Persons exiting home confinement potentially can harm others in the community if they carry the disease; so one obvious step would be to permit people to emerge from sheltering at home only after a negative test for current coronavirus infection.
We want to know the true death rate both to plan public health and economic stimulus measures, and to forecast for ourselves how likely we are to die if we have not been diagnosed yet but are seeking to break out of home confinement.
People who test positive could be compensated with a lump-sum payment to fill the gap in protection against unexpected loss of wages. Plus, this policy would strongly motivate people to seek testing, helping contain the virus.
A key source of confusion is who has allowed this to happen? The answer: physicians, hospital systems, and private insurers who were “basically fine” with the arrangement and were unwilling to make the big concessions needed for change.
Economists believe that when the premium goes away, at the same salary workers become are a bargain and employers will want to hire more of them. Employers who compete to hire workers will bid up wages until they rise by the amount of the bargain — the original cost of the employer contribution.
There has been considerable consumer and policymaker concern about the rising prices of some prescription drugs, from the thousands-percent increases in the price of generics like Turing Pharmaceuticals' Daraprim to the average 8.8% increase by Pfizer for a large sample of its brand name drugs. Putting aside appeals by brand name firms for the need for funding for research and development (which does not apply to generics), the most attractive explanation for why brand nme drug makers can increase prices is because they can.