tales from socialized medicine! No care better than bad care.

@andy77e (5165)
United States
January 30, 2013 1:46am CST
Every month or so I start thinking there should be yet another fruity horror story from socialized medicine in the news, and I was right again! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21249500 London England, in the Romford Queen's Hospital A&E department, the local NHS trust found major failures of service. Recap: A&E is the UK version of the ER. It's emergency room service, when supposedly time is of the essence, hence "emergency". NHS Trust refers to how the National Health Services is divided up into NHS Trusts, which administrate hospitals within their region. Continue! The NHS trust found that patients routinely waited over 11 hour to be admitted from the A&E department, where time is of the highest importance! The Trust report said that no one should wait longer than 4 hours to be admitted from the A&E departments. Further, they discovered that nurses were giving sub-standard care to people still laying on trolleys in the hallway, instead of being moved to a hospital bed. I on the other hand, having been to the hospital ER 3 times, have never had to wait longer than 10 minutes, to be seen, and moved to a bed. Of course we all know that this is all due to the horrible, evil, cruel, satanic world of capitalist pay-for-service hospitals, and I got a bill, and I paid it. How despicable! Nevertheless!!!! The UK NHS Trust has developed a plan, a game changer rule that will fix this sub standard care forever! Never again shall the citizens of London be subjected to the 11 hour wait in the A&E departments where time is of highest concern! The number of patients admitted to an east London hospital A&E unit is to be capped at busy times to improve care. ... ladies and gentlemen... This is not a joke. The solution proposed to fix the 11-hour wait at the socialized government run, free health care hospital... is to simply NOT provide care. To simply NOT accept patients. Now we've seen this before, in Canada. In Canada, Hospitals would literally close the doors, and not allow anyone into the hospital. There are stories of ambulances which drove to 5 different hospitals, being turned down at each one. Again, government always has limited amounts of money. It will never have the infinite cash to provide all the care needed. Only by having a free-market system, where people pay for their care, will hospitals provide service. Because if you depend on customers to make your money, you will find a way to accommodate them. A hospital would buy more beds, open a new building, hire more staff, to accommodate more customers. Because if they don't, the customers will go somewhere else. That's the beauty of the free-market capitalist system. One we're quickly moving away from, and that the UK and Canada already have and are reaping the problems of.
2 people like this
5 responses
@robspeakman (1705)
30 Jan 13
You pick out an extreme report to back up your elitist right wing propaganda - the NHS has pioneered most of the procedures we take granted - standard waiting time in an A&E department is 2 hours...research properly you lazy git
2 people like this
@bestboy19 (5482)
• United States
30 Jan 13
Does your A&Es have the same problem our ERs have? Too many people who don't have an emergency come to the ER rather than just going to the doctor.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27236)
• United States
30 Jan 13
Too many people go the the ER here rather than just going to the doctor because they don't have insurance and can't afford a doctor's visit! Annie
1 person likes this
@andy77e (5165)
• United States
30 Jan 13
You pick out an extreme report to back up your elitist right wing propaganda If you are suggesting that the report is inaccurate, take it up with the BBC or the NHS Trust. But regardless, I don't want to hear about it. the NHS has pioneered most of the procedures we take granted Yes, I'm sure the people who are in the A&E with an "emergency" are completely content with that information after waiting for 11 hours. standard waiting time in an A&E department is 2 hours...research properly you lazy git Well yeah... If they completely REJECT patients, it's fairly easy to meet a 2 hour standard time. Again, I've been in the ER 3 times, and longest wait I ever had, was 10 Minutes. And never once, at any point in time did they say "Oh sorry. We've capped the number of patients we accept. You need to go somewhere else" That's insane.
1 person likes this
@sulynsi (2837)
• Canada
30 Jan 13
I really don't know what you are talking about - there is no such thing as free healthcare. I do have a question, though, where you live, how are the police paid? What about the brave firemen ? Where do they send their bill? Garbage collectors or snow plow drivers in metropolitan areas?
