0 comment Wednesday, November 26, 2014 | admin
Travelers going ahead with plans despite vice president's gaffe, swine flu concerns
Pigs can�t fly yet, but the swine flu is still a reason to stay out of the sky.
At least, that is, if you ask Vice President Joe Biden. And most Southwest Floridians aren�t. Nor are their travel agents. Or their airlines. Or the rest of the federal government.
"I would tell members of my family � and I have � that I wouldn�t go anywhere in confined places now," Biden said on NBC�s "Today" show Thursday morning.
Only problem is, Biden�s advice is not in line with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention official message, which is for citizens to only avoid non-essential travel to Mexico. Pundits quickly tacked the comment up as another off-the-cuff remark, which Biden has a reputation for, but travel industry officials were decidedly more upset, with one saying the comment bordered on "fear mongering."
"To suggest that people not fly at this stage of things is a broad brush stroke," said Tim Smith, a spokesman for American Airlines.''
I suppose a spokesman for American Airlines just couldn't have a bias, could he? Or a conflict of interest?
Either way, though, a possible Biden gaffe wasn�t going to keep Shari Munger of Sarasota from visiting Chicago on Thursday out of Southwest Florida International Airport. Munger, who said she was in her early 40s, said she felt the whole swine flu thing was being blown out of proportion.
"Not at all worried," Munger said. "I think the media has a tendency to exaggerate things."
But there are people taking precautions, feeling, like Biden, that confined spaces result in pandemics.
"It�s not just going to Mexico, if you�re in a confined aircraft and one person sneezes, it goes all the way through the aircraft," Biden said, adding that other transportation options may be worth a look.''
Just for perspective, let's see what information is out there on air travel and contagious illness. There's this:
Airborne illness and air travel simply go hand in hand, and anyone that travels often will tell you so. The problem with air travel is that you are talking about thousands and over the course of a year, millions of people who travel in the same aircrafts. Simply put, there are germs everywhere in an aircraft and it doesn�t matter how well the crews clean them, these germs cannot be removed because they are not just on things, they are in the air.
Every year millions of people come down with the flu or common colds after traveling on an aircraft. Though a good number of these people may not correlate the two, the likelihood that they picked up their cold or flu bug on the aircraft is very high. The problem with airplanes is that many people get on and off them all the time. Some of these people may be sick, some may just be recovering, and some may be sick and not even realize it.
[...] Obviously, when you are talking about an aircraft you are talking about a small place where the air is just recycled over and over again, allowing the germs the perfect environment to meet up with bodies that are just waiting to get sick! Air travel is one of the easiest ways to get sick, and for many, there is no way around it!
An obvious way to avoid the airborne illnesses on board an aircraft is just to stay away from them! Though, for many this isn�t really an option, as they have to travel for business or personal reasons. So, the best thing you can do is avoid air travel when you are recovering from an illness or any time you feel as though your immune system may not be at its best. Any time your immune system has already been compromised, you are even more likely to contract an airborne illness.
[...]
In addition to fighting off the airborne illnesses, you might want to think about everything you touch on board the aircraft. If there are germs and bacteria in the air, you can bet all the surfaces are contaminated as well.
And this:
Airplane Air makes People Sick
Former flight attendant now health activist, Diana Fairechild, has formed a nonprofit foundation to educate people about airplane air. She mentions a number of added hazards that may be present, resulting from things like hydraulic fluid gases.
Here�s what she says:
"The problem is apparently complex. A number of environmental factors in the aircraft cabin are being blamed, including low oxygen in recycled air, low humidity that puts a strain on the respiratory tract, and pesticide residues from systematic sprayings. Now a new problem is at the forefront of potential causes. Toxic chemical vapors originate from hydraulic spills�and the resulting cabin fumes are now being directly linked to incidents of flight attendant illnesses."
And further:
Could a pleasant and enjoyable flight be the cause of a serious infection? Can airplanes be transporters of diseases? As you settle down in your seat, is a deadly infection already lurking amidst the carpeted and cushioned interior of the plane? Airplanes �Ticket to Infection?
[...]
Little did such thoughts enter our mind until the bird flu, SARS, hit our planet this millennium. In fact, air travel and communicable diseases have a hand in glove association; especially air borne infections.
A major cause attributed to the spread of infections within flights is the recycled cabin air. Till the 70�s, 100% fresh air was pumped into the cabin of airplanes every 3 minutes. But, anticipated increase in fuel costs during the late 70�s prompted research into methods of cutting down on fuel consumption and thereby, the cost. It was found that circulating fresh air within the cabin of an aircraft used up more fuel; so, since the 80�s, its percentage was cut in half. The reduced fresh air coupled with re-circulated stale air creates an environment conducive for many a health problem ranging from headaches, dizziness and nausea to various infections.
A study by Boeing and Pall Cabin Filters Brochure in 1999 showed that a cough produces 100,000 particles that can be dispersed over 20 rows in the cabin!
When infected passengers cough, sneeze or talk, droplets are released. It is in these droplets that the bacteria or viruses nestle until they gain entry into another victim. The unsuspecting, otherwise healthy passenger inhales the circulating recycled air that contains some of these droplets. Thus, the infection spreads among vulnerable passengers.
According to the Boeing Flight Manual, recycled air within an aircraft usually consists of 50% fresh and 50% stale air. Under such conditions, airborne germs are free to float around and the notorious ones include-
Common Cold Tuberculosis Influenza (flu) Measles Mumps Chicken pox
Risk of tuberculosis - Kenyon T.A. et al (1996) proved that tuberculosis could be transmitted to passengers through the air conditioning. A study on 'the transmission of infections diseases during commercial air travel� reported in March 2005 in 'The Lancet�, adds further proof to this finding. Researchers found that healthy passengers sitting within two rows of a contagious passenger for a flight, longer than eight hours, were at risk of contacting the disease.
SARS Infection - An outbreak of SARS on board a flight from Hong Kong to Beijing showed that passengers seated as far back as seven rows from the infected individual were affected.''
The article also mentions other conditions like skin infections, malaria, and even gastrointestinal illnesses being spread via air travel.
Interestingly, here is what the CDC has to say on air travel health hazards, from its own website:
In-Flight Transmission of Communicable Diseases
Concern has been increasing about the possible spread of communicable diseases during air travel. In certain circumstances when an infectious person or someone who is suspected of being infectious has traveled by air, public health authorities require passenger information for contact tracing and follow up. This information is collected from the passengers or the airlines and handled in a confidential manner. Information is available regarding in-flight transmission of a few diseases, including tuberculosis, Neisseria meningitidis, measles, influenza, SARS, and the common cold.
Tuberculosis
Only one investigation has documented transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (TB) from a symptomatic passenger to six other passengers who were seated in the same section of a commercial aircraft during a long flight (>8 hours) (4). These six passengers were identified by conversion to a positive tuberculin skin test (TST); none had evidence of active tuberculosis. Driver et al. (5) investigated the potential for TB transmission by a symptomatic airline crew member over a 6-month period (5). They found that evidence of infection (i.e., TST positivity) among other crew members increased markedly during the period when the index case was most infectious and was associated with having worked >12 hours with the index case. Evidence suggested the potential that TB had been transmitted to passengers who had flown when the index case was most infectious.
[...]
People known to have infectious TB should travel by private transportation, rather than a commercial carrier, if travel is required.
[...]
Influenza
Influenza is highly contagious, particularly among people in enclosed, poorly ventilated spaces. Transmission of influenza is thought to be primarily due to large droplets and has been documented aboard an aircraft, with most risk being associated with proximity to the source. (See Chapter 4 and http://www.cdc.gov/flu for more information.) The 1979 airplane-associated outbreak of influenza in Alaska, during which 72% of passengers became ill with influenza-like illness, does not reflect what generally happens on commercial flights. In this situation, the airplane experienced engine failure prior to takeoff and remained on the ground with the ventilation system turned off. The cabin doors remained closed, and many passengers remained on board for hours (10). In terms of understanding seasonal influenza transmission dynamics on a commercial airline, a potentially more useful influenza outbreak investigation associated with an aircraft is the 1999 outbreak reported in Australia, during which most of the infected passengers were seated within three rows of the index case, and all the people seated in the same row were infected (11).
Since 1997, a new strain of avian influenza virus (H5N1) has been shown to cause infection in humans, primarily associated with direct contact with birds and with no sustained human-to-human spread to date. Because influenza viruses are very adept at changing, there is concern that this strain could eventually to spread among humans and thus would impact air travel. See http://wwwn.cdc.gov/travel for more general information and up-to-date, specific guidelines for travelers and the airline industry.''
There is more at the website. Please note that the article I excerpted above was posted in June 2007, and not updated since then. Care to bet whether the CDC will have to update this page to make it conform to the current 'nothing to worry about' blather from the administration?
This travel forum contains some posts going back to April 22, warning of respiratory illness in South and Central Mexico.
I notice a number of posts appear to have been deleted since then. Why? For fear of hurting the travel industry? If the posts I linked to about the illness are no longer there when you click the link, they will have been removed by the website.
Has everybody forgotten this story from 2007 in which an American lawyer who had drug-resistant TB was quarantined after he defied doctor's orders and took a plane flight?
It is the first time since 1963, that the CDC has issued an order for a patient to be quarantined. Usually, such decisions are left to the states, but this case involved international and interstate travel, so the federal government stepped in.
The CDC is concerned about passengers seated in rows near the infected man on a May 13, Atlanta to Paris, Air France 385 flight and another Czech Air 0104 from Prague to Canada on May 23.
[...]
There have only been a few cases of people acquiring highly infectious diseases on long flights. Dr. Henry Masur, president of the Infectious Disease Society says exposure � even at close proximity � doesn't usually result in infection.
[...]
This man was advised not to travel and did. Why?
You're dealing with human behavior. We know that, dating back to the earliest of times, there are people who, for selfish reasons, for unclear purposes, will in fact do whatever they please. In this case, this is where public health has to battle the issue of individual rights and privacy with that of the greater health good. This was a collision that was bound to happen sometime and will happen more often in the future.
Shouldn't there be more stringent rules preventing them from doing whatever they please?
This individual had been compliant with public health action. It was only with the advent of his wedding in Europe that he decided that he wasn't going to be. There was actually an order issued before he left the United States, but [public health officials] were unable to serve it on him. This just points out that you have to have extreme measures for the very, very small number of people who just won't be compliant.''
Which brings me to another point: our derelict and irresponsible officials, so worried about the political and economic consequences of this flu outbreak, have repeated, despite what Biden said, they do not advise anyone to avoid air travel or public places --- except "those who are sick.''
