Slashdot Mirror
Passengers Who Call Uber Instead Of An Ambulance Put Drivers At Risk (buzzfeed.com)
Sick people are increasingly using ride-hail to get to the emergency room, putting drivers in an uncomfortable position and a potentially tricky legal bind, BuzzFeed News reports. From the report: Mike Fish was driving for Uber 10 minutes outside of Boston when he picked up a second passenger in his Uber Pool who, he said, seemed "out of it, drowsy -- almost sedated." When the drowsy passenger asked him if Boston's Mass General hospital was the nearest emergency room, "that set off a red flag," Fish told BuzzFeed News. "I said, 'Do you need the ER?' He said yes. It came out that, over the last few days, he'd been passing out and losing consciousness." But instead of calling an ambulance to get the urgent medical attention he needed, the sick passenger called an Uber Pool. The shared ride would save him a few bucks, but it meant he'd have to wait for Fish to drop off the first passenger before he'd get to the ER. "I was a little nervous," Fish said. "I didn't know what was going to happen."
Ride-hail drivers are, by and large, untrained, self-employed workers driving their own cars on a part-time basis. They're not medical professionals. But as health care costs have risen and ride-hail has become more pervasive, people are increasingly relying on Uber and Lyft drivers to get them to the hospital when they need emergency care. A recent (yet to be peer-reviewed) study found that, after Uber enters new markets, the rates of ambulance rides typically go down, meaning fewer people call professionals in favor of the cheaper option.
Ride-hail drivers are, by and large, untrained, self-employed workers driving their own cars on a part-time basis. They're not medical professionals. But as health care costs have risen and ride-hail has become more pervasive, people are increasingly relying on Uber and Lyft drivers to get them to the hospital when they need emergency care. A recent (yet to be peer-reviewed) study found that, after Uber enters new markets, the rates of ambulance rides typically go down, meaning fewer people call professionals in favor of the cheaper option.
More like $15-$25 vs $500-$1000+ more then a few bucks.
At least they're not burdened by socialised health care and free-at-the-point-of-use ambulances. Let the markets decide whether they live or die!
You get to keep all the cool cash. But no liability! Hey, it worked with "uber is not a taxi company" schtick, why not now?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Come to Europe. Over here, we think it's wrong to profit from human suffering.
Good Samaritan laws exist for a reason.
Ambulances cost money no matter where you are. The only difference is what entity soaks up the cost of the ambulance. In the US, the cost of the service is placed directly on the person using the service, unless that person pays protection money to the mafia; er, excuse me. That should read premiums to an insurance company.
Surely no-one will try to argue that Uber is a ride sharing company now?
After a motorcycle accident I was transported to a hospital for a strained shoulder. 24 hours later a firefighter showed up at my door and wedged an invoice under the threshhold. The bill? $1750.
Now this story has an amicable ending because insurance covered this, however like all american healthcare its invoice-first. You're on the hook to pay for this service until you can claim or prove hardship, which in this case required two pay stubs and a gas bill. so if you get paid biweekly, thats a month without paying this bill, which is more than enough time for collectors to begin calling. This assumes you can immediately return to work to get paid, and most ambulance rides mean you arent going back to work anytime soon.
the irony is that if companies like Uber paid any taxes at all, we might have a competent ambulance service that didnt cost as much as a used car.
Good people go to bed earlier.
but honestly, who wants to pay for single payer healthcare? I mean, the cost alone is -$17 trillion
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I've had to go to the ER for a non life threatening injury that prevented me from driving myself. I wish I would have though to call Uber or a cab. It would have saved me thousands.
It's really more of a statement on the cost of an Ambulance ride.
Yes calling Uber or Lyft is not the right choice. They are not medical professionals, if you need care during the ride you are not going to get it. If you are infectious you could cost them days of work as they recover from your disease or cause your disease to spread not only to the driver but to anyone they carry after you. And the liability if your "illness" turns fatal on them.
But then again when a simple Ambulance ride will start at over $1000, if the patient has no insurance or cheap insurance that won't cover it, it can be the only real option they can hope to afford. Even with insurance the cost might be more than they can afford. yes the service has to be paid for but Ambulances are too expensive, claiming they over-charge those who can pay to make up for the poor and indigent patients. Reign in the costs. Or people will keep using Uber and Lyft, or Taxi's to get to medical care without breaking the bank (the Dr./Hospital get to break their bank instead).
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Unfortunately the ambulance ride tree doesn't grow here, so we're forced to do things differently.If you were to make ambulance rides free here then you'd have plenty of jagoffs with minor, non-serious injuries calling them because they're entitled narcissistic shitheads that think their cut hand is as serious as someone else's stabbing.
