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

Ill in England? Your Location Can Determine If You Live or Die

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 96 posts

Re: Ill in England? Your Location Can Determine If You Live or Die

#51

Post by zx8080 »

analog31 wrote: post #16
skissane wrote: post #9

Isn't this true just about everywhere? Someone who lives in a major urban area is going to have more prompt access to advanced emergency healthcare than someone who lives in a remote rural area, simply due to factors such as travel time, and the clinical need to physically concentrate specialist medical resources (specialist clinical teams need a certain minimum case volume to properly maintain their skills, and if y…

I live in a mid sized urban area, a few blocks from a large hospital. My location was certainly beneficial when I needed emergency treatment. But for anything non-emergency, the waiting lists and "pre approval" battle are appalling. My spouse, who lives in the same house, but has a different employer, gets much quicker treatment from the same clinics.

Do they differentiate men/women? Another, is the insurance company same for both?

Re: Ill in England? Your Location Can Determine If You Live or Die

#52

Post by chaostheory »

computator wrote: post #49

It's intriguing that medical care is always the worst kind of service, by far, in every country in the developed world, compared to every other kind of product or service we depend on. Compare it to food, electricity, gasoline, clothing, water, cell service, haircuts, transportation, movies. If you're not in a rural location, you can buy food or a restaurant meal 24-hours a day in less than an hour. There's complex i…

> Compare it to food, electricity, gasoline, clothing, water, cell service, haircuts, transportation, movies

Compared to other essential professions, doctors need 8 years of schooling and another 4 years for apprenticeship. As for nurses, they are both abused and underpaid. Maybe AI and subsidizing medical schooling can help? Raising the retirement age should also help. A large portion of the population does not pay into the healthcare system.

Re: Ill in England? Your Location Can Determine If You Live or Die

#53

Post by bruce511 »

thri737 wrote: post #44
bruce511 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. It's political suicide to bring up fairly obvious age/prognosis limits, but ultimately we all die of something. Assuming most disease based hospital stays (heart attacks strokes, cancers) are biased towards older folk it makes sense that resources to younger folk be prioritised. It makes -sense-, but asking a decent human to turf an "old person" out of bed because a "young person" has arrived (with a survivable,…

There is no need to kick anyone out of bed. You can adjust policy. For example no lockdowns, that sacrificed young people over old. I still have bad health from that. My daughter has developmental issues. And overweight people should not have publicly founded insurance. We should respect their wish to die! And no publicly founded health insurance for non-citizens. That even has strong political support!

Ok, that took a turn I wasn't expecting.

So no overweight people. Hmm. I'm not sure what the cut-off for overweight is...

I guess, if we're going to police lifestyles from a health point of view, we should exclude smokers, vapers and drinkers from the list as well? Apparently no amount if alcohol is good for you...so....?

While we're at it what about red meat consumption? Thats not great in excess.

Oh, and motor-bikes. There's no good reason for those, and they're like accident magnets.

I guess what I'm saying is that once you start down the path of determining non-qualifying behaviors, it's hard to stop. Surely all of us would be disqualified sooner or later.

Re: Ill in England? Your Location Can Determine If You Live or Die

#54

Post by dkh »

opportune wrote: post #45
dangus wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Explain how Japan has the #2 best healthcare system in the world then. (It’s universal with 70% of costs paid by the government)

I don’t like “exceptionalism” arguments in general, and I think “muh homogeneity” is bunk as well, but Japan has a very strong and unique culture that results in outcomes that the rest of the world would not see in the same conditions. See for example Japan having very few public trash cans but also very low amounts of litter, or even very low wage workers taking pride in their jobs, or Japan having both extremely lo…

This. You see this effect to some extent in Switzerland as well. Switzerland, many seem to feel, is "similar enough" to the United States that the existence of its universal healthcare system "seems" like a goal should be similarly within our reach. But this is to discount cultural differences, among other things, and the mindset of the average Swiss is I think quite different than that of the average American.

Some time ago I read 2 different books on healthcare systems, both very detailed, the authors having compared in-depth the many styles of healthcare systems in existence in addition to having relocated for some time to some of the locations to get a personal look. And despite all the complexities involved in such comparisons, both came to the same very basic conclusion: Healthcare systems are a reflection of the mindset of the country's citizens; Americans won't get universal healthcare until the average American believes that other Americans deserve it.

