Humanities desk
< July 10	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 12 >

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

July 11

Two embassies in the same building

I just discovered that the Lion Building in Washington DC hosts two separate countries' embassies: Vietnam and South Sudan. How do the normal rules of extraterritorial jurisdiction apply in such a case? Does such a building tend to be operated as an informal condominium between the two missions? Nyttend (talk) 01:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the building in Google Maps, it's a 7-story office block. The article says Vietnam's embassy is suite 400, and the S Sudanese are in suite 602. That implies to me that there are multiple suites on each floor, and the embassies only occupy part of a floor each. Extraterritoriality will apply to each embassy individually, and not to the rest of the building. Rojomoke (talk) 05:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Rojomoke says, in cases like this the embassy is just the suite of offices they occupy. They have territorial jurisdiction over those offices, but not the rest of the building. Such a situation is not uncommon for smaller countries that can not afford to occupy their own free-standing building(s). Dragons flight (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure Norway and Sweden can afford to occupy their own buildings but nevertheless choose to share one in Sarajevo.[1] Surtsicna (talk) 11:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Think the confusion arises because some think that the grounds of an embassy is the sovereign land of that embassy’s country. Which it is not. It is still the sovereign land belonging to the host country. There are very few examples of exceptions to this. The only two that springs instantly to mind is Great Scotland Yard which was Sottish sovereign land but came under English law and a plot of land in Hawaii which is British sovereign soil but even so acknowledges local US state laws. So one could have any number of trailer-homes parked on an iceberg and call them embassies if some countries so wished. For those that want to get into the nitty-gritty of this – don't for get the Principality of Sealand. Aspro (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you're in error; note my use of "extraterritorial jurisdiction", which wouldn't be the case if I'd thought that the embassy was part of the sending country. Nyttend (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While diplomatic immunity might have an effect similar to extraterritorial jurisdiction, I did not think "extraterritorial jurisdiction" is usually used to describe diplomatic immunity. I think the similar term that covers diplomatic immunity is "extraterritoriality", i.e. the removal of a thing or place from territorial jurisdiction, a negative quality. By contrast, "extraterritorial jurisdiction" is a positive quality, i.e. jurisdiction exercised outside of one's territory, such as leasing powers sometimes possess in leased territories. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be something which our articles at least cover in a confusing way. Our article Diplomatic mission#Extraterritoriality for example says "Contrary to popular belief, most diplomatic missions do not enjoy full extraterritorial status and in those cases are not sovereign territory of the represented state" and "The term "extraterritoriality" is often applied to diplomatic missions, but normally only in this broader sense." It later says "Notable violations of embassy extraterritoriality include". Extraterritoriality just says something similar "Contrary to popular belief, diplomatic missions do not generally enjoy full extraterritorial status and are not sovereign territory of the represented state." Meanwhile Extraterritorial jurisdiction#Diplomatic missions says "Diplomatic immunity of foreign embassies and consulates in host countries is governed by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations" with no further explanation.

This source [2] seems to support your view of what extraterritorial jurisdiction means in legal parlance at least in the US.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had no idea our articles on these topics are so confused. Would be great if someone with expertise could clean it up by reference to some proper sources... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's that British plot in Hawaii? I don't remember seeing it mentioned in List of enclaves and exclaves. —Tamfang (talk) 07:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be this memorial to Captain Cook.

Except There is some doubt over whether the monument strictly belongs to the Government or the descendants of the consul who bought it ... A Foreign Office spokesman said: "The precise legal status of the land on which the Cook memorial stands is uncertain." -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a plot of land in Runnymede in the UK was granted to the US for the JFK memorial. And typing that into the search box shows that United States territory#Other areas mentions another plot of land in Normandy. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Aspro confuses property with sovereignty, as others sometimes do for the examples that PalaceGuard008 cites. A state can own land within another state without having sovereignty there. For a subsovereign example, the City and County of San Francisco owns San Francisco International Airport, but no map shows the airport's land as being part of SF rather than San Mateo County. —Tamfang (talk) 07:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many smaller countries operate embassies and consulates out of shared office buildings. Once you walk through the front door of the particular country's particular portion of the building -- the 10th floor, or Suite 1010 -- you're inside their jurisdiction. DOR (HK) (talk) 10:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How does the hospital determine how much the patient and insurer should pay?

