Another Brutally Disturbing Example of Government-Run Healthcare from the United Kingdom

September 6, 2014

Want to see the future of health care under Obamacare? Just look to the motherland…

International Liberty

It’s time to add to our collection of horror stories from the U.K.’s government-run healthcare system (previous examples can be found here,herehereherehereherehereherehere, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).

What makes today’s story different, though, is that the bureaucracy not only is denying care to a small child, but also seeking to prevent the family from seeking treatment elsewhere.

Check out these excerpts from a blood-chilling story in USA Today.

The parents of a child suffering from a severe brain tumor signaled Monday they would defy efforts to force them to return to Britain, days after their family fled.

So why did they feel the need to escape a presumably civilized nation?

It seems government-run healthcare isn’t exactly on the cutting edge when it…

View original post 413 more words

I am so looking forward to government care in my old age. Aren’t you?

March 12, 2012

I mean, it’s working so well in Britain:

More than half care home residents denied basic care, unpublished data shows

More than half of elderly and disabled people in care homes are being denied basic health services while staff are failing to to do enough to preserve their dignity, according to an official review.

Some older people routinely have to wait up to three months for formal checks for painful conditions such as bed sores, according to figures from the health care watchdog.

A quarter were not given a choice of male or female staff to help them use the lavatory and more than a third of care homes surveyed admitted delays in getting medication to residents.

Campaigners blamed NHS bureaucrats showing a “lack of interest” and failing to provide expert assessments for conditions as basic as incontinence.


Fresh evidence of the failings in the system was detailed as a raft of previously unpublished data gathered by the health care regulator the Care Quality Commission (CQC) was released.

It was drawn from the first ever nationwide review of how the needs of needs of care home residents across England are met.

The CQC report discloses that people suffering from incontinence have to wait more than two weeks for an assessment of their condition in almost 40 per cent of homes for the elderly surveyed.

But a separate detailed analysis of the CQC data carried out by the British Geriatrics Society, also found that more than 40 per cent specialist providers set themselves a target as long as 90 days to carry out such assessments.

Such delays have led to elderly people being denied the treatment they need or forced to wear incontinence clothing when they do not need it.

Even worse, a quarter of the old folks’ homes surveyed reported that staff had little-to-no idea of what their residents’ care needs are.

Not surprisingly, over a thousand of the elderly descended on Parliament to protest their miserable care and demand the government do something. But therein lies the problem: government did do something and, as government often does when it replaces the private sector and tries to do those things it was never meant to do, it created a mess. Britain’s National Health Service (NHS), so admired by President Obama’s now-departed CMS head Donald Berwick, is forced to ration care to control costs — and that apparently includes care for the aged. As the head of the UK Geriatrics Society said:

“What it shows is that there is a massive disconnect between what the NHS aspires to and what it actually delivers to people in care homes and they are the most vulnerable group of people”

While nursing-home care for the elderly isn’t yet part of ObamaCare (1), we can expect it will be someday as the federal bureaucracy moves to take over all aspects of health care.

And we can expect that same “massive disconnect,” too.

via Via Meadia

(1) At least, not that I know of. But then, nobody really knows what’s in the PPACA, do they?

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Your future under Obamacare: longer waits, less efficient treatment

May 22, 2011

One of the contentions of those opposing the effective nationalization of our healthcare system has been that the quality of care will necessarily decline as the government finds itself forced to introduce rationing to control costs. ObamaCare’s supporters reply with the only rejoinder they’ve got: “nuh-uh.”

The reason they’re left with nothing but denial as an argument is that the empirical evidence is against them. Back in 2009, reporter Jon Stossel discussed effective rationing via long wait times (1) in the Canadian single-payer system. This weekend, the left-wing Guardian newspaper brings us more evidence of rationing via waiting in Britain’s National Health Service:

NHS budget squeeze to blame for longer waiting times, say doctors

Latest performance data reveal number of English patients waiting more than 18 weeks has risen by 26% in last year

Doctors are blaming financial pressures on the NHS for an increase in the number of patients who are not being treated within the 18 weeks that the government recommends (2).

New NHS performance data reveal that the number of people in England who are being forced to wait more than 18 weeks has risen by 26% in the last year, while the number who had to wait longer than six months has shot up by 43%.

In March this year, 34,639 people, or 11% of the total, waited more than that time to receive inpatient treatment, compared with 27,534, or 8.3%, in March 2010 – an increase of 26% – Department of Health statistics show.

Similarly, in March this year some 11,243 patients who underwent treatment had waited for more than six months, compared with 7,841 in the same month in 2010 – a 43% rise.

Pro-socialized medicine (3) advocates can claim all they want that “it will be different here” or “we just need to make some adjustments,” but the truth is that the same will inevitably happen here: political pressure to save money will force the government to ration care via slower service and denial of care (4).

And this is why it is crucial to keep up the pressure to repeal ObamaCare, whether in one fell swoop or by “repeal by a thousand cuts.”

It’s bad policy, it’s bad medicine, and it’s got to go.

(1) Unless, of course, you’re an important government official who can jet off to the US for needed care whenever you want.

(2) 18 weeks is “recommended?” I can go to a doc tomorrow and, if I need a referral, I can see a specialist within 1-3 days. And the NHS is supposed to be an improvement over what we have now?

(3) Which is the desired end-state of ObamaCare, regardless of what they say in public. Just ask Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky.

(4) Hmm… Kind of sounds like “death panels.”Nah. Only a chillbilly dummy would suggest something so stupid. Couldn’t ever happen.

via Dan Mitchell

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

ObamaCare: the value of your life

May 1, 2010

This is how a death panel works. In Britain, a man is denied life-extending medicine by the National Health Service because his case wasn’t exceptional:

A CANCER patient has been denied NHS funding for a new cancer drug which could add years to his life.

It means that health specialists will be unable to prescribe Everolimus, which costs about £40,000 a year and can extend lives by up to two years.

Doctors treating Graeme Johnstone, 54, from Middleton St George, near Darlington applied to the local primary care trust for funding for the drug. But NHS County Durham and Darlington rejected the request.

Fully licensed, and widely available in France and Canada, Everolimus, also known as Affinitor, has a proven track record. But so far it is not being made available through the NHS after the body which vets new drugs – the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) – decided not to recommend it.

Controversially, Nice uses a formula which calculates whether life-extending drugs represent good value for money.

And just what were they valuing against the cost of the drug Mr. Johnstone wants? Could it be the gentleman’s very life?

Makes you want to run out and apply for British citizenship, doesn’t it?

It’s as sure a thing as the sun rising in the East in the morning: a nationalized health system in which the government determines the price paid for everything inevitably becomes a system in which care is rationed and denied to save money.

Behold the brave new world under ObamaCare.

(via The Jawa Report)

They wouldn’t give him a drink of water…

March 7, 2010

Life (and death) under socialized medicine: a patient at a London hospital was so badly neglected by nurses that his death was referred to the police for criminal investigation:

A man of 22 died in agony of dehydration after three days in a leading teaching hospital.

Kane Gorny was so desperate for a drink that he rang police to beg for their help.

They arrived on the ward only to be told by doctors that everything was under control.

The next day his mother Rita Cronin found him delirious and he died within hours.

She said nurses had failed to give him vital drugs which controlled fluid levels in his body. ‘He was totally dependent on the nurses to help him and they totally betrayed him.’

A coroner has such grave concerns about the case that it has been referred to police.

This is just one of many scandals at National Health Service hospitals that are being reported almost, it seems, daily in the British press. The situation is so appalling, the Mail Online reports, that a government commission has called on nurses to sign a public pledge that they will give everyone decent care.

Take a good look at Britain’s NHS; that’s our likely future under ObamaCare.

Comforting, isn’t it?

(via Dan Collins)

How NICE: a vision of ObamaCare?

August 3, 2009

The Telegraph reports on a stunning decision by the UK’s National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) to stop therapeutic injections for tens of thousands of patients suffering from excruciating lower back pain -including the elderly- to save money:

The Government’s drug rationing watchdog says “therapeutic” injections of steroids, such as cortisone, which are used to reduce inflammation, should no longer be offered to patients suffering from persistent lower back pain when the cause is not known.

Instead the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is ordering doctors to offer patients remedies like acupuncture and osteopathy.

Specialists fear tens of thousands of people, mainly the elderly and frail, will be left to suffer excruciating levels of pain or pay as much as £500 each for private treatment.

The NHS currently issues more than 60,000 treatments of steroid injections every year. NICE said in its guidance it wants to cut this to just 3,000 treatments a year, a move which would save the NHS £33 million.

But the British Pain Society, which represents specialists in the field, has written to NICE calling for the guidelines to be withdrawn after its members warned that they would lead to many patients having to undergo unnecessary and high-risk spinal surgery.

This is what health-care rationing under a single-payer system looks like, and it is exactly what Obama and the progressive Democrats want:

Is this what you want?  Not talking

(video via Hot Air)

LINKS: Ed Morrissey.

RELATED: You can rest assured neither Congress, the President, nor any federal employee will ever have to worry about rationed care: Congress’ own healthcare benefits: Membership has its privileges. (via Gaius) More from Michelle Malkin.