Ambulances should only be used is the person needs some form of care en route to the hospital or has suffered injuries where they shouldn't be moved or handled by non-trained professionals. Otherwise, there are plenty of situations where it's probably better not to call an ambulance, especially if someone else is there and can take them to the hospital much faster.
Which such a shitty health system, people use whatever they can to save some extortion money.
Hundreds of thousands also drive to Canada/Mexico or even Cuba (not drive:-) to get drugs and hospital care.
We live in such economic times with low income owing to stagnant wages (adjusted for inflation), inflation and expensive health care and what does the younger generation do in response to this? It does the math and picks Uber over the Ambulance because it's the economically practical thing to do to avoid being thrown out on the street. They also decide it's worth the additional risk to their lives from an economic perspective. At what point does America itself not recognize that we have serious social problems that we desperately need leadership for? Sadly, true leadership is nowhere to be found and in fact there has been little or no leadership for about 18 years now on growing problems. Sad sad sad. I just finished watching a series of videos by Edelman on the trust barometer data that they've been collecting for 18 years and yes ladies and gentleman, this year, 2018, we hit the lowest point since they started collecting the data. They have a lot of great ideas about how to address the problem and it all takes this basic form: Leadership needs to step up to the plate.
I seriously don't know why no one will acknowledge these problems. The data is very clear.
We'll make great pets
I am in the USA.
Had a relative that needed to get to the hospital an hour away (where the specialists were).
Local hospital wanted to put him on an ambulance to take him there, probably would have been a $5-$10K ambulance ride. Situation was urgent, but not emergent. Next day, we hired an Uber for $60 to get him there, and a week later (after surgery) $40 to get him home. Pretty sad when that's the state of affairs, but (I hate this saying but I'll use it anyway) "it is what it is.".
The nurse at the local hospital was not amused when I asked her if we'd been magically transported to Canada when I asked about the cost of the ambulance ride.
Driving people around is a shitty job; especially the sorts you will get at bottom dollar. I guess it's their choice to work for Uber in that case.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Taxi drivers get a great deal of training on how to deal with situations like this and know what their legal responsibilities are. Also they get radio support from the dispatching station and will get higher priority from emergency services since, you know, they're actually legitimate.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
What a country.
Ambulances cost more to operate than a taxi or uber. I would be curious how countries that don't charge for ambulances prevent people from using them for non-emergencies. In the USA, if you call an ambulance, it will come pick you no matter what even if you don't have the ability to pay. Same with our Emergency Rooms. This has led to situations where people who don't have the ability to pay use ambulances and emergency rooms for non-emergencies because they know they won't see the bill and a free ambulance is cheaper (for them) than a $10 taxi ride but ends up costing the tax payers several orders of magnitude more than that.
The one thing that a lot of people don't realize about the USA system is that one reason the costs are higher than other countries is we don't ration care. If you're 85 and need open heart surgery and dialysis then you can get it done. All payments are done after the fact too so if you have money you will likely be penniless afterwards but if you're already penniless then you basically get your medical care for free. It's really a screwed up system because the USA basically already has universal health care for everyone once you are penniless. So those "freeloaders" everyone are worried about are already getting free health care and if you need a major surgery you basically have to either be rich, have good health insurance (and be healthy enough to keep your job), or file bankruptcy to get it.
EOM
Damping absorbs vibrations. Dampening is caused by moisture.
Some people are in bad shape and need medical attention or at least monitoring during their ride to the hospital. They clearly shouldn't be using Uber.
But others are stable and just need a ride. They clearly shouldn't be tying up an ambulance that someone else actually needs. In fact, Phoenix has a program where the fire department calls (and pays for) a cab for people like this who call 911.
So a bright-line rule for Uber drivers not to take people to hospitals would be bad. And as noted in the article but cropped from the summary, people take taxis to the hospital all the time. Both taxi and Uber drivers need to (gasp) use their judgment to decide whether to take a given passenger on a given ride. This sort of situation doesn't seem any different.
Honest question... When you take an Uber, don't you think about who has pissed/barfed/bled on the seat you're sitting on and wonder how deeply it has been cleaned? I would.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
if you've got a condition that is obviously not immediately dangerous what's the difference between a ride in a cab/Uber vs an ambulance besides the +$1,000 bill.
