The UK is also a residence based system, not citizen. So even UK citizens visiting far enough away from their resident hospital can get charged.
But how much does it cost? Still dramatically less than the US. And if you have your own insurance plan (and many UK citizens have a supplmental private insurance plan for this very reason) it will probably still pick up its share, even for US visitors.
pregnancy in the us? 20-40k, of which you'll pay 4-8k depending on your OOP limits and deductible. assuming you have insurance of course. and one trick that i keep seeng is that until the baby is born everything is charged against the mother. once the baby has arrived, the baby recieves its own seperate bill as its a seperate person under the insurance plan, triggering a new deductible and a new OOP limit, effectively doubling what you pay out of pocket. it very much is a For Profit arrangement, even if most hospitals claim to be non-profit.
And what does pregnancy cost in the EU? Well this is France (http://www.slate.com/articles/business/dispatches_from_the_welfare_state/2014/01/french_socialized_medicine_vs_u_s_health_care_having_a_baby_in_paris_is.2.html):
When I got pregnant with my daughter, I had been living in France for only about six months, and hadn’t yet received my Carte Vitale, France’s universal health care card. The day I went for my first sonogram, my midwife warned me that I should brace myself for a big bill. “Since you don’t have your Carte Vitale yet,” she said, “it’s going to be costly.”
I’m an American, and accustomed to American medical costs—I’d always worked for small businesses, where company insurance usually came with high co-pays and out-of-network deductibles. So of course I tensed up. “How much will it be?” I asked the midwife fearfully. “Will it be—more than 1,000 euros?” (That’s about $1,300 at today’s exchange rate.)
She looked at me like I was crazy. “No, it won’t be that much!” she exclaimed.
The final bill for the appointment was 150 euros, or about $200, which I paid in full, and for which I was later reimbursed in full.
In other words, “$200 minus $200” counts as a “costly” medical bill in France. [..] for my complication-free delivery and five-day stay in a private clinic, my total out-of-pocket cost was 400 euros, or about $542.
the USPS would actually be profitable right now, to the tune of roughly 600 million $$ a year, which is a rather considerable amount of deficit reduction, if the GOP congress hadnt mandated they pre-fund pensions 75 years into the future. there was no reason for that requirement, other than to create teh false impression that the USPS is in financial ruin.
the rest of your comment is ignorant too. you are dumb. and you should be ashamed.
Actually it would not be completely solvent, unless they didnt do all the work they actually need to do. the HTF has been perpetually underfunnded throughout its life cause its never been indexed.
being one fo the first places to borrow from for general government spending doesnt help by any means. but even if they stopped borrowing, its still usually insufficient except for a few times imediately after its been re-adjusted (even then, the raises usually arent sufficient to actually meet the needs).
but that hasnt happened in a long while. its needs to be indexed so it can rise automatically, but theyve never done that. --
the worst part, the absolute worst part, is the recent "fix" is a scam. rememebr, they recently "fixed it" right before recess a few months ago? Yeah well...what they did, is once again they didnt raise the gas tax (which is now at only about 60% of its value due to inflation).
No instead what they basically did is take out a loan from private companies. Private companies have loaded a ton of money to the federal government, to be put into the HTF. Money that will have to be paid back. With interest. Profitable interest. Using the money in the HTF.
So now the gas tax, instead of fudning highway work, will in a few years be used to repay a loan to private business, and they make a profit on the deal. So the the HTF ends up further in the hole, and the private comapneis that made the load make a profit by being giving tax payer dollars. Tax payer dollars that should have just gone into the HTF in the first place. One of the most blatant examples of siphoning off taxpayer dollars in recent history.
But this is how it works: private companies profit at taxpayer expense exacerbating government disfunction, and then they crow how "SEE?! government doesnt work, we need to privatise more of it!"....and the cycle repeats ad nauseaum. and i do mean nausea-inducing-um.
the highway fund is seperate, but it is also one of the first places money is "borrowed" from, leaving it perpetually insufficient. and even if they stopped borrowing, it would still be insufficient to cover costs.
road work funding is a mix of local state and federal funding. the local and state spending has gone up in recent years because the contributions from the federal level have declined. and many projects have halted or not beens tarted due to lack of funding. monies spent does not reflect the totality actual work needing to be done.
