ER Patients ignored in California: 39 times the wait time at UCLA hospital compared to Aberdeen, SD

[Loveshiscountry]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

That's just silly. People who show up at an ER are triaged, kids with earaches are seen after people with chest pain. And yes it has a whole lot to do with the population, but the real problem is this wonderful ER in Aberdeen isn't even equipped to handle major trauma victims or mass casualties.

Why does it matter how big a city is? Do you have the available institutions to take care of the population or not? If anything a major city should do better. If both places are properly set up and the small town gets over loaded they don't have many choices to send the overload. A big city has many more places to choose from.

If you want to say illegals are over loading a system that could normally handle just legals then you'd have something.

Again, it's about having the proper amount of institutions to handle the demand in the first place.

[Loveshiscountry]

Originally Posted by green_mariner

I never said it was acceptable. I'm saying comparing South Dakota with California is stupid. And while California has a higher than average wait time for emergency room visits, there are some worse states: Arizona, New Hampshire, Alabama, Oregon, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Delaware, New Jersey, Maryland, and Massachusetts have the top 11 highest wait times in the nation. I live in Georgia.

Other than population constraints, I don't know why the aforementioned states have high time waits for the emergency room.

And Utah and Colorado have the lowest time waits.

Emergency Room Wait Times: State Averages

Why is it stupid? Could be California doesn't have the supply of medical institutions to handle demand. That's on California.