BMW i
Forum for the BMW i3, i4 and i8
BMW i3 BMW i8
BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

  BMW i Forums > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      10-17-2014, 10:16 AM   #23
UncleWede
Long Time Admirer, First Time Owner
UncleWede's Avatar
United_States
7901
Rep
7,434
Posts

Drives: E90 325i Arctic
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxnard, CA

iTrader: (0)

The state of Texas, last night, imposed forced "monitoring" of those the CDC has identified as having been in contact with Duncan (patient zero). Twice a day someone will come to their house, take their temp, evaluate their health. No going to public spaces. No church, no school, no grocery store, no restaurants. They are dancing around the terminology, but this is effectively a quarantine AND a travel ban. Of US citizens who may have come in contact with a patient, even in their protective clothing.
Yet we can't possibly impose a ban on travel from countries where the virus is raging.

And in that ban, I'm not concerned with the locals who probably can't afford the plane ticket. I'm far more concerned with the volunteers. Yes, they are far braver than I, going into that situation to help their fellow man. You made the investment of your own free will. Now you must stay in an isolated area until after your incubation period. WHO is forcing countries like Nigeria and Senegal to go 41 days without a new case before declaring them ebola free. I'd be comfortable if you stayed in a controlled space for 40 days before flying back to the US.

And why oh why is it only the US that needs to ban these flights? If the entire UN countries signed a resolution banning the COMMERCIAL flights, we wouldn't have to worry about people "hiding" their travel and sneaking into the US. We sent the 101st over there, they aren't coming back on Frontier Air.

#Stockpiling_Ammo
Appreciate 0
      10-17-2014, 11:12 AM   #24
128Convertibleguy
Captain
42
Rep
704
Posts

Drives: 2010 128 Covertible
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mountains

iTrader: (0)

Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
Thanks for the hate speech. Now, where is what she said incorrect?
Tony has pretty well taken care of that, but...

The idea of being opposed to "hate speech" and supporting Ann Coulter is one of the most hilarious acts of hypocrisy I've ever seen, even on this forum. She is little else than a media based fountain of "hate speech". A one trick circus act, not worthy of serious intellectual consideration.

To take her word over that of contagious disease experts, who say a travel ban will not work, and will likely be counterproductive, is beyond ludicrous.
Appreciate 0
      10-17-2014, 12:20 PM   #25
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
704
Rep
5,665
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleWede View Post
The state of Texas, last night, imposed forced "monitoring" of those the CDC has identified as having been in contact with Duncan (patient zero). Twice a day someone will come to their house, take their temp, evaluate their health. No going to public spaces. No church, no school, no grocery store, no restaurants. They are dancing around the terminology, but this is effectively a quarantine AND a travel ban. Of US citizens who may have come in contact with a patient, even in their protective clothing.
Yet we can't possibly impose a ban on travel from countries where the virus is raging.

And in that ban, I'm not concerned with the locals who probably can't afford the plane ticket. I'm far more concerned with the volunteers. Yes, they are far braver than I, going into that situation to help their fellow man. You made the investment of your own free will. Now you must stay in an isolated area until after your incubation period. WHO is forcing countries like Nigeria and Senegal to go 41 days without a new case before declaring them ebola free. I'd be comfortable if you stayed in a controlled space for 40 days before flying back to the US.

And why oh why is it only the US that needs to ban these flights? If the entire UN countries signed a resolution banning the COMMERCIAL flights, we wouldn't have to worry about people "hiding" their travel and sneaking into the US. We sent the 101st over there, they aren't coming back on Frontier Air.

#Stockpiling_Ammo
Even traveling by private plane, it's hard to enter U.S. airspace and not be noticed.
Personally, I'd be more worried about boats and foot traffic than about airplane traffic.
All the best.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed
Appreciate 0
      10-17-2014, 02:15 PM   #26
UncleWede
Long Time Admirer, First Time Owner
UncleWede's Avatar
United_States
7901
Rep
7,434
Posts

Drives: E90 325i Arctic
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxnard, CA

iTrader: (0)

Further, "in an abundance of caution" they have isolated a lab worker who worked at the hospital in the lab and went on a cruise. But we can't possibly restrict travel from countries in an active pandemic/epidemic. Granted, this was done by Carnival privately.

Can we get all our major air carriers to stop voluntarily, or would that somehow constitute some sort of violation of civil rights?

#Stockpiling_Ammo
Appreciate 0
      10-17-2014, 06:25 PM   #27
SoCal235
Private First Class
42
Rep
166
Posts

Drives: M235
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SoCal

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
Tony has pretty well taken care of that, but...

