Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wow, you brought me to Google. No, what I meant was, instead of a story here and there, since you made the claim, please provide numbers from a respected source, not stories in a newspaper....because we know there's never bias in the news.
Edit: You stated that they "put them on a Greyhound Bus" and then dump them in to the streets. That's not the same as "transferring them to a different facility" or even telling them that if they can't pay, they need to find another hospital. Further, E/Rs are required, by law, to stabilize the patient, regardless of their ability to pay.
Yes, they're required to stabilize them, then they dump them.
The San Francisco City Attorney's Office launched an investigation in April after news broke that Rawson-Neal Psychiatric Hospital in Las Vegas had bused nearly 1,500 patients out of state since 2008. Since then, the office has found that 500 of those patients were bused to California, at least 24 of which were bused to San Francisco even though neither they nor their families were San Francisco residents, according to the lawsuit. San Francisco Sues Nevada Over 'Patient Dumping' - ABC News
Feel free to watch the video.....including a hospital employee being witness to it.
Fine by me. The grim reaper can have my last and most miserable years. Humans are mortal. Get over it. Is it worth spending hundreds of thousands and then millions of dollars extending life another couple months, maybe a couple years? In most cases, these patients are simply withering away, just waiting to die. I don't want that to be me. If the body is giving up, it's time to let go.
if you want to die fine, don't drag me down with you..
See my previous response to you. You're carrying on and on and on about something that I've already addressed. It's okay for the Obamas to do what you are throwing a fit about, but you don't mind that Obama creates this healthcare bill..................ok.
See my previous response to you. You're carrying on and on and on about something that I've already addressed. It's okay for the Obamas to do what you are throwing a fit about, but you don't mind that Obama creates this healthcare bill..................ok.
Throwing a fit? About the Obamas doing patient dumping? What?
Everyone dies in the end. Somewhat sooner in America, somewhat later and after more years of health in the UK.
More people spend their last days in hospitals that are free at the point of delivery, because it doesn't ruin their families. Measuring how many people die in hospital only measures where people tend to spend their dying days.
What you want is something called "Amendable Mortality". Deaths that would have been prevented if timely and appropriate health care had been given. In under-75s. In other words, not just deaths in hopsital, but potentially avoidable deaths in hospital.
America does not do well on hospital deaths that didn't have to happen.
If the U.S. had achieved levels of amenable mortality seen in the three
best-performing countries—France, Australia, and Italy—84,300 fewer people under
age 75 would have died in 2006–2007.
Mircea, I am curious though...even if you accept your links, and assume that the UK scores worse, not just than America but worse than the other UHC countries. Yet you act like the UK -by your own link the poorest performer- is some kind of measure of all other UHC systems. Like beating the worst system is is victory. It isn't. Second worst in the world is still losing.
And you seem to want to tie this in with the ACA? Like the ACA is going to move America in the direction of the UK and not Germany? Who happens to be performing far better than either, incidentally.
I doubt this will sway the bigots, but it's worth a try to save as many American lives as possible.....
Sep 11, 2013
NHS shame: Death rate in Britain's hospitals is far higher than US
PATIENTS face a much higher chance of dying in an NHS hospital than in an American one, it was revealed last night.
The unexpectedly high death rates in England show that those admitted to a ward on the National Health Service are 45 per cent more likely to die than in a US hospital. The alarming figures, uncovered by Channel 4 News's Cradle to Grave NHS Special, also reveal that elderly NHS patients are five times as likely to die from pneumonia and twice as likely to die of septicaemia.
NHS hospital death rates 45% HIGHER than in America, according to new figures 12 Sep 2013 02:00 NHS medical director Sir Bruce Keogh wants clinical leaders to investigate the figures and improve the rates.
Patients are 45% more likely to die in NHS hospitals than in US ones, according to figures revealing how badly England’s health service compares with those of other countries
....so, there it is. I purposely didn't use the Block Quote function so that people could search easier.
I have come to the conclusion that there is a serious disconnect from reality by supporters of the ACA.
This disconnect is the fundamental difference between ACA supporters and those who oppose it, and the crux of the matter revolves around the focal point.
Those who oppose the ACA, are focused primarily with healthcare costs imposed by the monopolistic AHA-member hospital cartels who illegally collude to illegally fix prices in each of the various Markets in the US, as well as costs levied by all medical facilities in general. A secondary issue is the total lack of transparency related to hospital or medical fees and charges for services.
Those who support the ACA are solely concerned with their own personal costs vis-a-vis the premiums they pay for the fee-for-service healthcare plans reluctantly offered through their employers. Their secondary focus is on receiving unlimited extraordinary free health care at practically no cost to them.
