Will Ebola become a big problem in the United States?

[trickyputt]

Well right now the US is spending 3.50 -ish dollars for each 2.70 they collect, borrowing the difference in a deficit. And they dont have a mechanism for epidemic control. They are not in that business. Tbey can however figure out how to send soldiers to fight a fever, if you recall that decision. Its better to go find the really smart people and give them support for what they are doing already.

[Gunther]

Where did you get your info, though, that less than 1 of each 38 dollars is going to be put to good use? And, as far as the lack of oversight ... Is that true about every dollar they spend, or just this one item? If it's the latter, then so what? You propose that they never spend a dollar on anything? If it's the former, again, what is your source for this info?

This is the genesis of your ideology, you have no concept for the money the govt spends, it's a bottomless pit or grows on trees, if you will. No need to account for it, just spend it because it feels good and the intentions are good. A basic tenet of liberalism. I, on the other hand, would like the gov't to manage money as I manage my own because gov't money is my own.

[newtogolf]

Not saying I disagree with you because I really have no idea what their plans are but ... why is it automatically a waste, in your opinion?

I am pessimistic about our ability to sustain any real changes within countries outside our political and military control.  I've been involved with charities that sought to bring clean water to the Congo and received an education on how corrupt and malicious other governments are towards their people.  In these efforts not only do you have to pay off the government but also all the militias that terrorize the population.

Based on what I've read it is my opinion that to eradicate Ebola you have to address the poor living conditions these people live in.  Adding clean water, septic systems and necessary medical facilities in these areas is not a small task, ensuring that these systems are not stolen or vandalized by the government and militia is even more difficult without our military protecting it.  We cannot even imagine the level of corruption these poor countries deal with compared to the US.

Also, being a bit of a nationalist I think we owe it to our own legal citizens to take care of them first.  While $6.2B might not put a dent into reviving Detroit, developing business in other decaying cities and fighting major diseases that we face I'd prefer we clean up our own home before we go trying to save the rest of the world.

[Lihu]

Where did you get your info, though, that less than 1 of each 38 dollars is going to be put to good use? And, as far as the lack of oversight ... Is that true about every dollar they spend, or just this one item? If it's the latter, then so what? You propose that they never spend a dollar on anything? If it's the former, again, what is your source for this info?

It's probably somewhere between 2% and 100%. I think he was only trying to make a statement that he thinks our government is far less efficient than it should or even could be.

[trickyputt]

[quote name="Golfingdad" url="/t/77593/will-ebola-become-a-big-problem-in-the-united-states/558#post_1072423"] Where did you get your info, though, that less than 1 of each 38 dollars is going to be put to good use? And, as far as the lack of oversight ... Is that true about every dollar they spend, or just this one item? If it's the latter, then so what? You propose that they never spend a dollar on anything? If it's the former, again, what is your source for this info?

It's probably somewhere between 2% and 100%. I think he was only trying to make a statement that he thinks our government is far less efficient than it should or even could be.[/quote]At least we are organized. Previous posts using the word corruption to describe the behavior in 3rd world countries do a disservice to the word itself which has an organized connotation, and the behavior is probably more rudimentary than one would expect. I have recognized that I tend to give attributes of intelligence to people and then get dissapointed by their behavior. Since I started making an effort to quit supporting my anthropomorphic tendencies I am much happier.

[Gunther]

It's probably somewhere between 2% and 100%. I think he was only trying to make a statement that he thinks our government is far less efficient than it should or even could be.

Thanks Lihu, fer sure. I've seen it 1st hand from the military to various IRS service centers. And I'd also add anecdotal stories like newtogolf's. Heard scores of similar ones throughout my life. We can't just continue printing money.

[Golfingdad]

This is the genesis of your ideology, you have no concept for the money the govt spends, it's a bottomless pit or grows on trees, if you will. No need to account for it, just spend it because it feels good and the intentions are good. A basic tenet of liberalism. I, on the other hand, would like the gov't to manage money as I manage my own because gov't money is my own.

Oh, so now you know my ideology?  Let me state it one more time:  I have no opinion, yet, on this issue.  I don't agree with Obama, I don't disagree.  I don't claim to have any knowledge whatsoever about how they plan on spending the money they are proposing, so how could I possibly have a fair opinion on whether or not I think it's a good idea?  It has nothing at all to do with my ideology.

But thanks (again) for trying to label me.