I think some vaccinations require co-pay, while other vaccinations are completely paid for by the health insurance company. How does the hospital determine who pays what? Can the patient ask the hospital in advance how much the patient will be charged for and how much will be paid for by the insurer, as well as ask for a list of all the medical tests and their costs so that the patient will know exactly what he's being charged for? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to link to here, but in my experience, it's the insurance company that makes those decisions, not the hospital. If your insurance policy is a 70/30, it means roughly that you'll pay for 30 percent of the cost. The hospital should also be able to estimate your cost on various specific procedures. What is typically done, though, is that they will submit the entire claim, and once the insurance company has processed it, you'll be billed for the balance, maybe a month or two later (or more). The reconciliation will show the total cost and how much of it is the patient's responsibility. The hospital sets the prices, of course, but it's likely they'll be cognizant of what the insurance company will consider to be a "reasonable" cost. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do medical coders tie in? Do they just translate the services into standardized medical codes, send them to the billers, who would send the bills to the insurance company or the patient? Are the prices standardized or do they vary by the hospital? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The hospital will code the insurance forms to indicate what procedures were done. The insurance company and/or the hospital (or clinic, or whatever) will send you a statement showing what was covered and what wasn't. The balance will be what you owe the hospital. You're using the term biller, but generally the hospital itself is the biller, from the patient's viewpoint. Keep in mind we're talking America here. I don't know how it works in Europe and elsewhere. I can't say for sure about pricing. It's conceivable it could vary. The insurance company has a sense of the "maximum" it will allow for a given procedure. It's also worth noting that significant procedures, such as surgery or the like, may require advance approval. That way there should be no surprises. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that coders do more than just code a procedure. The exact same procedure will likely require a different set of billing codes from one insurance company to the next. It is the job of the coder to read the insurance company billing information and customize the claim to maximize payment from the insurance company. That can required the addition of diagnosis codes as well as very specific procedure codes. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 13:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Medical coding is highly standardized. Coding practices may vary between countries, but are unlikely to vary between insurers or hospitals. See clinical coder, ICD-10-CM, HCPCS, Current Procedural Terminology, and also [3]. In the US, the practice of medical coding and the certification of professional coders is overseen by the AAPC. Dragons flight (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ICD, HCPCS, and CPT codes are standardized. Exactly WHICH code to use is not standardized. Suppose you do tobacco cessation counseling and you want to get paid. Medicare will require a HCPCS code or refuse to pay. Blue Cross may require a completely different CPT code. Another insurance company may require both an ICD10 and a CPT code to get paid. That is the purpose of clearing houses. You use whatever codes are easiest in your EMR and the clearing house alters them to get maximum payment from the insurance companies. The difference here is that the codes themselves are standardized. Which codes are accepted for which amounts is not. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A specific example for right now in South Carolina (rules change quarterly and are different from state to state): BCBS requires ICD10 F17.2X and a CPT from 99393 to 99397 to receive payment for tobacco counselling. Aetna requires ICD10 F17 (no extension) and CPT 99401-99404 to receive payment. Medicare requires HCPCS G0436-G0437. All of these are a claim for the exact same procedure, but the codes required are different from insurance company to insurance company. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most insurance cards have a copay amount written on the card. That tells the office what the copay should be. The medical office can call the insurance company to clarify issues, but they don't have time for that. Instead, clearing houses are used. Medical organizations send all bills to the clearing house and the clearing house works with the insurance companies to get as much money as possible out of them. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uninsured individuals

I think there are two types of uninsured individuals. The first type is the typical poor guy who just can't afford insurance. The second type is the healthy young adult who thinks he's invincible or immune to disease, because he lives a very careful and conscientious lifestyle. This guy can afford health insurance, but refuses to buy it; or he cannot afford health insurance but doesn't really care about it because he's already healthy. How do hospitals charge the uninsured people? And is there a difference between billing one person who wants healthcare but can't afford health insurance and another person who wants to pay for everything out of pocket but, if the predicted costs are out of reach, he will just refuse treatment? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't immediately speak to hospitals, but the same principles likely apply to pharmacies, which do (at least in some cases) have a set price for the uninsured. Back when I started my current job, I had two choices of health insurance, and one difference between them was that one paid X% of each refill for my maintenance medicine, while the other one paid $X for each refill. In order to learn what I'd be paying under each one, I contacted my pharmacy (and one of their competitors locally), and both were able to tell me what they'd charge someone who had no insurance. Nyttend (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I work with over 1,000 medical clinics in the United States from single doctor clinics to large hospitals. Every single one of them has a sliding scale for service costs to poor people. They even have free services. (There used to be a lot more free services, but the ACA greatly limited free medical services.) The problem is that people lie. A person who makes $500k a year will have no problem saying he is broke and uninsured. So, the clinic will need to try to get him to pay. If he cannot, it will go to the collections office where they will see if it is possible for the person to pay or not. Then, if the person cannot reasonably pay, it is written off. Another problem is the services performed for the poor. As an example, a hospital I work with offers free at-home pregnancy tests. Just swing by and pick one up if you want one. Poor women show up in the ER regularly for a pregnancy test, which incurs an ER visit fee, a nursing fee, a doctor fee, and a lab fee. They are not as prone to discount that service because they want to women to take the free at-home pregnancy test. They therefore want to make the woman feel that going straight to the ER for free service isn't a good idea. Another anecdote? A woman called the hospital closest to me every week for multiple years because she had "heart trouble." When she arrived at the hospital (which is downtown), she would say she felt better and head off to the shops downtown. She was just getting a free ride downtown, cutting down on her bus fare. After three years of her documented abuse of the system, she was finally arrested and charged with insurance fraud. The problem is that she doesn't believe she did anything wrong. She was using a free service that is paid for by taxes and taxes just magically appear, so it isn't like anyone was being harmed in any way. I'll quit before I go further off onto a tangent. Suffice it to say that hospitals do give out discounted and free services. The ACA has greatly limited what can be done for free. People do abuse the system regularly. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American Express in Canada

How widespread is American Express in Canada, and how widespread is it in its home country of United States? I don't see too many people with Amex cards,but lots of people with Mastercards and Visas,but could that simply be because I'm in Canada where American Express isn't too common?Uncle dan is home (talk) 02:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the US, this page says that in 2012 there were an estimated 52 million American Express cards in the US compared to 261 million Visa and 174 million Mastercard; and linked from this page is this diagram showing that in 2015 people spent $717 billion using American Express compared to $2,718 billion using Visa and $1,233 billion using Mastercard.

