As an EMS provider, I see the same thing. I saw a man the other night who was "sick". An older gentleman, not a "frequent flier", but someone who genuinely should be in the hospital. He was suffering dizziness, and had passed out getting out of bed, and was now experiencing abnormally high blood pressure, a racing pulse, and while an ECG was clear, there was concern over heart issues.
I suggested we take him to the hospital. He refused. "I can't afford that. They're already chasing me for $16,000". He worried that they'd refuse to treat him. I informed him that legally, they were obligated to, but of course that would cost money.
In the end, he stayed home. His wife promised to either call us again if he got particularly worse, but both of them were reluctant, even then, for him to go via ambulance - "At least that way we can save about $1,000".
It is a sad day in a civilized, modern society when fundamental decisions on healthcare are made purely on finances, not quality of life.
> It is a sad day in a civilized, modern society when fundamental decisions on healthcare are made purely on finances, not quality of life.
I don't understand how you were sold on the idea that you are in a civilised society when one of the fundamental aspects of living in one is that your neighbours will help you when you can't help yourself.
I suggested we take him to the hospital. He refused. "I can't afford that. They're already chasing me for $16,000". He worried that they'd refuse to treat him. I informed him that legally, they were obligated to, but of course that would cost money.
In the end, he stayed home. His wife promised to either call us again if he got particularly worse, but both of them were reluctant, even then, for him to go via ambulance - "At least that way we can save about $1,000".
It is a sad day in a civilized, modern society when fundamental decisions on healthcare are made purely on finances, not quality of life.