PDA

View Full Version : NHS Hospital Patients Left In Their Own Filth


Play The Man
02-25-2010, 08:12 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1253438/Mid-Staffordshire-NHS-hospital-routinely-neglected-patients.html

Not a single official has been disciplined over the worst-ever NHS hospital scandal, it emerged last night.

Up to 1,200 people lost their lives needlessly because Mid-Staffordshire NHS Trust put government targets and cost-cutting ahead of patient care.

But none of the doctors, nurses and managers who failed them has suffered any formal sanction.

Indeed, some have either retired on lucrative pensions or have swiftly found new jobs.

Former chief executive Martin Yeates, who has since left with a £1million pension pot, six months' salary and a reported £400,000 payoff, did not even give evidence to the inquiry which detailed the scale of the scandal yesterday.

He was said to be medically unfit to do so, though he sent some information to chairman Robert Francis through his solicitor.

The devastating-report into the Stafford Hospital-shambles' laid waste to Labour's decade-long obsession with box-ticking and league tables.

The independent inquiry headed by Robert Francis QC found the safety of sick and dying patients was 'routinely neglected'. Others were subjected to ' inhumane treatment', 'bullying', 'abuse' and 'rudeness'.

The shocking estimated death toll, three times the previous figure of 400, has prompted calls for a full public inquiry.

Bosses at the Trust - officially an 'elite' NHS institution - were condemned for their fixation with cutting waiting times to hit Labour targets and leaving neglected patients to die.

But after a probe that was controversially held in secret, not a single individual has been publicly blamed.

The inquiry found that:

• Patients were left unwashed in their own filth for up to a month as nurses ignored their requests to use the toilet or change their sheets;

• Four members of one family. including a new-born baby girl. died within 18 months after of blunders at the hospital;

• Medics discharged patients hastily out of fear they risked being sacked for delaying;

• Wards were left filthy with blood, discarded needles and used dressings while bullying managers made whistleblowers too frightened to come forward.

Last night the General Medical Council announced it was investigating several doctors. The Nursing and Midwifery Council is investigating at least one nurse and is considering other cases.

Ministers suggested the report highlighted a dreadful 'local' scandal, but its overall conclusions are a blistering condemnation of Labour's approach to the NHS.

It found that hospital were so preoccupied with saving money and pursuit of elite foundation trust status that they 'lost sight of its fundamental responsibility to provide safe care'.

Health Secretary Andy Burnham accepted 18 recommendations from Mr Francis and immediately announced plans for a new inquiry, to be held in public, into how Department of Health and NHS regulators failed to spot the disaster.

But Julie Bailey, head of the campaign group Cure the NHS, condemned his response as 'outrageous' and backed Tory and Liberal Democrat demands for a full public inquiry into what went wrong.

Tory leader David Cameron said: 'We need openness, clarity and transparency to stop this happening again.' Gordon Brown described the scandal as a 'completely unacceptable management failure' and revealed that the cases of 300 patients are now under investigation.

He told MPs the Government was belatedly working on plans to 'strike off' hospital managers responsible for failures. The hospital could also lose its cherished foundation status.

Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said 'These awful events show how badly Labour has let down NHS patients. It should never again be possible for managers to put a tick in a box marked "target met" while patients are pushed off to a ward and left to die.'

The Francis probe was launched following a Healthcare Commission report on Stafford Hospital in March last year. It found that deaths at the hospital were 27 to 45 per cent higher than normal, meaning some 400 to 1,200 people died unnecessarily between 2005 and 2008.

Two weeks before the report's publication, the Trust's chief executive Martin Yeates was suspended. He eventually resigned in May after being offered £400,000 and a £1million pension pot.

The Francis report said staff numbers were allowed to fall 'dangerously low', causing nurses to neglect the most basic care. It said: 'Requests for assistance to use a bedpan or to get to and from the toilet were not responded to.

