Current Affairs General US politics (ie, not POTUS related)

[mezzrow]

Not to quibble needlessly, but Quakers didn't play a key role in banning slavery in England - slavery was never legal in England, as Lord Mansfield found. It was legal in the Empire, which the Quakers (and others) effectively destroyed.

Excellent point, well made. Thanks.

 

[mezzrow]

That's wonderful for you. Less wonderful for the third of the country that can't afford health insurance - or those who simply aren't eligible for it.

Most other "advanced nations" in the world manage to deal with your concerns by the way, in case you hadn't noticed - and they do it without people going bankrupt paying for their healthcare

Oh and fwiw, I work in a publicly funded healthcare system, and I get compensated for my work - thanks for your concern.

Is there no publicly funded healthcare system in the USA? Even after the herculean efforts of Barack Obama to establish a more even playing field?

You likely have access to better figures concerning wait times in the UK, US, and Canada than I do as just another ass-scratching retiree. What are the incentives in each case to make the wait times as short as possible? You also assume that I am not covered by Medicare with or without a supplemental. Do you know the details regarding the reasons that health insurance was farmed out to employers in the USA just before Attlee and Bevan farmed it out to the NHS?

Should private health insurance be abolished?

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

Is there no publicly funded healthcare system in the USA? Even after the herculean efforts of Barack Obama to establish a more even playing field?

You likely have access to better figures concerning wait times in the UK, US, and Canada than I do as just another ass-scratching retiree. What are the incentives in each case to make the wait times as short as possible? You also assume that I am not covered by Medicare with or without a supplemental. Do you know the details regarding the reasons that health insurance was farmed out to employers in the USA just before Attlee and Bevan farmed it out to the NHS?

Should private health insurance be abolished?

No I don't think private insurance should be abolished in the US (or the UK - it's available here too, though at infinitely lower cost than the US because such companies have to compete with a "free" system) but it should be an option - something nice to have if you're doing well for yourself and can afford it. Here for example it takes some of the burden away from the public system, and yes, can cover a small number of things that aren't routinely covered by the NHS.

Incentives for wait times are much the same as incentives for anyone to do their job properly in any line of work. There are government issued guidelines on what wait times should be, and failure to adhere can lead to various penalties. Obviously these guidelines vary depending on the case in question -in general, the more serious (and treatable) the condition, the shorter the wait (if any) you will experience.

Nothing will convince me that people should be having to shell out hundreds (sometimes thousands) of dollars a month just to not have to worry about their financial future being ruined if they or their family gets sick.

The median worker in the UK contributes (roughly) £800-£1000 per year to the NHS, and this allows EVERY SINGLE PERSON in the country to be covered. No co-pays, no deductibles, nothing.

The US manages to spend more money per capita on healthcare than any nation on earth, and yet there's tens of millions of people not covered.

 

[mezzrow]

No I don't think private insurance should be abolished in the US (or the UK - it's available here too, though at infinitely lower cost than the US because such companies have to compete with a "free" system) but it should be an option - something nice to have if you're doing well for yourself and can afford it. Here for example it takes some of the burden away from the public system, and yes, can cover a small number of things that aren't routinely covered by the NHS.

Incentives for wait times are much the same as incentives for anyone to do their job properly in any line of work. There are government issued guidelines on what wait times should be, and failure to adhere can lead to various penalties. Obviously these guidelines vary depending on the case in question -in general, the more serious (and treatable) the condition, the shorter the wait (if any) you will experience.

Nothing will convince me that people should be having to shell out hundreds (sometimes thousands) of dollars a month just to not have to worry about their financial future being ruined if they or their family gets sick.

The median worker in the UK contributes (roughly) £800-£1000 per year to the NHS, and this allows EVERY SINGLE PERSON in the country to be covered. No co-pays, no deductibles, nothing.

It is a finely balanced set of options, and most UK taxpayers feel they get great value from their contribution. The need to impose a similar system in other polities is the part I don't understand quite so much. There is something at work there that goes well beyond the question of health care and access to credit.

How quickly does one recover from bankruptcy in the US in comparison to the rest of the first world? Bankruptcy is a very worrisome factor, but then so is cancer.
Only one will kill you - well, physically. The other can kill you mentally, but you have the opportunity to recover via any number of government supported programs and charity, though I know charity is frowned on by many on this forum. Charity just provides cover for rapacious capital.

