patrick.net

How does one avoid a hospital visit? Does anyone go the hospital if they don't absolutely need to?

I suppose if you have elective surgery or some non-emergency care, you could choose a foreign hospital, but I think that's the exception to the rule.

Good to know anyway. Forewarned is forearmed.

Dan8267 says

How does one avoid a hospital visit? Does anyone go the hospital if they don't absolutely need to?

You seem to have a misimpression that hospitals consist primarily of emergency departments, but that is less than 10% of the business. Hospitals get most of their revenue from elective (i.e., scheduled) procedures, like the one that killed John Murtha. Even many emergency hospitalizations could often be handled in a safer setting, for example when people walk into an emergency department with a complaint that does not really require hospitalization. Once admitted, they become vulnerable to nosocomial infections and other iatrogenic morbidity and mortality, which create "eye-popping" revenue opportunities for the hospital corporations.

Since EMTALA, we are seeing the planning of new hospitals with no emergency departments so they can cash in on elective procedures without having to provide (potentially unpaid) emergency services. Nearly 100% of those procedures could be scheduled at a cheaper and probably safer hospital elsewhere.

curious2 says

You seem to have a mis-impression that hospitals consist of emergency departments, but that is less than 10% of the business.

I stand corrected. I did think hospitals did a lot more emergency work, especially since they seem to send everyone who walks in the hospital to the emergency room for care.

Is July the month when auction prices for donor organs is highest? More incentive to kill than heal.

Call it Crazy says

Once again, CIC demonstrates that conservatives are incapable of being honest on any issue. He quotes that 195,000 people a year die from medical malpractice and that this is entirely the fault of Obamacare.

From Medical News Today

An average of 195,000 people in the USA died due to potentially preventable, in-hospital medical errors in each of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, according to a new study of 37 million patient records that was released today by HealthGrades, the healthcare quality company.

And when was that article written? 2004. That's right, ten years before Obamacare. CIC is stating that yet somehow, all 195,000 malpractice deaths are caused by Obamacare, when anyone who can do math would solve the following subtraction problem 195,000 - 195,000 = ? and come up with zero deaths are the result of Obamacare.

If Republicans can't even do simple math, why would any rational person trust them with economic and fiscal matters which require enormous math?

Also, You are 55 times more likely to be killed by a cop than by a terrorist and being a law-biding citizen doesn't improve your chances much. Yet, conservatives go to extremes to protect criminal cops.

Furthermore, from Global Research,

The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) has just published, Background Report: 9/11, Ten Years Later [PDF]. The report notes, excluding the 9/11 atrocities, that fewer than 500 people died in the U.S. from terrorist attacks between 1970 and 2010.

9/11, which could have been prevented by locking the cabin doors, killed 2,996 people, including the 19 hijackers. Even counting those, an average of 87 persons a year have died from terrorism in the past 40 years, the heyday of terrorism. That means you are almost four times as likely to be killed by a "lawful" civilian carrying a rifle than by a terrorist using CIC's cherry-picked data.

Oh, and CIC's data is very cherry picked. It comes from the FBI Expanded Homicide Data Table 8, the line regarding rifles. Here's the data for years 2007-2011, the whole data set given.

2007 - 453
2008 - 380
2009 - 351
2010 - 367
2011 - 323

Notice that CIC picked the very smallest value of the data set. The value that best supported his position, but is not representative of the data set.

Now if we exclude 9/11 as a cluster-fuckup by the Bush administration -- quite frankly, a reasonable conclusion -- the number of Americans killed by terrorists is a mere 12 a year. So you are 30 times more likely to be killed by a law-biding rifleman than by a terrorist, again, using CIC's cherry picked data.

How about for handguns? Using the same FBI source that CIC quoted, 6607 Americans die each year from handguns. So you are over 550 times more likely to be killed by a handgun than by a terrorist.

Never trust a conservative with numbers. They suck at math, which is whey they suck at running the economy.

Call it Crazy says

Dan8267 says

CIC is stating that yet somehow, all

CIC didn't actually state that, and the image doesn't either. It says, "You are SIX HUNDRED TIMES MORE LIKELY to DIE by using your OBAMACARE, than by a semi-automatic rifle." If the underlying numbers are accurate, then the precise ratio is 603 (rounded to three significant figures) or, in round numbers, 600. The image may dispel myths from both major parties:
1) Obamneycare isn't worth as much as Democrats pretend;
2) malpractice isn't as rare as Republicans pretend.
It does not say who caused the existence of malpractice or semi-automatic rifles.

