3 ms·

The tens of millions of people in the US who are underinsured, lack sick leave, or can’t afford to miss work would seem to almost guarantee a disaster if this h

The tens of millions of people in the US who are underinsured, lack sick leave, or can’t afford to miss work would seem to almost guarantee a disaster if this hits with force, no? 27% of people in the US can’t even afford a $400 emergency expense, which is (generously) the cost of maybe one visit to verify illness or moderate symptoms.

jerf 7y ago
"The tens of millions of people in the US who are underinsured, lack sick leave, or can’t afford to miss work would seem to almost guarantee a disaster if this hits with force, no?" Well, I mean, yeah. Have you been watching the stock market in the past few days? Everybody's got a pretty clear view of this. But "death" has that certain finality about it. A quarantine can pass in a way that death doesn't. Even a bad one.
- claudeganon 7y ago
  Apologies, I’m not following what you’re saying with regard to death vs. quarantine.
  - avtar 7y ago
    I think they're stating a preference for a quarantine, even with all its potential impacts, since not having one could result in more deaths. Quarantines being transient in nature vs death being permanent.
    - claudeganon 7y ago
      Oh of course. I just think effective quarantines or delays of imposing them because of the underlying tenuousness of the American economy poses numerous risks. Short-sightedness is kind of a hallmark of American culture.
sky_rw 7y ago
Insurance is irrelevant if there aren't enough hospital beds or medical staff/facilities to handle a widespread pandemic. I think you're focusing on the wrong issue, likely based on the political nature of the current healthcare debate. The real guarantees of a disaster are: Do businesses have enough cashflow to handle lack of just in time inventory from China if their shelves run dry? Do millions of people in the US have enough cashflow to handle rent payments if jobs are shut down due to quarantine and they don't get hourly wages? Do we have enough pharmaceuticals on hand to overcome the supply dip, given that 80% of our drugs are manufactured in the Wuhan area? IMO health insurance rates are the least of our problems.
- heavyset_go 7y ago
  > Insurance is irrelevant if there aren't enough hospital beds or medical staff/facilities to handle a widespread pandemic. It's far from irrelevant. There are millions of people for whom a visit to the ER means bankruptcy, and should they contract the virus, they will avoid diagnosis, continue to go to work, and silently spread the disease to those who come in contact with them.
  - sky_rw 7y ago
    People are doing that anyway. By the time critical symptoms appear and you need to visit the ER, you have already been infectious and spreading the virus. Meanwhile the 80% of cases that are not critical won't drive people to even consider the ER (which is full of sick people with Coronavirus), and they will go about their day spreading the virus. As an example, see the rest of the world.
adventured 7y ago
The 27% of people in the US you're referring to, almost all have free healthcare coverage. That's not the correct number regardless, it's closer to 10-12% of adults, directly from a prominent study performed by the Federal Reserve. By far the biggest healthcare problem the US will have, if the virus hits hard, is a swamping of resources, a general over-taxing of the entire healthcare system and all ICU beds. The US can, anytime it sees fit, fire off a very large healthcare emergency funding program, printed magically out of thin air. We can offer waivers to the entire population for expenses. It will be considered a national emergency. The national guard will be mobilized. The population will pay for it via taxation and wealth debasement (debt, printing), just as they do in natural disasters now. Money is not the primary concern, Congress is always happy to spend - it's going to be health system infrastructure vs case load. We won't be able to put together the resources fast enough in an emergency situation (eg NYC & LA having having 100,000 cases). China moved as fast as they could and couldn't manage it, and they're able to move drastically faster than the modern US will be able to.

jerf 7y ago

"The tens of millions of people in the US who are underinsured, lack sick leave, or can’t afford to miss work would seem to almost guarantee a disaster if this hits with force, no?" Well, I mean, yeah. Have you been watching the stock market in the past few days? Everybody's got a pretty clear view of this. But "death" has that certain finality about it. A quarantine can pass in a way that death doesn't. Even a bad one.

claudeganon 7y ago
Apologies, I’m not following what you’re saying with regard to death vs. quarantine.
- avtar 7y ago
  I think they're stating a preference for a quarantine, even with all its potential impacts, since not having one could result in more deaths. Quarantines being transient in nature vs death being permanent.
  - claudeganon 7y ago
    Oh of course. I just think effective quarantines or delays of imposing them because of the underlying tenuousness of the American economy poses numerous risks. Short-sightedness is kind of a hallmark of American culture.

sky_rw 7y ago

Insurance is irrelevant if there aren't enough hospital beds or medical staff/facilities to handle a widespread pandemic. I think you're focusing on the wrong issue, likely based on the political nature of the current healthcare debate. The real guarantees of a disaster are: Do businesses have enough cashflow to handle lack of just in time inventory from China if their shelves run dry? Do millions of people in the US have enough cashflow to handle rent payments if jobs are shut down due to quarantine and they don't get hourly wages? Do we have enough pharmaceuticals on hand to overcome the supply dip, given that 80% of our drugs are manufactured in the Wuhan area? IMO health insurance rates are the least of our problems.

heavyset_go 7y ago
> Insurance is irrelevant if there aren't enough hospital beds or medical staff/facilities to handle a widespread pandemic. It's far from irrelevant. There are millions of people for whom a visit to the ER means bankruptcy, and should they contract the virus, they will avoid diagnosis, continue to go to work, and silently spread the disease to those who come in contact with them.
- sky_rw 7y ago
  People are doing that anyway. By the time critical symptoms appear and you need to visit the ER, you have already been infectious and spreading the virus. Meanwhile the 80% of cases that are not critical won't drive people to even consider the ER (which is full of sick people with Coronavirus), and they will go about their day spreading the virus. As an example, see the rest of the world.

adventured 7y ago

The 27% of people in the US you're referring to, almost all have free healthcare coverage. That's not the correct number regardless, it's closer to 10-12% of adults, directly from a prominent study performed by the Federal Reserve. By far the biggest healthcare problem the US will have, if the virus hits hard, is a swamping of resources, a general over-taxing of the entire healthcare system and all ICU beds. The US can, anytime it sees fit, fire off a very large healthcare emergency funding program, printed magically out of thin air. We can offer waivers to the entire population for expenses. It will be considered a national emergency. The national guard will be mobilized. The population will pay for it via taxation and wealth debasement (debt, printing), just as they do in natural disasters now. Money is not the primary concern, Congress is always happy to spend - it's going to be health system infrastructure vs case load. We won't be able to put together the resources fast enough in an emergency situation (eg NYC & LA having having 100,000 cases). China moved as fast as they could and couldn't manage it, and they're able to move drastically faster than the modern US will be able to.