SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
[Copper] does this by leaching electrons from bacteria, which causes a charge to build up inside the cell which ultimately leads to free radical formation and cell death. Many studies have now shows that the microbial burden on copper surfaces is reduced by 80% compared to traditional surfaces. When used on frequently touched surfaces in hospitals, this can significantly reduce the amount of bacteria hanging around. Another study showed that the total reduction in bacteria from a copper alloy surface was 99.9% (compared to baseline, not to control surfaces). In controlled studies, copper surfaces work as advertised – they kill bacteria and viruses.
But does this actually reduce the incidence of hospital acquired infections (HAIs, also called health care associated infections)? The answer is yes. A 2017 systematic review of studies found that introducing copper surface in the hospital reduced HAIs by 25%.
[...] This will require a significant investment by hospitals – replacing beds, serving trays, tables, rails, door handles, and other high-touch surfaces. [...] The estimated cost of the most common HAIs is around $10 billion per year in the US. This cost is often absorbed by the hospital. This is because reimbursement for hospital stays is often determined by DRGs – diagnostic related groups. Hospitals are paid by insurance companies based upon the patient's diagnosis. If a patient is admitted for pneumonia, the hospital gets paid a fixed amount which represents the average cost of treating pneumonia. If the patient does well and is discharged quickly, the hospital makes money. If they do not do well and have complications and a prolonged stay, the hospital loses money. This provides a good financial incentive for hospitals to provide efficient and effective care, and minimize complications.
Previously:
(2020-07-19) Laser-Textured Metal Surfaces Kill Bacteria Faster
(Score: 2, Disagree) by krishnoid on Friday July 31 2020, @06:10AM (21 children)
If this is the kind of thing you can pay for using taxpayers' money, to provide a real ongoing preventative benefit that's lost in the statistics down the road, I'd expect countries with socialized medicine to pick this up first. In that regard, I'm kind of surprised they haven't already done it or at least experimented with it.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @06:47AM (20 children)
Why do we even have capitalism at all? Let the experts allocate where all the money goes. Why hasn't this been tried before?
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Friday July 31 2020, @08:15AM (19 children)
It's not such a bad idea for specific area like medicine; the sociopaths are not usually drawn to work in hospitals.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Unixnut on Friday July 31 2020, @10:02AM (16 children)
> It's not such a bad idea for specific area like medicine; the sociopaths are not usually drawn to work in hospitals.
That is because there is no money spigot they can control to enrich themselves. If you give "command economy" type structure to a system, you will find sociopaths are attracted to the power that is present.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Friday July 31 2020, @10:22AM (13 children)
> you will find sociopaths are attracted to the power that is present.
It doesn't seem to be the case in the rest of the world, or at least no more so than in a capitalist system.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Unixnut on Friday July 31 2020, @01:40PM (12 children)
> It doesn't seem to be the case in the rest of the world, or at least no more so than in a capitalist system.
Examples? Having lived under Communism I found everything, including the healthcare system, full of them, usually in "procurement" or head spots where they could direct state funding based on personal favors, enrichment, etc...
They were attracted to those positions like moths to a flame, regardless of what industry it was in.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Friday July 31 2020, @01:50PM (2 children)
Ah, I guess I have known a couple of people who have sat on NICE committees (which advise on English NHS medical policy e.g. which treatments to buy). They are typically senior medics or academics. There were offers of "working lunches"/etc from the (capitalist) pharmaceuticals, which were turned down. But the evidence is a bit anecdotal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @04:52PM (1 child)
This has nothing to do with communism at all!
The same thing happens everywhere. It's normal practice in marketing to target decision makers of your customers. And comparing UK's NHS to communism, based on the thread, is ridicules.
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Saturday August 01 2020, @07:42PM
Indeed. While the NHS is an expensive, dysfunctional pile of crap, it has virtually nothing in common with communism, and comparisons thereof are not realistic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @04:50PM (1 child)
The difference is in communist system, you had people that had "power". Power was the position you were in.
