Billions and billions for emergency funding just in the last hour

[gaussian]

In America, if you show up to any Hospital Emergency Room, you will get treatment regardless of your insurance status or ability to pay. In fact it is a Federal Law called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. In fact, the Hospital can be sued for refusing to treat you.

Unfortunately, it's also your right to be saddled with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in medical debt for being sent to the ER. Many people, including myself, would rather die than be a debt slave for life. Why get medical care when once you're released you'll lose everything to debt collectors and be homeless and/or destitute? Is that really worth living for?

Now imagine someone who lost their job and doesn't have insurance because they can't afford the exchange (think the average American). What then?

This set of sentences makes it sound like the hospitals and government are looking out for you. No, on the contrary, this is just another way for you to become a slave to both of them. Both of them are institutions complicit in creating a system that is the #1 cause of bankruptcy in the United States and neither of them are doing anything about it because both are profiting immensely. Hospital presidents don't drive Maseratis because they truly care about the well-being of Americans.

Same risks with flu. Show me the data where this is far more deadly and contagious than a flu. I suspect no one will be talking about this 3 months from now except as an excuse for lowered earnings.

Your head is in the sand. Even based on the CDC's phony numbers it's worse than the flu by nearly every measure primarily due to a lack of vaccines (we're at least 1 year out) and an excellent spreading mechanism.

Economically it's nearly unprecedented. Earnings for the next 3+ quarters will be rock bottom. I hope you weren't ever planning on retiring - the market may not recover from this one. There are too many lines crossing - rock bottom rates so the fed has no power, highly infectious virus with no vaccine in sight, supply chain is crippled, America hasn't been an export country in decades, etc. You couldn't ask for a more terrifying combination of factors to exist all at one time.

 

[Turveyd]

In America, if you show up to any Hospital Emergency Room, you will get treatment regardless of your insurance status or ability to pay. In fact it is a Federal Law called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. In fact, the Hospital can be sued for refusing to treat you.

In terms of ongoing medical care and any doctor visits, if you're 65 or over in the United States, or if you are under 65 and disabled, you are covered under the government sponsored program called Medicare. Medicare Part A provides free hospitalization coverage to individuals who are 65 years or older, regardless of income. Medicare Part B covers medically necessary services and equipment, including doctor’s office visits, lab work, x-rays, wheelchairs, walkers, and outpatient surgeries.

If you are under 65 in the United States and are poor or have limited income, your medical care is covered under the government sponsored program called Medicaid. It's been that way since 1965.

Pretty sure, they'll still rack up the medical bills, bankrupt you and take your house, which is why people decide to not use the system sadly.

 

[Sig]

Laws can change. Japan has been buying ETFs for years.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/BOJ-is-top-10-shareholder-in-40-of-Japan-s-listed-companies

Absolutely, heck the law could change to allow for stoning in cases of adultery, Saudi Arabia has been doing it for years. The law hasn't changed in the U.S. though, it's trivial to go look at this actual law to see exactly what it says. Not to mention it's borderline moronic to think that an influx of a few billion dollars into a market that trades hundreds of billions a day would have any impact whatsoever, or that lawmakers would lack the political astuteness to put money into propping up the stock market before putting money into actually fighting the disease in question.

 

[Overnight]

A for-profit health-care system cannot work for the benefit of the community-at-large. This is the umpteenth time I have mentioned this.

All else is out the window.

The MRI machine that the hospital paid off 10 years ago is now free to operate, or at minimal cost. So why do they still charge 5K for each scan?

The answer is simple. To make money. Mo money mo money mo money!

 

[ET180]

Absolutely, heck the law could change to allow for stoning in cases of adultery.

Absolutely. I agree with you. It should have been allowed a long time ago.

...or that lawmakers would lack the political astuteness to put money into propping up the stock market before putting money into actually fighting the disease in question.

You mean lawmakers would never opt for a kick-the-can solution vs. addressing the real problem! Yeah, I agree, they would never do that. Those high-minded and moral individuals would never stoop to such a level.

 

[Sig]

Absolutely. I agree with you. It should have been allowed a long time ago.



You mean lawmakers would never opt for a kick-the-can solution vs. addressing the real problem! Yeah, I agree, they would never do that. Those high-minded and moral individuals would never stoop to such a level.

Actually successful lawmakers are acutely aware of optics and perceptions. And the optics of appropriating funds to prop up the stock market while appropriating nothing to actually fight a virus that people appear to be very afraid of are atrocious. So there isn't a chance in hell they'd do something so against their self interest, if nothing else they're highly predictable in that regard.
It's really almost shocking how much of a bubble this site is, that people have lost perspective to the point they would even begin to think that anyone else believes the stock market to be more important than people dying from a contagious disease!

 

[ET180]

It's really almost shocking how much of a bubble this site is, that people have lost perspective to the point they would even begin to think that anyone else believes the stock market to be more important than people dying from a contagious disease!

I've never advocated that viewpoint. I have older friends although I'm much more worried about their risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and stroke over catching a bad flu. We can also acknowledge the reality of the situation -- look beyond the deaths and see impact to economy. And also look at the numbers. So far, this beer virus has killed around 3,000. How many people die of traffic accidents every year? Cancer? Heart Disease...etc.

