Doesn't work like that in Austria. Or my doctor's were unwilling to fake urgency to bypass the waiting system for me.

Anyway, do you not realize the fault with the system in your logic? Because if everything becomes urgent in order to bypass queues, then nothing is urgent anymore.

It doesn't fix the problem, you're just scamming the system to get ahead of the problem.

▲

withinboredom 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

In my case, there was no faking urgency. I was pointing out that urgency puts you in a different line that gets priority (basically, cancellations from the longer line).

For some other things, you can travel further away to where there is less demand for what you need, and if you're willing, you don't have to wait as long. These are all different "lines" and they're the ones doing the schedule.

▲

jack_tripper 12 hours ago | parent [-]

Ok but urgency is a different kettle of fish. Life threatening cases get urgency everywhere and immediate care everywhere.

Let's focus on the other part you said, "waiting 1 year" if it's not urgent. 1 year sucks no matter how you spin it around.

	▲	withinboredom 11 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I wish I could have waited one year. 0/10, would not recommend that proceedure. FWIW, it's a very common, usually also scheduled long in advance (even in the US). Pretty much every man has to get one over 40; so it makes sense the wait list is long unless you've got something else going on.
	▲	nobody9999 9 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		>Ok but urgency is a different kettle of fish. Life threatening cases get urgency everywhere and immediate care everywhere. Except it doesn't. At least not in the United States. I have Peripheral Artery Disease. I had two completely occluded arteries in my left leg and a third that was mostly occluded and had an aneurysm to boot. One day, that third artery collapsed and I was left with zero blood flow to my left foot. The doctor had me go to the Emergency Room to get testing and imaging to have surgery the following week. He did not simply schedule surgery, as that would have required pre-approval from my insurance company and, in fact, the insurance company denied the claim and did not approve the procedure (which saved my foot) until six weeks later -- at which time I'd have had to have my foot amputated without the angioplasty and arterial bypass. In fact, after surgery the insurance company continued to deny my claims and refused to authorize pain meds (they sliced my left leg open from my hip to my ankle and rooted around to use an existing vein to bypass the blockage on one of my arteries) for those same six weeks. Oh yeah, US healthcare is so much better. /rolls eyes. My insurer would have forced me to wait until I required amputation if I hadn't just gone ahead on an emergency basis as suggested (because it's not unusual for that to happen) by the surgeon. And in case you were wondering, yes I have private insurance and pay nearly $1200/month just for me. In fact, my deductible for next year just went up 20% and my annual out of pocket doubled, yet I'm still paying essentially the same premium. No. The US healthcare system is completely fucked and I hope you don't die or lose important body parts learning that.

▲

layer8 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don’t think the parent implied lying about urgency.

▲

jack_tripper 12 hours ago | parent [-]

How else do you interpret his statement: "Your doc has a lot of influence on how urgent things are"

If it's not lying then it's another word that ultimately still does the same outcome of putting you ahead of the rest.

	▲	withinboredom 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		They do? If they misdiagnose something, you can end up in the slow line instead of the fast one, or vice versa. Compared to them, you have no influence.