Humanities desk
< January 27	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 29 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 28

Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)

Many of the Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) patients have been placed under quarantine in hospitals. Is the cost of this hospital stay borne by the patients themselves, or by the relevant government authority? (Or some other party?)

I'm specifically interested in cases in EU nations, US, and Canada, but inputs on other nations are welcome as well. Thank you for your assistance. Mũeller (talk) 09:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, the situation is going to vary depending on the individual, Health care in the United States and how it is funded is complex and messy; some people have private insurance, some have some form of public insurance such as Medicare or Medicaid, and others have to fund the cost out-of-pocket. Canada has a publicly funded, single-payer healthcare system called Medicare (Canada) and it will pay the bills. For each country in question, you'd want to research the country by searching for the Wikipedia article titled "Healthcare in XXXX" where "XXXX" is the name of the country in question. --Jayron 32 13:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. If a tourist breaks their leg in Canada, it sounds like they won't be covered by Medicare (Canada) and so would (understandably) have to cover their own bill. When one's leg is broken, there's really no choice but to treat it.

However, if a tourist experiences coronavirus-like symptoms, they have two choices:

1. Present themselves to the healthcare authorities to be quarantined for an unknown cost, which they may or may not be able to afford.

2. Hide their symptoms and attempt to travel home.

Obviously choice #2 is sub-optimal from a public health perspective, so ideally the government would want to avoid that outcome. One way to avoid people choosing choice #2 is to make the quarantine free to the patient, since this is a public health emergency. When I heard about mandatory quarantines outside of China, I assumed that the various governments would cover the cost of quarantines, but I Googled around and couldn't confirm anything, hence the question here.

~~I used Canada as an example above, but it would equally apply to any other country, since AFAIK no country covers the healthcare costs of tourists under normal circumstances.~~ Corrected by Viennese Waltz's response below.

Corrected version: I used Canada as an example above, but it would equally apply to any other country, since AFAIK no country covers the healthcare costs of tourists under normal circumstances (unless there is some sort of reciprocal healthcare treaty in place like the EU one).

Mũeller (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're a national of an EU country and need medical care while you are a tourist in another EU country, you are entitled to it. See European Health Insurance Card. --Viennese Waltz 16:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's very cool. Didn't know that.

In this particular case though, the tourist likely originates from China and thus is unlikely to have EU citizenship or permanent residency. Mũeller (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you apply for a Schengen area tourist visum (yes, I know some think it should be "visa", but I'm sure Caesar and Cicero would disagree) as a Chinese citizen, one of the required documents is proof of health insurance valid for all Schengen countries and the entire duration of the trip. See here. I suspect there are similar requirements for non-Schengen EU countries. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See etymological fallacy. Caesar and Cicero don't get a say in how modern people speak. "A visa" is the proper term. --Jayron 32 14:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One thing about the US, in the case of medical emergencies, hospitals are required to treat you regardless of your ability to pay. See Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act The cost of indigent care is born by the higher fees that the healthcare system charges people who can pay is a problem in the US that does not occur in single-payer systems like is present in much of Europe. The US (ideally, I'm sure there is some assholery going on) will not deny treatment, but if they cannot recover payment for the treatment, the cost gets passed on to other patients, etc. --Jayron 32 20:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. Hospitals will often try to recover costs from uninsured. And as you note, the legal mandate applies only to emergency care, and it's up to the hospital to evaluate what qualifies as an emergency. On another tangent, not all European countries have single-payer health care. "Single-payer" and "universal health care" are not synonyms. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The pool of potential health care recipients will ultimately bear the cost, regardless of how the government and/or the insurance companies try to cloak it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite true, the question is that as a system, how to equitably distribute those costs in a way that does not ultimately harm the personal economy of those who are least likely to be able to bear it. The advantage of government funded health care is that the costs are paid out of a progressive taxation system, so the higher costs are more equitably distributed. Widespread medical bankruptcy is a greater problem for more people than higher taxation on the top earners and corporations. In a private insurance or pay-your-own-way system, the funding for the system is born more heavily by people who have less resources to pay for it. --Jayron 32 15:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a semi-relevant article. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Torby?

Where is the Torby of which Sophie of Merenberg was made countess by her uncle Adolphe, Grand Duke of Luxembourg in 1891? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

some guesses here. [[]].eric 04:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

also Torby Russia, Tver’ Oblast.—eric 04:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the title was created by the Grand Duke of Luxembourg, one would assume some relation to Luxembourg. Or could the Druk Gyalpo issue a patent of nobility making Sacha Baron Cohen Count of Coke? --Lambiam 11:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

De-wiki's article ~~claims~~ claimed the title was given by Alexander III of Russia when he sent her husband into exile. As far as I can tell from checking GBooks, sources are unclear but many repeat the en-wiki version. I also found this newspaper article from 1897 with some details but nothing to suggest that "Torby" is any place at all. In fact, many sources seem to refer to her simply as "Countess Torby". Regards So Why 11:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

just to add confusion: Sophie, comtesse de Toberg (Torby)....—eric 04:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Russian wikipedia, the English-sounding title was invented by Sophie's husband. It was meant to recall Tori (Georgia) where his father had owned large tracts of land (see Likani Villa). Ghirla^-трёп- 18:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]