I thought you would have able been to put this together from what you’ve already read and what has been clearly said, but I’ll help you.
The process of eminent purposely sets out to acquire property, land, etc. and financial compensation is part of that process, as it should be.
The process of protecting the public health sets out to do what it takes to prevent the spread of disease, etc. and going after private property is not part of that process, as it should be.
No, there should not be any compensation when the goal is to protect the public health; your selfish wish to protect your $100,000 wedding/honeymoon expenditure should have nothing to do with the goal of protecting the public health and the decisions by public health agencies to do so.
Thanks for your “help,” which apparently doesn’t include giving simple answers to simple questions.
Sure, and if the government acquires property in order to protect the public health, then the owners should be compensated, in my opinion.
For example, if the government takes your land in order to build a TB Sanitarium, you should be compensated, in my opinion.
Under your point of view, the landowner should be compensated if his or her land is taken to build a road, but not if it’s taken to build a hospital or sanitorium. This seems like a silly distinction to me, but you are entitled to your opinion.
You mean other than Sauron directly responding to your question in post 605 upthread? No wonder you’re defending Speaker with such vehemence; you’re apparently a colossal prick too.
"He told the newspaper that he asked the CDC whether they would provide a jet for him to return home, and was told there was no money for it.
But [CDC director] Gerberding told CNN, “I don’t think that that’s an accurate description of what actually happened involving the CDC.”
“We were doing everything we could to try to find a way to get him home,” she said. “In fact, the irony is that when we were no longer able to reach him, we were even preparing to send the CDC plane to Europe to bring him home at government expense.”"
This is what I was going by when I made my statement in that post you seem to be so single-mindedly focused on. From Sauron’s post, it seems that the more recent reporting on the hearings surrounding this changes my understanding of the situation slightly.
But it seems par for the course for you to excoriate me for being wrong about something small potatoes like a message board cite, while giving a pass to the guy who wasn’t at all sure he was not gonna infect planeloads of people with a mostly-fatal disease and didn’t care.
So he claims. But then again, he claims a lot of things.
Are you dense? Are you retarded or something? Instead of admitting when you’re wrong, you make up a bizarre strawman conclusion, attribute it to me (despite the fact that I not only never said any such thing, but tried to explain that it has no bearing on the issue), label it “moronic” then sit back smugly as if that totally destroys what I said.
You were arguing that the fact that he (according to him) was not contagious didn’t mean he was not necessarily going to die from the TB, and so needed to rush home. I posted showing that with TB, you’re either contagious and really sick and possibly gonna die, or not that contagious and asymptomatic and not gonna die.
It has zip to do with the degree of contagiousness of original recipe vs. drug resistant TB. It’s the way TB itself works.
Cite that Fulton County’s version was self-serving?
And I said never said it justifies Fulton County’s initial decision (man, you LOVE you some strawmen, don’t you?). I said it justifies Fulton County repeating that to the press themselves, since the CDC already spilled the beans, while no one, not even the CDC, talked about the other issue, so they have a reason to keep quiet about it.
On the rare occasions that there is a “taking” due to public health, there is renumeration. However, having to change your wedding/honeymoon plans does not constitute a taking by the government. If they were to take his home and raze it because of the TB, he should be reimbursed. That would be a taking. You can’t “take” someone’s vacation.
My cite is my experience working with the Washington State Department of Health and EPA.
No, colossal prick means someone who continues to ask for a cite, when someone else provides a cite. What reason did you have for insisting upon that from me personally?
Come on, tell us why.
Yes, you caught me. I totally lied. The fact that the CDC said to CNN “When he says we told him we weren’t gonna send a plane for him, that’s not true. We were gonna send him the CDC plane when he took off against our orders” doesn’t at all mean what I said it meant.
If he actually believed that it didn’t matter whether or not he returned home in terms of his chances of living, then he’s an asshole. You’ll get no argument from me there.
No.
Do you need me to type slower? I asked if you would concede that danger to the patient is not necessarily correllated to his contagiousness. You said no. That means you believe that there’s ALWAYS a correllation.
Therefore you are the moron.
So if somebody has a serious super drug resistent TB infection, but is asymptomatic, there is no chance he will die from TB? Riiiiiiiiiiiight.
No need for a cite – it’s obviously self serving. They claim they advised him not to travel. Does that harm them if it’s true? Of course not. It helps them. Therefore it’s self-serving.
I said not in TB’s case. You were asking me to agree to a general statement. What holds for TB doesn’t hold for other diseases.
I was making that clear, while you, on the other hand, were seeking an opportunity to seize on cheap semantics so you could call me a moron without actually having to do the hard work of being right.
Except I’m right. That must really suck for you.
No, because the TB can become active at any time and then kill him. As long as it’s not active, it won’t kill him.
Speaker’s TB wasn’t active at the time he was in Europe. He was not in danger of dying if he didn’t break the CDC quarantine order.
He provided a cite that overrode what I had said, because it was newer information. You knew that (or you’re too stupid to check dates on articles, but I’m being charitable).
My cite, at that point, was irrelevant (though I provided it anyway, just so everyone could see where I got my info from). And, y’know, I don’t sit on SMDB 24-7.
If you are referring to the fact that he was “smear negative,” that does not mean that there were no Mycobacterium tuberculosis in his sputum. The bacteria were present in numbers not detectable by microscope. Explanation way back here .
Thank you for that. My point is that it’s possible to be at serious risk from TB (because you are infected with drug resistant TB) without being terribly contagious to others (because there is little or no TB in your spit).
No. But we’ve been over this before. It’s not that he was not contagious that’s at issue. It’s that Speaker didn’t know he was not contagious when he fled Europe.
This was explained IN THE VERY POST YOU QUOTED!! Jesus Christ, you’re a stupid ass. If you have TB and it’s not active, it won’t kil you. However, it can become active at any time and kill you. Speaker still has TB in his lungs, and while it’s not killing him right at this second, it could become active and kill him, which is why the doctors are considering treatment options on how to get rid of the TB altogether, active or not. That’s how he could both be safe from immediate death and yet not out of all danger with his doctor thinking about surgery.
Except that Fulton County has no reason to be self-serving when repeating what their standard TB-information procedures are, while Speaker, who has a vested interest in not looking like the asshole he is, certainly DOES have a reason to be self-serving.
Okay, hands up, everyone reading this thread. Who thinks that my interpretation of Dr. Gerberding’s words to CNN constitutes a lie?