2 people like this
@andy77e (5165)
• United States
30 Jan 13
I really don't know what you are talking about - there is no such thing as free healthcare. Of course not. But people think that there is. Most of the support for government run health care is based on the idea that "I won't have to pay!". The moment you suggest that taxes will have to increase to cover the cost of health care, support instantly vanishes. [b]I do have a question, though, where you live, how are the police paid? What about the brave firemen ? Where do they send their bill? Garbage collectors or snow plow drivers in metropolitan areas?[/b] Garbage is paid for by people paying to have garbage removed. Police and Fire are of course paid through taxes. That doesn't change the fact that socialized medicine is a horrible failure. I accept the fact there are some services that are unavoidably paid for by government. Both are horrendously wasteful and inefficient. Anyone who suggests otherwise, doesn't know much about either service. But that is a necessary evil. Health care is not. Our health care system is so much better than any other socialized system, that people come here from both Canada and the UK, routinely to get treatment, even though they would pay nothing out of pocket for service in their home countries. That alone should give a clear indication of how bad it is.
1 person likes this
@sulynsi (2837)
• Canada
31 Jan 13
Not being politically astute, from what I have read from your posts is that capitalism , true capitalism, can fix just about anything, therefore, my next question is why are some services 'unavoidably paid for by government'?
@andy77e (5165)
• United States
1 Feb 13
Sort of. I believe that Capitalism results in the best possible trade off, because in order to make money at anything, you inherently have to serve other people. The system itself promotes people serving other people. When you say "fix anything", that depends on how you define "fix". If you believe that a "fixed" health care will provide everyone with the highest quality care, at zero cost, then Capitalism will not "fix" that. The problem is all the alternatives are far worse, providing even less quality care, and only to the most elite. Capitalism provides the best possible outcomes for the most possible people, because it rewards productivity and serving others. A socialized system rewards those who appease government officials, and de-incentivises work, because if I get treated the same regardless of what I do, why bother doing? The reason police and fire isn't something that could be privatized in a capitalist system is because there's no way to get people to pay. If there was a way to do it, we already know for a fact that it could be done more cheaply in a private free-market system. We know this because if you take a look at the costs of hired guard services, even those with lethal arms and arresting authority, those services provide "police like" protection at a fraction of the per-capita cost of government run police forces. But there's no way to get people to pay for private free-market police protection. Like the power company for example, can shut off the electricity. So they can get you to pay. How do you get people to pay for private police? Well you can't. If you pay and I don't, and a burglar walks between our houses, do the police let him go since they don't know whose house he was going to rob? If you pay for fire, and I don't, and my house catches fire, the fire department would be obligated to put out my house, because letting it burn could catch your house on fire, or another person's home. So the only way is to force all people to pay for police is through the power government taxation. It's simply the only way to make that happen, even though it's often poor service and horribly wasteful. And by the way, none of this is a smack at the police or firefighters. It's simply the nature of government. It's simply how it works. It's inherent. Not always a flaw of the people involved.
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
30 Jan 13
What it seems you are talking about is equal care for everyone and that is first come first served. When I come in with a cut to my pinky I should not have to wait for someone to cut to the front of the line just because they have a skull fracture and multiple broken bones. Let them wait their turn. Aren't the Dr and Nurses in GB part of a Union and the Union has work rules. If you shift is done at 5PM then at 5PM you leave simple follow the work rules and forget the patient care.
1 person likes this
@andy77e (5165)
• United States
30 Jan 13
The same thing is true here in the US. The difference is, the hospital earns their money by service patients. So if their doctors are leaving at 5PM, that's fine, they'll hire more doctors to work after 5PM. The problem is, the money is static in a government run system. Serving more patients, doesn't increase the amount of money you have. Thus you simply can't afford more staff, more doctors, more beds, or whatever you need. In a capitalist system, the more patients you serve, the more money you get, because the patients pay the bill. The result is, if you have more people to serve, you'll hire staff to serve them.
