example #7,925,340 why government run health care may not be the best idea

[Universe Prince]

From "A Lifesaving Checklist", a New York Times op-ed by Atul Gawande:

A year ago, researchers at Johns Hopkins University published the results of a program that instituted in nearly every intensive care unit in Michigan a simple five-step checklist designed to prevent certain hospital infections. It reminds doctors to make sure, for example, that before putting large intravenous lines into patients, they actually wash their hands and don a sterile gown and gloves. The results were stunning. Within three months, the rate of bloodstream infections from these I.V. lines fell by two-thirds. The average I.C.U. cut its infection rate from 4 percent to zero. Over 18 months, the program saved more than 1,500 lives and nearly $200 million. Yet this past month, the Office for Human Research Protections shut the program down. The agency issued notice to the researchers and the Michigan Health and Hospital Association that, by introducing a checklist and tracking the results without written, informed consent from each patient and health-care provider, they had violated scientific ethics regulations. Johns Hopkins had to halt not only the program in Michigan but also its plans to extend it to hospitals in New Jersey and Rhode Island.

Ethics regulations. According to the op-ed, the government decided that introducing a checklist is the same as using an experimental drug, and therefore doing so without federal oversight and written permission from each and every patient is unethical. And some people wonder why I think the government isn't qualified to run health care.

Whole op-ed at the other end of this link.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Ethics regulations. According to the op-ed, the government decided that introducing a checklist is the same as using an experimental drug,

------------------------------------------------
No, the "government" did not make this decision. Some fool made it.

Private companies also hire fools. Just go to the office of Dr. Eng-Gonzales in Palm Springs, FL and you will see a fool of monumental proportions in charge of the offices of five doctors, whose only roll is to ensure that every patient waits at least three hours.

It is just as easy to prevent the employment of fools in a government than anywhere else.

[_JS]

I'm not that impressed.

Did they follow the correct procedure to get approval from an IRB?

It is a little misleading as well. It is the tracking of the results and not the checklist itself that violates HIPAA.

[Michael Tee]

<<Ethics regulations. According to the op-ed, the government decided that introducing a checklist is the same as using an experimental drug, and therefore doing so without federal oversight and written permission from each and every patient is unethical. And some people wonder why I think the government isn't qualified to run health care.>>

Here in Ontario, the guys who set the medical ethics are not the guys who administer the health plan.  I can't think of any jurisdiction where they would be.  The one has nothing to do with the other.

You might as well argue that because the Ontario Ministry of Transport fucked up on a tractor-trailer safety regulation, therefore the Ontario Ministry of Health is incapable of managing the health-care plan.

The government has no monopoly on stupidity, unfortunately.  Mistakes happen in private enterprise, the medical profession and the insurance industry and there's no reason why the government should be immune from them.

[Universe Prince]

It is just as easy to prevent the employment of fools in a government than anywhere else.

Is it?

[Universe Prince]

The government has no monopoly on stupidity, unfortunately.  Mistakes happen in private enterprise, the medical profession and the insurance industry and there's no reason why the government should be immune from them.

Yes, but somehow when government makes mistakes, it's excusable. When mistakes happen in private business, it's chalked up to a conspiracy of callous greed. If some private medical establishment had done this, I'd be seeing some post about how it was proof that private medical management was unconcerned with the wellbeing of patients and therefore we need government regulators to take over. But the government has made this decision, and all I see are people saying this is no big deal, this just happens.

[Universe Prince]

It is a little misleading as well. It is the tracking of the results and not the checklist itself that violates HIPAA.

Just how unethical is it to track the results of a checklist?

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is just as easy to prevent the employment of fools in a government than anywhere else.


Is it?
====================================
I think it is probably easier.

When your credit card company decides that a payment you sent on time was late, and therefore you owe a $29.95 late fee on a $50 overall payment, you will never, never, get to talk to the moron who decided it was late. Or the other greedhead who decided that a ;late payment was actually worth $29.95 to start with. You will never know even their name. Even if you own stock in the stupid company, you will never know

If the government overcharges you, there are always procedures by which you can appeal, and you can vote them out of office eventually.

[Michael Tee]

<< . . . but somehow when government makes mistakes, it's excusable. When mistakes happen in private business, it's chalked up to a conspiracy of callous greed. >>

All due respect, Prince, but that's really fuzzy logic.  The issue was whether the government is unqualified to run a health-care scheme.    How the errors of government or private business are viewed or indulged by the public has nothing to do with how well or badly they actually perform.

<<If some private medical establishment had done this, I'd be seeing some post about how it was proof that private medical management was unconcerned with the wellbeing of patients and therefore we need government regulators to take over. But the government has made this decision, and all I see are people saying this is no big deal, this just happens.>>

LOL.  Actually, just the exact reverse has happened here.  One goofy mistake by government and right away we see "some post about how it was proof that government was unconcerned with the wellbeing of patients . . . " etc.  Sounds to me like we have some "projection" going on here.  It's not the proponents of government health care who are opportunistically seizing upon a private businesses' error to justify government-run health care, we are actually seeing opportunism of the private-care side capitalizing on a government error to make the point that government is unfit to run health care.

[Plane]

It is just as easy to prevent the employment of fools in a government than anywhere else.

I wish you were right .

[_JS]

In general, most of the United States swallows the neoliberal perception that private industries run projects more efficiently. Whether that is true or not in varying circumstances is of course another story completely.

[Xavier_Onassis]

My experience is that UPS is more likely to trash shipments and to deny any compensation than the USPS.
Most HMO's will make you wait longer on hold on the phone than the Social Seciurity Administration, and most HMO doctors will make you wait longer for a scheduled appointment than Social Security.

An HMO doctor will not see you at all without an appointment, but Social Security will.

The UPS and Fedex are both much more inconvenient that the USPS and will make you wait longer than the USPS. They both have many fewer locations, and will make you wait longer. They are also less courteous, as a rule.

[Amianthus]

An HMO doctor will not see you at all without an appointment, but Social Security will.

ROFL

I've been to HMO doctors without an appointment (indeed, most of my visits have been without appointments) - even on weekends or the middle of the night - and very few government offices are open AT ALL outside of certain hours.

[Amianthus]

The UPS and Fedex are both much more inconvenient that the USPS and will make you wait longer than the USPS. They both have many fewer locations, and will make you wait longer. They are also less courteous, as a rule.

UPS and Fedex will both pick up your package if you call the 800 number.

Don't know how much more convenient than coming to your house to pick up the package the USPS can get? Do they buy the contents and pack it for you as well?

[Michael Tee]

<<The UPS and Fedex are both much more inconvenient that the USPS and will make you wait longer than the USPS. They both have many fewer locations, and will make you wait longer. They are also less courteous, as a rule.>>

In Canada, the Postal Service was "privatized" to the extent that it was put into the hands of a Crown corporation.  It's a for-profit business corporation but owned by the Canadian government.  For sure it has many more branches than either Fedex or UPS, but OTOH, Fedex and UPS will pick up, whereas Canada Post will not.

As far as friendliness goes, I found all of them were more or less equally friendly and helpful.  Waiting lines are much longer at Canada Post, but that's because they are by far the cheapest and therefore have many more customers.

The fastest and most reliable is Fedex, then comes UPS and then Canada Post.  The most efficient and hard-working counter servers are from Fedex and UPS, some Canada Post employees are fully their equal, others are not.