• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Easy, it doesn't fit their agenda.

:rofl

Rightt .... attacking Labour through NHS is always on everyones agenda.
 
:rofl

Rightt .... attacking Labour through NHS is always on everyones agenda.

The BBC's agenda is to go as far left as they can get.

And I was talking about American mainstream media.
 
Let me guess, these are all rags that are out to overthrow the Queen........

What does the Queen have to do with anything?
 
is it dead? i guess we'll see.
 
There is also the risk of being uninsured and sitting under $25,000+ debt essentially for the benefit of a simple scan that I would have been happy to wait for. This is my situation.

The notion that forcing others to pay for our healthcare problems as being a solution to better healthcare is farcical at best.

This has always been my problem with "Liberal" thinking and problem solving; it is always that Government can create a better solution and with that, if only we confiscate enough wealth can we solve all of society’s trials and tribulations. But what ends up happening is that the REALITY is that Government makes it worse and they will NEVER, EVER have enough of our confiscated wealth.

I would think that after six decades of these nonsensical notions and false solutions, people would be smarter than that to fall for it all over again.
 
i'm always amazed that we seem to think we can't do it better. what happened to the attitude that americans CAN do better?

and i believe that for every horror story out of britian, i can find one to match in america.

Go for it; provide us with some proof that your system is working so much better than our own! :cool:
 
The foreign systems they promote cost much less, provide health care for all, and are higher rated by the World Health Organization.

It's the proudly ignorant right wing that doesn't get it.

I always have to laugh at the false claims that they cost less; they pay significantly higher personal taxes, gasoline taxes, hell, they pay much higher taxes on everything compared to us.

In addition to this, what is the cost of huge shortages of specialists and services to the tune that one has to wait, or perhaps even die if they cannot BUY their way around the system, for a critical operation which is always in short supply in Government systems?

It's amusing that instead of leading the rest of the modern world in technology and services and actually solving the cost issue and basically saying follow our lead, we want to be more like them; high costs, high taxes, shortages of specialists and little in the way of creative ingenuity and long waiting lines/lists.
 
The notion that forcing others to pay for our healthcare problems as being a solution to better healthcare is farcical at best.

This has always been my problem with "Liberal" thinking and problem solving; it is always that Government can create a better solution and with that, if only we confiscate enough wealth can we solve all of society’s trials and tribulations. But what ends up happening is that the REALITY is that Government makes it worse and they will NEVER, EVER have enough of our confiscated wealth.

I would think that after six decades of these nonsensical notions and false solutions, people would be smarter than that to fall for it all over again.

I went on to point out that you are already paying for other people's healthcare.

And I am far less than interested in your 'problems,' thanks very much.

Your baiting is insipid, in fact, from here on out I refuse to respond in a serious fashion to any responses that begin with any variant of the phrase 'you liberals.'

and here are your facts:
What Do the Studies Say?
Prevalence
According to the best available estimates,
between 1 and 2 million Americans age 65
or older have been injured, exploited, or
otherwise mistreated by someone on
whom they depended for care or
protection.
(Elder Mistreatment: Abuse, Neglect and
Exploitation in an Aging America. 2003.
Washington, DC: National Research Council Panel
to Review Risk and Prevalence of Elder Abuse and
Neglect.)

Estimates of the frequency of elder abuse
range from 2% to 10% based on various
sampling, survey methods, and case
definitions.
(Lachs, Mark S., and Karl Pillemer. October 2004.
“Elder Abuse, ”The Lancet, Vol. 364: 1192-1263.)

Data on elder abuse in domestic settings
suggest that 1 in 14 incidents, excluding
incidents of self-neglect, come to the
attention of authorities.
(Pillemer, Karl, and David Finkelhor. 1988. "The
Prevalence of Elder Abuse: A Random Sample
Survey," The Gerontologist, 28: 51-57.)

