This type of disease is sort of an argument for universal free-at-point-of-access healthcare. It is no one’s interest that an ebola patient should be reluctant to go to a hospital for fear of the cost…[/quote]
No.
Even before Bam’s Health Insurance and Human Resource Department take over, the ACA, the hospital had to treat you, and of all the institutions in the country that will work with you on a payment plan they are quite good about it.
Not to mention the plethora of charities and fund raisers available to people. Anyone who wouldn’t go to the ER with a disease like this “because of the costs” isn’t a rational actor, and provides ZERO validity for a government take over of an entire industry.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Why isn’t there a travel ban on incoming flights from West Africa or anyone who spent time there ?
Seriously, do you really want to fuck around with something like this ?[/quote]
I responded to this earlier–it’s a bureaucratic difficulty. Travel ban on incoming flights means aid workers going over there won’t be able to come back, and that doesn’t help fixing the root problem. It’s tempting to just shut down the airports but as long as the outbreak is out of control the risk of transmission is there. In order to kill the risk of transmission we have to kill the rapidly expanding reservoir of hosts, and in order to do that we need aid workers to get over there and also be able to return.
How about a selective travel ban, where they layover in a quarantine zone eg not an international airport, before they are allowed back.
It could be done in waves, so that one group moves forward at a time, then the next group is allowed. It’s not hard.
The time frame would simply have to be the inoculation period of ZEBOV.
This type of disease is sort of an argument for universal free-at-point-of-access healthcare. It is no one’s interest that an ebola patient should be reluctant to go to a hospital for fear of the cost…[/quote]
No.
Even before Bam’s Health Insurance and Human Resource Department take over, the ACA, the hospital had to treat you, and of all the institutions in the country that will work with you on a payment plan they are quite good about it.
Not to mention the plethora of charities and fund raisers available to people. Anyone who wouldn’t go to the ER with a disease like this “because of the costs” isn’t a rational actor, and provides ZERO validity for a government take over of an entire industry. [/quote]
This is a nice fiction but hospitals only have to treat you if you actually enter the hospital. If they stop you before you enter then no obligation to treat.
Also ebola doesn’t intially present that badly the initial symptoms (at which stage one is highly infectious) are similar to a low grade viral infection - hence why this guy was sent home. Would you risk paying $1000s if you think you have a cold but there is tiny chance you might have something else?
[quote]EvenIfItsSushi wrote:
Nigeria seems to have managed to contain ebola in Lagos. So a first world country with easily available health care so be able to control it no problem.
[/quote]
And how did Nigeria do it? By closing the border and shooting people who tried to break the quarantine.
[/quote]
They did it by identifying everyone that the initial patient had encountered and quarantining them. This is what the US is doing now.
This should work as you aren’t infectious before you show symptoms.
Closing the border had nothing to do with it - their patient 0 had already entered the country the same as in the US now.
This is a nice fiction but hospitals only have to treat you if you actually enter the hospital. If they stop you before you enter then no obligation to treat.[/quote]
That’s just a lie. No ER in the USA stops any patient getting in. They have to talk all comers, and you don’t have to give any ID, so you could just make up some nonsense if you didn’t want a bill.
This is a nice fiction but hospitals only have to treat you if you actually enter the hospital. If they stop you before you enter then no obligation to treat.[/quote]
That’s just a lie. No ER in the USA stops any patient getting in. They have to talk all comers, and you don’t have to give any ID, so you could just make up some nonsense if you didn’t want a bill.[/quote]
Sorry. It is not a lie. My evidence is anecdotal and personal of course.
Maybe the armed guard was just there to put people off who didn’t know better and US citizens all know their rights and would just brush past the man with the gun? Maybe it’s just being a foreigner (white - so how did he know) that gets you stopped by a man with a gun before you can enter the door? Who knows? Maybe that hospital was breaking the law by doing this? (I hope so.)
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
How about a selective travel ban, where they layover in a quarantine zone eg not an international airport, before they are allowed back.
It could be done in waves, so that one group moves forward at a time, then the next group is allowed. It’s not hard.
The time frame would simply have to be the inoculation period of ZEBOV.
[/quote]
This is a good idea. The current plan of just running normal flights and allowing people to e.g. take unneeded holidays is absurd. Travel should be restricted to essential people.
Incubation is up to 21 days for this strain of ebola so it would be hard to do.
This type of disease is sort of an argument for universal free-at-point-of-access healthcare. It is no one’s interest that an ebola patient should be reluctant to go to a hospital for fear of the cost…[/quote]
Anyone who wouldn’t go to the ER with a disease like this “because of the costs” isn’t a rational actor[/quote]
Unfortunately for economists and their lovely models no healthy un-medicated human on the planet is a rational actor. (I say healthy and un-medicated since psychopaths and people on antidepressants apparently act more rationally.) However rationally we all like to think we act, we all screw up risk calculations like this all the time. Trivial example, apparently some small but significant percentage of the UK population don’t wear seat belts, their justification is that nothing has ever happened to them i.e. normative reasoning.
This is a nice fiction but hospitals only have to treat you if you actually enter the hospital. If they stop you before you enter then no obligation to treat.[/quote]
lmao… Yes, because people are turned away from hospitals all the time in Soviet America.
Back in reality, there is one every 30miles at least where I live. Finding one to take me in is about as hard as driving down the street.