If you've got a condition that is obviously not immediately dangerous, maybe you should consider seeing your primary care physician rather than clogging up the queue at the ER. If you don't have a primary care physician, there are other alternatives to hospital emergency rooms, such as neighborhood clinics and urgent care facilities.
with a substantial bureaucratic overhead added in
As opposed to the current complete lack of bureaucratic overhead in the US healthcare system?
Ezekiel 23:20
Is the incidence of use "ride sharing" (Uber/Lyft/etc) over medical transport higher than say a cab?
If not, this is a non-issue.
you know, they're actually legitimate
Unless they were born out of wedlock, right?
Ezekiel 23:20
We've had ambulances called in our local district because the patient had run out of paracetamol. Couldn't be arsed to call a neighbour or friend to go to the local Tesco Extra.
At least in Canada there is a good chance your driver is a doctor from the Caribbean or Eastern Europe. Our Ambulance service is pretty good here in Canada but you would be shocked at how many Uber drivers are doctors from poorer countries.
I have only had to call an ambulance once in my life. The one time was for my stepdaughter who passed out and hit her head. By the time they got there, she was up and on her feet. She said she felt ok now, but they took her to the hospital anyway. The hospital is about 1/2 mile away from my apartment. The doctors said that she just got up too quick and whited out. Nothing to be concerned with and the bump on her head was not a concussion. About a month later, I got the bill. My out of pocket expense was $800 for a 2 minute ride. That was not even the the hospital bill! That was just for the ride in the ambulance! It was the first time I called an ambulance. I will never call again unless it is absolutely necessary! No wonder people call Uber!
Here in Finland the Social Insurance Institution actually will pay for your cab ride to a hospital for the part that exceeds 25 euros. That is, if you take a cab and the cost is 300 because of a long trip, you will pay 25 euros, the rest is covered by the state. Same goes for ambulances, the patient has to pay 25 euros for the ride to a hospital/nearest point of treatment. After that, once the patient is admitted to care, if he/she needs to be moved to another hospital for exams or treatment at a better equiped facilit, it is covered for by the single payer medical system, ie. the patient doesn't pay a dime for it.
I work for the Hospital district of Helsinki and Uusimaa and as the largest district in the country we're in charge of all the highly specialized care in Finland, for example all of the really complex surgeries are handled here. Because we're one of the larger countries in Europe, this means we routinely get patients from up north in Lapland traveling distances of close to 1000 kilometers to reach urgent treatment here. In situations of extreme urgency, helicopters are used, this is usually done for example in cases where the patient has an entire limb detached due to an accident and needs to be operated within hours for recovery to be viable. Donated organs are also routinely flown in with copters,
Obviously this isn't cheap, as transfering patients over long distances costs both in time of treatment staff as well as equipment an fuel costs. All that being said, our total medical expenditure for the public system is around 4040 dollars per capita, which is about 40,8 % of the 9890 dollars per capita spent in the States, according to the OECD..
In fact, as I've said before and I'll say again: every single universal model in existence is cheaper than the current US model, which is why every other OECD member has adopted some variation of a universal model, not all of which are single payer.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
I would be curious how countries that don't charge for ambulances prevent people from using them for non-emergencies.
Not curious enough for a Google search though I guess. Apparently you can be fined and even jailed in the UK for abusing the 999 emergency line. The only examples of actual jail time I found were for egregious offenders, such as calling the number thousands of times.
if you're already penniless then you basically get your medical care for free. [...] So those "freeloaders" everyone are worried about are already getting free health care and if you need a major surgery you basically have to either be rich, have good health insurance (and be healthy enough to keep your job), or file bankruptcy to get it.
You will get stabilized for free, but you most likely won't get elective surgery without the ability to pay for it. So this can be helpful while having a heart attack, but any treatment to make a later episode less likely will cost you. The U.S. does not simply give out free healthcare to anyone who cannot afford it.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
In the USA, if you call an ambulance, it will come pick you no matter what even if you don't have the ability to pay.
This is not true in Michigan where I live for residential addresses. If that address has an unpaid bill sent to collections they won't respond unless you can prove you are not the same resident. I live in an apartment complex and had to call EMS once and spent ~5 minutes on the phone confirming that I was not the former resident who had an unpaid bill. That's some seriously fucked up shit right there. I'm just lucky the delay in dispatching a unit wasn't life threatening. That time.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
The guy in west texas was forced to spend 30 grand because the hospital would not allow his son to transport him.
http://www.wfaa.com/article/ne...
Granted he was pretty dumb trying to snap a photo of a rattlesnake.
The air ambulance thing from what I hear is basically extortion.
