Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Florida Accused of Concealing Worst Tuberculosis Outbreak In 20 Years

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the tb-or-not-tb dept.

Medicine 409

NotSanguine writes "The state of Florida has been struggling for months with what the Centers for Disease Control describe as the worst tuberculosis outbreak in the United States in twenty years. Although a CDC report went out to state health officials in April encouraging them to take concerted action, the warning went largely unnoticed and nothing has been done. The public did not even learn of the outbreak until June, after a man with an active case of TB was spotted in a Jacksonville soup kitchen. The Palm Beach Post has managed to obtain records on the outbreak and the CDC report, though only after weeks of repeated requests. These documents should have been freely available under Florida's Sunshine Law."

cancel ×

409 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Political correctness in action (-1, Flamebait)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 2 years ago | (#40610681)

TB was pretty much a solved problem in the 1st world. Then we decided we couldn't force people into quarantine to ensure they got proper treatment and to prevent the spread of such a readily transmissible disease. And then AIDS pitched in to help brew up especially virilent strains in immune compromised patients with no self control. Add in the general problem if drug resistence and we have a major epidemic waiting to happen. Who knows where it will go nuts, but sooner or later... BAM!

Best I can tell from what passes as thought in the politically correct set, diseases got rights or something. Or people got the right to not get treated and to pass on the crap they catch. I really can't decipher it.

But don't worry, this is all the evil Republican's fault. ObamaCare^WTax will fix all these problems.

Re:Political correctness in action (-1, Offtopic)

ewoods (108845) | more than 2 years ago | (#40610711)

Good post. Dems are twisted fucks. Just look at YRO section. The vast majority of posts about added restrictions of our rights come from the Dems. Fuck 'em.

Re:Political correctness in action (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40610773)

how about commenting on the facts and instead of your political opinion?

Re:Political correctness in action (-1, Flamebait)

Kagetsuki (1620613) | more than 2 years ago | (#40610883)

How about freedom of speach? You're free to give your own opinions and pull up bullshit statistics and make reference to random crap and bicker all you want so go for it. And how about not posting as AC if you do.

Re:Political correctness in action (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40610913)

Yes! And maybe freedom of sapples and freedom of soranges too!

Re:Political correctness in action (2)

i_ate_god (899684) | more than 2 years ago | (#40611003)

to be fair, freedom of speech necessarily implies that anonymity be protected.

Re:Political correctness in action (3, Insightful)

Kagetsuki (1620613) | more than 2 years ago | (#40611161)

NO. Freedom of speech implies you can say whatever you want without having to put on a Guy Fawkes mask. It means you can speak freely as yourself. The right to remain anonymous is another issue.

Re:Political correctness in action (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40611213)

When the British ruled the US, they routinely tried to come around the pubs and bars and get 'patriots' to commit their names to ledgers so they could go after them.

The engaged in some pretty shady espionage to get that same information, and the 'patriots' would go to great lengths to conceal their identities.

So... yes it's exactly what the freedom of speech was meant to do. It's just that you don't understand history or the purpose of the rule of law.

Given that you probably aren't American, that make sense. If you are American, you apparently like to be politically harangued.

Re:Political correctness in action (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40611267)

NO. Freedom of speech implies you can say whatever you want without having to put on a Guy Fawkes mask. It means you can speak freely as yourself. The right to remain anonymous is another issue.

Posting under a bullshit pseudonym isn't any different than posting AC.

Re:Political correctness in action (-1, Flamebait)

ewoods (108845) | more than 2 years ago | (#40610955)

How about fuck you, anonymous. Too many people equate liberal with liberty when, in fact, the opposite is quite the case - they're a mutually exclusive arrangement. The more that people see this, the better off this country will be. Not that Repubs are much better, but they are. Libertarian is the way. Don't like my opinions or what I post, use your mod points or stfu.

Re:Political correctness in action (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40611111)

Good point, I should go vote for the party that says I don't own my own body and censorship is a good idea! Ron Paul 2012!

Gaah I am so sick of you libertards. Did you never grow out of being a 14 year old angry white male or something?

You idiots talk up a fine game about freedom and liberty but all you seem to think about is cash, COMPLETELY OBLIVIOUS to the far more important freedoms your party's naive idiology destroys.

Re:Political correctness in action (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#40611169)

Gaah I am so sick of you libertards

It's "libertardians". Otherwise people will think you're talking about standard "libtards".

Re:Political correctness in action (5, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#40611157)

How about fuck you, anonymous. Too many people equate liberal with liberty when, in fact, the opposite is quite the case - they're a mutually exclusive arrangement.

Only if you're using the FOX notions of what liberal and liberty mean.

The more that people see this, the better off this country will be. Not that Repubs are much better, but they are. Libertarian is the way.

Libertarians are just Republicans who aren't pretending to be on a Mission from God.

Don't like my opinions or what I post, use your mod points or stfu.

Or maybe reply? But no, your notion of "liberty" is "my way or the highway".

Re:Political correctness in action (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#40610881)

Of course, the Republicans have a solution. They'll just get rid of the CDC, so there's no centralized data gathering, and that way, fifty TB cases could pop up a day, and until you started coughing up blood, you'd have nothing to worry about!

Isn't this the Libertarian paradise the Ron Paul legions envisage?

Re:Political correctness in action (4, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#40611171)

Isn't this the Libertarian paradise the Ron Paul legions envisage?

I don't know, I've never been to Somalia.

Re:Political correctness in action (0, Offtopic)

Steven B. Cherry (752383) | more than 2 years ago | (#40610727)

You tell em jmorris42. This wouldn't have happened if there were Republicans in the White House!

Re:Political correctness in action (3, Informative)

NotSanguine (1917456) | more than 2 years ago | (#40610875)

Umm..This was in Florida. And there are Republicans in the Governor's mansion *and* majorities in the state legislature. Nice troll though.

Re:Political correctness in action (4, Funny)

Swampash (1131503) | more than 2 years ago | (#40610975)

I fail to see the relevance. This is not a political problem. The Lord will cure these people. If they cause an epidemic, killing millions, that's obviously just His will.

I'm going to overlook a large portion of your bias (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40610729)

And, I'll also throw this in there: homeless people and the poor often are not as likely to be diagnosed, and, due to this and other reasons, aren't as likely to receive treatment. Oh, and take your ObamaCare issues somewhere where people give a shit about offtopic things like that.

Re:I'm going to overlook a large portion of your b (-1, Flamebait)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#40610859)

He's not wrong. You're looking through rose coloured glasses, even up here in "socialized medicine canada" we're having a hell of a problem dealing with drug resistant TB because immigrants refuse to undergo TB diagnostic testing. Guess what's happening? We're seeing large numbers of drug resistant TB popping out in the immigrant communities, and it's spreading into the homeless communities. Police and EMS have had a policy in place of "in all unknown cases, drive with windows down, and with surgical masks on" then you go for weekly screenings for the next year. Fun huh?

We're going to have to see the return of the old quarantine system because that's one of the sure fire ways to contain it.

As for obamacare? You guy's are just idiots, and anyone who supports it is an idiot. Yep, I ad-hom'd you. Know why? Because any massive power grab at the federal level in terms of healthcare is a bad idea. Know how we do it in Canada? It's at the provincial level(equivalent to state). The Federal healthcare act in Canada fits on 1 8x11" sheet of paper. That's it folks. And in brief it says: The provinces shall cover healthcare. There shall be minimum level of healthcare. The federal government shall appoint a neutral auditor to ensure said care is equal across all provinces(some provinces have better care(those with more money). Those provinces who have less money, will receive money from the general revenue fun(aka income tax and GST--nationwide sales tax). In cases where there is no province(aka territories, or natives, or military, the federal government shall provide said care.

