The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

US healthcare vs the world: wait times

Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
edited January 2008 in Debate and/or Discourse
I would have thrown this into the RP thread, but that was A. a multi-subject cluster-fuck and B. LOCKED, so..not happening, :P

I'd like to know where the popular conception of "Well, at least in the US system you don't have to wait X weeks to have something done!" comes from. Because in my experience that's straight out bullshit.

With my last insurance company, in order to get anything done with my feet I had to:
-make an appointment with my physician. Since my previous doctor wasn't on the list, I had to switch to a new one. It takes a MONTH, on average, to get in to see him.
-Go to that appointment, get a referral.
-Use that referral to get an appointment with the person I really needed to see, my podiatrist. Another month, on average.

Now, followup-visits do get to skip the bullshit middle steps, but that's a different story.

It didn't get any better with immediately-needed care. I had gout last summer. Couldn't get in to see the doctor, went to an urgent care. They decided I was "too young" for it, and had a broken foot.

Later, AFTER it had passed, I got in to see the aforementioned podiatrist. He looked at their X-rays and shook his head. Nope, no broken foot. Of course, by this point he couldn't DO much for me, other than general advice. So I had to live with ~week of limping, and two days of screaming at the top of my fucking lungs whenever I moved my foot.

I now have a relative who urgently needs to see a specialist. Of course, the nearest open appointment is in February.

So, one more time: where'd that "the US is faster" thing come from again?

Phoenix-D on
«1345

Posts

  • ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Does it matter? Even if it was faster, it'd still be shitty. American healthcare will be a joke until it gets with the programme and socialises it.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Rich people. Rich people either have really good insurance, or just pay out of pocket if they really want something. And if you are willing to pay, or have really good insurance, you don't have to wait.

    deadonthestreet on
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Does it matter? Even if it was faster, it'd still be shitty. American healthcare will be a joke until it gets with the programme and socialises it.

    "Shitty but speedy" has a certain merit, as does "speedy but fucking expensive"

    "Shitty and slow", on the other hand...

    Phoenix-D on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Does it matter? Even if it was faster, it'd still be shitty. American healthcare will be a joke until it gets with the programme and socialises it.

    "Shitty but speedy" has a certain merit, as does "speedy but fucking expensive"

    "Shitty and slow", on the other hand...

    I'm glad you agree the US system sucks.

    shryke on
  • ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Indeed. Once I get out of school I'm going to have to pay for my prescriptions. All five of them.

    I'm going to Canada.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • DodgeBlanDodgeBlan PSN: dodgeblanRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    I don't really understand how people defend the american system when its so blatantly crappy.

    DodgeBlan on
    Read my blog about AMERICA and THE BAY AREA

    https://medium.com/@alascii
  • ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Because not defending everything American is un-American. And that makes you a communist.

    Also being in favour of socialised anything makes you a communist.

    And being in favour of change makes you a liberal, which also makes you a communist.

    Thus if you want to socialise healthcare you are a triple-communist.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    I have a fucked up knuckle that had to heal on its own and a tooth that literally rotted out of my mouth. No one has been able to convince me that not having universal health care was benefitting me at the time.

    Quid on
  • deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Quid wrote: »
    I have a fucked up knuckle that had to heal on its own and a tooth that literally rotted out of my mouth. No one has been able to convince me that not having universal health care was benefitting me at the time.

    Dude socialized healthcare is not the answer. The answer is to become rich. Why don't you just do that?

    deadonthestreet on
  • ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Quid wrote: »
    I have a fucked up knuckle that had to heal on its own and a tooth that literally rotted out of my mouth. No one has been able to convince me that not having universal health care was benefitting me at the time.

    Dude socialized healthcare is not the answer. The answer is to become rich. Why don't you just do that?

    Clearly he's too lazy to pull himself up by the bootstraps.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Does it matter? Even if it was faster, it'd still be shitty. American healthcare will be a joke until it gets with the programme and socialises it.

    Umm... American health care isn't "shitty". It's really, really good. The issues are that it's expensive and unavailable to many. And if you think that adding 40 million more people to the system will make it faster and better, you're sort of silly.

    That said, not all doctors are that slow. If my wife needs to get into see a GP, it takes a day or two. If she specifically wants to see her doctor, it can take longer. Speed of service depends on what area you're in. If you're someplace where you have the ability to shop around, it can make things much better. Assuming, of course, your insurance plan allows for it. If you're stuck with something like Kaiser or a particularly unaccomodating HMO, you may be screwed.

