NHS In The Corridor

[Guest]

. . . . .

 

[3113]

Wanting everyone to have access to health care is not a woman's issue, ami.

Hey, I'd be fine with making it a woman's issue. All us women get health care, and men like Ami don't. Sounds fair.

The Death Panels are waiting for you Ami

 

[amicus]

It is more than predictable, almost inevitable, that when a left winger cannot sustain a rational rebuttal, they turn to character assassination and personal attacks.

(Nice little kitty, back in your box and learn where to litter!)

Amicus...the rational man...

 

[vrosej10]

This is from the Daily Mail UK.

The babies born in hospital corridors: Bed shortage forces 4,000 mothers to give birth in lifts, offices and hospital toilets

Maternity crisis: Women are giving birth in lifts and even toilets

Thousands of women are having to give birth outside maternity wards because of a lack of midwives and hospital beds.

The lives of mothers and babies are being put at risk as births in locations ranging from lifts to toilets - even a caravan - went up 15 per cent last year to almost 4,000.

Health chiefs admit a lack of maternity beds is partly to blame for the crisis, with hundreds of women in labour being turned away from hospitals because they are full.

Latest figures show that over the past two years there were at least:

63 births in ambulances and 608 in transit to hospitals;

117 births in A&E departments, four in minor injury units and two in medical assessment areas;

115 births on other hospital wards and 36 in other unspecified areas including corridors;

399 in parts of maternity units other than labour beds, including postnatal and antenatal wards and reception areas.

Additionally, overstretched maternity units shut their doors to any more women in labour on 553 occasions last year.

Babies were born in offices, lifts, toilets and a caravan, according to the Freedom of Information data for 2007 and 2008 from 117 out of 147 trusts which provide maternity services.

One woman gave birth in a lift while being transferred to a labour ward from A&E while another gave birth in a corridor, said East Cheshire NHS Trust.
Others said women had to give birth on the wards - rather than in their own maternity room - because the delivery suites were full.

Tory health spokesman Andrew Lansley, who obtained the figures, said Labour had cut maternity beds by 2,340, or 22 per cent, since 1997. At the same time birth rates have been rising sharply - up 20 per cent in some areas.
Mr Lansley said: 'New mothers should not be being put through the trauma of having to give birth in such inappropriate places.

More...Woman gives birth on pavement 'after being refused ambulance and told to walk'

Father turned away from hospital with pregnant wife delivers baby on bathroom floor - and saves his daughter's life

'While some will be unavoidable emergencies, it is extremely distressing for them and their families to be denied a labour bed because their maternity unit is full.

'It shows the incredible waste that has taken place that mothers are getting this sort of sub-standard treatment despite Gordon Brown's tripling of spending on the NHS.

'Labour have let down mothers by cutting the number of maternity beds and by shutting down maternity units.'

The NHS employs the equivalent of around 25,000 full-time midwives in England, but the Government has promised to recruit 3,400 more.
However, the Royal College of Midwives estimates at least 5,000 more are needed to provide the quality of service pledged in the Government's blueprint for maternity services, Maternity Matters.

At the same time almost half of all midwives are set to retire in the next decade.

Jon Skewes, a director at the Royal College of Midwives, said: 'The rise in the number of births in other than a designated labour bed is a concern. We would want to see the detail behind these figures to look at why this is happening.
'There is no doubt that maternity services are stretched, and that midwives are working harder and harder to provide good quality care. However, we know the Government is putting more money into the service.

'The key now is to make sure this money is spent by the people controlling the purse strings at a local level.'

Care services minister Phil Hope said: 'The number of maternity beds in the NHS reflects the number of women wanting to give birth in hospital. Giving birth can be unpredictableand it is difficult to plan for the exact time and place of every birth.

'Local health services have plans to ensure high quality, personal care with greater choice over place of birth and care provided by a named midwife.
'We recognise that some parts of the country face particular challenges due to the rising birth rate and that is why last year we pledged to increase funding for maternity by £330million over three years.
'We now have more maternity staff than ever before and we have already met our target to recruit 1,000 extra midwives by September.'

