4 ms·
> Actually, it does refuse to treat people quite regularly. Let's not play with words like that. People in the US get treatment—you even say so later, despite
by carbocation 14y ago
> Actually, it does refuse to treat people quite regularly.
Let's not play with words like that. People in the US get treatment—you even say so later, despite your ominous lead sentence. They just get it later, via the ED, after prevention goes un-performed. That's abominable enough, and that's what we should talk about, not the (false) specter of non-treatment.
- potatolicious 14y ago> "They just get it later, via the ED, after prevention goes un-performed. That's abominable enough, and that's what we should talk about" You two aren't disagreeing. You say we should talk about the epidemic of people unable to afford primary care, pushing treatment later and later, eventually into the ER where they may not even be able to be saved - and even if they do, suffer long-term health effects due to the delay in treatment. And he's saying that this is because the system does refuse to treat people - especially at the primary care level. These two topics seem to line up just fine.
- carbocation 14y agoYes, that's why my point was to ask that we refrain from falsely hyperbolic statements (people don't get treatment) so we can focus on the myriad true problems that most agree exist, some of which you pointed out.
- revelation 14y agoNow thats playing with words. Do you really think the people on the ground in a US hospital are completely distanced and isolated from the costs that accrue once they admit someone without insurance?
- carbocation 14y agoAt my hospital it generally only affects placement after discharge, but I'm sure it's variable. My primary point was that while most things can be debated, it's absurd to claim that people don't get treated in the US.