<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A Case for Universal Health Care</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.logipundit.com/2008/02/a-case-for-universal-health-care.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.logipundit.com/2008/02/a-case-for-universal-health-care.html</link>
	<description>A Bastion of Reason</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:42:52 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: eshebert</title>
		<link>http://www.logipundit.com/2008/02/a-case-for-universal-health-care.html#comment-4682</link>
		<dc:creator>eshebert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2008 02:20:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.logipundit.com/2008/02/a-case-for-universal-health-care.html#comment-4682</guid>
		<description>You are correct...The director of the NHS states that the clock starts 15 minutes after the ambulance arrives at the hospital.  

The stat that gets me is the over 44, 000 patients waiting in an ambulance over an hour before getting into the hospital itself.  Maybe the waited this long, becuase the director of NHS hadn't made the statement yet.  It may not be so much the wait as it is the wait for other patients that need an ambulance and have to wait until one is available.  

An ambulance picked my son up from the pediatrician because of respiratory problems and lack of oxygen.  Although I'd hate for him to stay in an ambulance for over an hour in that condition, I cannot tell you what I would do if an ambulance was not available at the time when he needed it the most.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You are correct&#8230;The director of the NHS states that the clock starts 15 minutes after the ambulance arrives at the hospital.  </p>
<p>The stat that gets me is the over 44, 000 patients waiting in an ambulance over an hour before getting into the hospital itself.  Maybe the waited this long, becuase the director of NHS hadn&#8217;t made the statement yet.  It may not be so much the wait as it is the wait for other patients that need an ambulance and have to wait until one is available.  </p>
<p>An ambulance picked my son up from the pediatrician because of respiratory problems and lack of oxygen.  Although I&#8217;d hate for him to stay in an ambulance for over an hour in that condition, I cannot tell you what I would do if an ambulance was not available at the time when he needed it the most.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rip</title>
		<link>http://www.logipundit.com/2008/02/a-case-for-universal-health-care.html#comment-4666</link>
		<dc:creator>Rip</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2008 03:25:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.logipundit.com/2008/02/a-case-for-universal-health-care.html#comment-4666</guid>
		<description>Maybe the hospitals find some way around it, but I read that the clock starts 15 minutes after the ambulance arrives at the hospital...thus, less incentive to leave patients in the ambulance (but still incentive to wait to pick them up until the time limit can be complied with).  Also, what percentage of emergency room visits require an ambulance? I would guess 10% or less.  Also, wouldn't an ambulance be the ideal place to be if an emergency room doctor is not yet available (since they have trained responders in the ambulance)? Am I missing something?

Maybe there is a good opportunity in providing a for-profit ambulance service.  

Although I see where you are coming from (stupid gov't rule to make things better actually makes things worse), I have a hard time believing that people are dying all the time because of lack of emergency room treatment in the UK.  Surely this would be big news if it were more than an isolated problem.

My prediction is the the US gets some form of universal coverage (or at least universal children's coverage) by 2015.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maybe the hospitals find some way around it, but I read that the clock starts 15 minutes after the ambulance arrives at the hospital&#8230;thus, less incentive to leave patients in the ambulance (but still incentive to wait to pick them up until the time limit can be complied with).  Also, what percentage of emergency room visits require an ambulance? I would guess 10% or less.  Also, wouldn&#8217;t an ambulance be the ideal place to be if an emergency room doctor is not yet available (since they have trained responders in the ambulance)? Am I missing something?</p>
<p>Maybe there is a good opportunity in providing a for-profit ambulance service.  </p>
<p>Although I see where you are coming from (stupid gov&#8217;t rule to make things better actually makes things worse), I have a hard time believing that people are dying all the time because of lack of emergency room treatment in the UK.  Surely this would be big news if it were more than an isolated problem.</p>
<p>My prediction is the the US gets some form of universal coverage (or at least universal children&#8217;s coverage) by 2015.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