In capitalist system, position is not enough. Power is often money. This is not so in communism. But I guess you should know this already.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday July 31 2020, @05:40PM
Ah, but you see, that's why capitalism is so much better. Money provides power which provides more money. It's a nice tight, efficient cycle for wealth concentration, which allows the government to rapidly become the enforcement arm of industry, rather than central-planning's enslavement of industry to the government.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday August 01 2020, @09:20PM (6 children)
Communism != Socialism except in propaganda. Socialized medicine is not Communism, there is no tyranny of the proletariat there.
Socialized medicine doesn't even preclude choosing a private service instead if you can afford it (and if you can't, you probably couldn't afford non-socialized medicine either).
In the U.S., healthcare is full of handshake deals made in secret on the golf course, unpublished prices, and even an inability to provide an itemized billing to patients. We don't have the option to vote them out. We see the results of that waste in the form of unaffordable premiums on our health insurance.
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Sunday August 02 2020, @07:17AM (5 children)
> Communism != Socialism except in propaganda.
Um, yes it is. Or rather, Communism is the "ideal state" of socialism, the end goal, which comes after the "Dictatorship of the proletariat" bit. No socialist country has ever managed to attain true Communism, despite all the effort and lives used up trying. so technically all "Communist" countries were in fact socialist countries striving for communism.
That is why the USSR was short for "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". Only after the horrendous failures of socialist/communist countries did they try to decouple the two terms, in order to be able to give it another go with slightly different branding.
> Socialized medicine is not Communism, there is no tyranny of the proletariat there.
Never said it was, although there is the "tragedy of the commons" part in full swing, which results in most fully socialised health care systems collapsing under their own weight, or degrading in quality of service to the point where you are better off self medicating than getting into the system.
I just was responding to the idea that if someone thinks under a socialist system there won't be sociopaths abusing the system for their own personal gain, they are in for a rude awakening.
> Socialized medicine doesn't even preclude choosing a private service instead if you can afford it (and if you can't, you probably couldn't afford non-socialized medicine either).
Generally socialised medicine requires taxes to sustain itself, meaning that you have to pay in to the system even if you didn't use it. Case in point, my taxes to pay for healthcare are approx 15% of my income, on top of the 45% general income tax I already pay. I have been paying that since I started working decades ago, and it has never been worth the money spent on it.
I could probably afford private if I didn't have to pay taxes for the socialised medicine. However to pay high taxes for socialised medicine, then pay for private healthcare on top is too much for me.
There is no real choice, unless you can avoid paying taxes, which is I guess why rich people end up being able to pay for very good health care.
> In the U.S., healthcare is full of handshake deals made in secret on the golf course, unpublished prices, and even an inability to provide an itemized billing to patients. We don't have the option to vote them out. We see the results of that waste in the form of unaffordable premiums on our health insurance.
I can't comment about the US healthcare system, not having experienced it myself. Although from listening to Americans, it seems (like everything else in the US) to be completely polarising, with no middle ground. It is either the worst system on earth , or the best system on earth, depending on which particular American talks about it.
Although if you are forced to use US healthcare, regardless of how much it costs and quality of service received, then it sounds very much like you have socialised medicine already (just not named as such).
I also can't opt out of my taxes for socialised medicine, despite the fact every time I've had to use the healthcare system, I've come out with more problems then I went in with, and I still can't vote them out. Just because I pay for it through taxes, does not mean I get to decide how it is run, who runs it, or even if they do "secret deals" with others (which still happens).
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday August 02 2020, @04:16PM (4 children)
Correction, TO A COMMUNIST, communism is the ideal state of socialism. To a socialist, not so much.
As for socialized medicine, there are many socialized medical systems running well in countries with hybrid economies. In the U.S., we have people self-medicating with herbs because they can't afford any other option. Others manage somewhat through quasi-legal importation of prescription drugs from countries that have socialized medicine. It's gotten to the point that there are insurance companies that will provide all travel expenses, drop the co-pay, and give a cash incentive for people to travel to Mexico to buy prescription drugs because with all of that, it's STILL cheaper than buying them in the U.S.
As for taxes, it's not uncommon for people to pay $700/month EACH for health insurance. It might as well be a tax since the alternative is to be bankrupted or just die if you get seriously ill or injured. Even with insurance, the co-pays and such can eat you alive.
