Apparently the new plan to stop ebola is to take people's temperature as they get off planes along with taking temperatures when they get on planes. I don't know exactly how long it would take for an infected person to develope symptoms. But the plan the government has clearly isn't going to stop it. Why don't they just come out and say that they don't plan to stop it. The filthy scum!
Dear cultsmasher: at least the govt is honest in their inability to manage health care
for everyone under their jurisdiction. Now we can point to this as proof why we
need localized self-reliance as much as possible, because the govt cannot intervene in everything. We need to handle to handle more problems directly and only leave
the core centralized parts to federal govt so this is minimal for faster effective response with less bureaucracy.
See this link calling for public involvement in creating solutions directly:
Fighting Ebola A Grand Challenge for Development
Perfect opportunity for people to prove once and for all that solutions come
from people first, then the govt follows from there.
if the govt solved this problem, that would keep pushing this agenda and idea to
'wait on govt' and 'depend on govt to lead'
instead of people running things and govt serving the people as the venue.
Doctors Without Borders was the main nonprofit group credited
with leading the health care efforts that stopped outbreaks before.
That is a nonprofit group run and funded voluntarily.
So what does that tell you?
That the people lead first, and the government is supposed to follow from there.
The better we the people organize resources and ideas into action, then we can reform our govt
based on the best ideas implemented as models for public policy.
emilyngheim,
It's a funny thing about people. Most of them have lives to lead. The whole reason for government's existence is to take care of these problems. For the government's failings, I wish I could blame it. But the failings of government basically come down to people. You also talk of doctors without borders being a nonprofit organization. But doing the kind of work they do, they wouldn't get far being a for profit organization.
I agree that the problems and solutions lie with the people, and then this gets projected onto govt.
So we can either form solutions and implement those as models for govt
or continue to fight and just have fights going on in Courts and Congress as we have now,
which reflect the inability of people to resolve conflicts
but instead address problems by force and bullying.
I don't mean to switch such organizations to "run" for profit,
but ANY organization has to run like a business in terms of
being so effective with resources, that minimal money is lost to mistakes or waste;
so more money comes in than is lost to problems, and more of that money goes into services
to BUILD and to ELIMINATE the problems COSTING more resources. So it has to be sustainable.
In that sense, even charity organizations have to operate efficiently as businesses do to cover their
costs, and not go under by having more problems "escalating" out of control.
What WOULD help charity organizations is to set up a Sustainable endowment
such as universities or larger foundations use to replenish the grants they give out.
If all organizations had members that owned property that produced a regular
return monthly and annually on either residential or business rentals, that is one way
to have sustainable income coming in without relying on handouts or donations that are one time and then get expended.
By investing in buying and owning property, this becomes a sustainable source of revenue.
So this is one trick that can be learned from business investors.
The difference is that instead of a private investor using that passive income for sustainable
wealth for retirement or personal expenditures, the person who uses it for nonprofit would
direct the income there. So all charities could become sustainable by having 1-5 people using
investment money to create an endowment.
Another way is to set up campus or school systems owned by the nonprofit.
So that the education and work-study programs also generate income while
providing sustainable education and services as part of the charity structure.
In practice, businesses get to deduct 100% of their expenses from taxes,
so ALL the money can go directly into expanding and developing their services;
while nonprofits are only partially tax deductible.
So I know people who run their charities as a DBA business
in order to deduct 100% and do all their outreach work under that structure.
It does not require the same staffing and hiring of professional accountants or lawyers
to incorporate and handle reports, if all the work is done by contracted consultants with no formal staff.
So this allows the focus to be on the services,
by setting it up as a business under a DBA and not wasting resources trying to file or keep track
of donations and taxes as a nonprofit.
People can pay for services knowing that it is just to cover costs
like a not for profit business, where the charity exists to serve, and is not about making money per se
but just using that structure to minimalize the paperwork, filing and other costs that would take away from the services.
