patrick.net

Another example of using a news story to imflame passions - this has nothing to do with Govt Medicine and you're stretching here. Other examples of asnine rules that have nothing to do with Govt Medicine:

Any accident that occurs outside the hospital must be attended to by EMS. If a patient has a heart attack on the sidewalk outside the hospital, the docs inside aren't allowed to treat and 911 must be called.

If two competing companies are in an area, there is a rotation for calls. Even if another company is closer, the rotation must be followed.

I think you are missing the point here Ellie. Government regulations basically say it is more important that we give our guys a thirty minute lunch break than it is to arrive at the scene of an accident ASAP. I don't know about you but I would rather have it the other way around. Especially if I was the EMT. ( would hate to have to think that my lunch break cost someone their life) GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS gotta love 'em

The Daily Mail is known for headlines which grab reader's attention. Whether they're 100% accurate is another matter.

I suppose the pertinent question is...does South Western Ambulance Service (a private company) represent government health policy by this negligence, or are they simply "passing the buck" of blame by stating "all staff have dedicated 30-minute rest breaks which cannot be interrupted"? Imo, using this one incident to suggest nationalised health care in the UK is broken, and therefore cannot work in the US is quite a stretch of logic. One could just as easily cite random errors / negligence as proof our current health system is "broken". It might appeal to polemics, but very little is learned by it.

2ndClassCitizen says

I think you are missing the point here Ellie. Government regulations basically say it is more important that we give our guys a thirty minute lunch break than it is to arrive at the scene of an accident ASAP. I don’t know about you but I would rather have it the other way around. Especially if I was the EMT. ( would hate to have to think that my lunch break cost someone their life) GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS gotta love ‘em

and, as I mentioned above, regulations in the US require that a patient outside of the emergency room be transported via ambulance - even if an MD is 25 feet away. Some municipalities are charging for responding to accidents even if the victim isn't hurt and refuses assistance. ER's discharge patients if they're not critical - say, if their condition isn't life threatening - even if they don't have someone to watch in case their conditions become life-threatening.

Shall I go on? I agree with KurtS. The story is inflammatory and certainly not indicative of the care that is provided to the masses.

Good, I think we can all agree then there are too many government regulations pertaining to health care. We need less not more. The story is inflammatory, and should be. This government policy is ridiculous, as is the one barring a patient outside the emergency room from being treated before an ambulance is called. And you want MORE government involvement in medicine. Are you KIDDING me?

I don't believe that it's a government policy to not treat people outside, it's an insurance issue. As is turning people away if they have no payment. Also giving prescriptions to people who have no way to fill them. Also, not writing scripts for pain medications but instead requiring patients to see their primary care doc; only they can't afford primary care docs so they remain in pain & distress.

Are YOU kidding me? We need reform.

It is government policy to make more policies. Many of those policies drive up costs and limit access to care. Insurance companies are a problem, a big problem, but government enabled and continues to enable them.

As to not giving pain medicines in the ER, it is perhaps to avoid abuse, misdirection (black market) both of which are massive problems, as someone in the "SOCIAL SERVICES" should know.

We do need to change the laws. Too much of what should be allowed is not and too much of what is allowed is not working. People need to be able to deduct all of their medical costs, not just ones paid by employers. Insurance companies and doctors hate this idea because it will make them both more accountable to the individuals who pay them.

2ndClassCitizen says

As to not giving pain medicines in the ER, it is perhaps to avoid abuse, misdirection (black market) both of which are massive problems, as someone in the “SOCIAL SERVICES” should know.

Yea, I guess you got me there. After all, people who obtain pain meds on the internet, on the street, from friends, stealing from pharmacies, and/or from candy docs wouldn't ever abuse them or sell them. It would be much more convenient to go to an ER, wait for hours, be seen by an incredibly busy physician and receive a prescription that way. That's the way most addicts would get their candy, if they could...

I forgot that you are incredibly more informed than I. Please forgive me.

Yes Elliemae, ER's are the candy store for drug addicts. I am shocked this is news to you. I never said I was incredibly more informed than you but your passive aggressive false humility/accusation is entertaining. In the pharmacy I have seen it over and over and over again. That is how addicts get multiple meds, from more than one prescriber. It is also why ER doctors are reluctant to give pain meds. They know how addicts work the system. This is not really not rocket science is it?

