Social Distancing - will ships have to rearrange or even close venues? And who regulates this?

[ducklite]

15 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

As far as the crew goes, the cruise line is responsible for all costs, including health care until the person is repatriated to their home country.  That's the law.

 

And, as for someone who cannot pay for all medical contingencies, that is not the cruise line's responsibility, any more than it would be if that person had flown to Port Canaveral and had a heart attack, it would not be the airline's responsibility.

 

Good to know that taxpayers won't get stuck picking up their tabs.

Perhaps airlines and cruise lines should be be required to see proof of insurance prior to international travel commences, just like they review passports.

[ducklite]

20 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

I have to say that "thousands of people exposed" (who apparently did not burden the local hospitals), and "getting a bail out for dumping sick people" are two wildly different things.  As for the person disembarked and treated at a Port Canaveral hospital, what does your friend who works at the hospital say would have happened if the person was disembarked with a severe heart condition and couldn't pay?  The cruise line would not be responsible for that bill either.

The heart attack situation furthers my position that people who don't have adequate health/travel insurance or the means to self-insure shouldn't be allowed to travel.  

[chipmaster]

29 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

One uninsured person with COVID-19...wow. Yes...you can really generalize from that one patient.

 

Hospitals routinely treat uninsured patients with every condition under the sun every day of the week. How many uninsured people who had heart attacks were they treating at the same time? 

 

The fact is several ships had known cases and docked and released passengers.  Given the documented super spreaders in both the US, on Princess cruises and else where the possibility of a high R0 incident has already been proven, and on a cruise with such tight confines easy to imagine.

 

All it takes is for one COVID19 superspreader and with exponential growth you tank a country's health system.  That is the whole purpose of lockdown and quarantine and shutdown of travel internationally.

 

Heart attacks don't overwhelm the health care system, and aren't transmitted, nor is cancer, obesity, diabetes and many of the current leading cause of death!

 

The fact that you simply can't prevent that for what is a "leisure" thing makes it hard to believe w/o high confidence testing upon embarkation and disembarkation in every port or general herd immunity, or societal exhaustion to now see COVID19 just like the flu or heart attack for cruising to start.

 

BTW to refresh the impact of COVID19

 

Deaths 

 

 

Edited May 14, 2020 by chipmaster

[sverigecruiser]

 

Can't we choose to be optimistic instead of pessimistic?

 

It's not completely unrealistic to hope that the virus mutate in a good direction and become less dangerous. I don't know that will happen but it can happen and I prefer to be optimistic now and sorry later than sorry now and sorry later!       

[chengkp75]

8 minutes ago, ducklite said:

The heart attack situation furthers my position that people who don't have adequate health/travel insurance or the means to self-insure shouldn't be allowed to travel.  

So, someone who lives in one town, but works in another, across a state line, has a heart attack at work and is treated in the state where he does not pay any taxes to support that hospital, should be treated without insurance (as required by law), but someone who has traveled to that hospital without insurance should not?  You're heading for a very slippery slope when you start making distinctions between people's circumstances like this.

[navybankerteacher]

51 minutes ago, ducklite said:

Apples to oranges.  Bottom line, if a person can't afford to pay for various scenarios involving medical emergencies or repatriation, they shouldn't be cruising.  

What about the crew that got dumped onto Miami?  I'm guessing most of them had no insurance once they were off the ship, and I highly doubt the cruise lines were paying any bills once they kicked the crew member to the curb.

 I am inclined to agree that people who travel uninsured -  or unable (for any reason) to pay for reasonably anticipated expenses - should not travel unncessarily (such as on a cruise ship).  Unfortunately, Congress is unlikely to pass such legislation - and the mass market cruise lines are extremely unlikely to slash a major chunk of their market by requiring proof of insurance (or sufficient assets) to cover various eventualities. 

 

Saying that they shouldn’t be cruising is similar to saying that it shouldn’t rain on summer Saturdays.   A lot of people will agree with you - but, so what?

[KnowTheScore]

3 hours ago, njhorseman said:

 I don't care to argue your flu shot effectiveness statement...but where you got the idea that it's only effective in 1 of 71 cases is beyond me. That type of claim could only come from some anti vaxxer disinformation campaign. 

 

 

No it comes from one of the most internationally respected medical institutes who are renowned for undertaking systematic reviews and which the UK NHS use extensively for research. 

 

https://www.cochrane.org/CD001269/ARI_vaccines-prevent-influenza-healthy-adults

Edited May 14, 2020 by KnowTheScore

[ducklite]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

So, someone who lives in one town, but works in another, across a state line, has a heart attack at work and is treated in the state where he does not pay any taxes to support that hospital, should be treated without insurance (as required by law), but someone who has traveled to that hospital without insurance should not?  You're heading for a very slippery slope when you start making distinctions between people's circumstances like this.

