The Last Straw?

[MoniMommy]

Ok, I just read this and as much as I LOVE cruising, this could be the last straw for me even if means forfitting my $900 FCC.

 

Over the weekend, the Coast Guard issued new rules directing all cruise ships to remain at sea where they may be sequestered “indefinitely” during the outbreak and be prepared to send any severely ill passengers to the countries where the vessels are registered.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/coronavirus/2020/4/1/21202798/florida-cruise-ship-new-york-death-toll-healthcare-workers-medical-supplies-outbreak-coronavirus

 

So if I get sock during a pandemic, even if the sickness is not related to the pandemic. I could be denied medical care in the US? These passengers boarded before the worldwide cruise stoppage. However, it was clear when the ship (and many others) sailed that the virus posed a substantial threat.  Those who didn't have cancel for any reason insurance (which isn't available everywhere) and canceled out of health concerns had to just loose all of  their money.  The cruise lines clearly put profits over people.  Myunderstanding is that that are several ships out there unable to port.  

 

Anyway, this was just surprising to me that American citizens or any citizen could be denied medical treatment in American (assuming of course the ship is close enough) while cruising. I would much rather have treatment here than in Panama or Bahamas where many cruise ships are registered. 

 

 

[Ourusualbeach]

1 minute ago, MoniMommy said:

Ok, I just read this and as much as I LOVE cruising, this could be the last straw for me even if means forfitting my $900 FCC.

 

Over the weekend, the Coast Guard issued new rules directing all cruise ships to remain at sea where they may be sequestered “indefinitely” during the outbreak and be prepared to send any severely ill passengers to the countries where the vessels are registered.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/coronavirus/2020/4/1/21202798/florida-cruise-ship-new-york-death-toll-healthcare-workers-medical-supplies-outbreak-coronavirus

 

So if I get sock during a pandemic, even if the sickness is not related to the pandemic. I could be denied medical care in the US? These passengers boarded before the worldwide cruise stoppage. However, it was clear when the ship (and many others) sailed that the virus posed a substantial threat.  Those who didn't have cancel for any reason insurance (which isn't available everywhere) and canceled out of health concerns had to just loose all of  their money.  The cruise lines clearly put profits over people.  Myunderstanding is that that are several ships out there unable to port.  

 

Anyway, this was just surprising to me that American citizens or any citizen could be denied medical treatment in American (assuming of course the ship is close enough) while cruising. I would much rather have treatment here than in Panama or Bahamas where many cruise ships are registered. 

 

 

This is a temporary measure put in place during unprecedented times.  There is no reason to think that this would continue once the cruiselines resume normal operations

[MoniMommy]

2 minutes ago, Ourusualbeach said:

This is a temporary measure put in place during unprecedented times.  There is no reason to think that this would continue once the cruiselines resume normal operations

I agree, but there is also no reason to think that while on a cruise, especially a more extended voyage, there could be a flareup or even another pandemic. 

[plosfas]

41 minutes ago, MoniMommy said:

I agree, but there is also no reason to think that while on a cruise, especially a more extended voyage, there could be a flareup or even another pandemic. 

I mean we had months of notice that this was happening. It's not like it came overnight, despite people on this forum insisting that cruising was 100% a-OK up until the last possible second.

[Ourusualbeach]

54 minutes ago, MoniMommy said:

I agree, but there is also no reason to think that while on a cruise, especially a more extended voyage, there could be a flareup or even another pandemic. 

I get the concern for long voyages and it would be quite a while of stability before I booked one of those but I wouldn’t be concerned about the typical 7 day round trip voyages. 

[ARandomTraveler]

If one were to be off-loaded in, say, the Bahamas, wouldn’t their medical evacuation insurance pay for their transport back home? Of course that may not be available I guess, depending on the International air travel rules or the availability of the medical evac people, but I’m thinking people could get home this way if they’re sick (perhaps)?

Edited April 1, 2020 by ARandomTraveler

[MoniMommy]

16 minutes ago, ARandomTraveler said:

If one were to be off-loaded in, say, the Bahamas, wouldn’t their medical evacuation insurance pay for their transport back home? Of course that may not be available I guess, depending on the International air travel rules or the availability of the medical evac people, but I’m thinking people could get home this way if they’re sick (perhaps)?

