Problems With Socialized Medicine & Government Healthcare

[BrianH]

Government healthcare is unconstitutional....

The federal government cannot control an individuals decision to have insurance. It cannot control an individuals decision to work for someone who does not carry insurance.
It conflicts with rulings, already in place, by the supreme court concerning the "right to privacy."

 

[Bern80]

You seem to be unable to tell the difference between being able to do something and actually doing it. The US govt, like many successful business, has chosen to not pay off all of it's debt at one time and use the money to fund investments in future productivity. Nearly every single Fortune 500 company carries some debt and invest the money because they believe they can get a return that is higher than the interest rate the debt carries. It's called "growing out of debt", and it's how we have handled the national debt for centuries.

So yes, the US Govt does have sufficient assets to pay off it's entire national debt immediately (there's $12T in SS alone) but since I never claimed it has done so, I have ZERO OBLIGATION to provide any evidence that it has done so.

Then prove it. Show me where government has this 14 trillion dollars lieing around that it could use to pay off the debt if it wanted. Hell, let's just pay half of it at least....right? You're full of shit on this one sangha and you know it. You literallty are just making shit up.

Sure. All you have to do is be able to get a return that is higher than the interest rate you're paying on your debt. Let's say I have

1) $1,000 dollars of debt at 4% interest
2) $1,000 dolllars of cash
3) I have an opportunity to loan the money to someone who will pay 10% interest and put up his house as collateral

Should I pay off my debt, or should I loan my $1000 to the homeowner?

The govt does the same thing. The borrow money, and they spend it on things that will result in the US being more productive. This is what we have done throughout our history as a nation, which from it's very beginning, was saddled with debt.

I asked how governments spending CAUSED the collective individuals of this country to be the wealthiest in the world.

No, it doesn't in any way. The govt provides a certain level of funding (which varies depending on factors such as income, family size, etc) for each individual/family. If the individual buys a plan (either from the govt or a private insurer) that cost more, the additional cost is borne by the individual. Individuals can buy any plan they want from either a public insurer or a private insurer. They are not in any way limited by the govt. The only limit the govt places is how much money they will provide to subsidize an individuals insurance.

So basically, France has a SP system that provides Universal coverage through a combination of private options and public options.

So admittedly France is not actually a good example of a true SP system. Glad we finally got that cleared up.

 

[Gurdari]

That video was ...interesting, if a bit weak. I can see the music and graphics and folksy manner convincing a 12 year old, but his 'argument' such as it is is not really supported. Plus, Canadians spend less per person and everyone is covered, regardless of income. I choose my own doctor, who actually *knows me* and get to see a specialist when I ask - if I need to go to the hospital I go to the closest one, just like if I called 911, the closest police/fire dept would respond. So, I guess I don't have a choice about which police respond, but healthcare is fine. If y'all switched you wouldn't switch back... people up here flip out anytime someone even suggests changing it to a private system.

 

[Chris]

When Canadians were asked to name the greatest Canadian in history, they chose the man who created their healthcare system.

Click on the link...

The Greatest Canadian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Douglas

 

[Bern80]

When Canadians were asked to name the greatest Canadian in history, they chose the man who created their healthcare system.

Click on the link...

The Greatest Canadian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tommy Douglas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which only really proves that collective opinion and collective wisdom are two very different things.

 

[AmericanFirst]

I believe you are very mistaken. If we went with "Single Payer" like many Libtards want to do, the government would be the one and only company shoppe in town! ... What good would a "waiver" do you then?

Under a single-payer system, companies and unions wouldn't be responsible for providing health insurance to anyone. If the way we do things seems more complicated than single-payer, that's because it is. Substantially.

You know there are more ways to keep unions and companies from having to deal with insurance if that is really your goal right?

I don't get why you people are so narrow minded. The only solution that seems to enter into your heads for any problem is government, government, government. It isn't like us conservatives and liberatarians don't want health care to be more affordabe and available to those that need it. The solution is the issue.
Our government is going to have the same problem and probably worse that every other country trying to do this is having including the beloved France. Don't get me wrong, how it is practiced is actually pretty good. The issue is the French governmetn can't pay for it. They are going in debt because of it. And we should all know by now what happens if you do that for too long.

Exactly, it is nothing more than gov't. control.

