If I was in a public system, I’d fear I’d be fighting for attention alongside the general public, so I’m not convinced it would be better.
Sincerely, if anyone can explain to me - how can we as a species both have figured out game theory, AND consider this as a position that is in any way acceptable?
The current situation is that the parent poster has preferential healthcare access, and other people that they do not care about do not. The alternative is equal treatment which might mean the same access, or worse access as they are forced to "fight for attention alongside the general public" as they so blithely put it.
Given the option between the status quo, or a change which can only ever be the same or worse for you personally (regardless of the broader impact), of course someone self-centered would choose the former.
It's people in the middle who are getting squeezed by HDHPs, mostly not the poor, who have access to Medicaid (exact qualifications vary by state) or Medicare (everyone 65+).
"Wait" can be defined very differently. Wait time to get triaged by a nurse? An ECG for chest pains? Initial physician assessment? Entry-to-exit? Lab results? Time to X-Ray if needed?
Lots of directives may be in place too. In an efficient system, the nurse is empowered to "order" many procedures that screen out serious things that require immediate physician intervention. Or just to save time like ordering an X-Ray first instead of waiting to see a doctor to order it and then waiting again for it to come back to review.
https://projects.propublica.org/emergency/
Where I live, all in driving distance have an average wait time more than 2.5 hours.
I've waited less than an hour in New Jersey and Connecticut.
When I still lived in NYC, I resolved that if I needed a hospital but I wasn't in extremely bad shape, I would drive an hour into an adjacent state's ER rather than wait in NYC.
Coming in via an ambulance doesn't trigger some sort of re-prioritzation, if you're not suffering from something that is immediately life threatening.
In most NYC hospitals, you will end up in a secondary waiting area that lies just beyond the regular ER doors.
Good luck if it's a Saturday night.
This ~92% insured in 2020 includes:
- People subscribed to unusable ACA and private plans (eg: $9100 deductibles)
- People considered eligible for Medicaid by CMCS, including those who are denied coverage by state administration agencies
- Millions of people who were directly granted temporary Covid Medicaid coverage by CMCS (bypassing state agencies) - which expires in days
[1] FCC broadband maps consider an entire census tract served, as long as an ISP alleges just one house there can be served.
Contrast this with Europe, where I could get a doctor to make a house call at 3am for a reasonable fee.
Are you basing this fear on any sort of facts or are you just afraid out of ignorance?
I live in Massachusetts. I would take a public system over what we have now, no questions asked.
Ah yes, how dare the plebs interfere with the path of the chosen ones.
This anecdotal evidence is garbage.
Are you not a part of the "general public"? If it is true that there is a class of people who don't have your advantages and therefore have worse medical care, is that a situation that you see as acceptable?
It always seems strange to me when people argue this about this issue from a hypothetical perspective, when we have a wealth of actual data that we can use to compare health outcomes. We can just look at the results and see what works better!
https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2022/07/how-does-the-us-healthcare...
(TLDR: the US spends much more per capita on healthcare, especially in administrative costs, and has worse health outcomes than most wealthy countries).
The answer is obviously yes, given that they don't want the "general public" to have the same level of access and make them potentially have to endure any longer waits. Their convenience is more important than the health of others.