And that's it. Yep. Massive power grab, with a massive tax grab, and you liberals support it? Idiots.

All of you, take your off-topic issues elsewhere. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40610899)

As for obamacare? You guy's are just idiots, and anyone who supports it is an idiot. Yep, I ad-hom'd you. Know why? Because any massive power grab at the federal level in terms of healthcare is a bad idea. Know how we do it in Canada? It's at the provincial level(equivalent to state). The Federal healthcare act in Canada fits on 1 8x11" sheet of paper. That's it folks. And in brief it says: The provinces shall cover healthcare. There shall be minimum level of healthcare. The federal government shall appoint a neutral auditor to ensure said care is equal across all provinces(some provinces have better care(those with more money). Those provinces who have less money, will receive money from the general revenue fun(aka income tax and GST--nationwide sales tax). In cases where there is no province(aka territories, or natives, or military, the federal government shall provide said care.

And that's it. Yep. Massive power grab, with a massive tax grab, and you liberals support it? Idiots.

Once again, TAKE your OBAMACARE ISSUES SOMEWHERE ELSE where PEOPLE GIVE A SHIT ABOUT OFF-TOPIC SHIT LIKE THAT.

THEY ARE IRRELEVANT. IRRELEVANT. IRRELEVANT. IRRELEVANT.

Thanks. Your friendly neighborhood moderator with 10 more points to spend.

Re:I'm going to overlook a large portion of your b (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40610923)

So you can specify a minimum level of health care on one 8x11? Bullshit. You are a liar.

  Also, EXACTLY what aspect of the ObamaCare bill is a power grab? Yes, the government can specify standards of insurance, just like your government specifies a minimum coverage.

Medicare would actually work just fine in the US if the GOP would stop blocking the efforts to get past the "doc fixes" every year and reform the system to reimburse not per test but for a typical course of treatment per disease. Works better than your shit system in Canada and could be even better.

Fuck off, you pathetic little dog fuck. Just fuck right off.

Re:I'm going to overlook a large portion of your b (0)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#40611023)

So you can specify a minimum level of health care on one 8x11? Bullshit. You are a liar.

Yes, you can. You're just an idiot. And the entire bill is a power grab. Oh here's the "entire " of the CHA. Or the Canada Health act. This is the entire legal framework which all healthcare in Canada is based on for "socialized medicine."

The person who wrote the law was brilliant [wikipedia.org] , and was able to condense the entire act simply and fill in everything fully. Ensuring that the provinces were fully responsible. While the federal government provided a fully hands-off approach to the entire system. So, now don't be so naive.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-6/FullText.html [justice.gc.ca]

Short title

1. This Act may be cited as the Canada Health Act.

        1984, c. 6, s. 1.

INTERPRETATION
Marginal note:Definitions

2. In this Act,

âoeAct of 1977â

        âoeAct of 1977â[Repealed, 1995, c. 17, s. 34]

âoecash contributionâ

 contribution pécuniaire Â

        âoecash contributionâ means the cash contribution in respect of the Canada Health and Social Transfer that may be provided to a province under subsections 15(1) and (4) of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act;
âoecontributionâ

        âoecontributionâ[Repealed, 1995, c. 17, s. 34]

âoedentistâ

 dentiste Â

        âoedentistâ means a person lawfully entitled to practise dentistry in the place in which the practice is carried on by that person;

âoeextended health care servicesâ

 services complémentaires de santé Â

        âoeextended health care servicesâ means the following services, as more particularly defined in the regulations, provided for residents of a province, namely,

                (a) nursing home intermediate care service,

                (b) adult residential care service,

                (c) home care service, and

                (d) ambulatory health care service;

âoeextra-billingâ

 surfacturation Â

        âoeextra-billingâ means the billing for an insured health service rendered to an insured person by a medical practitioner or a dentist in an amount in addition to any amount paid or to be paid for that service by the health care insurance plan of a province;

âoehealth care insurance planâ

 régime dâ(TM)assurance-santé Â

        âoehealth care insurance planâ means, in relation to a province, a plan or plans established by the law of the province to provide for insured health services;

âoehealth care practitionerâ

 professionnel de la santé Â

        âoehealth care practitionerâ means a person lawfully entitled under the law of a province to provide health services in the place in which the services are provided by that person;

âoehospitalâ

 hÃpital Â

        âoehospitalâ includes any facility or portion thereof that provides hospital care, including acute, rehabilitative or chronic care, but does not include

                (a) a hospital or institution primarily for the mentally disordered, or

                (b) a facility or portion thereof that provides nursing home intermediate care service or adult residential care service, or comparable services for children;

âoehospital servicesâ

 services hospitaliers Â

        âoehospital servicesâ means any of the following services provided to in-patients or out-patients at a hospital, if the services are medically necessary for the purpose of maintaining health, preventing disease or diagnosing or treating an injury, illness or disability, namely,

                (a) accommodation and meals at the standard or public ward level and preferred accommodation if medically required,

                (b) nursing service,

                (c) laboratory, radiological and other diagnostic procedures, together with the necessary interpretations,

                (d) drugs, biologicals and related preparations when administered in the hospital,

                (e) use of operating room, case room and anaesthetic facilities, including necessary equipment and supplies,

                (f) medical and surgical equipment and supplies,

                (g) use of radiotherapy facilities,

                (h) use of physiotherapy facilities, and

                (i) services provided by persons who receive remuneration therefor from the hospital,

        but does not include services that are excluded by the regulations;

âoeinsured health servicesâ

 services de santé assurés Â

        âoeinsured health servicesâ means hospital services, physician services and surgical-dental services provided to insured persons, but does not include any health services that a person is entitled to and eligible for under any other Act of Parliament or under any Act of the legislature of a province that relates to workers' or workmenâ(TM)s compensation;

âoeinsured personâ

 assuré Â

        âoeinsured personâ means, in relation to a province, a resident of the province other than

                (a) a member of the Canadian Forces,

                (b) a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who is appointed to a rank therein,

                (c) a person serving a term of imprisonment in a penitentiary as defined in the Penitentiary Act, or

                (d) a resident of the province who has not completed such minimum period of residence or waiting period, not exceeding three months, as may be required by the province for eligibility for or entitlement to insured health services;

âoemedical practitionerâ

 médecin Â

        âoemedical practitionerâ means a person lawfully entitled to practise medicine in the place in which the practice is carried on by that person;

âoeMinisterâ

 ministre Â

        âoeMinisterâ means the Minister of Health;

âoephysician servicesâ

 services médicaux Â

        âoephysician servicesâ means any medically required services rendered by medical practitioners;

âoeresidentâ

 habitant Â

        âoeresidentâ means, in relation to a province, a person lawfully entitled to be or to remain in Canada who makes his home and is ordinarily present in the province, but does not include a tourist, a transient or a visitor to the province;

âoesurgical-dental servicesâ

 services de chirurgie dentaire Â

        âoesurgical-dental servicesâ means any medically or dentally required surgical-dental procedures performed by a dentist in a hospital, where a hospital is required for the proper performance of the procedures;

âoeuser chargeâ

 frais modérateurs Â

        âoeuser chargeâ means any charge for an insured health service that is authorized or permitted by a provincial health care insurance plan that is not payable, directly or indirectly, by a provincial health care insurance plan, but does not include any charge imposed by extra-billing.

        R.S., 1985, c. C-6, s. 2;
        1992, c. 20, s. 216(F);
        1995, c. 17, s. 34;
        1996, c. 8, s. 32;
        1999, c. 26, s. 11.