'Some families were left to take soiled sheets home to wash or to change beds when this should have been undertaken by the hospital and its staff.' Food and drink were left out of reach, forcing patients to drink water from flower vases.

While many staff did their best, Mr Francis said, others showed a disturbing lack of compassion to patients.

He added: 'I heard so many stories of shocking care. These patients were not simply numbers. They were husbands, wives, sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, grandparents. They were people who entered Stafford Hospital and rightly expected to be well cared for and treated.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1253438/Mid-Staffordshire-NHS-hospital-routinely-neglected-patients.html#ixzz0gX7Ffk7J

Tyburn
02-26-2010, 08:43 PM
:sad: Tiz all true I'm afraid :unsure-1:

NateR
02-26-2010, 08:56 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1253438/Mid-Staffordshire-NHS-hospital-routinely-neglected-patients.html

But, of course, this is just 1,200 isolated incidents and in no way reflects on the quality, or lack of quality, of socialized healthcare in the UK. :rolleyes:

Tyburn
02-26-2010, 09:19 PM
But, of course, this is just 1,200 isolated incidents and in no way reflects on the quality, or lack of quality, of socialized healthcare in the UK. :rolleyes:

its not that bad everywhere...but if you are old, then, yes, it could be a major issue, because you might not get the sort of attention you require and being elderly there is noone to make sure your attended to....also...there is a higiene problem at Hospitals in England....MRSA has been killing people who contract it FROM the hospital itself :unsure:

I've only ever been in Hospital Thrice for myself as an invalid, the first was when I was born at Lincoln County Hospital in 1982, the second was when I had to have my appendix removed in Norwich General Hospital in 1993, and the final time was when I broke my fingers and went to Saint Thomas Hospital in London during 2005

Course iver been to the Hospital at other times, to visit my Gran whilst she was dying in Harrogate District Hospital in 2001, and when I visit Martin sometimes in either Bransley General, or Sheffield (there are two hospitals in sheffield and he sorta works at both, though obviously not exactly at the same time :laugh:)

I also saw a child psychologist, well, two, at two different times, those were at the hospital in Lincoln, and I saw a counsellor, for a string of sessions, and believe it or not I had a string of sessions with a physiotherapist also :laugh:

:laugh:I try not to get ill :laugh: and after today, I loath having to pay for other people who are ill also :angry:

bradwright
02-27-2010, 12:59 AM
But, of course, this is just 1,200 isolated incidents and in no way reflects on the quality, or lack of quality, of socialized healthcare in the UK. :rolleyes:

thats a product of greed Nate....it happens in some degree in every country in the world....its just in this instance its just way to concentrated to ignore but it doesnt mean it isn't happening every where else in the world as well.

NateR
02-27-2010, 01:31 AM
thats a product of greed Nate....it happens in some degree in every country in the world....its just in this instance its just way to concentrated to ignore but it doesnt mean it isn't happening every where else in the world as well.

Greed? But I thought that was only caused by capitalism and free markets? :rolleyes:

This simply proves one point: if we socialized our healthcare in the United States, then we would not have many of the problems that we have right now.... we would have a completely new set of problems and would be no better off than we are right now.

We would just be trading one flawed system for another flawed system, and giving up our liberty in the process. This is the simplest reason to oppose ANY FORM of government run healthcare.

matthughesfan21
02-27-2010, 02:00 AM
But, of course, this is just 1,200 isolated incidents and in no way reflects on the quality, or lack of quality, of socialized healthcare in the UK. :rolleyes:
its not isolated, their system is not perfect, but our system is atrocious

matthughesfan21
02-27-2010, 02:04 AM
Greed? But I thought that was only caused by capitalism and free markand giving up our liberty in the process.
what liberties exactly? The liberty to pay tens of thousands of dollars to be healthy, the liberty to sit in waiting rooms for hours on end just to receive treatment, the liberties to be turned away healthcare because you do not have insurance, or the better yet, the liberty to be refused healthcare FROM your insurance company because they are looking for every opportunity to steal your money and not hold up there end of the bargain....Some liberties huh?:rolleyes:

