Passport-less Family with Sick Child Stuck Aboard Norwegian Ship

[hallux]

2 hours ago, buckeyefrank said:

Are you OK with a passport card?

A passport card is no better than an Enhanced DL that is offered by some states (mine included, and I have one in addition to my regular passport book).  Both will allow you to take closed-loop cruises sailing from US ports, cross land borders and fly domestically.  Neither is good enough for international flight so I don't see either as good enough to cover you in the case of an emergency that leaves you off the ship while in an international port on a cruise.

[hallux]

3 minutes ago, ducklite said:

because your state doesn't participate in REAL ID

EVERY state should be participating in Real ID.  Are you aware of any NOT issuing Real ID-compliant documents still?

[ducklite]

11 minutes ago, hallux said:

EVERY state should be participating in Real ID.  Are you aware of any NOT issuing Real ID-compliant documents still?

 

Oklahoma and Oregon are still under extension.  New Jersey is still in review.  That was as of last week.

[julig22]

39 minutes ago, hallux said:

EVERY state should be participating in Real ID.  Are you aware of any NOT issuing Real ID-compliant documents still?

Oregon won't start issuing Real ID until July.  Currently the governor is running ads telling everyone to get their passport if they want to fly after October 1.  I don't know if that's because she's afraid that the Real ID system won't be ready  in July (wouldn't be the first time Oregon couldn't bring a system on-line by a deadline) or if it's in anticipation of backlogs due to the large number of residents trying to get their license renewed within a 3 month period.

 

And to add to the confusion, Oregon recently changed the look of their DL, so a lot of people are under the mistaken impression that if they have the "new" license, they have real ID.  Gonna be a lot of disappointed people at PDX 8 months from now.

Edited February 14, 2020 by julig22

[FitchburgWIFamily]

I am soooo confused.  Can any of my cruise critics friends tell me what it is she wanted NCL to do differently?  Not charge her for medical care?  Is that the issue?    Is she blaming the ship for the infection?  Does she think they did something that made it go septic?

 

She is complaining that the treatment on the ship was inadequate but she is complaining that they wanted her to seek medical care off the boat?   

 

She says she went to the embassy?  There isn't even a consular office on Cozumel?  Where did they go?  She says the embassy advised her not to seek treatment in Mexico....because the embassy gives out medical advice now?

 

She says she didn't want to be left in Mexico while she got medical attention?  Really?   So the ship was supposed to wait there for a day or two or four while they got the medical help they needed?

 

"They did what I asked them to do." And that is bad?

 

"They made us sign something saying we refused care in Mexico"  <--  in which she acknowledged that the ship did not feel that it was correctly equipped to take care of the child.  

 

She said they only gave her two options:  get off the boat and get care or stay on the boat and take the care they provided.  What other option did she want to have?  Was NCL supposed to fly other doctors and nurses onto the ship to provide different care?

 

What specifically did NCL do that was wrong?

 

[tanyaewa]

6 hours ago, buckeyefrank said:

ion.  A passport is not a one size fits all thing.

Ummmm.... yes it is.  Internationally recognized identification.

 

[tanyaewa]

Though I have seen some places say that my Global Entry card is the same as a Passport Card, but I haven't verified that yet

 

” international travel is not guaranteed with anything except a standard passport” 

nexus, global entry, REAL ID are all North American products and NOT guaranteed to get to in/out of 95% of the countries in the world

[Trekker954]

Most travel insurance will cover you transported to the nearest qualified facility so I think that’s why she doesn’t think they will cover her sons infection.  She refused to go to the hospital.   But to start a go fund me page that I’ve heard is well over 50k just rubs me the wrong way.   Her son had the cut before boarding but initially she did allude it happened on board.   She probably quickly realized they had video of them boarding.  I totally feel this is nothing more than a money grab.   What’s wrong with people that were scammed by her.  Did they really think they were giving money towards her son being medavaced?    Child protective service should have a sit down and get her some counseling.  Poor baby boy 

[IrieBajan54]

Some people just like FREE money. SAD 😞

[Shayhooper]

6 hours ago, misguy said:

45 minutes ago, Trekker954 said:

Most travel insurance will cover you transported to the nearest qualified facility so I think that’s why she doesn’t think they will cover her sons infection.  She refused to go to the hospital.   But to start a go fund me page that I’ve heard is well over 50k just rubs me the wrong way.   Her son had the cut before boarding but initially she did allude it happened on board.   She probably quickly realized they had video of them boarding.  I totally feel this is nothing more than a money grab.   What’s wrong with people that were scammed by her.  Did they really think they were giving money towards her son being medavaced?    Child protective service should have a sit down and get her some counseling.  Poor baby boy 

To be fair, the Facebook fundraiser has just over $10k in donation as of a few minutes ago, which will likely go toward the $13k accrued in medical costs on the ship and the additional cost for the land based hospital they have been in for a few days.  Also, I've watched all the videos she has posted and read all of her posts and she has always said that the cut happened the night before embarking.  Additionally, she has always been clear that being medevaced was not an option because they didn't have passports.