CANADIAN HEALTH CARE POLICY
Marginal note:Primary objective of Canadian health care policy

3. It is hereby declared that the primary objective of Canadian health care policy is to protect, promote and restore the physical and mental well-being of residents of Canada and to facilitate reasonable access to health services without financial or other barriers.

        1984, c. 6, s. 3.

PURPOSE
Marginal note:Purpose of this Act

4. The purpose of this Act is to establish criteria and conditions in respect of insured health services and extended health care services provided under provincial law that must be met before a full cash contribution may be made.

        R.S., 1985, c. C-6, s. 4;
        1995, c. 17, s. 35.

CASH CONTRIBUTION
Marginal note:Cash contribution

5. Subject to this Act, as part of the Canada Health and Social Transfer, a full cash contribution is payable by Canada to each province for each fiscal year.

        R.S., 1985, c. C-6, s. 5;
        1995, c. 17, s. 36.

6. [Repealed, 1995, c. 17, s. 36]
PROGRAM CRITERIA
Marginal note:Program criteria

7. In order that a province may qualify for a full cash contribution referred to in section 5 for a fiscal year, the health care insurance plan of the province must, throughout the fiscal year, satisfy the criteria described in sections 8 to 12 respecting the following matters:

        (a) public administration;

        (b) comprehensiveness;

        (c) universality;

        (d) portability; and

        (e) accessibility.

        1984, c. 6, s. 7.

Marginal note:Public administration

        8. (1) In order to satisfy the criterion respecting public administration,

                (a) the health care insurance plan of a province must be administered and operated on a non-profit basis by a public authority appointed or designated by the government of the province;

                (b) the public authority must be responsible to the provincial government for that administration and operation; and

                (c) the public authority must be subject to audit of its accounts and financial transactions by such authority as is charged by law with the audit of the accounts of the province.
        Marginal note:Designation of agency permitted

        (2) The criterion respecting public administration is not contravened by reason only that the public authority referred to in subsection (1) has the power to designate any agency

                (a) to receive on its behalf any amounts payable under the provincial health care insurance plan; or

                (b) to carry out on its behalf any responsibility in connection with the receipt or payment of accounts rendered for insured health services, if it is a condition of the designation that all those accounts are subject to assessment and approval by the public authority and that the public authority shall determine the amounts to be paid in respect thereof.

        1984, c. 6, s. 8.

Marginal note:Comprehensiveness

9. In order to satisfy the criterion respecting comprehensiveness, the health care insurance plan of a province must insure all insured health services provided by hospitals, medical practitioners or dentists, and where the law of the province so permits, similar or additional services rendered by other health care practitioners.

        1984, c. 6, s. 9.

Marginal note:Universality

10. In order to satisfy the criterion respecting universality, the health care insurance plan of a province must entitle one hundred per cent of the insured persons of the province to the insured health services provided for by the plan on uniform terms and conditions.

        1984, c. 6, s. 10.

Marginal note:Portability

        11. (1) In order to satisfy the criterion respecting portability, the health care insurance plan of a province

                (a) must not impose any minimum period of residence in the province, or waiting period, in excess of three months before residents of the province are eligible for or entitled to insured health services;

                (b) must provide for and be administered and operated so as to provide for the payment of amounts for the cost of insured health services provided to insured persons while temporarily absent from the province on the basis that

                        (i) where the insured health services are provided in Canada, payment for health services is at the rate that is approved by the health care insurance plan of the province in which the services are provided, unless the provinces concerned agree to apportion the cost between them in a different manner, or

                        (ii) where the insured health services are provided out of Canada, payment is made on the basis of the amount that would have been paid by the province for similar services rendered in the province, with due regard, in the case of hospital services, to the size of the hospital, standards of service and other relevant factors; and

                (c) must provide for and be administered and operated so as to provide for the payment, during any minimum period of residence, or any waiting period, imposed by the health care insurance plan of another province, of the cost of insured health services provided to persons who have ceased to be insured persons by reason of having become residents of that other province, on the same basis as though they had not ceased to be residents of the province.
        Marginal note:Requirement for consent for elective insured health services permitted

        (2) The criterion respecting portability is not contravened by a requirement of a provincial health care insurance plan that the prior consent of the public authority that administers and operates the plan must be obtained for elective insured health services provided to a resident of the province while temporarily absent from the province if the services in question were available on a substantially similar basis in the province.
        Marginal note:Definition of "elective insured health services"

        (3) For the purpose of subsection (2), âoeelective insured health servicesâ means insured health services other than services that are provided in an emergency or in any other circumstance in which medical care is required without delay.

        1984, c. 6, s. 11.

Marginal note:Accessibility

        12. (1) In order to satisfy the criterion respecting accessibility, the health care insurance plan of a province

                (a) must provide for insured health services on uniform terms and conditions and on a basis that does not impede or preclude, either directly or indirectly whether by charges made to insured persons or otherwise, reasonable access to those services by insured persons;

                (b) must provide for payment for insured health services in accordance with a tariff or system of payment authorized by the law of the province;

                (c) must provide for reasonable compensation for all insured health services rendered by medical practitioners or dentists; and

                (d) must provide for the payment of amounts to hospitals, including hospitals owned or operated by Canada, in respect of the cost of insured health services.
        Marginal note:Reasonable compensation

        (2) In respect of any province in which extra-billing is not permitted, paragraph (1)(c) shall be deemed to be complied with if the province has chosen to enter into, and has entered into, an agreement with the medical practitioners and dentists of the province that provides

                (a) for negotiations relating to compensation for insured health services between the province and provincial organizations that represent practising medical practitioners or dentists in the province;

                (b) for the settlement of disputes relating to compensation through, at the option of the appropriate provincial organizations referred to in paragraph (a), conciliation or binding arbitration by a panel that is equally representative of the provincial organizations and the province and that has an independent chairman; and

                (c) that a decision of a panel referred to in paragraph (b) may not be altered except by an Act of the legislature of the province.

        1984, c. 6, s. 12.

CONDITIONS FOR CASH CONTRIBUTION
Marginal note:Conditions

13. In order that a province may qualify for a full cash contribution referred to in section 5, the government of the province

        (a) shall, at the times and in the manner prescribed by the regulations, provide the Minister with such information, of a type prescribed by the regulations, as the Minister may reasonably require for the purposes of this Act; and

        (b) shall give recognition to the Canada Health and Social Transfer in any public documents, or in any advertising or promotional material, relating to insured health services and extended health care services in the province.

        R.S., 1985, c. C-6, s. 13;
        1995, c. 17, s. 37.

DEFAULTS
Marginal note:Referral to Governor in Council

        14. (1) Subject to subsection (3), where the Minister, after consultation in accordance with subsection (2) with the minister responsible for health care in a province, is of the opinion that

                (a) the health care insurance plan of the province does not or has ceased to satisfy any one of the criteria described in sections 8 to 12, or

                (b) the province has failed to comply with any condition set out in section 13,

        and the province has not given an undertaking satisfactory to the Minister to remedy the default within a period that the Minister considers reasonable, the Minister shall refer the matter to the Governor in Council.
        Marginal note:Consultation process

        (2) Before referring a matter to the Governor in Council under subsection (1) in respect of a province, the Minister shall

                (a) send by registered mail to the minister responsible for health care in the province a notice of concern with respect to any problem foreseen;

                (b) seek any additional information available from the province with respect to the problem through bilateral discussions, and make a report to the province within ninety days after sending the notice of concern; and

                (c) if requested by the province, meet within a reasonable period of time to discuss the report.
        Marginal note:Where no consultation can be achieved

        (3) The Minister may act without consultation under subsection (1) if the Minister is of the opinion that a sufficient time has expired after reasonable efforts to achieve consultation and that consultation will not be achieved.