Technically, we are free to travel to another country for healthcare but that presents it's own problems, especially in a medical emergency.. Otherwise, you are free to choose A,B,C, or D. They all cost more than you have and in many cases more than you will make in a lifetime. Since none of them publish their prices, you have no basis for comparison shopping (assuming there's time for that and you're not unconscious). If you're lucky, you might be able to go to a charity hospital or one with public funding (socialized). Of course, if you need an ambulance, they will take you to the closest hospital no matter what they might charge (and they'll bill you over $1000 to do it).
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Sunday August 02 2020, @07:02PM (3 children)
> Correction, TO A COMMUNIST, communism is the ideal state of socialism. To a socialist, not so much.
That doesn't seem to counter me refuting your claim that socialism != communism, which was the original discussion. In fact now it seems we are in agreement that they are the same, but with different "ideal states", as such, no?
Like I said earlier, with the failure of socialist countries to reach the nirvana of communism, many abandoned it to go for capitalism, while some have been trying for a hybrid.
Like a parasite, full communism destroys the host economy that it feeds off. With the softer socialism as practiced in the EU, there is an attempt to strike a balance between killing the host and having no socialism at all.
So far, it just seems to be killing the host slower than communism does, but perhaps they will find the "magic middle" that keeps increasing prosperity , motivating people to work, and providing the trappings of socialism that so enamors peoples hearts.
> As for socialized medicine, there are many socialized medical systems running well in countries with hybrid economies.
Could you give examples? In modern times, I am only limited to my experience of the UK, France and Germany. Of those three. Two (France and Germany) are fully private healthcare systems, but with a "public health insurance" pot you pay in while working, and which you can claim from if you are ill.
In such a system you can go to any private doctor, or any private hospital, get your treatment. The individual hospital will compete for your patronage by offering incentives, nice experience, or have a good reputation for their healthcare (or specialise in something).
You are then billed the full amount, but if you show your proof of health insurance (usually a card, such as EHIC - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Health_Insurance_Card) [wikipedia.org] you have pay some percentage excess, and the rest is covered by your insurance.
If you don't have insurance, you can still go, but you pay the full amount.
In my experience these are the two best health systems I have ever seen.
The UK system (NHS) is socialised medicine. It doesn't work like the above. There is no "health insurance pot" you pay in to. Rather it works a bit like state pensions. The taxes go towards funding the system, rather than being contribution based. So you can pay into it your entire life, but when you need it, they may not have funds to treat you.
Also, you don't get to pick your doctor, you don't get to pick your hospital (as they are all "NHS hospitals" and theoretically the same). This means they make no effort for an individual. To them you are just a number to be processed, and if they mess something up (including serious things like removing the wrong organs during operations), you have an uphill battle to get compensation/damages, as they are not held liable for anything.
Its a horrible experience, which I have been through 4 times in my life, and I would rather self medicate than go there (which is indeed what I do). Yet despite all this they will not reform, because I can't stop paying them, its part of my tax whether I go or not. In fact they probably prefer me not to use their services, as that way they get paid without even having to pretend to care about me or my health.
The UK system is pretty much identical to the old system back in the eastern block, and it functions just as poorly as that did. The difference is that the UK economy is so strong, it has been able to sustain this massive dysfunctional system much longer.
> In the U.S., we have people self-medicating with herbs because they can't afford any other option. Others manage somewhat through quasi-legal importation of prescription drugs from countries that have socialized medicine. It's gotten to the point that there are insurance companies that will provide all travel expenses, drop the co-pay, and give a cash incentive for people to travel to Mexico to buy prescription drugs because with all of that, it's STILL cheaper than buying them in the U.S.
And I self medicate as well. Likewise I manage with quasi-legal importation of prescription drugs from countries that have private medicine (here if an authorised NHS doctor does not give you prescription, you have no way of getting it, even if you want to pay over the odds for it).
For more serious stuff, its better for me to go to France/Germany to get it done. However Brexit will throw a spanner in the works (not more EHIC or "health tourism"), and Covid is causing issues now for such visits.
> As for taxes, it's not uncommon for people to pay $700/month EACH for health insurance. It might as well be a tax since the alternative is to be bankrupted or just die if you get seriously ill or injured. Even with insurance, the co-pays and such can eat you alive.