The hospital won't come after you for that $100k. Not with any real force. Ambulance companies are billed out of a completely different bucket and they _will_ get their money. Ambulance companies have notoriously bad debt collection practices that most poor people are well aware of.
Furthermore, you can't file bankruptcy anymore. Not for real. All you can do is restructure your debt and pay it. It's one of the major legacies of the Bush Jr administration. They gutted the laws. If the judge likes you, you can pay slowly, but you'll still pay. If the judge doesn't like you your just boned. They'll order wage garnishment on behalf of private companies for amounts they see fit. If you're in the south you might end up in a debtors prison via contempt or court charges. The judge orders you to pay, you can't pay, they lock you up for contempt.
There's been a major shift in how debt works in this country that nobody really talks about. Considering our media is largely owned by billionaires that's not surprising. Regardless, what used to be unsecured debt is now secured against all future earnings and any property you might own when you die.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Yet Americans have chosen overwhelmingly to stay with the for profit system. You can't pick your prices in such a system.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
That's interesting. Canada is obviously also very geographically dispersed; some people come in to the hospital by plane or helicopter. There is still a small, highly subsidized charge for the travel because otherwise people would be making frivilous calls and consume resources. In such a free completely covered system, how do you prevent someone from faking a more serious condition in order to get a free ride?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
The only reason why I can think that this isn't an issue with cabs is that most cab drivers look like they are much more likely to cause a serious accident than help out with one.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
The first time a sick/injured person who does this dies or isn't treated in a timely manner sues Uber because an Uber driver didn't rush them to the hospital despite knowing they needed to visit the ER, Uber will institute a policy prohibiting drivers from asking passengers if they are sick/injured and need the ER.
That in turn will bite people who were fine when they got into the Uber car, but collapse / have a heart attack / have a stroke during the ride. The driver will then be prohibited from asking if they need assistance and will probably be required to assume they've just fallen asleep.
Here in Canada, ambulance fees varies by province, but they are subsided to a low rate - in Ontario it's $45, and in BC $40, for example. While it's true that we are ultimately paying the true cost of the service through taxes, ultimately it saves society as a whole money, precisely because people are a lot less reluctant to call an ambulance. With a subsidized ambulance service, people are more likely to call emergency services at the first sign of a medical issue, when the patient may be stabilized, and the cost to treat the patient is lower, instead of waiting for the situation to worsen to a point where costly critical intervention is needed.
One of the main reasons we subsidize ambulance costs in Canada is because it saves money in the medical system in the long term.
This is not rocket science. Charge people $900 for an ambulance call, and they'll start calling Uber instead. When I was researching my book on the rideshare industry I took four or five people to the hospital, including one who was really in bad shape. He was a former EMT, so he clearly understood the risks.
My dad had Medicare and it the last ambulance call still cost him $200 out of pocket. Even the copay was more expensive than Uber.
Charging for an ambulance is just wrong.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
While it might put Uber drivers at risk legally (which they more than likely would see Good Samaritan protections) a study showed that people who found their own ride to the hospital when shot or stabbed were 62% less likely to die on the way to the hospital. So Uber and lift actually make _better_ ambulances.
So the wealthy cover a little more for the poor to receive proper health care. I'm probably closer to the wealthy end of the spectrum and I don't mind it all, because society is noticeably more healthy overall as a result. Yes, we bitch and moan about bureaucracy costs, but at least we don't need to fight with or bend over for an insurance company every time we get sick and worry about lifetime caps and other bullshit.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
You believe a cab driver when he tells you that he's actually a doctor (or engineer, or whatever)?
Man, are you gullible.
I have known a number of doctors and engineers (have helped the engineers get accreditation in Canada) and, while the process can be difficult and a bit scary, if they're legitimate professionals, they will go through the process.
Amazingly enough, there are a ton of cardiologists driving cabs in Toronto that find the process of getting accredited too difficult which is a good thing if they can't navigate the Ontario Medical Association, I don't think they should be anywhere near a heart.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
You're funny.
Taxi drivers do not require any specialized training in dealing with emergency medical situations. And have no different legal responsibilities. As for "radio support".... What is this 1973? Uber drivers carry cell phones. They are perfectly capable of calling 911 if they believe something is a medical emergency. (which is actually BETTER than doing the exact same thing through a radio "dispatching station" as you cut out a layer of "middleman" as well as maintain more privacy vs an open radio channel)
As for "higher priority" you're being ridiculous. all 911 calls are handled based on the description of the incident, and not based on who is calling. It doesn't matter if a doctor calls 911 vs a 5 year old, MPDS doesn't care, and priorities are assigned based on the description of the incident, nothing more. And even if it was based on caller, I can guarantee you that "taxi driver" wouldn't be a class that would merit any special treatment from an EMS dispatcher.