NateR
02-27-2010, 02:39 AM
its not isolated, their system is not perfect, but our system is atrocious

Which is why the Canadian Premier, Danny Williams came to America for his heart surgery:

An unapologetic Danny Williams says he was aware his trip to the United States for heart surgery earlier this month would spark outcry, but he concluded his personal health trumped any public fallout over the controversial decision.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5h0QC7bditrEb3wYz_6_b-gsGGDxA

Of course, he only came here because our quality of healthcare here in America is so atrocious. :rolleyes:


what liberties exactly? The liberty to pay tens of thousands of dollars to be healthy, the liberty to sit in waiting rooms for hours on end just to receive treatment, the liberties to be turned away healthcare because you do not have insurance, or the better yet, the liberty to be refused healthcare FROM your insurance company because they are looking for every opportunity to steal your money and not hold up there end of the bargain....Some liberties huh?:rolleyes:

Wow, I could spend all day dissecting the ignorance displayed in your post. :laugh: Can you think for yourself, or are you only able to parrot Liberal talking points?

Do you honestly believe that Obamacare will make healthcare in America cheaper? That is will eliminate waiting times for healthcare and allow every American to be treated for every ailment instantly and equally? That's so naive, it's kind of sad. Obamacare will do none of that and it will make costs skyrocket because it's simply a bailout for the insurance companies, nothing more.

Are you an American? How old are you? It's sad that you would have so little respect for the liberty that so many Americans have fought and died to preserve and protect for you. If the 21 in your username is a reference to your age, then I would say that it is sad, but not unexpected from your generation. Because you clearly don't even know what the words "liberty" and "freedom" mean.

J.B.
02-27-2010, 02:44 AM
what liberties exactly? The liberty to pay tens of thousands of dollars to be healthy, the liberty to sit in waiting rooms for hours on end just to receive treatment, the liberties to be turned away healthcare because you do not have insurance, or the better yet, the liberty to be refused healthcare FROM your insurance company because they are looking for every opportunity to steal your money and not hold up there end of the bargain....Some liberties huh?:rolleyes:

How much money do you think you will be paying for everything else if we have to hike taxes to pay for national health care?

How long do you think people in other countries who have national health care have to wait for treatment?

Yeah, we have problems with our system here in America, but a national system is not the answer.

matthughesfan21
02-27-2010, 03:37 AM
Which is why the Canadian Premier, Danny Williams came to America for his heart surgery:




Wow, I could spend all day dissecting the ignorance displayed in your post. :laugh: Can you think for yourself, or are you only able to parrot Liberal talking points? .
I'm not saying the healthcare itself is atrocious, I'm talking more about insurance companies and the costs of hospital visits and medicine(can you not agree that the cost is outrageous)...Of course the doctors are better, that is why the Canadian Premier came because he has the funds readily available to pay for it, I am referring to working class people

Secondly, I take no political affiliation and do not support obamacare as you refer to it, why is it that whenever someone disagrees with you it is because they are brainwashed by the liberal media?

Third, I am very grateful of everything of everything veterans of the past and present have done for us, but I am simply asking what liberties you are referring to in our current healthcare. Are you referring to the ability to choose our own doctors or what exactly are you refering to?

Last, it appears you are against socialized healthcare, as am i, but i do think that it needs to be modified in ways, especially how health insurance companies conduct their business....I am with you in that I do not want a socialized government or socialized healthcare, but are you against absolutely any socialized group or agency in the USA?

matthughesfan21
02-27-2010, 03:39 AM
How much money do you think you will be paying for everything else if we have to hike taxes to pay for national health care?

How long do you think people in other countries who have national health care have to wait for treatment?