The idea of being opposed to "hate speech" and supporting Ann Coulter is one of the most hilarious acts of hypocrisy I've ever seen, even on this forum. She is little else than a media based fountain of "hate speech". A one trick circus act, not worthy of serious intellectual consideration.

To take her word over that of contagious disease experts, who say a travel ban will not work, and will likely be counterproductive, is beyond ludicrous.
Any person that takes her opinion over the opinion of trained health professionals is an absolute moron. Those who push her opinions, are even worse.
Appreciate 0
      10-17-2014, 10:56 PM   #28
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
704
Rep
5,665
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleWede View Post
Further, "in an abundance of caution" they have isolated a lab worker who worked at the hospital in the lab and went on a cruise. But we can't possibly restrict travel from countries in an active pandemic/epidemic. Granted, this was done by Carnival privately.

Can we get all our major air carriers to stop voluntarily, or would that somehow constitute some sort of violation of civil rights?

#Stockpiling_Ammo
If they all do that, I'm fine with it. They are private companies. They can deny service to anyone at their discretion.

If you're suggesting that the US airlines stop flying routes that include West African nations that have been affected by Ebola, that could take some doing, but it's not impossible. I don't know if the airlines would do it, however.

All the best.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed
Appreciate 0
      10-17-2014, 11:22 PM   #29
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
704
Rep
5,665
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

To offer a alternative to Ms. Coulter, whose thinking skills I rate on par with a 16 year old, Charles Krauthammer is a conservative whose opinions I read.

The following is his column from yesterday's Post. He raises many of the same points Ms. Coulter does, but unlike Ms. Coulter, he presents them in a non-inflammatory manner and his approach to presenting his conclusions is rational. Most importantly though, he recognizes that human nature is the biggest factor affecting how effective our efforts to combat Ebola are. (Red text.) Lastly, Krauthammer criticizes but he also puts forth practical solution ideas that make sense. He's not just pointing a finger and telling everyone that so and so screwed up. He's making an effort to be part of and contribute to achieving a solution.

All the best.

WASHINGTON — Unnervingly, the U.S. public health services remain steps behind the Ebola virus. Contact tracing is what we do, Centers for Disease Control Director Tom Frieden assured the nation. It will stop the epidemic “in its tracks.” And yet nurses Nina Pham and Amber Vinson, who developed Ebola, were not even among the 48 contacts that the CDC was initially following.


Nor were any of the doctors and nurses who treated the “index patient,” Thomas Duncan. No one even had a full list of caregivers.
The other reassurance was: Not to worry. We know what we’re doing. We have protocols. When, however, we got the first Ebola transmission in the U.S., it was blamed on a “breach in protocol.”
Translation: “Don’t blame us. The nurse screwed up.” The nurses’ union was not amused. Frieden had to walk that back the next day, saying he didn’t mean to blame anyone.


Frieden had said that “the care of Ebola can be done safely, but it is hard to do it safely.” Meaning: In theory, it’s easy; in practice, very dangerous. Unfortunately, that’s not what he said on Day One.
These missteps raise questions of competence, candor and false confidence. But the problem is deeper. And it rests not in our doctors but in ourselves.


In the face of a uniquely dangerous threat, we Americans have trouble recalibrating our traditional (and laudable) devotion to individual rights and civil liberties. That is the fundamental reason we’ve been so slow in getting serious about Ebola. Consider:


Privacy: Pham’s identity was initially withheld. In normal circumstances, privacy deserves absolute respect. But these are not normal circumstances. We’re talking about a possible epidemic by an unseen pathogen that kills 70 percent of its victims.



Contact tracing is the key to stopping it, we’ve been told. What faster way to alert anyone who might have had contact with Pham than releasing her name? Why lose 24 hours during which people have to guess if they’d had contact with someone carrying the virus?


Quarantine: When Duncan was first hospitalized, the CDC said it would locate his contacts and check regularly for symptoms. For the secondary and tertiary contacts this made sense. But not for those in the inner “concentric circle.” They had had close contact with Duncan and were living in an apartment requiring massive decontamination. They should have been quarantined immediately.


Yet initially they were not. In fact, the word quarantine was not uttered by a single authority during the first news conference revealing Duncan’s illness.


It’s understandable. Quarantine is the ultimate violation of civil liberties. Having committed no crime, having done no wrong, you are sentenced to house arrest or banishment. It’s unfair. It’s, well, un-American. But when an epidemic threatens, we do it because we must.


Evacuation: Why have we been treating Ebola patients at their local hospital? This is insane. They don’t have the expertise or the training. They will make mistakes – as we’ve now seen repeatedly at Texas Health Presbyterian.