But none of this tangent really matters. The point is there are too many government regulations rather than the opposite. For example it is required that Emergency Departments treat everyone who presents to them regardless of ability to pay. Imagine for a second what this really means. It means they must work, provide service and medication and anything else the patient may need. They MUST. They have no choice. In other words they are slaves to the system.

We don't force Quick Lube-n-Tune to fix everyone's car even if the can't pay. We don't force McDonalds to supersize everyone even if they can't pay. We don't even force Macy's to give clothes to the naked or Motel 6 to give shelter to the homeless. Perhaps we should?

Or perhaps we should allow everyone to do whatever they want with their own time and resources. Because that is what the pursuit of happiness is all about. You can't be happy when you are forced to do something against your will. You can't be happy when people can legally steal your time and resources.

Granted you can't be happy when you are sick and can't get treatment either. But, you can't compare illness and injury (which are often acts of God) to taxation and government regulation which are clearly acts of men and women. What we can recognize is that unless we are free to use our own time and resources as we see fit, we are not free. Stealing from the rich to help the poor is not freedom.

I would like to add that if a doctor or hospital were to choose not to treat a patient because they cannot pay, they have their own reward if you know what I mean. But the person who forces them to do something against their will is just as bad if not worse than the person who refuses to help a neighbor in need.

2ndClassCitizen says

Yes Elliemae, ER’s are the candy store for drug addicts.

There are much easier ways to obtain meds. ER's aren't the candy store for drug addicts. That's television. I'm glad you find me entertaining.

I don't know about television but I do know about pharmacy. Ever worked in one? You might sing a different tune then. But again this is just a tangent you brought us down for the sake of argument to make you feel like a big girl/done your civic duty type thing. Hope your self esteem was given a boost. You're good enough, you're smart enough and some day you may even be a senator!

I'd rather talk about the point of this post, and that is there are too many government regulations. For example it is required that Emergency Departments treat everyone who presents to them regardless of ability to pay. Imagine for a second what this really means. It means they must work, provide service and medication and anything else the patient may need. They MUST. They have no choice. In other words they are slaves to the system.

We don’t force Quick Lube-n-Tune to fix everyone’s car even if the can’t pay. We don’t force McDonalds to supersize everyone even if they can’t pay. We don’t even force Macy’s to give clothes to the naked or Motel 6 to give shelter to the homeless. Perhaps we should?

Or perhaps we should allow everyone to do whatever they want with their own time and resources. Because that is what the pursuit of happiness is all about. You can’t be happy when you are forced to do something against your will. You can’t be happy when people can legally steal your time and resources.

Granted you can’t be happy when you are sick and can’t get treatment either. But, you can’t compare illness and injury (which are often acts of God) to taxation and government regulation which are clearly acts of men and women. What we can recognize is that unless we are free to use our own time and resources as we see fit, we are not free. Stealing from the rich to help the poor is not freedom.

I would like to add that if a doctor or hospital were to choose not to treat a patient because they cannot pay, they have their own reward if you know what I mean. But the person who forces them to do something against their will is just as bad if not worse than the person who refuses to help a neighbor in need.

yawn.

I'm tired too. Tired of stealing through taxation, devaluation of the dollar, loss of individual liberties, forced corporate welfare. Yes, very tired. Tired but not sleepy. Too much sleeping going on by the herd. Go back to sleep if you want, we'll leave the light on for you.

2ndClassCitizen says

I don’t know about television but I do know about pharmacy. Ever worked in one?

I do understand pharmacy. That's where a prescription is filled and the consumer pays for it. Sometimes insurance pays part of it. But if there's no money, there's no prescription filled. If people can't afford the medications, the pharmacist doesn't have the opportunity to see them suffering. He and his staff sit behind a wall and don't walk amongst the poor/uninsured.

We'll never agree on this issue - perhaps it's because I'm viewing the system from the point where I see people who can't afford care go without. It's not as cut & dried as pharmacy. Your arguments aren't pertinent, because your view is narrow.

Yawn.

