade me that Japan is getting medicines "on the cheap" as part of foreign aid shipments to poor nations. Convince me that even those medical marvels invented in Canada, Britain or Japan are more expensive in America solely in order to recoup the costs.
Yes, the top 5% of Americans CAN pay more, and prices have been adjusted to maximize profits not availability, so cater TO those 5%. What about the other 95%? Since America has never been able to adjust the ratio, it will always be 5:95, and that means it doesn't matter what the 95% earn. The prices will simply go up because the profits are all with the 5%.
You happen to be one of the 5%. So is everyone on Slashdot, because nobody in the 95% is spending time talking. Me, well, although I'm in the top 5% as well (or I wouldn't be here), I have medical conditions which make getting insurance a real pain and which mean I spend $250+ a month to stay alive because insurance won't touch me.
I know three people with spinal injuries who would LOVE to get away with something so cheap and none of them have my earning power. They each spend more in a week than I do in a month - those weeks they have enough money to spend on such luxuries. With those kinds of injuries, most work is right out of the question, which means you either have to start off very rich OR live your life on the bread line.
Assuming the people I know are roughly representative of the population, traumatic injuries and life-threatening conditions are likely more common amongst those 95% than serious illness is amongst the 5%.
When I look at America as it exists today, I see a world that is socially backwards, something out of a Dickens novel. Britain hasn't had workhouses for the poor since the Victorian era and abolished slavery in 1770. Even the fruit-pickers in Britain have unions and have a far better standard of living than those in the "land of opportunity".
I happen to think Britain is regressive and repressed in many other ways, and that America has got quite a bit right, but American society is so.... backwards! It's barely better than it was when the Mayflower arrived. In some ways, it might even be worse - I'm fairly sure they didn't have a 1% prison population.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The US isn't all first world. (Score:5, Insightful)
"If you want to make health care more affordable to have to do things to reduce the cost directly." The only way of doing that is cutting corners and reducing standards for medicine and medical equipment. That's a bad idea no matter how you put it.
Or fix stuff like my insurance company "negotiating" $900 worth of blood tests down to the $90 they actually pay the lab. If it's $90 worth of blood tests (which it is since the lab somehow stays in business), then say it's $90. That would open a whole world of people being able to get catastrophic coverage and pay out of pocket for the basics which would put people in touch with what it actually costs and provide price pressure.
As the system stands, the buyer has hardly any idea of what the seller is actually being paid. Nobody has any inclination of what the actual cost is. The insurance companies can throw their weight around and get reasonable prices, but the poor schmuck that doesn't have insurance pays MSPR. If I could pay the same "bulk rates" as the insurances companies, my medical costs, excluding anything catastrophic, would be less than what I pay for insurance.
People like to make a big deal out of free market medicine failing, but we don't have free market medicine because the actual cost has been abstracted away from so many of the consumers that there's no cost control.
Re:The US isn't all first world. (Score:5, Insightful)
I do think that tort reform should be a part of any comprehensive medical reform, but I think that we have to be careful.
Which will never happen as long as the Democrats are in power. The attorneys, through their firms and state bar associations, are collectively among the largest donors to the Democratic National Committee, Democrat elected officials (i.e. Congressmen and Senators) and Democratic presidential candidates (like our current President Obama). There are two groups that you can bet the farm that Democrats won't cross: lawyers and unions (in that order). No attorney that I know of has ever supported laws which limit their ability to go to court and sue for lots of money (its like freedom of speech to them). The attorneys will fight tort reform tooth and nail and I would be shocked if Obama signs any bill, or at least any bill that actually has teeth, which puts a national cap on damages awarded at lawyerpoint.
Re:The US isn't all first world. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm willing to believe that. But it's only worth voting the Democrats out of office on that issue if there's reason to believe that it would happen if the Republicans were in power. But the Republicans controlled both branches of government, with sizable majorities, for six years, and it didn't happen. Instead, we got a ridiculous government-funded prescription drugs entitlement in Medicare Part D---the exact opposite of any attempt at cost reduction.
To argue against the current party in power on an issue in a way that's convincing, you need to find an issue on which there is some viable alternative party that has a better position on that issue.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There's a huge difference between "government healthcare" and "public health" at least as the term is used in the U.S. Public health traditionally concerns itself with disease control and prevention in communities of people--both small and large. It is concerned with the prevention of disease in entire populations as opposed to caring for individuals. Huge, enormous distinction there. If we're beginning to harbor populations with these parasitic diseases, we damned well want the Public Health Service involv
Re:The US isn't all first world. (Score:4, Insightful)
"People are living squallor and poverty on an unprecedented scale in this country."