Besides, training and equipping every hospital in America to treat this rare disease would be ridiculously expensive and 99 percent wasted. Every Ebola patient should be evacuated to a specialized regional isolation center, such as the ones in Atlanta, Omaha or Bethesda.
Not because these facilities possess some unique treatment. There is no treatment. But they know how to prevent contagion. Local hospitals don’t. It took 15 days and Amber Vinson to wake the authorities up to this obvious reality.


Travel bans: British Airways has already canceled all flights to the affected countries in West Africa. We haven’t. A couple more cases of imported Ebola and we will.


Why are we waiting? The CDC argues that a travel ban would stop the flow of medical assistance to West Africa. This is silly. Simply make an exception for health care workers. They apply to federal authorities, who charter their flights (or use military aircraft already headed there) and monitor their movements until 21 days after their return home. Done.


President Obama, in his messianic period, declared that choosing between security and liberty was a false choice. On the contrary. It is the eternal dilemma of every free society. Politics is the very process of finding some equilibrium between these two competing values.
Regarding terrorism, we’ve developed a fairly reasonable balance. But it took time. With Ebola, we don’t have time. Viruses don’t wait. The sooner we reset the balance – the sooner we get serious – the safer we will be.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed
Appreciate 0
      10-18-2014, 12:07 PM   #30
128Convertibleguy
Captain
42
Rep
704
Posts

Drives: 2010 128 Covertible
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mountains

iTrader: (0)

Angry

The problem with a travel ban is that they have been proven not to work, in cases such as SARS. It's a classic example of a solution that is simple, easy, and wrong. For many reasons.

The key to stopping Ebola here is to identify patients. A travel ban here would simply make those patients (remember we're talking about people with resources here) go underground. Wonderful.

If we are one of a few countries (mostly autocratic ones) doing it it's totally pointless. If you say the whole world should join in in isolating those countries I'd point out we're hardly a fan of concerted international efforts, unless we want the world to act under our direction. The UN gets such respect here.

Fanning unjustified fears of Ebola (a guy insisted that he had been exposed because he overheard a Frontier airline pilot talking at a restaurant) is simply a way for the media (particularly the loons) to draw attention, and some politicians (particularly the most unscrupulous) to score political points. Note that those most prominent in the public debate (such as here) are media pundits and politicians. Where are the panels of qualified experts on epidemics? Instead we have a segment of the media and politicians who actively try to undercut respect for people with knowledge and qualifications. Who positively celebrate ignorance. Yeah, that's how America succeeded.

The White House is hardly blameless. A manager as "Ebola czar" sends all the wrong messages, too.

Want to stop Ebola? Devote the resources to attack it where it's rampant, not where it's less than the risk of being hit by lightning. Remember the lesson and adequately fund NIH and CDC. They handle problems that actually need to have money thrown at them. Move toward a UN that actually has the respect and power to address international problems.

Too hard for you? The real answers to these issues in a very connected world are not feel good bandaids, they take work, time, and money. Hard work, a long time, and big money. A good personal first step would be to respect expertise, not rhetoric. Support experts, not pundits. The people who study and treat Ebola, not those who blab about it with little real knowledge. Support excellent education for all our citizens, you can't tell which kid will eventually find the cure for whatever, when he's ten years old.

And, to get back to the thread, if you think government is simply bad, and that the private sector will fix these things, you're wrong. Criticize NIH and CDC all you like, but they're what you got.

Last edited by 128Convertibleguy; 10-18-2014 at 12:46 PM..
Appreciate 0
      10-18-2014, 12:21 PM   #31
bbbbmw
Major General
2367
Rep
6,083
Posts

Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

iTrader: (0)

Tony2009 - You certainly win the "by the pound" contest! Dude - if you were my consultant I'd need another consultant as an interpreter. But that said, here are a few points of contention to your post:

1.Travel bans have been imposed in recent times, and been very effective. See her reference to Israel this year, Yugoslavia (smallpox in the late 1980's), Cuba, and even the neighboring African countries with this very Ebola outbreak:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...10-16-14-24-38
The Obama/CDC approach is untried, and (IMO) tilting at windmills to think we can contain it everywhere else in the world.

2. Merlin's comments didn't make any sense. The best containment of Ebola to date has been the travel ban by the neighbors of these African countries (see above). As far as boat and foot traffic, by the time you get anywhere, you are much more likely to have developed symptoms, and any (sane) country would deny you admission. This article describes how the travel ban worked in neighboring countries:

3. Her comment about "letting in entire families with Ebola" has been proven by the border admission of 70,000+ illegal immigrant children just this year. And their families get to come with them. BTW-these children are responsible for the Entero 68 virus that has sickened tens of thousands of Americans this year, and resulted in a number of deaths as well - of other American children. But we still have a wide-open border. And now Obama is granting admission without visas to as many as 100,000 Haitians next month, just because their family members are in the US:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...before-visas/#!

