3 ms·
> My daughter sprained her ankle on a playground in the United States, and we had to wait for three hours at the hospital for an X-ray, just to receive a bill f
by kevmo 3y ago
> My daughter sprained her ankle on a playground in the United States, and we had to wait for three hours at the hospital for an X-ray, just to receive a bill for 1300$, and that’s after insurance. In Portugal, the public health system covers this expense. It’s not excellent, but it’s praiseworthy when compared to other countries.
I really wish the USA would switch to this sort of model. That sort of health security would engender a wave of innovation and efficiency.
- all2 3y agoHave we seen innovation and efficiency in countries that have implemented these sorts of things?
- notyourwork 3y agoPlease share anecdotes and not make random dismissive claims as a reply.
- pdntspa 3y agoProbably not as much as one might want on a forum for american business types and their nihilistic thirst for efficiency, but my own anecdata suggests a lot of regular folks are quite content with their socialized health system.
- gumby 3y ago> their nihilistic thirst for efficiency In practice this mostly means removing resiliency from the system so that it does in fact cost less in the successful steady state but is fragile in the face of any disruption. This is why it worked so well for management consultants in the 80s and 90s: get the win right away, get paid, then après moi le déluge.
- pdntspa 3y agoExactly. And it always only ever benefits those at the top. I am of the opinion that good business requires leaving money on the table, sometimes lots of it. It is the slack in the system that keeps so many happily employed and maintains resilience in the network itself.
- gumby 3y agoI wish supply chain people and networking people would talk.
- darkr 3y agoCan’t speak for innovation, but on efficiency; in terms of percentage of GDP spend (which is also significantly greater per capita on the US side); the US spends greater than 65% more of GDP than Portugal on healthcare but has among the worst overall outcomes of the ”developed” world. It is the most expensive healthcare system in the world that provides excellent healthcare for the richest people in the world (perhaps in the top 3 for this category of “customer”), but in terms of efficiency, outcomes, and statistics that matter for the general population, it is barely in the top 30.
- gizajob 3y agoDoug Stanhope always relevant on this issue: https://youtu.be/rn_xdTc_EsI?si=gOxZTNhEtVYQuWDr https://youtu.be/rn_xdTc_EsI?si=gOxZTNhEtVYQuWDr
- elpocko 3y agoIt's free, but also very, very expensive.
- gopher_space 3y agoWe’re already paying.
- gumby 3y agoIs it? The US system consumes a lot more the of the GDP than any other system.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- TheJoeMan 3y agoIf you are at low risk of dying, such as a possible broken bone, you should first consider going to an urgent care center https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urgent_care_center https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urgent_care_center . They are more affordable and targeted towards injuries like that. Leave the ER for the gunshots and heart attacks.
- n40487171 3y agoAn ER could easily triage people into an urgent care wing of the hospital, but hospitals don't have those. Because they don't have any incentive to provide anything resembling cost effective care.
- glimshe 3y agoUrgent care centers are everywhere near where I live. That's where you go for minor injuries, ear ache, sore throat etc. 10min wait, ~$200.