Bullshit. We are not near the poverty levels of the Great Depression, and the impact of poverty is greatly mitigated nowadays.
Our bitter refusal to control our borders ensures the human carriers of "Third World" diseases are free to circulate.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Bullshit. We are not near the poverty levels of the Great Depression, and the impact of poverty is greatly mitigated nowadays.
History disagrees with your assessment; We're circling the drain. Sequence of events [wikipedia.org] in the Great Depression:
1. Debt liquidation and distress selling
2. Contraction of the money supply as bank loans are paid off
3. A fall in the level of asset prices
4. A still greater fall in the net worths of business, precipitating bankruptcies
5. A fall in profits
6. A reduction in output, in trade and in employment.
7. Pessimism and loss of confidence
8. Hoarding of money
9. A fall in nominal interest rates and a rise in defla
Re:The US isn't all first world. (Score:5, Informative)
1. is over already
2. paying off loans isn't what causes contraction of money supply.
3. if you want to single out houses as the only asset, then yes.
4. yes, there's no getting away from the fact companies have taken a hammering
5. most places have had a fall in profits, there are some standouts though. gold producers are one of them.
6. here is your big fail. jobless rate in 1933 was 24.9% http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20030124ar03p1.htm [bls.gov]
7. here is your biggest problem - doomers like yourself who are still claiming the sky is falling when their are CLEARLY signs of recovery worldwide.
Re:The US isn't all first world. (Score:4, Insightful)
here is your biggest problem - doomers like yourself who are still claiming the sky is falling when their are CLEARLY signs of recovery worldwide.
I'm not all doom and gloom... Forty years ago we had a middle class. We don't anymore. We have rich people, and we have poor people... Just like the countries we've been shipping our jobs out to. One of the things that made America what it was is a strong middle class. That's vaporized now under the heat of globalization, and this is something that's come about because of the current economic crisis. Yeah, the economy as a whole may recover, but our quality of life will never be the same. For many people -- there will be no recovery.
Re:The US isn't all first world. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the collapse of the US middle class is in large part the fault of the middle class itself. In a world of increasing sophistication, most people ignored it and didn't adapt to it, and they didn't instill into their children the importance of education. The idea that one can live very comfortably simply being unskilled labor was a foolish one that idea only worked for a generation or two. The economic hegemony of the US post WWII helped feed that idea, but part of that hegemony was sustained by malicious policies against other countries.
Maybe globalization made that middle class collapse happen faster, but an unsustainable situation like that wasn't going to stay that way forever. Closing borders to trade usually hasn't worked out well either, all that does is incite reciprocal action.
Re: (Score:2)
College has gone from something only the wealthy attend to being quite common. The BA and BS are rapidly becoming what the GED once was.
It doesn't seem to have helped. Unskilled labor was never an option for middle class. Skilled blue collar work was quite commonly middle class.
The U.S. has seen a steady growth in GDP per capita. In spite of that, the middle class is disappearing.
Re: (Score:2)
The BA and BS are rapidly becoming what the GED once was.
Are you high?
I'd love to see some stats. I live in California and most of the people I meet qualify as middle-class. I'm middle-class. My family is almost all middle-class.
Re: (Score:2)
50 years ago, one could be middle class with one income earner per household. Try that today.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think the collapse of the US middle class is in large part the fault of the middle class itself.
Blaming the victim has rarely been a useful argument. It also happens to be a meritless one in this case. The middle class has disintegrated because the middle class has become a victim of a sudden change in market dynamics, brought on by decisions by our politicians and business leaders to initiate those changes. The labor market, like any other, is dictated by the laws of supply and demand. Demand remains constant but when we allowed companies to use labor outside this country -- to ship jobs overseas and
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Are you just a poorly designed AI that spits out buzzwords more or less at random? Because your posts get steadily more confused and less connected with reality.
Yes, and the slashdot moderators are also part of the AI, which is why I always get high marks. The matrix has you man. Better start running.
Re:The US isn't all first world. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"8. Hoarding of money"
The price of gold per ounce has gone right up from $700 to $950 (approx) because people are hoarding money instead of investing in the stock market.
Re: (Score:2)
What the fuck is "hoarding of money"? Is that like "saving money"?