    The whole business with having to see a GP, then getting assigned to a specialist, then maybe getting assigned to another specialist - yeah, that's a pain, and it can be slow and stupid, but none of the solutions that are seriously being proposed by anyone are going to change this. You're talking about a fundamental problem with the way in which health care is performed in most countries. Fellating the idea of socialized medicine won't do squat.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • QuothQuoth the Raven Miami, FL FOR REALRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    I get insurance subsidized by my job, but I have to pay like 40% of the premium.

    I can usually get an appointment with my primary physician within a few days. The pikachu doctor (as my stepmother calls the gyno D=) usually takes a couple of weeks.

    But yeah, I've never had any month-long waits. WTF.

    Quoth on
  • JansonJanson Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Today I walked into the doctors' on my lunch break and asked for an appointment. They had a slot free at 3.50 pm. I went back at 3.30 pm and was seen by a doctor at 3.45 pm. I walked out five minutes later with six months' worth of the pill for a grand total of $0.

    I will miss the NHS; been nothing but good to me.

    Janson on
  • hesthefastesthesthefastest Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Healthcare should be appraised by looking at those who dont get proper care, not those that do.
    It doesnt matter if half the population get excellent health care if the other half gets shitty care.

    If a system allows for people to lose their house, their job and all their possesions simply because they got sick, its a bad system.

    hesthefastest on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    DodgeBlan wrote: »
    I don't really understand how people defend the american system when its so blatantly crappy.

    Because it's not crappy for everyone. Which is sort of the problem. If you have decent insurance, it insulates you from a lot of these problems.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Does it matter? Even if it was faster, it'd still be shitty. American healthcare will be a joke until it gets with the programme and socialises it.

    Umm... American health care isn't "shitty". It's really, really good. The issues are that it's expensive and unavailable to many. And if you think that adding 40 million more people to the system will make it faster and better, you're sort of silly.

    No, doing that won't make it better. I don't see why that means it isn't a problem.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    Janson wrote: »
    Today I walked into the doctors' on my lunch break and asked for an appointment. They had a slot free at 3.50 pm. I went back at 3.30 pm and was seen by a doctor at 3.45 pm. I walked out five minutes later with six months' worth of the pill for a grand total of $0.

    I will miss the NHS; been nothing but good to me.

    This is the case here, too. You can get lucky on walk-ins, especially if you show up right when they open. We can generally squeeze Maddie in when we show up at 8:00 am. All it takes is one patient running a little late, and we're in.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Does it matter? Even if it was faster, it'd still be shitty. American healthcare will be a joke until it gets with the programme and socialises it.

    Umm... American health care isn't "shitty". It's really, really good. The issues are that it's expensive and unavailable to many. And if you think that adding 40 million more people to the system will make it faster and better, you're sort of silly.

    No, doing that won't make it better. I don't see why that means it isn't a problem.

    Sure, it's a problem, but the method you suggested for fixing it won't. That was my point.

    US health care needs help. This is clear. But this thread is full of people mischaracterizing the problems and suggesting flawed solutions to address them.

    - US health care is very good for those who can afford it.
    - It is not any slower than most nations' socialized versions, and in many cases is extremely fast.

    These are the strengths. The weaknesses are:

    - It's really damned expensive.
    - Many people can't afford it, and aren't eligible for government programs.
    - Quality of care can vary, especially amongst lower-cost solutions.
    - Speed of care, while comparable to most other places in the slower instances, is still too slow.

    Now, something like universal health coverage can address the cost issues. But if we want to address quality of care and speed of service, we should be bringing up wholly different solutions than are being proposed. Because just flogging the idea of SOCIALIZATION PLZ won't do shit for the sort of complaints that started the damned thread.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    FWIW, I would recommend a solution that starts with something like UHC over some sort, then waits until everyone is actually in the system to approach the other deficiencies. We need to make sure we see what the system is like with everyone in it before we start trying to figure out how to improve things, especially since the medical needs of those who can't afford insurance right now are probably very different from those of the people who can.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Because not defending everything American is un-American. And that makes you a communist.

    No no, the cold war is over. The buzzword today is terrorist.

    Socialized medicine isn't all roses either. Wait times in Canada for all kinds of things can take upwards of 8 months to a year. I can see my doctor in a week to two weeks usually and when I went to the ER a few weeks ago it was very fast, but this is not the norm. Basically, with socialized medicine, certain kinds of people will use it for everything (My dad used to drive an ambulance before he went full time with the fire department. Before you got billed for calling the ambulance, people would call and say they were having chest pains for a free trip to the city. It was an often occurrence.) These people drive up the costs and make the system like Canada's is now. A slowly decaying monstrosity that is being mismanaged. Canada spends more on health care than any other single program.