BTW, as part of my mandatory Obamneycare, I was required to click Submit agreeing that I can't sue for malpractice, even if my mandatory Obamneycare providers kill me.

You can say Obamacare didn't create the malpractice problem, but the legislation did make the existing system mandatory, and required me to submit what little recourse I might have had, in exchange for a "benefit" I did not want. Considering the 10:1 price ratio of mandatory Obamneycare policies to semi-automatic rifles, It's as if the Republicans had mandated everybody must buy 10 semi-automatic rifles every year, and must waive their right to sue for injuries or homicides caused by those weapons.

curious2 says

CIC didn't actually state that, and the image doesn't either. It says, "You are SIX HUNDRED TIMES MORE LIKELY to DIE by using your OBAMACARE, than by a semi-automatic rifle."

I think the implication and intent is to blame those malpractice deaths on Obamacare. After all, you'd be just as likely to die of malpractice even without Obamacare as the figures came from 2006. Why mention Obamacare at all if not to associate those malpractice deaths with it?

curious2 says

BTW, as part of my mandatory Obamneycare, I was required to click Submit agreeing that I can't sue for malpractice, even if my mandatory Obamneycare providers kill me.

That is certainly wrong, and is one of many things from with Obamacare. Nonetheless, CIC's arguments are disingenuous.

I can't see this holding up in court. You are required to sign up for the ACA and part of that sign up forces you to click through an "agreement" that you have no choice under law to reject. There is no meeting of the minds and no consent as it is legally forced. I would say such a pseudo-agreement is unenforceable. Granted, our corrupt legal system could do anything, but common sense and decency would not allow for this.

curious2 says

You can say Obamacare didn't create the malpractice problem, but the legislation did make the existing system mandatory, and required me to submit what little recourse I might have had, in exchange for a "benefit" I did not want.

Yes, all forms of "tort reform" are typically written to absolve big corporations from liability when they do wrong. The ACA provision you mention seems to be no different.

Dan8267 says

curious2 says

CIC didn't actually state that, and the image doesn't either. It says, "You are SIX HUNDRED TIMES MORE LIKELY to DIE by using your OBAMACARE, than by a semi-automatic rifle."

Actually what the chart says is you are six hundred times more likely to die by what presumably is an AR-15 (323 deaths). According to the FBI the total number of homicides in the USA by firearms for 2011 was 8,583

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

And that's just the homicides. That puts homicides by firearms just below drunk drivers. Wonder what happens when you add in accidental deaths - a fair comparison considering few drunk drivers or doctors intend to cause death

New Renter says

add in accidental deaths

I read 323 to mean total number of deaths caused by the semi-automatic rifles, i.e. the type that Democrats promise to protect us all from importing. And, btw, many medical malpractice deaths have been proven to result from deliberate murder, not the 'mercy' or voluntary' type but malicious premeditated murder, i.e. with malice aforethought.

Dan8267 says

implication and intent....

do not add up to "stating," and besides I didn't read the image as implying that. I think everyone except Republicans is aware that medical medical malpractice has been a lethal problem for a long time. I don't see anyone intending to deny it, or implying that it all started in 2010, except a subset of Republican candidates who insist on pretending the American system had no problems other than trial lawyers until Obamneycare wrecked it. The statement that CIC quoted is literally correct, and I read it to imply that Obamneycare was a Pyrrhic victory, like "winning" a free lifetime supply of all the cigarettes you can smoke, because using it is 600 times more likely to result in the death of the "beneficiary" than a semi-automatic rifle.

As for the rest, I would have said prior to 2010 that an involuntary contract was an oxymoron, but then Obamneycare happened and in 2012 SCOTUS upheld that part (as "a tax").

After not hearing back from @bob2356, who never admits mistakes anyway, I deleted his comments because they're patently false and serve no purpose other than to incite combat over the obvious failures of his narcotic addled memory being unable to keep track of who said what, or to remember "San Diego" and "Davis" are separate UC institutions located 1,000km apart. The UCSD study cited in the article can be found via the UCSD website, among other places. The UC Davis study confirmed, "Mortality increases and efficiency decreases in hospitals because of year-end changeovers," acknowledging "the July effect," but couldn't find a specific percentage. Bob's drug-addled misattribution of all the numbers to the opinion of one nurse, who was not the author of the article and actually hadn't been cited as the source of any of the numbers, is a distraction and launched one of Bob's typical tantrums of sarcasm and misplaced apostrophes, so I will delete it to clean up the thread. Seriously Bob, get checked for toxoplasmosis, T.Gondii can kill and you definitely need help. That isn't about trolling, it's just obvious to everyone who reads your pointless combative and drug-addled posts including your history of injuries and reckless driving.

