Monday, February 11, 2013
Single payer health care disaster
6,000 needless deaths in just 14 hospitals.
The cray thing is the Brits are so brainwashed, most think they have a GREAT system.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9863060/Mid-Staffs-14-hospitals-under-investigation.html
"Along with the 3,000 excess deaths estimated at the five hospitals already announced, it could mean that almost 6,000 more patients have died at the 14 hospital trusts than should have."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
For those of us who don't quite understand, could you please draw even a teensy link of relevance to that article and single payer?
ReplyDeleteWait, that's rhetorical, I probably won't take the time to check back, not that you would take the time to try and make spam look relevant.
Max
ReplyDeleteHuh?
The oldest single payer health system, ie that in Britain, is cited in a Telegraph article as causing 6000 needless deaths and you want to know the link between that article and single payer?
Have you even bothered to google '6000 unnecessary deaths in British hospitals' and see the list of artcles that pulls up?
Would you find Forbes.com articles to be spam? Try Tim Worstall's article "Why we want markets in health care" where he talks about how politically controlled health care systems such as the British single payer are less likely to roll out innovative treatment and how the patients suffer because of it.
But then if you were really interested in a discussion on the topic you would have addressed the topic.
Hi Teri, hope all is well.
ReplyDeleteI read the article and it didn't make the case that the single payer system is what caused it. The Wall Street Journal cited this article http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/johns_hopkins_malpractice_study_surgical_never_events_occur_at_least_4000_times_per_year that says at least 4000 surgical mistakes occur every year in the US. That's just surgical mistakes.
In 1999, the institute of medicine released a study claiming that between 44k and 98k people in the US die every year from medical malpractice. http://www.iom.edu/Reports/1999/To-Err-is-Human-Building-A-Safer-Health-System.aspx JAMA did a follow up piece in 2005, but the don't let you read it without a subscription.
If I were to follow the same logic of the UK poster, I would say that for profit health care is the cause of this. But I don't believe that, at least not in full. Actually Teri, as someone who works in the system, I am very concerned about it. When I worked in a teaching hospital, the standard of care was much higher because research drove everything we did. And, much as I hate the heavy hand of medicare, the average person just does not understand what lengths they go to in improving outcomes. For what it's worth Teri, I have no interest in defending the particular socialist medicine system of any country versus our alleged free market system. What I do have an interest in is deflating non sequitor conclusions. Incompetence is not unique to any political system, and political philosophies do not cause incompetence.
I read the Forbes article, and it's more of the same. These authors have an agenda. If you are interested, this is an awesome link to a podcast by Jeffrey Guy, who is a burn and trauma surgeon at Vanderbilt. http://burndoc.libsyn.com/early-use-of-tranexamic-acid-may-improve-survival-from-bleeding-in-trauma He says absolutely nothing about the health care system, but goes in depth on the Crash II study of tranexamic acid. THIS is the stuff I am interested in.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you dismiss the possible results this investigation into the 14 British hospitals might turn up? Or do you consider any possible results a guarranteed non-sequitor?
If you really are interested in deflating non-sequitor conclusions, shouldn't you then present some evidence that might do so? I see none in your two sentence original response.
Having declared that incompetance is not unique to any political system, are you then content to leave incompetance in ANY political system uninvestigated?
Do you think then that politically controlled systems such as the British single payer are NOT 'less likely to roll out innovative treatment'?
I am glad that you have podcasts about tranexamic acid to keep you interested. Unfortunately, however, the rest of us do have a far reaching interest in the health care system and it's future.
"Why do you dismiss the possible results this investigation into the 14 British hospitals might turn up? Or do you consider any possible results a guarranteed non-sequitor?"
ReplyDeleteYou know me well enough by now Teri to know that I do not see the world in all or nothing. In my original response, I asked a simple question. It was not answered and it still hasn't been. Just curious, did you read the actual study or just the commentary?
Your third and fourth sentences are designed to box me into absolute statements. I made no such claims to begin with. I read the articles you mentioned and concluded for myself they did not make their case. Whether I think the British system will or won't roll out more innovative treatment is is immaterial; I'm not the one making that declaration like the author is.
Undoubtedly, this does not help. It honestly is not my intent to be difficult.
I suspect someone who makes the disclaimer that it isn't their 'intent to be difficult' is often accused of being difficult. And further I suspect this accusation is not incorrect. And this would not surprise me. Your argument seems a lot of form and very little substance,
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree that people who say they aren't something tend to be what they say they aren't. I backed up my opinion as best I could and I'll leave it at that. We could go into lengthy debate here Teri and dissect every little word and dodge talking directly. I'm not interested in that.
DeleteBoth authors made a claim, neither backed them up, I called them out on it. You have now come to the conclusion that I am the one lacking substance for calling out their lack of substance. That's the proverbial full circle.
Have a nice day.