 

[AmericanFirst]

I don't get why you people are so narrow minded. The only solution that seems to enter into your heads for any problem is government, government, government. It isn't like us conservatives and liberatarians don't want health care to be more affordabe and available to those that need it. The solution is the issue.
Our government is going to have the same problem and probably worse that every other country trying to do this is having including the beloved France. Don't get me wrong, how it is practiced is actually pretty good. The issue is the French governmetn can't pay for it. They are going in debt because of it. And we should all know by now what happens if you do that for too long.

the problem that i see with conservative and libertarians saying the smaller government is the solution is simple. looks at what happened in the recent past under George W Bush.

When Clinton left office we had a substantially large government, a budget surplus, higher taxes and an economic boom. (FactCheck.org: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?) these are not made up ideas, this are actual facts. . no one will disagree with that. Bush took the conservative philosophy and applied it to the nation. he said he wanted to reduce the size of government but he actually oversaw the largest increase in the size of government in histiory, he lowered taxes on the wealthy and implemented massive deregulation of the banking system. this in combination with starting 2 wars in which we were spending $1B a day to fund erased all the surplus we had and drove the country into a recession.

so when i heard conservative say less government less government is the answer, its extremely hard to believe anything they say. the evidence points to them not wanting less government, but actually wanting more, but only if it leads to more money going towards the wealthy and less regulation so they can make more profit. so in some ways government intervention needs to take place in the beginning to get things started. this doesnt mean that their power and influence cant be scaled back at a later date. but a lot of the conservative argument is the idea of trickle down economics. that being if we give more money to the upper class and business owners, eventually this money will trickle down to the middle and lower class. we as we have seen this doesnt happen. the income gap between the wealthy and the middle class has increased dramatically. and now the top 2% of society control 90% of the wealth. people are greedy by nature. we all want more for ourselves and whats best for our family. but when we liberals start wanting to look at solving a problem for the whole, we get labeled as socialists.

someone else on one of these threads said it really well. when you think of socialist ideas dont attribute that mean communism. (it simply means to benefit society as a whole instead of only small parts of that society)

When clinton left office they were calling it the clinton recession, remember. We did not have financial prosperity. We had more people living on credit. And lets not forget it was clinton that signed into law the dimwit bill that allowed the housing market to eventually collapse.

 

[sangha]

You seem to be unable to tell the difference between being able to do something and actually doing it. The US govt, like many successful business, has chosen to not pay off all of it's debt at one time and use the money to fund investments in future productivity. Nearly every single Fortune 500 company carries some debt and invest the money because they believe they can get a return that is higher than the interest rate the debt carries. It's called "growing out of debt", and it's how we have handled the national debt for centuries.

So yes, the US Govt does have sufficient assets to pay off it's entire national debt immediately (there's $12T in SS alone) but since I never claimed it has done so, I have ZERO OBLIGATION to provide any evidence that it has done so.

Then prove it. Show me where government has this 14 trillion dollars lieing around that it could use to pay off the debt if it wanted. Hell, let's just pay half of it at least....right? You're full of shit on this one sangha and you know it. You literallty are just making shit up.

LOL!!!

I guess you realized how DUMB you were to DEMAND that I prove the US has paid down the debt

And I proved that the US has the money the last time you asked for it

Sure. All you have to do is be able to get a return that is higher than the interest rate you're paying on your debt. Let's say I have

1) $1,000 dollars of debt at 4% interest
2) $1,000 dolllars of cash
3) I have an opportunity to loan the money to someone who will pay 10% interest and put up his house as collateral

Should I pay off my debt, or should I loan my $1000 to the homeowner?

The govt does the same thing. The borrow money, and they spend it on things that will result in the US being more productive. This is what we have done throughout our history as a nation, which from it's very beginning, was saddled with debt.

I asked how governments spending CAUSED the collective individuals of this country to be the wealthiest in the world.

By building the wealthiest economy in the history of the world.

No, it doesn't in any way. The govt provides a certain level of funding (which varies depending on factors such as income, family size, etc) for each individual/family. If the individual buys a plan (either from the govt or a private insurer) that cost more, the additional cost is borne by the individual. Individuals can buy any plan they want from either a public insurer or a private insurer. They are not in any way limited by the govt. The only limit the govt places is how much money they will provide to subsidize an individuals insurance.

So basically, France has a SP system that provides Universal coverage through a combination of private options and public options.

So admittedly France is not actually a good example of a true SP system. Glad we finally got that cleared up.