We have a similar health system to the Uk, in Australia and exactly the same things are happening here. We have the additional issue of running out of hospitals that can actually deliver babies and we are have women travelling hundreds of miles just to give birth...

 

[SimonBrooke]

Do you realize what an unbelievable statement this is?:
But compared to private medicine it's a complete no brainer. It's way cheaper - there's a huge amount less bureaucracy and accounting to do, when everyone gets paid for in exactly the same way.

I seriously doubt you will ever convince anybody that there are institutions more bureaucratic than big governments.

There are. They're called 'insurance companies'.

A statement about marginal tax rates is meaningless without context. You refer to a marginal tax rate of 25%, but what does that mean? Is that a flat rate on all income from any source, with no deductions or exemptions? If so, that's much higher than in the US. The 25% federal tax rate you mention is assessed on TAXABLE income in excess of $65,100 and less than $131,450.

Yes. The exact details are complicated, as Og says, but people on average incomes in the US and UK pay more or less the same income tax (the exact allowances and deductions are slightly different, but the difference is surprisingly small). People on higher incomes pay more tax in the UK.

You don't pay VAT. Big deal. We don't pay sales tax. What's the difference? The name. Both are taxes on sales.

I don't know about now, since the 1990's, but the federal government used to pay out, through the states, huge sums of money to pay for the health care, etc. of millions of persons who were deemed too poor to pay for it themselves.

Yes, but, medical care in the US costs, on a like for like basis, about three times as much as in the UK, because of your extra bureaucracy. The overall cost per person in the US is only twice as much as in the UK, but that's because people in the UK get more medical care, on average, than in the US.

 

[oggbashan]

...

Free medical care, affordable housing, living wages, free education, guaranteed insurance and tenure in employment forever...that is easy to translate: Socialism...

Amicus

Amicus, as usual your prejudice is showing.

The NHS provides "free" medical care at the point of delivery. It still has to be paid for. It is paid for by National Insurance. National Insurance is charged on a sliding scale depending on the individual's earnings - just like income tax.

"Affordable" housing? Our City Council is required by our government to insist that "affordable housing" is provided in any new housing scheme for more than 25 units. However what is "affordable" is defined by the local housing market. Anyone on benefits could never afford such "affordable housing".

We do have "social housing" provided by councils and housing associations. Our local social housing is totally funded by the tenants' rent payments, leaving enough money for capital to spend on improvements to the housing stock. The local and national taxpayers do not spend a penny on our social housing.

"Living Wages"? We do have a basic minimum wage. Whether anyone can live on it is doubtful. It isn't enough to get married and start a family evn if both of you are on the minimum wage. Many employers see no need to pay above the absolute minimum.

"Free Education"? Our state schools may be free. Our Universities certainly aren't. The average student starting next month will have to pay or incur debts of up to £30,000 for a three-year course.

"Guaranteed Insurance"? - for health care and a basic pension - yes. Beyond that it is up to the individual.

"Tenure in employment forever"? Not in the UK. There is no such thing. National and local government employees can be fired for cause, made redundant, transferred to a commercial company or quango etc. Labour mobility is universal in the UK, often to the detriment of the employees.

Despite having a Labour government, the UK is not a socialist state. It has a mixed economy. The government takes responsibility for more things than the US government does, but that does not make it "socialist".

I regret that you see socialism everywhere, like imagining that the Reds are under every bed.

Og

 

[oggbashan]

...Yes, but, medical care in the US costs, on a like for like basis, about three times as much as in the UK, because of your extra bureaucracy. The overall cost per person in the US is only twice as much as in the UK, but that's because people in the UK get more medical care, on average, than in the US.

I would add a comment to Simon's last sentence.

The total cost on a like for like basis includes ALL OF THE UK'S EXTENSIVE PRIVATE MEDICAL CARE paid for by insurance and bills.

I can choose to use 1.the NHS, 2.claim on my insurance, 3.use my society's (originally trade union established, now an independent company) private hospital and consultants, or 4. pay my medical bills out of my income.

In a typical year I use 1. minimally, 2. for dental work and 4. for physiotherapy and podiatry.

I have the luxury of being able to choose how I access medical care.