But as the last paragraph in the quote above tells us, human behavior can be perverse; people can and do defy common sense and common courtesy and will go out in public, callously exposing others to whatever illness they have. The idea that all people who are infected, or who might be infected, will segregate themselves out of concern for the rest of us is foolish. The case of the TB-infected lawyer willfully exposing others to his drug-resistant malady on two long flights illustrate that fact. If we cannot trust a highly-educated and supposedly conscientious professional man to obey the rules and avoid exposing others, how can we expect that of people at large, perhaps people who are not capable of understanding the seriousness of the disease or the means of contagion?
And here's another story from a year ago, of a woman who caught TB from a fellow passenger on a New Delhi-Chicago flight.
So for anyone to chastise Biden, of whom I am no admirer, by the way, for a 'gaffe' about the risks of air travel or mass transit, is absurd, and it shows how people are so easily dissuaded from common-sense knowledge that was taken for granted not long ago.
Biden's statement, far from being a 'gaffe', was just politically incorrect, and now, in the effort to defend the administration's official story, officials are making him out to be a fool, and the FReepers are ridiculing Biden. But nevertheless, there are risks involved in taking mass transit, especially airplane flights, even though those in the travel industry or anyone with vested interests are now trying to downplay or deny that.
I find it creepy how easily people can be persuaded one way or the other, based on what their political authorities are saying.
And I find it sinister how people in high positions apparently have wanton disregard for the safety of the citizens of this country, choosing politics and economic interests above the life and well-being of their own countrymen.
I realize that some of the perpetual cynics on the right have an interest in denying that there is anything to this flu outbreak, but surely it's better to be safe than sorry. It is not a choice between denying that there is any danger at all and panicking. There is a sensible middle ground here; being vigilant and prepared is better than a knee-jerk denial of whatever the other side is saying.
Even if this outbreak proves to be nothing serious, and just another type of flu, the flu is no joke. I've been noticing for at least the last decade or so that there are much nastier and harder-to-shake kinds of respiratory viruses going around every year. To me, even if this thing is just 'ordinary' flu, it's well worth it to avoid it if at all possible, and it's irresponsible to laugh this thing off, especially this early in the game.
That being said, those in positions of authority seem to be contradicting themselves; I hear some people saying that the authorities are trying to cause panic, such as by raising the outbreak to pandemic level, while at the same time, these pathetic officials are telling us there is no need to close any borders or to quarantine anyone or even to avoid public gatherings and mass transit. The fact that they are now contradicting themselves, as the CDC is doing, based on their information from 2007, makes little sense. I don't see them creating panic; they seem just as equally committed to fostering a cavalier or passive attitude about this. What is going on? Are they trying to merely confuse people by repeating contradictory and conflicting messages?
All they are doing, as far as I am concerned, is discrediting themselves and showing themselves to have no real concern for us, the people they are supposedly sworn to serve.
By the way, see Tanstaafl's take on this here.
Pigs can�t fly yet, but the swine flu is still a reason to stay out of the sky.
At least, that is, if you ask Vice President Joe Biden. And most Southwest Floridians aren�t. Nor are their travel agents. Or their airlines. Or the rest of the federal government.
"I would tell members of my family � and I have � that I wouldn�t go anywhere in confined places now," Biden said on NBC�s "Today" show Thursday morning.
Only problem is, Biden�s advice is not in line with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention official message, which is for citizens to only avoid non-essential travel to Mexico. Pundits quickly tacked the comment up as another off-the-cuff remark, which Biden has a reputation for, but travel industry officials were decidedly more upset, with one saying the comment bordered on "fear mongering."
"To suggest that people not fly at this stage of things is a broad brush stroke," said Tim Smith, a spokesman for American Airlines.''
I suppose a spokesman for American Airlines just couldn't have a bias, could he? Or a conflict of interest?
Either way, though, a possible Biden gaffe wasn�t going to keep Shari Munger of Sarasota from visiting Chicago on Thursday out of Southwest Florida International Airport. Munger, who said she was in her early 40s, said she felt the whole swine flu thing was being blown out of proportion.
"Not at all worried," Munger said. "I think the media has a tendency to exaggerate things."
But there are people taking precautions, feeling, like Biden, that confined spaces result in pandemics.
"It�s not just going to Mexico, if you�re in a confined aircraft and one person sneezes, it goes all the way through the aircraft," Biden said, adding that other transportation options may be worth a look.''
Just for perspective, let's see what information is out there on air travel and contagious illness. There's this:
Airborne illness and air travel simply go hand in hand, and anyone that travels often will tell you so. The problem with air travel is that you are talking about thousands and over the course of a year, millions of people who travel in the same aircrafts. Simply put, there are germs everywhere in an aircraft and it doesn�t matter how well the crews clean them, these germs cannot be removed because they are not just on things, they are in the air.
Every year millions of people come down with the flu or common colds after traveling on an aircraft. Though a good number of these people may not correlate the two, the likelihood that they picked up their cold or flu bug on the aircraft is very high. The problem with airplanes is that many people get on and off them all the time. Some of these people may be sick, some may just be recovering, and some may be sick and not even realize it.
[...] Obviously, when you are talking about an aircraft you are talking about a small place where the air is just recycled over and over again, allowing the germs the perfect environment to meet up with bodies that are just waiting to get sick! Air travel is one of the easiest ways to get sick, and for many, there is no way around it!
An obvious way to avoid the airborne illnesses on board an aircraft is just to stay away from them! Though, for many this isn�t really an option, as they have to travel for business or personal reasons. So, the best thing you can do is avoid air travel when you are recovering from an illness or any time you feel as though your immune system may not be at its best. Any time your immune system has already been compromised, you are even more likely to contract an airborne illness.
[...]
In addition to fighting off the airborne illnesses, you might want to think about everything you touch on board the aircraft. If there are germs and bacteria in the air, you can bet all the surfaces are contaminated as well.
And this:
Airplane Air makes People Sick
Former flight attendant now health activist, Diana Fairechild, has formed a nonprofit foundation to educate people about airplane air. She mentions a number of added hazards that may be present, resulting from things like hydraulic fluid gases.
Here�s what she says:
"The problem is apparently complex. A number of environmental factors in the aircraft cabin are being blamed, including low oxygen in recycled air, low humidity that puts a strain on the respiratory tract, and pesticide residues from systematic sprayings. Now a new problem is at the forefront of potential causes. Toxic chemical vapors originate from hydraulic spills�and the resulting cabin fumes are now being directly linked to incidents of flight attendant illnesses."
And further:
Could a pleasant and enjoyable flight be the cause of a serious infection? Can airplanes be transporters of diseases? As you settle down in your seat, is a deadly infection already lurking amidst the carpeted and cushioned interior of the plane? Airplanes �Ticket to Infection?
[...]
Little did such thoughts enter our mind until the bird flu, SARS, hit our planet this millennium. In fact, air travel and communicable diseases have a hand in glove association; especially air borne infections.
A major cause attributed to the spread of infections within flights is the recycled cabin air. Till the 70�s, 100% fresh air was pumped into the cabin of airplanes every 3 minutes. But, anticipated increase in fuel costs during the late 70�s prompted research into methods of cutting down on fuel consumption and thereby, the cost. It was found that circulating fresh air within the cabin of an aircraft used up more fuel; so, since the 80�s, its percentage was cut in half. The reduced fresh air coupled with re-circulated stale air creates an environment conducive for many a health problem ranging from headaches, dizziness and nausea to various infections.
A study by Boeing and Pall Cabin Filters Brochure in 1999 showed that a cough produces 100,000 particles that can be dispersed over 20 rows in the cabin!
When infected passengers cough, sneeze or talk, droplets are released. It is in these droplets that the bacteria or viruses nestle until they gain entry into another victim. The unsuspecting, otherwise healthy passenger inhales the circulating recycled air that contains some of these droplets. Thus, the infection spreads among vulnerable passengers.
According to the Boeing Flight Manual, recycled air within an aircraft usually consists of 50% fresh and 50% stale air. Under such conditions, airborne germs are free to float around and the notorious ones include-
Risk of tuberculosis - Kenyon T.A. et al (1996) proved that tuberculosis could be transmitted to passengers through the air conditioning. A study on 'the transmission of infections diseases during commercial air travel� reported in March 2005 in 'The Lancet�, adds further proof to this finding. Researchers found that healthy passengers sitting within two rows of a contagious passenger for a flight, longer than eight hours, were at risk of contacting the disease.
SARS Infection - An outbreak of SARS on board a flight from Hong Kong to Beijing showed that passengers seated as far back as seven rows from the infected individual were affected.''
The article also mentions other conditions like skin infections, malaria, and even gastrointestinal illnesses being spread via air travel.
Interestingly, here is what the CDC has to say on air travel health hazards, from its own website:
In-Flight Transmission of Communicable Diseases
Concern has been increasing about the possible spread of communicable diseases during air travel. In certain circumstances when an infectious person or someone who is suspected of being infectious has traveled by air, public health authorities require passenger information for contact tracing and follow up. This information is collected from the passengers or the airlines and handled in a confidential manner. Information is available regarding in-flight transmission of a few diseases, including tuberculosis, Neisseria meningitidis, measles, influenza, SARS, and the common cold.
Tuberculosis
Only one investigation has documented transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (TB) from a symptomatic passenger to six other passengers who were seated in the same section of a commercial aircraft during a long flight (>8 hours) (4). These six passengers were identified by conversion to a positive tuberculin skin test (TST); none had evidence of active tuberculosis. Driver et al. (5) investigated the potential for TB transmission by a symptomatic airline crew member over a 6-month period (5). They found that evidence of infection (i.e., TST positivity) among other crew members increased markedly during the period when the index case was most infectious and was associated with having worked >12 hours with the index case. Evidence suggested the potential that TB had been transmitted to passengers who had flown when the index case was most infectious.
[...]
People known to have infectious TB should travel by private transportation, rather than a commercial carrier, if travel is required.
[...]
Influenza
Influenza is highly contagious, particularly among people in enclosed, poorly ventilated spaces. Transmission of influenza is thought to be primarily due to large droplets and has been documented aboard an aircraft, with most risk being associated with proximity to the source. (See Chapter 4 and http://www.cdc.gov/flu for more information.) The 1979 airplane-associated outbreak of influenza in Alaska, during which 72% of passengers became ill with influenza-like illness, does not reflect what generally happens on commercial flights. In this situation, the airplane experienced engine failure prior to takeoff and remained on the ground with the ventilation system turned off. The cabin doors remained closed, and many passengers remained on board for hours (10). In terms of understanding seasonal influenza transmission dynamics on a commercial airline, a potentially more useful influenza outbreak investigation associated with an aircraft is the 1999 outbreak reported in Australia, during which most of the infected passengers were seated within three rows of the index case, and all the people seated in the same row were infected (11).
