British ambulancemen `decided dying man not worth saving'

Socialist attitudes caught on tape! Most unwise

Two ambulancemen have been arrested by police after they were heard allegedly discussing whether they should bother to resuscitate a disabled man who had collapsed at home and subsequently died. Barry Baker, 59, who lived alone, had dialled 999 saying that he thought he was having a heart attack. An ambulance was sent to his house while a controller kept him talking on the line. By the time the ambulancemen arrived at the house in Patcham, Brighton, Mr Baker had collapsed, but the telephone line was still open and was being recorded.

It is alleged that staff in the control centre heard the two medics making disparaging comments about the state of the house. A police source, who asked not to be named, said that the ambulancemen were then heard discussing Mr Baker and saying "words to the effect that he was not worth saving". The source said that the two men were allegedly first heard commenting on the untidy state of the house and then saying that it was not worth bothering to resuscitate Mr Baker. They are said to have discussed what to tell ambulance control and decided to say that Mr Baker was already dead when they got there.

The controllers were said to be so shocked by what had allegedly been said that they contacted senior managers, who called the police. "Obviously the crew did not realise that the phone was still connected and, of course, the 999 call was recorded on tape," the source said. "The tape recording of what the paramedics allegedly said has been handed over to the Sussex Police Major Crime Team as evidence."

Sussex Police confirmed that two men had been arrested and that a full-scale investigation into the incident was being carried out by the major crime team. A police spokeswoman said: "The men, aged 35 years and 44 years and from the Brighton area, have been arrested and questioned following the death of a man in Brighton. "They were detained on suspicion of wilfully neglecting to perform a duty in public office, contrary to Common Law. They have been released on police bail pending further inquiries." The two men, who are both based at Brighton ambulance station, have been bailed until a date in January and have been suspended from duty.

Mr Baker, who used sticks to help to him walk after undergoing hip replacement surgery, made the emergency call to the South East Coast Ambulance Service headquarters in Lewes in the early hours of November 29. He told the controller that he was suffering from severe chest pains. The ambulance crew from Brighton was immediately sent to his home with blue lights on.

A spokeswoman for the NHS Trust said: "South East Coast Ambulance Service has suspended two male members of staff from duty as police conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the sudden death of a man at his home in Brighton on Saturday November 29. "The men were arrested by Sussex Police on December 5 on suspicion of wilfully neglecting to perform a duty in public office. "We are giving the police our full cooperation in this matter and are not in a position to comment further at this time due to the police investigation taking place."

Mr Baker's funeral has had to be delayed because of the investigation, but a memorial service is due to take place at All Saints Church in Patcham on January 16. Paul Newman, landlord of the Ladies Mile, where a wake is due to be held, said yesterday that Mr Baker was a popular figure. "He used to come to the pub every Sunday morning at opening time. He arrived by bus and met friends here and together they played a few hands of cards. He did it every Sunday without fail and was a really nice chap."

It is understood that a report on the incident has been sent to the Crown Prosecution Service for a decision on whether the two men should be charged.

Source







Orszag's Health Warning

Obama's budget chief delivers a reality check on costs.

Democrats are gearing up for a new run at health care next year, which is another way of saying that it's an arms race to promise the most while disguising the costs. So when the expensive realities of "universal" coverage somehow intrude, taxpayers can't afford to let those moments disappear down the Beltway memory hole.

The most recent such moment comes courtesy of Peter Orszag, the former head of the Congressional Budget Office. CBO is the shop responsible for estimating how much legislation will cost the government, and recently it released two important reports on health-care financing that should hit Democrats like a cinderblock, assuming they read them. The executive summary for busy politicians is that liberal health reforms will be extremely costly, while measures intended to "save" money won't even come close to the promises. None of this will come as a revelation anywhere besides Capitol Hill.

Even so, this skepticism is notable because Mr. Orszag has since left CBO to become Barack Obama's budget director. Mr. Orszag's useful work on the unchecked growth of U.S. health spending, especially entitlements, ought to put the cost issue at the center of the 2009 debate. CBO expects government outlays on Medicare and Medicaid to rise as a share of the economy to 6% from 4.2% in a decade -- to $1.4 trillion, or nearly 30% of the entire federal budget -- and eventually ruin federal solvency. If costs grow on pace, U.S. medical spending will rise to 25% of GDP in 2025 from 17% today.

The liberal solution to this looming catastrophe is to add even more obligations. The insurance program for children that Democrats plan to expand in January will cost an extra $80 billion over the next 10 years. Preventing automatic cuts in the reimbursement fees that doctors receive for treating Medicare patients -- as Congress does every few years -- runs to $556 billion.

Those are nothing compared to the centerpiece of the universal health-care agenda -- a "public option" to provide government insurance for Americans of all ages and incomes. In one scenario, CBO finds that allowing the nonpoor to buy into Medicaid would have net costs of $7.8 billion over the next decade. If that sounds like pocket change, keep in mind that Democrats want to make both the public option and private insurance less expensive for beneficiaries by transferring the extra costs onto the government. Just one subsidy plan CBO examined would run to $65.5 billion by 2019. Having the government assume responsibility for high-cost claims would hit $752 billion.

CBO rolls through 115 of these reform options -- and it quickly becomes evident why even Democrats concede that their new health programs will cost $150 billion or even $200 billion per year. The real numbers will be higher. Keep in mind, too, that these are new recurring obligations, not one-time spending like (presumably) the financial bailout. They're politically unrepealable programs that will remain for decades.

Democrats, including Mr. Obama, suggest that covering everyone under a government plan will reduce costs through efficiency. Not according to CBO. It notes that there are "difficult trade-offs between the objectives of expanding insurance coverage and controlling both federal and total costs for health care." CBO also finds that programs designed to trim costs, such as health information technology or comparative effectiveness research, will produce only modest savings.

Mr. Orszag is a centrist liberal, and he supports reforms intended to squeeze waste out of the health markets. But to his credit at CBO he didn't ignore the data. Many Democrats (and a few Republicans) are glad that he's departing and are searching for a CBO replacement who will "score" their bills more favorably. The best outcome would be if Mr. Orszag manages to introduce some health-care sobriety to the Obama White House.

Source