Not that I wish to discuss it here but care to guess roughly what percentage of prescriptions are paid for by you and me and the rest of the taxpayers (medicare, medicaid, tricare "insurance")? Medicaid usually has nominal or no copay and I've seen many people fill them in order take advantage of promotions like free gift card at Target, when they know they will never use them. I've seen addicts or other miscreants come with scripts from the ER for antibiotics and narcotics. "No insurance so give me the narcotics and keep the antibiotics," they say. Great priorities! Especially since the antibiotics often sell for less than the narcotics and if they have an infection it is likely the source of their pain! My "narrow point of view" is something every tax payer would do well to understand. It is your money being spent at the pharmacy.

"That’s where a prescription is filled and the consumer pays for it."

Actually in my experience "insurance" pays for part if not most/all of the "cost" of at least 80% of prescriptions filled. Consumer: not so much. Taxpayer and employer/subsriber: yes, mostly.

That is why spending is out of control. Little accountability to the consumer.

When you run out of accusation and insults what will you have left? Any reason you have chosen to respond as such rather than addressing the premise of this thread, and that being that there is too much government regulation?

KurtS says

The Daily Mail is known for headlines which grab reader’s attention. Whether they’re 100% accurate is another matter.
I suppose the pertinent question is…does South Western Ambulance Service (a private company) represent government health policy by this negligence, or are they simply “passing the buck” of blame by stating “all staff have dedicated 30-minute rest breaks which cannot be interrupted”? Imo, using this one incident to suggest nationalised health care in the UK is broken, and therefore cannot work in the US is quite a stretch of logic. One could just as easily cite random errors / negligence as proof our current health system is “broken”. It might appeal to polemics, but very little is learned by it.

2ndClassCitizen says

I don’t know about television but I do know about pharmacy. Ever worked in one? You might sing a different tune then.

I'm not singing any tune, just stating my opinion that your point of view is narrow. If someone has to choose between pain control or antibiotics (which treat an infection, but the patient still experiences pain), they have the right to choose what they'll pay for. Many people must choose what to treat and what not to treat - and since they're paying out of pocket, it shouldn't irk you so. So far as gift cards, if the patient fills the script, you assume that they'll never take the medications. But they might.

No accusations, no insults (at least on my part). This story is inflammatory and not reflective of too much government regulation. Just because the Daily Mail prints a story, doesn't make it pertinent.

2ndClassCitizen says

I would like to add that if a doctor or hospital were to choose not to treat a patient because they cannot pay, they have their own reward if you know what I mean. But the person who forces them to do something against their will is just as bad if not worse than the person who refuses to help a neighbor in need.

ER's don't treat people, they stablize them and refer them on. My point is that people who have no primary MD or insurance, whose conditions aren't yet life-threatening, leave without adequate treatment possibilities. Just because they're seen doesn't mean they're treated. Those are the ones who have to choose which medications to fill - and, if by chance they qualify for the "free" programs from pharma companies, they'll have to wait weeks or months to receive their medications.

I know that you disagree with me - I believe that healthcare should never be optional. If we were to treat people proactively, our healthcare costs wouldn't be so large. I'm don't have all the answers, but I realize that we need change to help people, not deny them help.

Girl with busted skull waits an extra 20-30 minutes bleeding on the side of the road so that medics can have their mandatory lunch due to government regulations. And that is not excessive government regulation?

WOW! What is in that KOOLADE you're drinking?

Well, it depends on what was for lunch.

I hear Purple Suarus Rex goes good with shrooms and Blastin' Berry Cherry goes well with special brownies. Is that true? I want to be part of the cool crowd too!

Sounds to me like you already are. Twenty years ago. :)

anybody heard how Bethany is doing?

Might I suggest that you search this information for yourself? I found several articles on the interweb that address this issue.

So much for community ellie. I was just looking for some help. My search turned up fruitless.

http://www.thisisdorset.net/news/4676087.Coma_girl___s_remarkable_recovery_after_accident/

The secret to my success in finding this post:

type the girl's name into your browser window, hit enter. If you need any further help, feel free to check with all us patnet readers.

:)

Great ellie, not smug at all huh? WHISH I WERRE As SMURT AS YOO!

Thanks for the link.