How does this stack up? Imagine 20% of pop. faces hospitalisation... poorer/less educated likely over-represented in that fifth. Many unable to "buy out" even if it were an option. Surely that puts significant focus on resilient public healthcare for *many* voters?https://twitter.com/webdevMason/status/1232207047992561665 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @rubenlightfoot
People who couldn't afford healthcare pre-coronavirus have already experienced sporadic or crisis-only care. The greatest relative shocks associated with a completely overwhelmed medical system will hit people who expect to access care as needed
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @webdevMason
With infection rates this high there'd be tens of thousands who'd never experienced crisis-care provision at any level. Paid or public. Stats regarding hugely elevated death rate among those unable to pay for access would be big, shocking news. It would upset many who could pay.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Hospitals are legally obligated to admit patients requiring stabilization as long as they can provide it; if they're inundated, insurance status won't matter. There'll be a rush on concierge medicine, meds. My guess: shortages across the board will be more salient than inequality
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.