Re: Ill in England? Your Location Can Determine If You Live or Die

#55

Post by seanmcdirmid »

dkh wrote: post #54
opportune wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t like “exceptionalism” arguments in general, and I think “muh homogeneity” is bunk as well, but Japan has a very strong and unique culture that results in outcomes that the rest of the world would not see in the same conditions. See for example Japan having very few public trash cans but also very low amounts of litter, or even very low wage workers taking pride in their jobs, or Japan having both extremely lo…

This. You see this effect to some extent in Switzerland as well. Switzerland, many seem to feel, is "similar enough" to the United States that the existence of its universal healthcare system "seems" like a goal should be similarly within our reach. But this is to discount cultural differences, among other things, and the mindset of the average Swiss is I think quite different than that of the average American. Some…

The Swiss are big into responsibility: you must buy health insurance because we don’t want to pay for your healthcare when you need it (and lots of other mandatory insurance, eg bike and gun insurance, things that hardly exist in the USA ). They will give subsidies to those that can’t afford premiums, but otherwise you must buy it or else you are being a burden to your neighbors. It isn’t about people “deserving” healthcare than it is forcing people to take responsibility. The market is made even by disallowing group plans; you aren’t allowed to get it as a benefit at work and must pay for your premiums with post tax money.

The USA is weird in comparison: you get immediate healthcare even if you can’t afford it, with everyone else just paying for those who can’t or don’t want insurance. If Americans don’t want universal healthcare because they don’t think some Americans don’t deserve healthcare, they are doing that really wrong.

Re: Ill in England? Your Location Can Determine If You Live or Die

#56

Post by dkh »

rootusrootus wrote: post #10

Which country has the best health care in Europe? And what makes it the best solution? I ask from the perspective of an American, with access to great health care but it’s expensive. If we were going to reinvent health care here, who should we copy?

I wish there were a quick/easy answer here (we all prefer would to read those) but the truth is that it's not that simple. Even among the nations with excellent universal healthcare systems, most differ from each other in pretty significant ways. This is in part because no two countries are the same, and every detail can have a big effect on what system would work best for them. There are certainly stats-friendly ones about population, economics, and politics. But there are also equally-important ones that are cultural and harder to quantify--for instance, in some countries the people have a distrust of doctors, or a cultural aversion to visiting the doctor unless absolutely necessary, and that factors into the best design for that country, based on how it would be used.

What I can recommend is a great book that compares all the systems, through the lens of an American with the same question you have, called The Healing of America by T.R. Reid. Highly recommended.

Re: Ill in England? Your Location Can Determine If You Live or Die

#57

Post by dkh »

themitigating wrote: post #21
rootusrootus wrote: post #10

Which country has the best health care in Europe? And what makes it the best solution? I ask from the perspective of an American, with access to great health care but it’s expensive. If we were going to reinvent health care here, who should we copy?

"American, with access to great health care but it’s expensive" Price counts though right? If you can't afford healthcare in the US then for you it's the worst system

In my view, a big part of problem the here is how individuals view the costs/quality relative only to themselves and not to those of a different socioeconomic status.

Re: Ill in England? Your Location Can Determine If You Live or Die

#58

Post by dkh »

skissane wrote: post #50
dkh wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this? All other things equal, certain companies simply get to jump the line over others?

I’ve personally experienced insurers having different “levels” of plans, and some employers pay for a higher level of cover than others. Once, I switched employers, my new employer perchance used the same health insurer as my old employer-but at a lower level of coverage.

I've seen and experienced this as well, but not to the point where calling the same doctor for an appointment would get me in earlier or later. More typically I have access to different doctors altogether, or need approval for certain doctors, or have different out-of-pocket costs.

Re: Ill in England? Your Location Can Determine If You Live or Die

#59

Post by throwawaylinux »

sefrost wrote: post #41
gruez wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think it’s amazing that a solid system can be defunded like that until it just sorta crumbles under it’s own weight "defunded"? Maybe if you're comparing post pandemic budgets to pandemic budgets, but spending is still way up compared to pre-pandemic levels. [1] https://flo.uri.sh/visualisation/12020081/embed?auto=1

I want to add some extra data for other people. The UK has an aging population. Old people need more healthcare spending. If we adjust the data for age and demographic changes, then we can see spending was reduced between 2010 and 2021. https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/the-past-present-...

It is pretty blatant dishonesty to call it defunded or reduced spending though, as much as some ideologues like to claim it is.

Re: Ill in England? Your Location Can Determine If You Live or Die

#60

Post by throwawaylinux »

photonerd wrote: post #43
gruez wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think it’s amazing that a solid system can be defunded like that until it just sorta crumbles under it’s own weight "defunded"? Maybe if you're comparing post pandemic budgets to pandemic budgets, but spending is still way up compared to pre-pandemic levels. [1] https://flo.uri.sh/visualisation/12020081/embed?auto=1

The NHS has been underfunded for about 40 years, but especially under Conservative government. Blair’s Labour—for all their faults—at least stopped the bleeding, but there wasn’t enough political & popular support for significantly increased spending. Then Cameron & his bs “austerity measures” cropped it

> Blair’s Labour—for all their faults—at least stopped the bleeding,

Stopped the figurative bleeding and started the literal...

But by stopped the bleeding, do you mean kept at levels comparable to those set by the previous conservative government? I.e., agreeing with the level of funding set by the conservative government.

I find it weird how governments are given a pass in that way. Setting funding from X to Y is a horrific crime, but leaving it at Y when you have the power to change it to X is somehow okay.

Post reply on HN