Yeah, we have problems with our system here in America, but a national system is not the answer.Nowhere in my post did I call for socialized healthcare, I would like to see some changes be made, but I do not believe in a national healthcare system

J.B.
02-27-2010, 03:59 AM
Nowhere in my post did I call for socialized healthcare, I would like to see some changes be made, but I do not believe in a national healthcare system

Fair enough, but you did imply that our system is worse than their system, so even though you didn't actually call for nationalized health care, it's easy to see where somebody would think that is what you are saying.

matthughesfan21
02-27-2010, 04:31 AM
Fair enough, but you did imply that our system is worse than their system, so even though you didn't actually call for nationalized health care, it's easy to see where somebody would think that is what you are saying.I wasn't saying that are system is worse, that wasn't my intention, I can see where it would be taken that way though, poor choice of words, my bad

J.B.
02-27-2010, 04:45 AM
I wasn't saying that are system is worse, that wasn't my intention, I can see where it would be taken that way though, poor choice of words, my bad

It's all good. :wink:

I agree with you about those things though. It does suck that health care is so expensive, and it does suck that the system is so bogged down.

NateR
02-27-2010, 05:17 AM
Third, I am very grateful of everything of everything veterans of the past and present have done for us, but I am simply asking what liberties you are referring to in our current healthcare. Are you referring to the ability to choose our own doctors or what exactly are you refering to?

I'm talking about the liberty to live our lives as we see fit, not as the government tells us. This is not about wanting to deny people access to healthcare, it's about getting the federal government out of our lives and stopping the biggest power grab by a US President in American history.

Healthcare is simply a problem that the federal government cannot solve.

Rev
02-27-2010, 05:45 AM
A HUGE part of the problem is with the inssurance companies. We have let them get away with stuff for so long that they can almost do whatever they want now.

mscomc
02-27-2010, 05:57 AM
Which is why the Canadian Premier, Danny Williams came to America for his heart surgery:



http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5h0QC7bditrEb3wYz_6_b-gsGGDxA

Of course, he only came here because our quality of healthcare here in America is so atrocious. :rolleyes:

.

Big DEAL. Alot of different heads of states and diplomats have come to the US for treatment. Here is the punchline, THEY CAN AFFORD IT EASILY!!! could you pay for the kind of surgery that Danny Williams had? you dont have to tell me your finances, as its not my business, but could you easily shell out what he did and then just go back to your working day without the cost associated worry? I am going to go out on a whimb and say NO.

Rev
02-27-2010, 06:01 AM
Big DEAL. Alot of different heads of states and diplomats have come to the US for treatment. Here is the punchline, THEY CAN AFFORD IT EASILY!!! could you pay for the kind of surgery that Danny Williams had? you dont have to tell me your finances, as its not my business, but could you easily shell out what he did and then just go back to your working day without the cost associated with that kind of surgery. I am going to go out on a whimb and say NO.

Umm, because of the private insurance that some here in AMERICA enjoy(for now), I'm going to say YUP.

mscomc
02-27-2010, 06:09 AM
Umm, because of the private insurance that some here in AMERICA enjoy(for now), I'm going to say YUP.

and your premiums just stay where they are? no change? For a surgery like that?

And the insurrance that SOME have in america? how many would have the coverage to get the kind of cardiac surgery that premier Danny Williams needed? Do you? I dont think nate does, as he has made clear in previous posts in different topics. Thats all im pointing out.

Also, Didnt you just finish posting "A HUGE part of the problem is with the inssurance companies".

Look im not getting into a debate over bad US care or GOOD Canadian care or vice versa....just pointing out that ridiculous statement Nate made about the canadian premier and him seeking care in the U.S. Its anectodal, just like is the case with americans who come to canada for treatment (albeit through sneaky ways)

NateR
02-27-2010, 06:11 AM
Big DEAL. Alot of different heads of states and diplomats have come to the US for treatment. Here is the punchline, THEY CAN AFFORD IT EASILY!!! could you pay for the kind of surgery that Danny Williams had? you dont have to tell me your finances, as its not my business, but could you easily shell out what he did and then just go back to your working day without the cost associated worry? I am going to go out on a whimb and say NO.

