Preparing for the 'Disaster' before the Disaster

Originally submitted by: jadelay

Between the lines of several of the posts on what we may or may not owe our neighbors and strangers in the event of an epidemic, is the simple fact that we don't yet have the basics of health care covered for both our neighbors and the strangers in our midst. So that is why in an epidemic those who are most at risk are people who haven't been able to get access to health care to begin with. They are therefore more susceptible to getting whatever form the epidemic takes. This means that it is also valuable, and probably essential for us (and as it is an election year and the candidates are talking about health care), to host some programs about health care access and costs in our community and the ways in which other communities are handling these issues. So here is the first question: does anyone have any ideas for us about sponsoring some programs on health care issues that particularly impact our community and the population of young people in our area? The other issue that we have been dancing around in some of our forum discussions (and which was mentioned briefly in the panel on epidemic preparedness at the recent Angels in Ann Arbor event), involves the choices public health officials have to make in spending the money that is available to their agencies through public sources. So here is the second question: should we really be spending alot of money on an unlikely and improbable epidemic, rather than on basic vaccines and primary health care to members of our community who do not currently have access to these services? It seems to me that we have to decide which "disaster" to deal with first. But are we able to prioritize disasters?