Yes, I always travel with insurance. I hope they can get home and get necessary medical treatment.

[B-52]

And how long will these unprecedented times last?
Even when cruises continue, we can, and will still be under a threat.

We may start to get back to normal, but this threat will go for at least a year easily. In waves they say as the Spanish Flu in 1918
So, someone getting ill in October, months after cruises resume (possibly) can still be subject to current times

[irun5k]

On 4/1/2020 at 11:01 AM, MoniMommy said:

I agree, but there is also no reason to think that while on a cruise, especially a more extended voyage, there could be a flareup or even another pandemic. 

 

I agree with you 100%. I was generally OK with the thought of going on a cruise again eventually... and then weeks went by and we've still got ships floating out there, the souls onboard disowned by literally the entire world- quite literally left to die since some have died already.  Whether countries are truly unable to help or just unwilling, the end result for these folks is the same.

 

It is irrelevant but I do feel the cruise industry has often gotten the unfair end of things.  No doubt, air travel is responsible, almost exclusively, for the spread of this worldwide.  In a 24 hour period a single sick traveler could spread something to major airports worldwide and be back at home on his/her couch days or weeks before anyone figures out what happened.  It is much easier to track the spread of something on a cruise ship and of course it becomes the center of media attention.

 

But, the precedent has now been set that cruise ships and their passengers will be regarded by the media, governments, etc. as disease carrying entities to be avoided at all costs.   The portrayal of the cruise industry is that they represent the essence of everything that allowed this virus to fester.   I do not like the combination of all this and it doesn't make me feel good at all about setting foot on a cruise ship.  

 

I consider myself to be a pretty solid person from a mental standpoint but I'm not sure I could withstand weeks confined to a stateroom without having some longer lasting issues and that isn't even mentioning the impact to my wife or kids.

 

 

Edited April 2, 2020 by irun5k

[MoniMommy]

I also feel that the cruise lines could have at least did crew service buffet and make sure that sick crew didn't feel pressured to work. This could have mitigated some of the damage but I am sure it would have still spread. They also sailed right up until was untenable. They were not flexible in the beginning but now for canceled cruises they are asking people to be flexible and wait 90 days for a refund.

[NavyCruiser]

On 4/1/2020 at 10:01 AM, MoniMommy said:

I agree, but there is also no reason to think that while on a cruise, especially a more extended voyage, there could be a flareup or even another pandemic. 

 

You never know, Mexico may retaliate with TsingtaoBeerVirus later this summer  & cause another pandemic...

[Big_G]

Hasn't this been resolved? I thought I read the ships will be allowed to disembark with screening and isolation of passengers flying home to other countries.

[time4u2go]

On 4/1/2020 at 11:01 AM, MoniMommy said:

I agree, but there is also no reason to think that while on a cruise, especially a more extended voyage, there could be a flareup or even another pandemic. 

You really think there couldn't be a flareup or another pandemic?

[ONECRUISER]

2 hours ago, MoniMommy said:

I also feel that the cruise lines could have at least did crew service buffet and make sure that sick crew didn't feel pressured to work. This could have mitigated some of the damage but I am sure it would have still spread. They also sailed right up until was untenable. They were not flexible in the beginning but now for canceled cruises they are asking people to be flexible and wait 90 days for a refund.

Nothing new, even in some past situations like Hurricanes effecting multiple sailings it took 4 to many as 6 weeks get refund/FCC. This is 10 times worse. This is once in Century situation

Edited April 2, 2020 by ONECRUISER

[gatour]

On 4/1/2020 at 10:55 AM, MoniMommy said:

Ok, I just read this and as much as I LOVE cruising, this could be the last straw for me even if means forfitting my $900 FCC.

 

Over the weekend, the Coast Guard issued new rules directing all cruise ships to remain at sea where they may be sequestered “indefinitely” during the outbreak and be prepared to send any severely ill passengers to the countries where the vessels are registered.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/coronavirus/2020/4/1/21202798/florida-cruise-ship-new-york-death-toll-healthcare-workers-medical-supplies-outbreak-coronavirus

 

So if I get sock during a pandemic, even if the sickness is not related to the pandemic. I could be denied medical care in the US? These passengers boarded before the worldwide cruise stoppage. However, it was clear when the ship (and many others) sailed that the virus posed a substantial threat.  Those who didn't have cancel for any reason insurance (which isn't available everywhere) and canceled out of health concerns had to just loose all of  their money.  The cruise lines clearly put profits over people.  Myunderstanding is that that are several ships out there unable to port.  