Do you have to pay for health insurance? Can you not opt out and place $700 a month in a savings accounts instead, for when you need medical attention? Unless you are forced to pay for that even if you don't use it, it seems better than a tax. As I mentioned above, I still have to pay even if I don't want to go anywhere near their "services" ever again.
> Technically, we are free to travel to another country for healthcare but that presents it's own problems, especially in a medical emergency.. Otherwise, you are free to choose A,B,C, or D. They all cost more than you have and in many cases more than you will make in a lifetime. Since none of them publish their prices, you have no basis for comparison shopping (assuming there's time for that and you're not unconscious). If you're lucky, you might be able to go to a charity hospital or one with public funding (socialized). Of course, if you need an ambulance, they will take you to the closest hospital no matter what they might charge (and they'll bill you over $1000 to do it).
That does suck. It sounds like a very obtuse and corruption prone system. Saying that, it sounds like the problem is not with the quality of health care, but the lack of regulations around standard charging for medical help (especially emergency help). In France for example, the excess from the health insurance is fixed, and the rest (as paid by the insurance) is unknown to me. It may well be negotiated between them. All I can say that from my perspective, no matter where in Europe I am, if I pick a hospital, or I get taken there unconscious, my excess does not change, it is a fixed price for me.
That is why I paid into the national health insurance pot when I was there. Same reason I pay for car insurance, or any other insurance really.
Here in the UK they are well aware that the system doesn't function, doesn't take care of people, and is on the verge of collapse (the worst recovery rate of COVID in Europe pretty much seals the proof of this). Yet while they are well aware of the need to reform the NHS, they seem intent to remodel it on the US system, rather than the Euro system, that seems to be working well.
Only here will they look at their system, and then try to find one worse to follow... >.<
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday August 02 2020, @09:19PM (2 children)
Only if you very deliberately twist my words into a pretzel.
Note that to a Communist the ideal state of an economy is communism, to a Capitalist, not so much.
Do you REALLY think that means Communists and Capitalists are in agreement that Capitalism == Communism?
And that is....(drum roll please)....SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!
The government has set the prices, yes?
Meanwhile, in the U.S. choice is limited. Each insurance plan comes with a list of doctors, hospitals, and pharmacies that are part of the plan. If you change plans, you may have to change all three. If the insurance company changes it's mind, you have to change.
If you can't afford the insurance and really need to see a doctor, the best you can do if you need to see a doctor is go to the ER and see whoever is available. You also have to have a prescription here to buy medicines, even from another country.
A little over a year ago, a group of 600 (or so) diabetics formed a "caravan to Canada" to buy insulin because in the U.S. it costs more than 10 times what it costs in Canada. So much for the invisible hand of the market!
It's gotten to the point where doctors and pharmacists sometimes break the law out of a sense of compassion and mercy for patients who may otherwise die.
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Sunday August 02 2020, @11:57PM (1 child)
> Only if you very deliberately twist my words into a pretzel.
> Note that to a Communist the ideal state of an economy is communism, to a Capitalist, not so much.
> Do you REALLY think that means Communists and Capitalists are in agreement that Capitalism == Communism?
No, Socialism == Communism (idealistic "socialist" utopia). I never said Capitalism == Communism (which makes no sense, as they are completely opposite in distribution and core concept).
I really don't see what the problem is. Marx himself defined socialism in its common modern understanding, and described it as a stepping stone to the socialist ideal of "communism". This isn't really up for debate, nor is it propaganda. You can read it from Das Kapital yourself if you like.
Funny thing is, the Communistic ideal is actually quite a nice idea. After the "Dictatorship of the proletariat" has finished and the revolution is "safe" from being retaken by the capitalists, the state was to decentralised into communes (back then called "Soviets"), which would only handle local issues via direct democracy of voting. These communes would elect a representative that would go to the party conference and then they would vote on larger issues of the day.
Sort of a Hybrid of direct democracy. It was a nice idea, however the economic system of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need", would never sustain a civilisation. I would like to think that the modern socialists would take the same concept, and try to make it work with Capitalism, which is the experiment currently being pursued in large chunks of western Europe, with varying levels of success.
> And that is....(drum roll please)....SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!
> The government has set the prices, yes?
Not really. If you have insurance (house/car/whatever), you probably have an excess on a claim. So you claim for $20,000 damage, you pay $500 excess, and the insurer pays $19,500. The market price is $20,000, you paid into the insurance so that you are protected against sudden expenses like this, but the full bill is paid in total.