 

[Sig]

I've never advocated that viewpoint. I have older friends although I'm much more worried about their risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and stroke over catching a bad flu. We can also acknowledge the reality of the situation -- look beyond the deaths and see impact to economy. And also look at the numbers. So far, this beer virus has killed around 3,000. How many people die of traffic accidents every year? Cancer? Heart Disease...etc.

Again, by that logic why should any of us have cared about 9/11, after all fewer than 3,000 people died and 30,000 people die of the flu each year. If someone says they're going to walk into a stadium and open fire should we not care, because after all they'll probably only kill a few hundred people and look how many people die in traffic accidents? Why bother to ground the 737 MAX, I mean only 346 people were killed there and how many people die of heart disease each year? Pretty much any time you say "why are we worried about X killing people because Y kills a lot more" you're on logical fallacy ground.

 

[ET180]

Again, by that logic why should any of us have cared about 9/11, after all fewer than 3,000 people died and 30,000 people die of the flu each year. If someone says they're going to walk into a stadium and open fire should we not care, because after all they'll probably only kill a few hundred people and look how many people die in traffic accidents? Why bother to ground the 737 MAX, I mean only 346 people were killed there and how many people die of heart disease each year? Pretty much any time you say "why are we worried about X killing people because Y kills a lot more" you're on logical fallacy ground.

Regarding 9/11, many on the left would argue that the response was a waste of money / resources -- regarding the wars and excessive TSA screening (is it really necessary to make the grandmother remove her slippers before boarding the plane?). Some would also cite the unknown amount of money spent on domestic surveillance. What was the benefit of all that? We haven't had another 9/11 since. No major domestic terrorist incident (aside from San Bernadino and that Boston Marathon attack). But would simply replacing the cockpit doors on all large aircraft with steel doors also done the trick for a lot less $?

Regarding the guy who walks into the stadium, there's no real way to prevent that. Ban all guns. Well, maybe he'll use a truck or pressure cooker bomb. How does one prevent that from happening?

Regarding the 737 MAX, without the government getting involved, the airlines and Boeing would have grounded the planes on their own out of legal liability and the public being unwilling to fly on a 737 MAX. It's not in Boeing's best interest to fly planes with bad software. And actually, I'm not against the government grounding the planes. They did the right thing. But I would be against the government allocating $8B to investigate every 737 ever made for design flaws. It might make people feel better, but the money could be put to better use elsewhere.

I'm basically making the argument for following the Pareto Principle when it comes to spending money to fix problems. Maybe an argument can be made that even if the virus does not pose a catastrophic risk, throwing money at it makes people feel better and since they feel better, they will create an economic benefit greater than the amount of money wasted on trying to solve a problem ineffectively.

 

[Sig]

Regarding 9/11, many on the left would argue that the response was a waste of money / resources -- regarding the wars and excessive TSA screening (is it really necessary to make the grandmother remove her slippers before boarding the plane?). Some would also cite the unknown amount of money spent on domestic surveillance. What was the benefit of all that? We haven't had another 9/11 since. No major domestic terrorist incident (aside from San Bernadino and that Boston Marathon attack). But would simply replacing the cockpit doors on all large aircraft with steel doors also done the trick for a lot less $?

Regarding the guy who walks into the stadium, there's no real way to prevent that. Ban all guns. Well, maybe he'll use a truck or pressure cooker bomb. How does one prevent that from happening?

Regarding the 737 MAX, without the government getting involved, the airlines and Boeing would have grounded the planes on their own out of legal liability and the public being unwilling to fly on a 737 MAX. It's not in Boeing's best interest to fly planes with bad software. And actually, I'm not against the government grounding the planes. They did the right thing. But I would be against the government allocating $8B to investigate every 737 ever made for design flaws. It might make people feel better, but the money could be put to better use elsewhere.

I'm basically making the argument for following the Pareto Principle when it comes to spending money to fix problems. Maybe an argument can be made that even if the virus does not pose a catastrophic risk, throwing money at it makes people feel better and since they feel better, they will create an economic benefit greater than the amount of money wasted on trying to solve a problem ineffectively.

That's a very different (and far more reasonable) argument than anything along the lines of "I can list a thing that kills lots of people therefore why are we putting resources into a thing that kills fewer people (solely because I list this other thing that kills more)". If it's already killed thousands and will almost certainly kill tens of thousands before it's done, and as I mentioned in another thread it's a very bounded thing we are relatively certain we can develop a vaccine for and we know how to limit the spread of, then spending less then a quarter of the regular NIH budget on reducing the time we're exposed to it and minimizing the impact of the exposure during that time seems reasonable, economics entirely aside. That's the case regardless of how many people are killed in traffic accidents, from the flu, from heart disease, or from falling down stairs for that matter. Bringing those numbers into the discussion as some kind of stand alone reasoning is senseless. If you want to talk about them at all you'd need to discuss how efficient a marginal dollar is in preventing flu deaths, for example, versus fighting coronavirus, but the mere fact that X people die from the flu each year really has no bearing on how much we should spend on coronovirus.