For Canada, linked from this page on the same site is this diagram showing that in 2012 American Express was used for 5.6% of $554.9 billion of purchases (I don't know which currency "$" is, but it doesn' matter here) compared with 40.7% for Visa and 21.0% for Mastercard; or by number of transactions, American Express was used for 2.5% compared with 26.1% for Visa and 6.3% for Mastercard, with Interac (i.e. direct bank debits) accounting for the other transactions tabulated.

So it looks as though American Express's numbers are somewhat lower in Canada compared to the other two cards than they are in the US, but they aren't all that high in the US either. --76.71.5.114 (talk) 05:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The three cards are not equivalent: Note that originally, Visa and Mastercard offered true credit cards while American Express offered only a charge card. A charge card requires the balance be paid in full at the end of the billing period, while a credit card provides longer-term credit by requiring only a portion of the balance to be paid back each month and a finance charge is added to the balance until the balance is paid. In practice, many credit card holders carry balances for many months or even years. It can be argued that American Express cards are used by fewer shoppers simply because there are fewer consumers who are financially able to pay the balance in full each month. --Thomprod (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If people still believe that this is the case, then AMEX are terrible at marketing their brand. I hold 2 different types of AMEX here in the US, and both are what you call "true credit cards", they are not charge cards. --Lgriot (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I said "originally". The linked article details later versions of American Express cards that are similar to Visa and Mastercard. --Thomprod (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And what I meant is that if their "original" practice is still the main reason for a poor take-on of their card, then they are terrible at marketing. --Lgriot (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English football hooligans, Donald Trump

How do English football hooligans feel about Donald Trump?64.134.238.21 (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to ask them yourself. MarnetteD|Talk 21:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's doubtful we can provide you with meaningful references or research which provide any firm, non-speculative, information about how this niche segment of a population feels about the president of another nation entirely. Even given Trump's high profile worldwide, that is just too specific a group of people to be likely to have been the subject of significant inquiry. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that the English Defence League, which has been closely linked with football hooligan firms, has been supportive of Trump. Warofdreams talk 22:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note the existence of List of hooligan firms; I thought "firm" was a mistake, but apparently that really is the actual term for organised groups of hooligans. Nyttend (talk) 23:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do they have to apply for some sort of license? Blueboar (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do they have shareholder meetings? —Tamfang (talk) 07:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Football hooligans have always been a small group and they seem to be diminishing further, but at the end of the day, they're still just British people ("English", if you prefer), so extrapolate from this as you wish:

If Donald Trump is not a popular man in his own country, his public image in Britain is even worse. When our poll asked voters which words they most associated with Donald Trump, the most popular were “dangerous” (50%), “unstable” (39%) and “bigot” (35%). More than half of British adults polled (54%) expect Trump to be a below average (10%) or awful (44%) president. Sixty-four per cent believe that Trump is a threat to international stability and 56% say he isn’t trustworthy." (source)

Hope that helps. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This YouGov opinion poll has Mr Trump with a UK positivity rating of -64, making him the 2,171st public figure of 2,263 tracked. Those Britons who disliked him used the words (in order of frequency): "arrogant", "awful", "offensive", "annoying" and "idiotic". Meanwhile, those who approve of Trump tend to be middle-aged, male and hold right-wing views, so maybe that fits some of the hooligans. Alansplodge (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I need assistance finding sources

I need a few references for Naval wars fought in ancient times in the Persian Gulf between various folk especially Persians and Arabs. I tried looking everywhere on the Internet, but nothing on Naval wars. Can anybody help me? Please leave a message on my discussion page. -- Thank you--Boxman88 (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably you can't find any such Persian-Greek battles because there weren't any there. The Achaemenid Persians were more of a land power militarily. In the Mediterranean, they used Phoenicians as the backbone of their navy, sometimes augmented with ships from temporarily-allied Greek city-states, but that wouldn't have helped in the Gulf. Alexander used the Gulf only to return troops from India, after he had already conquered Persia... AnonMoos (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Information about Hillary Clinton given to Trump Jr.

What information did the Russians give to Trump Jr. about Hillary Clinton?Uncle dan is home (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently none. Trump Jr's initial comments, at least, indicate he was lured into a meeting that was actually about adoptions, with an empty promise of Hillary info as the hook. This is discussed in Trump Campaign—Russian meeting. You may want to read it quickly, before the yokels delete it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where "about adoptions" might be better understood as "about lifting sanctions against Russian oligarchs which led to ending adoptions of Russian babies by Americans." Edison (talk) 04:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]