Og

 

[R. Richard]

You don't pay VAT. Big deal. We don't pay sales tax. What's the difference? The name. Both are taxes on sales.

Yes, but, medical care in the US costs, on a like for like basis, about three times as much as in the UK, because of your extra bureaucracy. The overall cost per person in the US is only twice as much as in the UK, but that's because people in the UK get more medical care, on average, than in the US.

The difference is that sales taxes are an open, visible tax. Everytime that the sales tax is paid, the customer sees the sales tax. Most stores print a receipt with the sales tax listed, but in any case, ther's the difference between the listed price and the amount due. The VAT is a hidden tax. The consumer doesn't see the VAT. Politicians love the VAT.

Health care in the USA is expensive for several reason. The shysters here in the USA love to file lawsuits for medical malpractice, four out of five of which are dismissed as without merit. However, each suit has to be defended and that costs. At least England doesn't have a situation like a long border with a desperately poor country whose citizens illegally come the the USA and get free medical care in out emergency rooms. ERs are very expensive. [Yes, the illegal immigrants do have to sign for the care. However, I refuse to believe that all of them are named Juan or Juanita Hernandez.]

 

[Liar]

The difference is that sales taxes are an open, visible tax. Everytime that the sales tax is paid, the customer sees the sales tax. Most stores print a receipt with the sales tax listed, but in any case, ther's the difference between the listed price and the amount due. The VAT is a hidden tax. The consumer doesn't see the VAT. Politicians love the VAT.

Uh. The VAT is listed on every receipt I get. Price without VAT, VAT and total cost. They got to. It's da law.

Or do you mean that the price on an item in the store shelf in America is pre sales tax, and that what you actually have to pay at the register, is that, plus tax?

Just curious.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SimonBrooke
You don't pay VAT. Big deal. We don't pay sales tax. What's the difference? The name. Both are taxes on sales.

Yes, but, medical care in the US costs, on a like for like basis, about three times as much as in the UK, because of your extra bureaucracy. The overall cost per person in the US is only twice as much as in the UK, but that's because people in the UK get more medical care, on average, than in the US.

The difference is that sales taxes are an open, visible tax. Everytime that the sales tax is paid, the customer sees the sales tax. Most stores print a receipt with the sales tax listed, but in any case, ther's the difference between the listed price and the amount due. The VAT is a hidden tax. The consumer doesn't see the VAT. Politicians love the VAT.

Health care in the USA is expensive for several reason. The shysters here in the USA love to file lawsuits for medical malpractice, four out of five of which are dismissed as without merit. However, each suit has to be defended and that costs. At least England doesn't have a situation like a long border with a desperately poor country whose citizens illegally come the the USA and get free medical care in out emergency rooms. ERs are very expensive. [Yes, the illegal immigrants do have to sign for the care. However, I refuse to believe that all of them are named Juan or Juanita Hernandez.]

Sales tax is included on cash register receipts or invoices and is only paid once. The consumer pays it to the seller, who reports it to the state, NOT the federal gov. Different states have different tax laws, but most of them do not tax food from grocers or certain other necessities.

Because of parasitic shysters, malpractice insurance is a major expense for medical providers. Of course, as all expenses are, this is passed on to the consumers and is one of ther reasons for high costs. Fear of malpractice suits is another one, because many unnecessary tests are done because the providers want to cover their asses.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Uh. The VAT is listed on every receipt I get. Price without VAT, VAT and total cost. They got to. It's da law.

Or do you mean that the price on an item in the store shelf in America is pre sales tax, and that what you actually have to pay at the register, is that, plus tax?

Just curious.

If the goods are taxable, the tax is added at the cash register. If I pick out a $100 taxable item and take it to the cash register, I am charged $108.75 and receive a cash register tape that includes $8.75 in sales tax.

In some places, it doesn't work quite like that. Purchases from a vending machine are understood to include sales tax when the goods are taxable. The cost of drinks in a bar include ST. The pump price of motor fuels includes ST. Sometimes restaurants will include ST in their selling prices by posting a sign that says "All prices include sales tax" or words to that effect.

These are CA tax laws I am citing. Other states have different laws and some states have no sales tax.

 

[R. Richard]

I would add a comment to Simon's last sentence.