CLAIM: Fisker Automotive, Solyndra and other struggling green energy companies backed by Department of Energy loans are evidence that the government wastes money trying to pick “winners.” FACT: The DOE loan guarantee program is an overwhelmingly successful program that played a critical role in the development of new renewable energy technologies by offering long-term capital when private financing was not available.
The Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program has an approximately 97% success rate. As of late July, 2012, Solyndra, Abound Solar and the handful of other DOE-backed renewable energy companies that went bankrupt represented total investments of less than 3% of the entire DOE portfolio. (Source: U.S. Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/Nv1OeU) It was well-known that the DOE’s loan programs would include a measured amount of risk. Before offering loan guarantees, Congress moved to protect taxpayers by appropriating nearly $10 billion to cover potential losses, acknowledging the risks of funding new technologies in industries that were facing significant market and economic challenges. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE) Following reports of Fisker Automotive’s financial difficulties, the Department of Energy acted decisively to protect the taxpayers’ interest. In June 2011, the Department ceased making disbursements to Fisker after the company began to fall short of the milestones required in the loan agreement. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE) There is no evidence to suggest that Fisker Automotive’s loan was a political handout. Fisker was approached by the Bush administration about a potential loan in 2008. In early 2009, Fisker underwent a nine month-long review by DOE and several independent consulting firms to assess all aspects of Fisker’s business plan, technology, and finances. In 2009 – nearly 4 years ago – their business was deemed sound. (Source: House Oversight Committee, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWgY6) The Loan Guarantee Program (LGP) and Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) loan program have many success stories. For example, as the American automobile industry fought to recover from the brink of collapse in 2008, DOE provided a $5.9 billion loan to Ford Motor Company to upgrade and modernize thirteen factories across six states. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE) Another success story: In early March, 2013, Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk announced that Tesla will pay off their $465 million federal loan in five years, rather than the 10 years specified in the loan. The company made its first payment of nearly $13 million in December 2012 and hopes to pay off the loan by 2017 – 5 years ahead of the 2022 deadline. (Source: Associated Press, February 2013, http://bit.ly/WpP4b1) Loan guarantees have a long history in the United States, and have been used to support many of America’s critical industries, including housing, transportation and agriculture. (Source: DBL Investors, September 2011, http://bit.ly/uV14lf) The Loan Guarantee Program is not part of the Obama stimulus. The LGP was created in 2005 with bipartisan support under the George W. Bush administration and designed to provide government support for “innovative technologies.” (Source: CNNMoney, June 2012, http://cnnmon.ie/LBryTy) The Loan Guarantee program has received bipartisan support in Congress. In 2010, House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-Calif.) wrote Energy Secretary Steven Chu to
It was a good investment. Apparently you are ignorant of the fact that the entire DOE loan program -MADE MONEY-, bring far more money back to the government than they spent.
We covered all this months ago. The DOE loan program had a >90% success rate, far far higher than private venture capilatiss typically fare, where a 30% success rate is considered successful and usually the minimum needed to make an overall profit.
look at chicken farming. Tyson has almost total control of it, and has reduced the actual chicken farmers to lilttle more than indentured servants, always trying to pay off their debt to Tyson. Its absolteuly shameful. It's very similar to the relationship and business practices between the Music Industry and the actual music artists, and how they keep the profits for themselves whiel shafting the actual producer of the goods.
Contract farming is ruining farmers. It's not a market, it's a racket.
Production is all tme highs thanks to technology and methods, but through the the use of contracts the companies like Tyson are keeping all the profits for themselves, and treating their suppliers little better than sharecroppers or serfs. Much like the similar statistic about the economy as a whole: productiona nd productivity are 3x what they were 40 years ago, but do workers see any of it? No. Wages are flat; the comapnies keep all the increased revenue for themselves.
Leonard depicts that relationship as something like a con game run by the companies for their own benefit. "Almost invariably, from everything I've seen, the farmer loses," he told Morning Edition. "The farmer takes the brunt of the volatility; the farmer swallows the worst of the losses when there is a problem with their chickens."
look at chicken farming. Tyson has almost total control of it, and has reduced the actual chicken farmers to lilttle more than indentured servants, always trying to pay off their debt to Tyson. Its absolteuly shameful. It's very similar to the relationship and business practices between the Music Industry and the actual music artists, and how they keep the profits for themselves whiel shafting the actual producer of the goods.
again, we arent talking about farmers who are interested in agribusiness. we are talking about small scale subsistence farmers. not everyone is motivated by the profit motive.