We can't live in this Keynesian dream of everyone spending every dime of their income as soon as they get it. Its what made our economy fragile in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
"We are not near the poverty levels of the Great Depression,"
Nothing says the we have seen the worst of our current recession. Nothing says we won't see the desperation of the '30's again. The only thing that happened in the '30's that isn't likely to happen again, is the dust bowl. On the other hand, family farms are barely hanging in there because they can't compete with factory farms. If a few of those conglomerations go belly up, we could be in serious trouble. How much of our population are we wil
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The USA really has giant contrast, that most people seem to forget about all too often. I mean there is Manhattan, there is some farm in the worst backwater hole, there is the nearly empty part, rotting of Detroit, there is Alaska which is mainly just forests, There are cities which still look like the hurricane that went trough them two years ago just happened yesterday, etc, etc. And most of it seems to be not shiny at all. It's really sad sometimes, to see the nation rotting away. And I'm not even from t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing to worry about, really. This is just Mother Nature's way of enforcing population control. If we think it's bad here, just wait for Mother to get serious in China. The earth's carrying capacity of humankind is being severely tested, so we can expect more of this sort of thing.
(turn on sarcasm here) Health care? Why fight the inevitable? Only the rich are truly fit to survive anyway.
Re:The US isn't all first world. (Score:5, Informative)
People are surprised by this? Our inner cities are rotting. Our economy is in shambles. People are living squallor and poverty on an unprecidented scale in this country. We're a breeding ground now for all manners of disease, both social and medical.
And worst of all, there is a massive wave of over exaggeration plaguing the country! I cannot believe this was marked as 5 insightful. Poverty and squallor on unprecidented scale? Have you heard of the Great Depression? What facts and figures are you quoting? According to the US census at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty07/pov07fig03.pdf [census.gov] the poverty percentage has been at between 10 and 15 percent since the mid 60s. In 1959 it was 23%, so nearly a quarter of the population was in poverty!
We're a breeding ground now for all manners of disease, both social and medical? Start with the medical. Based on what science? Tens of thousands dying of cholera is a sign of breeding disease. Random cases of strange medical ailments because people in 3rd world countries immigrated to the US is not. What is your solution, stop all immigration? As for social disease, since the founding of the country people have been complaining about various "social diseases" plaguing the US. Heck, the crazy temperance movement managed to get all alcohol banned as a cure for the various social diseases resulting from drinking.
As for the decline of America, I've been hearing it all my life. First is was the Japanese, how they were much smarter and so much harder working than Americans, blah, blah, blah. Now it is the Chinese.
And no, I hate to disappoint you but we aren't going to be the Roman Empire because I don't see any barbarians who are going to come and raze our cities. We do not decline so much as everyone else is catching up to us. And the only reason there is catching up is because almost everyone else was demolished 60 years ago during WWII. There is no fundamental reason that the US should be the sole military, economic, and political power for the rest of human history. If we were a bunch of evil jerks, the US could try and use its power to keep everyone else down. But we don't and good for us for that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A great majority of Americans have thrown science and logic out the window, and choose instead to vote with their passions and emotions.
If this isn't a social disease, I don't know what is.
Keeping on topic, the healthcare debate is a great example of this, given that the right wing have successfully managed to convince the masses to actively protest against their own interests by spreading a net of thinly-veiled lies and passionate arguments.
What sort of person would actually believe that the president want
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Amen.
Thank you for bringing some sanity to that horribly cynical and pessimistic first post.
Slashdotters: the modern world, the world we live in *right now*, is better than any point in human history in every measurable way. That is a simple fact.
Yes, you're concerned about people below the poverty line now. So am I. But you have to realize that modern Americans in *poverty* have far more luxuries than the richest man on earth 200 years ago.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It makes very little difference whether it is unprecedented or not. Diseases need ONE carrier. That is sufficient.
Start looking at the numbers (over a million undocumented, uninsured and entirely legal US citizens live homeless in the New York subway system, and most cities don't bother to try and estimate any more).
Now look at the total in the US who are considered to be living below a living wage (which is a good deal higher than the so-called "poverty line" but is still the minimum for basic nutritional
Close the borders (Score:5, Insightful)
Every time I turn around the US government is finding new and innovative ideas in fomenting anti-immigrant sentiment. Scratch that. The US government is using the same old tried and true methods of fomenting anti-immigrant sentiment. They steal jobs. They bring crime. They bring disease. It's the same old song and dance.
In a world of modern transportation, it is essentially impossible to screen every person who crosses into our country for diseases. The solution isn't more border patrols on the Tex-Mex border, it's better healthcare for those who can't afford it. If the at-risk groups are the border towns and poverty-stricken, it makes sense to help them rather than try to cut off the flow of immigrants.
I used to fly internationally all the time, but with the growing anti-immigrant policies of the US, I find myself having a worse and worse time traveling even though I am a US citizen. The TSA and Immigration Control have made flying a mode of travel that is completely unattractive.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, travel has actually gotten better in some ways since 9/11.