No, France is a good example of a SP system. It's just not a good system for the wingnuts like you to make up lies about. That's why, after all of your posts, you still don't have any argument based on facts.

 

[Bern80]

LOL!!!

I guess you realized how DUMB you were to DEMAND that I prove the US has paid down the debt

And I proved that the US has the money the last time you asked for it.

No you didn't. Actual evidence would be something on the order of showing me how much of the tax revenue goes into this savings account you say the government has. Or showing what percent of the buddget is funded through the sale of assetts. You understand that simply saying something is so, doesn't make it so, right? The government has not paid down it's debt. It isn't touching the actual debt. Right now we're only paying the interest on that debt. And we're not even paying down THAT. For once look at this link, U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time. Not only is the debt climbing, the interest on the debt is climbing. We're trying to bail a tub being filled with water using a thimble one scoop at a time. That link PROVES you wrong. The U.S. government does NOT have the money to pay off the debt if it wanted to. Under money creation you will see FEDERAL RESERVE MONETARY BASE and TREASURY SECURITIES. ONLY PART of that 2.2 trillion reserve monetary base is what the government has in savings. Treasury securities, what the government is using to pay down the debt is 1.4 trillion. How's your math now?

By building the wealthiest economy in the history of the world.

The government didn't build the economy. The citizenry did.

 

[sangha]

LOL!!!

I guess you realized how DUMB you were to DEMAND that I prove the US has paid down the debt

And I proved that the US has the money the last time you asked for it.

No you didn't. Actual evidence would be something on the order of showing me how much of the tax revenue goes into this savings account you say the government has. Or showing what percent of the buddget is funded through the sale of assetts. You understand that simply saying something is so, doesn't make it so, right? The government has not paid down it's debt. It isn't touching the actual debt. Right now we're only paying the interest on that debt. And we're not even paying down THAT. For once look at this link, U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time. Not only is the debt climbing, the interest on the debt is climbing. We're trying to bail a tub being filled with water using a thimble one scoop at a time. That link PROVES you wrong. The U.S. government does NOT have the money to pay off the debt if it wanted to. Under money creation you will see FEDERAL RESERVE MONETARY BASE and TREASURY SECURITIES. ONLY PART of that 2.2 trillion reserve monetary base is what the government has in savings. Treasury securities, what the government is using to pay down the debt is 1.4 trillion. How's your math now?

By building the wealthiest economy in the history of the world.

The government didn't build the economy. The citizenry did.

Once again, bern is forced to resort to fictions in order to have anything to say. Now he's pretending there's a govt savings acct and according to him, he'll only accept an answer that proves that his mythical govt savings acct exists

I've already posted about the govts' assets. Try again

And before the govt started spending, the citizenry were building a third world economy. This nation became a superpower at the same time it had a 90+% marginal tax rate. Our economy didn't grow until our govt spent lots of money on building factories, an electrical grid, a national highway system, and a system that delivers clean water.

 

[Bern80]

Once again, bern is forced to resort to fictions in order to have anything to say. Now he's pretending there's a govt savings acct and according to him, he'll only accept an answer that proves that his mythical govt savings acct exists.

YOU are the one that claimed the U.S. currently has the money between savings and asset sales to take care of the debt if it wanted. I am the one who believe this mythical savings account is just that. YOU are the one who claims ever increasing debt is sustainable and you are very alone in that opinion. Even your boy Obama knows that we can't continue to grow the debt.

I've already posted about the govts' assets. Try again

Again all you've really done is claim it exists. You've provided no evidence to support this. We can pretend for a second these means of paying the debt exist if you want. It doesn't change the fact that even if they do, they're obviously hardly being used given the interest on the debt is climbing.

And before the govt started spending, the citizenry were building a third world economy. This nation became a superpower at the same time it had a 90+% marginal tax rate. Our economy didn't grow until our govt spent lots of money on building factories, an electrical grid, a national highway system, and a system that delivers clean water.

The government did not build GE, GMC, Ford or Microsoft. Their PRIVATE owners built those facilities.

 

[Annie]

And the argument about all falling to poor treatment lives on:

NHS shamed over callous treatment of elderly - Telegraph

NHS shamed over callous treatment of elderly
The National Health Service is today condemned over its inhumane treatment of elderly patients in an official report that finds hospitals are failing to meet “even the most basic standards of care” for the over-65s.