The total cost on a like for like basis includes ALL OF THE UK'S EXTENSIVE PRIVATE MEDICAL CARE paid for by insurance and bills.

I can choose to use 1.the NHS, 2.claim on my insurance, 3.use my society's (originally trade union established, now an independent company) private hospital and consultants, or 4. pay my medical bills out of my income.

In a typical year I use 1. minimally, 2. for dental work and 4. for physiotherapy and podiatry.

I have the luxury of being able to choose how I access medical care.

Og

It sound like you're the example that SimonBrooke wanted. A person who lives under NHS, but has essentially opted out of NHS.

I take it that you don't like 3., your society's private hospital and consultants. May I inquire if its cost, level of service or the nurses in the self-paid facility have bigger tits?

 

[matriarch]

You really do have a downer on the UK NHS don't you?
If you want non-sensational stories, try a decent paper, instead of a trashy magazine that pretends it's a newspaper.

I have experience of the US healthservice via 'pay cash' or through health insurance, through my brother who has lived there for 14 years now, and also through my wife and her family, and the months I lived there.

As soon as Min and I were married, she became eligible for for 'free' NHS treatment, even though she wasn't working. She registered immediately with my doctor, no waiting to 'find' a doctor, and attended for appointments with no problem.

As Og says, we who are working all pay a contribution towards the NHS, commensurate with how much we earn. The less you earn, the less you pay, but it does not affect the level of your treatment. Oh, and very shortly I will be 60, which means I will not have to pay another penny towards my healthcare. I will also get free eye tests, and free prescriptions.

In the 3 years Min has been here, she has received a variety of treatment at all levels, with no problem of worrying if the insurance company will ok it, or if she can afford it.

Now that she has a regular job, she is making her own contributions towards this system which took her under its wing as soon as she arrived to live her, and ensures that NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON EVER HAS TO WORRY ABOUT WHETHER THEY CAN AFFORD TO SEE A DOCTOR OR RECEIVE TREATMENT. EVER.

Like someone said early, no brainer.

The thought of living in the States as an older person, scares me to death, simply because of the cost of healthcare.

 

[john-the-author]

Everyone pays taxes. Income is just one type. You also pay sales, gasoline, and property (either direct or in the rent) at a minimum.

Sorry, but your numbers are wrong.The Census Bureau estimates that in 2006 there were 47 million Americans without insurance. Of those 34.4 million were US born residents. (Not only citizens but born in the US. It doesn't discuss how many naturalized citizens, permanent residents etc. are in the roughly 12 million non-native born.) The percentage covered by their employers in 2006 was roughly 59.7%. I've no data to back up my supposition, but 2006 was a good year economically. Given the current state of unemployment, I would guess that the number with employer provided insurance has decreased. Note also that Medicaid recipients are counted in the ranks of the insured. Among the ranks of the uninsured, families making $25,000-$75,000 were hardest hit. Have you priced health insurance recently? Is it a choice when your choices are to feed your children or pay for health insurance? I know how you like to cling to your comfortable assumptions, but the information's out there. I would challenge you to go look for this sort of data yourself.

Thanks for posting this, Freshface. As I've mentioned before, the Babe is a Federal Administrative Law Judge working for the SSA and dealing with disability claims. The idea that it's just ~those~ people who are either illegals (who don't deserve our attention) or people too cheap to pay for their own (Republicans?) is not borne out by the data.

 

[john-the-author]

In 2006, the State of Massachussets enacted health insurance reform with the goal of universal coverage.

97% of Massachussets citizens are now covered.

The time for a new patient to find a primary care physician is now 30 to 36 days. [Instead of medical care, the new citizen in Massachussets gets a place in a waiting line.]

Visits to emergency rooms in Massachusetts increased 7% in two years. [ER visits are expensive for the provider, up to 10 times more expensive than an office visit. The goal of universal coverage was to lower health costs, not increase them.]

Half of all internal medicine physicians have closed their doors to new patients. [Instead of medical care, the new citizen in Massachussets gets a place in a waiting line.]

What has occurred in Massachussets is rationing of health care. [Massachusetts also has the highest concentration of doctors in the country.]

