3 ms·

This is yet another argument for the transition of American health care from a primarily private for-profit operation to a socialized medicine model. Compare to

This is yet another argument for the transition of American health care from a primarily private for-profit operation to a socialized medicine model. Compare to the British NHS, which takes this issue into consideration and devotes resources to it: https://www.england.nhs.uk/2017/09/nhs-england-launches-practical-guides-to-help-people-with-disabilities-access-gp-online-services/ https://www.england.nhs.uk/2017/09/nhs-england-launches-prac... Yes, you can still get privatized health care if you want to pay for it in Britain, you can hire a nurse and doctor to follow you around 24-7 if you can find any willing to do so at the rate you're willing to pay.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
This was the thing that was so baffling to me about this study. I read the interview quotes, but then was baffled by the study's conclusion where they focused on things like "attitudes" and "structural barriers" (I kinda hate that term because it's easily interpreted in different ways). Meanwhile I'm screaming "Duh, it's money!". Meaning that: 1. The study, for some reason seems reluctant to come out and say "treating those with disabilities costs more". Which seems pretty patently obvious when you read many parts of the rest of the study: they talk about needing more specialized equipment, needing to take additional time, etc. 2. Thus, in a private care system where reimbursements aren't changed for treating people with disabilities, there are tons of embedded incentives to not want to deal with those with disabilities. The only was to get rid of these unwanted incentives is to fundamentally change the for-profit nature of American health care. Good luck with that.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  >2. Thus, in a private care system where reimbursements aren't changed for treating people with disabilities, there are tons of embedded incentives to not want to deal with those with disabilities. >The only was to get rid of these unwanted incentives is to fundamentally change the for-profit nature of American health care. Good luck with that. As I understand, in the US, it is often the government itself that is not sufficiently reimbursing.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Yeah, there's a simple and probably not that expensive solution - anyone who is disabled (define it by SDI or whatever) automatically triggers an $X payment direct to the doctor/facility/hospital whenever they interact with them. Adjust X to be moderately above the costs. Suddenly all the normies would be on the outside looking in as the doctors would be fighting over the disabled patients.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

This was the thing that was so baffling to me about this study. I read the interview quotes, but then was baffled by the study's conclusion where they focused on things like "attitudes" and "structural barriers" (I kinda hate that term because it's easily interpreted in different ways). Meanwhile I'm screaming "Duh, it's money!". Meaning that: 1. The study, for some reason seems reluctant to come out and say "treating those with disabilities costs more". Which seems pretty patently obvious when you read many parts of the rest of the study: they talk about needing more specialized equipment, needing to take additional time, etc. 2. Thus, in a private care system where reimbursements aren't changed for treating people with disabilities, there are tons of embedded incentives to not want to deal with those with disabilities. The only was to get rid of these unwanted incentives is to fundamentally change the for-profit nature of American health care. Good luck with that.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
>2. Thus, in a private care system where reimbursements aren't changed for treating people with disabilities, there are tons of embedded incentives to not want to deal with those with disabilities. >The only was to get rid of these unwanted incentives is to fundamentally change the for-profit nature of American health care. Good luck with that. As I understand, in the US, it is often the government itself that is not sufficiently reimbursing.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Yeah, there's a simple and probably not that expensive solution - anyone who is disabled (define it by SDI or whatever) automatically triggers an $X payment direct to the doctor/facility/hospital whenever they interact with them. Adjust X to be moderately above the costs. Suddenly all the normies would be on the outside looking in as the doctors would be fighting over the disabled patients.