By Martin Beckford, Health Correspondent 10:43PM GMT 14 Feb 2011

A study of pensioners who suffered appalling treatment at the hands of doctors and nurses says that half were not given enough to eat or drink. One family member said the maltreatment amounted to “euthanasia”.

Some were left unwashed or in soiled clothes, while others were forgotten after being sent home or given the wrong medication.

In several cases considered by the Health Service Ombudsman, patients died without loved ones by their sides because of the “casual indifference” of staff and their “bewildering disregard” for people’s needs.

The damning report warns that extra money will not help the NHS meet required standards of care and that more problems are likely as the population ages.

Ann Abraham, who as health ombudsman carries out independent investigation of complaints against the health service, said: “The findings of my investigations reveal an attitude – both personal and institutional – which fails to recognise the humanity and individuality of the people concerned and to respond to them with sensitivity, compassion and professionalism.

“The reasonable expectation that an older person or their family may have of dignified, pain-free end of life care in clean surroundings in hospital is not being fulfilled. Instead, these accounts present a picture of NHS provision that is failing to meet even the most basic standards of care...

The report says it is “incomprehensible” that the NHS needs to be told that its patients should be provided with clean and comfortable surroundings, assistance with eating, drinking water and the ability to call for help. “Yet the most basic of human needs are too often neglected.”

The “harrowing” cases in the report disclose:

• An 82 year-old died alone because staff did not realise her husband had been waiting to see her for three hours;

• A woman was not washed during 13 weeks in hospital, did not have her wound dressings changed and was denied food and drink;

• A woman was discharged from hospital covered in bruises, soaked in urine and wearing someone else’s clothes;

• The life-support system of a heart attack victim was switched off despite his wife asking to leave it on while she contacted the rest of the family.

The Ombudsman warned that the cases detailed in the report were not exceptional, with almost one in five of the 9,000 complaints it received last year concerning the care of older people...

 

[Bern80]

And the argument about all falling to poor treatment lives on:

NHS shamed over callous treatment of elderly - Telegraph

NHS shamed over callous treatment of elderly
The National Health Service is today condemned over its inhumane treatment of elderly patients in an official report that finds hospitals are failing to meet “even the most basic standards of care” for the over-65s.

By Martin Beckford, Health Correspondent 10:43PM GMT 14 Feb 2011

A study of pensioners who suffered appalling treatment at the hands of doctors and nurses says that half were not given enough to eat or drink. One family member said the maltreatment amounted to “euthanasia”.

Some were left unwashed or in soiled clothes, while others were forgotten after being sent home or given the wrong medication.

In several cases considered by the Health Service Ombudsman, patients died without loved ones by their sides because of the “casual indifference” of staff and their “bewildering disregard” for people’s needs.

The damning report warns that extra money will not help the NHS meet required standards of care and that more problems are likely as the population ages.

Ann Abraham, who as health ombudsman carries out independent investigation of complaints against the health service, said: “The findings of my investigations reveal an attitude – both personal and institutional – which fails to recognise the humanity and individuality of the people concerned and to respond to them with sensitivity, compassion and professionalism.

“The reasonable expectation that an older person or their family may have of dignified, pain-free end of life care in clean surroundings in hospital is not being fulfilled. Instead, these accounts present a picture of NHS provision that is failing to meet even the most basic standards of care...

The report says it is “incomprehensible” that the NHS needs to be told that its patients should be provided with clean and comfortable surroundings, assistance with eating, drinking water and the ability to call for help. “Yet the most basic of human needs are too often neglected.”

The “harrowing” cases in the report disclose:

• An 82 year-old died alone because staff did not realise her husband had been waiting to see her for three hours;

• A woman was not washed during 13 weeks in hospital, did not have her wound dressings changed and was denied food and drink;

• A woman was discharged from hospital covered in bruises, soaked in urine and wearing someone else’s clothes;

• The life-support system of a heart attack victim was switched off despite his wife asking to leave it on while she contacted the rest of the family.

The Ombudsman warned that the cases detailed in the report were not exceptional, with almost one in five of the 9,000 complaints it received last year concerning the care of older people...

This is what happens when you remove the pofit motive. Ultimately, a business is accountable directly to those it serves. Those it serves, the customers, are those that have the greatest ability to influence business practices. That accountability is removed when an intermediary financier between the customer and business enters the equation. You don't have to do well by your customers then because there is no risk in losing money from them because they aren't the ones paying for the service in the first place.