    Nova_C on
  • ProtoProto Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Indeed. Once I get out of school I'm going to have to pay for my prescriptions. All five of them.

    I'm going to Canada.

    Prescriptions aren't free here. You'd have to pay or find a job with a health plan.

    The free things are doctor's vists, surgery and the like. When I had my appendix out this summer the only thing I had to pay for was a semi-private room (which my work health care covered). If I needed drugs afterwards I would have to pay or get work to cover me.

    Proto on
    and her knees up on the glove compartment
    took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
  • JansonJanson Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Janson wrote: »
    Today I walked into the doctors' on my lunch break and asked for an appointment. They had a slot free at 3.50 pm. I went back at 3.30 pm and was seen by a doctor at 3.45 pm. I walked out five minutes later with six months' worth of the pill for a grand total of $0.

    I will miss the NHS; been nothing but good to me.

    This is the case here, too. You can get lucky on walk-ins, especially if you show up right when they open. We can generally squeeze Maddie in when we show up at 8:00 am. All it takes is one patient running a little late, and we're in.

    But I understand birth control isn't free?

    Yeah, there's always going to be an element of luck involved no matter where you are. My, and my family's experience has been overwhelmingly positive for a service that has cost us very little.

    Janson on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    As a guy who's had the same toenail ingrow three times, I can tell you that that sort of wait time is pretty much par for the course for a podiatrist. The second time I had it removed, the guy rushed my appointment for surgery (this was after waiting the month it took to see him for the initial appointment), which meant I got in in only two weeks. Apparently, this was like moving heaven and earth, because the guy offered me morphine for the intervening two weeks, because, and I quote, "it was the worst ingrown toenail I've ever seen."

    Yeah, there are a lot of problems with the system we have here. A lot of problems which could be solved by encouraging people to become PAs and RNs, and allowing more clinic-type care to be given by those people. Really, if I have an ear infection, why is it I have to go see the neurologist (the only doctor at my GP's practice who was available at the time) for her to look in my ear, say "oh, hey, and ear infection; here's some antibiotics and some vicodin?" Shit, I didn't even take college biology, and I could've told her that.

    Thanatos on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Because not defending everything American is un-American. And that makes you a communist.

    No no, the cold war is over. The buzzword today is terrorist.

    Socialized medicine isn't all roses either. Wait times in Canada for all kinds of things can take upwards of 8 months to a year. I can see my doctor in a week to two weeks usually and when I went to the ER a few weeks ago it was very fast, but this is not the norm. Basically, with socialized medicine, certain kinds of people will use it for everything (My dad used to drive an ambulance before he went full time with the fire department. Before you got billed for calling the ambulance, people would call and say they were having chest pains for a free trip to the city. It was an often occurrence.) These people drive up the costs and make the system like Canada's is now. A slowly decaying monstrosity that is being mismanaged. Canada spends more on health care than any other single program.

    Wait times are always based on a triage system. If your need isn't urgent, your gonna be waiting behind the people who's need is.

    And I'm extremely skeptical of how often that story of your fathers actually happened. Not to mention the extremely hefty fines for calling an ambulance for bad reasons.

    shryke on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Does it matter? Even if it was faster, it'd still be shitty. American healthcare will be a joke until it gets with the programme and socialises it.

    Umm... American health care isn't "shitty". It's really, really good. The issues are that it's expensive and unavailable to many. And if you think that adding 40 million more people to the system will make it faster and better, you're sort of silly.

    No, doing that won't make it better. I don't see why that means it isn't a problem.

    Sure, it's a problem, but the method you suggested for fixing it won't. That was my point.

    US health care needs help. This is clear. But this thread is full of people mischaracterizing the problems and suggesting flawed solutions to address them.

    - US health care is very good for those who can afford it.
    - It is not any slower than most nations' socialized versions, and in many cases is extremely fast.

    These are the strengths. The weaknesses are:

    - It's really damned expensive.
    - Many people can't afford it, and aren't eligible for government programs.
    - Quality of care can vary, especially amongst lower-cost solutions.
    - Speed of care, while comparable to most other places in the slower instances, is still too slow.

    Now, something like universal health coverage can address the cost issues. But if we want to address quality of care and speed of service, we should be bringing up wholly different solutions than are being proposed. Because just flogging the idea of SOCIALIZATION PLZ won't do shit for the sort of complaints that started the damned thread.
    Out of curiosity, if we're talking about people not being able to afford it, doesn't that mean that "speed of care" approaches infinity? Like, if you never get it, doesn't that mean the average wait is forever?

    Thanatos on
  • jotatejotate Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    I work for an urgent care company. Our whole business is about people being able to come in, be seen, diagnosed, and sent away with what they need to get healthy.