Since 1997, a new strain of avian influenza virus (H5N1) has been shown to cause infection in humans, primarily associated with direct contact with birds and with no sustained human-to-human spread to date. Because influenza viruses are very adept at changing, there is concern that this strain could eventually to spread among humans and thus would impact air travel. See http://wwwn.cdc.gov/travel for more general information and up-to-date, specific guidelines for travelers and the airline industry.''
There is more at the website. Please note that the article I excerpted above was posted in June 2007, and not updated since then. Care to bet whether the CDC will have to update this page to make it conform to the current 'nothing to worry about' blather from the administration?
This travel forum contains some posts going back to April 22, warning of respiratory illness in South and Central Mexico.
I notice a number of posts appear to have been deleted since then. Why? For fear of hurting the travel industry? If the posts I linked to about the illness are no longer there when you click the link, they will have been removed by the website.
Has everybody forgotten this story from 2007 in which an American lawyer who had drug-resistant TB was quarantined after he defied doctor's orders and took a plane flight?
It is the first time since 1963, that the CDC has issued an order for a patient to be quarantined. Usually, such decisions are left to the states, but this case involved international and interstate travel, so the federal government stepped in.
The CDC is concerned about passengers seated in rows near the infected man on a May 13, Atlanta to Paris, Air France 385 flight and another Czech Air 0104 from Prague to Canada on May 23.
[...]
There have only been a few cases of people acquiring highly infectious diseases on long flights. Dr. Henry Masur, president of the Infectious Disease Society says exposure � even at close proximity � doesn't usually result in infection.
[...]
This man was advised not to travel and did. Why?
You're dealing with human behavior. We know that, dating back to the earliest of times, there are people who, for selfish reasons, for unclear purposes, will in fact do whatever they please. In this case, this is where public health has to battle the issue of individual rights and privacy with that of the greater health good. This was a collision that was bound to happen sometime and will happen more often in the future.
Shouldn't there be more stringent rules preventing them from doing whatever they please?
This individual had been compliant with public health action. It was only with the advent of his wedding in Europe that he decided that he wasn't going to be. There was actually an order issued before he left the United States, but [public health officials] were unable to serve it on him. This just points out that you have to have extreme measures for the very, very small number of people who just won't be compliant.''
Which brings me to another point: our derelict and irresponsible officials, so worried about the political and economic consequences of this flu outbreak, have repeated, despite what Biden said, they do not advise anyone to avoid air travel or public places --- except "those who are sick.''
But as the last paragraph in the quote above tells us, human behavior can be perverse; people can and do defy common sense and common courtesy and will go out in public, callously exposing others to whatever illness they have. The idea that all people who are infected, or who might be infected, will segregate themselves out of concern for the rest of us is foolish. The case of the TB-infected lawyer willfully exposing others to his drug-resistant malady on two long flights illustrate that fact. If we cannot trust a highly-educated and supposedly conscientious professional man to obey the rules and avoid exposing others, how can we expect that of people at large, perhaps people who are not capable of understanding the seriousness of the disease or the means of contagion?
And here's another story from a year ago, of a woman who caught TB from a fellow passenger on a New Delhi-Chicago flight.
So for anyone to chastise Biden, of whom I am no admirer, by the way, for a 'gaffe' about the risks of air travel or mass transit, is absurd, and it shows how people are so easily dissuaded from common-sense knowledge that was taken for granted not long ago.
Biden's statement, far from being a 'gaffe', was just politically incorrect, and now, in the effort to defend the administration's official story, officials are making him out to be a fool, and the FReepers are ridiculing Biden. But nevertheless, there are risks involved in taking mass transit, especially airplane flights, even though those in the travel industry or anyone with vested interests are now trying to downplay or deny that.
I find it creepy how easily people can be persuaded one way or the other, based on what their political authorities are saying.
And I find it sinister how people in high positions apparently have wanton disregard for the safety of the citizens of this country, choosing politics and economic interests above the life and well-being of their own countrymen.
I realize that some of the perpetual cynics on the right have an interest in denying that there is anything to this flu outbreak, but surely it's better to be safe than sorry. It is not a choice between denying that there is any danger at all and panicking. There is a sensible middle ground here; being vigilant and prepared is better than a knee-jerk denial of whatever the other side is saying.
Even if this outbreak proves to be nothing serious, and just another type of flu, the flu is no joke. I've been noticing for at least the last decade or so that there are much nastier and harder-to-shake kinds of respiratory viruses going around every year. To me, even if this thing is just 'ordinary' flu, it's well worth it to avoid it if at all possible, and it's irresponsible to laugh this thing off, especially this early in the game.
That being said, those in positions of authority seem to be contradicting themselves; I hear some people saying that the authorities are trying to cause panic, such as by raising the outbreak to pandemic level, while at the same time, these pathetic officials are telling us there is no need to close any borders or to quarantine anyone or even to avoid public gatherings and mass transit. The fact that they are now contradicting themselves, as the CDC is doing, based on their information from 2007, makes little sense. I don't see them creating panic; they seem just as equally committed to fostering a cavalier or passive attitude about this. What is going on? Are they trying to merely confuse people by repeating contradictory and conflicting messages?
All they are doing, as far as I am concerned, is discrediting themselves and showing themselves to have no real concern for us, the people they are supposedly sworn to serve.
By the way, see Tanstaafl's take on this here.
Labels: Corporate Media, Government, Health Care, Political Correctness, Propaganda, Public Health
0 comment Saturday, August 23, 2014 | admin
The current Mexican flu epidemic, which is being facilitated by our foolishly lax border policies, reminds us that earlier generations had a modicum of sense on issues of health in connection with immigration. The editorial cartoon is captioned 'The kind of assisted emigrant [sic] we can not afford to admit'. The cartoon depicts the Grim Reaper, with the name 'cholera' emblazoned on his clothes, entering New York Harbor. The health authorities, bearing a bottle labeled 'Carbolic Acid' are coming out to intercept him, with Castle Garden (Ellis Island) in the background.In those days, as this article at Lori's Latest reminds us, there were health standards in place, and immigrants were turned back if they displayed signs of contagious or chronic diseases. Nowadays, as the article makes clear, illegal immigration makes a mockery of any existing standards for legal immigrants, and sadly it seems that health standards even for legal immigrants are none too strict. I first became aware of the resurgence of Tuberculosis in the late 1970s, when it was occurring in large numbers among legal immigrants in the city where I lived.
Recently I was talking with someone who really had no clue about the myriad diseases being introduced (or re-introduced) into this country by illegal and legal immigration. More people should be made aware of these facts, but political correctness makes it practically an offense to point out essential health information.
Labels: American History, Illegal Immigration, Mass Immigration, Public Health
0 comment Tuesday, August 12, 2014 | admin
It might have been worth watching this fake townhall event if only to see this foot-in-mouth moment -- or was it a Freudian slip? See the video.
However, I missed it -- well, OK, I avoided watching it. I figured it would be staged and scripted and the attendees would all be plants and cult followers.
Yet Obama encountered a friendly, cheering crowd, as if at a campaign stop. While there were crowds of protesters outside, few seemed to make it inside.
He spoke for almost 20 minutes before questions. After several friendly questions, he urged people with tougher ones to step up.
"I don't want people thinking I just have a bunch of plants" in the audience, Obama said. After two more mildly skeptical questions, Obama ended the town hall. He took nine questions in total.
A little girl who asked him a rather precocious-sounding question, may have been a plant, reportedly.
According to the IBD article, the Resident implicitly reiterated the new talking point: that those with concerns about euthanasia or 'death panels' are crazy.
Obama ridiculed the notion that this plan would create "death panels" to decide end-of-life care.
He said the bill provides for panels of experts "who can provide guidelines to doctors and patients about what procedures work best in what situations. . . . These aren't going to be forced on people but they will help guide how the delivery system works so you get better quality care."
My opinion of New Hampshire went down a little after seeing some clips of the audience there; is this the 'Live Free or Die' State?
And is this president the one with the off-the-chart IQ? Why is it that Democrat presidents are always said to be geniuses? Bill Clinton was another mediocrity who was touted as a high-IQ prodigy. Where's the evidence?
I notice that with the president's faux pas or whatever you would call it, the IBD op-ed reports it with a straight face, either missing the irony or intentionally spinning his statement as an 'I meant to say that' moment.
I was talking to a nurse friend yesterday and she is very much opposed to this proposal (which the Democrats say does not exist: ''There is no health bill!" they insist), though the Democrat talking points say that the AMA and the American Nurses' Association are on board with this. My nurse friend says that many of the people she is hearing from are very upset about the prospect of government-run health care. I don't hear much favorable comment about it myself -- in fact, I've heard none, in real life. Only the shills on TV speak in favor of it.
I've read some internet comment from right-wing bloggers criticizing the townhall protesters, on the grounds that it makes us look bad, or that it amounts to using the left's rabble-rousing tactics and crudeness. I don't think there is any kind of 'astroturfing' on a wide scale going on. I don't know any sheeplike Republicans who would attend a protest and shout at their representatives just because the RNC or anyone else told them to. I believe the anger is genuine and spontaneous; it certainly is on my part.
And by the way, the RNC periodically begs me for donations, but they have not contacted me in any way to try to get me to protest or to demonstrate.
Somebody on a blog discussion said that it was ridiculous for people on the far-right to get worked up about health care when we have our dispossession to worry about. I don't see how that person could fail to notice that this thing is a not-so-veiled attack on us, a way to reduce our numbers even further and more quickly. This is a survival issue, and as such it's not trivial or irrelevant, not in the least.
However, I missed it -- well, OK, I avoided watching it. I figured it would be staged and scripted and the attendees would all be plants and cult followers.
Yet Obama encountered a friendly, cheering crowd, as if at a campaign stop. While there were crowds of protesters outside, few seemed to make it inside.
He spoke for almost 20 minutes before questions. After several friendly questions, he urged people with tougher ones to step up.
"I don't want people thinking I just have a bunch of plants" in the audience, Obama said. After two more mildly skeptical questions, Obama ended the town hall. He took nine questions in total.
A little girl who asked him a rather precocious-sounding question, may have been a plant, reportedly.
According to the IBD article, the Resident implicitly reiterated the new talking point: that those with concerns about euthanasia or 'death panels' are crazy.
Obama ridiculed the notion that this plan would create "death panels" to decide end-of-life care.
He said the bill provides for panels of experts "who can provide guidelines to doctors and patients about what procedures work best in what situations. . . . These aren't going to be forced on people but they will help guide how the delivery system works so you get better quality care."
My opinion of New Hampshire went down a little after seeing some clips of the audience there; is this the 'Live Free or Die' State?