If you want to see what universal coverage would be like in the USA, talk to someone in Massachussets.

And is it illegal to have your own policy in Mass. that gets you more immediate care? Or is this that we now have people who had NO coverage before now having coverage? Can we attribute the idea of a 7% increase in ER visits to people who now have coverage and are willing to go to the ER when they have something that needs attention (e.g., stitches) because they know it'll be paid for instead of having the hospital hounding them for payment and possibly risking their house? About 50% of all hospital ER visits aren't ever paid. The hospitals are now getting 90-95% of their visits paid, so they may end up lowering their rates.

Oregon hasn't got anything like this at the moment, but here in Eugene, finding a GP that is accepting new patients takes at least 30 days. It isn't the medical insurance; it's the number of doctors for the number of patients. If we had more people insured who could afford health care and wanted to go to a doctor, I'm sure that we'd have a demand-driven economy in doctors for a while here, too.

 

[john-the-author]

If the goods are taxable, the tax is added at the cash register. If I pick out a $100 taxable item and take it to the cash register, I am charged $108.75 and receive a cash register tape that includes $8.75 in sales tax.

In some places, it doesn't work quite like that. Purchases from a vending machine are understood to include sales tax when the goods are taxable. The cost of drinks in a bar include ST. The pump price of motor fuels includes ST. Sometimes restaurants will include ST in their selling prices by posting a sign that says "All prices include sales tax" or words to that effect.

These are CA tax laws I am citing. Other states have different laws and some states have no sales tax.

I pay no sales tax in OR, but we pay ~9% in state income tax. It all works out. I prefer the latter: it taxes us rich bastards more directly.

 

[john-the-author]

Not true! Many insurance plans allow a decent choice of providers.

As to the 45 million who don't have health insurance, they have nearly unlimited choice. All they have to do is to get to an emergency room and the hospital IS REQUIRED BY LAW to provide medical care, even if the patient can't pay for it. Where does the payment come from? Why, from the paying patients who pay for their own care and also for the non-paying patients care.

You're equating emergent care with ongoing care. My heart condition is a fine example of that. I've had emergent care at an incredible rate; my last ER visit which included nothing special but overnight hospitalization was about $4650 before insurance, but because I have 2 coverages, I paid $0. (If I'd only had one, I would've been socked for about $2000.) But the ongoing heart medicine, which lists for $500/month, is only $100/month >with insurance<. Without that, and without the $100, I'd be dead 3 years ago. The emergent care was what it was, but the ongoing nuclear medical tests and prescriptions aren't an emergent care and are covered for the uninsured by NO ONE.

If you break your elbow, you can get it set in an ER. Can you get it checked, x-rayed, corrective surgery performed, the cast removed, physical therapy for recovery, pain meds? Nope. All this happened to my youngest recently. If she'd had no insurance, she would have had a permanently crippled arm with on-going pain and a high incidence of recurring infection; surgery corrected the bone splinter and she has 95-98% range of motion now.

That's why we need health coverage for people who haven't got it.

 

[R. Richard]

You really do have a downer on the UK NHS don't you?
If you want non-sensational stories, try a decent paper, instead of a trashy magazine that pretends it's a newspaper.

I don't really have any specific complaint with the UK NHS. I was rousted off an aircraft at Heathrow by something called the SAS. The treatment I received was rather cavalier and I offered to settle things if the anus who was prodding me would just set down his MP5. The Captain who was apparently in charge vetoed that. I was then rather rudely examined and allowed to continue on my way. I will note that the SAS boys, the Captain excepted, appeared to be in good physical shape, presumably due to NHS care.

I have also worked with SBS boys who appeared to be in good physical shape, again presumably due to NHS care.

As to the Daily Mail, it's not a newpaper that I normally read. I normally read the Sun. However, if you can recommend me a newspaper that has hotter looking Page 3 babes, with less clothes on, than the Sun, I would be most grateful. I don't claim to know great deal about journalism, but I know what I like.

 

[john-the-author]

That is what has me against government run healthcare systems. Any system is run by committee. However, a private system either overcomes the stupidity or goes under. A government survives, despite the stupidity. I want to make sure I survive, despite the system.

