'Cruel and neglectful' care of one million NHS patients exposed

Czuch: Great link Czuch. It's the only way the government runs its public services: badly. Every single US government run public service is bankrupt. And the idiots on the Hill think that more public service options is a good thing. What a bunch of morons. I hope tons of those fools get voted out next election. EVERYONE in the US has access to healthcare. EVERYONE. It's a lie that they don't. The Dems trade on fear. In the US, people can get surgerys FREE. You have to qualify of course, and you have to do some work (like applying and getting off your butt and following through to prove you need the free services). I have a friend who just had knee surgery and he didn't pay a dime for it. Obama couldn't get elected again if the election were held today. Now that people see how far left he really is, he is losing a lot of middle support (the biggest group in the US).

Pedro Martínez: Ok well said. And I do see your point. I'll say that the first sentence certainly wasn't necessary to the point of the article.

Pedro Martínez: "We're a nation of beautiful babies." It wasn't written by a professional journalist but by a doctor. And that first sentence is a simple literary device. It's odd to me that you would be disgusted over reading it. I'm not sure how you took that first sentence but I suspect you read too much into it. And the author's audience is Americans. I doubt that there were many that were disgusted by that sentence. Why were you so put off by it?

GTCharlie: Well I'm moving to Antarctica!

Ferris Bueller: Both Czuch and I have admitted to the US having its faults. No country is perfect. But to isolate one factor (a flawed one at that) to make a point regarding US health care shows the weakness in one's argument, not a strength.

Pedro Martínez: US's ranking on infant mortality as a direct cooresponding factor to the quality of US health care was the connection that was being made. I have shown that making such an analysis based on that single factor is faulty at best. It should concern all Americans that the infant mortality rate is high. But to conclude that it's the fault of the health care system ignores more likely factors. If all data collecting were equal, then the comparisons would have more meaning.

Czuch:  Thanks.  Even if Jules assertion was true, it certainly doesn't follow that the US health care system is the corresponding factor for the higher death rates.   Even so, it's clear that Jules comment is misleading.  It's a conclusion that isn't based on full disclosure.  All factors need to be equal and clearly, other countries have different standards in determining infant mortality.  Like a dentist who claims his patients have fewer cavities but then it's discovered he doesn't count children under 12 or patients over 20.  And he only counts every other tooth. ;)

gogul: 

U.S. News & World Report claims that "First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country."

(V):

(V):  Nope.   Not my opinions.  Facts. 

(V): Jules, I'm just playing by your rules.  I've stated the facts you just choose to ignore them.

(V):  Krugman is a far left loon.  He's no expert.  Data mining isn't always accurate.  Anyone can find someone to quote that supports their view. 

(V):  I've already explained the facts.  See below.

Übergeek 바둑이:
> In Canada the biggest problem Canadian medical care faces is access.

Now,
that is completely wrong. I live in Canada, Alberta to be precise. Here
anyone has access to healthcare, from a homeless guy in the street to a
billionaire banker. It does not matter how poor or rich you are,
everyone is covered.

No, that is NOT completely wrong.  Access to Canada's health care system IS the biggest problem in their health care system.  You should know this.  It's not that people don't have access, they do.  But they  regularly have to wait and wait and wait for certain procedures.  This information is from a Canadian doctor given during an interview.  There are waiting lists in Canada and a dog can get an MRI faster than a human.

> They simply do not have the money to offer the proper care. Simply put,
> they can't pay for it on an as needs basis. So care gets rationed out
> according to strict rules.

The
system here assigns to each patient a degree of importance based on how
urgent a procedure or test is. A child in need of a heart operation
takes precedence over a middle aged person with bunions. It is a matter
of common sense.

Exactly.  Thanks for proving my point here.  Access is a problem.  My doctor and I decide on my degree of importance.  And if I want to see a doctor, I simply make an appointment.  If I need a procedure, I get it.  The "system" has nothing to say about it. 

And it's not as simple as you state it.  It's not about a child needing a heart operation vrs and old person needing care for their bunions.  You've stacked the deck with your example.  In the US, the child needing a heart operation will be served but so will the old fart needing medical care for bunions.  BOTH are important.  Care is care and we can do both.  But in Canada, as you point out, there is rationing because access to care is limited.

Most of the complaints about waiting times are
coming from two sectors of the population. One is seniors in need of
certain orthopedic procedures like hip and knee replacements. Waiting
lists on those types of procedures go into several months.

Yep, access is a problem

> Another problem is the cost. It's very expensive to pay for everyone's
> health care needs. And about 70 percent of Canadian's carry their own
> health insurance to cover costs of drugs (which aren't covered under
> the Canadian system).

The
Canadian system does not allow private insurers, but there are a few
companies that offer "insurance" to reduce the cost of drugs and
certain things like chiropractor visits, dentist visits, etc.