And is this president the one with the off-the-chart IQ? Why is it that Democrat presidents are always said to be geniuses? Bill Clinton was another mediocrity who was touted as a high-IQ prodigy. Where's the evidence?
I notice that with the president's faux pas or whatever you would call it, the IBD op-ed reports it with a straight face, either missing the irony or intentionally spinning his statement as an 'I meant to say that' moment.
I was talking to a nurse friend yesterday and she is very much opposed to this proposal (which the Democrats say does not exist: ''There is no health bill!" they insist), though the Democrat talking points say that the AMA and the American Nurses' Association are on board with this. My nurse friend says that many of the people she is hearing from are very upset about the prospect of government-run health care. I don't hear much favorable comment about it myself -- in fact, I've heard none, in real life. Only the shills on TV speak in favor of it.
I've read some internet comment from right-wing bloggers criticizing the townhall protesters, on the grounds that it makes us look bad, or that it amounts to using the left's rabble-rousing tactics and crudeness. I don't think there is any kind of 'astroturfing' on a wide scale going on. I don't know any sheeplike Republicans who would attend a protest and shout at their representatives just because the RNC or anyone else told them to. I believe the anger is genuine and spontaneous; it certainly is on my part.
And by the way, the RNC periodically begs me for donations, but they have not contacted me in any way to try to get me to protest or to demonstrate.
Somebody on a blog discussion said that it was ridiculous for people on the far-right to get worked up about health care when we have our dispossession to worry about. I don't see how that person could fail to notice that this thing is a not-so-veiled attack on us, a way to reduce our numbers even further and more quickly. This is a survival issue, and as such it's not trivial or irrelevant, not in the least.
Labels: Health Care, Media Manipulation, Public Health, Socialism, Socialized Medicine
0 comment Monday, July 28, 2014 | admin
The coverage of the story about Andrew Speaker, the man with drug-resistant TB who may have exposed many airline passengers to the disease, has been interesting, and sometimes full of inconsistencies by the 'experts' interviewed by the cable news channels. MSNBC, for example, devoted a lot of time to the story today, and seemed to take a concerned attitude, while on FOX News I noticed that several of the experts interviewed seemed to downplay any concerns, saying with a dismissive air that TB was 'hard to spread' and that most people should not worry. I see that ABC News Medical Editor quoted in the article linked above also takes the"what, me worry?" approach. Who to believe?
Here is a 2004 article from the Harvard Gazette which tells us that
Drug-resistant TB strains may spread easily
...Current strategies are based on the assumption that multidrug-resistant strains can safely be ignored because the changes that make them drug-resistant also make them less able to reproduce and spread.
Postdoctoral fellow Ted Cohen and Assistant Professor of Epidemiology Megan Murray say that assumption is in error. Studies have already shown that different types of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis exist and that some spread as easily as nondrug-resistant strains.
Using that information, Cohen and Murray developed a mathematical model that shows that even a small number of resistant strains that are fit from an evolutionary standpoint - meaning they can reproduce and spread well - will gradually make up a larger and larger percentage of tuberculosis cases until they present a major public health problem.''
And there is this related piece:
Airborne transmission worse than thought
The article says that researchers concluded that
...a better appreciation of aerosol-acquired infection is needed, especially in environments where ventilation systems in airplanes, apartment buildings, schools, and hospitals circulate and recirculate air that may at times contain infectious airborne aerosol-acquired diseases and viruses. They call for better measures to be taken toward sanitizing the air, through tools such as upper-room ultraviolet irradiation and through research that will help control the spread of airborne infection.''And it's well-known that
TB seen in many aliens, study says
...Cases of tuberculosis, which plateaued in the U.S. after increasing 20 percent in the past two decades, mostly affects the lungs and is spread through airborne bacteria, often through a cough or sneeze. It is considered a global problem, carried in latent form by 2 billion people, or a third of the world's population, said JAMA editor Dr. Catherine De Angelis.
According to this article from 2005, the three states with the greatest number of TB cases are California, Texas, and New York. All of these states, obviously, have some of the largest numbers of immigrants also.
Patients with drug-resistant tuberculosis are four times more likely to die than patients with standard tuberculosis. Forty-nine of the California patients, or 14%, died from their drug-resistant infections, according to the study, published in the Tuesday issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association.''
The Center for Disease Control has a factsheet on Extensively Drug Resistant Tuberculosis (XDR TB) here:
Notice among the FAQs this question, and the answer:
Are immigrants putting the U.S. at increased risk for TB?
Persons applying to enter the U.S. with immigrant or refugee visas must complete a questionnaire about any symptoms of TB they may have and obtain a chest radiograph. If positive, the person submits sputum specimens for examination for TB bacteria. Persons identified as having infectious TB are not granted entry to the United States, until they have been treated.''
I find the answer coy and disingenuous. It does not directly answer the question posed, first of all. And the answer that is given is framed so as to offer reassurance that our government is on top of the problem, proactively screening would-be immigrants and eliminating those who have the disease, or at least insisting that they obtain treatment before they are admitted. But how much proof is required of visa applicants? Do those infected need repeat tests to prove they are cured? If they have a resistant type, and they fail to complete the full treatment, would they still be admitted? Is our inefficient immigration bureaucracy adequate to the task of ensuring that requirements are met?
And tellingly the CDC's answer cagily skirts the question of illegal immigration; we know we have about 1.3 million legal immigrants per year, or at least, so we are told, but how many illegals enter our country every year? Possibly twice that many, by some estimates, but the fact is, nobody knows for sure how many. And we know that NONE of them are screened for contagious diseases. But the CDC gives us a sly, lawyerly answer to the question about immigrants putting us at increased risk. The honest answer would have been a big, unqualified YES. But such an answer would not be politically correct, would it? So it is not just the disease called TB that is endangering us, but the mental and moral disease referred to as PC.
If only we could find a cure for that, we'd be halfway home.
Brenda Walker has an excellent piece dealing with the question of how PC affects our public health policy:
The X-Ray Files: How Political Correctness Is Destroying Effective Public Health Policy
One might think that political correctness would have no place in the more serious arenas of policy, such as public health, but that is not the case. An editorial in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune struck a blow for the say-no-evil variety of public debate, wherein the writer bemoaned the increasing number of Minnesota tuberculosis cases, of which four in five are immigrants. (While TB in the U.S. is on the decline overall, it is growing in states like Minnesota that have large immigrant populations.) Instead of a reasonable and responsible statement about improved screening to keep out persons with dangerous infectious diseases, the Star-Tribune went global, instead recommending only a worldwide effort against TB and saying that "cracking down on immigration is no answer." Evidently the writer has forgotten the history of Ellis Island, where all immigrants were given physical examinations precisely to prevent the entrance of disease-infected persons, with one to three percent of newcomers sent back to their home countries every year because of health concerns. Rejection of foreigners carrying infectious disease is part of our immigration tradition.
[...]
At the same time memories of tuberculosis wards were fading, lawyers enlarged the concept of bioethics and individual patient's rights.
[...]Still, the pendulum has been swinging away from public health requirements at the same time that the globalized economy has exploded with increased trade and immigration -- both of which mean foreign diseases, creatures and organisms are just a plane ride away.
In the last decades, some states diluted their communicable disease-reporting laws and made it more difficult to track infectious diseases. Worse, some public health officials have come to believe that they do not have the authority to restrict individual behavior in situations of danger to the community and have fallen back into a position of merely providing care.
[Note: In yesterday's presser at the CDC, the CDC's Director, Julie Gerberding, spoke about the policy of balancing the 'personal liberty' of people with communicable diseases against the need for public safety. I thought that concept a very PC one; it's not at all the approach that our commonsense ancestors were willing to risk. - VA]
[...]
At the same time, U.S. law prohibits the return of refugees when they have a credible fear of political persecution, even when they also have infectious diseases. In this case, the government has decided that refugee rights are more important than public health. This has serious implications, given a 1996 WHO report estimated that "as many as half the world's refugees may be infected with TB."
[...]
In addition, cultural beliefs about illness and immigrant lifestyles may make effective treatment difficult without Directly Observed Therapy (DOT). Somalis believe that TB is a curse and may be reluctant to admit their illness or seek treatment. Some illegals forego treatment because they believe they will be turned over to the INS for deportation. Migrant workers are harder to treat precisely because they are migrants. The World Health Organization warns that poorly managed tuberculosis programs threaten to make TB incurable.
[...]
A Washington Post story (3/3/00) contained the following remark from the chief of Maryland's Tuberculosis Control, Nancy Baruch: "My greatest fear is that there will be this terrific xenophobic response to anyone who is a quote-unquote refugee or immigrant. All that does is drive someone away from the help they need." One would expect the "greatest fear" of a person in a top public health position to be a sudden outbreak of disease or perhaps an act of bio-terrorism causing the deaths of thousands. But no, the worst horror is bad thoughts about immigrants.
[Note: So 'xenophobia' is considered to be much more of a threat than incurable, possibly fatal diseases. How did we as a society come to this? Better dead than xenophobic, apparently.]
[...]
An effective public health system for the United States should be the paramount concern, but we hear nothing from officials about the jeopardy posed by the current immigration chaos. The politically correct, say-no-evil philosophy of politicians and public health professionals is a dangerous denial. They must do better when the issue is life and death.''
So, the people charged with protecting the public's health and safety are incurably PC, and thus unable to carry out their duties adequately. It's not bad enough that we have to be concerned about XDR TB, Extensively Drug Resistant TB, we are up against "XRR PC": Extensively Reality-Resistant Political Correctness.
And as if on cue, here comes the ACLU, who can be counted on to take the wrong side of most issues, bringing a suit
against Maricopa County, Arizona: they say that Maricopa County violated the rights of a TB patient by quarantining him and ''treating him like a criminal.'' If they win the lawsuit, imagine the precedent set there: quarantining anyone would not be possible.
The man around whom the lawsuit centers also has drug-resistant TB and has refused to follow the treatment.
Is the public health and wellbeing to be endangered so that the irresponsible and the foolish can have their 'personal liberty' or their 'right' to spread disease?
But one small hopeful sign: I have heard some very irate comments about the irresponsibility of Andrew Speaker in exposing the public to his illness. I do believe this may cause some people to begin pondering the health risks that are increasing in our 'global village' open-borders world, and I think some may finally begin to realize that this kind of thing is being unleashed among us by our insane 'invite the world' policies, and ultimately our derelict government officials and politicians. This one airline passenger is simply one of many carrying the disease; the rest of the carriers are anonymous and scattered throughout our country.
Here is a 2004 article from the Harvard Gazette which tells us that
Drug-resistant TB strains may spread easily
...Current strategies are based on the assumption that multidrug-resistant strains can safely be ignored because the changes that make them drug-resistant also make them less able to reproduce and spread.