The private healthcare system in this country survives by rationing health care through pre-existing condition requirements, setting fee structures, maximum limits, deductibles, and avoiding high-risk patients. As long as you're able to afford the insurance and don't ever lose it and don't have anything serious enough happen to you that you'll hit your limit, you're fine. The Babe gets to see people every day whose lives are effectively over because they fell outside these parameters.

 

[john-the-author]

Despite having a Labour government, the UK is not a socialist state. It has a mixed economy. The government takes responsibility for more things than the US government does, but that does not make it "socialist".

I regret that you see socialism everywhere, like imagining that the Reds are under every bed.

Og

I've never understand why it is that some people have such a hard-on about "socialism." You'd think they'd have all died in 1957 or something. But I'm sure that they'll be living their principles and tearing up their Social Security checks, refusing the fire department's services, and not driving on paved roads, just like a capitalist Ga-wud intended them to.

I cherish Jon Stewart's comment about how if we encourage socialism in this country, we might end up like... SWEDEN!!!!

 

[oggbashan]

It sound like you're the example that SimonBrooke wanted. A person who lives under NHS, but has essentially opted out of NHS.

I take it that you don't like 3., your society's private hospital and consultants. May I inquire if its cost, level of service or the nurses in the self-paid facility have bigger tits?

If I wanted to use 3., I would pay nothing more because I have already paid by being a member of the society. New members have existing conditions covered after a year's membership. I have been a member for 47 years without a claim although I frequently visited the hospital to see members of my staff who were receiving in-patient treatment. The range of conditions it covers are fairly extensive but limited. If, for example, I needed a hip or knee replacement they would charge me nothing and give me faster access than through the NHS. The accommodation for in-patients is significantly better than in an NHS hospital with free wifi, cable TV etc.

All my family are covered by my monthly payment. One of my daughters might have considered using the hospital and/or consultants but the NHS gave her fast access to the experts in the surgery field she needed. If she had used the society she would have seen the same surgeon.

I never know when I might need the NHS. What I do know is that cost of medical treatment will not be an issue.

Og

PS. Whenever I visited the society's hospital I could park my car without charge. I had free tea and home-made cakes while with the patients. The cakes are made by the local villagers and sold to the hospital to raise money for the Parish Church. The hospital catering service is excellent (as is their wine cellar!).

 

[oggbashan]

...

As to the Daily Mail, it's not a newpaper that I normally read. I normally read the Sun. However, if you can recommend me a newspaper that has hotter looking Page 3 babes, with less clothes on, than the Sun, I would be most grateful. I don't claim to know great deal about journalism, but I know what I like.

Try the Daily and Sunday Sport.

There are more babes sporting their wares...

Og

 

[Liar]

If the goods are taxable, the tax is added at the cash register. If I pick out a $100 taxable item and take it to the cash register, I am charged $108.75 and receive a cash register tape that includes $8.75 in sales tax.

In some places, it doesn't work quite like that. Purchases from a vending machine are understood to include sales tax when the goods are taxable. The cost of drinks in a bar include ST. The pump price of motor fuels includes ST. Sometimes restaurants will include ST in their selling prices by posting a sign that says "All prices include sales tax" or words to that effect.

These are CA tax laws I am citing. Other states have different laws and some states have no sales tax.

Thanks for the clarification.

Must make it bitchin' confusing for consumers though. If I walk through a store with $50 in my pocket, I'll have to add percentages to the price tags to know how much stuff I can buy? I want to know upfront how much I'm supposed to pay. I don't really care what part is tax, what part is the retailer's puchase price and what part is profit margin.

It's not a "hidden" tax because of it. Only if the sales tax or VAT is not declared. Which it always is, at least o'er here.

Especially since I, as a business owner, get to zip that from my own taxes.

 

[Liar]

Try the Daily and Sunday Sport.

There are more babes sporting their wares...

Og

I love it how I have to scroll down two screens of T&A to get to the sport headlines (all four of them) for a mag called "Sport".

 

[oggbashan]

I love it how I have to scroll down two screens of T&A to get to the sport headlines (all four of them) for a mag called "Sport".

Their meaning of "sport" isn't about team activities but overt display...

Og