 

[Gadawg73]

And the argument about all falling to poor treatment lives on:

NHS shamed over callous treatment of elderly - Telegraph

NHS shamed over callous treatment of elderly
The National Health Service is today condemned over its inhumane treatment of elderly patients in an official report that finds hospitals are failing to meet “even the most basic standards of care” for the over-65s.

By Martin Beckford, Health Correspondent 10:43PM GMT 14 Feb 2011

A study of pensioners who suffered appalling treatment at the hands of doctors and nurses says that half were not given enough to eat or drink. One family member said the maltreatment amounted to “euthanasia”.

Some were left unwashed or in soiled clothes, while others were forgotten after being sent home or given the wrong medication.

In several cases considered by the Health Service Ombudsman, patients died without loved ones by their sides because of the “casual indifference” of staff and their “bewildering disregard” for people’s needs.

The damning report warns that extra money will not help the NHS meet required standards of care and that more problems are likely as the population ages.

Ann Abraham, who as health ombudsman carries out independent investigation of complaints against the health service, said: “The findings of my investigations reveal an attitude – both personal and institutional – which fails to recognise the humanity and individuality of the people concerned and to respond to them with sensitivity, compassion and professionalism.

“The reasonable expectation that an older person or their family may have of dignified, pain-free end of life care in clean surroundings in hospital is not being fulfilled. Instead, these accounts present a picture of NHS provision that is failing to meet even the most basic standards of care...

The report says it is “incomprehensible” that the NHS needs to be told that its patients should be provided with clean and comfortable surroundings, assistance with eating, drinking water and the ability to call for help. “Yet the most basic of human needs are too often neglected.”

The “harrowing” cases in the report disclose:

• An 82 year-old died alone because staff did not realise her husband had been waiting to see her for three hours;

• A woman was not washed during 13 weeks in hospital, did not have her wound dressings changed and was denied food and drink;

• A woman was discharged from hospital covered in bruises, soaked in urine and wearing someone else’s clothes;

• The life-support system of a heart attack victim was switched off despite his wife asking to leave it on while she contacted the rest of the family.

The Ombudsman warned that the cases detailed in the report were not exceptional, with almost one in five of the 9,000 complaints it received last year concerning the care of older people...

This is what happens when you remove the pofit motive. Ultimately, a business is accountable directly to those it serves. Those it serves, the customers, are those that have the greatest ability to influence business practices. That accountability is removed when an intermediary financier between the customer and business enters the equation. You don't have to do well by your customers then because there is no risk in losing money from them because they aren't the ones paying for the service in the first place.

You are correct but what you state is not the American model for the last 70 years. We have a 3rd party being the customer.
Under our disease care model it is insurance companies that are the customer. Never us. They pay, collect premiums from 96% of the population to treat 4% of the population that consume 60% of all health care dollars for disease care.
That is what the doctors demand, the insurance companies collect premiums on and we pay for. And it is a complete disaster. I own 3 corporations for over 30 years.
Your scenario is the free market. American health care is not that. Hasn't been since group health insurance ruined it.

 

[Gadawg73]

If you are sick and diseased America has the best disease care by far in the world.
If you want health care Canada and many other nations have a much better system than we have. We have a large population that gets shoddy health care at best.
And we wonder why we trail the world in many areas.
Americans are one of the most unhealthiest nations on earth.

 

[Bern80]

And the argument about all falling to poor treatment lives on:

NHS shamed over callous treatment of elderly - Telegraph

This is what happens when you remove the pofit motive. Ultimately, a business is accountable directly to those it serves. Those it serves, the customers, are those that have the greatest ability to influence business practices. That accountability is removed when an intermediary financier between the customer and business enters the equation. You don't have to do well by your customers then because there is no risk in losing money from them because they aren't the ones paying for the service in the first place.

You are correct but what you state is not the American model for the last 70 years. We have a 3rd party being the customer.
Under our disease care model it is insurance companies that are the customer. Never us. They pay, collect premiums from 96% of the population to treat 4% of the population that consume 60% of all health care dollars for disease care.
That is what the doctors demand, the insurance companies collect premiums on and we pay for. And it is a complete disaster. I own 3 corporations for over 30 years.
Your scenario is the free market. American health care is not that. Hasn't been since group health insurance ruined it.