A company that offered insurance would be a private insurer.

So to say that 70% of Canadians carry
their own insurance is a misunderstanding. They carry supplemental
coverage, in most cases as part of am employee benefits plan.

Except that it's true.  Canada's health care doesn't cover everything and so 70% of the people have supplemented the lack of coverage with private coverage.

> Instead of costs coming down, the Canadian government continues to face rising
> costs with no end in sight.

This
is true to the extent that it is expensive to run the system.

The cost keep rising and demand a great percentage of the budget.  Something has to give.  It can't be sustained so to help control costs, access is limited (via rationing).


> This is the fact of government sponsored health care. It sounds nice.
> But practice and theory are very far apart.

I
disagree with that. I think it is a success when a homeless man and a
billionaire banker can go to a clinic and receive more or less the same
treatment.

This fact alone doesn't define the entire system.  As a system, it simply doesn't work well in practice.

If human beings are equal, they have the same right to life,
and the same right to being treated equally by the health care system.
Otherwise we have economic discrimination and inequality.

But they don't have a right not to contribute to help pay for the system which is precisely what Obama is proposing.   And don't be fooled, the history of the world is the history of economic discrimination and inequality.  The geek down the street makes twice the money I make.  I probably work twice as hard.  There never has been a world were everyone is equal. 

In Canada the biggest problem Canadian medical care faces is access. They simply do not have the money to offer the proper care. Simply put, they can't pay for it on an as needs basis. So care gets rationed out according to strict rules.

Another problem is the cost. It's very expensive to pay for everyone's health care needs. And about 70 percent of Canadian's carry their own health insurance to cover costs of drugs (which aren't covered under the Canadian system). In British Columbia health care costs are is 42% of the government's budget. It's projected to rise to 80 to 90 percent in coming years.

Instead of costs coming down, the Canadian government continues to face rising costs with no end in sight. This is the fact of government sponsored health care. It sounds nice. But practice and theory are very far apart.

Übergeek 바둑이: Wikipedia isn't exactly the most reliable source for accurate facts. Anyone can data mine for specifics to support one's position (see Jules post below). It makes no difference if medical care is available to everyone unless the delivery of the medical care isn't substandard. In the US, cancer screening is far superior than to that of the UK. Perhaps that's why our cancer survivor rates are superior to those in the UK.

In the US, medical care is available to everyone, regardless of one's ability to pay. Basic health care is there for everyone. You can't legally turn away a person in need just because they can't pay. And there are many free clinics throughtout the US. Does the system need improving? But certainly not the overhaul that Obama is suggesting. He can't pay for it. All one needs is a quick peek at other government run public service systems. They are ALL bankrupt. The US government can't run anything properly because they get to muddled up in the rules. Then they pile on more administrators and get more rules and along the way, there are cost overruns, fraud, and long waiting lines.

If anything, the UK needs to begin to break away from their government's monopoly of the health care industry. But they employ so many people in this huge bureaucracy they can't afford to close it down. It would put too many out of work. Is it all bad? Probably not. But it's bad enough so that any thinking person would stay away from modeling a new system after the failed UK system.

(V): Just because you don't like the message it doesn't follow that it isn't true. Facts are facts. There's no wiggle room. The UK system is a huge mess. Waiting lists, underserving, poor equiptment, lack of trained professionals, the list goes on. There's not one public service that the Feds run that isn't bankrupt in the US. There's no efficient model anywhere in the world that's based on any government run system.

The 3rd largest employer in the WORLD is found in the UK health care system. And of the over 1 million people working in this system, they are all administrators. That number doesn't even account for the doctors or nurses.

In the UK, if you're old, you stand at the end of the line. Kids are serviced before the elderly. And there are horror stories.

Listen to an honest UK politician describe the UK system and you'll cringe. In the US, there is a 100 percent survival rate for those with prostate cancer within the first 5 years. In Canada it's about 95 percent. In the UK, it's 77 percent survival rate.

There isn't any US social program that is fully successful. Money leaks out. Fraud is rampant. When the government spends the people's money, they are reckless.

Czuch: "Your country has experienced health insurance firms refusing to cover pre existing ailments."

Exactly. It's like buying car insurance after having an accident and expecting the insurance company to pay for it.

Übergeek 바둑이: Programs like No Child Left Behind are typical of the government's failure to first understand the real problems and two, their inability to implement anything truly meaningful to address perceived problems. No child Left Behind is unsuccessful and is nothing more than the government implementing a program to score political points. The government is not the solution. They are most often the problem. Cash for clunkers is a sham. And all one needs to do is look at the failure of the US Post Office to make real money as a CLUE that the government can't run anything (but they are very good at ruining everything).

A government sponsored health care system will fail. The idiots in Washington are incapable of running such a huge enterprise. History proves this over and over again. Only private industry can make real change work. And only real and meaningful competition can keep costs down.