Postdoctoral fellow Ted Cohen and Assistant Professor of Epidemiology Megan Murray say that assumption is in error. Studies have already shown that different types of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis exist and that some spread as easily as nondrug-resistant strains.
Using that information, Cohen and Murray developed a mathematical model that shows that even a small number of resistant strains that are fit from an evolutionary standpoint - meaning they can reproduce and spread well - will gradually make up a larger and larger percentage of tuberculosis cases until they present a major public health problem.''
And there is this related piece:
Airborne transmission worse than thought
The article says that researchers concluded that
...a better appreciation of aerosol-acquired infection is needed, especially in environments where ventilation systems in airplanes, apartment buildings, schools, and hospitals circulate and recirculate air that may at times contain infectious airborne aerosol-acquired diseases and viruses. They call for better measures to be taken toward sanitizing the air, through tools such as upper-room ultraviolet irradiation and through research that will help control the spread of airborne infection.''And it's well-known that
TB seen in many aliens, study says
...Cases of tuberculosis, which plateaued in the U.S. after increasing 20 percent in the past two decades, mostly affects the lungs and is spread through airborne bacteria, often through a cough or sneeze. It is considered a global problem, carried in latent form by 2 billion people, or a third of the world's population, said JAMA editor Dr. Catherine De Angelis.
According to this article from 2005, the three states with the greatest number of TB cases are California, Texas, and New York. All of these states, obviously, have some of the largest numbers of immigrants also.
Patients with drug-resistant tuberculosis are four times more likely to die than patients with standard tuberculosis. Forty-nine of the California patients, or 14%, died from their drug-resistant infections, according to the study, published in the Tuesday issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association.''
The Center for Disease Control has a factsheet on Extensively Drug Resistant Tuberculosis (XDR TB) here:
Notice among the FAQs this question, and the answer:
Are immigrants putting the U.S. at increased risk for TB?
Persons applying to enter the U.S. with immigrant or refugee visas must complete a questionnaire about any symptoms of TB they may have and obtain a chest radiograph. If positive, the person submits sputum specimens for examination for TB bacteria. Persons identified as having infectious TB are not granted entry to the United States, until they have been treated.''
I find the answer coy and disingenuous. It does not directly answer the question posed, first of all. And the answer that is given is framed so as to offer reassurance that our government is on top of the problem, proactively screening would-be immigrants and eliminating those who have the disease, or at least insisting that they obtain treatment before they are admitted. But how much proof is required of visa applicants? Do those infected need repeat tests to prove they are cured? If they have a resistant type, and they fail to complete the full treatment, would they still be admitted? Is our inefficient immigration bureaucracy adequate to the task of ensuring that requirements are met?
And tellingly the CDC's answer cagily skirts the question of illegal immigration; we know we have about 1.3 million legal immigrants per year, or at least, so we are told, but how many illegals enter our country every year? Possibly twice that many, by some estimates, but the fact is, nobody knows for sure how many. And we know that NONE of them are screened for contagious diseases. But the CDC gives us a sly, lawyerly answer to the question about immigrants putting us at increased risk. The honest answer would have been a big, unqualified YES. But such an answer would not be politically correct, would it? So it is not just the disease called TB that is endangering us, but the mental and moral disease referred to as PC.
If only we could find a cure for that, we'd be halfway home.
Brenda Walker has an excellent piece dealing with the question of how PC affects our public health policy:
The X-Ray Files: How Political Correctness Is Destroying Effective Public Health Policy
One might think that political correctness would have no place in the more serious arenas of policy, such as public health, but that is not the case. An editorial in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune struck a blow for the say-no-evil variety of public debate, wherein the writer bemoaned the increasing number of Minnesota tuberculosis cases, of which four in five are immigrants. (While TB in the U.S. is on the decline overall, it is growing in states like Minnesota that have large immigrant populations.) Instead of a reasonable and responsible statement about improved screening to keep out persons with dangerous infectious diseases, the Star-Tribune went global, instead recommending only a worldwide effort against TB and saying that "cracking down on immigration is no answer." Evidently the writer has forgotten the history of Ellis Island, where all immigrants were given physical examinations precisely to prevent the entrance of disease-infected persons, with one to three percent of newcomers sent back to their home countries every year because of health concerns. Rejection of foreigners carrying infectious disease is part of our immigration tradition.
[...]
At the same time memories of tuberculosis wards were fading, lawyers enlarged the concept of bioethics and individual patient's rights.
[...]Still, the pendulum has been swinging away from public health requirements at the same time that the globalized economy has exploded with increased trade and immigration -- both of which mean foreign diseases, creatures and organisms are just a plane ride away.
In the last decades, some states diluted their communicable disease-reporting laws and made it more difficult to track infectious diseases. Worse, some public health officials have come to believe that they do not have the authority to restrict individual behavior in situations of danger to the community and have fallen back into a position of merely providing care.
[Note: In yesterday's presser at the CDC, the CDC's Director, Julie Gerberding, spoke about the policy of balancing the 'personal liberty' of people with communicable diseases against the need for public safety. I thought that concept a very PC one; it's not at all the approach that our commonsense ancestors were willing to risk. - VA]
[...]
At the same time, U.S. law prohibits the return of refugees when they have a credible fear of political persecution, even when they also have infectious diseases. In this case, the government has decided that refugee rights are more important than public health. This has serious implications, given a 1996 WHO report estimated that "as many as half the world's refugees may be infected with TB."
[...]
In addition, cultural beliefs about illness and immigrant lifestyles may make effective treatment difficult without Directly Observed Therapy (DOT). Somalis believe that TB is a curse and may be reluctant to admit their illness or seek treatment. Some illegals forego treatment because they believe they will be turned over to the INS for deportation. Migrant workers are harder to treat precisely because they are migrants. The World Health Organization warns that poorly managed tuberculosis programs threaten to make TB incurable.
[...]
A Washington Post story (3/3/00) contained the following remark from the chief of Maryland's Tuberculosis Control, Nancy Baruch: "My greatest fear is that there will be this terrific xenophobic response to anyone who is a quote-unquote refugee or immigrant. All that does is drive someone away from the help they need." One would expect the "greatest fear" of a person in a top public health position to be a sudden outbreak of disease or perhaps an act of bio-terrorism causing the deaths of thousands. But no, the worst horror is bad thoughts about immigrants.
[Note: So 'xenophobia' is considered to be much more of a threat than incurable, possibly fatal diseases. How did we as a society come to this? Better dead than xenophobic, apparently.]
[...]
An effective public health system for the United States should be the paramount concern, but we hear nothing from officials about the jeopardy posed by the current immigration chaos. The politically correct, say-no-evil philosophy of politicians and public health professionals is a dangerous denial. They must do better when the issue is life and death.''
So, the people charged with protecting the public's health and safety are incurably PC, and thus unable to carry out their duties adequately. It's not bad enough that we have to be concerned about XDR TB, Extensively Drug Resistant TB, we are up against "XRR PC": Extensively Reality-Resistant Political Correctness.
And as if on cue, here comes the ACLU, who can be counted on to take the wrong side of most issues, bringing a suit
against Maricopa County, Arizona: they say that Maricopa County violated the rights of a TB patient by quarantining him and ''treating him like a criminal.'' If they win the lawsuit, imagine the precedent set there: quarantining anyone would not be possible.
The man around whom the lawsuit centers also has drug-resistant TB and has refused to follow the treatment.
Is the public health and wellbeing to be endangered so that the irresponsible and the foolish can have their 'personal liberty' or their 'right' to spread disease?
But one small hopeful sign: I have heard some very irate comments about the irresponsibility of Andrew Speaker in exposing the public to his illness. I do believe this may cause some people to begin pondering the health risks that are increasing in our 'global village' open-borders world, and I think some may finally begin to realize that this kind of thing is being unleashed among us by our insane 'invite the world' policies, and ultimately our derelict government officials and politicians. This one airline passenger is simply one of many carrying the disease; the rest of the carriers are anonymous and scattered throughout our country.
Labels: Globalism, Immigration, Political Correctness, Public Health
0 comment Friday, June 27, 2014 | admin
The events of recent days are so strange that it's hard to sift the news stories and the chatter about them to discern where the truth lies.
First, the bizarre flyover of Manhattan by Air Force One, accompanied by fighter jets; here's one blogger's take on it.
I've been following numerous internet discussions of that incident as well as talking with people about it in the 'real world.' Just about everyone agrees that the official explanation makes no sense -- that is, the story that a new photo of Air Force One flying over the Statue of Liberty was needed, and that the failure to notify the appropriate authorities or the public was just a 'mistake.'
It seems that there are theories aplenty of what really happened, and we will all be left to speculate and shake our heads about it, as we are not likely to hear a reasonably truthful account of it that makes sense.
My first thought when hearing about this supposed 'photo-op' flight was: why not just use Photoshop? Even I could put together a reasonable composite photo with Photoshop, and I am a rank amateur. No, I don't buy the photo-op story, but any other alternative explanation I can think of is so bizarre that it's pointless to speculate. But these days, almost anything, reasonable or not, seems possible, so strange are these times.
The second subject which defies our efforts to get at the truth is, of course, the Mexican flu story.
No, I won't call it the 'swine flu' as most of the MSM are doing, because from what I've read, the flu involves strains of not only swine but avian and human influenza viruses. And the fact that the politically correct get irate when someone calls it the Mexican flu, based on the site of its first known occurrences, convinces me that Mexican flu is just the right name for it. Whatever gives the PC crowd the vapors must be right.
The left-wing blogosphere is already using the term 'racist hatred' to dismiss any attempt to make the obvious connection between immigrants and this disease.
I've read and heard so much speculation and opinion about the flu from various people, and on the right it seems the most common response is skepticism; "it's just another flu, no big deal. It's a scare story cooked up by the mainstream media, who lie about everything" (which is nearly true, actually) or it's "created by the current regime either to 'cause panic' or to push through a nationalized health care plan", or to "justify repressive measures like martial law" or other outrages.
If it's true that there's nothing to it, that it's just another round of the flu virus, no different than the usual ones, what are all those images of Mexico City with people wearing masks, and the stories of the closing of many schools, and cancelling of public events? Or the closing of borders by other (more sensible) governments? How do the scoffers explain that away? Are the pictures all faked, like the supposedly faked footage of the moon landing in 1969?
If it were a manufactured crisis with a political end in mind, like 'pushing through nationalized health care', it would seem like a rather odd way to go about it. Why would such an event be needed? Does anybody think that the administration would have any trouble passing their health care plan, with the current Congress? How would a pandemic help, unless the idea is that a presidential directive or something would nationalize health care, that it would allow the administration to unilaterally do this?