Apparently you can't read, as the links are right there, including a link to a page listing all the shootings in the covered period. Pulled out of thin air? that would be your accusations.
No they didnt. Its a loophole that allows the avoidance of a tax people would otherwise have to pay.
This avoidance of taxes also hurts your local businesses and is another reason they have trouble competing with big online retailers. Closing the loophole across the board nationwide helps level that playing field again and helps more money in the local economy and keep your local civic needs funded.
that's why its not a solution. it is, at best, half a solution.
the other half of course being that sinsible commons ense gun control that they so completely oppose. Mandatory training and psych evaluation as part of getting a license. Background checks. Etc.
They want to give people tons of power, ie, more guns...but they dont want to make them take any of the responsiblity that goes with. This is why I cannot support the NRA or any of hte Open Carry movements, even though I personally support the right to gun ownership. I just believe that that ownership should come with more restrictions and responsibilities than owning a car does.
We shouldnt HAVE to arm the teachers. But if we do, its not enough to simply say "here's your chalk, your gun, the textbooks, and assembly is at 9am. Have Fun!"
The myth of the Gun Free Zone needs to die. In 2013 there was an analysis of the 62 mass shootings over the past 30 years, and not one target was ever chosen because they were in a Gun Free Zone.
The targets are chosen because they have a personal connection to the shooter. Such as workplace shootings by employees that work there, or school shootings by students that go there.
And then there's this observation:
Proponents of this argument also ignore that the majority of mass shootings are murder-suicides. Thirty-six of the killers we studied took their own lives at or near the crime scene, while seven others died in police shootouts they had no hope of surviving (a.k.a. "suicide by cop").
These were not people whose priority was identifying the safest place to attack.
No, I dont believe labeling a place as gun free somehow magically deters crime. But neither does it attract it. The people involved in these things arent making rational decisions. They arent picking a place because of its gun policy, but because they feel wronged by someone there and want to "punish" them. The gun policy policy is comepltely irrelevent to the decision.
This myth is dangerous because it distracts from the true issues at hand.
Or they could even spend that 5 billion on the schools themselves, given how many schools have had their budgets cut lately. Textbooks, computers, etc.:P
Slashdot Mirror
The UK is also a residence based system, not citizen. So even UK citizens visiting far enough away from their resident hospital can get charged.
But how much does it cost?
Still dramatically less than the US.
And if you have your own insurance plan (and many UK citizens have a supplmental private insurance plan for this very reason) it will probably still pick up its share, even for US visitors.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
aint that the truth.
pregnancy in the us? 20-40k, of which you'll pay 4-8k depending on your OOP limits and deductible.
assuming you have insurance of course. and one trick that i keep seeng is that until the baby is born everything is charged against the mother. once the baby has arrived, the baby recieves its own seperate bill as its a seperate person under the insurance plan, triggering a new deductible and a new OOP limit, effectively doubling what you pay out of pocket. it very much is a For Profit arrangement, even if most hospitals claim to be non-profit.
And what does pregnancy cost in the EU?
Well this is France (http://www.slate.com/articles/business/dispatches_from_the_welfare_state/2014/01/french_socialized_medicine_vs_u_s_health_care_having_a_baby_in_paris_is.2.html):
When I got pregnant with my daughter, I had been living in France for only about six months, and hadn’t yet received my Carte Vitale, France’s universal health care card. The day I went for my first sonogram, my midwife warned me that I should brace myself for a big bill. “Since you don’t have your Carte Vitale yet,” she said, “it’s going to be costly.”
I’m an American, and accustomed to American medical costs—I’d always worked for small businesses, where company insurance usually came with high co-pays and out-of-network deductibles. So of course I tensed up. “How much will it be?” I asked the midwife fearfully. “Will it be—more than 1,000 euros?” (That’s about $1,300 at today’s exchange rate.)
She looked at me like I was crazy. “No, it won’t be that much!” she exclaimed.
The final bill for the appointment was 150 euros, or about $200, which I paid in full, and for which I was later reimbursed in full.