Um, yes. And so would rational actors, take precautions, during the possible outbreak of a disease like this.
This type of disease is sort of an argument for universal free-at-point-of-access healthcare. It is no one’s interest that an ebola patient should be reluctant to go to a hospital for fear of the cost…[/quote]
Anyone who wouldn’t go to the ER with a disease like this “because of the costs” isn’t a rational actor[/quote]
Unfortunately for economists and their lovely models no healthy un-medicated human on the planet is a rational actor. (I say healthy and un-medicated since psychopaths and people on antidepressants apparently act more rationally.) However rationally we all like to think we act, we all screw up risk calculations like this all the time. Trivial example, apparently some small but significant percentage of the UK population don’t wear seat belts, their justification is that nothing has ever happened to them i.e. normative reasoning.[/quote]
Dude, are you really trying to compare people who don’t wear seatbelts to people who suspect they have ebola refusing to get medical treatment because of costs?
I’d like to have a serious discussion, please try harder.
This is a nice fiction but hospitals only have to treat you if you actually enter the hospital. If they stop you before you enter then no obligation to treat.[/quote]
That’s just a lie. No ER in the USA stops any patient getting in. They have to talk all comers, and you don’t have to give any ID, so you could just make up some nonsense if you didn’t want a bill.[/quote]
Sorry. It is not a lie. My evidence is anecdotal and personal of course.
Maybe the armed guard was just there to put people off who didn’t know better and US citizens all know their rights and would just brush past the man with the gun? Maybe it’s just being a foreigner (white - so how did he know) that gets you stopped by a man with a gun before you can enter the door? Who knows? Maybe that hospital was breaking the law by doing this? (I hope so.)[/quote]
I’ve never, in my life, ever heard about somebody doing that to people walking into a hospital. If that actually DID happen then it would be a media feeding frenzy, as well as breaking the law.
Unless of course you looked shady, then a security officer has every right to stop somebody dressed/acting shady or suspicious. Which is NOT the same thing as stopping you from getting treatment.
This is a nice fiction but hospitals only have to treat you if you actually enter the hospital. If they stop you before you enter then no obligation to treat.[/quote]
That’s just a lie. No ER in the USA stops any patient getting in. They have to talk all comers, and you don’t have to give any ID, so you could just make up some nonsense if you didn’t want a bill.[/quote]
Sorry. It is not a lie. My evidence is anecdotal and personal of course.
Maybe the armed guard was just there to put people off who didn’t know better and US citizens all know their rights and would just brush past the man with the gun? Maybe it’s just being a foreigner (white - so how did he know) that gets you stopped by a man with a gun before you can enter the door? Who knows? Maybe that hospital was breaking the law by doing this? (I hope so.)[/quote]
I’ve never, in my life, ever heard about somebody doing that to people walking into a hospital. If that actually DID happen then it would be a media feeding frenzy, as well as breaking the law.
Unless of course you looked shady, then a security officer has every right to stop somebody dressed/acting shady or suspicious. Which is NOT the same thing as stopping you from getting treatment.
[/quote]
It happened. He was checking insurance. I hope that it is rare but I don’t have any other experience to go on so I don’t know. Anyway this is getting off topic.
A more interesting question is how far the ethics of drug and vaccine testing should be relaxed for this disease?
This is a nice fiction but hospitals only have to treat you if you actually enter the hospital. If they stop you before you enter then no obligation to treat.[/quote]
That’s just a lie. No ER in the USA stops any patient getting in. They have to talk all comers, and you don’t have to give any ID, so you could just make up some nonsense if you didn’t want a bill.[/quote]
Sorry. It is not a lie. My evidence is anecdotal and personal of course.
Maybe the armed guard was just there to put people off who didn’t know better and US citizens all know their rights and would just brush past the man with the gun? Maybe it’s just being a foreigner (white - so how did he know) that gets you stopped by a man with a gun before you can enter the door? Who knows? Maybe that hospital was breaking the law by doing this? (I hope so.)[/quote]
This type of disease is sort of an argument for universal free-at-point-of-access healthcare. It is no one’s interest that an ebola patient should be reluctant to go to a hospital for fear of the cost…[/quote]
Anyone who wouldn’t go to the ER with a disease like this “because of the costs” isn’t a rational actor[/quote]
Unfortunately for economists and their lovely models no healthy un-medicated human on the planet is a rational actor. (I say healthy and un-medicated since psychopaths and people on antidepressants apparently act more rationally.) However rationally we all like to think we act, we all screw up risk calculations like this all the time. Trivial example, apparently some small but significant percentage of the UK population don’t wear seat belts, their justification is that nothing has ever happened to them i.e. normative reasoning.[/quote]
Dude, are you really trying to compare people who don’t wear seatbelts to people who suspect they have ebola refusing to get medical treatment because of costs?
I’d like to have a serious discussion, please try harder. [/quote]
NO that was a trivial example (I even said trivial example if you read) of how bad people are at estimating risk in their daily life. Not wearing a seat belt does have an enormous hazard and wearing one has no downside. So why do people still not wear them?
The point is that people aren’t rational actors and they are poor at estimating risks. It only takes one person to stay at work for one extra half day hoping that they just have flu in e.g. a restaurant kitchen or a cleaning job (the sort of jobs that an immigrant without medical insurance might have) to infect 100’s of people.