It would seem to me that a pandemic, or another such nationwide health emergency, would be a bad time to try to institute a cumbersome bureaucratic system which included everybody. And there are the economic considerations; how could the enormous expense be justified in the current climate? I suppose that's a silly question, though, given our current wild spending spree with the economy on the rocks.
It may be a way to justify the need for some kind of 'global governance' to combat a worldwide health crisis; that would be more plausible to me, and if so, it's disturbing.
But regardless, the bottom line is: I don't think it's wise to scoff at the possibility that this flu epidemic might escalate into a real crisis, with widespread illness and lives lost. I certainly hope and pray it won't be as serious as that; I hope the doubters are right, but as of now, they are not basing their doubt on anything more substantial than stubborn skepticism and cynicism. They certainly have no solid reason that I've heard for their certitude that this is all hype and hysteria. Methinks they are whistling in the dark, or to use a grimmer metaphor, whistling past the graveyard.
Regardless of what one believes about the reality of this flu epidemic or about the degree of seriousness, it should trouble us that our supposed leadership seem to be more concerned with the political ramifications than with the health of the citizens of this country. It should disgust us that the people ''in charge'' seem oblivious to our well-being and safety, and that they have a completely passive, feckless attitude, reflected in their cavalier statements that 'there's nothing we can do to contain it' so there's no use in closing borders.
I've heard some cynical citizens make that same statement; they say it's too late; the horse is out of the barn. However I say it's not useless to try to close the door to the many illegal immigrants -- and the legal immigrants, tourists, and visitors from Mexico. I mean, is it not common sense to reason that the more such people enter our country, the greater the likelihood of the disease being transmitted to more Americans, faster? The government seems to take the attitude that since we've undoubtedly let the virus loose in our country, let's just say 'what the heck?' and bring in more and more of it via more immigrants and visitors. What does it matter if there are 1,000 people bringing the virus or 100,000 people bringing the virus? This is essentially the reasoning of our incompetent officials. One, or one hundred thousand, it's all the same, since it's here already.
What kind of 'leadership' is this?
Somebody in the blogosphere had my blog on a list of 'women misogynists', and I know this will further incriminate me in the eyes of such people, but I would feel a lot more confident with some old-style gray-haired gentlemen in positions of leadership. Call me misogynistic if you must, but the girls (of whatever age) with the grade-school-teacher personalities who are standing up there before the microphones inspire no confidence in me. They look and act and speak like sing-songy schoolmarms rather than people who should be in national leadership positions. (And please, if you are a grade-school teacher or any other kind, this is not meant to offend you. I am simply talking about a certain type of liberal female. I know there are wonderful conservative schoolteachers out there -- somewhere. And God bless them.)
Leadership is lacking, truth is in short supply, and the population is in a state of confusion and discontent.
This would be the perfect time, given the leadership vacuum, for local and regional authorities to step up to the plate and do what they should do; there is no direction from those at the top. America truly is, for now, a flock of sheep without a shepherd.
First, the bizarre flyover of Manhattan by Air Force One, accompanied by fighter jets; here's one blogger's take on it.
I've been following numerous internet discussions of that incident as well as talking with people about it in the 'real world.' Just about everyone agrees that the official explanation makes no sense -- that is, the story that a new photo of Air Force One flying over the Statue of Liberty was needed, and that the failure to notify the appropriate authorities or the public was just a 'mistake.'
It seems that there are theories aplenty of what really happened, and we will all be left to speculate and shake our heads about it, as we are not likely to hear a reasonably truthful account of it that makes sense.
My first thought when hearing about this supposed 'photo-op' flight was: why not just use Photoshop? Even I could put together a reasonable composite photo with Photoshop, and I am a rank amateur. No, I don't buy the photo-op story, but any other alternative explanation I can think of is so bizarre that it's pointless to speculate. But these days, almost anything, reasonable or not, seems possible, so strange are these times.
The second subject which defies our efforts to get at the truth is, of course, the Mexican flu story.
No, I won't call it the 'swine flu' as most of the MSM are doing, because from what I've read, the flu involves strains of not only swine but avian and human influenza viruses. And the fact that the politically correct get irate when someone calls it the Mexican flu, based on the site of its first known occurrences, convinces me that Mexican flu is just the right name for it. Whatever gives the PC crowd the vapors must be right.
The left-wing blogosphere is already using the term 'racist hatred' to dismiss any attempt to make the obvious connection between immigrants and this disease.
I've read and heard so much speculation and opinion about the flu from various people, and on the right it seems the most common response is skepticism; "it's just another flu, no big deal. It's a scare story cooked up by the mainstream media, who lie about everything" (which is nearly true, actually) or it's "created by the current regime either to 'cause panic' or to push through a nationalized health care plan", or to "justify repressive measures like martial law" or other outrages.
If it's true that there's nothing to it, that it's just another round of the flu virus, no different than the usual ones, what are all those images of Mexico City with people wearing masks, and the stories of the closing of many schools, and cancelling of public events? Or the closing of borders by other (more sensible) governments? How do the scoffers explain that away? Are the pictures all faked, like the supposedly faked footage of the moon landing in 1969?
If it were a manufactured crisis with a political end in mind, like 'pushing through nationalized health care', it would seem like a rather odd way to go about it. Why would such an event be needed? Does anybody think that the administration would have any trouble passing their health care plan, with the current Congress? How would a pandemic help, unless the idea is that a presidential directive or something would nationalize health care, that it would allow the administration to unilaterally do this?
It would seem to me that a pandemic, or another such nationwide health emergency, would be a bad time to try to institute a cumbersome bureaucratic system which included everybody. And there are the economic considerations; how could the enormous expense be justified in the current climate? I suppose that's a silly question, though, given our current wild spending spree with the economy on the rocks.
It may be a way to justify the need for some kind of 'global governance' to combat a worldwide health crisis; that would be more plausible to me, and if so, it's disturbing.
But regardless, the bottom line is: I don't think it's wise to scoff at the possibility that this flu epidemic might escalate into a real crisis, with widespread illness and lives lost. I certainly hope and pray it won't be as serious as that; I hope the doubters are right, but as of now, they are not basing their doubt on anything more substantial than stubborn skepticism and cynicism. They certainly have no solid reason that I've heard for their certitude that this is all hype and hysteria. Methinks they are whistling in the dark, or to use a grimmer metaphor, whistling past the graveyard.
Regardless of what one believes about the reality of this flu epidemic or about the degree of seriousness, it should trouble us that our supposed leadership seem to be more concerned with the political ramifications than with the health of the citizens of this country. It should disgust us that the people ''in charge'' seem oblivious to our well-being and safety, and that they have a completely passive, feckless attitude, reflected in their cavalier statements that 'there's nothing we can do to contain it' so there's no use in closing borders.
I've heard some cynical citizens make that same statement; they say it's too late; the horse is out of the barn. However I say it's not useless to try to close the door to the many illegal immigrants -- and the legal immigrants, tourists, and visitors from Mexico. I mean, is it not common sense to reason that the more such people enter our country, the greater the likelihood of the disease being transmitted to more Americans, faster? The government seems to take the attitude that since we've undoubtedly let the virus loose in our country, let's just say 'what the heck?' and bring in more and more of it via more immigrants and visitors. What does it matter if there are 1,000 people bringing the virus or 100,000 people bringing the virus? This is essentially the reasoning of our incompetent officials. One, or one hundred thousand, it's all the same, since it's here already.
What kind of 'leadership' is this?
Somebody in the blogosphere had my blog on a list of 'women misogynists', and I know this will further incriminate me in the eyes of such people, but I would feel a lot more confident with some old-style gray-haired gentlemen in positions of leadership. Call me misogynistic if you must, but the girls (of whatever age) with the grade-school-teacher personalities who are standing up there before the microphones inspire no confidence in me. They look and act and speak like sing-songy schoolmarms rather than people who should be in national leadership positions. (And please, if you are a grade-school teacher or any other kind, this is not meant to offend you. I am simply talking about a certain type of liberal female. I know there are wonderful conservative schoolteachers out there -- somewhere. And God bless them.)
Leadership is lacking, truth is in short supply, and the population is in a state of confusion and discontent.
This would be the perfect time, given the leadership vacuum, for local and regional authorities to step up to the plate and do what they should do; there is no direction from those at the top. America truly is, for now, a flock of sheep without a shepherd.
Labels: Leadership, Mass Immigration, Media Bias, News, Open Borders, Political Correctness, Public Health, Rumors
0 comment Friday, June 6, 2014 | admin
Below are several links to stories on the Mexican flu outbreak:
California expects to find more new flu cases
Officials Say 8 NYC Prep School Students Probably Have Swine Flu
More cases of swine flu reported; WHO warns of 'health emergency'
UK crew member in hospital after Mexico flight
BBC Have Your Say: Mexico flu: Your experiences
The last link above is from the BBC website, with readers in Mexico giving first-person accounts of the situation.
Over at Free Republic, there is a thread essentially denouncing all the news stories as so much media hype and propaganda. The original poster scoffs at the whole idea of a new strain of flu, and believes it's media-invented, or some kind of government-generated hype. A majority of the comments agree, with only a few on that thread believing there may be something to all the hype and hysteria.
I am keeping an open mind; I remember well how, a few years ago, there was the flurry of scare stories about SARS, the respiratory bug that seemed to be killing people in China, or people who had lately visited there. Then, starting a few years ago, there has been a constant flow of stories about possible Avian flu pandemics; that has somewhat died down now, but when it was at its height, I wondered why, exactly, the media (or the health authorities, or whoever was feeding the media) wanted to create fear around the possibility. After all, the authorities and the media seemed to say that there was little that could be done to prevent such an outbreak or even to contain it, much less to prevent it. So why generate so much anxiety and concern about something over which, apparently, we have no control?
At the time of the SARS scare, I wondered why on earth there was no effort to control our borders and to assiduously screen anybody who had recently been in the infected areas. Of course since the epidemic happened in 2003, I've concluded that our insane elites' dedication to open borders and 'globalization' override any petty concerns for public health and safety.
The worldwide influenza epidemic of 1918 was aided, so it's said, by the mass movements of peoples associated with World War I.
Considering the differences in mass transportation and the globalizing of our world, plus the huge overall increase in population, I would venture to guess that there are many, many more people on the move around the planet now than at any time in human history, and it is a wonder that we haven't yet had a devastating global pandemic thanks to this widespread nomadism that is happening today. Couple the unprecedented movements of large numbers of people with the poor hygiene and health that prevails in many parts of the world, especially the parts of the world which send immigrants to the First World, and such an epidemic seems highly likely, sooner or later.
And given the fact that we now seem to have a 'thou shalt not close the borders' commandment governing our policies, it would seem that even a deadly epidemic on the scale of the 1918 occurrence would not end our insane openness.