        1984, c. 6, s. 14.

Marginal note:Order reducing or withholding contribution

        15. (1) Where, on the referral of a matter under section 14, the Governor in Council is of the opinion that the health care insurance plan of a province does not or has ceased to satisfy any one of the criteria described in sections 8 to 12 or that a province has failed to comply with any condition set out in section 13, the Governor in Council may, by order,

                (a) direct that any cash contribution to that province for a fiscal year be reduced, in respect of each default, by an amount that the Governor in Council considers to be appropriate, having regard to the gravity of the default; or

                (b) where the Governor in Council considers it appropriate, direct that the whole of any cash contribution to that province for a fiscal year be withheld.
        Marginal note:Amending orders

        (2) The Governor in Council may, by order, repeal or amend any order made under subsection (1) where the Governor in Council is of the opinion that the repeal or amendment is warranted in the circumstances.
        Marginal note:Notice of order

        (3) A copy of each order made under this section together with a statement of any findings on which the order was based shall be sent forthwith by registered mail to the government of the province concerned and the Minister shall cause the order and statement to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first fifteen days on which that House is sitting after the order is made.
        Marginal note:Commencement of order

        (4) An order made under subsection (1) shall not come into force earlier than thirty days after a copy of the order has been sent to the government of the province concerned under subsection (3).

        R.S., 1985, c. C-6, s. 15;
        1995, c. 17, s. 38.

Marginal note:Reimposition of reductions or withholdings

16. In the case of a continuing failure to satisfy any of the criteria described in sections 8 to 12 or to comply with any condition set out in section 13, any reduction or withholding under section 15 of a cash contribution to a province for a fiscal year shall be reimposed for each succeeding fiscal year as long as the Minister is satisfied, after consultation with the minister responsible for health care in the province, that the default is continuing.

        R.S., 1985, c. C-6, s. 16;
        1995, c. 17, s. 39.

Marginal note:When reduction or withholding imposed

17. Any reduction or withholding under section 15 or 16 of a cash contribution may be imposed in the fiscal year in which the default that gave rise to the reduction or withholding occurred or in the following fiscal year.

        R.S., 1985, c. C-6, s. 17;
        1995, c. 17, s. 39.

EXTRA-BILLING AND USER CHARGES
Marginal note:Extra-billing

18. In order that a province may qualify for a full cash contribution referred to in section 5 for a fiscal year, no payments may be permitted by the province for that fiscal year under the health care insurance plan of the province in respect of insured health services that have been subject to extra-billing by medical practitioners or dentists.

        1984, c. 6, s. 18.

Marginal note:User charges

        19. (1) In order that a province may qualify for a full cash contribution referred to in section 5 for a fiscal year, user charges must not be permitted by the province for that fiscal year under the health care insurance plan of the province.
        Marginal note:Limitation

        (2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of user charges for accommodation or meals provided to an in-patient who, in the opinion of the attending physician, requires chronic care and is more or less permanently resident in a hospital or other institution.

        1984, c. 6, s. 19.

Marginal note:Deduction for extra-billing

        20. (1) Where a province fails to comply with the condition set out in section 18, there shall be deducted from the cash contribution to the province for a fiscal year an amount that the Minister, on the basis of information provided in accordance with the regulations, determines to have been charged through extra-billing by medical practitioners or dentists in the province in that fiscal year or, where information is not provided in accordance with the regulations, an amount that the Minister estimates to have been so charged.
        Marginal note:Deduction for user charges

        (2) Where a province fails to comply with the condition set out in section 19, there shall be deducted from the cash contribution to the province for a fiscal year an amount that the Minister, on the basis of information provided in accordance with the regulations, determines to have been charged in the province in respect of user charges to which section 19 applies in that fiscal year or, where information is not provided in accordance with the regulations, an amount that the Minister estimates to have been so charged.
        Marginal note:Consultation with province

        (3) The Minister shall not estimate an amount under subsection (1) or (2) without first undertaking to consult the minister responsible for health care in the province concerned.
        Marginal note:Separate accounting in Public Accounts

        (4) Any amount deducted under subsection (1) or (2) from a cash contribution in any of the three consecutive fiscal years the first of which commences on April 1, 1984 shall be accounted for separately in respect of each province in the Public Accounts for each of those fiscal years in and after which the amount is deducted.
        Marginal note:Refund to province

        (5) Where, in any of the three fiscal years referred to in subsection (4), extra-billing or user charges have, in the opinion of the Minister, been eliminated in a province, the total amount deducted in respect of extra-billing or user charges, as the case may be, shall be paid to the province.
        Marginal note:Saving

        (6) Nothing in this section restricts the power of the Governor in Council to make any order under section 15.

        1984, c. 6, s. 20.

Marginal note:When deduction made

21. Any deduction from a cash contribution under section 20 may be made in the fiscal year in which the matter that gave rise to the deduction occurred or in the following two fiscal years.

        1984, c. 6, s. 21.

REGULATIONS
Marginal note:Regulations

        22. (1) Subject to this section, the Governor in Council may make regulations for the administration of this Act and for carrying its purposes and provisions into effect, including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, regulations

                (a) defining the services referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d) of the definition "extended health care services" in section 2;

                (b) prescribing the services excluded from hospital services;

                (c) prescribing the types of information that the Minister may require under paragraph 13(a) and the times at which and the manner in which that information shall be provided; and

                (d) prescribing the manner in which recognition to the Canada Health and Social Transfer is required to be given under paragraph 13(b).
        Marginal note:Agreement of provinces

        (2) Subject to subsection (3), no regulation may be made under paragraph (1)(a) or (b) except with the agreement of each of the provinces.
        Marginal note:Exception

        (3) Subsection (2) does not apply in respect of regulations made under paragraph (1)(a) if they are substantially the same as regulations made under the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, as it read immediately before April 1, 1984.
        Marginal note:Consultation with provinces

        (4) No regulation may be made under paragraph (1)(c) or (d) unless the Minister has first consulted with the ministers responsible for health care in the provinces.

        R.S., 1985, c. C-6, s. 22;
        1995, c. 17, s. 40.

REPORT TO PARLIAMENT
Marginal note:Annual report by Minister

23. The Minister shall, as soon as possible after the termination of each fiscal year and in any event not later than December 31 of the next fiscal year, make a report respecting the administration and operation of this Act for that fiscal year, including all relevant information on the extent to which provincial health care insurance plans have satisfied the criteria, and the extent to which the provinces have satisfied the conditions, for payment under this Act and shall cause the report to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first fifteen days on which that House is sitting after the report is completed.

Re:I'm going to overlook a large portion of your b (4, Insightful)

El Puerco Loco (31491) | more than 2 years ago | (#40610993)

Currently just about every one of our southern states is racing toward third world status just as fast as they can and you think giving them more power is a good idea? You don't have states like Mississipi and South Carolina in Canada.

Re:I'm going to overlook a large portion of your b (0)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#40611189)

Wait. So let me get this straight, in some broken universe in the US, stripping states of power and handing it over to the federal government. Than ensuring the continuity of power, and ensuring it rests with the people? And ensuring that they have a voice in the decisions on which their healthcare would be made. Okay, no wonder things are so broken down in the US. You'd rather have someone you'd never see making important decisions for you.

And actually yes we do, they're called the maritimes.

Re:I'm going to overlook a large portion of your b (4, Interesting)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 2 years ago | (#40611015)

The case could be made that a 'massive power grab' is a hell of a lot better than no health care at all.

