Man describes long wait time for emergency surgery in France

This is a story about an atheist college art professor who had a near death experience and saw hell and demons.
But that's not what I want to talk about here. He was on a trip with his students in Paris when it happened.
In the video he describes the wait time while he was suffering in agony and there was no doctor available to perform the emergency operation on him.

That's the socialized medical care system in France.



"We were in Paris. And 11:00 in the morning I had a perforation of my stomach. When this happened, the pain was the most acute pain I had ever experienced in my life and it just dropped me right down to the ground. And so I'm twisting and kicking and moaning and screaming and yelling around on the floor, and my wife called the desk and they called an emergency service. A doctor came, and he called an ambulance because he knew what was wrong.
And they took me about 8 miles across town to the public hospital, to the general hospital of Paris, where I was taken into emergency, examined by 2 more doctors who knew exactly what was wrong with me, and then they took me away to the surgery hospital, which was a couple blocks away. And I was parked there, because there wasn't any surgeon available to do the surgery, and so there I lay for 8 to 10 hours, in that hospital, with no medication, no examination, no attention whatsoever, awaiting a surgeon to come, to give me this operation that was critical. And it's now 8:30 at night, a nurse came in and said she's very sorry they weren't able to get a doctor for me, and I'd get one the next day.
Well when she said that, I knew that it was over for me, I knew that I was dead."


It's probably even worse today.

 

People that support single payer don't realize that when a country goes single payer, it is not the patient that comes first, it is the system.

 

Woman lies dead in ER waiting room for hours

A woman lay dead in a Paris hospital waiting room for six hours before staff finally checked on her, it was revealed. A Paris hospital official told the media: "It's serious, but people die everyday in emergency rooms."


Naomi Musenga death: Emergency operator blames pressure after mocking caller - BBC News May 2018

In May 2018 in France, a 22-year old woman called emergency services saying her abdominal pain was so acute she felt she was "going to die." "You'll definitely die one day, like everyone else," the operator replied. When the woman was taken to hospital after a five-hour wait, she had a stroke and died of multiple organ failure.
The emergency operator - who wishes to remain anonymous - told French TV that she was under pressure and the emergency services were overworked.

 

so the guy didn't die and you label an entire system based on the so-called testimony of one person? Now that's real credible.

 

do you know that some people in the US dont even make it to the hospital and die because they have no medical insurance? they are afraid to go due to the costs involved?

 

Just Google "patient dies waiting in emergency room" ... happens all over the US as well as France. NO system is perfect.

 

Using one single case and trying to create the impression it could be an accurate representation of whole system ("this is what's it's like") is
deliberately distorting the context to create an incorrect narrative for one's own political agenda.
Doesn't happen in "non-socialised" systems, right? However, here the patient doesn't come first it seems.

Veteran's dying while waiting for care.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/los-angeles-veterans-affairs-hospital-patients-died-waiting-for-care/

30 year old dies in emergency room.
https://nypost.com/2014/01/25/man-found-dead-after-waiting-8-hours-in-er/

Philadelphia
https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2017/02/09/patient-dies-er/

New York
https://abc7ny.com/health/family-sues-hospital-after-father-dies-following-9-hour-wait/2457458/

LA, woman dies vomiting blood, hospital staff didn't help.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19207050/ns/health-health_care/t/woman-dies-er-lobby-refuses-help/

Patient dies in hospital waiting room, corpse robbed.
https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/he...nt-dies-waiting-room-due-to-policy-violations
Seven minutes after that, a hospital staffer called Rivera's name and noticed him staring at a wall, she told investigators for the state. Despite this, no hospital personnel checked further to see if Rivera needed medical help. In fact, hospital staffers didn't become aware of Rivera's condition until another patient told them what was going on--and by that point, Rivera's corpse had been robbed of his watch by vagrants, the state concluded.

There's a lot more to be found.
However, one, two or even a handful of cases cannot be representative of the whole system. It simply doesn't work that way and neither does your OP.

 

"He was on a trip with his students in Paris"

Is he french? (can't watch the video at work).

Because if he isn't he hasn't contributed to the health system there and shouldn't complain about it.
Here, if you're a foreigner on a trip, you better have the credit card ready because you have to pay at the time of your admission or they'll only stabilize you and send you on your way. No more leeching of our system by foreigners on a "visit". The price list is on the wall beside the admission booth.

 

The VA is an example of a government controlled single payer system, and all those other examples happened in progressive areas with lots of poor people and immigrants who can't pay overwhelming emergency services.

Rather than your specific examples refuting my claim, they actually are consistent with it.

