4 ms·

> 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

> 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 ago
I 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 ago
  What 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 ago
    By 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 ago
      Not 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 ago
        Urgent 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 ago
        If 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]
  - killmeslowlyjnj 9y ago
    > What 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? The latter.
- pjc50 9y ago
  I should point out that the private option exists in the UK as well, if you have money and don't want to wait. And of course there's a normal range of OTC drugs including aspirin - unless you're in Scotland it's cheaper to buy it yourself than pay the £7 flat prescription charge. NHS triage is pretty effective: stuff that might actually kill you gets seen to immediately. Chronic conditions get managed long-term. The vast majority of the long waits are for things like hip operations, which will improve quality of life but aren't particularly urgent. The US system is not without waits: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/sunday-review/long-waits-for-doctors-appointments-have-become-the-norm.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/sunday-review/long-waits-...
- eeZah7Ux 9y ago
  Nonsense - triaging and urgency prioritization is used in medicine everywhere in the world since centuries.
  - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
    But with 'private health' I can pay and go to a doctor today. For a cold or whatever. Its a curious fact the 'public health' equates to 'rationed medicine'.
    - TuringTest 9y ago
      Lucky you. There are some who need to skip several meals to go to a doctor.
      - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
        ...and that's an interesting problem. I maintain the solution is not to try to give it away free to everybody. Because that fails in major ways, as we've discussed.
        TuringTest 9y ago
        It works quite well in most countries in Europe. I've heard that it's way better than the US system for a majority of people, except for some revolutionary treatments that reach only a really small amount of uber-rich users.

JoeAltmaier 9y ago

I 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 ago
What 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 ago
  By 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 ago
    Not 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 ago
      Urgent 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 ago
        If 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]
- killmeslowlyjnj 9y ago
  > What 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? The latter.
pjc50 9y ago
I should point out that the private option exists in the UK as well, if you have money and don't want to wait. And of course there's a normal range of OTC drugs including aspirin - unless you're in Scotland it's cheaper to buy it yourself than pay the £7 flat prescription charge. NHS triage is pretty effective: stuff that might actually kill you gets seen to immediately. Chronic conditions get managed long-term. The vast majority of the long waits are for things like hip operations, which will improve quality of life but aren't particularly urgent. The US system is not without waits: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/sunday-review/long-waits-for-doctors-appointments-have-become-the-norm.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/sunday-review/long-waits-...
eeZah7Ux 9y ago
Nonsense - triaging and urgency prioritization is used in medicine everywhere in the world since centuries.
- JoeAltmaier 9y ago
  But with 'private health' I can pay and go to a doctor today. For a cold or whatever. Its a curious fact the 'public health' equates to 'rationed medicine'.
  - TuringTest 9y ago
    Lucky you. There are some who need to skip several meals to go to a doctor.
    - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
      ...and that's an interesting problem. I maintain the solution is not to try to give it away free to everybody. Because that fails in major ways, as we've discussed.
      - TuringTest 9y ago
        It works quite well in most countries in Europe. I've heard that it's way better than the US system for a majority of people, except for some revolutionary treatments that reach only a really small amount of uber-rich users.