One reason the US health care costs are so high: The government makes "rules" that tie the hands of insurance companies. US health care companies cannot truly compete because of State and Federal regulations. Nation-wide insurance coverage availability doesn't exist. One guy in one State can pay less then his neighbor across the border. And you can't get insurance across the boarder because that violates State and Federal rules. Stupid. And Tort reform is necessary. 13000 insurance companies out there but I'm limited to but a few that are available to me.

Czuch: I've scratched my remaining hair out!

Czuch:

Capitalism doesnt cause wars. People do. And the factors are many and cannot be reduced to a single factor. As long as there are people there would be war. If capitalism didnt exist, we'd still have wars.

(V):

There is no such thing as reincarnation. It's nonsene. I used to believe in reincarnation in my former life. But now I know bettter.

Czuch: Yeah. Interesting that it assumes the very thing is supposed to prove: That in fact there is such a thing as a "carbon footprint" and that such a thing is actually significant to the fact of global warming.

In the 70's it was global cooling. In twenty years from now it will be something else. Politicians and ideologues are always inventing new crises to control people and extort money from the little guy.

Czuch: You've summed it up. ;)

(V): You said: "As to random.. that's only due to lack of info over how. "

If you lack information, how can you draw such a conclusion? The reality is, you can't. You're saying that the scientist is wrong about "random" and you use as evidence in your argument the lack of evidence. How's that work?

Then you say: "Plus he ignores that we are the first race on this planet to be able to change significantly our surroundings, such as deforestation.."

Which you can't possibly REALLY know unless you've read his work in its entirety. Which I doubt you have.

So it makes me wonder how you came to that conclusion. Did a hedgehog whisper it in your ear?

And also: "I agree, the carbon footprint thing is a bit crazy in certain respects, but it's also leading to a cut down in fuel usage by making cars more economical."

If the "carbon footprint" is a bit crazy (it's not scientific and it's nonsense. Carbon dioxide is plant food. The environmentalists treat it like it's a polution. And Co2 levels are DOWN. Temps are up. Where's the connection?

You are saying that the end justifies the means. That's bad policy.

(V): You have no point. You ramble around in circles. You don't stay on point. And nothing you bla bla around will change that fact.

What was the geologists main thesis? That's what's being discussed. NOT dinosaurs and hedgehogs.

You've gone off the cliff.

(V): No. It's rambling nonsense. It avoid the topic entirely. We aren't even talking about any of those silly things you've drawn into the conversation. Bunny trails NOT welcome.

(V): Stating an opinion and then stating something as a fact (which you have done here) are not the same thing. You claim that the scientist's data was flawed. That's not an opinion. You are making an assertion. Either the scientist did overlook what you said he did, or he didn't. You can't have an opinion on that. It's either a fact that he did, or a fact that he didn't. Now you claim he DID. So it's reasonable to expect you to offer some proof of that claim.

C&P is fine as long as it's not your argument. Pointing out studies or articles (which we all do) is fine.

And V, look back. I already posted the link long ago.

(V): In other words your claims aren't really based on any fact, just your generalized opinion based on your own narrow experience.

(V): I'm curious. How do you know he ignores anything? Which of his books have you read and which of his papers have you studied?

Czuch: Many scientists know the truth about the global warming con but don't speak up because they universities they work for would possibly lose some funding or even their jobs could be in jeopardy. Politicians that talk about global warming as if it is man made are ignorant. They don't know. They've not studied the issue. They, like so many, jump on the band wagon. And in the end, if they get their way, we will pay big bucks.

Locally we are being forced to recycle. Now my rates have gone up. I have to recycle through the government or I will pay a fine. Never mind that for years I've recycled everything that's possible to recycle. No exceptions. So what I used to do for free, I now have to pay for.

It's only the beginning. There will be more nonsense from the government. Where there's a buck to be made, they will try to make it. Note the new term "carbon footprint." What the heck is that? It's mumbo-jumbo. They are morons. A bunch of fools.

Some idiot from Hollywood was interviewed and she talked about using less toilet paper. Seriously? If she's using less, then I'll use more. What an idiot. That's as bad as the PETA fool who complained about the Seattle fish market that is well known for throwing and catching of the fish they sell. The guy actually called the dead fish a cadaver. And how would you feel if we did that same thing to humans?

Another idiot. So I went out and bought a fish from the local market and we played a game of "fishball" with it. A few swings of the bat and that fish was mush. I packaged it up and sent it to PETA. With some crackers.

Ok, just kidding on that but it makes ya wanna puke sometimes.

Vikings:

I was at the docs today and in the waiting room is a sign: This facility serves everyone regardless of ability to pay.

That's typical of many, if not most practices.