Since you don't come from the US, you obviously didn't realize this.

 

These cases are in no way consistent with your (incorrect and superficial) claim, but a 'progressive this and that' kind of explanation was to be expected. Still interesting, all these interesting details, yet when it comes to the French system, it's one single case that represents the whole system. That's hypocricy. Your OP doesn't add up in any way.

 

UK: Amputee's wife builds makeshift wooden leg, because NHS wait times too long

Take a look at socialized healthcare in the UK:

Mr Watson was told it would take months to get a prosthetic in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.

So his wife built a makeshift wooden leg for him.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-52022976

Coronavirus: Amputee's wife builds makeshift wooden leg, BBC, March 24, 2020, Steve Watson of Shotley Bridge, County Durham​

That's how ridiculous it is.

 

So what's your point? Other then some guy couldn't wait for a leg and his wife made one for him.

 

This user's point is that he is afraid of "socialized health care" and is probably afraid that someday it will be introduced in the US. To demonstrate how bad "socialized health care" seemingly is, he uses isoltated cases and turns them into a general rule. Most of the time these peope even think that every country with universal health care employs the same system, thus if it's bad in the UK, it's bad everywhere. Mix in some ungrounded speculations ("it's probably even worse today") and they apparently think they have stopped universal health care from coming to the US, for now. A few months later it usually starts all over again.
Back on topic: If we really want to get a basic idea of how efficient different health care systems are, the only representative sources to look at are international studies instead of choosing isolated cases because they fit one's political agenda.

 

@kazenatsu

When I was young, I had no ressources and a lot of health troubles. I was left with a fragile health but no debts. I was taken care of because of the french system. I would be ever gratefull for my country, even if I'm a lot annoyed by a lot of french things, to have enabled me to live more.

Considering ER, I once went to the french ER because I had a bad fall and wondered if I had a broken arm. I knew I could wait all the night along because it was not a life emergency, so I took a big book to read. I was surprized to be cared only after one hours or two.

I also remember that a few years ago when my grand father was in a medical retirement house, that we were paying a lot but there were very few people on field, and the ground was sticking because it was dirty, they didn't gave enough ressources for things to stay clean. Unfortunately we couldn't get better and the alzheimer of grand dad was too advanced, and we couldn't change him of retirement home.

Just before the coronavirus, a large part of people working in hospitals protested because of the lack of ressources for the hospital.

I'm often irritated by the leftists that want to make everything free. For them the university should be free, the bus should be free. But nothing is "free", free mean "free at use" but it's paid by the state. That put in concurrence the different missions of the state because people want also less taxes. More free stuff but less taxes.
In the end education, health, security end to be all put in concurrence and none to be made in an efficient way.

However, as a rare occurence, I agree with @Daniel Light, no system is perfect. I think that dreaming of a system that would solve all problems, either mutualized or private is hoping for a "magic formula".

I suppose there is a need of balance between the state and private business, what's paid through taxes and what must be directly paid by people.
I refuse the selfish "give me free stuff" behavour of leftists, but the as selfish behavour of social darwinism seems to me a non issue also.

 

Perhaps true, but it's also worth bearing in mind the people who are not alive are not still around to complain.

 

Do you have any evidence to show that access to prosthetics is better under different forms of healthcare funding?

 

Probably. It's worth what it's worth, but around me people says that french hospital degraded heavily greatly since 2000. A lot of things are playing, the rising amount of debt that put pressure on states to restrict expenditure and the EU put pressure on states to place many tasks in the hand of the private sector.
I'm not an unconditionnal of "nationalize everything" but some things were working perfectly fine until the EU because of their dogmatism messed up things with their "free competition" ideology.

 

Could it be the increasing pressure and overburden from more caseloads caused by the huge number of migrants the country has taken in?

I mean you bring in millions of poor people from other countries (many of them can't find jobs, or only very low paying jobs), where's the money for all that going to come from, to treat them in a national health system? Nothing is free, and when you ask the national system to provide more services, something has to give.

Many Socialists of course don't want to recognise this. They just assume you can ask the system to do more, and everything will continue on just as it did before.

 

That playe a role, without any doubt, but I don't think it's the sole reason. It's more likely an accumulation of small reasons.

The EU, Euro, the "diversification" of french population, all of that played a role.
Between the 50's and the 80's the crime rate were increased by 3.

The state in France take in charge a lot of things, there is huge public universities, public health system, social services, retirement.

