Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 305 posts

Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage

#31

Post by amelius »

smelendez wrote: post #23
lstyls wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drivers don't have issues with an uninvited dog passenger? As a dog owner, I find this surprising. But if drivers are OK with it it would be a great option for me because I don't own a car.

It depends on the city, culturally, and it's a good idea to call and ask first. Obviously if it's a service dog they're required to transport it, but from knowing people with service dogs, it's still worth calling because some drivers are allergic and would rather you call another

> if it's a service dog they're required to transport it

But Uber is not a cab service; instead, they are trying to evade all the rules.

Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage

#32

Post by xor1 »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #29

Good stat but there's nothing about outcomes. Uber might save money for transportation but how does the lack of a proper ambulance effect outcomes?

I imagine most of the cases involving people opting for an Uber instead of an ambulance aren't in obvious risk of dying if they don't make it to the hospital in time. The first things that come to mind are broken bones, lacerations, and severed digits. Then again, there are plenty of things that can be fatal without being readily apparent, especially if the only person making that judgment call is the patient.

Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage

#33

Post by cm2012 »

lstyls wrote: post #21
doorty wrote: post #2

They (uber/lyft) work well for my dog emergencies too.

Drivers don't have issues with an uninvited dog passenger? As a dog owner, I find this surprising. But if drivers are OK with it it would be a great option for me because I don't own a car.

Most drivers are okay if it seems like you have your pet neat. I take my cats in carriers all the time, but would never take my parents super sheddy dog.

Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage

#34

Post by dajohnson89 »

Spooky23 wrote: post #10

I’d be more interested to see the reduction in medicab or medivan usage. My father had the misfortune of having a stroke, and transporting him via van is outrageous — you’re talking >$250 for a 15 mile drive, in what amounts to a cargo van with zero service beyond driving. It’s one of those weird markets where the pricing is driven by the Medicaid reimbursement, which is a price floor.

it's perverse that I find $250 to be a reasonable price, compared to other medical expenses.

Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage

#36

Post by WWLink »

namelost wrote: post #28
dsacco wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Their future is in autonomous however, which will never be the ambulance business (it will never be autonomous, ambulance drivers frequently have to break standard driving laws in emergencies, drive at high speeds, drive around vehicles, etc). None of these are reasons for ambulances to not be autonomous. If you accept that most other vehicles will be fully autonomous, ambulances do not require anything further ext…

It is very problematic, e.g. how would you develop such a system? No city is going to allow you to break traffic laws to train an autonomous ambulance. At best you could make one for rural areas. I think the problem is probably AI-complete and would require human-like abilities of abstraction to train.

Once autonomous cars become common enough, and we have a common protocol for communicating between them, I'm pretty sure the cities will be ok with it. The autonomous cars could be instructed to move out of the way for an ambulance to come through and/or stop at intersections, which would actually make things much safer for the ambulance.

Shoot, it'd be safer even if the ambulances weren't autonomous - because the cars would be reacting in a predictable manner.

Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage

#37

Post by donatj »

bmelton wrote: post #7

If you don't get bogged down in details of the service, I see this as generally net good. For many, ambulance rides are prohibitively expensive, and while I certainly wouldn't be cost-conscious taking an ambulance in the event of a seizure or heart attack, for something like a broken arm, or non-life-threatening ailment, an Uber/Lyft/Cab is a good alternative to trying to drive myself. Beyond that, I'd like to see st…

Six years ago I had something similar to a stoke. I had a relative drive me from work to the ER in outer suburbs because:

a) I would literally rather die than pay for an ambulance. I put my money where my mouth was on that.

b) I knew from previous experience their ER was far cheaper, cleaner and quicker than the one in the cities.

Maybe I am just particularly frugal but I had the presence of mind to consider costs while I could not feel one side of my face.

Another time, I needed surgery and called around to get quotes. The place I ended up was something like a quarter the place my doctor wanted to send me.

Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage

#38

Post by Johnny555 »

m333t wrote: post #35

Would be nice to have a service like Uber where you have a virtual doctor's visit by phone in the car on the way to the pharmacy or to the hospital if it turns out to be more serious.

What are you going to do if it turns more serious during the ride? The Uber driver (probably) has no medical training and certainly has no advanced medical equipment, the best he can do is pull over and hope that a real ambulance can meet you at his car before you die.

If you have a condition that is so serious that you feel you have to keep in contact with a doctor while you're transported to the hospital in case it gets worse, call an ambulance since they can actually treat you in-route.

Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage

#39

Post by yeukhon »

donatj wrote: post #37
bmelton wrote: post #7

If you don't get bogged down in details of the service, I see this as generally net good. For many, ambulance rides are prohibitively expensive, and while I certainly wouldn't be cost-conscious taking an ambulance in the event of a seizure or heart attack, for something like a broken arm, or non-life-threatening ailment, an Uber/Lyft/Cab is a good alternative to trying to drive myself. Beyond that, I'd like to see st…

Six years ago I had something similar to a stoke. I had a relative drive me from work to the ER in outer suburbs because: a) I would literally rather die than pay for an ambulance. I put my money where my mouth was on that. b) I knew from previous experience their ER was far cheaper, cleaner and quicker than the one in the cities. Maybe I am just particularly frugal but I had the presence of mind to consider costs wh…

I am glad you are safe. I obviously have no clue into your actual diagnosis, but just some thoughts.

This works if and only if you are in control of the situation. That being said, have you considered if when the worst case happened to you, the kind of stress your relative could experience afterward? Perhaps guilts? What about if you are permanently disabled? You probably won’t be able to keep your current job, and then have to re-adjust to a different life style and re-learning whatever physical skills you have lost. Meanwhile, others would have to take up responsibilities for you, and more money draining down the road. Next thing you know, you regret your decision.

I do share you views in general - I would prefer going to a hospital I know that can provide better service per dollar value, but when it is life threatening situation, I won’t choose money over my life. If it was a minor stroke that probably okay, but still, so much uncertainty. Yes, if ambulance is late, you probably should consider going there on your own (keep 911 operator on the phone - never hang up until an officer has arrived). I am too really frustrated with my ambulance bill, and I wish someone can help me understand why the heck an aumblance can cost $1000.

I am sure you know the risks, but I do want to give my two cents.

Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage

#40

Post by newfoundglory »

TylerE wrote: post #13
switch007 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are paramedics/ambulances so unregulated in the US that it's /not/ a bat-shit crazy idea to suggest Uber Ambulances?

Not really. There are plenty of private ambulance services in the US. They generally deal with things like transporting a medically frail person to see a doctor in a different city, things like that. Non emergency, mostly. http://www.nytimes.com/1987/01/31/style/private-ambulances-w... (yes, over 30 years old, but most of it still holds true)

I didn't realize there were public ambulance services in the US. When I was hit by a car I was definitely taken to hospital by a private ambulance as an emergency patient.
Post reply on HN