Uber *IS* a taxi service by every single definition of the word. They only pretend to be different to avoid corrupt laws governing the existing industry. Somehow it's worked for them. But Taxi services aren't the saints they try to make themselves out to be. In most locations their training is nonexistent, and the only difference between the taxi and the Uber is that the Uber tends to provide better service at a lower cost.
More like $15-$25 vs $500-$1000+ more then a few bucks.
So, in other words a ripe market for disruption by a new technology firm? I'm not joking...
For the trip to be covered the hospital needs to confirm that the trip was required. That is, someone can take a cab or an ambulance to a hospital with the cost being 25, but unless the hospital agrees that the trip was required, the trip is not covered and will be charged from said person in its entirety.
This is enough to keep abuses minimal to my knowledge, meaning I'm at least not aware that people misusing the system would be a major issue cost-wise, even though I'm unable to provide you with exact figures as to the amount of these cases.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
I would have asked my next door neighbor. I've given them rides there before.
Most times an Ambulance isn't required. I don't see a problem here. If they choose an Uber over an ambulance, that's their chose.
Yeah. You self-diagnose and your results depend on how accurate your self-diagnosis is.
Guess wrong, you die. That's your choice. "I don't see a problem here" either, assuming "sometimes you guess wrong and die" is not considered a "problem".
According to wikipedia, Saskatchewan charges "Depending on the health region, $245 or $325 + $2.30/km". You think that is the full price you're paying??
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Well, where I am from, taxis are considered part of the overall transit solution because they are regulated to work with the city they operate in. There is a system in place to get them the medical response if they need it. You call it 'corruption' but you have to take the good and bad with it.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
The salaries (and equipment costs) of ambulances and medic units cover mostly idle time. Uber drivers are busy picking up rides to the airport and so are able to spread their costs.
Have gnu, will travel.
Until the US gets its head out of its ass, this will continue to happen. Heaven forbid we look at every other Western country on Earth to solve this type of "problem."
They had to vote on the ACA bill first before they could find out what was in it.
Yes... the Democrats passed the ACA after 79 hearings, and about two months of discussion, including multiple amendments from Republicans: https://mic.com/articles/17630...
I was paying attention to the Republican complaint at how "quickly" ACA was passed right up until I saw how they decided to do in the "repeal and replace" bill, which was NO hearings, a bill written in secret, and an attempt to pass the bill before the budget office even stated what the cost would be.
Not to mention provisions being added to the bill handwritten in the margins overnight before voting... which no senators or representatives actually admitted to adding https://www.vox.com/policy-and....
The Republicans did everything that they accused the Democrats of doing, but even more so.
I don't know why this is a story. There's absolutely nothing different here from the exact same incident on a city bus, or in a taxi, or when carpooling with your buddy next door (which is what Uber pretends they want to be). And you'd be incredibly naive to think that those versions of this same incident don't happen every single day.
From the driver's standpoint it's actually very simple too. Do you feel comfortable transporting this person to the destination they're paying to go to?
- Yes: Treat them as you treat every other paying passenger and take them to the destination and get paid.
- No: Refuse transport, as you would any other person you don't feel comfortable transporting, call 911 and request an ambulance.
If the patient refuses the ambulance when it gets there, that's not your problem, that's between the paramedics and the patient.
On slashdot we frequently repeat that "on a computer" or "on the internet" do not make an invention new and novel. Well "in an Uber" is the same thing for the transportation industry. "in an Uber" isn't new and novel. It's the same thing as everyone else has been doing since the first person carried another person to the tribe's medicine man. This is no different than a taxi or a city bus which run in to the same issue every single day.
Taxi drivers get a great deal of training on how to deal with situations like this and know what their legal responsibilities are. Also they get radio support from the dispatching station and will get higher priority from emergency services since, you know, they're actually legitimate.
Maybe in a place like New York. In a mid sized city, you are lucky if a taxi driver (that claims to have lived here all his life) knows where your neighborhood is.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
I can guarantee that the system to get them medical response if they need it is the public 911 system (or 999, or 112, or whatever your local emergency number is) I can also 100% guarantee that the taxis get no preferential treatment to that service when compared to any other person calling in an identical patient presentation. Now they may call their dispatch who then call the emergency number, instead of calling it direct, but that's not a point in their favour, that's a point against. Every layer of middleman you add to an emergency call slows down the response, and introduces more chances for error. The best thing those drivers could do (Uber or Taxi) is to call the emergency number themselves. If policy requires notifying their dispatch, that should be done only after they hang up with emergency services.