    Our billing manager tells a story about her father needing a hip replacement in Canada. He had to wait 3 months to see someone to assess if he should see a physician for a consult on whether he needs a hip replacement. He waited another 3 months for that consult. He then waited 9 months to actually receive a full hip replacement. The doctor said he'd been in need of that surgery for several years.

    The billing manager grew up in Canada and is pretty critical of both their and our systems, she maintains something in the middle needs to be found.

    jotate on
  • SeptusSeptus Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    This is not an issue I am intimately familiar with, but one of my primary worries about universal healthcare is people overusing it. If everyone can get it at low premiums, people may overuse the system(hypchondriacs) and they would little to no reason to question their costs, like some small part of the doctor's cost being overpriced to drive up his compensation, because no one will be checking. This is an issue we have now, I think it's the difference between cost and charge, but with expenses being so high, there's much more incentive for patients to scrutinize what they're paying for.

    Septus on
    PSN: Kurahoshi1
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    Thinatos wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, if we're talking about people not being able to afford it, doesn't that mean that "speed of care" approaches infinity? Like, if you never get it, doesn't that mean the average wait is forever?

    I see this cute little point made in every health care thread, and it's invariably stupid.

    We're talking about how to get everyone into the system, so the rhetorical points from that observation are kinda nil. When we're discussing average mileage for cars, should we figure in electric cars? They get infinite gas mileage, so that means that our average gas mileage is infinite! Oh wait, no, that's retarded.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    Septus wrote: »
    This is not an issue I am intimately familiar with, but one of my primary worries about universal healthcare is people overusing it. If everyone can get it at low premiums, people may overuse the system(hypchondriacs) and they would little to no reason to question their costs, like some small part of the doctor's cost being overpriced to drive up his compensation, because no one will be checking. This is an issue we have now, I think it's the difference between cost and charge, but with expenses being so high, there's much more incentive for patients to scrutinize what they're paying for.

    I think most serious proposals still include copays.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Thinatos wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, if we're talking about people not being able to afford it, doesn't that mean that "speed of care" approaches infinity? Like, if you never get it, doesn't that mean the average wait is forever?
    I see this cute little point made in every health care thread, and it's invariably stupid.

    We're talking about how to get everyone into the system, so the rhetorical points from that observation are kinda nil. When we're discussing average mileage for cars, should we figure in electric cars? They get infinite gas mileage, so that means that our average gas mileage is infinite! Oh wait, no, that's retarded.
    On the other hand, saying "oh, the wait time here is only 50% of what it is in Canada," when only 30% of the people can get the care is equally retarded.

    Thanatos on
  • DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Septus wrote: »
    This is not an issue I am intimately familiar with, but one of my primary worries about universal healthcare is people overusing it. If everyone can get it at low premiums, people may overuse the system(hypchondriacs) and they would little to no reason to question their costs, like some small part of the doctor's cost being overpriced to drive up his compensation, because no one will be checking. This is an issue we have now, I think it's the difference between cost and charge, but with expenses being so high, there's much more incentive for patients to scrutinize what they're paying for.

    Not really, because of the insurance factor. If people actually were paying for their healthcare, then your point would be relevant. However, no one pays for their own healthcare unless they are rich, everyone else (if they are lucky) has insurance and they pay a premium and maybe a small co-pay.

    The rest either don't go or go bankrupt. Which is really kind of not true, because 75% of the people who go bankrupt from medical bills have insurance, it just isn't as good as they thought.

    Yeah, the system is fucked. I'm not sure unfucking this part of it will make wait times decrease for people who can actually go, but I'd be willing to make that sacrifice for the people who never get to go.

    Derrick on
    Steam and CFN: Enexemander
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Septus wrote: »
    This is not an issue I am intimately familiar with, but one of my primary worries about universal healthcare is people overusing it. If everyone can get it at low premiums, people may overuse the system(hypchondriacs) and they would little to no reason to question their costs, like some small part of the doctor's cost being overpriced to drive up his compensation, because no one will be checking. This is an issue we have now, I think it's the difference between cost and charge, but with expenses being so high, there's much more incentive for patients to scrutinize what they're paying for.

    Hypochondriacs are a small minority.

    I can just call my doctor and walk in like a few days later. Most people in the major cities can. And you know what, people STILL hate going to the doctor. They don't do it unless they absolutely have to most of the time. That's just the way people are. Making it "free" for them to do so just means when something ACTUALLY comes up, they'll be in that doctors office 99% of the time.

    shryke on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    Thinatos wrote: »
    On the other hand, saying "oh, the wait time here is only 50% of what it is in Canada," when only 30% of the people can get the care is equally retarded.