Mind you I'm from Australia. Needed 2 stitches recently, went in, showed my Medicare card, got the stitches and walked out end of story.
Too easy.

Re:I'm going to overlook a large portion of your b (-1, Troll)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#40611151)

Really? So, let's compare. You take the choice of a massive power grab which is going to more than likely collapse the economy when businesses fall under due the taxes. Or you do it right, and let states decide what, when and how they should do it. Instead of faceless bureaucrats in washington.

Tough one indeed. You're trading depressed economy with no healthcare, for no healthcare. Especially when that more recent poll says 83% of doctors have considered quitting over obamacare. [investors.com] Yeah, good luck finding a doctor. Well maybe there won't be a doctor shortage in Canada anymore.

Re:I'm going to overlook a large portion of your b (5, Informative)

glassware (195317) | more than 2 years ago | (#40611227)

You're completely delusional. My relatives in Ireland, England, and Australia have much better healthcare than we have here in the US. They don't have to waste ages filling out forms; they just get care because they are citizens. And you know what? They pay less for their healthcare than we do.

Yes, you heard that right: we pay as much in taxes for Medicare & Medicaid as they do for universal healthcare. Plus, on top of medicare/medicaid, we also pay private insurance. Here's a breakdown of how we pay through the nose for our stupid healthcare system.
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/oecd042111.cfm [kff.org]

We should stop paying private companies and make Medicare universal. There's no reason healthcare in the US should be so miserable. If you still want a private plan, great, but stop making me pay twice what my cousins pay.

Oh, and by the way, Australia is not a depressed economy. And no, doctors don't consider quitting over "Obamacare". Creating a phony survey isn't the same as actually doing real work:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/07/10/comically-awful-survey-says-83-percent-of-docto/187029 [mediamatters.org]

Re:I'm going to overlook a large portion of your b (2)

jklovanc (1603149) | more than 2 years ago | (#40611127)

If you mean this Canada Health Act [justice.gc.ca] then no it does not fit on a 8"x11" sheet of paper. Also the Canada Health Act grew out of provincial plans for universal health care. There are no equivalent plans in the US. There are no state health care acts that require every citizen to pay premiums for health care as there were in some provinces in Canada. The Canada Health Act defines what must be done by the provinces and the provinces implement it. It is this way because the British North America Act 1867 stipulates that health care implementation is a provincial area. I know of no similar law in the US.

Right now most health care in the US is provided to people who have private health insurance usually paid for by their employers. That puts many people in the US without adequate health care. Perhaps if there was a better way of providing health care for everyone in the US than obanacare might agree but as of now there is not.

Re:Political correctness in action (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40610761)

Nice troll.

Feeding:
Obamma care == Romney care == Heritage Foundation care (right wing wackos [you would like them])

I don't care for Democrats, they are just corporatists, but Republicans have jumped that line to proto-fascists.

Oh, and you do know that Florida is run by Republicans. Turn off Fox, seek professional help, we will welcome you back to society when you are better. Oh, and don't forget those meds.

Re:Political correctness in action (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40610945)

Ronmey care -- supported by a majority of the state's citizenry, and passed by a bipartisan majority in a state legislature. ObamaTax -- crafted in closed-door meetings, opposed by the majority of citizens, not understood by congress at the time of the vote, and "reconciled" into existence, whatever the fuck that means.

Re:Political correctness in action (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40611033)

...and they're still identical for all practical purposes. If it weren't for the fact that I have been following politics for three decades I might expect Republicans to rejoice at their epic success in passing their vision of health insurance reform and the utter defeat of single-payer healthcare, the existence of which is a defining characteristic of first-world nations and absence thereof a prime indicator of third world shitholes. Instead the rabid rage exhibited as democrats embrace Heritage Foundation/Romneycare is exactly what I expect of the fiscally, intellectually, and morally bankrupt band of psychopaths that make up the entire Republican party.

Re:Political correctness in action (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#40611205)

Ronmey care -- supported by a majority of the state's citizenry, and passed by a bipartisan majority in a state legislature.
ObamaTax -- crafted in closed-door meetings, opposed by the majority of citizens, not understood by congress at the time of the vote, and "reconciled" into existence, whatever the fuck that means.

Uh... if you followed the news with a third-grader's attention span you'd know that Republican committee members wrought *massive* changes to the bill before it came to a vote. (And then voted against it even after the Democrats caved on almost every point.)

And I don't know why people call it "Obamacare". He wasn't exactly out there using his bully pulpit to make sure we got a good law out of the process.

Re:Political correctness in action (1, Offtopic)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#40610795)

But don't worry, this is all the evil Republican's fault. ObamaCare^WTax will fix all these problems.

if only. Medical care can only provide you care if you get it. If you refuse to go to the doctor, or if you refuse to get vaccines or refuse antibiotics TB is going to do bad things to you.

This is compounded by the nature of TB in the west in in general. It's sufficiently rare that most people only get vaccinated for it when they're young, and don't get boosted, the vaccine does make it hard to test for exposure to the actual disease.

I think there's probably some legitimate blame on the US health system, (and the state of florida in particular obviously) closing hospitals and not having universal care does make thing worse than they could have been, but it's not like countries with universal care won't have problems with people who don't get treatment, or who don't follow it.

Re:Political correctness in action (1, Insightful)

tsm_sf (545316) | more than 2 years ago | (#40610797)

But don't worry, this is all the evil Republican's fault..

Ubiquitous healthcare would have prevented this, so... yes.

Re:Political correctness in action (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40610805)

I really can't decipher it.

I'll help. This is the CDC making a stink because Florida failed to genuflect in the face of another health `crisis.' Simply providing the usual 6-8% annual budget increase would have precluded this bad press, but Florida has thoughtlessly found other priorities.

Re:Political correctness in action (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40610905)

But don't worry, this is all the evil Republican's fault. ObamaCare^WTax will fix all these problems.

I'm pretty sure that increasing people's access to preventive care will actually reduce the number of communicable and curable diseases. You can't pass the laugh test with a hypothesis that is something along the lines of keeping health care too expensive for 25% of the population as an effective strategy against communicable disease outbreaks.

Re:Political correctness in action (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40610929)

If you'd actually read the article, you'd have noted that individuals who do not keep up with their treatments are compelled by the state to do so via a court order forcing them into the hospital for treatment. There's just this thing called due process, that requires we allow individuals to comply without being forced into a hospital against their wil. Last I checked that was a right, and not "political correctness".

Re:Political correctness in action (2, Informative)

bit trollent (824666) | more than 2 years ago | (#40610933)

The Governor of Florida, where the TB outbreak was kept secret in violation of the law is a Republican , you fucking moron...

Like most Republican politicians, Florida's governor is a secretive, ignorant, corrupt waste of humanity.

Your pathetic attempt at blaming this failure of Florida's state government on President Obama is both funny and stupid, which we all know is a hallmark of the Republican party.

Re:Political correctness in action (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40610949)

PPACA doesn't have anything to do with disease control, it just ensures that everyone gets decent healthcare.
And it's not Democrats vs Republicans either : both sides wanted it, just had different views on it, and what you have now is a decent compromise ( not perfect, but workable ).

The above on the other hand ( not reporting tb outbreak ) is incompetence leading to disaster.

Some things are more important than politics : health is one of them.

Re:Political correctness in action (4, Informative)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 2 years ago | (#40610973)

But don't worry, this is all the evil Republican's fault.

One of the reasons I abandoned the Republican party was because they could never face up to their own failures or take responsibilities for their mistakes.

Think about that when you're standing next to the coughing homeless person at the train station or one of your kids gets diagnosed with antibiotic resistant TB. It would serve you right for sticking up for governor Penis Head.