As for the regulation, and the "good with the bad", Most people have personal experience that shows that the "good" is pretty limited, and the "bad" translates to lousy service at inflated prices.
If you're passing out where I live, they make you go to the big hospital first.
The clinics won't see you, and even the local emergency room won't.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Calling Uber in this kind of situation puts the driver and other passengers at risk of having to help you or something. Instead, if you're passing out or having a heart attack or something like that, you should drive yourself to the hospital.
Oh you haven't seen inflated prices yet. Wait until Uber puts taxis out of business. Remember, Uber is losing billions of dollars ferrying you around right now and there are still reports of people getting gouged due to surge pricing. Imagine a world where people can't afford to go to certain parts of the city they are residents of. That is the world that Uber wants.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I don't see the alternative except paying the service through taxes, which is ultimately another form of premium, only compulsive and handled by some public entity.
Put any loser who can probably drive legally into ambulances and you'd cut costs!
Why does it take TWO people? Half the waste is the typically 2 people just to bring 1 person to the hospital!
Then you can save all that weight/space/fuel because nobody will be performing any medical aid at pickup or during the ride so why have a mini ER in a big heavy truck?
You can afford to wait before bleeding out! Just keep pressure on the wound with your cell phone! Your Uberlance will be right with you after completing their popular routes to the airport to drive way over to your low volume neighborhood.
Unconscious? Well you should have pre-tipped or pre-payed because how are they going to get a good rating from you now?
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I'm going to just assume you're a taxi driver, because you're doing well at repeating all their usual talking points.
That said, I'm no fan of Uber, I don't think they should exist at all to be honest. But that said, I think Taxi regulations should have stuck with regulating passenger safety and honest fares. Nothing more. Taxi regulations that limit the number of taxis, or impose a minimum price are the sole reason that Uber has managed to exist, and why they have enough popular support for people to ignore the fact that they are in fact taxis.
If taxi regulators weren't in the pocket of the taxi companies, there'd be no demand for Uber, and they'd have no public support when they try to enter a market and subvert the local taxi laws.
Government should guarantee that the taxi I get in to is safe, and that I won't be gouged by unscrupulous pricing. But beyond that the free market is far more efficient at deciding how many of these cars should be on the road, and what a fair fare is. The mere fact that so many people are willing to drive for Uber at pennies on the dollar compared to normal taxis just proves how over-priced the taxi market really is. Corrupt regulations have completely decoupled taxi fares from supply and demand, and people are fighting back by pretending that Ubers aren't taxis, and I don't blame them.
As for Uber putting taxis out of business and then jacking up the prices. I actually laughed at your suggestion, because your example is exactly the current situation for taxis. Taxis have a legal monopoly and have blocked anyone else from the market, which then resulted in the predictable end result of rates that are jacked up to ridiculous levels, and service has fallen to pitiful levels, all because you have no choice. Uber couldn't do that even if they wanted to, because there's competition from other "ride-sharing" services, as well as the taxi industry itself. If they put taxis out of business, and then raise their rates, someone will start a taxi company to undercut them, or another ride-sharing service will do so. There are already 2 big players in the space (Uber and Lyft) as well as dozens of smaller ones all waiting for Uber to make such a mistake. What Uber has done is create a competitive market place where none existed before, they are just as much slaves to that market as anyone else. This is hard for taxi companies that haven't had to play fair for many many decades, but it's no different from most other industries where competitive pressure is considered a normal part of doing business.
Paying insurance premiums does not mean that your ambulance ride will be covered. A family member used an ambulance and it was not an "in network service provider" so the cost was not covered. Same for the ER doc that saw my family member.
As if you call 911 and ask "I have [insurance provider]. Is that ambulance in network? No? Please send an ambulance that is in network. I'll wait" and then get to the ER and ask, "I have [insurance provider]. Are you in network? No? Then I'll wait until an ER doctor who is in network is available."
And they won't negotiate rates, and will happily send your bills to debt collection and ruin your credit rating.
Frankly, the cost of ambulance rides and ER doctors should be legally regulated, with mandatory coverage by insurance providers, to prevent this. Maybe there's a copay, and it might vary based on your coverage, but it shouldn't be a surprise.
it was a Republican program invented by the right wing "Heritage Foundation" (which is less a think tank and more a mouthpiece of the party meant to give it a veneer of psuedo-scientific legitimacy). The ACA was RomneyCare before it was Obamacare.
