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

291–300 of 305 posts

Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage

#291

Post by GFischer »

WhyNotHugo wrote: post #76
mysterypie wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> my ride to the hospital to be 30 minutes late, to refuse to turn the music down, and to tell me the credit card reader is broken As much as I'd like to stick it to taxis because of their decades of price gouging due to being granted a monopoly, I have not had many bad experiences riding a taxi. If I had to put a number on it, I'd say that less than 5% of my taxi rides were in any way unpleasant other than for the c…

This really depends on where you live. Harassing and other similar situations are very common in Taxis where I live, while Uber drivers seem to be well-behaved. None of my female friends dare get into a Taxi due to, well, harassment, (some have stories of groping, attempted rapes, etc.). Generally, they'd only take a taxi in groups, or walk. Uber seems to be working well in that regard (at least for now).

In my country, Uber service is far better than taxis by a mile... many taxi drivers are poorly-paid employees which don't care much, and they're basically immune to any kind of incentive or threat.

On the other hand, Uber drivers with a bad score are usually suspended or banned from the app, keeping out the bad apples, and they're usually the car owners themselves, thus having an incentive to drive better and take more rides.

I believe than something similar to Uber scores for taxis with similar effects (removing bad drivers from the service) would create a huge improvement.

Another unfortunate side effect is that there's some segmentation - poorer and older people still take taxis, while more affluent people take Ubers.

Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage

#292

Post by rconti »

Fiahil wrote: post #176
StreamBright wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These sort of stories I usually use to explain to non-US people how is to live there.

If I’m a foreigner and I’m breaking my arm while being in San Francisco, do I have to pay for the 5k bill coming my way, too ?

Is that particularly different from how you'd be treated in any other foreign country?

I mean, I have no idea what would happen if I broke my arm while overseas either. I have insurance (in the US), and assume it would get sorted out somehow, eventually, but I have no idea what my share would be. I just don't anticipate being turned away at the hospital door though.

Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage

#293

Post by notfromhere »

chimeracoder wrote: post #286
notfromhere wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming you get treatment. In the US, cancer treatment is pre-paid, and if you don't have insurance you are SOL

> Assuming you get treatment. In the US, cancer treatment is pre-paid, and if you don't have insurance you are SOL No, even factoring that in, the US has dramatically better outcomes for cancer than the other countries listed.

How do you get an improved outcome for cancer if you can't afford treatment?

Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage

#294

Post by chimeracoder »

notfromhere wrote: post #293
chimeracoder wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Assuming you get treatment. In the US, cancer treatment is pre-paid, and if you don't have insurance you are SOL No, even factoring that in, the US has dramatically better outcomes for cancer than the other countries listed.

How do you get an improved outcome for cancer if you can't afford treatment?

> How do you get an improved outcome for cancer if you can't afford treatment?

You're missing the point, which is that the number of people who die from cancer that would otherwise have been treatable except for their ability to afford it is actually quite low. And the US does much, much better at treating cancer overall. Which is why the overall cancer survival rates in the US are drastically higher, even though a small number of people may not be able to afford treatment..

(You're also assuming that people are able to receive cancer treatment in countries like the UK, which is actually not a foregone conclusion. Assuming it's even diagnosed properly - the UK in particular is really notorious for cancer misdiagnoses - they may actually not be eligible for having their treatment covered under the NHS, even though their cancer may otherwise medically be treatable, either in other countries or if they can self-fund it in the UK).

Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage

#295

Post by ksk »

notfromhere wrote: post #284
notyourday wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the idea that cancer treatment as well as other exotic treatments needing to be covered by insurance is a pile of horse manure - i'm saying it as someone whose grandmother died from cancer and someone who has a few friends that successful beat down cancer. Lets engage in an intellectual exercise. 10MM USD (today) and for 1 person cancer is gone. Should we include coverage for cancer into all policies?

Your lifetime odds for cancer are like 50%. If insurance doesn't cover life threatening illnesses and life-saving treatments, what's the point in paying for insurance?

I agree it should cover them (in theory). I would even agree that healthcare should be a human right. But even under a zero profit model, for the cases where the treatment is so expensive, what would the financials look like for all the insurance payers? Is it actually even possible?

Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage

#296

Post by notyourday »

notfromhere wrote: post #284
notyourday wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the idea that cancer treatment as well as other exotic treatments needing to be covered by insurance is a pile of horse manure - i'm saying it as someone whose grandmother died from cancer and someone who has a few friends that successful beat down cancer. Lets engage in an intellectual exercise. 10MM USD (today) and for 1 person cancer is gone. Should we include coverage for cancer into all policies?

Your lifetime odds for cancer are like 50%. If insurance doesn't cover life threatening illnesses and life-saving treatments, what's the point in paying for insurance?

Back to the question rather than the la-la land answer.

10MM USD today payment => cancer cured.

Patient's lifetime earning => 2MM USD

Should the patient expect cancer to be cured by his or hers insurance payment?

P.S. I love the downvotes. Downvotes is like a child stomping his foot in a toy store "Mom, but I want that toy!"

Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage

#297

Post by notyourday »

ksk wrote: post #295
notfromhere wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your lifetime odds for cancer are like 50%. If insurance doesn't cover life threatening illnesses and life-saving treatments, what's the point in paying for insurance?

I agree it should cover them (in theory). I would even agree that healthcare should be a human right. But even under a zero profit model, for the cases where the treatment is so expensive, what would the financials look like for all the insurance payers? Is it actually even possible?

Lets make a non-profit model. Lets take entire USA.

350 million people. 50% chance of cancer. 175m will get it. Payment to make it go away is 10MM USD. Should it be covered?

Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage

#298

Post by saas_co_de »

scott_karana wrote: post #277
saas_co_de wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, most people don't tell the stories about how they go to luxuriously built hospitals that make most corporate offices and hotels seem cheap by comparison, with parking lots full of BMW's, Mercedes, and other 6-figure foreign cars, and are treated by teams of highly paid people using millions of dollars of the best equipment in the world ... As long as you have money the US is great.

"Best equipment in the world"? This is capitalism. They're going to use the cheapest "good enough" equipment they can get away with. And considering the domain experience a patient would need to tell a new MRI from an eight year old one... I'm sure they get away with lots. I guarantee the hospital administration isn't going to pay the upcharges for the fanciest new MRI if they can spend it on themselves.

Health Care is not capitalistic or free market in the least and cutting costs is not how profits are maximized.

Doctors, Hospitals, Insurance companies and everyone else are working with what are essentially cost-plus contracts, so the more expensive everything is the more they make.

Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage

#299

Post by anon151516888 »

chimeracoder wrote: post #248
endisukaj wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Avoiding the culture of dividing and collecting data based on race makes a society racist? That's certainly an interesting way of looking at it.

> Avoiding the culture of dividing and collecting data based on race makes a society racist? It certainly doesn't eliminate racism from society, no. It just makes it impossible to measure the effects of racism independently. Hence, the racism becomes integrated into the rest of the society.

It's one less statistic for government busy-bodies to obsess over reducing or optimizing at the behest of conflict peddlers.

Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage

#300

Post by notfromhere »

notyourday wrote: post #297
ksk wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree it should cover them (in theory). I would even agree that healthcare should be a human right. But even under a zero profit model, for the cases where the treatment is so expensive, what would the financials look like for all the insurance payers? Is it actually even possible?

Lets make a non-profit model. Lets take entire USA. 350 million people. 50% chance of cancer. 175m will get it. Payment to make it go away is 10MM USD. Should it be covered?

You're setting up a strawman to prove your own argument that human life isn't worth preserving under some notion of 'logic'.
Post reply on HN