Can't wait for this in the U.S.

[chuckakers 370]

From the story linked below:

"What we saw in those eight weeks will haunt us for the rest of our lives," said the 47-year-old. "We saw patients drinking out of flower vases they were so thirsty.

"There were patients wandering around the hospital and patients fighting. It was continuous through the night. Patients were screaming out in pain because you just could not get pain relief."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.09affc88c9815310300a92378aed0564.2f1&show_article=1

This is gonna be great!

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[Rookie120 0]

Sounds like a great time! Sign me up.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[DanG 1]

Pretty big leap to assume that conditions were so horrible because the name at the top of the paychecks was HRH. You sure that there were no other causes for the bad conditions?

- Dan G

[shropshire 0]

Exactly... A badly run hospital is initially down to the local management NOT the System.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[penniless 0]

Maybe you've forgotten what went on at Walter Reed a couple of years back.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Maybe you've forgotten what went on at Walter Reed a couple of years back.

You mean the government run (i.e. socialized, or if you prefer, "National Health Service") hospital?

I think you're making the original poster's point far more eloquently than he did.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Exactly... A badly run hospital is initially down to the local management NOT the System.

I honestly think that some systems will encourage better local management, and some will encourage worse local management. A lack of accountability generally leads to worse local management. A centralized system with no patient choice generally leads to a lack of accountabilty.

The argument here is that the system was exactly what led to the poor local management. Simply typing "NOT" in all caps does not win that argument.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[wmw999 2,146]

From doing some more reading, it looks as though this hospital was very focused on making their financial numbers. Of course, that's easy if you cut essentials.

The system didn't make them, any more than the system made AIG do what they did. But one can look at the system and see what's rewarded. If short-term behavior is rewarded over long-term quality, then one should take a look at the evaluation.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[nerdgirl 0]

When I read the headline, the first thing that came to my mind was the current (ongoing?) scandals/court cases/abuse revelations in Texas mental institutions.

Abuse At Texas Institutions Is Beyond 'Fight Club' “

At a state institution for people with mental retardation in Texas, six staff members have been charged with taking part in staging what have been called human cockfights, using residents with mental retardation. The accusations have raised questions about how workers trained and hired to care for some of the most vulnerable people in society could instead treat them with cruelty.
“The fights became known only because one of the workers lost his cell phone. It was found and turned over to an off-duty police officer. The phone had videos of more than a year of staged late-night fights, some as recent as this past January.”

If I recall correctly the US DOJ did an investigation a couple years ago and found that abuse was largely due to poor supervision, understaffing, and lack of adequate oversight under privatized contracts.

That was found to be the similar underlying cause at WRAMC. Perhaps, sometimes cheap does not equal better, eh?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[penniless 0]

Quote

Quote

Maybe you've forgotten what went on at Walter Reed a couple of years back.

You mean the government run (i.e. socialized, or if you prefer, "National Health Service") hospital?

I think you're making the original poster's point far more eloquently than he did.

Did you forget already that just yesterday there was an outcry on here about privatizing verterans' healthcare?

Did you forget that the Walter Reed scandal was due to "local" mismanagement and not a systemic problem?

Funny how the tune changes to suit the agenda.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

The system didn't make them, any more than the system made AIG do what they did.

I really do think that people at AIG were largely responding to their incentives in a rational (i.e. self-interested manner). The way to change those behaviors isn't to insist that they behave more selflessly--it's to examine the incentives they face and consider ways to change those incentives.

With regards to the NHS business, I am of the opinion that the primary driver in health care quality is patient choice--when people can take their business elsewhere they can demand (and reward) quality care. When they are locked into a no-choice system, they have no power. Empowering the patients (by allowing them to choose better quality, lower prices, or whatever they want to choose), is the most important pre-requisite to providing effective health care. I do not believe that either the UK or the USA have systems that encourage patient empowerment (and give patients the ability to really make choices about their care).

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[chuckakers 370]

Quote

Pretty big leap to assume that conditions were so horrible because the name at the top of the paychecks was HRH. You sure that there were no other causes for the bad conditions?

I have no idea what caused the conditions, but it's no leap to say the conditions were suck-ass and the government runs the place. It is what it is.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[chuckakers 370]

Quote

Maybe you've forgotten what went on at Walter Reed a couple of years back.

You mean the government operated Walter Reed?

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[billvon 2,426]

We've already got that. Friend of mine was a doctor at a hospital in Virginia, where one wing was famous for lack of care. It was not uncommon for patients to call 911 from their hospital room to get medical care, and patient's families often had to bring them food and water to keep them fed and hydrated. Rape wasn't uncommon, but was hard to prove because most of the patients were so far gone.

But I'm sure the "invisible hand of the free market" will take care of all of that - well, as long as the patients are wealthy, of course. If not, who really cares if they live or die? It's not like they can pay.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

But I'm sure the "invisible hand of the free market" will take care of all of that - well, as long as the patients are wealthy, of course. If not, who really cares if they live or die? It's not like they can pay.

I'm not sure if you're trying to say that healthcare in the US operates in a free market condition. If you are, I disagree heartily.