The scheme is to force everyone to buy private insurance in order to lower costs by increasing the pool. It doesn't work because once the profit motive is in play costs continue to rise. It _did_ slow the growth of costs, but it did nothing to remove the incentive for insurance companies to deny care or fix the problems of folks not paying their medical bills or skipping the doctor due to high copays and eventually using much, much more care for much worse conditions.
The ACA was the best bill we could get with a Congress full of Republicans and right wing ("Blue Dog") Democrats. The country needs to move left if we want to solve these problems. Funny thing is voters know that, which is why they elected Trump (who, if you just listened to his rhetoric and gave the jingoism a pass ran a left wing populist campaign). Sadly Trump, like the ACA, isn't really going to solve any problems; heck, so far he seems to be making things worse. We get the jingoism without the populism...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
That's why you charge a small fee. Here in BC, it was $50 when I needed one some years back, might be $75 now. Enough to stop frivolous use without bankrupting people. I don't know what it would cost for someone without coverage but an ER visit is only about $500 for a foreigner.
Funny enough, just got a call from a friend who needs a ride to ER.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Here in BC, they charge something like $50 (might now be $75) for that 85 year old to get to the hospital for non-rationed open heart surgery and dialysis. Sister just had to have open heart surgery, had to wait 4 hours for it as she arrived in the middle of the night. I'd guess that even in the States, there are limited numbers of surgeons available forcing rationing at times, eg 6 people show up at the hospital needing open heart surgery and dialysis and there is only 3 surgeons and 3 dialysis machines, there is going to be rationing, usually described as triaging.
What is rationed are things like a new knee for that 85 year old, who might not get till they're 86.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Taxis have a legal monopoly
I live in a small city and there are five taxi companies. In a large city such as New York, there are 20 or more. There are no monopolies. The market may have barriers to entry, but so do many. I can't just set up shop and sell prescription drugs, or be a cellphone provider.
end result of rates that are jacked up to ridiculous levels
In my city, they charge what they are regulated to charge. Nothing is 'jacked up'. Seat limits and price regulation exist because without them you have no way to limit congestion.
Are taxi companies providing the best service they could? Absolutely not. But I don't think for a second Uber will stay as clean as it presently is 15 years down the road either.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
and honestly for most debts they do. What companies have taken to doing is buying up a lot of debt from the same consumer to make it worthwhile to sue. It works because the courts and legal system now do the collection for them (once the initial paper work has been filed). Of course if the amount is high enough they won't sell the debt, they'll do it themselves. From what I can tell the threshold's around $3k-$5k, but I've been out of debt for a while (knock on wood) so it's hard to tell.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
and you don't have any medical emergencies. Or any kind of emergency whatsoever. And you don't have kids in college. Or you're OK with not giving them much support. Or you've won the genetic lottery and they got a full ride on a sports or academic scholarship. Or your job doesn't get shipped overseas when you're over 40. Or...
I could keep going on, but the fact is with wages being in decline for 40 years it's bloody _hard_ to stay out of debt.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
It's an effective monopoly because the prices are all identical between the companies, and the barrier to entry is 100% absolute. It is illegal to enter the market without someone already in the market selling you their license (a practice that in itself proves that the licensing system is horribly corrupt and serves no defensible purpose)
As for "charge what they are regulated to charge". That's exactly the point. They charge inflated rates because corrupt regulators have set rates far higher than the free market ever would have settled on. As for "limiting congestion". Sure, if people can't get anywhere because they can't afford it, or because there are no taxis available, I guess there's less congestion. It's also a complete 100% failure of a system whose sole goal is to provide transportation. By that logic we could reduce congestion further by tearing up all the streets and outlawing vehicles. But it would hardly be an ideal solution.
I never said Uber would stay "as clean as presently" (whatever that means?). What I said was that there are so many companies now competing that we no longer have to tolerate corrupt mediocre taxi service. If taxis want to compete, and be seen by citizens as legitimate options to Uber, Lyft, etc, they need to shape up and start providing levels of service at least equal to those companies, at similar prices. If they refuse to do that, then I hope they DO go bankrupt, they'll be replaced by people who ARE willing to compete.
If you personally feel threatened by competition, tough luck. Most of us already work in industries with competition, and we've survived just fine. If you're unwilling to do so. Move somewhere where there is no free market. I'm sure you'll be much happier if all the companies you do business work as nicely as taxi companies. Imagine if the grocery store only stocked 4 jugs of milk per day, and charge $50 each as that's the regulated number and price. You have to wait a week to get a jug of milk? too bad, it limits congestion of milk delivery trucks.