 

That said, I agree with everyone else that NCL did all they could with their limited abilities in the ship medical facility.  They are also well within their rights to ask for payment for services rendered before the family disembarked.  Knowing their capabilities, I'm not surprised that NCL also recommended that they seek medical care from a hospital in Mexico.  Hopefully with some time this family will come to appreciate what NCL did to provide medical care with the limited resources they had.

 

BUT, I also understand that this family is traumatized and they deserve a little grace.  Given the choice between medical care in Mexico which still would have have needed to be paid in full before leaving while also being stranded there for an indefinite amount of time while passports were worked out, and staying on the ship knowing they would be back in the states in a few days, I'm not sure what I would have chosen.  Of course the options would have been different if they had passports but they didn't.  Monday morning quarterbacking the choices they did have with comments like money grab and CPS needs to be involved is simply unwarranted.  

 

 

[SeaShark]

5 minutes ago, Shayhooper said:

To be fair, the Facebook fundraiser has just over $10k in donation as of a few minutes ago, which will likely go toward the $13k accrued in medical costs on the ship and the additional cost for the land based hospital they have been in for a few days.  Also, I've watched all the videos she has posted and read all of her posts and she has always said that the cut happened the night before embarking.  Additionally, she has always been clear that being medevaced was not an option because they didn't have passports.

 

That said, I agree with everyone else that NCL did all they could with their limited abilities in the ship medical facility.  They are also well within their rights to ask for payment for services rendered before the family disembarked.  Knowing their capabilities, I'm not surprised that NCL also recommended that they seek medical care from a hospital in Mexico.  Hopefully with some time this family will come to appreciate what NCL did to provide medical care with the limited resources they had.

 

BUT, I also understand that this family is traumatized and they deserve a little grace.  Given the choice between medical care in Mexico which still would have have needed to be paid in full before leaving while also being stranded there for an indefinite amount of time while passports were worked out, and staying on the ship knowing they would be back in the states in a few days, I'm not sure what I would have chosen.  Of course the options would have been different if they had passports but they didn't.  Monday morning quarterbacking the choices they did have with comments like money grab and CPS needs to be involved is simply unwarranted.  

 

 

 

You see, the problem isn't getting stranded, the problem isn't paying the bill, th problem isn't the lack of a passport....the problem here is the health of a child. Period.

 

NOTHING should have come before the health of the child. Child #1....all other considerations #2. Let's stop worrying about money and passports and focus on what really matters.

[Shayhooper]

1 minute ago, SeaShark said:

 

You see, the problem isn't getting stranded, the problem isn't paying the bill, th problem isn't the lack of a passport....the problem here is the health of a child. Period.

 

NOTHING should have come before the health of the child. Child #1....all other considerations #2. Let's stop worrying about money and passports and focus on what really matters.

 

Sure, I can agree with that.  BUT

 

What else should have NCL done to help the child?  Their facilities are limited and it seems they did the best they could.

 

What else could have the coast guard done?  They can't circumvent legal requirements for entry into the country.

 

What else could the family have done?  Staying in Mexico for treatment seemed just as risky as staying on the ship.

 

I guess I'm not clear on what your solution was to the problem.

[A&L_Ont]

1 hour ago, FitchburgWIFamily said:

What specifically did NCL do that was wrong?

Nothing.  
 

However some in the general public, who have no clue to the mother’s actual role/responsibility in this event, will be demanding that NCL should wave her bill.  On top of that they randomly donated money to her, even though she supposedly has insurance. 
 

We had daughter who was born with an extremely rare brain disorder.  She passed two days after her second birthday. We did everything for our daughter and she was 100% reliant on us. This family was travelling with their autistic son and IMO they were not prepared for the worse case scenario. Once they were living it, everyone else was to blame except themselves.
 

It is an extremely sad situation, to which no parent should have to go through.  Actually, it’s no situation the child should have to go through. It is the family’s fault, 100% that it played out this way. They need to accept their responsibility in all of this.  However, I see her on FB live saying how nice it would be if Disney gave them a cruise to show their family how it’s done. Outrageous IMO.
 