If the government regulates that the excess is $500 for a particular claim, that doesn't mean it sets the prices. The rest of the claim can vary according to market forces, and it does.
That is completely different to actually "setting prices". Under state price settings, the state would mandate that the entire cost of the claim is $500, no matter how much it actually costs to set things right. Long term that is unsustainable, and breeds dysfunction.
> Meanwhile, in the U.S. choice is limited. Each insurance plan comes with a list of doctors, hospitals, and pharmacies that are part of the plan. If you change plans, you may have to change all three. If the insurance company changes it's mind, you have to change.
> If you can't afford the insurance and really need to see a doctor, the best you can do if you need to see a doctor is go to the ER and see whoever is available. You also have to have a prescription here to buy medicines, even from another country.
> A little over a year ago, a group of 600 (or so) diabetics formed a "caravan to Canada" to buy insulin because in the U.S. it costs more than 10 times what it costs in Canada. So much for the invisible hand of the market!
I thought the main reason for the high costs of medicines in the USA are your crazy patent laws? Namely the rest of the world can manufacture "generic" drugs real cheap because they don't have the patent issues that they would have to sell in the USA. Indeed those same generic drugs are banned import in the US due to IP/patent violations (which coincidentally would also hit the profits of your pharmaceutical companies).
If this is really how it works, then you don't have a free market at all, but one where the state has made things expensive for you, due to protecting certain industries from free market competition. Quite the opposite of your initial claim above!
> It's gotten to the point where doctors and pharmacists sometimes break the law out of a sense of compassion and mercy for patients who may otherwise die.
My condolences for living in such a dysfunctional system. Unfortunately I think the problem is cultural. Both the USA and UK have the same cultural root (language, law, concepts of society), one has hyper private healthcare, the other fully socialised healthcare, Yet both systems are a dysfunctional mess that more often than not fail in their core remit to provide healthcare.
While I am all for you reforming your system, I worry that even if you switched to fully socialised medicine, you would stlil end up with a dysfunctional system (in another way). Still, best of luck! It will be a long hard slog to reform, seeing all the vested interests in keeping the status quo.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday August 03 2020, @12:34AM
Patents are pretty much world wide now. Other countries set limits on how much pharmaceutical companies can charge, the U.S. does not. Some use the threat of allowing generic production as a bludgeon to enforce the price limits. Others simply negotiate using the market power of a large pool of patients to keep prices in line.
You might want to look again at Germany. Although private options exist, it is for the most part socialized (77%)., There are also significant price controls.
The U.K. system's biggest problem seems to be monkey wrenching by conservatives that want to follow Trump off the cliff.Based on statistics and people I've talked to who have used it, it is not worse than in the U.S., but it is a lot less expensive.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday August 01 2020, @06:44PM (1 child)
Interestingly, the same sociopaths are attracted to banking and finance in a capitalist system. They're also fond of executive positions.
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Saturday August 01 2020, @07:39PM
Yes, indeed. They are drawn to power. It is not a communist or capitalist "fault", which is why I responded to this thread in the first place. If someone thinks "Socialism" will rescue them from such people, they are horribly mistaken.
Socioeconomic systems cannot alter human nature. No matter what system humans design, other humans will exploit for their own benefit.
At least in Capitalism its obvious, and I can more or less avoid them. No pretending they are really working in your best interest, or for some higher cause. They are out to make more money than you, simple.
Avoiding high ranking members of the "party" is infinitely harder, especially if they feel like making your life a living hell just for the fun of a power trip. Being more authoritarian in nature (the whole "Dictatorship of the proletariat" bit) means you are going to be in a far worse situation when you come across such people.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @04:55PM (1 child)
There are plenty of sociopaths in medicine, including doctors. They follow the same pattern just to look important.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/27/science/coronavirus-retracted-studies-data.html [nytimes.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @06:54PM
Sociopaths and psychopaths are everywhere. Together, they are ~5-10% of the population. Sociopathic qualities have been esteemed throughout history. It's not a bad thing that some people lack the emotional shackles of others, and you shouldn't act as though they are all "bad" due to different emotional responses.