Call it Crazy says

Where's Dan's outrage on these dangerous vehicles? These vehicles should all be banned!!!

As usual, CIC is pulling shit out of his ass. He takes statistics that say one thing and then state they say something entirely different.

curious2 says

haven't heard back from @bob2356, who never admits mistakes anyway,

bob2356 is a slightly more subtle troll than CIC, but he's still a troll.

New Renter says

Actually what the chart says is you are six hundred times more likely to die by what presumably is an AR-15 (323 deaths).

The line is entitled "rifles", so I wold think that includes all rifles, automatic or not, not just a specific rifle make.

If we peruse around the FBI site, we could probably fine more detailed information and data that includes a wider range of years.

bob2356 says

Says the king of the 15 page post that says nothing.

Just because you're too illiterate to understand a post, does not mean it says nothing, only that you have learned nothing.

Sure and that's a good policy. Still its helps develop a case later when you have the evidence at hand.

speaking of evidence...

curious2 says

And, btw, many medical malpractice deaths have been proven to result from deliberate murder, not the 'mercy' or voluntary' type but malicious premeditated murder, i.e. with malice aforethought.

That person confessed to 16 murders and is estimated to be responsible for up to 300 murders over a 16 year career which works out to 0.9-18 or so a year. That's not even a blip in the face of 195,000/yr total. Do you have any evidence of further malfeasance here or was this an isolated event?

New Renter says

Do you have any evidence of further malfeasance here or was this an isolated event?

Offhand I can think of at least two other nurses from Ohio, one was Donald Harvey and the other was a woman whose name I forget. In Texas, Kimberly Clark Saenz was convicted of five murders out of allegedly hundreds, and is sentenced to life without parole. Cullen worked in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Those add up to four states, out of fifty, and they're only examples that I happen to remember. I searched for "medical murderers" and found many hits, none claiming to be exhaustive:

http://www.safety-security-crazy.com/mass-murderers.html

http://mentalfloss.com/article/20679/angels-death-8-medical-murderers

http://mentalfloss.com/article/20746/angels-death-7-more-medical-murderers

I don't know the total, but it might exceed 323/year, even if it isn't a big % of 195,000/year.

New Renter says

Aren't you glad you changed your mind?

Sometimes, but I don't Ignore anyone for long, so don't flatter yourself. I'm not sure what is gained by comments like, "most of these angels of death did their dirty deeds long ago and or far away, some over 100 years ago." Do your own research next time instead of asking me and then complaining that I didn't give you enough for nothing. Saenz is in jail right now, in this country after being accused of hundreds of murders and convicted of enough to put her away for life without parole. Read the book about Cullen and you'll find more examples, including the Ohio woman whose name I forget, and it will clear up your credulous misconception about computers: Cullen was allowed to continue because hospital executives concealed his murders, even lying to police, enabling him to move on to more hospitals; his poisonings were very lucrative and executives didn't want to refund any of the billings; he got stopped by a few honest people including a fellow nurse. I never claimed those links were exhaustive; if you're not satisfied with them, then go find more. Your rhetorical questions are slightly less annoying than toxo bob's drug addled shadowboxing with hallucinations, but still not a good use of time.

New Renter says

Once you looked at what you had you realized....

that you were baiting me again and wasting everyone's time, a subtle but still possibly pathological type of trolling. Cullen murdered many people. He was not an isolated example; there have been many more, and there are probably still more who haven't been caught yet. I don't care how you want to compare the % deliberate as a % of 195k, which is a low and possibly outdated estimate anyway as the total was more recently reported as 440k; your off-topic comments are a distraction from the point of the thread: American hospitals kill many people, especially in July.

"First-year doctors will be allowed to work 24-hour shifts starting in July"

curious2 says

"First-year doctors will be allowed to work 24-hour shifts starting in July"

Yeah "looking forward" to it

Time to drain the acgme swamp

A study shows[1] that moderate sleep deprivation produces impairments equivalent to those of alcohol intoxication. After 17 to 19 hours without sleep, performance was equivalent or worse than that of a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level of 0.05 percent

Thanks for the heads up.