Originally Posted By TomSawyer The biggest inefficiency in the cost of our healthcare is the amount that is needed to satisfy investors into for-profit insurance companies and for-profit health care systems. Take out the need to make sure that investors are getting the returns on their investment and you suddenly reduce the cost of providing health care.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf "The answer of course is that we have what is perhaps the most inefficient healthcare system in the world" No perhaps about it, we have BY FAR the most inefficient healthcare system in the world.
Originally Posted By KongKongFuey Will we ever get that travel ban from the epicenter of the infected ebola areas in Africa ? It is time for executive order but he won't do it. And that is one reason why even democratic candidates this term don't want to be associated with him and there will likely be a senate shift of party.
Originally Posted By ecdc Here's how you can protect yourself and others: Get a flu shot. Number of Americans who died in the United States of Ebola in the past two years: 1 Number of Americans who died of the flu in the past two years: Around 100,000
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I was going to say I couldn't believe how certain pols were demagogue-ing the ebola thing this year.... and then along comes a post that shows exactly why they do it.
Originally Posted By KongKongFuey Sort but that was very irresponsible and hipcratic to say ecdc considering I can only guess that you have an issue with even one unnecessary gun death{which you should be}. So you are saying because flue has killed more we should not focus on stopping this thing from spreading? And here is where your anology is flawed. We do not know enough about this disesease because it mutates to different strains. And flue kills the weak but if unchecked Ebola can kill just about anyone, the weak and healthy.
Originally Posted By KongKongFuey Anyway keep sticking heads in sand and watch your senate switch majority. And unless things change from the "LEADERSHIP" expect another a hole repub for president. Hey at least our pres finally got off the golf tour and decided to meet with a team to adres this threat
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <So you are saying because flue has killed more we should not focus on stopping this thing from spreading?> That's not what he said at all.
Originally Posted By KongKongFuey He trivialised the Ebola by bringing up flue. Flue really is irrelevant to the new threat dialogue.And this last nurse did a plane ride with Ebola fever. Scary stuff for making this thing get out of hand fast
Originally Posted By Dabob2 He was asking for a little perspective. So far not receiving it from everyone.
Originally Posted By KongKongFuey He said the words 'instead of' as if there is a choice to only go with one way to adress the Ebola. LIAR LIAR as in targeting the outbreak source in Africa instead of travel bans to enter USA Why can't there be both? What rule says one has to follow one or the other? I hope the press jumps all over him for that stupid thing to say.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf Sure, it's true that influenza kills a lot of people, but most of us have had it and have survived. Ebola kills a majority of those infected and I don't like those odds. Give me the flu any day, but keep Ebola away from me. As one who spends 10+ hours a week on average on airplanes, the CDC control of Ebola scares the living bejesus out of me. Let's hope it dies out in the U.S. despite the CDC's bungled efforts.
Originally Posted By ecdc EighthDwarf, you're absolutely right at the individual level. I've never bothered w/ a flu shot because I rarely get sick (watch me get a nasty flu bug this winter). And as a pretty healthy 38 year old, I recover just fine from the flu. But at a population level, people are much, much more likely to die of the flu. Especially the elderly or infants. The numbers are very clear. And someone like me, who might recover from the flu with relative ease, can still pass it on to my 60 year old coworkers who might not be so lucky. So that's why this year I'm getting a flu shot.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Anyone who knows anything about disease is saying, at least at this point, that travel bans from west Africa would probably be counterproductive. Once we ban it, we lose all control over it. As it stands now, we can screen everybody coming in from those regions when they arrive at the airports. If we institute a ban, anyone from that region who wants to come here will simply travel to a third country first. And then we don't know who they are. It also makes it more difficult for American aid workers to go to the region to help stamp it out, which really needs to be a priority. A travel ban might seem like a good idea at first glance, but only if you don't think about it. Which is exactly what a lot of people are doing. And a lot of pols are playing politics with it, riling up low information voters.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf "So that's why this year I'm getting a flu shot." Makes sense, ecdc. "A travel ban might seem like a good idea at first glance, but only if you don't think about it." Agreed, the international travel ban doesn't make a lot of sense. That being said, allowing anyone exposed to Ebola to travel within the U.S., especially on airplanes, seems absurd to me.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 That WAS absurd. But the CDC changed that policy right quick after the thing with the nurse.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>That WAS absurd.<< Yep. Apparently at least one of the healthcare workers ended up on a cruise ship. You know...where people can get seasick and vomit. Yikes.