Clearly, those who oppose the ACA are concerned about all Americans, while ACA supporters are grotesquely selfish, since their sole focus is "What does it cost me?"
That becomes even clearer when we review the information provided by the General Accounting Office...
1] Technology up to 65%
2] Consumer Demand up to 36%
3] Expanding Health Benefits or Insuring more people up to 13%
4] Healthcare Price Inflation up to 19% (caused by Consumer Demand and insuring more people)
5] Administrative Costs up to 13% (caused by Technology, Consumer Demand and Regulations)
6] Aging/Elderly up to 7%
Source: United States Government General Accounting Office GAO-13-281 PPACA and the Long-Term Fiscal Outlook, January 2013 pp 31-36
The expansion of health insurance increases health care cost per capita as people demand more health care when they are better insured. Health insurance has expanded in two ways: (1) by covering an increasing share of the population and (2) by covering each person more completely (page 34).
The ACA definitely does both....increases the number of people covered, and increases the amount of coverage by mandating what is covered.
Opponents of the ACA do not have an issue with that. We accept it as a matter of consequence of the Laws of Economics.
The issue ACA opponents have is that the ACA does nothing to address the fact that Technology is the driving force behind healthcare cost increases.
Even the Liberal Commonwealth Fund says...
"The U.S. spends far more on health care than any other country. However this high spending cannot be attributed to higher income, an older population, or greater supply or utilization of hospitals and doctors. Instead, the findings suggest the higher spending is more likely due to higher prices and perhaps more readily accessible technology and greater obesity."
Source: Explaining High Health Care Spending in the United States: An International Comparison of Supply, Utilization, Prices, and Quality, Commonwealth Fund pub. 1595 Vol. 10, May 2012.
The US government says neither the uninsured nor the elderly have a negative impact on healthcare costs. The Commonwealth Fund says the same thing. Both the Liberal Commonwealth Fund and the US government GAO identify Technology as the primary culprit.
The Liberal Commonwealth Fund actually takes a bold daring step the US government GAO did not take, and names Moral Hazard (obesity) as another cause.
The other main criticism from ACA opponents, is that the ACA does nothing to attack the root cause of the problem regarding healthcare costs: the ridiculous prices set by monopolistic hospital cartels.
Basically, you have a monopoly that illegally engages in price-fixing and charges outrages fees for healthcare services, and the solution proffered by the ACA supporters is to attack anyone and anything except the monopolists.
A great analogy would be a monopoly on auto-collision repair....the monopolists charge outrageous prices, refuse to give you an estimate or tell you the cost in advance, refuse to publish a price list, charge people of varying socio-economic backgrounds different rates for services, charge people with varying insurance companies different rates services.......but ACA supporters don't care about that....instead they scream at the auto insurance companies, who are not the cause of the problem.
The other part of the disconnect centers on True Cost. The former German Health Minister explains that really well...
"In the past 20 years, our overriding philosophy has been that the health system cannot spend more than its income." -- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)
Virtual budgets are also set up at the regional levels; these ensure that all participants in the system—including the health insurance funds and providers— know from the beginning of the year onward how much money can be spent.-- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)
Source: How Germany is reining in health care costs An interview with Franz Knieps
The true cost of you rent or mortgage is whatever it is, let's say $1,250/month.
You can choose to spend less, but by spending less, you did not alter reality, since your mortgage is still $1,250/month. Worse than that, because you chose to spend less than the true cost, you will suffer, in this case through foreclosure.
What is the true cost of healthcare in Britain?
Well, it doesn't really matter what the true cost is.
What matters is that Britain chose to spend less than what healthcare truly costs, and the result is a death rate that is 45% higher.That's what happens when you violate the Laws of Economics.
Watch what happens (in America)...
Mircea
you haven't cited a legit news source that examines the why.
So i'll tell you why. In Britain a sick person stays in a hospital until they are better. In the USA people are discharged as soon as possible and then die at home.
Throwing a fit? About the Obamas doing patient dumping? What?
Go back a page and read my earlier post. It contained a link to an article from the Washington Post about Michelle Obama's time on the hospital board at the University of Chicago Medical Center, where she helped craft a policy to send the local poor and uninsured population away from their emergency room to local clinics. It talked about how the hospital got 5X more in tax credits than they paid out in charitable work. The hospital spent less on charitable work than other Cook County hospitals.
you haven't cited a legit news source that examines the why.
So i'll tell you why. In Britain a sick person stays in a hospital until they are better. In the USA people are discharged as soon as possible and then die at home.
But that doesn't explain why British people are more likely to die in hospitals from neglect, septicemia, and infection.
And yet, if polled, a majority of the British would not exchange their system for our previous "profits over people" one. Hmmm...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