4. The cost of treating Ebola has easily "added up to millions and millions of dollars:" In addition to the $500k it cost to treat Duncan, what did it cost to treat the returning aid workers, and the sickened healthcare workers? What is it costing to loosely quarantine and track the hundreds of contacts? What did it cost Frontier Airlines to address the issues of the flying nurse? What did it cost Carnival Cruise Lines to divert their Carribean ship? What has it cost the hospital, which is now almost empty of paying patients? What are the future costs?

5. If you didn’t read Frieden’s commentary you should – it makes no sense. And the fact that Obama is “considering” a travel ban doesn’t mean we have one. I think this has been called “dithering” in the past – and I don’t believe Obama is concerned with protecting Americans – this has been shown time and time again. Instead, he appoints a “Czar” (I won’t get started on the one he just appointed for Ebola), and then deflects criticism.

6. Your logic is circular – “behavioral protocols” aren’t working in this case, “stupid, selfish Americans” – really? Did you really say that?, The CDC comment about Nurses following protocols – have you seen the CDC written protocols that are on posters in every healthcare facility in the country? They are incorrect and dangerous – I’ve seen this personally, and it’s a major issue in the healthcare community at present. There are two levels of protocols, and the CDC issued both. And you are politicizing the issue with your last comment in that section.

7. Your logic is again circular on “national quarantines.”

8. “Statements that are neither true nor false” – many of these are called “conclusions” that (IMO) are very reasonable. Not sure why you divert to the cost of “Iraqi Freedom?” Your other statements are either circular or unsupported.

9. I completely disagree that her statements are “allegorically stupid.” She’s a political pundit, who uses statements like these to make her point – unlike Krauthammer. See “Bill Maher” or “John Stewart” or “Rachel Maddow” or others – what you call “stupid” and “inflammatory hyperbole” is neither – it’s a means of making a point. Funny how the leftists get a pass on these sorts of things, whereas Ann Coulter is seen as “hateful.” Just like the Obama Administration is seeking a pass on this crisis, whereas the Bush Administration was villainized for their handling of Katrina.

10. Your comments about her comments: The countries who have imposed a travel ban apparently have leadership that cares about their citizens, instead of throwing them under the bus for their political agendas. Terrorists will gain a foothold in these countries? Did you miss the part about Ebola being a fatal disease? I’d love for them to gain a foothold in these countries! You have politicized this issue more than she has.

Coulter is not the only one taking this position – here’s another great factual article on the risks of our approach to Ebola. The conclusion refers to Frieden:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articl...87.html?page=1

“The day after that Frieden was asked during a press conference if you could contract Ebola by sitting next to someone on a bus—a question prompted by a statement from President Obama the week before, when he declared that you can’t get Ebola “through casual contact, like sitting next to someone on a bus.”
Frieden answered: “I think there are two different parts of that equation. The first is, if you’re a member of the traveling public and are healthy, should you be worried that you might have gotten it by sitting next to someone? And the answer is no. Second, if you are sick and you may have Ebola, should you get on a bus? And the answer to that is also no. You might become ill, you might have a problem that exposes someone around you.”
Go ahead and read that again.
We have arrived at a moment with our elite institutions where it is impossible to distinguish incompetence from willful misdirection. This can only compound an already dangerous situation.”
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
Appreciate 0
      10-18-2014, 02:18 PM   #32
128Convertibleguy
Captain
42
Rep
704
Posts

Drives: 2010 128 Covertible
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mountains

iTrader: (0)

Angry

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
The conclusion refers to Frieden:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articl...87.html?page=1

“The day after that Frieden was asked during a press conference if you could contract Ebola by sitting next to someone on a bus—a question prompted by a statement from President Obama the week before, when he declared that you can’t get Ebola “through casual contact, like sitting next to someone on a bus.”
Frieden answered: “I think there are two different parts of that equation. The first is, if you’re a member of the traveling public and are healthy, should you be worried that you might have gotten it by sitting next to someone? And the answer is no. Second, if you are sick and you may have Ebola, should you get on a bus? And the answer to that is also no. You might become ill, you might have a problem that exposes someone around you.”
This article is not the truth, just selective quoting of Friden and a predictably biased take from a right wing media source.

Forget the inconsequential bus story, which is just gotcha "journalism". Here's the truth. Frieden (the head of CDC) came out unequivocally against a travel ban only three days ago, saying it would make things worse. “If we isolate these countries, what’s not going to happen is the disease staying there. It will spread more, all over Africa and we’ll be at higher risk.” Duh.

So the Republicans called for him to be fired. Duh. Really duh.

