But... don't liberals always say that throwing money at the problem will fix it?Dozens of patients died needlessly as a result of filthy conditions in an NHS hospital, a shocking report said last night.
Appalling nursing care in Basildon University Hospital contributed to a mortality rate that was more than a third higher than the national average.
At least 70 people may have died who should have been saved.
It is the latest example of patients paying the ultimate price for Labour's failure to stamp out Third World conditions in the NHS - despite trebling taxpayer funding over the past decade.
Uh - just what does it take in the NHS to put these people in jail? Obviously, 70 deaths isn't going to do so here any more than the 400 deaths did in Staffordshir.Also, note that the elderly were disproportionately affected by the lack of care as they were being starved to death. And Obamacare will be different because...??? For those that are proponents of nationalized healthcare, explain these statistics then and tell me how Obamacare will be different:
The Essex hospital is run by one of the supposedly 'elite' foundation trusts, which have greater freedom to manage their finances. Last night there were angry calls for its entire management team to resign.
Unannounced visits by inspectors from the Care Quality Commission found blood spattered on curtains and chairs in the A&E ward, a catheter bag on the floor, poorly-trained nurses and patients treated on trolleys.
A commode was soiled under the seat, nurses were failing to feed frail elderly people and patients had pressure sores.
There was no paediatric nurse for most of the time so children were not getting the best care.
...The scandal mirrors what happened at Mid Staffordshire foundation trust - a much bigger trust than Basildon - where 400 people died over three years.
Katherine Murphy of the Patients Association said last night: 'The entire board should most certainly resign.
Average cancer survival rate in U.S: 68%
Average cancer survival rate in Canada: 55%
Average cancer survival rate in Europe: 45%
Average prostate cancer survival rate in U.S: 81%
Average prostate cancer survival rate in Britain: 43%
Average breast cancer survival rate in U.S: 83.9%
Average breast cancer survival rate in Europe: 73.1%
Average breast cancer survival rate in the U.K: 69.7%
Our systems is not broken. It is the best in the world. It costs more money, but that cost can be reduced by passing tort reform that would lower ridiculously high malpractice insurance rates. Also, with a stroke of a pen Congress can break down the barriers that currently preclude insurance companies from competing across state lines. All of a sudden, every citizen will have 1,500 choices for their care. Nationalizing our healthcare will only lead to medieval treatment such as that in the NHS system.Previously:
Single-Payer Hell: In Britain While Millions Suffer Under NHS "Healthcare," NHS Staff Get PRIVATE TREATMENT!!!
Single-Payer Hell: British NHS kills grandfather anyway after he beat cancer
Single-Payer Hell: Daughter saves mother, 80, left by doctors to starve to death
Single-Payer Hell: British NHS Takes 10 Months To Fix Badly Broken Arm
U.K. healthcare epiphany: You know, we should really be encouraging old people to kill themselves
British NHS doesn't have money to treat cancer patients, but has money for sex change of 12-year old boy
Single-Payer Hell: Life-Saving Drug Nixed In U.K. To Save Cost
Single-Payer Hell: A mother in the U.K.: 'Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my premature baby'
Single-Payer Hell: Patients With Terminal Illnesses Made To Die Prematurely Under British Health Care System - NHS. Death Panels are real!
Single-Payer Hell: Prisoners Eat Better Than NHS Patients
Single-Payer Hell: British patients sue over 33% failure rate for operations
Single-Payer Hell: In Britain, 'Cruel and neglectful' care of one million NHS patients exposed
Single-Payer Hell: Man collapses with ruptured appendix... three weeks after NHS doctors 'took it out'
Single-Payer Hell: Babies In The U.K. Born In Hospital Corridors, Toilets
Single-Payer Hell: British NHS Deny Alzheimers Funding Because "Alzheimer's Is Not A Health Condition"
Single-Payer Hell: In Britain, Unincarcerated Child Molester Being Given Viagra!
Single-Payer Hell: Woman in U.K. Denied Ambulance, Gives Birth On Pavement
The British National Health Service is the 3rd largest employer IN THE WORLD! Behind Chinese army, Indian rail
British National Health Service Sends Patient With Chest Pains Home With Pain Pills, Patient Dies
Well, as you did before, you posted a single set of incomplete numbers. Let me post an alternate set from another study:
ReplyDelete----
A peer-reviewed comparison study of health care access in the two countries published in 2006 concluded that U.S. residents are one third less likely to have a regular medical doctor, one fourth more likely to have unmet health care needs, and are more than twice as likely to forgo needed medicines. The study noted that access problems "were particularly dire for the US uninsured."
-------
The NHS needs a lot of work, and the deaths of those people are indeed criminal. But as the "We love the NHS" trend on twitter from a while back showed, it does work for a large number of people. So, if the problem were with single payer insurance, wouldn't the system work for nobody?
The problem isn't single payer or private insurance. Both fail to serve all citizens. So, what are our other options?
Your cancer survival statistics are bogus. We screen much more in U.S. than elsewhere resulting. We treat cell dysplasias (considered precancerous states), most which will never become cancerous. Just to give a simple number, imagine that 50% of cell dysplasias would never become cancerous. If we treat everyone, then 50% will survive for 5 years, 10 years, etc. If the actual survival rate was 60% of the remaining half who actually would have developed cancer, then total survival would be 80%; but in reality only 60%. If other countries mainly treat when clearly cancerous, then if they have survival rates of 60%, there would be no difference. Also, in epidemiology one speaks of lead-time bias, that is earlier diagnosis leading to appearance of longer survival, e.g. detect one year earlier, so live one year longer.
ReplyDeleteWe have an estimated 45,000 who die each year due to lack of medical insurance. Around 100,000 who die from medical errors, higher medical error rates than many other countries.
I'll have to check on your claim of 70 deaths; but we have had similar problems in U.S. Judging an entire system by such anecdotal evidence is good for propaganda; but nothing else. However, several studies have shown lower morbidity and mortality in non-profit hospitals compared to for-profits in the U.S. Try reading Stephen Klaidman's book, Coronary, about how one small for-profit hospital in Northern California performed open-heart surgery on over 850 healthy hearts resulting in unnecessary pain, disability, and death.
England has lower infant mortality, as good or better life expectancy, and better statistics on avoiding hospitalizations and unnecessary amputations and blindness in diabetics as well as better statistics on all chronic conditions.
But, for the CEOs, and major stockholders of our for-profit private health insurance companies, the statistics of interest to them is not quality and timeliness of care; but dividends and rising stock values.