Re:Political correctness in action (-1, Troll)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 2 years ago | (#40611089)

One of the reasons I abandoned the Republican party was because they could never face up to their own failures or take responsibilities for their mistakes.

I'll assume that you're not voting for the incumbent in the Pres. election in November, then. 'Four More Years' is sort of frightening to think about.

Re:Political correctness in action (3, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#40611245)

One of the reasons I abandoned the Republican party was because they could never face up to their own failures or take responsibilities for their mistakes

I don't think those are failures and mistakes. The Republican political philosophy is that "the proper role of government is to help the rich get richer". They rarely fail or make mistakes on that particular topic. Poor people starving or dying because they can't afford medical treatment isn't a problem for them.

They just can't come out and say what they really stand for, or they'd never win an election.

And they certainly aren't going to admit that their party's actual name is Government Of the People(, By the Rich, For the Rich).

Political Correctness???? (5, Informative)

voss (52565) | more than 2 years ago | (#40611005)

Whos the governor of florida? Republican Rick Scott

Which party controls both the florida house and florida senate...Republicans

Who voted to defund the TB hospital in Florida...Republican state legislators

Which governor said he would not accept federal "Obamacare" funding to expend medicaid which provides TB medication ....Republican Rick Scott.

Re:Political Correctness???? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40611225)

Since you turned this political, which state's unemployment rate is dropping, Florida's, and so is every other state that elected a republican governor in 2010. That being said, Its not like you can'tget the TB treatement at any hospital, you can. Thats like saying cancer rates are increasing because they shut down a cancer specialization hospital. Hospitals have nothing to do with outbreaks. They have to do with treatement. You can argue if the mortality rate is higher then normal, and it might be. But not the spread of the disease.

Re:Political Correctness???? (4, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#40611251)

Whos the governor of florida? Republican Rick Scott

Which party controls both the florida house and florida senate...Republicans

Who voted to defund the TB hospital in Florida...Republican state legislators

Which governor said he would not accept federal "Obamacare" funding to expend medicaid which provides TB medication ....Republican Rick Scott.

See, just like he said: it's all the Democrats' fault!

Re:Political correctness in action (0, Flamebait)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#40611009)

TB was pretty much a solved problem in the 1st world. Then we decided we couldn't force people into quarantine to ensure they got proper treatment and to prevent the spread of such a readily transmissible disease. And then AIDS pitched in to help brew up especially virilent strains in immune compromised patients with no self control. Add in the general problem if drug resistence and we have a major epidemic waiting to happen. Who knows where it will go nuts, but sooner or later... BAM!

You've correctly identified the problem, but not the cause. In this country, the poor do not receive medical treatment. This historically leads to plague. It happened in Rome. It happened in London. And now it's happening here. And ObamaCare won't solve a damn thing: It only succeeds in criminalizing being poor. Now, if you don't carry the health insurance you couldn't afford before ObamaCare, you'll be fined. And when you can't pay the fine, because you can't afford that either, you'll go to jail. Where you'll then receive no medical treatment, get sick, and while walls and bars may stop people, they don't stop plague.

So you see, ObamaCare might seem like a modern thing, but it's really a very ancient thing -- and it's also a bad implimentation of said ancient thing. You take care of your sick and your poor. Period. You don't do that, and everybody dies. America won't be destroyed by terrorists, or some nation-state going nuclear, or a military invasion. It's going to die because we all get sick and perish because we failed to learn the lesson that the world has been teaching humanity for the past 20,000 years:

Either you keep the population healthy, or you die. All. Of. You. It really is just that simple.

Re:Political correctness in action (4, Informative)

DeadCatX2 (950953) | more than 2 years ago | (#40611159)

And when you can't pay the fine, because you can't afford that either, you'll go to jail

This is straight from the law itself, under section 5000a, page 131:

‘‘(2) SPECIAL RULES.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law—
‘‘(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
‘‘(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.—The Secretary shall not—
‘‘(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or
‘‘(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.’’.

Re:Political correctness in action (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40611247)

Prisoners receive better medical care than most Americans, and it's illegal to let them go untreated. I don't know where you got your info, but it's fucked.

Re:Political correctness in action (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40611031)

Its interesting. The guy blowing smoke in your face is a lot more dangerous ... as is anyone talking on the phone while driving ... as is ... But doing anything about those is the encroachment of the nanny state.

Bad news censorship in action (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40611053)

FTFY

What do you expect from a crumbling empire, that invade foreign countries under false flag of weapons of mass destruction, and then goes downlow as cost and casualties became unsustainable in Vietnam-2.
Meanwhile domestic resources are cut to the bones, so hurricane in New Orleans, and blackouts in the east coast wreak havoc with rescue and reconstruction services.

Re:Political correctness in action (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40611075)

That's what prisons are for! This is Florida, you know where you'll be headed to next!

Re:Political correctness in action (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40611149)

But don't worry, this is all the evil Republican's fault. ObamaCare^WTax will fix all these problems.

Fun fact: The Republicans think we have the best health care in the world. That means they never had any intention of changing it. So which are you going to concede to: That the Republicans are evil or that this is their fault?

Re:Political correctness in action (5, Interesting)

demachina (71715) | more than 2 years ago | (#40611175)

Uh, this article [palmbeachpost.com] indicates 11 people were quarantined in Florida under court order last year to treat TB. If the people involved are willing to self quarantine at home and take the meds its preferred to not quarantine because its very expensive and punishing to people who are victims, not perpetrators of anything. In this case the outbreak was a worst case scenario because it was among homeless people, the first case being a schizophrenic, who can't self quarantine, can't get good health care, and about whom most people could care less.

A problem seems to be the Republicans who control Florida closed the hospital where TB cases were quarantined. They've apparently been putting the infected homeless in motels as an alternative which isn't the greatest idea since they will come in contact with a lot of people, but it is less bad than homeless shelters and wandering the streets. They are trying to send nurses around to make them take the antibiotics, so it helps they are in a fixed location, but still.

Duval County is historically Republican, though its pretty evenly divided now. Florida has been under Republican governors since 1999, The legislature has been Republican dominated since the mid 90's.

Its incredibly pointless sit here and play our stupid partisan game on this issue, but if any party is to blame it would probably be the Republicans.

To be honest /. discourse in particular, and in America in general, is getting so sickening its getting hard to read, and the posts tonight just reaffirms. A very sad and disturbing crisis turns in to another round of shrill partisan trolling and you, jmorris, always seem to be the right wing ring leader kicking it off. There are some left wing ring leader that don't particularly help but they pale in comparison to you.

It would probably be better if we all stopped being Democrats and Republicans, and started being Americans, and start working on ways to fix our inceasingly screwed up country. In particular our government is going broke at all levels, large numbers of our fellow citizens are going broke, we can't seem to provide even basic services that most would take for granted in the world's supposedly richest and most powerful country, a very small number people are getting fabulously wealthy and most of them apparently could care less if their country is unraveling around them as long as life in the gated communities is still good.

Democrats (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40610749)

The article says that the Democrats suppressed the information. How do you Democrats feel now?

Re:Democrats (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40610813)

About the same. See, we realize the Republicans would have done the same damn thing.

Pick your party. You still get fucked in the ass, but at least you get to choose the condom's flavor.

Re:Democrats (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40610845)

YOU DIDN"T READ THE ARTICLE. It says the Democrats went to insane levels to conceal the truth in a way that Republicans NEVER WOULD. It is really incredible.

Sack of shit spammer (3, Informative)

moosehooey (953907) | more than 2 years ago | (#40611011)

None of the linked articles even contain the word Democrat. What the fuck are you talking about?

