[Maursault]

Maybe you want to rethink your argument as something better than a string of ad hominem attacks. I'll give you a massive hint: any time you focus on the person, you are committing a fallacy and your reasoning is invalid and unsound. All that matters is what was said, not who was saying what. You're welcome to disagree with me, but you can only rationally argue such by speaking to the argument, not the man.

The 8th Amendment reads, Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The issue here is that defense is expensive, which means it necessarily discriminates against anyone that can not afford $50K in attorneys fees, just for starters, so to protect one's 8th Amendment rights against excessive fines often costs more than the excessive fine itself.

[naikrovek]

there's no fine! all she has to do is stay home and wait to die.

why would she even want to be around other people, when she knows she has an extremely serious and contagious disease?

she is a literal menace to society and that all but voids her individual rights to freedom from fines, punishment, or excessive bail. she had her chance to play according to the rules. she chose not to. now she must pay the penalties. if she infected anyone and they die from it, she must be treated, against her will or not, and then put in prison for an appropriate amount of time.

you can't go around infecting others with tuberculosis and expect to keep your rights, no matter what "excessive" means to you. court opinion is valid and one does not get to say that legal precedent on interpretation of the bill of rights is invalid because you personally disagree with it.

how's that? please think more. not everything is an attack against you.

[jrmg]

What’s a solution to (or, I guess, outcome of) someone refusing to get treatment or isolate with a highly infectious disease that conforms to your ideology?

[Maursault]

> She noted that the cost of treating drug-resistant TB can run $100,000 or more.

My ideology is to not violate the patient's 5th and 8th Amendment rights. The government can pay for the treatment in the interests of public health rather than discriminate against her because she can't afford it. Though you wouldn't know it, being poor isn't a crime.

[jrmg]

Sorry, I assumed from your other responses that you were not okay with enforced treatment. Given how focused you were on the government not infringing rights, and how you were explicitly against enforcing isolation, I guess I assumed that carried over to not allowing the government to enforce medical treatment (even if it was free).

I’m still unclear what you think should be done in this concrete case. I see a few options here:

- Don’t enforce anything, allow the person to spread TB unrestricted.

- Enforce isolation until death or recovery.

- Enforce treatment until death or recovery (note though that if you were not to enforce isolation during treatment you’re allowing TB to spread during this time!)

- Something else?

Forgetting for a moment about payment, It sounds like you would be in favor of the third option?

We can also discuss who should pay for the latter two (and I know the answer to that is not an isolated question - they go together). I would agree it should be the government - though I’m also for government-provided, taxpayer funded healthcare generally, which I suspect you are not - and would possibly consider its imposition as unconstitutional?

[naikrovek]

he has no answer. dude is myopic.