In the present political/media morass, there are also other signs he will be forced to back away from his expert judgement, forced to cave by the politicians, on all sides. Just the same crap discussed in post #30. It looks very much like we'll have a travel ban. It won't be effective. It will make things worse. How do I know? Because that's what the experts say. I could, of course, listen to Ann Coulter or Krauthammer or the Weekly Standard or Republican politicians instead. But that would be dumb. Because they don't have the requisite knowledge or expertise or experience. And they have a political axe to grind. Intellectually, their opinions on whether a travel ban is a good strategy mean little. Taken together, they still don't outweigh Friden's judgement, even though they may beat him politically.

Last edited by 128Convertibleguy; 10-18-2014 at 05:51 PM..
Appreciate 0
      10-18-2014, 06:49 PM   #33
bbbbmw
Major General
2367
Rep
6,083
Posts

Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
Here's the truth. Frieden (the head of CDC) came out unequivocally against a travel ban only three days ago, saying it would make things worse. “If we isolate these countries, what’s not going to happen is the disease staying there. It will spread more, all over Africa and we’ll be at higher risk.” Duh.
Actually, Frieden was against a travel ban from the beginning of this crisis, not just three days ago. The African countries that border the 5 hot spots immediately imposed a travel ban, and they have now "stopped Ebola in its tracks."

The CDC's budget is double what it was in 2000, and those evil Republicans actually approved more funding in January for the CDC than Obama actually asked for. Glad to see it isn't being squandered, like the Solyndra money from the Stimulus. Oh wait - the "Ebola Czar" Obama just appointed was in the middle of the Solyndra mess at his last government post.
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>

Last edited by bbbbmw; 10-18-2014 at 06:56 PM..
Appreciate 0
      10-18-2014, 07:57 PM   #34
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
704
Rep
5,665
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
Actually, Frieden was against a travel ban from the beginning of this crisis, not just three days ago. The African countries that border the 5 hot spots immediately imposed a travel ban, and they have now "stopped Ebola in its tracks."

The CDC's budget is double what it was in 2000, and those evil Republicans actually approved more funding in January for the CDC than Obama actually asked for. Glad to see it isn't being squandered, like the Solyndra money from the Stimulus. Oh wait - the "Ebola Czar" Obama just appointed was in the middle of the Solyndra mess at his last government post.
The Ebola Czar...that strikes me as a totally pointless position. There must be some 50+ people already on the Federal payroll who could spearhead the effort to combat Ebola. Is that title that conjures images of Russian Tzars, monarchies and royalty, going against the very grain of the things on which United States was founded, any better than "Project Manager - Ebola Eradication?"

All the best.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed
Appreciate 0
      10-19-2014, 11:31 PM   #35
Dalko43
Captain
166
Rep
894
Posts

Drives: 2011 Toyota 4Runner Trail
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
please no one else engage @tony20009 in conversation...unless you want 30 pages of forum posting explaining his personal beliefs (ultimately saying something that could have been expressed in 1 paragraph).
Appreciate 0
      10-19-2014, 11:56 PM   #36
Dalko43
Captain
166
Rep
894
Posts

Drives: 2011 Toyota 4Runner Trail
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
Britain (and Canada) are pretty much the only places where not only health care insurance but health care itself is a government operation. That doesn't seem to work well. Their record by all the measurable things (life expectancy, infant mortality, time to get in to see your doctor, etc. etc.), is just as lousy as ours.
If you had paid attention to the article I posted earlier, you would realize that British health care isn't simply as lousy as ours...its much worse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
The real poster child for national health care insurance is Italy. The idea of national health care insurance is so superior to (largely employer based) private health care insurance that even the Italian government can make it work well. The Italian government. <grin>
The Italian government....are you F#*$ing kidding me?!?! Are you referring to the Italian government that was on the verge of bankruptcy a few years ago and currently has public debt as 130% of its GDP. The one that has built up an unsustainable welfare state and has required fiscal support from its northern neighbors in order to stay afloat....that Italian government????

I can speak to any length on how good or bad their health system is, but their lackadaisical fiscal policies have created a stagnant economy and ruined their public finances. So even if they do have a "great" health system, at what cost?


Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
I'm somewhat surprised at the opposition of conservatives to national health care insurance. Decoupling health care insurance from your employment is a real boost to individual liberty.
Conservatives, and many libertarians and independents, oppose government run health care because it takes the decision-making in regards to health care policies, treatment options, or even the choice to have health care at all, out of the hands of the individual and puts it into the government's hands...big government taking more authority/responsibility than it needs to.