Current estimates put the overall reporting
of financial exploitation at only 1 in 25
cases, suggesting that there may be at least
5 million financial abuse victims each year.
(Wasik, John F. 2000. “The Fleecing of America’s
Elderly,” Consumers Digest, March/April.)

It is estimated that for every one case of
elder abuse, neglect, exploitation, or selfneglect
reported to authorities, about five
more go unreported.
(National Elder Abuse Incidence Study. 1998.
Washington, DC: National Center on Elder Abuse at
American Public Human Services Association.)

NCEA: Statistics at a Glance
 
I went on to point out that you are already paying for other people's healthcare.

And I am far less than interested in your 'problems,' thanks very much.

Your baiting is insipid, in fact, from here on out I refuse to respond in a serious fashion to any responses that begin with any variant of the phrase 'you liberals.'

and here are your facts:


NCEA: Statistics at a Glance

Just as I said earlier... all in nursing homes, not hospitals.
 
Quote:Originally Posted by Truth Detector
The notion that forcing others to pay for our healthcare problems as being a solution to better healthcare is farcical at best.

This has always been my problem with "Liberal" thinking and problem solving; it is always that Government can create a better solution and with that, if only we confiscate enough wealth can we solve all of society’s trials and tribulations. But what ends up happening is that the REALITY is that Government makes it worse and they will NEVER, EVER have enough of our confiscated wealth.

I would think that after six decades of these nonsensical notions and false solutions, people would be smarter than that to fall for it all over again.


I went on to point out that you are already paying for other people's healthcare.

Really, how am I already paying for other people’s healthcare?

And I am far less than interested in your 'problems,' thanks very much.

Your baiting is insipid, in fact, from here on out I refuse to respond in a serious fashion to any responses that begin with any variant of the phrase 'you liberals.'

Your hyperbolic emotional outburst aside, what does this have to do with my comments? Where in my response did I type the words “you Liberals?” Are you now claiming you are NOT a “liberal?” If not, why then do you use emotions rather than logic to make your tragically failed points and have the “liberal” tag in your profile? Don’t be ashamed by it, embrace it.


What does this have to do with the debate? Here, let me help you; NOTHING.

Now this is your original statement I responded to:

Quote:Originally Posted by mixedmedia
There is also the risk of being uninsured and sitting under $25,000+ debt essentially for the benefit of a simple scan that I would have been happy to wait for. This is my situation.


What people in other nations are waiting for are critical operations which are unavailable which forces them to go outside their systems and PAY again in some other country (America for example) where they can get the critical operation. For those unfortunate enough to not have the ADDITIONAL wealth to go outside of the system, their risk is dying while waiting on that list.

How is this a better solution than what we have now?
 
Quote:Originally Posted by Truth Detector
The notion that forcing others to pay for our healthcare problems as being a solution to better healthcare is farcical at best.

This has always been my problem with "Liberal" thinking and problem solving; it is always that Government can create a better solution and with that, if only we confiscate enough wealth can we solve all of society’s trials and tribulations. But what ends up happening is that the REALITY is that Government makes it worse and they will NEVER, EVER have enough of our confiscated wealth.

I would think that after six decades of these nonsensical notions and false solutions, people would be smarter than that to fall for it all over again.




Really, how am I already paying for other people’s healthcare?



Your hyperbolic emotional outburst aside, what does this have to do with my comments? Where in my response did I type the words “you Liberals?” Are you now claiming you are NOT a “liberal?” If not, why then do you use emotions rather than logic to make your tragically failed points and have the “liberal” tag in your profile? Don’t be ashamed by it, embrace it.



What does this have to do with the debate? Here, let me help you; NOTHING.

Now this is your original statement I responded to:

Quote:Originally Posted by mixedmedia
There is also the risk of being uninsured and sitting under $25,000+ debt essentially for the benefit of a simple scan that I would have been happy to wait for. This is my situation.