 

Anyway, this was just surprising to me that American citizens or any citizen could be denied medical treatment in American (assuming of course the ship is close enough) while cruising. I would much rather have treatment here than in Panama or Bahamas where many cruise ships are registered. 

 

 

It was the United States Gov't that said the ship had go to the country of registration.  So the US gov't was denying the responsibility of taking care of US citizens in the US.  Not the cruise lines.

[sockmonkeygirl]

Even worse, you can remain on US soil and not get the care you need.  NY has directed EMS not to bring a coding pt to the hospital unless they are able to rescussitate on site.   We are up a brown creek without a paddle at the moment. 😕

[teaysvalley]

On 4/3/2020 at 10:42 AM, gatour said:

It was the United States Gov't that said the ship had go to the country of registration.  So the US gov't was denying the responsibility of taking care of US citizens in the US.  Not the cruise lines.

Not true.  The US State Department has been repatriating Americans stuck in foreign countries.  I read 40,000 plus so far.

[mayleeman]

@MoniMommy Every passenger who boarded knowing the epidemic was spreading from Asia to the rest of the world put money over their health, too. And many have now spread the virus to people ashore, probably killing some people. Why blame cruiselines for operating and totally ignore the responsibility of the cruisers to think?

 

No one used a sword to force them to go up the gangplank.

[MoniMommy]

4 minutes ago, mayleeman said:

@MoniMommy Every passenger who boarded knowing the epidemic was spreading from Asia to the rest of the world put money over their health, too. And many have now spread the virus to people ashore, probably killing some people. Why blame cruiselines for operating and totally ignore the responsibility of the cruisers to think?

 

No one used a sword to force them to go up the gangplank.

There is some truth to that. But the cruise lines were also putting out statements that health was their top priority and explained all of the things they were doing to make things "safe" and were not in the beginning providing FCC or refunds. Maybe the passengers thought it was safe as the cruise lines told them or maybe they put money over health. If you content that passenger put money over health than surely the same applies to the cruise lines. They put money over health and caused the death if passengers and to people who contacted the virus from passengers. Had they shut down they would have lost money but they would not have played a role in spreading the virus. So if every passenger who boarded new the virus was spreading surely the cruise lines knew this too .

[mayleeman]

I believe the cruise lines did everything they said they did, and I believe they relied heavily on experts. But how foolish does any passenger have to be to think anyone could guarantee they could not get sick on a cruise? Did you see all of the "I refuse to lose my money" and "I won't let the threat of getting sick stop me" posts throughout CC in Feb and early March?

 

I would love for a single one of those who got sick or quarantined to come back and admit, "My God was I dumb!" Not to ridicule them, but so that they can serve as a lesson and caution for future guinea pigs deciding to test the virus-proofing ability of cruiselines after this is over.

 

Was not losing a deposit, or even a full fare, worth 3 weeks of misery?

 

In any event, I agree with your original post that we should not cruise if the full provisions of cruise insurance, including medical evacuations,  are not able to be honored. I just think anyone not paying attention to that needs to take responsibility for their decision to cruise.

 

 

[KansasK]

This coupled with the CDC's ruling about not being able to get on public transportation after the cruise and then stay at home for two weeks even if you are healthy and then the doctor's statement for people over 70  will make it almost impossible for us to cruise until maybe there is a vaccine and all these restrictions might go away. 

[MoniMommy]

25 minutes ago, mayleeman said:

I believe the cruise lines did everything they said they did, and I believe they relied heavily on experts. But how foolish does any passenger have to be to think anyone could guarantee they could not get sick on a cruise? Did you see all of the "I refuse to lose my money" and "I won't let the threat of getting sick stop me" posts throughout CC in Feb and early March?