The french state had progressively to spend more and more money in a lot of things : they had to spend more money in the justice system, in the social system, more and people want a college education and it was to the state to pay for, the population went significantly older, when in the same time we lost our indenpendance how to deal with our money and we contribute more to the EU than we get money.

I'm quite sad to see many french people being totally ungratefull to what we get. They see their university, their retirement, to get most of their treatment payed back as a due.

I love the ideal of the french state. I think that public education is a great project, the fact that nobody get left behind great. But that systeme can work at one condition : gratefullness.

By wanting everything, you end to loose everything, there is many fables, tales around that. I suppose it what would end to happen to french people.

It's important to put a hierarchy when it come state intervention. Every ressource is limited and so you have to put your priority straight.

Is is it more important to put violent people in prison or smoke potter ? Is it more important to get college education for everyone or to put more effort in the education of the youngest ?

Unfortunately, the french system will end to be short lived dream and as it exist, it days are numbered.

 

I read his book My Descent Into Death several years ago and he certainly had very little reason to say much of anything good about the medical system of France. This is making me wonder if our Canadian model is also seriously flawed. I know that my province, Nova Scotia certainly is experiencing a shortage of physicians.


There are still 47,000 Nova Scotians waiting for a family doctor




N.S. doctor shortage leads to barriers for patients in need of prescriptions for narcotics, controlled drugs

 

And Americans?

 

I have met people that went to Norway and had no trouble getting a doctor to treat him.

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence, because you can find examples on both sides of the argument.

If UHC is great in one country, and not so great in another, it's not a question of ideology, it's a question of competent management, and no system has a monopoly on incompetence.

 

Yes and no. France is one the most heavy taxed country in the world, and a large part of the economy has been socialized. That's true for healthcare, hospitals, retirement, college, museums and more. French state like every state has to deal also with firemen, police, justice. Furthermore, the government has a large socialcare program. To that we could had that the french government subsidy a lot of things, such a partis, newspapers, political associations like feminist and so called "anti racist" associations. We could also mention that France has to pay several billions as tribute to the EU, and yes, we get also money from EU, but we give more than we receive.

The point is : when you want the government to deal with everything, the more there is a risk of total failure.

Norway has also a lot of oil and so a large source of revenue. Furthermore, Norway has globally a much less poor population. Having a heavy socialized system is much less difficult when you have less poverty.

I'm not against the fact that the state take care of somethings like health. I must admit that I myself got a lof of benefice from that. I had a lot of health troubles during my studies, and I had three huge benefits :
_ I didn't had any student debt
_ I didn't had any health debt
_ I didn't end homeless and got a little bit of money to live.
I would be quite likely dead without that. I have an immeasurable luck.

I'm however quite skeptical about people that want every free. I feel my fellow countryman deeply ungratefull for what they benefit of already.

You can't have everything. The more you put pressure on a state to pay things, the more it's likely to get it to fail.
That create also a problem at the psychological level. We have a lot of difficulties to deal with distant threats. That's the reason why for instance we can have very unhealthy way of living, because the consequence of that is very afar. It's the same for young students that can get extreme debt for doubtfull studies and end to be a debt slave, that does include state debt. We will have difficulties to take in consideration the extreme debt level it create for our country simply because the "threat" of national bankruptcy is something too much distant. Basically, socialize cost at a state level make us at a whole less responsible.

 

Yes, when something is provided for free, people have a tendency to just take it for granted and assume it will always continue like that.
It's one of the pitfalls in a socialist system, I believe, when it comes to the society's psyche.

The people assume they can change anything and everything in the society and system, and those things will still continue as before. Because the payment of those things is outside of their domain. They do not personally have to deal with it or think about it.

 

The only problem is that "in a socialist system" is so vague and superficial that it should be specified at least a little bit in order to make some sense. The notion that "in a socialist system" payment is outside of people's domain doesn't make sense. Take the example of health insurance, depending on what the laws say and how the administration works, people pay for their health insurance per month and see the numbers on their bank statements. Depending on what country we look at, your dentist sends you a bill for those treatments that are not covered by your insurance, and you have to pay that bill just like any other bill in your mail. Depending on what insurance you have, your insurance might send you a list of all the treatments you received within a certain period of time and which of these they have covered at what costs and which you will need to pay for out of your own wallet.
Of course, you have to deal with costs and think about it. The big difference to the 'merican systen is you don't get a bill of thousands or tens of thousands after having left the hospital. Besides, in countries with universal health care systems, health care isn't provided for free. What some people mean when they use this highly unspecific expression is that they - depending on their insurance - don't usually get a bill or have to pay extra after they visited their doctor, but that depends very much on your insurance and where you live.