5 ms·

>What would perhaps be a valid starting point for further discussions if the urban parts of the US had a good healthcare system. They aren't disjoint systems.

>What would perhaps be a valid starting point for further discussions if the urban parts of the US had a good healthcare system. They aren't disjoint systems. The increased cost of serving rural areas directly impacts urban areas as well. They share Federal funding. Actually comparing whether or not cities have have better healthcare systems than rural areas is much better than trying to define whatever "good" means. And yes in terms of access to specialists and emergency care, they definitely do. >Citation needed! This is just armchairing. Sure. https://patientengagementhit.com/news/cultural-barriers-limit-immigrant-patient-provider-interactions https://patientengagementhit.com/news/cultural-barriers-limi... https://patientengagementhit.com/news/understanding-national-patient-language-proficiency-barriers https://patientengagementhit.com/news/understanding-national...

gspr 6y ago
These are still tiny numbers. If you completely abandoned these groups (you definitely shouldn't), the US healthcare system would still be entirely broken.
- kongolongo 6y ago
  Yes but the point is the solution to "copy EU" countries is extremely naive and doesn't address these significant differences in needs.
- kongolongo 6y ago
  You're going to need a source on that. Are you saying that cost of serving rural areas and costs to address health impacts of cultural barriers between patients and care providers is not a significant burden on the healthcare system? Now you're armchairing.
  - gspr 6y ago
    It's literally in the source you gave! 8%!
  - kongolongo 6y ago
    ? That doesn't say anything about the costs, if you're going to claim that it's insignificant to costs than you need to back that up. For all we know that 8% could be the bulk of the costs.