When I lived in NJ and worked in NY, I paid income taxes to NYC and NY state as well as NJ.  

And specifically, no, I don't think someone sick on a cruise ship should get dumped onto a hospital when they don't have insurance.  That would be their problem to figure out.  The slippery slope is when a hospital literally goes bankrupt and closes because they are unable to get paid for their services to the detriment of local tax paying citizens with health insurance who now need to go further for healthcare.  Happened in Plainfield, NJ a decade or so ago.

[ducklite]

1 hour ago, navybankerteacher said:

 I am inclined to agree that people who travel uninsured -  or unable (for any reason) to pay for reasonably anticipated expenses - should not travel unncessarily (such as on a cruise ship).  Unfortunately, Congress is unlikely to pass such legislation - and the mass market cruise lines are extremely unlikely to slash a major chunk of their market by requiring proof of insurance (or sufficient assets) to cover various eventualities. 

 

Saying that they shouldn’t be cruising is similar to saying that it shouldn’t rain on summer Saturdays.   A lot of people will agree with you - but, so what?

One is enforceable, the other is an act of God.

[chengkp75]

3 minutes ago, ducklite said:

When I lived in NJ and worked in NY, I paid income taxes to NYC and NY state as well as NJ.  

And that is a pretty unique situation, not applicable to 99% of the US.

 

So, cruise ship passengers should not get treated without insurance, but airline, car, bus or train passengers are okay?

 

And, I read about the hospital in NJ, and there seems to be some controversy about the reasons for closing, but the main take away I got was a complaint that all hospitals in NJ feel that the state has underfunded the charity and Medicaid reimbursement program, despite the state's requirement that hospitals take all patients, whereas most states only require that emergency charity cases must be treated.

[KnowTheScore]

4 hours ago, njhorseman said:

  Not all travel insurance companies have excluded COVID-19 coverage from their. policies. I suggest you check out what's available with and without COVID-19 coverage on tripinsurancestore.com website.  Travelex is an example of a reputable company  providing coverage. Here's a link to their simple explanatory FAQ page rather than asking you to dig through and understand their actual policy language:

https://www.travelexinsurance.com/covid19

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the link but that insurance wouldn't qualify for my needs as a regular Carnival P&O Cruise customer

 

Their Travel Select policy only covers $50,000 for medical expenses and only covers $500,000 for medical evacuations

 

The P&O Cruises cruising policy requires customers to have very good insurance as follows:

 

"The insurance policy must, as a minimum, include medical and repatriation coverage for not less than £2 million and must include cover for the cost of emergency evacuations from the ship, including but not limited to, evacuations by helicopter. "

 

.

 

 

 

[Roz]

35 minutes ago, ducklite said:

And specifically, no, I don't think someone sick on a cruise ship should get dumped onto a hospital when they don't have insurance.  That would be their problem to figure out.  

 

Someone seriously ill (heart attack, stroke, brain aneurysm, etc.) would be in no position "to figure it out".

[ducklite]

4 minutes ago, Roz said:

 

Someone seriously ill (heart attack, stroke, brain aneurysm, etc.) would be in no position "to figure it out".

And hospitals shouldn't have to treat people who didn't figure it out before they took an uninsured trip.  If you can't buy insurance you can't afford the trip.

[clo]

3 hours ago, chipmaster said:

Some people aren't as fortunate nor at the same stage of life,  maybe you were lucky and born with a silver spoon in your mouth, but I suspect when you were in your 20's you had a different set of money and time constraints.    

 

My interpretation is that someone with maxed out credit cards and no money for emergencies probably can't afford a cruise.

[njhorseman]

2 hours ago, chipmaster said:

 

The fact is several ships had known cases and docked and released passengers.  Given the documented super spreaders in both the US, on Princess cruises and else where the possibility of a high R0 incident has already been proven, and on a cruise with such tight confines easy to imagine.

 

All it takes is for one COVID19 superspreader and with exponential growth you tank a country's health system.  That is the whole purpose of lockdown and quarantine and shutdown of travel internationally.

 

Heart attacks don't overwhelm the health care system, and aren't transmitted, nor is cancer, obesity, diabetes and many of the current leading cause of death!

 

The fact that you simply can't prevent that for what is a "leisure" thing makes it hard to believe w/o high confidence testing upon embarkation and disembarkation in every port or general herd immunity, or societal exhaustion to now see COVID19 just like the flu or heart attack for cruising to start.

 

BTW to refresh the impact of COVID19

 

Deaths 

 

 

I don't need any reminders about COVID-19 data, or COVID-19 deaths. The first person in NJ to die of COVID-19 was a friend and associate of many years and soon afterwards two more long time business associates and former neighbors as well as two others in their family passed away. 