    No it's not, because it's a separate (though related) issue. There are two things here:

    - How many people have health care?
    - How good is the health care for those who do?

    They are interrelated, and it's foolish to ignore one or the other, but you're trying to meld them together to score cheap points. Saying "lol infinite wait time" doesn't say anything intelligent about the actual quality of the service provided. It says something about the availability of the service.

    If we weren't already discussing the issue of availability, your point would be a cute one. As it is, it's just mucking up the discourse.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    FWIW, I would recommend a solution that starts with something like UHC over some sort, then waits until everyone is actually in the system to approach the other deficiencies. We need to make sure we see what the system is like with everyone in it before we start trying to figure out how to improve things, especially since the medical needs of those who can't afford insurance right now are probably very different from those of the people who can.
    I think the Massachusetts system is actually pretty good.

    Everyone is required to get insurance. Almost every employer is required to provide health insurance. People that cannot afford health insurance get state aid.

    The only problem is that insurance companies are still making too much money.

    deadonthestreet on
  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    shryke wrote: »
    And I'm extremely skeptical of how often that story of your fathers actually happened. Not to mention the extremely hefty fines for calling an ambulance for bad reasons.

    *shrug* That's quite likely. It's just you can't tell someone that they weren't having chest pains once they get discharged, even if the doctors didn't find anything. Triage nurses look for certain answers when you complain of chest pain and if you answer the questions right, you get a bed.

    I have nothing to back this up, though, just my dad's experiences, so I guess I'll leave it at that.

    Nova_C on
  • JansonJanson Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Septus wrote: »
    This is not an issue I am intimately familiar with, but one of my primary worries about universal healthcare is people overusing it. If everyone can get it at low premiums, people may overuse the system (hypochondriacs)...

    Eh, very few people are true hypochondriacs, and I think the effort of having to book an appointment and go in at a particular time is still off-putting to a lot of people regardless of cost - I know it is to me!

    Plus you often have to be persistent to get a doctor to do much for a non-obvious, non-urgent complaint. It's not as if you can go around demanding free scans/x-rays/hospital stays! I think the worst that would happen is that it becomes a little harder to get GP appointments.

    I have heard that the US does more procedures than may be strictly necessary, as a precaution. For example, my ex fell ill with glandular fever (mono) when visiting the US. He was rushed to hospital, they ran tests, and put him on an IV drip. When he returned home to the UK, his GP took a look at him and said, 'I'd have just sent you home and told your mother to tuck you up in bed and feed you lots of broth'.

    Janson on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Thinatos wrote: »
    On the other hand, saying "oh, the wait time here is only 50% of what it is in Canada," when only 30% of the people can get the care is equally retarded.

    No it's not, because it's a separate (though related) issue. There are two things here:

    - How many people have health care?
    - How good is the health care for those who do?

    They are interrelated, and it's foolish to ignore one or the other, but you're trying to meld them together to score cheap points. Saying "lol infinite wait time" doesn't say anything intelligent about the actual quality of the service provided. It says something about the availability of the service.

    If we weren't already discussing the issue of availability, your point would be a cute one. As it is, it's just mucking up the discourse.
    I would say that issues of speed and availability are so closely tied together that you can't really say that one matters, while the other doesn't.

    I mean, if one person were getting awesome healthcare, immediately, average wait time is basically zero, but that doesn't really say anything about the quality of healthcare if the rest of the country doesn't get any.

    Thanatos on
  • QuothQuoth the Raven Miami, FL FOR REALRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Question: there is a lot of talk here about people who don't have healthcare, but why don't they? I assume because they can't afford it? What are the average premiums, that they are so beyond the reach of the working class?

    Quoth on
  • DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Quoth wrote: »
    Question: there is a lot of talk here about people who don't have healthcare, but why don't they? I assume because they can't afford it? What are the average premiums, that they are so beyond the reach of the working class?


    Also remember, that just because you have insurance doesn't mean that A) it's enough or B) that the company will pay even if it is.

    Derrick on
    Steam and CFN: Enexemander
  • yakulyakul Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Quoth wrote: »
    Question: there is a lot of talk here about people who don't have healthcare, but why don't they? I assume because they can't afford it? What are the average premiums, that they are so beyond the reach of the working class?

    If your job doesn't offer it, Blue Cross Blue Shield will insure you for somewhere near 100 bucks a month. That's what it was last time I had them anyways.

    Right now through work there's like four things I pay for including dental, its under a hundred dollars, but still if I had a kid I couldn't afford that.

    yakul on
This discussion has been closed.