Re:Sack of shit spammer (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#40611269)

None of the linked articles even contain the word Democrat. What the fuck are you talking about?

He's talking about Republican Reality (tm).

Probably his dad is paying him to watch Slashdot and intervene whenever he can.

THANKS, (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40610759)

OBAMA!

Outbreak? Really? (-1, Troll)

SlashDev (627697) | more than 2 years ago | (#40610765)

So now we need a government department to let people that there is an outbreak? What happened to people? Does every aspect of our lives rely on someone else? come on people! It's an outbreak! Pay attention!

Re:Outbreak? Really? (0)

poppycock (231161) | more than 2 years ago | (#40610817)

I hope this is sarcasm. Otherwise, you give libertarianism a bad name. Specifically, "dumb ass philosophy with no connection to reality."

Re:Outbreak? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40611265)

Too late. The libertarians are now just the extreme right of the Republican party. And before you deny just remember how conservative your R. Paul's voting record is, the poster boy for the libertarian party.

Re:Outbreak? Really? (3, Insightful)

medv4380 (1604309) | more than 2 years ago | (#40610937)

Yep, we just need the good old CDC and Health Departments that actually ensured everyone got a Small Pox Vaccine. My Evil half just wants this to result in a highly contagious version that is Antibiotic Resistant and make it so everyone has to get the TB Vaccine. The irony of a disease coming into existence from this kind of nieve plot to kill innocent people. Really, the "Lets do nothing and let the Poor Die" plan doesn't work. Then again a lot of people will have to die for us just to relearn the lesson that Small Pox taught us.

Re:Outbreak? Really? (1)

Kagetsuki (1620613) | more than 2 years ago | (#40610939)

That's the CDC, and they tried....

Re:Outbreak? Really? (0)

NotSanguine (1917456) | more than 2 years ago | (#40610953)

So now we need a government department to let people that there is an outbreak? What happened to people? Does every aspect of our lives rely on someone else? come on people! It's an outbreak! Pay attention!

I know. Those nanny state commies are ruining this country! Why didn't they just decide not to tell anyone and cover it up like red-blooded Americans? Oh, wait..."

Re:Outbreak? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40611125)

Yeah, great, I can spend all day paying attention to everybody around me, or I can filter down the most important things that matter to me.

Even in an anarcho-libertarian fantasy they'd at least specialize somewhat.

Democrats (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40610771)

According to the article, the Democrats were the ones who suppressed this information. How do you Democrats feel now?

Re:Democrats (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#40610963)

According to the article, the Democrats were the ones who suppressed this information. How do you Democrats feel now?

Probably pretty much the same as they did the first time you posted that. Though perhaps a few felt a change in the few seconds between reading the two posts.

Sack of shit paid spammer (3, Informative)

moosehooey (953907) | more than 2 years ago | (#40611001)

None of the linked articles even contain the word Democrat.

Democrats rule Florida (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40610799)

Read the article. It is full of how the Democrats used every method they could to conceal this report. Truly amazing.

What the fuck are you talking about? (2, Informative)

moosehooey (953907) | more than 2 years ago | (#40610979)

None of the linked articles even have the word Democrat. You're a spamming sack of shit.

When will they stop? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40610833)

I know this is Slashdot, and no one reads the articles, but this one shows an unbelievable story of Democrat corruption. They pushed to conceal the truth about TB and it was incredible.

Re:When will they stop? (1, Funny)

NotSanguine (1917456) | more than 2 years ago | (#40610941)

I know this is Slashdot, and no one reads the articles, but this one shows an unbelievable story of Democrat corruption. They pushed to conceal the truth about TB and it was incredible.

What's wrong with you AC? What's with trying to get people to read TFA by lying about what's in it? Geez! I posted TFA and *I* didn't even read it. You should so get banned. In fact, they should take your username away from you! :)

Re:When will they stop? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40610961)

The Democrats did it! The Democrats did it! The Democrats did it! The Democrats did it! I am going to shout it at the top of my lungs until you believe it, and I believe it! God I have to take another pill to calm down! My doctor says I have to calm down!

Florida TB hospital closed too (5, Informative)

riverat1 (1048260) | more than 2 years ago | (#40610835)

Florida just closed down it's only state hospital specializing in tuberculosis cases on July 2nd. Bad timing.

Report: Fla closed TB hospital as cases spiked [miamiherald.com]

Re:Florida TB hospital closed too (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40611063)

Suddenly, the coverup makes sense.
Someone decided that they could save the budget by slashing a necessary public service.
The need for said public service arose, which would be massively embarrassing.
Solution: Ignore the problem and hope it goes away on its own.

Re:Florida TB hospital closed too (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#40611079)

Florida just closed down it's only state hospital specializing in tuberculosis cases on July 2nd. Bad timing.

Timing had nothing to do with it. It was politics. That's the problem with cutting back on social programs: They stabilize the quality of life for the general population. Take them away, and they're now subject to the random, chaotic, and violent twists of unbridled capitalism. And combine poor economic conditions with an outbreak of plague... and if you don't have any social support programs, well... grab a mirror so you can properly bend over and kiss your ass goodbye.

It's the same thing with unemployment insurance and food stamps, and other forms of economic assistance; During times of economic prosperity, these services go largely unused, so they can stockpile funding for periods of economic downturn, and in so doing, moderate the highs and lows inherent in a capitalist system. What's even stupider about this: All the social programs, health care, welfare, unemployment insurance... all of it, would be amply funded without costing a single taxpayer dollar if during those aforementioned periods of economic prosperity, the unused funding for those programs was diverted into investments. Spain has a robust social security program; Every person in the country is guaranteed social security. You know how much they pay into the system for that? Nothing. Nodda.

Short term thinking, people. It'll fuck you every time.

Re:Florida TB hospital closed too (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40611109)

You might want to check the state of Spain's economy before making any bold statements about how well managed their social programs are.

It's just a bunch of homeless people (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40610841)

Who cares? Let em rot. why should we pay for their medical treatment!

>=|

Editorial Review: An Introductory Guide (5, Insightful)

American AC in Paris (230456) | more than 2 years ago | (#40610855)

Dear Editors and NotSanguine,

When you copy and paste an entire paragraph from a linked source without actually citing that source as the author of said material, you're committing plagiarism. NotSanguine did not write this blurb; Muriel Kane of Raw Story did.

Respect authorship.

Re:Editorial Review: An Introductory Guide (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40610957)

Exactly, if you quote an article you should put quotation marks around the text and link to the original source. Wait...

Re:Editorial Review: An Introductory Guide (-1, Flamebait)

NotSanguine (1917456) | more than 2 years ago | (#40611049)

Dear Editors and NotSanguine,

When you copy and paste an entire paragraph from a linked source without actually citing that source as the author of said material, you're committing plagiarism. NotSanguine did not write this blurb; Muriel Kane of Raw Story did.

Respect authorship.

Given that the the linked article was the source of the text in TFS, I think that "fair use" can be invoked here. However, if you want to contact Ms. Kane and suggest that she sue me for copyright infringement, knock yourself out!

Don't you have anything better to do? Maybe address the public health issues associated with the story in TFA? Discuss ways to improve our public health system?

Especially given the enormous amount of cash I earned by posting this on /. Or the precipitous nosedive in page hits that "The Raw Story" will see because the editors decided to accept the submission. Please.

Re:Editorial Review: An Introductory Guide (4, Informative)

American AC in Paris (230456) | more than 2 years ago | (#40611139)

It's somewhat pedantic, I know, but I work in education and this is something that far, far too many people a) don't get, b) don't care about, and c) don't appreciate its importance. When making a direct quote, you need to do more than simply drop a hyperlink to an original source to avoid plagiarizing your sources; you need to also name the original author.