 

I would love for a single one of those who got sick or quarantined to come back and admit, "My God was I dumb!" Not to ridicule them, but so that they can serve as a lesson and caution for future guinea pigs deciding to test the virus-proofing ability of cruiselines after this is over.

 

Was not losing a deposit, or even a full fare, worth 3 weeks of misery?

 

In any event, I agree with your original post that we should not cruise if the full provisions of cruise insurance, including medical evacuations,  are not able to be honored. I just think anyone not paying attention to that needs to take responsibility for their decision to cruise.

 

 

I agree we have to take personal responsibility. I wish the cruise lines had to take cooperate responsibility. Some one who cruised could have infected others who did not. They were only able to cruise because the cruise line allowed it. Wish they also had to take some responsibility for their greed. They also endangered the crew.

[ARandomTraveler]

38 minutes ago, mayleeman said:

I believe the cruise lines did everything they said they did, and I believe they relied heavily on experts. But how foolish does any passenger have to be to think anyone could guarantee they could not get sick on a cruise? Did you see all of the "I refuse to lose my money" and "I won't let the threat of getting sick stop me" posts throughout CC in Feb and early March?

 

I would love for a single one of those who got sick or quarantined to come back and admit, "My God was I dumb!" Not to ridicule them, but so that they can serve as a lesson and caution for future guinea pigs deciding to test the virus-proofing ability of cruiselines after this is over.

 

Was not losing a deposit, or even a full fare, worth 3 weeks of misery?

 

In any event, I agree with your original post that we should not cruise if the full provisions of cruise insurance, including medical evacuations,  are not able to be honored. I just think anyone not paying attention to that needs to take responsibility for their decision to cruise.

 

 

Well said

[ARandomTraveler]

11 minutes ago, MoniMommy said:

I agree we have to take personal responsibility. I wish the cruise lines had to take cooperate responsibility. Some one who cruised could have infected others who did not. They were only able to cruise because the cruise line allowed it. Wish they also had to take some responsibility for their greed. They also endangered the crew.

You have to think about the cruiseline as a business entity, and not compare their decision making to that of a person.

 

As a business, they chose to provide the service they received money for because they still had customers willing to go. A business cannot offer a product or service if there’s no market for it, and since there were obviously plenty of people willing and wanting to go on their cruise, they continued to offer them, because the market was still there. 
 

The government had not yet shut them down, and the cruiseline was not more morally obligated to make the decision to shut down than the government was to require it. And yes, it would have caused them to lose a lot of money, but as a business, do you really expect them to voluntarily shut down and give people their money back when the people still wanted their product/service?
 

I put the responsibility on the people. They should have bought insurance, that way if they decided it wasn’t safe, they wouldn’t have to make the decision to go on the cruise or lose their money. That was the choice the individuals made when they booked and didn’t buy proper insurance. It’s not the businesses fault for continuing to provide their customers what they paid for.

 

I blame the people for refusing to insure themselves and then complaining about it and blaming a business for their own poor decision making. 

[MoniMommy]

13 minutes ago, ARandomTraveler said:

You have to think about the cruiseline as a business entity, and not compare their decision making to that of a person.

 

As a business, they chose to provide the service they received money for because they still had customers willing to go. A business cannot offer a product or service if there’s no market for it, and since there were obviously plenty of people willing and wanting to go on their cruise, they continued to offer them, because the market was still there. 
 

The government had not yet shut them down, and the cruiseline was not more morally obligated to make the decision to shut down than the government was to require it. And yes, it would have caused them to lose a lot of money, but as a business, do you really expect them to voluntarily shut down and give people their money back when the people still wanted their product/service?
 

I put the responsibility on the people. They should have bought insurance, that way if they decided it wasn’t safe, they wouldn’t have to make the decision to go on the cruise or lose their money. That was the choice the individuals made when they booked and didn’t buy proper insurance. It’s not the businesses fault for continuing to provide their customers what they paid for.

 

I blame the people for refusing to insure themselves and then complaining about it and blaming a business for their own poor decision making. 

This is an age old dispute. So it will not be settled today and certainly not on a message board. I think the cruise line was in a better position to take a hit and doing so would have made them good  corporate citizens. You of course put it all on customers. Right now our government is debating the same, people first or businesses firsrt.Just a fundamental difference in beliefs and that's fine.