I am pessimistic about our ability to sustain any real changes within countries outside our political and military control.  I've been involved with charities that sought to bring clean water to the Congo and received an education on how corrupt and malicious other governments are towards their people.  In these efforts not only do you have to pay off the government but also all the militias that terrorize the population.

Based on what I've read it is my opinion that to eradicate Ebola you have to address the poor living conditions these people live in.  Adding clean water, septic systems and necessary medical facilities in these areas is not a small task, ensuring that these systems are not stolen or vandalized by the government and militia is even more difficult without our military protecting it.  We cannot even imagine the level of corruption these poor countries deal with compared to the US.

Also, being a bit of a nationalist I think we owe it to our own legal citizens to take care of them first.  While $6.2B might not put a dent into reviving Detroit, developing business in other decaying cities and fighting major diseases that we face I'd prefer we clean up our own home before we go trying to save the rest of the world.

Thank you.  Good (informed) answer.  Take notes @Gunther

[Gunther]

Oh, so now you know my ideology?  Let me state it one more time:  I have no opinion, yet, on this issue.  I don't agree with Obama, I don't disagree.  I don't claim to have any knowledge whatsoever about how they plan on spending the money they are proposing, so how could I possibly have a fair opinion on whether or not I think it's a good idea?  It has nothing at all to do with my ideology. But thanks (again) for trying to label me. Thank you.  Good (informed) answer.  Take notes @Gunther

Ebola is terrible. I must say, I'm a little offended by your remarks lol. Sorry bud, you've labeled yourself from the 1st time I read a post of yours. The kicker, however, was once when you created a hypothetical about an Afghani child hating Americans because an American soldier "murdered" his family. Just the fact your mind could even think that way belies your ideology. That, actually, truly did offend me and I wrote lots of replies over a couple days but reason won out and I didn't respond. Never been more angry from a stupid internet post. Anyways, ebola sux.

[Golfingdad]

Sorry bud, you've labeled yourself from the 1st time I read a post of yours. The kicker, however, was once when you created a hypothetical about an Afghani child hating Americans because an American soldier "murdered" his family. Just the fact your mind could even think that way belies your ideology. That, actually, truly did offend me and I wrote lots of replies over a couple days but reason won out and I didn't respond. Never been more angry from a stupid internet post. Anyways, ebola sux.

Well that seems entirely relevant to this discussion, so kudos to you. (That is sarcasm, in case you missed it)

[Mr. Desmond]

Ebola is terrible.

I must say, I'm a little offended by your remarks lol.

Sorry bud, you've labeled yourself from the 1st time I read a post of yours. The kicker, (1) however, was once when you created a hypothetical about an Afghani child hating Americans because an American soldier "murdered" his family. Just the fact (2)  your mind could even think that way belies your ideology. That, actually, (3) truly did offend me and I wrote lots of replies over a couple days but reason won out and I didn't respond. Never been more angry from a stupid internet post. Anyways, ebola sux.

(1) Shows Empathy

(2) It is neutral observation

that attempts to approach reality

All of which seem to be missing from your post; and

(3) we've all got to learn not to take things personally (that's a tough one).

[Ernest Jones]

I wonder if eating a lot of SALAD can help fend off ebola...

[RandallT]

For a numbers comparison and perspective with Bush in the the early 2000's, here is some stuff I found on the similar vein of health issues in Africa:

• In 2001, US gave $1.4B/yr development/humanitarian aid to all of Africa.
• By 2006, it was $4.0B/yr.
• In June 2005, there was a $1.2B malaria initiative.
• That complemented a $15B (5 year plan at $3B/yr, I assume) for AIDS relief.

It is unclear from the article if the malaria and AIDS numbers already figure into the $4.0B/yr number. I assume so.  The Africa humanitarian stuff was actually a bipartisan thing, as I recall.

Anyway, thought it was useful just for perspective. These seem somewhat in line with the $6.2B.

Separate OT realization.... does malaria really kill more than 1,000,000 people per year. Holy crap!

Quote from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123000941.html:

Bush launched his $1.2 billion malaria initiative in June 2005 with the goal of reducing malaria-related deaths in 15 African countries by 50 percent. The disease kills more than 1 million people a year, most of them African children under age 5.

The malaria program complements the president's largest global health initiative, the $15 billion, five-year plan known as the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Under the program, about 800,000 Africans are receiving drugs that enable them to live longer with the disease and help to prevent mother-to-child transmission of the virus.

Quote2 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123000941.html:

The president has tripled direct humanitarian and development aid to the world's most impoverished continent since taking office and recently vowed to double that increased amount by 2010 -- to nearly $9 billion.