We might say that borders are our country's immune system, and that we now have a seriously impaired immune system, no longer defending against invaders. And what the open borders crowd vilifies as 'xenophobia' is just our psychological immune response to potential threats. Liberalism and the cult of 'diversity and inclusion' is the destruction of our immune system, the equivalent, really, of AIDS in a nation.
Open borders = tempting fate.
So what should be the proper reaction to these flu stories? I don't believe we should panic or become unnecessarily fearful, but on the other hand I can't join the scoffers' chorus and say that it's all hype and nothing to worry about. I think we have to exercise sensible precautions, such as avoiding travel to affected areas, and avoiding contact with anyone who exhibits any suspicious symptoms. It would be bad if this thing spreads, and people resort to panic buying of food, water, and other necessities. It's always sensible, however, to have enough food and water on hand in case of any kind of emergency such as a natural disaster, so many of us probably have such things on hand.
One thing I haven't read in the stories that have appeared is a definite incubation period. It's important to know how long it takes for symptoms to develop once someone has contracted the virus. If the incubation period is short, that makes it worse.
If any of you have information to share or any reports of illness where you are, share them here, please, and of course offer your opinions on this situation.
Update: Apparently, Guatemala is acting to tighten up their border with Mexico,. (H/T Elsinore at Cordelia For Lear)
And there are some informative posts on the flu story, with many good links, here and here.
California expects to find more new flu cases
Officials Say 8 NYC Prep School Students Probably Have Swine Flu
More cases of swine flu reported; WHO warns of 'health emergency'
UK crew member in hospital after Mexico flight
BBC Have Your Say: Mexico flu: Your experiences
The last link above is from the BBC website, with readers in Mexico giving first-person accounts of the situation.
Over at Free Republic, there is a thread essentially denouncing all the news stories as so much media hype and propaganda. The original poster scoffs at the whole idea of a new strain of flu, and believes it's media-invented, or some kind of government-generated hype. A majority of the comments agree, with only a few on that thread believing there may be something to all the hype and hysteria.
I am keeping an open mind; I remember well how, a few years ago, there was the flurry of scare stories about SARS, the respiratory bug that seemed to be killing people in China, or people who had lately visited there. Then, starting a few years ago, there has been a constant flow of stories about possible Avian flu pandemics; that has somewhat died down now, but when it was at its height, I wondered why, exactly, the media (or the health authorities, or whoever was feeding the media) wanted to create fear around the possibility. After all, the authorities and the media seemed to say that there was little that could be done to prevent such an outbreak or even to contain it, much less to prevent it. So why generate so much anxiety and concern about something over which, apparently, we have no control?
At the time of the SARS scare, I wondered why on earth there was no effort to control our borders and to assiduously screen anybody who had recently been in the infected areas. Of course since the epidemic happened in 2003, I've concluded that our insane elites' dedication to open borders and 'globalization' override any petty concerns for public health and safety.
The worldwide influenza epidemic of 1918 was aided, so it's said, by the mass movements of peoples associated with World War I.
Considering the differences in mass transportation and the globalizing of our world, plus the huge overall increase in population, I would venture to guess that there are many, many more people on the move around the planet now than at any time in human history, and it is a wonder that we haven't yet had a devastating global pandemic thanks to this widespread nomadism that is happening today. Couple the unprecedented movements of large numbers of people with the poor hygiene and health that prevails in many parts of the world, especially the parts of the world which send immigrants to the First World, and such an epidemic seems highly likely, sooner or later.
And given the fact that we now seem to have a 'thou shalt not close the borders' commandment governing our policies, it would seem that even a deadly epidemic on the scale of the 1918 occurrence would not end our insane openness.
We might say that borders are our country's immune system, and that we now have a seriously impaired immune system, no longer defending against invaders. And what the open borders crowd vilifies as 'xenophobia' is just our psychological immune response to potential threats. Liberalism and the cult of 'diversity and inclusion' is the destruction of our immune system, the equivalent, really, of AIDS in a nation.
Open borders = tempting fate.
So what should be the proper reaction to these flu stories? I don't believe we should panic or become unnecessarily fearful, but on the other hand I can't join the scoffers' chorus and say that it's all hype and nothing to worry about. I think we have to exercise sensible precautions, such as avoiding travel to affected areas, and avoiding contact with anyone who exhibits any suspicious symptoms. It would be bad if this thing spreads, and people resort to panic buying of food, water, and other necessities. It's always sensible, however, to have enough food and water on hand in case of any kind of emergency such as a natural disaster, so many of us probably have such things on hand.
One thing I haven't read in the stories that have appeared is a definite incubation period. It's important to know how long it takes for symptoms to develop once someone has contracted the virus. If the incubation period is short, that makes it worse.
If any of you have information to share or any reports of illness where you are, share them here, please, and of course offer your opinions on this situation.
Update: Apparently, Guatemala is acting to tighten up their border with Mexico,. (H/T Elsinore at Cordelia For Lear)
And there are some informative posts on the flu story, with many good links, here and here.
Labels: Mass Media, Open Borders, Openness, Public Health
0 comment Saturday, May 17, 2014 | admin
It's becoming more and more open and brazen.
THE health bills coming out of Congress would put the de cisions about your care in the hands of presidential appointees. They'd decide what plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have and what seniors get under Medicare. Yet at least two of President Obama's top health advisers should never be trusted with that power. Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free.
[...]
Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008). Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else. Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time. Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).''
This bill is not getting the attention it deserves. Many of the op-eds that are appearing are more focused on the costs of this monstrosity, not the alarming ideas about the (non)-value of human life that are becoming more and more explicit as we find out more about this thing.This should concern all of us; it does not matter if you are young, or relatively young. Even the young and fit might at any time be in a disabling accident or be diagnosed with a serious illness which these leftist social engineers deem too 'costly', especially if treatment will only sustain the life of someone who would no longer be 'productive' or of any use to the State.
So this is not just something that will affect older people, who are unfortunately regarded as useless by many people in this callous age. It might affect people of any age, and even if it does not affect you personally now, it will at some point.
It's ironic in the extreme that the very people (leftists and pseudo-compassionate liberals) who pose as ''caring'' people, and who constantly call those to the right of them ''Nazis'', are willing to support a plan like this, with its totalitarian priorities.
Back during Ronald Reagan's terms of office, the news media constantly featured stories about Republican cold-heartedness. Those of you who remember that era will remember the stories about how the evil Republican budget cuts meant that children were given ketchup in their school lunches in place of a vegetable. Then there were the cries that poor elderly people were going to be out on the street under the budget cuts, and that many old folks were forced to eat cat food because they could not afford real food under the harsh Republican administration.
Obviously that was all hyperbole, but now these same tender-hearted people are nonchalantly proposing that we write off many old and disabled people because it is too costly and 'unfair' to keep them alive.
I plan to send this article to some of the liberals I know; I would bet that many of them, being rather ill-informed except for what they hear on NPR, are not aware of the provisions in this health care bill. This needs to be discussed.
THE health bills coming out of Congress would put the de cisions about your care in the hands of presidential appointees. They'd decide what plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have and what seniors get under Medicare. Yet at least two of President Obama's top health advisers should never be trusted with that power. Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free.
[...]
Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008). Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else. Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time. Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).''
This bill is not getting the attention it deserves. Many of the op-eds that are appearing are more focused on the costs of this monstrosity, not the alarming ideas about the (non)-value of human life that are becoming more and more explicit as we find out more about this thing.This should concern all of us; it does not matter if you are young, or relatively young. Even the young and fit might at any time be in a disabling accident or be diagnosed with a serious illness which these leftist social engineers deem too 'costly', especially if treatment will only sustain the life of someone who would no longer be 'productive' or of any use to the State.
So this is not just something that will affect older people, who are unfortunately regarded as useless by many people in this callous age. It might affect people of any age, and even if it does not affect you personally now, it will at some point.
It's ironic in the extreme that the very people (leftists and pseudo-compassionate liberals) who pose as ''caring'' people, and who constantly call those to the right of them ''Nazis'', are willing to support a plan like this, with its totalitarian priorities.
Back during Ronald Reagan's terms of office, the news media constantly featured stories about Republican cold-heartedness. Those of you who remember that era will remember the stories about how the evil Republican budget cuts meant that children were given ketchup in their school lunches in place of a vegetable. Then there were the cries that poor elderly people were going to be out on the street under the budget cuts, and that many old folks were forced to eat cat food because they could not afford real food under the harsh Republican administration.
Obviously that was all hyperbole, but now these same tender-hearted people are nonchalantly proposing that we write off many old and disabled people because it is too costly and 'unfair' to keep them alive.
I plan to send this article to some of the liberals I know; I would bet that many of them, being rather ill-informed except for what they hear on NPR, are not aware of the provisions in this health care bill. This needs to be discussed.
Labels: Big Government, Democrats, Euthanasia, Health Care, Liberal Hypocrisy, Liberalism, Medical Care, Medical Ethics, Nanny State, Public Health, Totalitarianism
0 comment Thursday, May 8, 2014 | admin
Over at Iron Ink, there are several good entries on the health care proposal, in particular this one, Nietzsche's Little Shop of Horrors.
Here is the problem folks.
America is broke and it needs to find ways to cut budgetary corners.
The answer, in part to that, is to allow Senior Citizens, the infirm, and the handicapped to die as opposed to giving them treatment. The solution is right out of Nietzsche�s playbook. The Christian values of gentleness, forgiveness, and mercy are going to be thrown out in order that a Nietzschean ubermensch (Supermen) can survive. Obama is invoking the "will to power," in his plan to make Senior Citizens, the infirm, and the handicapped be the ones who help America out of its bankrupt condition.''
I agree with that assessment of the problem.
But the paradox is that the Left, the ones who are hell-bent on having this plan become law, position themselves as the champions of the weak, the downtrodden, and the politically 'disenfranchised.' But here they are taking a blatantly Nietzschean perspective. Can they continue to do this and still maintain any credibility as the party of 'caring and compassion'?
And how can the same people who arrogantly pronounce that we have to throw the 'non-contributing' individuals overboard in order to achieve health-care justice at the same time continue flooding our country with costly newcomers, many of them with exotic Third-world diseases and generally neglected health? The fact of many bankrupt hospitals in border states is but one illustration of how devastating to our health care system is the influx of illegal (and legal) immigrants.
Yet the powers that be, and their media flunkeys, (including the Wall Street Journal) continue to studiously ignore and deny the costs of mass immigration and the health problems which the newcomers bring with them.
But here, even the open-borders WSJ acknowledges the problem:
VALLEJO, Calif. -- A health clinic in this blue-collar city north of Oakland, partly funded by the county, is saving local hospitals thousands of dollars in emergency-room visits by treating uninsured patients who suffer only non-urgent ailments.