If I were an Uber (or similar) driver. I would just sit at the spot where the ill passenger entered, and call an ambulance for him. That means I've done the one thing a citizen is reasonably required to do given an illness situation I've come across, and takes the legal liability out of the issue for me.
If every driver did the same, then the "problem" of people calling drivers instead of ambulances would end rather quickly.
As for the cost of ambulance care, I don't see it as a problem. If you have insurance, that pays for it. If you don't have insurance but do have a reasonable income, you pay it yourself. And if you don't have the means to pay it, anything serious enough to require emergency room attendance is serious enough that the cost (or probably more likely, the harassment by bill collectors) is irrelevant, versus your health. The point being the ambulance isn't going to deny you service based on ability to pay.
Where I live (Commie Medicine Canada) the cost of ambulance care is capped at about $US 280 (helicopter, air) or $US 261 + $US 1.15/mile (ground). It's possible to incur both an air and a ground ambulance charge.
If you're passing out where I live, they make you go to the big hospital first.
The clinics won't see you, and even the local emergency room won't.
If you're passing out, you probably won't be summoning a ride-share, no matter where you live.
from the summary
"It came out that, over the last few days, he'd been passing out and losing consciousness."
The urgent care clinics and smaller emergency rooms won't admit you for that, and why not use an Uber/Lyft/Taxi in that situation?
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
I don't feel threatened by competition. I want to prevent the kind of world that you will create by allowing anyone to do anything they please. Unregulated capitalism is the most corrupt there is.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Thing is, ambulance rides and ER visits are inherently very expensive. Your family member's problem was insurance, not cost. Legally regulating these costs down to where the bill won't shock the patient will mean these services will be much harder to get. Requiring insurance companies to cover these things with a halfway reasonable copay is the only solution (barring the government paying for it somehow).
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
here's one right now. The bill that landed the guy in jail was for an ambulance too.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
We need Medicare-for-all (single-payer) now. This article, "Medicare-For-All Requires No Increase in Taxes," is still true. Of course, it could change depending on how much Republicans gut social programs. The savings and benefits from Medicare-for-all would be great for individuals and the nation.
It's about the same in Norway. An acquintance of mine had a work accident damaging his eye. He had to go to a medical center 4 hour drive away, which was done over the night in two taxis (meeting in the middle and swapping him over, so the taxi drivers didn't stray too far outside their normal service areas). He paid nothing, of course. His vision recovered. I guess if his condition were more urgent, he'd get a helicopter.
The whole US medical insurance system is a wrenched loss-loss thing.
17779 eligible voters in a district, 17779 'vote' as one. This is Russia.
If I order an Uber I am almost guaranteed it will arrive in 5 minutes. Calling emergency services in my country is a joke. By the time the ambulance actually arrives I am in all probability already dead.
guessing wrong leading to death is not a solvable problem unless you can eliminate the guessing. Pushing the guessing off somewhere else is easy. Eliminating it pretty much requires psychic powers.
Yes, it puts the driver in danger for over regulated and litigious places like the USA. That the anecdote was mentioned in Boston is probably not a coincidence. By the way, it is quite possible that an Uber driver would be more educated than a cab driver. Oy.
Oh and no I am not a taxi driver. I just have respect for laws.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I'm not advocating for anarchy. In fact I specifically stated that I'm FOR regulation. But only the kind that protects consumers, not the kind that protects corrupt monopolies.
There is zero justification for limiting the supply of Taxis or for mandating minimum pricing. There is however perfectly justifiable reasons for regulating maximum prices (or at least transparent pricing) and for regulating the safety of the vehicles and the drivers. Unfortunately Taxi regulation has made Taxis so expensive, and so scarce that people are willing to throw out the safety regulation just to get an affordable and effective system in place. That's why people ignore the fact that Uber is a taxi service and try mental gymnastics to pretend it isn't. Because they're tired of the corrupt industry as it stands, and the regulatory capture imposing a monopoly on them when no justification for one exists.
As for "I just have respect for laws". That's a horrible position to take. Laws do not deserve blind respect, they deserve critical thinking, and to be changed when they don't meet the needs of society. Many horrible, unethical things have been done in the past while being perfectly legal under the laws of the time. The fact that they were legal didn't make them right. Under your world view any law that's passed is guaranteed to be perfect, despite being crafted by humans who are always imperfect, and often corrupt. That said, in my jurisdiction Uber is 100% legal. So I guess you now must love Uber right? Or do you only respect laws that protect YOUR industry from competition?