If you are concerned about market inefficiencies in this case, the best way to correct them is not to disrupt the market mechanism--it's to change the starting inputs.

In other words, we'd be better off if we just gave those poor patients the cash to pay for their care, rather than messing around with the actual delivery of the care.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[chuckakers 370]

Quote

From doing some more reading, it looks as though this hospital was very focused on making their financial numbers.

Numbers dictated by some government agency. That's why I say the government should stay the hell out of health care.

If the government wants to make sure *everyone* gets health care, why not simply do more of what they already do and just give it to people who can't afford it on their own.

There's no need for the government to dictate health care to the rest of us. Unless of course, they want to control that too. Hmmm

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[chuckakers 370]

Quote

Perhaps, sometimes cheap does not equal better, eh?

Wow. Nerdchicky and I actually agree.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[chuckakers 370]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Maybe you've forgotten what went on at Walter Reed a couple of years back.

You mean the government run (i.e. socialized, or if you prefer, "National Health Service") hospital?

I think you're making the original poster's point far more eloquently than he did.

Did you forget already that just yesterday there was an outcry on here about privatizing verterans' healthcare?

Did you forget that the Walter Reed scandal was due to "local" mismanagement and not a systemic problem?

Funny how the tune changes to suit the agenda.

While I wasn't part of the previous outcry you speak of, I remind you that "local" management or not, the blame still goes to the top. Whoever was participating in causing the problems had supervisors that didn't do their jobs, and those supervisors had managers that failed to monitor their system.

Local problems aren't local once the higher-ups fail to act.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[chuckakers 370]

Quote

We've already got that. Friend of mine was a doctor at a hospital in Virginia, where one wing was famous for lack of care. It was not uncommon for patients to call 911 from their hospital room to get medical care, and patient's families often had to bring them food and water to keep them fed and hydrated. Rape wasn't uncommon, but was hard to prove because most of the patients were so far gone.

But I'm sure the "invisible hand of the free market" will take care of all of that - well, as long as the patients are wealthy, of course. If not, who really cares if they live or die? It's not like they can pay.

A "friend of mine" always seem to pop up in your posts. If the hospital you speak of was so bad, I'll bet it made a newspaper somewhere. Care to provide a reference to the facts?

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[billvon 2,426]

>If you are concerned about market inefficiencies in this case, the best way
>to correct them is not to disrupt the market mechanism--it's to change the
>starting inputs.

The ideal free market condition is that people can afford to get good care are given much better care than that in my example, and that people who cannot afford care are given worse care (i.e. are allowed to die in the waiting room, without the hospital wasting any money on a bed.)

If that is acceptable to you, then the free market does indeed work well to apportion care. For many people (myself included) that's not a very acceptable method of metering care.

>In other words, we'd be better off if we just gave those poor patients the cash
>to pay for their care . .

OK. How do we accomplish that?

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

If the government wants to make sure *everyone* gets health care, why not simply do more of what they already do and just give it to people who can't afford it on their own.

One reason is that simply paying for it doesn't address one of the primary problems, that being that it's too expensive. More than $0.25 on each health care dollar goes to administrative expenses. Taking that into consideration let me ask everyone a question. In your experiences with health care, what aspect of it would you complain about most?

[kylepass 0]

Bring on the Socialized Medicine! I can't wait. going to the doctor will be sweet. Fuck the current system.

This website has become tiresome...

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

The ideal free market condition is that people can afford to get good care are given much better care than that in my example, and that people who cannot afford care are given worse care (i.e. are allowed to die in the waiting room, without the hospital wasting any money on a bed.)

If that is acceptable to you, then the free market does indeed work well to apportion care. For many people (myself included) that's not a very acceptable method of metering care.

Wow. That's a huge and hyperbolic over-generalization.

With a well functioning market, prices decline and quality (and availability) increase. Perhaps instead of condemning the "market" in healthcare, we ought to be looking for ways to actually create one--because it certainly doesn't exist now.

Quote

>In other words, we'd be better off if we just gave those poor patients the cash
>to pay for their care . .

OK. How do we accomplish that?

I'd enroll them all in the federal government's benefit program (the one for federal employees). We could call them all federal employees with a salary of zero, and have the federal government pay for their health insurance, under the existing (and generally well regarded) federal program that provides insurance for current employees.

The premiums that we'd have to pay for them to participate in that insurance program would actually be less than what we're spending now on federal and state health assistance programs (medicare and medicaid).

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[wmw999 2,146]

But I gotta play devil's advocate. Think the feds' insurer is equipped for that much of an increase in business? Other than that, wtf not?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Bring on the Socialized Medicine! I can't wait. going to the doctor will be sweet. Fuck the current system.

I can think of no other product or service that I receive where the provider can't tell me how much it costs. They could save money if the insurers would simply send a bill like every one else in the world, one that doesn't say "this is NOT a bill" and "you MAY owe".
I had major surgery last year and after everything was paid out they still made money off of me and my employer. And when I saw what my doctor was actually paid for the surgery I was tempted to send him a tip. He was robbed.