A watchdog group is now calling on county officials to cut funding for clinic patients who can't prove they are in the U.S. legally, a debate certain to surface in the national health-care overhaul.
With congressional proposals already stirring raw emotions, few supporters are eager to add the incendiary issue of illegal immigration. A provision in the House's health-care-overhaul bill rules out federal funding for illegal immigrants.
But in many ways, illegal immigration is at the nexus of two key health issues: the uninsured and ballooning costs.
Roughly half of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. don't have health insurance, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research group. Like others who can't afford medical care, illegal immigrants tend to flock to hospital emergency rooms, which, under a 1986 law, can't turn people away, even if they can't pay. Emergency-room visits, where treatment costs are much higher than in clinics, jumped 32% nationally between 1996 and 2006, the latest data available.
The role illegal immigrants play in U.S. health-care costs is "one hot button that no one wants to touch," says Stephen Zuckerman, an economist at the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington.''
Well, Mr. Zuckerman, why do you suppose it is a 'hot button that no one wants to touch'? Obviously, it's because as I said yesterday, race is involved. If we had tens of millions of White Canadians thronging across our Northern border to 'seek a better life', nobody would be afraid to complain about it. Of course our Canadian cousins are generally too well-behaved and self-sufficient to violate our borders en masse, and they have created themselves a livable country, so the notion of their becoming border-jumpers should strike us as laughable. But alas, our borders are being violated by people of a protected race, so we must not notice the crisis their trespassing is causing, lest we be 'racists.' So no, Mr. Zuckerman, nobody wants to touch that hot button, which has been made a hot button on purpose, to keep us quiet about what is happening. But back to the article:
Residents have since complained to a 19-member county-appointed watchdog group about taxpayer money La Clínica going to health care for people living in the U.S. illegally. Neither the clinic nor the Sutter emergency room ask people their immigration status.
"All we can ask them is their name, date of birth and chief complaint," says Ms. Hammons, the Sutter emergency-department manager. "Heavens, we don't deny anybody treatment. You are required to see anyone who shows up at the emergency department.''
Yes; I think this is official policy in many places. They can't be asked for proof of citizenship, so a blind eye is turned, in 'don't ask, don't tell' fashion. I often tell people this is happening, and they are incredulous, because many people naively assume that ''it's against the law for illegals to get services'', not only medical care, but welfare and other social programs. But then I have to remind the doubters that ''it's against the law to cross the borders without proper permission, too" -- but that hasn't stopped millions from doing so, has it?
VDare has more on health care for immigrants:
A Colorado Ph.D says Mexicans with AIDS drain California of millions every year
and this piece by Brenda Walker about organ transplants for illegals.
There is no question that foreigners illegally enter the country to get million-dollar transplants not available at home, e.g. Ana Puente and Jessica Santillan, who received at least seven organs between them. The Chicago Tribune recently reported, "Liliana Cruz, 16, and her family came to the U.S. illegally in 2005, trying to get a kidney transplant for her." She hasn�t gotten a transplant and complains about receiving free-to-her dialysis provided by taxpayers. So inconvenient.''
Many of these immigrants come here to get extremely costly treatment which they could not get in their home countries. Some Americans are reluctant to object to this, thinking it un-Christian or uncharitable -- but we have to remember there are many of our own people on waiting lists for transplants or dialysis. Should we not put our own first, as most countries do? None of us, not even "rich" old Uncle Sam (who is actually a pauper now) can care for everybody. We have to prioritize.
But as I asked on the Iron Ink piece, will these HIV-positive immigrants and others with costly medical conditions be turned away or denied care under the proposed system? I can hardly imagine that happening, because these people are the protected victims, the 'special' ones who are prioritized under the left's system. They will not be denied treatment.
The idea inherent in this plan is that health care should be guided by the left's notion of 'social justice', and doled out to those deemed ''underserved'' or underprivileged, while those who have ''had their day'' will be expected to step aside in favor of the younger people, most particularly those of the protected 'victim' groups.
[Emanuel] explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).''
If costs are indeed the deciding factor, and old or chronically ill people are just a burden on the rest, how can the government still open our borders and our treasury to millions more immigrants, who have proven to be very costly to the system?
The leftists, of course, are not troubled by glaring contradictions and inconsistencies. Everything is ultimately ideological and political to them, including human life.
And young people, who think this is strictly about those old folks for whom you have little sympathy, remember that you, too, could become disabled via accident or chronic illness. And your life, too, will be considered too costly to sustain -- unless, of course, you are a member of a politically favored group.
This is an issue that should concern everyone, regardless of age.
Here is the problem folks.
America is broke and it needs to find ways to cut budgetary corners.
The answer, in part to that, is to allow Senior Citizens, the infirm, and the handicapped to die as opposed to giving them treatment. The solution is right out of Nietzsche�s playbook. The Christian values of gentleness, forgiveness, and mercy are going to be thrown out in order that a Nietzschean ubermensch (Supermen) can survive. Obama is invoking the "will to power," in his plan to make Senior Citizens, the infirm, and the handicapped be the ones who help America out of its bankrupt condition.''
I agree with that assessment of the problem.
But the paradox is that the Left, the ones who are hell-bent on having this plan become law, position themselves as the champions of the weak, the downtrodden, and the politically 'disenfranchised.' But here they are taking a blatantly Nietzschean perspective. Can they continue to do this and still maintain any credibility as the party of 'caring and compassion'?
And how can the same people who arrogantly pronounce that we have to throw the 'non-contributing' individuals overboard in order to achieve health-care justice at the same time continue flooding our country with costly newcomers, many of them with exotic Third-world diseases and generally neglected health? The fact of many bankrupt hospitals in border states is but one illustration of how devastating to our health care system is the influx of illegal (and legal) immigrants.
Yet the powers that be, and their media flunkeys, (including the Wall Street Journal) continue to studiously ignore and deny the costs of mass immigration and the health problems which the newcomers bring with them.
But here, even the open-borders WSJ acknowledges the problem:
VALLEJO, Calif. -- A health clinic in this blue-collar city north of Oakland, partly funded by the county, is saving local hospitals thousands of dollars in emergency-room visits by treating uninsured patients who suffer only non-urgent ailments.
A watchdog group is now calling on county officials to cut funding for clinic patients who can't prove they are in the U.S. legally, a debate certain to surface in the national health-care overhaul.
With congressional proposals already stirring raw emotions, few supporters are eager to add the incendiary issue of illegal immigration. A provision in the House's health-care-overhaul bill rules out federal funding for illegal immigrants.
But in many ways, illegal immigration is at the nexus of two key health issues: the uninsured and ballooning costs.
Roughly half of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. don't have health insurance, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research group. Like others who can't afford medical care, illegal immigrants tend to flock to hospital emergency rooms, which, under a 1986 law, can't turn people away, even if they can't pay. Emergency-room visits, where treatment costs are much higher than in clinics, jumped 32% nationally between 1996 and 2006, the latest data available.
The role illegal immigrants play in U.S. health-care costs is "one hot button that no one wants to touch," says Stephen Zuckerman, an economist at the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington.''
Well, Mr. Zuckerman, why do you suppose it is a 'hot button that no one wants to touch'? Obviously, it's because as I said yesterday, race is involved. If we had tens of millions of White Canadians thronging across our Northern border to 'seek a better life', nobody would be afraid to complain about it. Of course our Canadian cousins are generally too well-behaved and self-sufficient to violate our borders en masse, and they have created themselves a livable country, so the notion of their becoming border-jumpers should strike us as laughable. But alas, our borders are being violated by people of a protected race, so we must not notice the crisis their trespassing is causing, lest we be 'racists.' So no, Mr. Zuckerman, nobody wants to touch that hot button, which has been made a hot button on purpose, to keep us quiet about what is happening. But back to the article:
Residents have since complained to a 19-member county-appointed watchdog group about taxpayer money La Clínica going to health care for people living in the U.S. illegally. Neither the clinic nor the Sutter emergency room ask people their immigration status.
"All we can ask them is their name, date of birth and chief complaint," says Ms. Hammons, the Sutter emergency-department manager. "Heavens, we don't deny anybody treatment. You are required to see anyone who shows up at the emergency department.''
Yes; I think this is official policy in many places. They can't be asked for proof of citizenship, so a blind eye is turned, in 'don't ask, don't tell' fashion. I often tell people this is happening, and they are incredulous, because many people naively assume that ''it's against the law for illegals to get services'', not only medical care, but welfare and other social programs. But then I have to remind the doubters that ''it's against the law to cross the borders without proper permission, too" -- but that hasn't stopped millions from doing so, has it?
VDare has more on health care for immigrants:
A Colorado Ph.D says Mexicans with AIDS drain California of millions every year
and this piece by Brenda Walker about organ transplants for illegals.
There is no question that foreigners illegally enter the country to get million-dollar transplants not available at home, e.g. Ana Puente and Jessica Santillan, who received at least seven organs between them. The Chicago Tribune recently reported, "Liliana Cruz, 16, and her family came to the U.S. illegally in 2005, trying to get a kidney transplant for her." She hasn�t gotten a transplant and complains about receiving free-to-her dialysis provided by taxpayers. So inconvenient.''
Many of these immigrants come here to get extremely costly treatment which they could not get in their home countries. Some Americans are reluctant to object to this, thinking it un-Christian or uncharitable -- but we have to remember there are many of our own people on waiting lists for transplants or dialysis. Should we not put our own first, as most countries do? None of us, not even "rich" old Uncle Sam (who is actually a pauper now) can care for everybody. We have to prioritize.
But as I asked on the Iron Ink piece, will these HIV-positive immigrants and others with costly medical conditions be turned away or denied care under the proposed system? I can hardly imagine that happening, because these people are the protected victims, the 'special' ones who are prioritized under the left's system. They will not be denied treatment.
The idea inherent in this plan is that health care should be guided by the left's notion of 'social justice', and doled out to those deemed ''underserved'' or underprivileged, while those who have ''had their day'' will be expected to step aside in favor of the younger people, most particularly those of the protected 'victim' groups.
[Emanuel] explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).''
If costs are indeed the deciding factor, and old or chronically ill people are just a burden on the rest, how can the government still open our borders and our treasury to millions more immigrants, who have proven to be very costly to the system?
The leftists, of course, are not troubled by glaring contradictions and inconsistencies. Everything is ultimately ideological and political to them, including human life.
And young people, who think this is strictly about those old folks for whom you have little sympathy, remember that you, too, could become disabled via accident or chronic illness. And your life, too, will be considered too costly to sustain -- unless, of course, you are a member of a politically favored group.
This is an issue that should concern everyone, regardless of age.
Labels: Health Care, Liberal Hypocrisy, Medical Ethics, Public Health, Socialism, Socialized Medicine