Of course he can afford it, he's paid with your tax dollars! :tongue0011:

Could I afford that care? No, but what does that prove? It simply proves that QUALITY care costs money. If your country had QUALITY care, then maybe this guy wouldn't need to come to America to get treatment.

Rev
02-27-2010, 06:17 AM
The companies are a huge part of the problem, but they still serve a purpose. You would be suprised the coverage available to say a school teacher. The biggest part of the insurance problem is on the hospital and doctor side of the transactions. From both the insurance company and the hosp/doc.
It is a very sick picture of greed and quiet politics.

mscomc
02-27-2010, 06:18 AM
Of course he can afford it, he's paid with your tax dollars! :tongue0011:

Could I afford that care? No, but what does that prove? It simply proves that QUALITY care costs money. If your country had QUALITY care, then maybe this guy wouldn't need to come to America to get treatment.

Quality care eh? you mean something newer then leeches? :w00t:

I dont disagree, the POTENTIAL for the greatest care is in united states. After all, this where all the major pharam and biotech companies are and do their resarch. This guy could have gotten treatment in canada, it just would have been more invasive, which would have stank, but i highly doubt he was gonna die.

I go back to word potential. This is just my oppinion, it doesnt matter how GREAT the care CAN be. If not everyone, like yourself can access it, then its not a good system. Despite our talks in the past, i dont think Canada has a better health care system than the US (i just like arguing with you:)) but i dont think the US has better treatment either. Both systems need an overhaul is what i really think. Whether that be with insurance companies, pharma companies...i dont know.

NateR
02-27-2010, 06:31 AM
You would be suprised the coverage available to say a school teacher. The biggest part of the insurance problem is on the hospital and doctor side of the transactions. From both the insurance company and the hosp/doc.
It is a very sick picture of greed and quiet politics.

My dad is a janitor for the public school system in New Mexico and the healthcare plan he's provided covered his heart surgery AND brain surgery for my mom (she had an electronic implant put in to control her epileptic seizures). So, you don't need to be a Canadian politician to afford quality healthcare in the US.

NateR
02-27-2010, 06:40 AM
If not everyone, like yourself can access it, then its not a good system.

I would disagree. That's like claiming that a BMW is not a high quality car because not everyone can afford one.

Tyburn
02-27-2010, 01:00 PM
we would not have many of the problems that we have right now.... we would have a completely new set of problems .

that would be true :unsure-1:

KENTUCKYREDBONE
02-27-2010, 09:32 PM
I strongly believe that if America got a socialized health care system that would become the norm! On a side note I would like to point out that here in America if you show up at an ER with a life threatening illness they are required by law to stabilize you to the best of their ability.

Neezar
02-28-2010, 04:03 AM
I would disagree. That's like claiming that a BMW is not a high quality car because not everyone can afford one.

:applause:

mscomc
02-28-2010, 05:20 AM
I would disagree. That's like claiming that a BMW is not a high quality car because not everyone can afford one.

I am sorry, I fundamentally disagree. That is NOT the same thing.

Health care is a service you receive and the BMW is a product that you use. If you were without the BMW is your life going to be any worse? No, it would just be nice to have one, but its not required.

If you didnt have healthcare or you have no access to it, that can be a matter of life and death. I dont think it is relevant to compare healthcare to a car, to me that is comparing apples and oranges.

Even if I did agree with you analogy of the car and not everyone affording it, then your saying that:

Good Healthcare --- for the rich / really well insured
Bad healthcare (and whatever is left) --- for the poor / poorly insured or not insured

Maybe that is ok for you, I don't think it is. But maybe that is where we have to agree to disagree.

Rev
02-28-2010, 06:16 AM
So should our government provide everyone with the same healthcare? If someone works hard and can afford it or has the insurance should they not be allowed to get the best available healthcare just because there are some who cant?