She has stated that they will have legal representation against NCL for the horrible care on-board (even though it’s better than a Mexican Hospital by her words), she has raised over $14,000 on her on FB page, and she isn’t even 100% sure if her insurance will cover their bills. When asked if her insurance would cover the bill, would she give the money back to the donators?  She didn’t give a concrete answer. She just floated over it.
 

What really burns me is a photo of them leaving the cruise ship with their child in their own car, not an ambulance.  If it was such an emergency would you not want an ambulance for your child instead of taking photos of your child in the seat. 
 

The entire thing just blows my mind.
 

 

[SeaShark]

5 minutes ago, Shayhooper said:

 

Sure, I can agree with that.  BUT

 

What else should have NCL done to help the child?  Their facilities are limited and it seems they did the best they could.

 

What else could have the coast guard done?  They can't circumvent legal requirements for entry into the country.

 

What else could the family have done?  Staying in Mexico for treatment seemed just as risky as staying on the ship.

 

I guess I'm not clear on what your solution was to the problem.

 

Simple...provide care for the child (parents responsibility).

 

THEN and only then do you worry about the other stuff.

 

No parent should deny a child medical treatment because they are more focused on their ride home.

[Shayhooper]

7 minutes ago, SeaShark said:

 

Simple...provide care for the child (parents responsibility).

 

THEN and only then do you worry about the other stuff.

 

No parent should deny a child medical treatment because they are more focused on their ride home.

 

Agreed, medical care for the child was the most important issue.

 

They had a choice between a facility they were told was not adequate from the embassy and the ship's facility.  Again, the embassy told them not to get off the ship.  If I was given that advice from the American embassy, I likely would have taken it too.  When given conflicting advice, NCL saying get off the ship and the embassy saying don't leave the ship, it seems harsh to castigate this family for choosing one over the other.

 

Again, I think NCL did everything they could for this family and all of this would have been a nonissue if they had passports.  I'm just not ready to jump on the call CPS bandwagon.

 

Edit to add:  I am still convinced that the go-fund page on facebook was for accrued medical expenses but I will have to rethink my position if I see a lawsuit against NCL filed.

Edited February 14, 2020 by Shayhooper
To add addition thought

[A&L_Ont]

5 minutes ago, Shayhooper said:

They had a choice between a facility they were told was not adequate from the embassy and the ship's facility.  Again, the embassy told them not to get off the ship.  If I was given that advice from the American embassy, I likely would have taken it too.  When given conflicting advice, NCL saying get off the ship and the embassy saying don't leave the ship, it seems harsh to castigate this family for choosing one over the other.

For some reason I don’t see the Embassy telling them where or where not to accept medical care. That is not their legal obligation.  I do however see the Embassy telling them the ramifications of getting left behind without a passport.
 

The Embassy might have also explained that they needed to run their credit card as soon as they arrived at the hospital.  That alone might have been enough for them to stay onboard, extending the bill payment time frame. At least on the ship they could have established a payment plan to take care of their medical bill, unlike being stuck in Mexico. 

[Laszlo]

7 hours ago, SeaShark said:

 

Seriously?

 

So you won't let the other poster take the cost of the 10-year passport and express it as a per year cost. However, you then turn around and have no problem taking the $150 cost and multiplying it by the number of people in a family so that you can have a HUGE number for your side of the argument??

 

Isn't that a little bit disingenuous??

 

 

Thank you! 

[Sotermarler]

I live in AZ near the border and I have been with a couple friends who recently traveled back and forth to Mexico with just a driver’s license. They had no issues at all. The agent asked them where their passport was and they said they didn’t have one, and let them through. 

 

I do realize Cozumel isn’t a border town and I’m not suggesting that this is a good idea to try, but if you are having an emergency, I think it’s worth risking it. 

[smplybcause]

6 hours ago, hallux said:

EVERY state should be participating in Real ID.  Are you aware of any NOT issuing Real ID-compliant documents still?

 

I believe every state will buy the deadline of October. However, several allow you to get a driver's license that is NOT a Real ID and as far as I know that option will continue. 

 

I foresee a lot of upset people come October that can't fly or go on a cruise as they elected for a non Real ID.

[momofmab]

15 hours ago, Dar & Bob said:

Actually they are fortunate that NCL let them stay on the ship.  We had a friend who had injured himself on an NCL excursion, and was treated on the ship but they were strongly trying to get him to a hospital rather than be treated on the ship.  On another trip on another cruiseline we knew a person actually put off the ship.   For those reasons I would never ever travel without a passport. 