(V): a 2005 article isn't that old.

gogul:

(V): My data is current.

I go into the doc office for weekly allergy shots. 6 months ago I was give two shots. The nurse told me I was on maintenance and was at two shots now. The next week she had me back to one. It was then I knew something happened. I had the office check into it and sure enough, they accidentally gave me someone else's shot medicine. A double dose at that!

Could I have sued them? Yes and I'd have gotten some money out of it. How much? Don't know -don't care. What did I do? Simple: brought it to their attention and they dealt with it. Fortunately I wasn't harmed.

But some people will simply see such a thing as an opportunity to make money. And the courts will side with the patient who was wronged. If a woman can get millions for a hot coffee spill (which she spilled on herself!) then how much could I have gotten having been given the wrong medicine. It could have killed me. Each medicine is made in the lab specifically for the particular patient. I was given someone else's meds and that is a huge no no. When I told my allergist, she freaked.

Just because a mistake is done it doesn't follow that one is entitled to compensation. Stuff happens and people ought to suck it up and move on. If harm IS brought about to a patient, the hospital/doctor's office ought to take care of any medical or loss wadges cost etc. But to make someone a millionaire because of a small mistake (especially when there is no permanent harm) is simply wrong. And make no mistake, those millions people make on these greedy lawsuits, YOU AND I pay for them. So if you're in favor so such nonsense, then you can't complain about the high cost of insurance or medications or doctor's fees etc. You can't have it both ways.

Tort reform.

(V): "What Art is missing is that the USA have the ability to look at various systems and (if politicians use their brains and not their parties) sort out the basis for a system that will be cheaper to run. Despite Art's saying "it'll cost too much".. your current system already does, as their is an element of companies taking the mickey over what you pay in private health insurance."

No, I agree that the cost is too high. And I agree that there is much honest politicians can do to fix the problem. But Obama's plan is too costly. It won't work. We can't sustain the high cost. There are so many bad factors playing into his plan that it boggles the mind.

Tort reform is a place to start IMO. Get the costs to the doctors and hospitals down. But Obama would rather not touch that one. He's willing to allow unrestricted access to the courts even though it's clear that frivolous lawsuits clog up the courts. There ought to be a cap on how much one can sue for and if one loses their lawsuit, they ought to pay the expenses - all of them. Perhaps the lawyers who lose the case for their clients should have to pay all the costs. Greedy lawyers suing for hangnails.

(V): Yes, you have 24/7 health care meaning they are open 24/7. NOT that you can get in any time because you can't. And you are simply wrong about the waiting times. They are months and for some procedures, up to a year or longer.

Your system is a shambles.

rod03801: Probably when workers fought so hard for better pay and health benefits. It's an insurance pool and the way to keep costs down is to belong to a group insurance policy.

I think there are efforts underway to allow people to use their insurance dollars the way they want.

rod03801: There are two basic problems with the government's idea. First it will cost too much and can't be funded. The experts are all agreeing on this one. It's simply too costly. And it doesn't even serve everyone.

More importantly, it will create a health care system that will diminish the quality of care. All one needs to do is to look to Canada or Britain and it's easy to see just how poorly the mechanisms of a government sponsored health care system run. In Canada, there is no waiting for an MRI - if you're a dog. Seriously, vets can schedule MRIs for animals in a very short time.

For people? In canada the wait time is months. Even and emergency MRI can take months.

With government health care, you don't save money. You pay more and get less.

Not only that, but the medicaid fraud is in the billions. Now if the government adds more people to medicaid (which is the plan) it's estimated that organized crime will flourish. The devil is in the details and the details contain red flags on every page.

rod03801: Getting costs down should be a goal of the health care issue. Socialized health care isn't the way to do that. But there are ways to deal with the costs. One way is to pass Tort reform. Circumstances for law suits and money paid out must be limited. The high cost of insurance for the doctors is simply passed on to all of us. Spilling hot coffee on oneself is not worth several millions. ....... happens. Sometimes there are unavoidable consequences in health care options. Not everything comes with a guarantee. Negligence is one thing, but sometimes things happen that are unavoidable (unless foreseen).

My health coverage is good. I pay a copay. Sometimes to meet my deductible I have to fork out quite a bit in the beginning. But after the deductible is met, I'm at 100 percent.

Bernice: There are plenty of horror stories that verify just how bad things are. Many people die waiting for care. That's a fact.

(V): Instead of disputing the facts I present, you make excuses for your poor quality health care system. So much for your 24/7 nonsense. As for waiting lists, your country now has waiting lists to get ON a waiting list.

What's the perfect system? Certainly not the model your country offers. In fact, NO COUNTRY THE WITH SOCIALIZED medical model works well. NONE.

The US system is the best. Too costly yes and that and other things need fixin. But the quality of care overall is better than anything IN THE WORLD.

period.