 

[tsubaki]

The median worker in the UK contributes (roughly) £800-£1000 per year to the NHS, and this allows EVERY SINGLE PERSON in the country to be covered. No co-pays, no deductibles, nothing.

It is this point that exposes the farce of the US Healthcare system more than anything. Just Medicaid spending (the federal and the personal contributions) - (edit) so not Medicare, private health insurance or anything else - in 2017 was $592.2 billion, which divided among the 327.2 million US population gives a figure of $1811 each (or £1446 at the current exchange rate) - though it only actually covers 74 million people.

US citizens are paying far more than we do, for far less. In that sense of the word the argument over socialized medicine is irrelevant.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

It is a finely balanced set of options, and most UK taxpayers feel they get great value from their contribution. The need to impose a similar system in other polities is the part I don't understand quite so much. There is something at work there goes well beyond the question of health care and access to credit.

How quickly does one recover from bankruptcy in the US in comparison to the rest of the first world? Bankruptcy is a very worrisome factor, but then so is cancer.
Only one will kill you - well, physically. The other can kill you mentally, but you have the opportunity to recover via any number of government supported programs and charity, though I know charity is frowned on by many on this forum. Charity just provides cover for rapacious capital.

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make?

Why do I think it's important for the US to have universal (and affordable) health coverage? Seems a really odd question, but to answer, it's for much the same reason that I'd prefer American kids stop getting shot in their classroom, or why I'd prefer people in Flint to have access to clean water, or why I'd rather people in Yemen weren't being killed by the thousand... Because it's actually ok to care about people not from your own country.

But for added value, I lived in the States for a year or so, and have many friends (and a couple of family members) over there

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

It is this point that exposes the farce of the US Healthcare system more than anything. Just Medicaid spending (the federal and the personal contributions) - (edit) so not Medicare, private health insurance or anything else - in 2017 was $592.2 billion, which divided among the 327.2 million US population gives a figure of $1811 each (or £1446 at the current exchange rate) - though it only actually covers 74 million people.

US citizens are paying far more than we do, for far less. In that sense of the word the argument over socialized medicine is irrelevant.

Oh the system is an absolute shambles on all sorts of levels - but I think that's another argument in favour of publicly funded healthcare - it would take the power away from the insurance and drug companies, whose only aim is not to keep people healthy, but to wring out every bit of profit available. There's good reason why per capita spending here is SO much lower.

 

[Walken]

No he meant condone, Chris believes that we must DESTROY each other so that only the strong survive

That's true free speech right there, though i do have a grudging respect for the consistency of condoning all violence

 

[mezzrow]

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make?

Why do I think it's important for the US to have universal (and affordable) health coverage? Seems a really odd question, but to answer, it's for much the same reason that I'd prefer American kids stop getting shot in their classroom, or why I'd prefer people in Flint to have access to clean water, or why I'd rather people in Yemen weren't being killed by the thousand...

And that lack of understanding is exactly why we are having the discussion. I agree with every point you have made below. Why can't we be friends?

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

And that lack of understanding is exactly why we are having the discussion. I agree with every point you have made below. Why can't we be friends?

Haha, we certainly can be.

Though fwiw, I was being polite by saying "I'm not really sure..." I did know - I just felt it was a bit daft.

 

[mezzrow]

Haha, we certainly can be.

Though fwiw, I was being polite by saying "I'm not really sure..." I did know - I just felt it was a bit daft.

Fair enough. I knew that already, btw.

 

[tsubaki]

Oh the system is an absolute shambles on all sorts of levels - but I think that's another argument in favour of publicly funded healthcare - it would take the power away from the insurance and drug companies, whose only aim is not to keep people healthy, but to wring out every bit of profit available. There's good reason why per capita spending here is SO much lower.

Oh aye, but I think a better argument is that the US already has publicly (and lavishly) funded healthcare - it just isn't spent on keeping people healthy.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

Oh aye, but I think a better argument is that the US already has publicly (and lavishly) funded healthcare - it just isn't spent on keeping people healthy.

Fair

 

[LinekersLegs]

Excellent news, hope he doesn’t get another sweetheart deal or a pardon.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

Excellent news, hope he doesn’t get another sweetheart deal or a pardon.

Scumbag. Wonder if we'll find out who some of the attendees were at his "parties"?

Reckon there'd be one or two.... interesting... names. Names where you'd say "orange aren't you surprised that guy was there?"