5 ms·
I don't understand these comments. I lived in Italy for a long time, with high quality public healthcare for everyone even in a country which is not doing so we
by yulaow 9y ago
I don't understand these comments. I lived in Italy for a long time, with high quality public healthcare for everyone even in a country which is not doing so well economically after the financial crisis. Yes, if you have something not risky you have wait-times for exams of 1-3 weeks (even here you can go private if you want and I assure you costs are BY FAR lower than in the US... like a full low abd eco costed me 40e to have it done in the next hour, just because I had to travel), but if you have ANYTHING risky there is no wait time, you get your exams and surgeries asap the same day if needed. The system works that well exactly because is not the amount you pay that put you in the front of the list, but the seriousness of your condition after the first medical evaluations.
- miguelrochefort 9y agoPublic healthcare differs a lot between countries. > if you have something not risky you have wait-times for exams of 1-3 weeks In Canada that's closer to 3-6 months. > if you have ANYTHING risky there is no wait time, you get your exams and surgeries asap the same day if needed In Canada, average wait times in emergency rooms are 20+ hours.
- TuringTest 9y ago> I don't understand these comments. It's cognitive dissonance. They have not experienced a quality public health care first hand, so they cannot admit that it works without contradicting their core economical beliefs.
- JoeAltmaier 9y agoI get sick; I go to my doctor today and get treated. A system that makes me wait for weeks for something 'not serious' meaning almost everything, is a broken system. Sure it costs less in Europe etc; its not doing anything useful. Id've gotten better (or died) on my own by the time I got seen with wait times like that. It's not cognitive dissonance (unless on the part of public-health-is-better folks). Its a different metric. If cost is the only measure, then sure, 3 week wait for a free aspirin is 'good'. If its timeliness, then other systems win hands down.
- TuringTest 9y agoWhat is more broken: a system where everyone has to wait some weeks and get attended, or one where some can be atended in a day, and others will never be attended?
- JoeAltmaier 9y agoBy what metric are we measuring? Total healthcare delivered in a timely fashion? Then the system that delivers at least some timely care wins again.
- TuringTest 9y agoNot if all urgent healthcare is delivered to all in a timely manner, and it's only non-urgent healthcare which gets delays. In this case, the system which can get urgent attendance to all users wins over the one which does it only for a subset, even in terms of timeliness.
- JoeAltmaier 9y agoUrgent care is a fair metric. A system than turns non-urgent care (a cold or the flu) into urgent care (pneumonia) is going to 'stuff the ballot box' in its favor however.
- TuringTest 9y agoIf you were to live the rest of your life with a new healthcare system, which of the following would you prefer? - a) one where you would be randomly assigned to one of two groups: one which gets timely attendance for urgent and non-urgent needs; and the other one which gets no attendance at all, of any kind. - b) one where all users get attended with an equal 3 weeks delay for non-urgent needs, and 0 delay for urgent needs.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- 9y ago
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]