Also, health care is not "coupled" to a person's employment for everyone. There are many small business owners, contractors, independent and even corporate workers who buy health care off the market, separate from what the big companies provide.....you're incorrectly applying the experiences of a portion of the US population to the entire group.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
Before Obamcare millions were shackled to jobs they hated by their health care insurance, and pre-existing condition exclusions. Thousands faced the real death panels. Get sick, lose your job, lose your insurance, die. It was not rare.
Your argument really loses all steam here. People aren't shackled to their jobs because of Health care...they're shackled, if at all, because of money. If you have a medium-wage or even low-wage job, you can afford some degree of health coverage. I don't know what the hell you mean by "death panels."

If you can't afford health care, that's where Medicaid and Medicare came in. I think most, including those "conservatives" that you seem to enjoy stereotyping so much, agree that the system Pre-Obama Care wasn't perfect and needed improvement...

But instead of doing that, Obama and most Democrats decided that it was time to establish a new and untested system whereby the government controlled who got insurance, what type and at what cost..it's not purely socialized medicine like in many places in Europe, but it is additional bureaucratic interference that will slow down and degrade the quality of medical care for many people who currently have pre-existing health care plans.

That's why those damn "conservatives" are mad. Also @128Convertibleguy, have you asked yourself why President Obama has delayed any additional implementation of the Affordable Care Act until after mid-term elections....

Off-topic, but had to be said.

Last edited by Dalko43; 10-20-2014 at 08:51 AM..
Appreciate 0
      10-20-2014, 12:20 AM   #37
Dalko43
Captain
166
Rep
894
Posts

Drives: 2011 Toyota 4Runner Trail
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
This article is not the truth, just selective quoting of Friden and a predictably biased take from a right wing media source.

Forget the inconsequential bus story, which is just gotcha "journalism". Here's the truth. Frieden (the head of CDC) came out unequivocally against a travel ban only three days ago, saying it would make things worse. “If we isolate these countries, what’s not going to happen is the disease staying there. It will spread more, all over Africa and we’ll be at higher risk.” Duh.

So the Republicans called for him to be fired. Duh. Really duh.

In the present political/media morass, there are also other signs he will be forced to back away from his expert judgement, forced to cave by the politicians, on all sides. Just the same crap discussed in post #30. It looks very much like we'll have a travel ban. It won't be effective. It will make things worse. How do I know? Because that's what the experts say. I could, of course, listen to Ann Coulter or Krauthammer or the Weekly Standard or Republican politicians instead. But that would be dumb. Because they don't have the requisite knowledge or expertise or experience. And they have a political axe to grind. Intellectually, their opinions on whether a travel ban is a good strategy mean little. Taken together, they still don't outweigh Friden's judgement, even though they may beat him politically.
Again more strawman arguments.

A) The Republican party isn't calling for the CDC chief's resignation....two have called for his resignation, but not the entire party.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare...ctor-to-resign

B) Those that are calling for his resignation or are questioning his competency, aren't doing so because he is a liberal or democrat...they're doing so because he can't even answer basic questions about the CDC's interactions and recommendations to the White House on how to handle this issue.



C) A travel ban wouldn't be a foolproof solution, but it would certainly mitigate additional spread of the virus within the US. Why this wasn't considered on day 1 as opposed to several weeks into this epidemic is what boggles my mind and the minds of many others.
Appreciate 0
      10-20-2014, 11:23 AM   #38
UncleWede
Long Time Admirer, First Time Owner
UncleWede's Avatar
United_States
7901
Rep
7,434
Posts

Drives: E90 325i Arctic
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxnard, CA

iTrader: (0)

Who is responsible for the "Czar" term? IS that media's abomination, or did the President spew that out?

I watched one of the top CDC Drs. explain about sitting next to a contagious passenger on a plane. As I was screaming "BULLSHIT" at the TV, she told the correspondent asking her "If an ebola-contagious person were to cough onto your tray, even if you got it on your fingers and then wiped you eyes, nose or mouth, you would be at a very low risk of contracting the infection
Appreciate 0
      10-20-2014, 01:58 PM   #39
128Convertibleguy
Captain
42
Rep
704
Posts

Drives: 2010 128 Covertible
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mountains

iTrader: (0)

Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalko43 View Post
The Italian government....are you F#*$ing kidding me?!?! Are you referring to the Italian government that was on the verge of bankruptcy a few years ago and currently has public debt as 130% of its GDP. The one that has built up an unsustainable welfare state and has required fiscal support from its northern neighbors in order to stay afloat....that Italian government????
Yep, that's the one. They run a health care INSURANCE system (sorry for shouting, but you still seem to be confusing national health care INSURANCE with national health care), that, by every measurable standard, gives their citizens better health care. That's how superior national health care INSURANCE is, as has been proven in many, many countries. Italy is just my poster child, _because_ their government is so lousy. The system is good enough to overcome even that.