 

 

 

They were lucky.  NCL put my dad off the ship many years ago in Samana DR (he was on the Dawn).  He had pneumonia and ended up spending almost 2 weeks in a 3rd world medical clinic.  He had "Cadillac" travel & medical insurance so cost wasn't an issue (nor was not having a passport), but they WILL put you off at any port, at their discretion, if they know you are sick - without regard for the quality of the medical facilities at any given port.  He would have much rather have taken his chances on board than having to spend 2 weeks in a Samana clinic.

Edited February 14, 2020 by momofmab

[thistimeplease]

10 hours ago, SeaShark said:

 

You see, the problem isn't getting stranded, the problem isn't paying the bill, th problem isn't the lack of a passport....the problem here is the health of a child. Period.

 

NOTHING should have come before the health of the child. Child #1....all other considerations #2. Let's stop worrying about money and passports and focus on what really matters.

You really think the child would have gotten the medical care he's getting now?  Sorry, but I think I would not have left the ship either in this situation.  Of course I'll never know for sure as I do have a passport and always get travel insurance.

[TSUmom]

10 hours ago, A&L_Ont said:

Nothing.  
 

However some in the general public, who have no clue to the mother’s actual role/responsibility in this event, will be demanding that NCL should wave her bill.  On top of that they randomly donated money to her, even though she supposedly has insurance. 
 

We had daughter who was born with an extremely rare brain disorder.  She passed two days after her second birthday. We did everything for our daughter and she was 100% reliant on us. This family was travelling with their autistic son and IMO they were not prepared for the worse case scenario. Once they were living it, everyone else was to blame except themselves.
 

It is an extremely sad situation, to which no parent should have to go through.  Actually, it’s no situation the child should have to go through. It is the family’s fault, 100% that it played out this way. They need to accept their responsibility in all of this.  However, I see her on FB live saying how nice it would be if Disney gave them a cruise to show their family how it’s done. Outrageous IMO.
 

She has stated that they will have legal representation against NCL for the horrible care on-board (even though it’s better than a Mexican Hospital by her words), she has raised over $14,000 on her on FB page, and she isn’t even 100% sure if her insurance will cover their bills. When asked if her insurance would cover the bill, would she give the money back to the donators?  She didn’t give a concrete answer. She just floated over it.
 

What really burns me is a photo of them leaving the cruise ship with their child in their own car, not an ambulance.  If it was such an emergency would you not want an ambulance for your child instead of taking photos of your child in the seat. 
 

The entire thing just blows my mind.
 

 

I believe with the whole Disney cruise statement they are just out to get whatever they can and if their insurance does pay they will now have enough money to book their own Disney Cruise.  I seriously doubt they will give any money back.  So sad that people are like that and so sad that they are using a child's welfare.

[SeaShark]

37 minutes ago, thistimeplease said:

You really think the child would have gotten the medical care he's getting now?  Sorry, but I think I would not have left the ship either in this situation.  Of course I'll never know for sure as I do have a passport and always get travel insurance.

 

The parents are the ones who felt that the child needed to be in a hospital, yet they refused to take him there because they might be inconvenienced in returning home. At some point, the health and well being of the child has to take precedence over the petty and selfish considerations.

 

FWIW...they didn't HAVE to take the child to a Mexican hospital. They could have left the ship in Cozumel, went to the airport, got on a Southwest Airlines flight to the states and had that child in a US Hospital by the end of the day. Waaaaay better than staying on the ship for a few days until the cruise was over...not to mention that the child would have received care far sooner.

 

This is what happens when you CHOOSE to sail without passports. People need to stop trying to find excuses for this behavior.

[ducklite]

12 hours ago, tanyaewa said:

Though I have seen some places say that my Global Entry card is the same as a Passport Card, but I haven't verified that yet

 

” international travel is not guaranteed with anything except a standard passport” 

nexus, global entry, REAL ID are all North American products and NOT guaranteed to get to in/out of 95% of the countries in the world

Global entry does not replace a passport.  You can't enter with just a GE card.  You still need to scan your passport at the GE kiosk, and you can't go any further without doing so.  That said, when my GE wouldn't work in the kiosk (possibly a fingerprint issue), I presented the card and the passport to the officer and was able to be processed as if the kiosk had worked.  Had I not had the GE card with me, I would have had to stand in the long line for normal manual processing.

[Petals22]

Why does everything have to be played out on social media? Then get the tv stations involved? NCL did what they could for the child.  I dont think social services needs to get involved.  The parents were given options. The child wasnt denied care.