 

There is no evidence of anyone disembarking a cruise ship in the US becoming a "super-spreader" and in fact genetic studies have shown that the majority of cases in New York originated in Europe...which means the virus was brought here  via air travel , not cruise passengers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/science/new-york-coronavirus-cases-europe-genomes.html

[Roz]

Hospitals treat people every day who don't have insurance or enough insurance.  If someone is in need of emergency assistance, an ambulance is called and they're dispatched to the nearest hospital.  An emergency room can't turn them away.  They have to administer emergency aid.  If the person is working or has assets, a payment plan can be worked out.  Once stabilized, it may be possible to transfer the patient to another location where their insurance (if they have it) can be used.

[njhorseman]

25 minutes ago, KnowTheScore said:

 

 

Thanks for the link but that insurance wouldn't qualify for my needs as a regular Carnival P&O Cruise customer

 

Their Travel Select policy only covers $50,000 for medical expenses and only covers $500,000 for medical evacuations

 

The P&O Cruises cruising policy requires customers to have very good insurance as follows:

 

"The insurance policy must, as a minimum, include medical and repatriation coverage for not less than £2 million and must include cover for the cost of emergency evacuations from the ship, including but not limited to, evacuations by helicopter. "

 

.

 

 

 

Well then you have to research the insurance market in your home country, which presumably isn't the US since P&O doesn't operate here and has few US passengers.

[ducklite]

1 minute ago, Roz said:

Hospitals treat people every day who don't have insurance or enough insurance.  If someone is in need of emergency assistance, an ambulance is called and they're dispatched to the nearest hospital.  An emergency room can't turn them away.  They have to administer emergency aid.  If the person is working or has assets, a payment plan can be worked out.  Once stabilized, it may be possible to transfer the patient to another location where their insurance (if they have it) can be used.

And then they go crying to the media when the hospital seizes their car, liens their house, and garnishes their paycheck because they want to pay $10 a month for a $85,000 bill and refuse to negotiate further.

[Roz]

Sorry, I didn't realize hospitals (non-profit ones at least) had the power to seize assets.  Sounds more like the IRS.

[ducklite]

3 minutes ago, Roz said:

Hospitals treat people every day who don't have insurance or enough insurance.  If someone is in need of emergency assistance, an ambulance is called and they're dispatched to the nearest hospital.  An emergency room can't turn them away.  They have to administer emergency aid.  If the person is working or has assets, a payment plan can be worked out.  Once stabilized, it may be possible to transfer the patient to another location where their insurance (if they have it) can be used.

We had a guy in ICU in my local hospital for almost a month.  His travel insurance was run out.  They finally packed him up into an air ambulance and sent him back to Canada because it was cheaper than paying to keep him on life support here.  

[ducklite]

Just now, Roz said:

Sorry, I didn't realize hospitals (non-profit ones at least) had the power to seize assets.  Sounds more like the IRS.

 

You bet they do!  Some have become very aggressive about it, and rightfully so.

[clo]

2 minutes ago, ducklite said:

 

You bet they do!  Some have become very aggressive about it, and rightfully so.

I would guess that the process is that they sue, get a judgment and go from there. 

[njhorseman]

1 hour ago, KnowTheScore said:

 

No it comes from one of the most internationally respected medical institutes who are renowned for undertaking systematic reviews and which the UK NHS use extensively for research. 

 

https://www.cochrane.org/CD001269/ARI_vaccines-prevent-influenza-healthy-adults

And this article cited earlier by poster cruisemom 42 explains why that article is misleading,  misinterpreted, and why its conclusions are very questionable since some important data were ignored or omitted:

https://virologydownunder.com/influenza-vaccines-do-have-an-effect-and-we-need-to-do-more-to-understand-it/

[Roz]

Non profit hospitals have to provide a certain amt. of indigent care, whether you think they're deserving of it or not.  I've never known of a medical practice or hospital that took someone's home or other assets if the person was willing to make even modest payments on a regular basis.  Besides, taking away someone's car or home just guarantees they'll never see the rest of the money, because being homeless or not being able to drive to a job pretty much means a life of poverty for most of us.

 

I didn't know about travel insurance until I was in my late 40s.  Doesn't make me a bad person or immoral, just uninformed. 

 

[chipmaster]

24 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

I don't need any reminders about COVID-19 data, or COVID-19 deaths. The first person in NJ to die of COVID-19 was a friend and associate of many years and soon afterwards two more long time business associates and former neighbors as well as two others in their family passed away. 

 

There is no evidence of anyone disembarking a cruise ship in the US becoming a "super-spreader" and in fact genetic studies have shown that the majority of cases in New York originated in Europe...which means the virus was brought here  via air travel , not cruise passengers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/science/new-york-coronavirus-cases-europe-genomes.html

 

Sorry for the personal loss, with the limited testing not a surprise the US has very little visibility to what is happening.