Oh I agree. I just think adding yet another third party is going to exacerbate the problem. To move toward fixing this problem I believe the financial relationship between the customer and provider needs to be more direct.

But I also think as far as the political battle goes step one is making sure more government isn't injected into and compounds the problem. Then we move to your point of getting private insurance out of the equation. There is always going to be a need for it but it should be regaled primarily to catastrophic issues. That way individuals are paying for the more mundane thing. And since the more mundane medical issues will more directly effect the individual financially, that should cause them to make better choices about how that money is spent....which should create competition for service, which should lower the costs of more routine medical issues.

 

[Gadawg73]

This is what happens when you remove the pofit motive. Ultimately, a business is accountable directly to those it serves. Those it serves, the customers, are those that have the greatest ability to influence business practices. That accountability is removed when an intermediary financier between the customer and business enters the equation. You don't have to do well by your customers then because there is no risk in losing money from them because they aren't the ones paying for the service in the first place.

You are correct but what you state is not the American model for the last 70 years. We have a 3rd party being the customer.
Under our disease care model it is insurance companies that are the customer. Never us. They pay, collect premiums from 96% of the population to treat 4% of the population that consume 60% of all health care dollars for disease care.
That is what the doctors demand, the insurance companies collect premiums on and we pay for. And it is a complete disaster. I own 3 corporations for over 30 years.
Your scenario is the free market. American health care is not that. Hasn't been since group health insurance ruined it.

Oh I agree. I just think adding yet another third party is going to exacerbate the problem. To move toward fixing this problem I believe the financial relationship between the customer and provider needs to be more direct.

But I also think as far as the political battle goes step one is making sure more government isn't injected into and compounds the problem. Then we move to your point of getting private insurance out of the equation. There is always going to be a need for it but it should be regaled primarily to catastrophic issues. That way individuals are paying for the more mundane thing. And since the more mundane medical issues will more directly effect the individual financially, that should cause them to make better choices about how that money is spent....which should create competition for service, which should lower the costs of more routine medical issues.

We are on the same page. Good post.

 

[Polk]

And the argument about all falling to poor treatment lives on:

NHS shamed over callous treatment of elderly - Telegraph

NHS shamed over callous treatment of elderly
The National Health Service is today condemned over its inhumane treatment of elderly patients in an official report that finds hospitals are failing to meet “even the most basic standards of care” for the over-65s.

By Martin Beckford, Health Correspondent 10:43PM GMT 14 Feb 2011

A study of pensioners who suffered appalling treatment at the hands of doctors and nurses says that half were not given enough to eat or drink. One family member said the maltreatment amounted to “euthanasia”.

Some were left unwashed or in soiled clothes, while others were forgotten after being sent home or given the wrong medication.

In several cases considered by the Health Service Ombudsman, patients died without loved ones by their sides because of the “casual indifference” of staff and their “bewildering disregard” for people’s needs.

The damning report warns that extra money will not help the NHS meet required standards of care and that more problems are likely as the population ages.

Ann Abraham, who as health ombudsman carries out independent investigation of complaints against the health service, said: “The findings of my investigations reveal an attitude – both personal and institutional – which fails to recognise the humanity and individuality of the people concerned and to respond to them with sensitivity, compassion and professionalism.

“The reasonable expectation that an older person or their family may have of dignified, pain-free end of life care in clean surroundings in hospital is not being fulfilled. Instead, these accounts present a picture of NHS provision that is failing to meet even the most basic standards of care...

The report says it is “incomprehensible” that the NHS needs to be told that its patients should be provided with clean and comfortable surroundings, assistance with eating, drinking water and the ability to call for help. “Yet the most basic of human needs are too often neglected.”

The “harrowing” cases in the report disclose:

• An 82 year-old died alone because staff did not realise her husband had been waiting to see her for three hours;

• A woman was not washed during 13 weeks in hospital, did not have her wound dressings changed and was denied food and drink;

• A woman was discharged from hospital covered in bruises, soaked in urine and wearing someone else’s clothes;

• The life-support system of a heart attack victim was switched off despite his wife asking to leave it on while she contacted the rest of the family.

The Ombudsman warned that the cases detailed in the report were not exceptional, with almost one in five of the 9,000 complaints it received last year concerning the care of older people...

Because such things never happen in America...