1 person likes this
@sulynsi (2837)
• Canada
31 Jan 13
something occurs to me about waiting in emerg. and I wonder if it has any bearing on this discussion WHY is there less waiting in the US? Are there more actual doctors? There must be, as it always seems to be a ratio of patients to doctors able to look after them or, is it perhaps that those ER rooms simply aren't as full? full of people cluttering up the wating room with issues that would be better dealt with at home? Americans know better than to go to emerg with some silly minor issue, cause its gonna cost them......so fewer go hospitals are a business and therefore, like most businesses will try to work with as little labour overhead as possible no , I don't know, I'm just wondering
@sulynsi (2837)
• Canada
1 Feb 13
I don't, fortunately, frequent emergency rooms very often, and I stay away from doctors as much as I can get away with they are notoriously bad at 'health care' if you are not 'sick' you are likely better off to seek out a naturopath, which is not covered by governmental programs , to give guidance in 'health' issues, such as good nutrition many services for health are not covered by government funding dentists optical services, physiotherapy, chiropractory, naturopathy, to mention only a few and while it is believed that Canadians don't pay for their health care,this is not strictly true BC for example, residents pay a monthly premium for their health care, so I don't see how that's much different than having private health insurance I do feel that the so called free system has engendered a apathetic attitude to health -people just go to the doctor for a pill because it seems cheaper and don't really make as much effort as they could to safeguard the health they do have It bears mentioning that the system here was designed at a time when people took a more responsible view of health issues, so that only those in real need of help could go and receive it as needed people should not be at a doctor's office or emerg with the flu, unless there are some very serious syptoms, or a very young baby with a fever that the parents have been unsuccessful in bringing down by more tradtional means like any system, it may be not a bad idea in of itself and to be fair, the people of the time chose that system, over time, however, it has been abused, with doctors and hospitals encouraging such abuse to get clients
@andy77e (5165)
• United States
2 Feb 13
[b]I stay away from doctors as much as I can get away with they are notoriously bad at 'health care'[/b] Really? Wow, I don't think I've ever had a negative experience with a doctor here. In fact, every time I've dealt with them, they have always been very helpful, and usually fixed me up right away. many services for health are not covered by government funding dentists optical services, physiotherapy, chiropractory, naturopathy, to mention only a few Same here. BC for example, residents pay a monthly premium for their health care, so I don't see how that's much different than having private health insurance Huge difference. The primary factor in peoples lives, that drive them to serve other people with effort, is the carrot and stick of money. The carrot is serving people results in more money, and the stick is not serving results in less money. The fact that the citizen is paying a specific monthly premium, is not that relevant. What makes the difference is, do the people providing the service, have the money motivation? If not, it doesn't work. Do the Hospitals in BC, get less money by providing bad care? No they don't. Because if you refuse to go to Hospital X, they still get the same amount of money from the government. Do the hospitals in BC get more money by providing good care? No they don't. They still get the same amount. So the hospitals, the doctors, all the people involved have no reason whatsoever to provide you with the best possible care. Whether you are happy or not, they get paid. I do feel that the so called free system has engendered a apathetic attitude to health -people just go to the doctor for a pill because it seems cheaper and don't really make as much effort as they could to safeguard the health they do have That is clearly part of it. When you have zero cost imposed to go to the doctor, you also have less incentive to find cheaper alternatives. So at the same time the free-market motivations for hospitals and doctors to make patients happy, patients have less reasons to find other solutions. [b]like any system, it may be not a bad idea in of itself and to be fair, the people of the time chose that system, over time, however, it has been abused, with doctors and hospitals encouraging such abuse to get clients [/b] Well in free system is going to encourage abuse. No I know that you say it's not free, but if you get provided service, and it doesn't cost you anything *MORE* to use it, then abuse is unavoidable.
@bagarad (12133)
• Paso Robles, California
31 Jan 13
Many Americans are going to get the shock of their lives when they see their bills -- especially if they happen to smoke. Now that the government controls health care, they can tell you what you have to do to get the normal rate. If you smoke, there will be a hefty fine -- especially if you are older. Some of these fines will be up to $5,000 on top of the premiums if you still have private insurance. Not sure yet about what happens if you have Medicare or employer paid insurance. So many people thought their premiums would be free. They will soon find they will be paying more than they were and it will be too late. Our emergency room now lets people make appointments for not emergencies so they won't have to wait. For an emergency you can call in to see how long the current wait is. It isn't long even if you just drop in. I'm in California, by the way.