National health care, not so much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalko43 View Post
A travel ban wouldn't be a foolproof solution, but it would certainly mitigate additional spread of the virus within the US. Why this wasn't considered on day 1 as opposed to several weeks into this epidemic is what boggles my mind and the minds of many others.
It may boggle the minds of many people with no qualifications. It doesn't boggle the minds of medical experts, who say it would make things worse. So far Obama has listened to the experts instead of the raging mob, egged on by unscrupulous journalists and politicians who are using the crisis for personal advantage. I give him a lot of credit for that.

The manager as Ebola czar, not so much.

Last edited by 128Convertibleguy; 10-20-2014 at 02:07 PM..
Appreciate 0
      10-20-2014, 02:48 PM   #40
Dalko43
Captain
166
Rep
894
Posts

Drives: 2011 Toyota 4Runner Trail
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
They run a health care INSURANCE system (sorry for shouting, but you still seem to be confusing national health care INSURANCE with national health care), that, by every measurable standard, gives their citizens better health care. That's how superior national health care INSURANCE is, as has been proven in many, many countries. Italy is just my poster child, _because_ their government is so lousy....

National health care, not so much.
I'm struggling to understand your views here. I know how a health insurance program differs semantically and functionally from a health care program. But ultimately we are talking about the same endgoal...competent medical care for people of all socio-economic statuses. How does Italy have good health insurance system but a bad health care system?? ?

And as a follow-up, where is your proof that Italy's health insurance system is better than America's? Does the average Italian citizen have a comparable or better life expectancy or disease survival rate over the average American's?

Also, you miss entirely the relevancy of Italy's financial troubles....if they spend as much money as they do to produce a competent health insurance system, and destroy their balance sheets doing it (meaning their current rate of spending is not sustainable for the longterm)....than the system they built is obviously not working.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
It may boggle the minds of many people with no qualifications. It doesn't boggle the minds of medical experts, who say it would make things worse. So far Obama has listened to the experts instead of the raging mob, egged on by unscrupulous journalists and politicians who are using the crisis for personal advantage. I give him a lot of credit for that.
Why are certain medical experts against the travel ban? Do you find their reasons credible based on any sort of logic behind them or do you simply believe them because of their backgrounds as "credible experts."

The justification that I have heard, which is that a travel ban would restrict movement of aid/resources/workers into the affected countries, is utter bulls#%t. This administration could easily establish chartered or military flights transporting said workers and resources into those affected countries, separate from the overall travel ban. How the hell do you think we fly US, NGO and DOD personnel into warzones like Iraq and Afghanistan?

Please help me on this one...I'm really struggling to understand the logic of this approach...instead of quarantining the infected and restricting their access to greater populations of uninfected, we should let them freely enter this country? I'm not a medical expert but that approach seems not only counter-intuitive, but also highly illogical.

Last edited by Dalko43; 10-20-2014 at 03:06 PM..
Appreciate 0
      10-20-2014, 02:57 PM   #41
UncleWede
Long Time Admirer, First Time Owner
UncleWede's Avatar
United_States
7901
Rep
7,434
Posts

Drives: E90 325i Arctic
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxnard, CA

iTrader: (0)

I'm still betting the 101st didn't fly over on Frontier Air.
Appreciate 0
      10-20-2014, 06:07 PM   #42
128Convertibleguy
Captain
42
Rep
704
Posts

Drives: 2010 128 Covertible
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mountains

iTrader: (0)

Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalko43 View Post
I'm struggling to understand your views here. I know how a health insurance program differs semantically and functionally from a health care program. But ultimately we are talking about the same endgoal...competent medical care for people of all socio-economic statuses. How does Italy have good health insurance system but a bad health care system?? ?
They don't. They do have a bad government and a good national health care insurance system. The health care system itself is, as here, mostly private.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalko43 View Post
And as a follow-up, where is your proof that Italy's health insurance system is better than America's? Does the average Italian citizen have a comparable or better life expectancy or disease survival rate over the average American's?
They beat us in most every measurable thing, life expectancy, infant mortality (we're particularly bad there), numbers of doctors per 1000 people, time to get in to see your family doctor, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalko43 View Post
if they spend as much money as they do to produce a competent health insurance system, and destroy their balance sheets doing it (meaning their current rate of spending is not sustainable for the longterm)....than the system they built is obviously not working.
Their national cost for health care per capita is significantly lower than ours. Something like 2/3. Better results for less money. I know it's new to you, with the news sources you use, but it's the truth. National health care insurance has been proven to be better and cheaper in most every developed country, except Great Britain and Canada, where health care itself is public. Our blindness to the facts has been, and continues to be, appalling.