So I have a neighbor who works hard and studies his tail off and goes through college so he can get a good job in an office and not outside sweating like the rest of us. Is it wrong for him to buy American Eagle clothing because he can, while the rest of us can only afford wranglers and levis? Should he be forced to buy wranglers and levis or are we all entitled to American Eagle? (In the name of equality of coarse) Both are going to cover our butts and keep us warm, some are just better quality(look better, feel better, last longer).

In America, (as far as I know) everyone has some type of healthcare available to them, some are just better quality(faster, closer to home, more convenient).

Tyburn
02-28-2010, 12:02 PM
So should our government provide everyone with the same healthcare? If someone works hard and can afford it or has the insurance should they not be allowed to get the best available healthcare just because there are some who cant?

So I have a neighbor who works hard and studies his tail off and goes through college so he can get a good job in an office and not outside sweating like the rest of us. Is it wrong for him to buy American Eagle clothing because he can, while the rest of us can only afford wranglers and levis? Should he be forced to buy wranglers and levis or are we all entitled to American Eagle? (In the name of equality of coarse) Both are going to cover our butts and keep us warm, some are just better quality(look better, feel better, last longer).

In America, (as far as I know) everyone has some type of healthcare available to them, some are just better quality(faster, closer to home, more convenient).

Yes, I learned that last year when we were looking for health insurance to cover my ADT2 Trip....America already has a free health care system for people who cant afford it, its run from some kinda clincs and they are apparently as widespread as any private hospitals...thats why I cant understand Obamas need for this...he already has everyone covered...effectively, the U.S already has a national health service in that way...so whats the big deal??

I've gone well of Barack of late :ninja:

mscomc
02-28-2010, 04:46 PM
So should our government provide everyone with the same healthcare? If someone works hard and can afford it or has the insurance should they not be allowed to get the best available healthcare just because there are some who cant?

So I have a neighbor who works hard and studies his tail off and goes through college so he can get a good job in an office and not outside sweating like the rest of us. Is it wrong for him to buy American Eagle clothing because he can, while the rest of us can only afford wranglers and levis? Should he be forced to buy wranglers and levis or are we all entitled to American Eagle? (In the name of equality of coarse) Both are going to cover our butts and keep us warm, some are just better quality(look better, feel better, last longer).

In America, (as far as I know) everyone has some type of healthcare available to them, some are just better quality(faster, closer to home, more convenient).

You are doing the exact thing nate tried to do, you are comparing the service of health care to products, like clothing, just like he tried to use the BMW example. To answer your question, YES, i beleive health care is an area where everyone should have the same (give or take) health care. I dont beleive health care is something that should be accessed only by a few, while many cant...for whatever reason (finances, cant get insured etc). So again, just like nate, I think you are trying to compare apples and oragnes.

Now to be clear, I only beleive this about health care. Health care can be a matter of life and death, living in pain, being sick etc. How bad is your life really going to be if you dont have american eagle, and just levis instead? is your life going to end? come on man!

With that said, I do beleive that in other areas of market, if you can afford it, you should be able to get it, and not feel guilty about it. For example: cars, clothes, houses etc.

And in terms of everyone having some kind of healthcare, ok maybe that is true. I am not american. Maybe I dont have an accurate picture. Most of the info I get is: 1) through the news. i try to watch both left and right wing programs to get some picture of the truth. 2) my relatives who are physicans in the states, and who volunteer in these free clinics that people can use. And from what they tell me, those places are some of the worst places. And I saw one for myself on a visit...:unsure: Health care quality is not just: how close it is, or how fast it is. Its also the quality of doctors you can see (can you see a specialist), the type of medicine you can get (i know that canadian drugs are cheaper for a fact) etc etc.

Anyway, that is just my take on it. I know some disagree with me, but that ok.

atomdanger
02-28-2010, 07:01 PM
But, of course, this is just 1,200 isolated incidents and in no way reflects on the quality, or lack of quality, of socialized healthcare in the UK. :rolleyes:

195K die a year in the US.
All from "medical mistakes" or "medical neglect" in hospitals.

