CDC confirms Texas patient is first case of Ebola diagnosed in U.S.

B0KB1twCQAAwtjp.jpg
 
So lets break this down to see if the concerns are legitimate.
Better than a month ago a healthcare workers infected with Ebola begin arriving at facilities prepared to receive them. These are schedule and expected arrivals. Obama tells us, we got this. We are prepared. Nothing to worry about. All is well for a couple weeks.
Little more than two weeks ago one person showed up "unexpectedly" at a Dallas hospital. He is misdiagnosed even though he tells them he had just come from West Africa. He is sent home and 2 days later shows up again and is diagnosed with Ebola.
Treatment begins by the local healthcare professionals. His apartment is quarantined and cleaned. Patient zero dies a few days later. His family is isolated.
Couple of days pass and we learn a nurse who treated Duncan comes down with Ebola. We begin to learn that the local healthcare professionals were wholly unprepared at every level. All people at the hospital who had any type of contact with Duncan are put on a watch list and are told to self restrict their travels.
Couple days later we learn another nurse who treated Duncan had Ebola and she traveled to Cleveland for wedding plans. She interacted with dozens if not hundreds of people. She calls the CDC before returning to Dallas and tells them she isn't feeling well and is one of the people who treated Duncan. Astonishingly the CDC tells her to get on the plane and return to Dallas where she is diagnosed with Ebola a few hours later.
CDC begins an attempt to locate hundreds of people are that patient 2 came in contact with.
Yesterday several schools are closed down and we learn teachers were onboard the plane with patient 2.
Obama holds a press conference and reassures us that necessary changes to protocol are being made.
Today we learn a cruise ship is being isolated because another person on the list of people who had contact with Duncan decided to travel. Obama is to appoint a Ebola Czar.
So that's kind of it in a nutshell. We can conclude that we weren't ready for an "unexpected" person showing up with the disease. Just one. This one person has resulted in two people becoming infected and hundreds if not thousands of people coming in contact with people who treated Duncan.
The good news is, at least as of right now, that we can thank our lucky stars that this highly infectious virus is not highly contagious. If it was, given the way they bungled this ONE patient, we'd be living in very fast changing and deadly different world right now today. We can see how just one person can reach out and touch so many others in a matter of two weeks. Yes, we need to be concerned. It appears we just got very lucky.
Will we be ready when another "unexpected" Ebola patient shows up at the local hospital? When 2 show up? When 5 show up? Tell me that isn't an inevitability given the state of travel around the world. Are we ready?
 
Nine_Ender said:
Expressing an uneducated opinion doesn't change the reality of the situation. Our system is a better system. Every citizen will receive care regardless of income. Tax payers with enough income pay a small supplement on their taxes each year ( between $200-$1000 per family ).

I would NEVER go to the US for medical care. There is zero point to do so. I have never met a Canadian directly who has. There are some fairly wealthy people who try to jump the queue by going to the US, but that just illustrates the weaknesses of an inequitable system. Think about it, your system allows rich Canadians to get care ahead of Americans if they are willing to pay.

Wouldn't it be great if some of you understand that your country has some strengths and weaknesses, and lately the weaknesses are snowballing into some serious crisis that could ruin it for everyone ? Why not try to maintain your strengths and learn from other countries that are excelling in certain areas ? All this political bs isn't achieving anything, all it does is create a nice smokescreen for the rich conglomerates to extract money from the shrinking middle class.

But hey, it's a free country, if you want to believe the big lie that your medical system is great and the envy of the world, well, I guess you'll just have to live with the ever increasing insurance bills and the occasional virus outbreak when a hospital fails to properly admit a sick patient.

Plenty of Canadians are already trying to contain the disease and we have one of the best virus research facilities in the world in Winnipeg. In fact, that center may have an important role in solving this crisis. The US and others could have better helped contain Ebola in Africa months ago. The virus doesn't care what nationality you are, the colour of your skin, your income, or what political party you favor. It's a problem you deal with devoid of politics.
More...


I will agree that a single payor system has certain advantages, first rate care not being among them. By your own admission, some canadians come to the US, not to jump the queue in the uS, because there typically isn't one, but to get crucial treatment that is unavailable on a reasonable time frame because of rationing. I don't know the details of the canadian system, but I know that such rationing is common in the UK. Obama care is bringing it to us.

Single payor systems, like socialism in general, can muddle through in smaller countries with relatively wealthy and homogeneous populations. That is the message of the graphs set out in another post here. In big countries with a large underclass, eg the uS increasingly, they are untenable for the same reason it is untenable to have a welfare state and open borders. If the cost is zero, eventually demand will overwhelm the system. Budgetary constraints inevitably force rationing, whether it is explicit, eg granny will not get that new hip she needs so desperately, or implicit, eg of course you can have that MRI for your knee injury...come back in three years for your appointment.
 
Nine_Ender said:
I have never met a Canadian directly who has. There are some fairly wealthy people who try to jump the queue by going to the US, but that just illustrates the weaknesses of an inequitable system. Think about it, your system allows rich Canadians to get care ahead of Americans if they are willing to pay.
More...

I work in Toronto every week. I have met PLENTY of Canadians who have come to the U.S. for health - or have taken family members to the U.S. for healthcare.

The most typical situation is when your child gets a sports injury. As outlined in the National Post and other papers, the waiting period in most provinces in Canada for an MRI is over 6 months.

These families go to the U.S., pay out of pocket for the MRI and knee surgery - which they can get immediately. These families are not rich, they are middle class. They want to get quick medical treatment so their child can get back to playing hockey, soccer, or whatever sport they are involved in.

You can find endless articles online about Long Canadian wait times send patients south for surgery
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/c...tients+south+surgery+Video/9702357/story.html

Wait times for medical treatment getting longer
http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/wait-times-for-medical-treatment-getting-longer-report-1.1516817

'In its annual report, “Waiting Your Turn: Wait Times for Health Care in Canada,” the Fraser Institute said the median wait time in 2013 hit 18.2 weeks, three days longer than in 2012. Twenty years ago, the average wait time for treatment in Canada was 9.3 weeks.

Specifically, the average wait time for orthopedic surgery reached 39.6 weeks for treatment, while patients waited an average 17.4 weeks for an appointment with a neurosurgeon.'

I will also note that in our local Raleigh-Durham, NC area hospitals (Duke, etc.), over 10% of the planned stays for surgery and/or treatment are now for residents of Canada. The issue being pointed out is that Canadian patients could potentially be crowding out U.S. patients for treatment in our hospitals - all of this is due to the Canadian healthcare waiting time crisis.
 
dbphoenix said:
For a well-regulated militia, yes. But militias don't wander the streets killing children.
More...
If you read the Founders writings, they explained who was the "militia": every person of legal age that could bear arms in defense of the State.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top