Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

Reactions
25 1 0
To clarify that point slightly, the wait time to initially see a medical professional (physician, PA, or NP) averaged 30 minutes (looks like roughly 10 minutes for cases marked as "immediate" (i.e. critical). Meanwhile, the average time to receive/complete treatment was roughly on the order of 1.5-3+ hours (defined as the time from first contact with the medical professional to either discharge or transfer to another medical care facility).

I find it interesting, if not surprising, that the "emergent" cases (less serious than "immediate," but more serious than all other case types) had the longest treatment times, likely due to the times being skewed long when it was proving difficult to find a bed within or at a nearby facility that could admit the patient.

The CDC data (2010-2011 data, reported in 2014) referenced in the USNReport, for your graphical enjoyment.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
6,099 1,288 27
To clarify that point slightly, the wait time to initially see a medical professional (physician, PA, or NP) averaged 30 minutes (looks like roughly 10 minutes for cases marked as "immediate" (i.e. critical).
But that's really what we're talking about, isn't it? Time between initial check-in and getting to see a doctor.

Really, if I'm having a problem serious enough to necessitate going to the emergency room, I'd be kind of surprised to be done and out within 3 hours.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
6,099 1,288 27
3 of those are in New York, and one in LA.

Color me unsurprised.

Sure, it "happens" in the us, too... But apparently it's even more common in Canada than Even my dim estimates would have guessed..
 
Last edited:
Reactions
25 1 0
But that's really what we're talking about, isn't it? Time between initial check-in and getting to see a doctor.
I imagine most people's idea of "wait time at the ER" reflects the latter, actually (time from walking through the door to receiving treatment), possibly because they don't necessarily realize that they are being evaluated/triaged when they are examined by a PA/NP. For example, the article posted originally about the woman who died indicated that "her vitals were normal," and that "she was left in the waiting room in severe pain, waiting for hours before she was finally seen." Per the woman's sister, labwork revealed that the woman was in renal failure. So, she was indeed examined by a medical professional and had her blood drawn prior to the 11 hour mark, but it appears that she was not triaged sufficiently highly based on the outcome. And the majority of the reddit comments are either ambiguous or breeze past the initial evaluation when recollecting their wait times, so their initial evaluation could fall within or close to the reported CDC data; we don't have sufficient information to tell.

No argument from me that more ER doctors would drastically improve morbidity/mortality outcomes and overall patient care, not to mention improving quality of working conditions for the ER staff themselves. (And I speak as someone currently working primarily as an emergency doctor, albeit in veterinary medicine! They can keep their sick people; I'll take sick horses and llamas instead anyday!)
 
Reactions
1,942 565 15
Somewhere in here is the argument that ERs might not see such long wait times if preventative medicine were more accessible and "Just go to the ER, they have to treat you!" was not touted as an alternative to actual health insurance.

Also:
I cast "Summon Bigger Fish."
WISH GRANTED

--Patrick
 
Last edited:
Reactions
1,014 333 5
https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2018/11/03/losing-laura/WJrAFwMTYs1zwPfH5nTvGM/story.html

Somerville, pop 80000.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5884487&page=1

Dallas, story itself is about all the Americans with stories of people waiting hours at the ER.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news...-away-ascension-franklin-hospital/2472726002/

Dude dies at home after being turned away from a hospital in Wisconsin.

This is 30 seconds of Googling. Maybe anecdotal evidence isn't the best way to go about it. I'm not saying things are perfect but singling out Canadian ERs when the problem is just as present all over the US is silly.
 
Reactions
50 3 3
But that's really what we're talking about, isn't it? Time between initial check-in and getting to see a doctor.
Probably not. I know I've never really cared about when I saw the first nurse, just how long it took till I got treatment.

Course that's a big problem when you're dealing with anecdotal evidence you have no idea how people are defining wait times.
 
Reactions
732 42 1
Malpractice for sure, but malpractice is not intrinsic to capitalist (or socialist) healthcare... there can be a quack anywhere.
There's... uh... some evidence that it might not be "malpractice" as it were. Like, this guy might have been a serial killer. I was just posting it because it tangentially related to the healthcare topic.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
6,099 1,288 27
This is 30 seconds of Googling. Maybe anecdotal evidence isn't the best way to go about it. I'm not saying things are perfect but singling out Canadian ERs when the problem is just as present all over the US is silly.
Well, let's go more generalized then - according to wikipedia (I know, I know, but it's just general, sourced info we're after, isn't it?)