Here's one good resource,and it's far from my only source. I've spent a fair amount of time studying this from all angles. The proponents of national health care insurance have the data on their side, the opponents philosophical rhetoric. I'm a scientist, and I'll take data over rhetoric. Every time.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/

Here's a good article linked to on their home page. Data.

September 8, 2014
A Comparison of Hospital Administrative Costs in Eight Nations: U.S. Costs Exceed All Others by Far

This also covers it.

<Ohio Gov. John Kasich doesn't think the Affordable Care Act will be repealed, even if Republicans win a Senate majority and consolidate their hold on the House in next month's election. "That's not gonna happen," Kasich told The Associated Press during a recent re-election campaign swing.

"The opposition to it was really either political or ideological," the Republican governor added. "I don't think that holds water against real flesh and blood, and real improvements in people's lives.">

<Former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt, a Republican who served as Health and Human Services secretary for President George W. Bush, says Washington lawmakers and state governors are playing on different levels.

"In the Washington world, things are about control of the news cycle and preparing for the next election," said Leavitt. "Governors are more interested in finding a way they can be comfortable in their own skins and solve problems.">
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalko43 View Post
Why are certain medical experts against the travel ban? Do you find their reasons credible based on any sort of logic behind them or do you simply believe them because of their backgrounds as "credible experts."
Highly credible. To repeat from above “If we isolate these countries, what’s not going to happen is the disease staying there. It will spread more, all over Africa and we’ll be at higher risk.” Duh. And who do you want to trust on this? Ann Coulter? Rush Limbaugh? Ted Cruz? Sarah Palin? Distrust in institutions is another epidemic in America, but the experts in many disciplines, who many disparage, have brought you the lifestyle you enjoy.

The EU just had a big meeting, with governments and medical experts. They decided against a travel ban. It's not because they're looking for the tourist trade from West Africa, it's because their experts also told them that a travel ban would be counter-productive. It's pretty much agreed among experts.

Needless to say, if the EU doesn't have a travel ban, ours would be absolutely pointless. I invite you to observe how the unscrupulous journalists and politicians fanning the flames, ignore that fact, too.

Let me give you some data, to give you support against the fear mongers. 43 people in close contact with the Ebola victim have just been released from quarantine. Some of them lived with him, another was his girlfriend. Almost all of the American victims (there was one press guy) have been health care workers, who spent a lot of time in very close contact with a great many very sick people. In difficult circumstances, be it Africa or a Texas hospital that was obviously ill prepared. It appears that Ebola is indeed hard to catch from casual contact.

Last edited by 128Convertibleguy; 10-20-2014 at 06:55 PM..
Appreciate 0
      10-21-2014, 12:25 AM   #43
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
704
Rep
5,665
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleWede View Post
Who is responsible for the "Czar" term? IS that media's abomination, or did the President spew that out?

...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...e_branch_czars

FDR was the first to define the position/use the term as it applies to a government official.

All the best.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed
Appreciate 0
      10-21-2014, 01:13 AM   #44
bbbbmw
Major General
2367
Rep
6,083
Posts

Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
Yep, that's the one. They run a health care INSURANCE system (sorry for shouting, but you still seem to be confusing national health care INSURANCE with national health care), that, by every measurable standard, gives their citizens better health care. That's how superior national health care INSURANCE is, as has been proven in many, many countries. Italy is just my poster child, _because_ their government is so lousy. The system is good enough to overcome even that.

National health care, not so much.

It may boggle the minds of many people with no qualifications. It doesn't boggle the minds of medical experts, who say it would make things worse. So far Obama has listened to the experts instead of the raging mob, egged on by unscrupulous journalists and politicians who are using the crisis for personal advantage. I give him a lot of credit for that.

The manager as Ebola czar, not so much.
As we've repeatedly discussed in other threads, the "measurable standards" you quote are not measurable at all, at least for comparative purposes. Did you know Italy counts "live births" (infant mortality) retrospectively, using three different methods of measurement, depending upon what part of the country you live in? In the US, however, we count live births in the hospital, from the first moment the child shows any sign of life - vs. most Euro countries and the rest of the world, where they don't count a birth until the child is somewhere between 25 hours and 2 years of age, and the statistics are gathered retrospectively.

And as far as Obama listening to his "experts" - former Surgeon General (and Democrat) Richard Caramona thinks the travel ban should be in place, and that Obama's nominee for Surgeon General was completely unqualified.

Obama also relies on his "experts" for assessments of Global Warming and Immigration, as well as the economy and unemployment. I'm really glad he has all these experts in place...
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:24 PM.




bmw
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST