MVNHS©: No Smoking, Christianity

Alternate title: MVNHS© Hits Bottom, Continues Digging

Long-time readers may recall that Britain's Much Vaunted National Health System© appears quite willing to appease those who practice Islam (including forbidding "health care workers from eating at their desks during Ramadan"). Christians, on the other hand, are offered no such accommodation:

"A Christian doctor in England has been threatened with an official warning from his professional body for discussing Jesus with a patient ... Richard Scott, a doctor for 28 years, is under investigation ... and faces disciplinary action after he suggested to a 24-year-old man that he might find solace in Christianity."

Oh, the humanity!

Heaven forfend that a believer in some other Abrahamic faith should share harmless advice (and one wonders what Ezra Klein would counsel in that circumstance).

The MVNHS© authorities have "written to Scott suggesting he accept an official warning." but the good doctor is having none of that. In fact, he's fighting back against what "he believes is a politically correct trend in Britain to persecute Christians for expressing their faith in the workplace."

We wish him Godspeed in his efforts.

One hopes that Dr Scott refrained from "lighting one up" or sharing a snack while dispensing spiritual advice. As FoIB Bob D alerts us, the MVNHS© is now looking to curb care for smokers and weight-enhanced individuals:

"[MVNHS©] North Yorkshire and York are preventing certain operations for the obese and smokers because they say unhealthy lifestyles lower their chance of success ... Now the government is saying that although you've paid into the system throughout your life, unfortunately you will not be receiving treatment ... you are a second-class citizen because you smoke, drink or are obese."

Now, one may argue that there are, or should be, consequences for one's lifestyle choices. But this is the very embodiment of Death Panels. Good luck with that "stiff upper lip" thing.

Another One Bites the Dust: MVNHS© Style

Just a few weeks since the last (successful) attempt to lower healthcare costs by literally killing off beneficiaries, the Much Vaunted National Health System© adds another notch to its belt:

"A Grandmother whose free NHS treatment was withdrawn because she paid privately for anti-cancer drugs has died."

Turns out, under the "free" MVNHS©, you're not allowed to pay for treatment that would actually help prolong your own life (astute IB readers may recall a similar proposal aimed at us). Poor Linda O'Boyle suffered from colon cancer, and was being treated by the MVNHS© for it (it's worth noting, by the way, that Britain has among the lowest survival rates for cancer). In the event, Mrs O'Boyle was less than sanguine about that "free" treatment [ed: you get what you pay for?] and sought out an alternative treatment regimen, which included the drug cetuximab. On the one hand, the med promised to extend her life. On the other, the MVNHS© punished her by withdrawing its "free" support, and charging her for her regular treatments.

There goes the nest egg.

Ms O'Boyle has earned her place in history, though, as "the first person to die after being denied free care [by the MVNHS©] because of 'co-payment', where a patient tops up treatment by paying privately for extra drugs."

Ooops.

According to her widower, Brian, the O'Boyles were more than willing to pay for the cetuximab, but the added burden of paying for the "regular" treatments was too much. One irony is that, had she lived in Scotland, there would have been no problem.

Gee, why can't we have such a great system here?

The HMS MVNHS©

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water, or at least to believe that Britain's National Health Service couldn't, um, sink any lower, we land this whopper:

"NHS trust to buy £400,000 yacht.

A health trust is planning to spend £400,000 on a 72ft yacht to help jobless teenagers make better "lifestyle choices."

Oy.

And precisely why is the alleged "health" service laying out almost seven hundred thousand dollars? To "improve the long-term health prospects of teenagers," of course.

But Henry, how will spending time on a yacht help young people live healthier lives?

I'm so glad you asked, dear reader. Although the answer may not seem obvious to you (or, to be fair, to me), we must trust those righteous stewards of the MVNHS© to make wise choices for the better good.

To wit, the masterminds at the NHS think that it's a grand idea to take 150 unemployed teenagers and put them to work on The Love Boat. That works out, by the way, to almost $5,000 a teen (gratuities not included, of course).

And what will these young Horatio Algers do that will improve their health? Well, according to the MVNHS©, "people in employment are less likely to have long-term health issues.” Of course, no citation was offered bolstering this rather startling assessment, but who are we to question the medical expertise of these health experts?

Turns out, there is someone willing to call them out (Hooray!). One of Hull City's elected officials, Steve Brady, says it best: "What I am absolutely concerned about is the misuse of public money."

Yah think?

MVNHS© Customer Satisfaction takes a hit

As we've long noted, actual care delivery under the Much Vaunted National Health System© has been - at best - substandard. But don't just take our word for it:

"A new survey carried out by the King’s Fund health charity ... indicates that the general public’s levels of satisfaction with the running of the NHS have seen a marked drop. The number of people who were satisfied ... fell significantly to 58% in 2011."

Ooopsies.

MVNHS© leadership observed that these findings indicated that Brits are “worried and confused.” No kidding: they're worried because they see precisely how such systems fail to perform, and they're confused by the fact that it's still touted by the ruling class as terrific.

Regular readers already know that victims of participants in the MVNHS© can buy health insurance that can help pay for private care. The catch, which may be new to some, is that this service is available only to those on a waiting list.

Fortunately, this apparently comprises the majority of patients.

MVNHS© Death Panels

Coming soon to the 58 states:

"[MVNHS©] doctors are prematurely ending the lives of thousands of elderly hospital patients because they are difficult to manage or to free up beds ... there was often a lack of clear evidence for initiating the Liverpool Care Pathway ... a 71-year-old who was admitted to hospital suffering from pneumonia and epilepsy was put on the LCP by a covering doctor on a weekend shift."

We've discussed the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) before; it's basically the British version of the ObamaTax Death Panels. What's remarkable about this item is the sheer numbers of seasoned Brits going under the LCP bus:

"The [MVNHS©] kills off 130,000 elderly patients every year ... doctors had turned the use of a controversial ‘death pathway’ into the equivalent of euthanasia of the elderly."

Well, it is free health care - you just get what you pay for.

[Hat Tip: FoIB Peter K]

MVNHS© hates women, too

We've long known that the Much Vaunted National Health Service© really doesn't like kids:

"[I]t's actually cost the MVNHS© more money to fight his being flown elsewhere for treatment at his parents' expense."

Turns out, the health "care" scheme doesn't much like their mom's, either:

"Error means 48,000 women have not received cervical cancer screening information"

To be fair, this mistake was made by an MVNHS© vendor, not the service itself. Still, the buck pound sterling has to stop somewhere.

And hey: Free!

[Hat Tip: FoIB Dutch R]

MVNHS© vs AARP

Okay, not really the AARP (that's an American thing), but ailing English seniors in general. The MVNHS© (Britain's "Much Vaunted" National Health Service) has taken aim - again - at its seasoned citizens, opting to deny them needed health care:

"[O]lder people will be left vulnerable to discrimination and could miss out on life-saving treatment in favour of younger patients."

Seems that Parliament was considering new legislation that would ban health care discrimination based on age. But that's now on hold for at least another year and a half, leaving elder Britons without protection against the kinds of shenanigans for which the MVNHS is so famous. In a move reminiscent of our own brilliant governing class, the "Minister of State for Care Services said the Government will set up an advisory group to look at the issues around age discrimination in health and social care."

But of course: a committee!

And also of course, said committee will use the next 18 months to study the issue, and then (perhaps) issue some guidelines and/or recommendations, which may or may not be implemented some time iin the hazy, distant future.

Which doesn't do sickly seniors much good [ed: maybe that's the point?]

I'll leave the last word to His Right Honorable Phil Hope (the aforementioned Minister), who provides the most authentic example of genuine gummint-speak we've seen in quite a while:

"The Government will undertake consultation on possible exceptions to the ban on harmful age discrimination (in health and social care) taking account of the findings of the advisory group when it has completed its work."

Couldn't have said it better myself, Gabby.

Hunger Games and the MVNHS©

Sometimes, the headline really is the story:

Nearly 1,200 people have starved to death in NHS hospitals because 'nurses are too busy to feed patients'

On the one hand, this apparently took place over four years, so that (presumably) "only" about 300 Brits per year were killed off this way. Still, death by starvation is no treat:

"Pain in the stomach often quickly develops, then can turn into digestive and waste-related syndromes such as severe and painful constipation followed by uncontrollable diarrhea. Early symptoms of starvation include faintness, weakness, and dizziness. Thirst may also rapidly increase."

Oh, and apparently starvation isn't the only problem facing patients victims of the Much Vaunted National Health Service©:

"[F]or every patient who dies from malnutrition, four more have dehydration mentioned on their death certificate."

No big deal, really: just think of it as a very dry Liverpool.

And speaking of the MVNHS© and pools, the good news for "aspiring glamour model" Josie Cunningham is that she'll be a knockout in a bikini. That's because the rocket plastic surgeons at the Much Vaunted National Health Service© gave the go-ahead for her "upgrade" to 36DD (and no, that's not her seat number).

The bad news is that these same folks took a pass on "upgrading" 2-year old aspiring walker Oliver Dockerty. Apparently the boobs in charge at the MVNHS© found Ms Cunningham's case more, ahem, compelling. After all, why would any two-year-old want to walk?

MVNHS© and Medicaid vs Babies

The Much Vaunted National Health System© continues its war on children. This time, a preemie was "left to die alone in a sluice room at an NHS trust plagued by clinical errors and bad staff attitudes."

In case you're wondering, a "sluice room" is "where used disposables such as incontinence pads and bed pans are dealt with, and reusable products are cleaned and disinfected."

For the MVNHS© "disposables" now includes babies, apparently.

Great system over there.

And lest we forget, our own version leaves much to be desired, based on this cautionary take from Florida:

"Kim and Richard Muszynski love Florida ... in September, the couple left the Sunshine State ... because they think Abby's health insurance was killing her."

The kicker?

"Like nearly half of all children in Florida, Abby has Medicaid"

Leaving aside for the moment that appalling statistic, it may be instructive to note that, as with the Much Vaunted National Health System©, Medicaid is not not insurance (after all, who pays premiums?) but taxpayer-funded health care. And, again as with the MVNHS©, who pays the piper calls the tune.

[Hat Tip: Holly R]

Sally Pipes up about the MVNHS©

Sally Pipes is, of course, well-known in her role as President of the Pacific Research Institute. Her main focus is health care studies, and she brings that expertise to bear on the canard that socialized health care is "a good thing."

In her recent article at Forbes, she points out that socializing medicine hasn't exactly helped the Brits: "The National Health Service (NHS) ... is being forced to shave $31 billion from its budget by 2015."

So much for efficiencies of scale and the purchasing power of government. As we've pointed out many times, none of the government-run systems have had any more long-term success in cutting costs than our own (soon to be gone) public/private hybrid. And they deal with those losses by reducing actual health care.

For example, "the NHS is raising the threshold at which patients qualify for treatment and lengthening wait times for surgeries determined “non-lifesaving.” There's a term for this kind of system, what could it be?

But of course, the MVNHS©-provided health care is "free" [ed: as in "worth what you pay for it?"]. Or is it? Ms Pipes has a thoughtful question: Brits' may be “guaranteed” access to care, but does it follow that they actually receive it?

Maybe, maybe not. But as we've documented - and Ms Pipes offers her own examples - an awful lot of sick folks don't receive either adequate or timely care. The problem is that the Brits make the same mistake as proponents of ObamneyCare© make here, conflating health insurance with health care, and assuming that the former will lead to the latter.

And yet, as Ms Pipes mentions, "[a] report released in October by Britain’s health regulator found that a stunning 20 percent of hospitals were failing to provide the minimum standard of care legally required for elderly patients."

Ooops.

She's not just gunning for the MVNHS©, either:

"Canada’s single-payer, government-run system — where any private health care is outlawed under the Canada Health Act — is similarly failing its patients."

In a recent survey of Canucks with chronic conditions, many expressed dissatisfaction with their level of care. But hey, it's free: beggars can't be choosers.

But of course it's not "free:" in addition to the major taxes that pay for the system, patients still have out-of-pocket expenses, sometimes major ones. And if you're in need of more immediate or extensive care well, there's no wall on our Northern Border, is there?

But if we're ditching our own much better system, the question must be asked: Why does ObmaneyCare© hate Canadians?

[Hat Tip: Stephen Northington]

Waiting on the Forgetful MVNHS©

The Much Vaunted National Health Service© (the Brits' version of ObamaTax), has developed a unique and, one supposes, highly effective means for enforcing its Death Panels:

"THOUSANDS of dementia sufferers are being abandoned by the [MVNHS©], with shocking variations in the time it takes to get a diagnosis and support ... some patients are not informed for at least five years that they have the disease, meaning treatments that are available are not as effective."

Really, what a great idea! Folks with dementia are unlikely to complain about care they haven't received; after all, who'd believe them?

And by making seniors wait until it's too late for most med's to be effective, the "service" saves money on costly treatments. Of course, this is what we here in the 'States have to look forward to under ObamaTax.

And speaking of waiting:

"Tens of thousands of patients who face having to wait more than 18 weeks for [MVNHS©] treatment will be offered a bed in a private hospital."

With just shy of 150,000 Brits waiting at least 18 weeks for treatment, that's a pretty gutsy bet.

And here's the truly scary part:

"In the last year the NHS has reduced the number of people waiting longer than 18 weeks for treatment to a record low."

Almost 150,000 folks waiting over 4 months for medical treatment is a low??

Yikes!

Sure glad that can't happen here.

Wait, what?

MVNHS©: Death Panels alive and well

One may argue over the efficacy and/or morality of end-of-life care, but it has long been a personal choice. The emphasis, however, appears to be on the "has been" piece; it appears that the MVNHS©:

"Plans to cut hundreds of thousands of pounds from budgets for the terminally ill, with dying cancer patients to be told to manage their own symptoms if their condition worsens at evenings or weekends."

Sorry mumsy!

And that's just the beginning. One of the primary models for ObamaCare© (now spearheaded by a major MVNHS© proponent, by the way), facing major budget setbacks, seems to have no choice but to implement some pretty draconian health care rationing:

"■ The closure of nursing homes for the elderly.

■ A reduction in acute hospital beds, including those for the mentally ill

■ Tighter rationing of NHS funding for IVF treatment, and for surgery for obesity."

Actually, three out of four isn't bad: there's no medical reason to cover IVF in the first place. But at a time when the Brits are focusing so (ahem) heavily on childhood obesity, one would think that this would be a no-no.

Which leaves one to ponder: did the Brits have to "pass it to see it," too?

MVNHS© still swirling

As we continue our inexorable march off the ObamaCare cliff, it may be instructive to note how such a plan fares "in the real world:"

"Patients’ lives are at risk in [MVNHS©] hospital wards that are “on the brink of collapse” due to a critical shortage of out-of-hours doctors and growing numbers of the elderly."

Turns out, when the government runs health "care," people die. That's because care is secondary to rules, and docs aren't incented to put patients' needs first:

"[D]octors’ shifts are limited by the European Working Time Directive and they do not want to work anti-social hours."

In fact, the Much Vaunted National Health Service© just killed off over a thousand seniors, which just has to be good for the ol' bottom line. That's due to the fact that some 70% of hospital beds are occupied by "over-65's." Since the US now has over 10,000 citizens a day turning that magic age, the Brits have company in that regard.

Add to that the existing shortage of hospital beds under MVNHS© "management," and one can see where selective thinning of the senior herd may be desireable.

But hey, it's just economics, nothing personal.

MVNHS©: Let's play "Leapfrog!"

As we noted almost 3 years ago, the MVNHS© has (at least) one dirty secret: private health insurance to help pay the bills that their "free insurance" doesn't cover.

And while we're seeking to emulate the British healthcare scheme, they're looking to dump it:

"Private patients will increasingly be able to "leapfrog" those on the NHS due to changes proposed in the Government's health reforms ... Even 14 of the elite group of foundation trusts ended the last financial year in deficit, a grim warning for the future of NHS finances" [ed: "trust" is MVNHS©-speak for "hospital"]

Wait, what?!

There's "grim news" about the British system's finances? But I thought that they're saving money hand-over-fist, all the while delivering healthcare far superior to us? And what's this about "private patients?" Haven't we been told that a nationalized scheme was so much more fair than our current system, since it deletes that very distinction?

It's almost as if we've been lied to all along.

MVNHS© Puts Seniors in the Crosshairs

How's this for a headline:

"[MVNHS©] 'in peril' if health reforms fail"

Now, one might be forgiven for wondering exactly what kinds of "reforms" British docs might be considering. After all, they don't have to worry about the "Doc Fix,"or being put out of business.

Their issue is that the Much Vaunted National Health Service© pays scant heed to the needs of actual patients, demanding greater "responsibility for commissioning health services." In other words, they're facing exactly the sort of problem about which Bob wrote last month:

"The doctor does not get to decide which services are best for the patient, nor are they allowed to set a price for their time."

Which brings us once again to that eternal question: why would we want to model our health care system on the MVNHS©, as ObamneyCare© obviously does?

Hide-and-seek with the MVNHS©

Regular IB readers know something most folks don't: that Brits know how bad their health "care" system really is, and that many have already taken steps to protect themselves. The easiest way, of course, is to buy a private health insurance policy...

Wait, you didn't know that these existed? Well, the Much Vaunted National Health System© doesn't want you (or especially their own victims citizens) to know, either. But it's true:

"Private Medical Insurance also known as PMI allows you to have complete reassurance of knowing that, should the need arise you and your family can receive medical treatment privately, without waiting for the [MVNHS©] to treat you."

Well, that cat's apparently well out of the bag, as John Fund reports on the opening "ceremonies" of the 2012 Summer Olympics:

"600 doctors and patients recruited from National Health Service hospitals were featured in a bizarre tribute to socialized medicine, with children bouncing up and down on 320 hospital beds arrayed in front of a giant Franken-baby wrapped in bandages ... One of the core values of our society is that it doesn’t matter who you are, you will get treated the same in terms of health care.” [emphasis added]

Well, there's some truth to that, if by "care" you mean "death."

But the truth is out there, and British citizens are wising up to it:

"British papers report that a study by the research firm Lloyd’s TSB Premier Banking found that nearly two-thirds of Britons earning more than $78,700 a year have taken out private health insurance because they don’t trust the [MVNHS©]."

Most of those are apparently afraid of infections from "super bugs" increasingly present in the Brits' great health "care" system. They also know that when the government is in charge of health care, that care is going to be rationed.

But don't just take my word for it:

"A 2007 survey of almost 1,000 physicians by Doctors’ Magazine found that ... one in five doctors knew patients who had suffered as a result of treatment rationing."

Bread and circuses, and health "care."

MVNHS©: Another Bubble Burst

Here at IB, we refer to the Brits' health care scheme as the Much Vaunted National Health Service (MVNHS©), and for good reason: time and again, our Cousins Across the Pond have demonstrated that their health care delivery and finance system is deeply flawed. Yet, there are folks here in the States that would emulate this disaster, at the expense of our own system. One of the metrics often touted by pro-national health care advocates is how much better care is in, for example, England than here.

Unfortunately (well, for them), this just isn't true. Case in point:

"More than nine out of 10 NHS trusts in England are failing to provide a good standard of cancer care compared with other countries, official figures show."

As we've shown before, our own citizens' cancer survival rates are second to none.

The other problem is that the MVNHS© hasn't been effective in reining in costs, either:

"Since Labour came to power, the NHS budget has tripled"

So they're spending more, and getting less.

Sound familiar?

The MVNHS© Giveth, and the MVNHS© Taketh Away

A few weeks ago, we reported that the Much Vaunted National Health Service© had granted not-quite-two-years-old Alfie Evans a (temporary) reprieve:

"Alfie Evans’ Life Support Won’t be Switched Off, Delayed After Pope Francis Intervenes on His Behalf"

And it's critical to remember that his parents were willing to foot the entire health care bill themselves (likely with a little help from their friends).

Well, it seems that the poor toddler's time has, in fact, now run out:

"UK Supreme Court declines appeal from parents of ill toddler"

And so the plug will be pulled, and little Alfie will be gone (but certainly not forgotten by anyone with a heart).

Here's the thing: while reasonable folks could disagree about the utility of further treatment (he's "in a "semi-vegetative state" as the result of a degenerative neurological condition"), and it could further be argued that public health care dollars pounds would be wasted, in this case it's actually cost the MVNHS© more money to fight his being flown elsewhere for treatment at his parents' expense.

But hey: Free health "care."

The MVNHS© Gets Down

Down Syndrome, that is.

So what is Down Syndrome?

It's a "set of mental and physical symptoms that result from having an extra copy of Chromosome 21 ... Usually, mental development and physical development are slower in people with Down syndrome than in those without the condition."

Although DS isn't curable (yet), those afflicted with it can, with training and time, "live productive lives well into adulthood."

Well, maybe just folks who aren't subject to the Much Vaunted National Health System©:

"A man with Down’s syndrome was locked in a one-bedroom flat and deprived of his basic human rights for ten months until his death ... Detained against his will by health and council officials ... David Parsons was denied regular contact with his wife and family and ‘abandoned’ by those caring for him."

At age 53, he had plenty of life left, time he could have spent with his wife and other family members. A few years ago, MVNHS© physicians declared that he "had developed dementia and epilepsy," but Mr Parsons' family disputes this. Regardless, he and Mrs Parsons (who apparently has similar developmental issues) were locked away in a "residential care home for the elderly."

Well, there ya go: "Out of sight, out of mind, we're the MVNHS©"

MVNHS© Back in the News

Thanks to alert IB reader Peter K, we have two new items to add to our Much Vaunted National Health System© database. Last month, we noted that "[MVNHS©] doctors are prematurely ending the lives of thousands of elderly hospital patients because they are difficult to manage or to free up beds;" this was one side of the coin. It only gets worse, though, when one considers the other side of it:

"Patients undergoing planned operations on the NHS are far more likely to die if they have their operations towards the end of the week ... those who had surgery on a Friday were 44 per cent more likely to die following the procedure than those who had the same operations on a Monday." Of course, when you have an overworked and largely unaccountable group of people providing "care," that TGIF mantra becomes somewhat problematic, no?

It gets worse, though. One of the early criticisms of the ObamaTax is that you'd have care providers with the compassion of the DMV. This is already the case under the MVNHS©, and it's the direction we're headed:

"Almost 3,000 people may have died unnecessarily in just one year at the 14 NHS trusts whose excessive mortality rates were reviewed in the wake of the Mid Staffordshire scandal"

Regular readers may recall that we covered that particular shanda over 4 years ago (and it's still making news):

"Appalling standards of care that may have contributed to the deaths of at least 400 patients at a hospital trust were missed repeatedly by managers and regulators ... at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust"

At least they've learned their lesson, though, right?

Um, not so much:

"The worst figures were recorded at Blackpool Teaching Hospitals where, in the year to October 2012, the number of deaths anticipated was 1,947 but actually there were 2,357, a difference of 410." [emphasis added]

This is extraordinary, on several levels. First, whatever are they teaching at this hospital? Advanced courses in euthenasia? Second, that "difference of 410" doesn't seem like so much, until one looks at the fact that they were off by almost 30%.

That's not "margin of error," that's Margin of Kevorkian.