"Many officials say spending billions of dollars to fight ailments such as AIDS, malaria, and polio rather than supporting basic health services has left nation

"Many officials say spending billions of dollars to fight ailments such as AIDS, malaria, and polio rather than supporting basic health services has left nations unprepared for epidemics like Ebola." This is nonsense. Does anyone disagree AIDS, malaria, polio are higher priority than Ebola? "You get treatment if you're a woman with malaria or if you're a woman with HIV, but if you've got cervical cancer or cardiovascular disease, you're not covered, Evans said." Cancers and cardiovascular diseases are not infectious. Does anyone disagree infectious diseases are higher priority? "You'd get more for your money if you supported a broad range of health system strengthening activities, Daulaire said by phone from Oslo, where he's a visiting scholar at the Norwegian Institute for Public Health. That's a much more difficult message." This may well be true but very unobvious. While I understand difficulty of analysis and presentation, burden of proof of "You'd get more for your money" lies on health system strengthening proponents. You can't argue as if it is given.