...

Bush has increased direct development and humanitarian aid to Africa to more than $4 billion a year from $1.4 billion in 2001, according to the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. And four African nations -- Sudan, Ethiopia, Egypt and Uganda -- rank among the world's top 10 recipients in aid from the United States.

Beyond increasing aid to Africa, Bush has met with nearly three dozen African heads of state during his six years in office. He visited Africa in his first term, and aides say he hopes to make a return visit next year.

Although some activists criticize Bush for not doing more to end the ongoing genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan, others credit him for playing a role in ending deadly conflicts in Liberia, the Congo and other parts of Sudan. Meanwhile, Bush has overseen a steady rise in U.S. trade with Africa, which has doubled since 2001.

[Lihu]

Separate OT realization.... does malaria really kill more than 1,000,000 people per year. Holy crap!

Yes (627,000), it's scary.

http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/malaria/en/

[Gunther]

Well that seems entirely relevant to this discussion, so kudos to you. (That is sarcasm, in case you missed it)

Mmm, thought it was relevant to how your ideology has manifested itself on this site, which I believe was the question. Off the ebola topic, sure, but I think I closed with a scintillating, on-point bullet. [quote name="Mr. Desmond" url="/t/77593/will-ebola-become-a-big-problem-in-the-united-states/560_40#post_1072561"] (1) Shows Empathy  (2) It is neutral observation that attempts to approach reality All of which seem to be missing from your post; and (3) we've all got to learn not to take things personally (that's a tough one). [/quote] Attempts to approach reality?? SMH[quote name="Ernest Jones" url="/t/77593/will-ebola-become-a-big-problem-in-the-united-states/560_40#post_1072566"]I wonder if eating a lot of SALAD can help fend off ebola... [/quote] Thanks, I needed that.

[phan52]

You don't think it is, that's fine. We just have different thought processes. We can talk in circles about it all night but I'll drop it because it's pointless in the overall scheme of the discussion.

I also don't care what it is in relation to our budget, because I think our budget is out of control. Over 6 billion is a lot of money.

It is not a lot of money if it effectively keeps Ebola at the source and works to eradicate it there. If there was a serious outbreak in this country, believe me, it would cost a whole lot more than $6.2 billion.

[newtogolf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

It is not a lot of money if it effectively keeps Ebola at the source and works to eradicate it there. If there was a serious outbreak in this country, believe me, it would cost a whole lot more than $6.2 billion.

We haven't had much success eradicating HIV / AIDS or malaria there so not sure why we'd be any more successful with Ebola.  Malaria rates have dropped 42% since 2000 according to WHO,

Quote:

According to the latest estimates, released in December 2013, there were about 207 million cases of malaria in 2012 (with an uncertainty range of 135 million to 287 million) and an estimated 627 000 deaths (with an uncertainty range of 473 000 to 789 000). Malaria mortality rates have fallen by 42% globally since 2000, and by 49% in the WHO African Region.

We seem to be doing a little better with HIV / AIDS but a lot more money has been spent on it.

[phan52]

I am pessimistic about our ability to sustain any real changes within countries outside our political and military control.  I've been involved with charities that sought to bring clean water to the Congo and received an education on how corrupt and malicious other governments are towards their people.  In these efforts not only do you have to pay off the government but also all the militias that terrorize the population.

Based on what I've read it is my opinion that to eradicate Ebola you have to address the poor living conditions these people live in.  Adding clean water, septic systems and necessary medical facilities in these areas is not a small task, ensuring that these systems are not stolen or vandalized by the government and militia is even more difficult without our military protecting it.  We cannot even imagine the level of corruption these poor countries deal with compared to the US.

Also, being a bit of a nationalist I think we owe it to our own legal citizens to take care of them first.  While $6.2B might not put a dent into reviving Detroit, developing business in other decaying cities and fighting major diseases that we face I'd prefer we clean up our own home before we go trying to save the rest of the world.

If we did things like this as opposed to torturing people and indiscriminately dropping bombs on civilian populations, we would spend a whole lot less money overseas and have a whole lot more friendly receptions in foreign lands.

But off topic, Proceed.

[Jeremie Boop]

It is not a lot of money if it effectively keeps Ebola at the source and works to eradicate it there. If there was a serious outbreak in this country, believe me, it would cost a whole lot more than $6.2 billion.

Maybe I'm wrong, but haven't you consistently been of the opinion that Ebola is/was/will never be an issue here?