6 ms·
I actually have directly relevant experience to the question of "What happens if you get something in your eye in the US and need to see a doctor urgently?" Do
by patio11 12y ago
I actually have directly relevant experience to the question of "What happens if you get something in your eye in the US and need to see a doctor urgently?" Don't read the following if you're squeamish.
About a year and a half ago, I dropped my iPad while on a flight from Japan to the US. The screen cracked in the top corner. I tentatively touched the screen, to see if the crack was dangerous. I did not cut my finger, but did succeed in transferring a very small piece of glass to my finger.
People touch their eyes frequently, often unconsciously.
Six hours later, after attempting self-irrigation on the plane and at the airport, I was at a hospital in Chicago seeing an eye doctor. Time from arrival at proper floor to being taken to room: three minutes ("glass in eye" cuts down on paperwork quite a bit). Time to arrival of doctor: approximately four minutes after that.
They successfully treated me for, possible misquote, "non-traumatic introduction of a foreign body to the eye." (The attending physician's first words, after reading the chart, were "How in God's name does an iPad screen end up in your eye?")
Treatment was approximately 15 minutes of a resident's time and 5 minutes of the attending physician's time plus one cotton swap and some iodine.
Total cost: approximately $300, plus twenty minutes of dealing with the billing clerk (after approximately 30 minutes of waiting for the billing clerk to be ready).
Most of the time with the billing clerk was a result of the clerk getting the run-around from a Japanese commercial travel insurance company. I customarily travel with private insurance which, among other things, covers me for medical emergencies while traveling. (Normally I'm covered by Japanese national insurance, which doesn't normally cover treatment of Americans in America for all the obvious reasons.) The insurance company denied reimbursement for elective medical treatment. Direct quote: You could have elected to leave it in your eye.
- jff 12y ago$300 ain't bad to save the sight in your eye.
- throwaway283719 12y agoIt is, however, more than $0 (and presumably somewhat galling when you are already paying for health insurance.)
- jff 12y agoLots of insurance has a deductible. Doesn't stop it from being galling... I've made two trips to urgent care this year and just hit my deductible, but those will probably be the only healthcare costs I incur this year meaning United collects yet another year of my premiums in return for nothing.
- happyscrappy 12y ago>meaning United collects yet another year of my premiums in return for nothing. Insurance doesn't work if you only pay premiums when you are sick.
- toomuchtodo 12y agoNor does it work if it doesn't pay out when you are sick.
- dragonwriter 12y agoIt certainly works, in that case, for the shareholders of the insurance company.
- tormeh 12y ago>Lots of insurance has a deductible Aw yiss! Bureaucracy is so much better when it's private bureaucracy! Nothing against you, mind, it's just that I hate that kind of stuff.
- sp332 12y agoIs it more than nothing, where nothing == taxes? I'm guessing that the amount of your annual taxes that goes toward health care is > ($300 * chance of you incurring $300 in health care costs).
- throwaway283719 12y agoWhy guess, when you could get some data? In the UK, the per-capita spend on healthcare is $3480, of which $2919 is paid by the government (and so raised via taxes) and $561 is private (via health insurance or direct payment). In the US, the per-capita spend is $8362, of which $4437 is paid by the government (via taxes) and $3925 is private (via health insurance). This is only a cursory glance, but it does look a bit like nationalized healthcare results in lower private spending and lower government spending (the extra spend in the US presumably goes into the pockets of doctors, pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies). Data sourced from the World Health Organization, via The Guardian[0] [0] http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthc...
- patio11 12y agoIf it isn't obvious, I'm not complaining. Went to hospital with glass in eye while experiencing major discomfort, down from excruciating pain earlier. Left hospital with neither glass in eye nor major discomfort. A+++, would have glass removed from eye again.
- jff 12y agoYeah, I was agreeing with you that $300 is pretty fine.
- hackuser 12y ago> $300 ain't bad to save the sight in your eye. Not everyone can afford $300. Consider people on minimum wage (or unemployed), or supporting children on that income. That's most of a week's paycheck; so much for meals, rent, heat, etc. They always could leave the glass in their eye, as the insurance company suggested.
- Volundr 12y agoWhile interesting, it is worth noting your situation is not strictly analogous. His son had a potentially complicating factor, and so was taken to a specialist, which was the cause of most of their delay. I imagine your trip would have been much slower, and more expensive had your required the same care.
- patio11 12y agoIf it wasn't clear, I saw a specialist, unless I greatly misunderstand where opthamlogists stop and specialists begin. You don't exactly need a referral to get somebody at the Opthamology desk to fasttrack you when the complaint is glass-in-eye.
- Volundr 12y agoOops sorry, I managed to miss it, though it looks like it was in your original post.
- genwin 12y ago> I customarily travel with private insurance ... The insurance company denied reimbursement for elective medical treatment. Direct quote: You could have elected to leave it in your eye. Sounds like your private insurance will never pay a claim. "You could have elected to die." $300 is amazingly low, especially for a big city. For 2 stitches I got a bill for $1500.