In reading about the candidates I came upon an article from the Southwest Nebraska News that discussed the Presidential candidates’ position on AIDS and other infectious diseases. The subject has recently become more of an issue with the attention that Mr. Andrew Speaker brought in his trans-Atlantic flight while having tuberculosis.

I do not recall any of the candidates speaking on this issue, outside of condemning the actions of Mr. Speaker. Yet this is a major issue not only to the American public, but the world at large. Millions across the world are at risk from not only AIDS and tuberculosis but malaria, bird flu, and other diseases that the average American will most likely never get. That is until the day that we do, and on that day we have the potential for hardship on epidemic levels. Addressing these diseases in other parts of the world helps us protect our own nation, and as Mr. Speaker made clearly apparent that can protect us as well.

But the part of the article that really got my attention was the comment that 68% of Americans polled were concerned about health issues, AIDS in particular. While that would be a great thing, it’s not what I have noticed in my own polls.

In my poll (found at www.vassconsult.com/politics/election2008.html) I see that the leading concern at this moment is the economy, at 17%, followed by national security, education and anti-terrorism efforts all tied at 13%. Now I must admit I don’t have healthcare (national or otherwise) on my list of choices, but I have not received any comments stating that it is a major issue. To further defend my lack of listing healthcare, I felt that social services and foreign policy covered them both (each at 9%).

While pundits and Presidential candidates are mentioning a nationalized healthcare system, I’ve notice most people are worried about making more money and maintaining their lifestyles. I know of no one that wants the government to provide health services, the general consensus being that it would turn into a DMV or Post Office clone. Even less thought has been voiced, by those I know and interact with, on the question of what aide is being given to combat AIDS and other diseases in other nations.

Perhaps more attention should be paid to these items. I agree that improving healthcare is a vital requirement for the next President, and those that follow. I cannot say that I feel it is the most pressing issue though. I also do believe that most Americans share my thoughts. The downside of this consensus is that AIDS and other diseases plaguing the rest of the world are not getting combated as they should. Of course without a strong economy, good national defense, and limits of illegal immigration we can’t help anyone else either.

Am I right? How important is healthcare, national or otherwise, to you?

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: AIDS, Andrew Speaker, national healthcare, national security, presidential candidate, presidential election, tuberculosis

While everyone is busy being afraid about the potential problem that Mr. Andrew Speaker has posed to the health of various airline passengers around the world, I have focused on another matter. True, one person can cause a huge problem, infecting enough people to quickly spread an infection to multiple nations and thousands of people. Yet, given the low transfer rate of this form of Tuberculosis and the relatively limited time to contract the disease, my concern is more focused.

What could be more of a concern for me? What is more devastating than this well-hyped health scare? Our northern border.

I do not blame Canada for allowing a U.S. citizen to enter their country, and to leave it. They had no idea who this guy was, nor did we tell them to look out for him. Canada did nothing wrong. But how does a person who is flagged and sought after by the American government enter the nation? Through Mexico, crossing the border with illegal immigrants in the dead of night across difficult terrain? No, a casual drive over the northern border is all it takes.

I’ve spoken about this several times,

“…But if we are to posture about security and claim a need to patrol and defend the southern border, no less attention needs to be directed at our neighbors to the north….”

I further stated,

“The government may wish to stick its head in the sand, and assume that if we protect one border all are safe. The public at large may wish to assume that one culture is more dangerous than another. But the fact is, and is shown to be again, that such precepts are both false and dangerous.”

In that post I spoke of 17 terrorists, in this one we discuss a man who carried a virulent disease, was flagged by the nation, and used his passort that stated exactly who he was. Yet there is rampant terror about what happens at the southern American border. How much more ridiculous does this all get?

I have mentioned this several times, and as often as the media discusses various individuals entering America from the north, nothing is being mentioned by our politicians. That’s quite troubling. Think about it, if you were a demented fanatic and you see the world news where American pundits are arguing about the Southern border – yet let Mr. Speaker pass without hesitation – where would you head to cause trouble? Fanatics may be sick, but they are not necessarily stupid.

When will we stop being obsessively worried about the darker-skinned and more obvious neighbors to the south, and pay attention to the larger, least watched border to the north? If 17 terrorist, among the many others we know have already crossed into the U.S., are not enough of a wake-up call this one incident definitely is. Border security is not a one sided issue, nor should it be focused against one type of people. That’s a huge group of –ism’s that only lead to one thing, a nation less safe for it’s population.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: border crossing, Canada, homeland security, national healthcare, tuberculosis