What people in other nations are waiting for are critical operations which are unavailable which forces them to go outside their systems and PAY again in some other country (America for example) where they can get the critical operation. For those unfortunate enough to not have the ADDITIONAL wealth to go outside of the system, their risk is dying while waiting on that list.

How is this a better solution than what we have now?

You provide me with the facts that considerably more people are waiting on proper treatment for serious conditions in state provided health care systems than there are in the US. Did you read the article in the OP? If you weren't so myopically focused on proving liberals wrong, perhaps you would have a clear enough mind to read my previous posts as they were intended. No, instead of making discussion of what is a serious issue, you want to play combative pattycake with a random person on the internet. Wow. nice.

And whenever a person enters the hospital in this country, receives treatment, and qualifies for medicaid you, the taxpayer, PAY FOR THEIR HEALTHCARE. Whether you like it or not. But, perhaps, if you had read my posts without the emotional, political reaction that was probably spurred by looking at the word 'liberal' off to the left there you would have been able to respond without making a fool of yourself. Sorry about that.
 
Just as I said earlier... all in nursing homes, not hospitals.

And how does that impact the fact that this is a nursing issue and not a NHS issue?
 
You provide me with the facts that considerably more people are waiting on proper treatment for serious conditions in state provided health care systems than there are in the US. Did you read the article in the OP? If you weren't so myopically focused on proving liberals wrong, perhaps you would have a clear enough mind to read my previous posts as they were intended. No, instead of making discussion of what is a serious issue, you want to play combative pattycake with a random person on the internet. Wow. nice.

And whenever a person enters the hospital in this country, receives treatment, and qualifies for medicaid you, the taxpayer, PAY FOR THEIR HEALTHCARE. Whether you like it or not. But, perhaps, if you had read my posts without the emotional, political reaction that was probably spurred by looking at the word 'liberal' off to the left there you would have been able to respond without making a fool of yourself. Sorry about that.

Take some time off of your emotional rollercoaster and do some reading; then you will become informed:

http://ff.org/centers/ccfsp/pdf/CCSFP-PP-Winter-03.pdf

Threat to patient care as third of hospitals in red - Times Online



PRIVATE AID TO CUT WAIT FOR TESTS from 25 Jul 2005 - mirror.co.uk

The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care by David Gratzer, City Journal Summer 2007

Featured Article - WSJ.com

SOCIALIZED MEDICINE: July 2005

Buyer Beware: The Failure of Single-Payer Health Care

Just a tiny sampling:

The Health Care Quality Problem
So what has happened in Canada? Why is it that we've gone from being very bullish on this health care system to having great reservations? Part of it is that Canadians read newspapers, and it doesn't much matter whether you're on the west coast or the east coast; it doesn't much matter whether you're a Globe and Mail reader, or a National Post reader; every single day, there are stories describing the system.

I've just randomly chosen a few stories that have come to light recently.

•The head of trauma care at Vancouver's largest hospital announces that they turn away more cases than any other center in North America. He's quoted as saying this would be unheard of in the United States.


•In Manitoba, which is my former home province, the premier--the political equivalent of a governor--concedes that his pledge to end hallway medicine has fallen short. Hallway medicine is the phenomenon where the emergency rooms are so filled with patients that people are forced to lie on stretchers in hallways, often for days. Overcrowding is a periodic problem. In fact, the overcrowding is worse than last year. The community is rocked by the death of a 74-year old man who had waited in the emergency room for three hours and had not been seen.


•New Brunswick announces that they will send cancer patients south to the United States for radiation therapy. New Brunswick, a small maritime province, is the seventh to publicly announce its plans to send patients south. In the best health care system in the world, the vast majority of provinces now rely on American health care to provide radiation therapy. Provinces do this because the clinically recommended waiting time for treatment is often badly exceeded. Ordinarily, oncologists suggest that there should be a two-week gap between the initial consult by the family doctor and the referral to the oncologist, and then two weeks more from the oncologist to the commencement of radiation therapy. In most Canadian provinces, we exceed that by one to two months, sometimes three.