Rev
02-28-2010, 09:50 PM
You are doing the exact thing nate tried to do, you are comparing the service of health care to products, like clothing, just like he tried to use the BMW example. To answer your question, YES, i beleive health care is an area where everyone should have the same (give or take) health care. I dont beleive health care is something that should be accessed only by a few, while many cant...for whatever reason (finances, cant get insured etc). So again, just like nate, I think you are trying to compare apples and oragnes.

Now to be clear, I only beleive this about health care. Health care can be a matter of life and death, living in pain, being sick etc. How bad is your life really going to be if you dont have american eagle, and just levis instead? is your life going to end? come on man!

With that said, I do beleive that in other areas of market, if you can afford it, you should be able to get it, and not feel guilty about it. For example: cars, clothes, houses etc.

And in terms of everyone having some kind of healthcare, ok maybe that is true. I am not american. Maybe I dont have an accurate picture. Most of the info I get is: 1) through the news. i try to watch both left and right wing programs to get some picture of the truth. 2) my relatives who are physicans in the states, and who volunteer in these free clinics that people can use. And from what they tell me, those places are some of the worst places. And I saw one for myself on a visit...:unsure: Health care quality is not just: how close it is, or how fast it is. Its also the quality of doctors you can see (can you see a specialist), the type of medicine you can get (i know that canadian drugs are cheaper for a fact) etc etc.

Anyway, that is just my take on it. I know some disagree with me, but that ok.

Ok.

healthcare IS available to everyone. The poor use it more than the wealthy or middle class, but they have to go to the hospitals and health units that provide those free services. We dont just let people die or hurt. Come on man. If people can afford to get faster and more convenient healthcare they should be allowed and to stop them because others cant afford it is WRONG. that is how my illustration is accurate.

mscomc
02-28-2010, 10:24 PM
Ok.

healthcare IS available to everyone. The poor use it more than the wealthy or middle class, but they have to go to the hospitals and health units that provide those free services. We dont just let people die or hurt. Come on man. If people can afford to get faster and more convenient healthcare they should be allowed and to stop them because others cant afford it is WRONG. that is how my illustration is accurate.

If you had read my post (i can see you cleary didn't), you would know that this is what I disagree with, I beleive it is wrong, when it comes to healthcare.

your healthcare may be available to everyone (via free clincs and other things), but there is HUGE gap in the quality of healthcare. The care at a free clinc (for the poor) vs the care at the Mayo clinc (for the rich). Gimme a break!

I personally saw a 'free clinic' in NYC where a relative of mine was volunteering. The place was full of: prostitutes, pimps, no doubt criminals etc. You wanna take your wife and kid there? I am going to say no. This disparity is wrong. Now maybe my case was an inner city exception, and you dont live in a big city like NYC (do you?).

And you just dont let people die huh? In 2009 it was estimated in the American journal of Public Health that 44,800 excess deaths were caused from lacking health insurance (have no insurace). To me, that is letting people die, maybe you dont see it that way. Fair enough.

http://pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-insurance-and-mortality-in-US-adults.pdf

What what about people who are insured, but under insured? Thirty-eight percent of insured individuals report that they or their families experienced at least one problem accessing medical services in the past year. Nearly one-fifth (18%)report that they postponed seeking medical care, 15% had
a problem paying medical bills, 10% did not get a prescription drug they felt they needed, 8% were contacted by a collection agency about a medical bill, and 6% didn’t get care they felt they needed.
http://www.kff.org/uninsured/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=14136 & from the institute of medicine http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2004/Insuring-Americas-Health-Principles-and-Recommendations.aspx

If you have other data from published and credited research articles like I gave you, please send them my way, maybe I have it wrong.


Anyway I have stated my point, no need to do it again. Lets just agree to disagree. I have my views, you have yours.