[gremlinsinc]

> When they performed X-rays of her chest and saw the state of her lungs, they initially suspected she had cancer. But in fact, the X-rays revealed that her tuberculosis case was worsening.

> Moreover, she also tested positive for COVID-19, "which also strongly suggests that she is not isolating as per this court’s order," the health department's court filing said.

What's the point of going after her at this point, it seems to me like she's circling the drain. Covid is bad enough without also having TB, the only people who stand to profit are lawyers. She def, should be made to get treatment one way or another, ideally it should be free.

The CDC should cover all but 5% of the person's income worth, so instead of 150k treatment taking all of a person's 401k, maybe it takes 8k. That's much more reasonable IMHO.

[acdha]

The point is to get her to stop endangering innocent people. Note how that includes things like going to the ER and not telling them that you have a nasty disease until you have had plenty of time to infect others.

And, yes, treatment should be free: if she’s poor, Medicare will cover it and if she’s over that the ACA will cover it until something like $50k annual income.

[xboxnolifes]

> The CDC should cover all but 5% of the person's income worth, so instead of 150k treatment taking all of a person's 401k, maybe it takes 8k. That's much more reasonable IMHO.

What's the point of putting 5% on the person here? Why not just cover 100%?