•In Alberta earlier this year, a young man dies because of the profound emergency room overcrowding. He is 23. On a winter's night, he develops pain in his flank and goes to the local emergency room. It is so crowded that he grows impatient and goes to another. There, he waits six hours. No one sees him. Exhausted and frustrated, he goes home. The pain continues, so he finally decides to go to the local community hospital. It's too late: His appendix ruptured. He dies from the complications hours later.
Those are some of the examples of the cruelty of what goes on in Canada. But they don't give you the flavor of the insanity--and I'll use that term in a nonprofessional sense--of the Canadian system.

MRI scanners are very difficult to get in Canada. There are long wait times. In my book, I talk about a political struggle on Vancouver Island where the wait time for a non-urgent MRI scan was over a year--"non-urgent" being defined by government officials, not by physicians. In the province I now live in, Ontario, there are long wait times for MRIs.

Part of the problem is that we have so few of these scanners. Canada per capita has as many MRI scanners as Colombia and Mexico. It wouldn't be fair to try and compare us to the United States or Western Europe. And the few MRIs that we have tend to run on bankers' hours. MRI scanners are expensive to operate. So if an MRI scanner stops dealing with humans at 5 p.m., there are still hours you could run the scanner.
 
There is another thread about the abysmal care of expectant mothers under the English NHS system. In that thread, many lefties and a few Brits did everything possible to kill the messenger rather than dispute the message.

Here is another story on the caregivers at NHS. I realize that the vast majority of doctors and nurses in the British system do everything possible to provide proper care to their patients, but obviously there is a large number that need to find another line of work.

I read that the NHS has a staff of 1.4 million, most of whom are bureaucrats. In my opinion, that is the fear of many here in the U.S. We all see how bloated government entities become. Just look at our school systems. National health care is NOT the answer.



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

What do you think the chances are of seeing this in our mainstream media? Slim or none??


The Republican Party had 8 years to fix a very broken US healthcare system and they chose to fight the Iraq war instead. Now the Democrats are in power and they get to choose how the fix happens. Choices.

The British healthcare system is a blessing we Americans would be very lucky to have. I had my son in a hospital in Aberdeen, Scotland and was treated with the finest care.

The money my family spends on healthcare here in the US is more than would be deducted by the NHS in the UK for the National Health System. So the idea that it's going to cost us more is ridiculous.

The biggest issue I have with the US scheme is that Health Insurance is tied to our jobs. That is a travesty in my opinion. And anyone who throws COBRA at me will be laughed at. I could go on for hours on this subject. It's one which cheeses me off royally.
 
Take some time off of your emotional rollercoaster and do some reading; then you will become informed:

http://ff.org/centers/ccfsp/pdf/CCSFP-PP-Winter-03.pdf

Threat to patient care as third of hospitals in red - Times Online



PRIVATE AID TO CUT WAIT FOR TESTS from 25 Jul 2005 - mirror.co.uk

The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care by David Gratzer, City Journal Summer 2007

Featured Article - WSJ.com

SOCIALIZED MEDICINE: July 2005

Buyer Beware: The Failure of Single-Payer Health Care

Just a tiny sampling:

The Health Care Quality Problem
So what has happened in Canada? Why is it that we've gone from being very bullish on this health care system to having great reservations? Part of it is that Canadians read newspapers, and it doesn't much matter whether you're on the west coast or the east coast; it doesn't much matter whether you're a Globe and Mail reader, or a National Post reader; every single day, there are stories describing the system.

I've just randomly chosen a few stories that have come to light recently.

•The head of trauma care at Vancouver's largest hospital announces that they turn away more cases than any other center in North America. He's quoted as saying this would be unheard of in the United States.


•In Manitoba, which is my former home province, the premier--the political equivalent of a governor--concedes that his pledge to end hallway medicine has fallen short. Hallway medicine is the phenomenon where the emergency rooms are so filled with patients that people are forced to lie on stretchers in hallways, often for days. Overcrowding is a periodic problem. In fact, the overcrowding is worse than last year. The community is rocked by the death of a 74-year old man who had waited in the emergency room for three hours and had not been seen.