I have never traveled internationally, but the domestic security folks are a lot more competent than they were before the TSA. And they're more accustomed to people who set off the alarm.
My wife has some joints that were replaced, so she can keep "trying again" with the metal detector forever, she's going to beep.
On our honeymoon (in 2000) the security guards at O'Hare Airport couldn't even successfully communicate what they wanted her to do
Re: (Score:2)
It is annoying because most of it is theatre. I do agree that security has improved a bit but I not see why you had to take your laptop out and put it in a different tray to be x-rayed, are they saying that the x-ray machine cannot see through the laptop case? Why is it that I can put a bottle full of liquid in my hold luggage but I cannot carry a drink of water onto the plane? No one has successfully blown up a plane with a drink of water but there have been plenty of bombs in the hold. Even when you t
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The solution isn't more border patrols on the Tex-Mex border, it's better healthcare for those who can't afford it.
But if they still can't afford what difference will it make if it's better? While I understand what you mean, your actual words help point out the true underlying cause, the cost of healthcare has risen out of control.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They are also diseases that are common among immigrants, and that follow them in.
They may be old arguments, but that doesn't detract from their indisputable accuracy.
Particularly with these diseases which were previously unique to areas that immigrants come from. It is eminently clear where the disease is being sourced from.
The diseases are not ones that can be effectively treated by healthcare, there is no cure/effective treatment known to most of these diseases, the prognosis is not good, if you
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In a world of modern transportation, it is essentially impossible to screen every person who crosses into our country for diseases.
Sure, it's possible, but requires further inconveniencing people who wish to cross, and reducing the throughput (the rate at which people are legally allowed to cross borders). And might have a negative impact on tourists, if it took them several days waiting in line to get screened and admitted.
It is also more expensive (the most likely reason it's not actually done) an
Re: (Score:2)
Every time I turn around the US government is finding new and innovative ideas in fomenting anti-immigrant sentiment.
Last I checked, the US allows over one million legal immigrants into the country every year. If that's "anti-immigrant", then the government sucks at it.
...The solution isn't more border patrols on the Tex-Mex border,...
Wait, what does border patrol have to do with immigrants? Or are you now talking about illegal immigrants?
...They bring disease...
If you are talking about illegal immigrants, the problem is that they might very well be the source of these diseases. The problem is we can't tell for sure, since they have ignored our immigration laws and waltzed right in without being checked ou
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Fucking the immigrants is a way to spread diseases, not to mention causing more of the immigrants.
Besides, that "Fix it yourself" attitude is one of those things that is just short-sighted, and easily contradicted by the concept that the world isn't just a bunch of isolated islands.
Re:Close the borders (Score:5, Insightful)
Can we help people in other countries? Sure. Federal money (< 1% of our budget) does go to works in other countries. However, if they decide to come here illegally, the most we can provide them with is helpful transportation at gunpoint back to their own country.
Re: (Score:2)
People tend to forget that socialism is inherently an isolationist philosophy.
The main reason Germany felt the need to expand its borders after the national socialist party took over was to ensure natural resource independence.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
GWB invaded Iraq for revenge and oil. However, it was a "bad" government, and that was an underlying cause.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fuck the immigrants. This is MY country, not theirs. Let them fix their own failed states south of the border.
Especially when they aren't "immigrants"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
So, how does it feel to be completely lacking empathy or any sort of care for your fellow humans?
Re: (Score:3)
Fuck the immigrants. This is MY country, not theirs.
Rio Grande, Bering Strait, or Atlantic Ocean - how did YOUR ancestors get here?
Re: (Score:2)
If we have a government that -- in the most general case -- fucks things up whenever it tries to help people, then we have a far bigger problem on our hands than whatever problem we're trying to solve at the moment.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When counting by percentage of population, Sweden would actually be pretty much on par with the USA (12.3% and 12.81% respectively). Germany's immigrants are 12.31% of the whole population, in Austria there are 14.9%, in Canada 18.76% and in Switzerland 22.89%.
All of the countries I have listed do have socialized medicine.
Natural Selection (Score:2, Insightful)
You want globalization? Well here it comes. You don't want globalization? Well here it comes anyways. Attention citizens of the cosmos: be prepared for a brutal culling of the herd. Nothing personal, it's just the mechanics of the universe.
Re:Natural Selection (Score:5, Insightful)
Attention social evolutionists: poor people in the U.S. have guns and little to lose. When they have nothing to lose, the bullets will fly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mod parent up. This is a good reason for a social safety net if I've ever heard one. So what if they don't "deserve" it? At least it'll keep them from robbing and murdering you.