As reported by the Health Council of Canada, a 2010 Commonwealth survey found that 39% of Canadians waited 2 hours or more in the emergency room, versus 31% in the U.S.; 43% waited 4 weeks or more to see a specialist, versus 10% in the U.S. The same survey states that 37% of Canadians say it is difficult to access care after hours (evenings, weekends or holidays) without going to the emergency department over 34% of Americans. Furthermore, 47% of Canadians and 50% of Americans who visited emergency departments over the past two years feel that they could have been treated at their normal place of care if they were able to get an appointment.[51]

A report published by Health Canada in 2008 included statistics on self-reported wait times for diagnostic services.[52] The median wait time for diagnostic services such as MRI and CAT scans is two weeks with 89.5% waiting less than 3 months.[52][53] The median wait time to see a special physician is a little over four weeks with 86.4% waiting less than 3 months.[52][54] The median wait time for surgery is a little over four weeks with 82.2% waiting less than 3 months.[52][55] In the U.S., patients on Medicaid, the low-income government programs, can wait three months or more to see specialists. Because Medicaid payments are low, some have claimed that some doctors do not want to see Medicaid patients. For example, in Benton Harbor, Michigan, specialists agreed to spend one afternoon every week or two at a Medicaid clinic, which meant that Medicaid patients had to make appointments not at the doctor's office, but at the clinic, where appointments had to be booked months in advance.[56] A 2009 study found that on average the wait in the United States to see a medical specialist is 20.5 days.[57]
So there's a definite pattern here, though it's a little funny to see that despite being noticeably quicker, pretty much just as many people are unhappy with healthcare times in the US as Canada.

Course that's a big problem when you're dealing with anecdotal evidence you have no idea how people are defining wait times.
Well, that's true.

There's... uh... some evidence that it might not be "malpractice" as it were. Like, this guy might have been a serial killer. I was just posting it because it tangentially related to the healthcare topic.
You know, that thought occurred to me, too, but I thought if I said "that's just a serial killer, it doesn't have bearing on the topic of comparing the health care systems" it'd sound like I was trying to deflect.
 
Reactions
574 254 7
What you're leaving out, though, because it won't show up in those numbers, is the ridiculous amount of Americans who postpone or forego important to even life saving treatment or check-ups because of cost (money or time).
 
Reactions
376 62 1
What you're leaving out, though, because it won't show up in those numbers, is the ridiculous amount of Americans who postpone or forego important to even life saving treatment or check-ups because of cost (money or time).
This is true. There was a lady who cancelled her cleaning at the dental clinic here because she couldn't afford the $25. Lord knows the kind of treatment she'll need later on if she never even gets that done.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
Reactions
1,930 265 3
What you're leaving out, though, because it won't show up in those numbers, is the ridiculous amount of Americans who postpone or forego important to even life saving treatment or check-ups because of cost (money or time).
This is true, and there are so many more factors here than just wait time. Wait times do not necessarily correlate with quality of care. Rushing people through the system can cause as many problems as not getting to people fast enough. How many people in the US die because they were "stabilized" and shoved out the door with no follow-up care?
 
Reactions
539 73 2
True story - I was supposed to get a root canal 8 months ago. No dental insurance, can't afford it. Just gonna hope it doesn't kill me anytime soon.
 
Reactions
1,942 565 15
True story - I was supposed to get a root canal 8 months ago. No dental insurance, can't afford it. Just gonna hope it doesn't kill me anytime soon.
Any dentist will tell you, dental care is probably the first “essential” care people will dump in order to save money.

—Patrick
 
Reactions
1,503 279 4
True story - I was supposed to get a root canal 8 months ago. No dental insurance, can't afford it. Just gonna hope it doesn't kill me anytime soon.
My husband needed one when we were broke 15 years ago, so he had a dental student do it AND didn't get anesthesia to save money. So you could go that route, but I guarantee my husband would tell you that it is a horrific experience and to not.
 
Reactions
539 73 2
I'm just gonna do like I'm doing with my broken wisdom tooth. Ignore it until I can afford to have it fixed.
 
Reactions
1,942 565 15
I [would] risk an infection going into the sinus and destroying my eye or even causing brain damage. But hey, for-profit healthcare!
Nah, they are entitled to that profit to keep their business(es) operating. Your continued suffering is just the proof that you refuse to properly prioritize your expenditures.

/s

—Patrick
 
Reactions
539 73 2
Nah, they are entitled to that profit to keep their business(es) operating. Your continued suffering is just the proof that you refuse to properly prioritize your expenditures.

/s

—Patrick
Life is so absurd that satire is no longer recognizable.
 
Reactions
126 19 4
As someone that had to take a loan against his 401k for major dental *with crappy insurance* services . . ..

*adjusts his new top temporay denture and prays for when he can chew real food again
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
6,099 1,288 27
You were part of that discussion!

Omg I just found that. Does...does gas, the small government libertarian believe that tying voting rights to military service is a good idea?
I was summarizing Early-Heinlein's point of view there, but yes, I've also said I'd support that a number of times over the last 20 years I've been on this forum :p
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
6,099 1,288 27
A small, unobtrusive government that *checks notes* prioritized the military above all else.
The military IS, after all, one of those things that ONLY government can do. If you think libertarians want to privatize that (or not have a standing military) you understand even less about libertarianism than I could have thought possible.
 
Reactions
578 74 10
Universal unconditional sufferage is not required for a small, uninvasive government.
No, just one for a democracy that actually represents all of it's constituents, and not just a small group.

It's not like we have any examples of a limited democracy allowing slavery and oppressing women...

But at least your veterens would be better treated, since they'd be the only ones allowed to vote... maybe then they'd actually get help with their PTSD!

The military IS, after all, one of those things that ONLY government can do. If you think libertarians want to privatize that (or not have a standing military) you understand even less about libertarianism than I could have thought possible.
That's not what he said.
 
Top