•New Brunswick announces that they will send cancer patients south to the United States for radiation therapy. New Brunswick, a small maritime province, is the seventh to publicly announce its plans to send patients south. In the best health care system in the world, the vast majority of provinces now rely on American health care to provide radiation therapy. Provinces do this because the clinically recommended waiting time for treatment is often badly exceeded. Ordinarily, oncologists suggest that there should be a two-week gap between the initial consult by the family doctor and the referral to the oncologist, and then two weeks more from the oncologist to the commencement of radiation therapy. In most Canadian provinces, we exceed that by one to two months, sometimes three.


•In Alberta earlier this year, a young man dies because of the profound emergency room overcrowding. He is 23. On a winter's night, he develops pain in his flank and goes to the local emergency room. It is so crowded that he grows impatient and goes to another. There, he waits six hours. No one sees him. Exhausted and frustrated, he goes home. The pain continues, so he finally decides to go to the local community hospital. It's too late: His appendix ruptured. He dies from the complications hours later.
Those are some of the examples of the cruelty of what goes on in Canada. But they don't give you the flavor of the insanity--and I'll use that term in a nonprofessional sense--of the Canadian system.

MRI scanners are very difficult to get in Canada. There are long wait times. In my book, I talk about a political struggle on Vancouver Island where the wait time for a non-urgent MRI scan was over a year--"non-urgent" being defined by government officials, not by physicians. In the province I now live in, Ontario, there are long wait times for MRIs.

Part of the problem is that we have so few of these scanners. Canada per capita has as many MRI scanners as Colombia and Mexico. It wouldn't be fair to try and compare us to the United States or Western Europe. And the few MRIs that we have tend to run on bankers' hours. MRI scanners are expensive to operate. So if an MRI scanner stops dealing with humans at 5 p.m., there are still hours you could run the scanner.

I have questioned the legitimacy of the OP's article in regards to its relevance to the NHS in the UK. If anyone is being emotional it is you and your insistence that I have a diametrically opposed argument to yours in regards to healthcare.

I have looked at every one of your links and I have read nothing particularly alarming about the healthcare systems in question. With the exception of your rightwing editorials, which, come on. What do you expect me to do with those. If I had the motivation to do so, I could come up with just as many articles detailing the difficulties of Americans getting appropriate healthcare in the face of opposition from overwhelmed systems and their insurance companies. Get real. No matter what position you hold, you can go out there and find information out there to back it up. Some of it accurate, some of it politically manipulated.

I'd rather keep things simple.

Average US citizens with insurance coverage die with treatable conditions because of the problems with our healthcare system.

All US taxpayers pay for the healthcare of poor Americans...now.

Having to wait '20 weeks' for non-critical medical testing (read your links) is not the problem, in fact, I would guarantee that the American attitude of entitlement to that kind of treatment is part of the problem.

My beef is with the people who are so all of a sudden up in arms over the idea that we might make a move towards state sponsored healthcare when there are obvious flaws with the current system and we are already paying for the healthcare costs of a significant portion of the population. And I am being emotional? Sorry, I've got no patience for that kind of dialogue.
 
First off there is no proposal whatsoever for a NHS type health care system. Smoke and mirrors.

There is a proposal for a public option health insurance

mixedmedia said:
Having to wait '20 weeks' for non-critical medical testing...
Sure beats not having a waiting list to get on, doesn't it.

BTW, hope you got the medical attention you needed.
 
Is it now ...
Source?

BBC is hardly 'far left'
It does have a definite liberal and europhile agenda though. I remember when they kicked off Sean Gabb in a free speech debate because he forced one of the other debaters to admit they thought Brits were so racist that without hate speech laws trampling their free speech they'd quickly devolve into open bigotry.
 
Back
Top Bottom