If only Madagascar... (Score:5, Funny)
...had shut off all seaports and airports sooner.
Vibrance! (Score:2)
It's the flu! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It's real: I got hit so bad, I had to take a year off.
Talk like an infected pirate day (Score:3, Funny)
Aiy captain, I be gotten scurvy!
Thank God for HMOs (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, at least there are no government bureaucrats standing between the sick people and the doctors who could detect and treat these diseases.
USA, USA, USA!
Or something ... it is quite disappointing to see the world's richest country with what is at times the best health care in the world unable to keep simple infections and parasites from affecting a large portion of its population.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, at least there are no government bureaucrats standing between the sick people and the doctors who could detect and treat these diseases.
Sure. You've got private bureaucrats instead. More cost, less accountability. Tell me again how it's better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And does this country you live in forbid you taking out private health insurance or is it really a matter of you have more choice than an American? Do you think that health insurance always works the way it is supposed to?
By your use of the term "national health" it sounds like the UK and I have listened to a lot of the debate in the US where they have made it sound like people in the UK are forced to use the National Health Service when this is not the case. There are many private health options and so i
HELLO, Where has everyone been for 200+ years? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am sorry. Invasive species and diseases have been entering the U.S. since the first pilgrims got off the boat with their pock infested blankets. The U.S. has always turned a blind eye to the poor dying of them, until they spread to the middle class and rich. Now congress thinks this is an emergency?
I think author of this article needs to spend sometime getting to know their American history book. The only thing that has changed is there is now more poor. How about treating that disease?
Rich (Score:2, Interesting)
Which is why we screen at the border (Score:2)
This is one reason why having an actual immigration policy and enforcing it. Most countries in the world do this, but for some reason the US doesn't.
neglected infections of poverty (Score:2)
How pathetically Politically Correct can we possibly be?
Infantile death in the US... (Score:5, Insightful)
The infantile death rate in the US is one of the highest in developed countries.
A significant portion of your population is affected by diseases that are mostly present in third-world countries and can be handled easily with proper health care and social measures.
And some of you still think universal health care is a bad idea?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We count ALL infant deaths. Most countries don't count deaths of babies born prematurely, and some places don't even count it if they die within the first few months (like Cuba.)
Hardly a fair comparison.
Irony (Score:3, Funny)
500 Years ago, Europeans came to the western hemisphere and brought all kinds of diseases that the native population had no immunity against. Now, the descendants of those Europeans are getting diseases for which they have no immunity from the descendants of the natives from so long ago...
LK
Re:MUCH MORE IS COMING (Score:5, Insightful)
If it was easier to enter the country legally fewer people would do it illegally. Then it might be easier to apply health checks on the way in.
Re: (Score:2)
Therefore, I think that the words that you are grasping for, is if MORE were allowed in, or perhaps if we lowered our standards of what we were looking for. As it is, I believe that we are one of the largest in shear numbers, and even rank up there in terms of percentage. That includes countries such as Russia and Brazil who hav
Re:MUCH MORE IS COMING (Score:4, Informative)
As a point of fact, the US allows more legal immigration than any other country in the world.
LOL. Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, right?
Sorry, you're a victim of a myth. On a per capita basis, the US accepts roughly the same number of immigrants (and/or refugees) as many western European countries, but less than other countries. By contrast, Canada accept far more. Hell, I think Greece has higher immigration numbers.
And if you factor in the anti-immigrant rhetoric and attitudes prevalent across so much of the US (and the lack of such things as health care and basic social safety nets, I'd suggest that the US is hardly a welcoming place. That's been true historically and it's true today. In the past it was the Chinese, then the Irish, then the dirty Jews and Italians; today it's the Mexicans! The reason, for example, why the US has low immigration numbers and continues to spend less per capita on charitable foreign aid than most industrialised countries, is that the US simply doesn't like and has never liked foreigners, least of all when they try to immigrate. That is, until years pass and they blend into the landscape and we recognise them as citizens like everyone else.
Granted, it's a big and wealthy country. So total numbers or dollars spent are bigger. But then, so what?
As for the article, the immigration process does require a complete health check, so the issues related to the spread of infectious diseases are addressed. The problem, however, is that not everyone who comes here is eligible to become part of that process, and there is no free public health care for them or anyone else. Consider tuberculosis, for example. Mandatory screening when applying for a green card, but the rates of infection in the US go up by 20K cases per year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think I saw that story on Fox News last night.
Re: (Score:2)
maybe if they would do something about illegal immigration, this wouldnt be an issue...