It's really, honestly as simple as adding "Muriel Kane of Raw story writes:" at the start of the paragraph. Make a habit of giving proper credit where it's due, especially if you do a lot of writing. It's easy to do and gives proper credit and respect to the person who took the time to write the words you're using.

Yes, I have better things to do. No, I have no plans to try to sic Ms. Kane's lawyers on you. To be frank, there's a reason the editors were listed first there: it's their job to know this kind of thing inside out as a matter of professional competence, whereas you're just Random Person On The Internet. Still, it's important, and something worth knowing. That's worth at least a mention, yeah?

Re:Editorial Review: An Introductory Guide (2)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 2 years ago | (#40611241)

It's really, honestly as simple as adding "Muriel Kane of Raw story writes:" at the start of the paragraph.

Slashdot's style is to credit the submitter, not the actual writer. This is is wrong, but they won't change.

Much worse than this is the increasing tendency to cite and link not the original source, but some plagiarising asshole who copied the story from a real publication, and put it on their spammy blog, and submitted that to Slashdot for the ad hits. Not only is it stealing the story, they often misrepresent or sensationalise it to make it more dramatic.

For example, yesterday: Paul Vixie On DNS Changer: We're Dealing With Malware the Wrong Way [slashdot.org] That story is credited to ibtimes.co.uk on the same day, but it actually is a dumbed down and mangled version of a blog post made 4 months ago [circleid.com] .

Re:Editorial Review: An Introductory Guide (0)

NotSanguine (1917456) | more than 2 years ago | (#40611261)

It's somewhat pedantic, I know, but I work in education and this is something that far, far too many people a) don't get, b) don't care about, and c) don't appreciate its importance. When making a direct quote, you need to do more than simply drop a hyperlink to an original source to avoid plagiarizing your sources; you need to also name the original author.

It's really, honestly as simple as adding "Muriel Kane of Raw story writes:" at the start of the paragraph. Make a habit of giving proper credit where it's due, especially if you do a lot of writing. It's easy to do and gives proper credit and respect to the person who took the time to write the words you're using.

Yes, I have better things to do. No, I have no plans to try to sic Ms. Kane's lawyers on you. To be frank, there's a reason the editors were listed first there: it's their job to know this kind of thing inside out as a matter of professional competence, whereas you're just Random Person On The Internet. Still, it's important, and something worth knowing. That's worth at least a mention, yeah?

You point is an excellent one. I am aware of the rules surrounding the appropriation of the works of others. Perhaps I should have prefaced TFS with "From http://www.rawstory.com/ [rawstory.com] " or "In an article by Muriel Kane" or some such. As an aside, I did not personally attribute the prose to me. Nor was it ever my intent to deceive anyone on that point. That was done (presumably automatically) when I posted the article.

That said, this is not a term paper, a newspaper piece or a scholarly article. It's a post on a news aggregation and discussion site. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that the "Fair Use" doctrine applies here. In fact, perhaps you should use this as an example to your students of fair use. You can then juxtapose my post with a real example of plagiarism.

I assume you intended to actually use this posting as an example of plagiarism for your students. Otherwise, your actions are quite incomprehensible to me. If you weren't planning on using this as an example then you were just engaging in a bit of off-topic ranting. While it can be amusing, people who do that are often considered trolls.

Consumption (1)

regular_guy (1979018) | more than 2 years ago | (#40610873)

Looks like their thoughts on consumption didn't have much... gumption? IGMC

Of course, Florida! (2)

CheshireDragon (1183095) | more than 2 years ago | (#40610901)

Florida is always fscking something up! Weather, voting machines, elections....

Maybe they were too busy battling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40610965)

Giant African snails [cbslocal.com] and man-eating alligators [msn.com] ?

worst tuberculosis outbreak in 20 years (5, Insightful)

jklovanc (1603149) | more than 2 years ago | (#40610999)

I hate relative terms when there is no indication as to what the term is relative to. For example, if the second worst outbreak in the last 20 years involved 80 people then this one could be the worst and involve 99 people.

What I would rather see is how important is this outbreak. The fact that it is the worst in 20 years does not mean that it is something to be concerned with. The questions to ask are as follows;
1. How much of the population is at risk?
2. Would spreading the information cause more harm than good. Will the populous be more frightened that necessary.

The 13 death tole can be misleading too. Are most of the deaths in people who live on the streets, avoid contact with health facilities and have compromised immune systems. I am not saying to ignore them but health warnings would not help as they would be ignored.

Re:worst tuberculosis outbreak in 20 years (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40611091)

Well, American educational system in action. Someone on one side of country farted, half country in another are affraid to sleep.

Re:worst tuberculosis outbreak in 20 years (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40611103)

As far as population goes, tuberculosis is VERY transmissible. It doesn't usually get very far in most people, due to decent nutrition and health care, but it could. It's never good to have a very communicable disease like that hanging around waiting for something to allow it to catch on to the big leagues. Most people fend it off, but some people in poor health can succumb to it pretty easily. Anyone with a compromised immune system, poor nutrition, or just plain fighting off other diseases at the same time. It generally affects the lungs and the main problem is that when the disease is cleared from an area by the immune system, that area is replaced by scar tissue. This reduces lung capacity quite a bit. Also, it can spread to other parts of the body, and do the same thing. About 1 in 10 people who are exposed and infected progress to an active and obvious infection. The rest spread it silently. See the problem? It isn't immediately obvious or even noticeable..so the real elephant in the room is, how many more people have it than just the people that died?

Bunch of Lungers... (1)

ilikenwf (1139495) | more than 2 years ago | (#40611025)

Doc Holliday back from the grave and sleeping around? He's your huckleberry.

Vaccination? (1)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 2 years ago | (#40611069)

Perhaps it is time that the vaccine was recommended for all people?

Re:Vaccination? (3, Informative)

El Puerco Loco (31491) | more than 2 years ago | (#40611135)

The vaccine doesn't give 100% protection and it also causes a positive reaction to the skin test for TB, so it makes it harder to detect cases of latent TB.

ROFL CSA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40611077)

Communistic States of America!

Ideology is different, methods are the same!
Conceal big bad things, by censorhip. Put loads of people into jails. Looks like exact methods of Soviet Russia. And I know what I am talking about, I am from there.

FUCK MY LIFE (2)

Yosho-sama (800703) | more than 2 years ago | (#40611097)

I'm in Miami and I've had a cough for 2 weeks. I have a doctor's appointment on Thursday. This is NOT what I needed to read.

Disney World! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40611099)

I think it's about time they quarantined off Florida. Between flesh eaters, old people and the TB, turn Disney World into an Auschwitz where you simply don't come back from The Haunted Mansion.

Not the only outbreak. (5, Interesting)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | more than 2 years ago | (#40611199)

Tuberculosis isn't the only disease making a comeback this year. Pertussis is also coming back.

Across the United States, 8,159 provisional pertussis cases have been reported to the CDC as of May 5, 2012, representing an 87 percent increase compared to the same time period in 2011. Pertussis cases reached epidemic levels in Washington state this year, and cases are trending high in Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin.

From MarketWatch [marketwatch.com] .

So fear not. If you've been coughing for weeks, it may only be whooping cough, which does little or no damage to your lungs, instead of tuberculosis, which can do major damage to your lungs.

Also, if you're coughing, do your best to get into a meeting with your CEO/CTO/CFO/VP/etc. Really, any major corporate officer will do. Biological warfare is a fine answer to class warfare.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?