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

The Amish health care system

slatestarcodex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–327 of 327 posts

Re: The Amish health care system

#321

Post by bawana »

arkades wrote: post #267
solveit wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't cost 3k to have an MD do stitches. That money's going somewhere else (Actual experts may or may not know where).

Cost of ER, as has been said on a million posts like this throughout HN's history, are due to the fact that you're taking up one of the highest-overhead spaces in the hospital, a lot of which is malpractice-insurance-related. The criticism almost inevitably goes like this, "I went to (the absolute most expensive service center for service X) and it cost a shit-ton!" And it's almost inevitably quoting the price for an…

can I say 'bullshit' here without being rude? Hospitals ONLY provide services they can profit from. They could have a doc in an office to do the stitching you refer to. And save a crap ton on overhead. By offering a 'luxury pathway' not only do they up their profit, they make everyone else who is trying to save money for the system look bad. Hospitals CHOOSE not to offer cost effective care because there is less profit in it. And then they hide behind Stark regulations - 'we cannot help private practitioners, sorry'.

Re: The Amish health care system

#322

Post by peter_d_sherman »

grandmczeb wrote: post #318
peter_d_sherman wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would this be known, without conducting double-blind studies?

Again, pretty much everything you mentioned has been studied quite a bit. Yes, even with double blind studies (e.g. [1] to pick one at complete random). Some of the things you mentioned (diet, exercise, sleep) literally have entire subfields of medicine devoted to them. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3514135/

If it's been studied a bit, and it helps people's health, then why isn't it prescribed?

Re: The Amish health care system

#323

Post by pmiller2 »

bmelton wrote: post #320
pmiller2 wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mischaracterizing M4A as a policy is what I'm considering "right wing spin," not "reputably sourced facts and direct quotes." Yours are exactly the words I would expect to hear from scaremongers in Washington telling people M4A "takes your freedom of choice away." If you can go to any doctor or medical facility and have your coverage accepted, and also have as much supplemental coverage as you want, again, how is tha…

> Mischaracterizing M4A as a policy I did not do that > Yours are exactly the words I would expect to hear from scaremongers I quote the author and it's scaremongering? Yeah, count me out of this conversation altogether. You've uncharitably interpreted what I'm saying, and are doubling down on the sort of rhetoric I explicitly stated having no interest in.

You are spreading deliberate falsehoods. That is literally the definition of "mischaracterizing." As for "scaremongering," or "right wing spin," do you have a better word for amplifying the "you're going to lose your freedom of choice" meme by saying private insurance and private hospitals would be banned?

And, as for the conversation, you were supposed to be out already. It would be better if you stayed out rather than amplifying false statements. If you want to critique M4A, then quote the actual policies put out, not the rhetoric.

Re: The Amish health care system

#324

Post by onei »

etripe wrote: post #210
onei wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There isn’t a legal requirement to have gone to programming school before one can practice software development. (And a good thing too!) The vast majority of developers cannot kill you if they screw up. In the cases where that isn't true, e.g. software for medical equipment, I'd expect to find some significantly higher hurdles to get past before you can release that software. We don't generally require developers t…

> their output can be measured in other standardised ways nonetheless. What are these standardised ways to measure developer output? I've never seen any, beyond "burndown charts" and "LOC", which I don't believe pass the sniff test.

One example of a standard software might comply with is MISRA C [1]. For that, you ignore a large chunk of the C language to something much less prone to bugs. Others might be HIPAA compliance, how you handle personal information to be compliant with GDPR or the VW diesel emissions scandal a few years ago.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MISRA_C

Re: The Amish health care system

#326

Post by bmelton »

pmiller2 wrote: post #323
bmelton wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mischaracterizing M4A as a policy I did not do that > Yours are exactly the words I would expect to hear from scaremongers I quote the author and it's scaremongering? Yeah, count me out of this conversation altogether. You've uncharitably interpreted what I'm saying, and are doubling down on the sort of rhetoric I explicitly stated having no interest in.

You are spreading deliberate falsehoods. That is literally the definition of "mischaracterizing." As for "scaremongering," or "right wing spin," do you have a better word for amplifying the "you're going to lose your freedom of choice" meme by saying private insurance and private hospitals would be banned? And, as for the conversation, you were supposed to be out already. It would be better if you stayed out rather t…

a) I'm not spreading falsehoods.

b) I've made no critiques of M4A.

c) You're wrong to the point of malice, perhaps deliberately.

Re: The Amish health care system

#327

Post by grandmczeb »

peter_d_sherman wrote: post #322
grandmczeb wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, pretty much everything you mentioned has been studied quite a bit. Yes, even with double blind studies (e.g. [1] to pick one at complete random). Some of the things you mentioned (diet, exercise, sleep) literally have entire subfields of medicine devoted to them. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3514135/

If it's been studied a bit, and it helps people's health, then why isn't it prescribed?

When the evidence says they help they usually are. Losing weight, sleeping more, prenatal vitamins, etc, are all regularly recommended or prescribed by doctors. But, again, the issue is that most of the time the evidence is either inconclusive or says they don’t help.
Post reply on HN