In other words, “$200 minus $200” counts as a “costly” medical bill in France.
[..] for my complication-free delivery and five-day stay in a private clinic, my total out-of-pocket cost was 400 euros, or about $542.
sounds like something you would say to an investor
wow are you stupid.
the USPS would actually be profitable right now, to the tune of roughly 600 million $$ a year, which is a rather considerable amount of deficit reduction, if the GOP congress hadnt mandated they pre-fund pensions 75 years into the future. there was no reason for that requirement, other than to create teh false impression that the USPS is in financial ruin.
the rest of your comment is ignorant too.
you are dumb.
and you should be ashamed.
Actually it would not be completely solvent, unless they didnt do all the work they actually need to do.
the HTF has been perpetually underfunnded throughout its life cause its never been indexed.
being one fo the first places to borrow from for general government spending doesnt help by any means.
but even if they stopped borrowing, its still usually insufficient except for a few times imediately after its been re-adjusted (even then, the raises usually arent sufficient to actually meet the needs).
but that hasnt happened in a long while.
its needs to be indexed so it can rise automatically, but theyve never done that.
--
the worst part, the absolute worst part, is the recent "fix" is a scam.
rememebr, they recently "fixed it" right before recess a few months ago?
Yeah well...what they did, is once again they didnt raise the gas tax (which is now at only about 60% of its value due to inflation).
No instead what they basically did is take out a loan from private companies.
Private companies have loaded a ton of money to the federal government, to be put into the HTF.
Money that will have to be paid back.
With interest.
Profitable interest.
Using the money in the HTF.
So now the gas tax, instead of fudning highway work, will in a few years be used to repay a loan to private business, and they make a profit on the deal.
So the the HTF ends up further in the hole, and the private comapneis that made the load make a profit by being giving tax payer dollars.
Tax payer dollars that should have just gone into the HTF in the first place.
One of the most blatant examples of siphoning off taxpayer dollars in recent history.
But this is how it works: private companies profit at taxpayer expense exacerbating government disfunction, and then they crow how "SEE?! government doesnt work, we need to privatise more of it!"....and the cycle repeats ad nauseaum. and i do mean nausea-inducing-um.
you're both half correct and half wrong
the highway fund is seperate, but it is also one of the first places money is "borrowed" from, leaving it perpetually insufficient.
and even if they stopped borrowing, it would still be insufficient to cover costs.
road work funding is a mix of local state and federal funding.
the local and state spending has gone up in recent years because the contributions from the federal level have declined.
and many projects have halted or not beens tarted due to lack of funding.
monies spent does not reflect the totality actual work needing to be done.
the money also flows the other repeatedly, which is part of the problem
Embarrasing?
Yes. Embarrassingly successful.
CLAIM: Fisker Automotive, Solyndra and other struggling green energy companies backed by Department of Energy loans are evidence that the government wastes money trying to pick “winners.”
FACT:
The DOE loan guarantee program is an overwhelmingly successful program that played a critical role in the development of new renewable energy technologies by offering long-term capital when private financing was not available.
The Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program has an approximately 97% success rate. As of late July, 2012, Solyndra, Abound Solar and the handful of other DOE-backed renewable energy companies that went bankrupt represented total investments of less than 3% of the entire DOE portfolio. (Source: U.S. Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/Nv1OeU)
It was well-known that the DOE’s loan programs would include a measured amount of risk. Before offering loan guarantees, Congress moved to protect taxpayers by appropriating nearly $10 billion to cover potential losses, acknowledging the risks of funding new technologies in industries that were facing significant market and economic challenges. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE)
Following reports of Fisker Automotive’s financial difficulties, the Department of Energy acted decisively to protect the taxpayers’ interest. In June 2011, the Department ceased making disbursements to Fisker after the company began to fall short of the milestones required in the loan agreement. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE)
There is no evidence to suggest that Fisker Automotive’s loan was a political handout. Fisker was approached by the Bush administration about a potential loan in 2008. In early 2009, Fisker underwent a nine month-long review by DOE and several independent consulting firms to assess all aspects of Fisker’s business plan, technology, and finances. In 2009 – nearly 4 years ago – their business was deemed sound. (Source: House Oversight Committee, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWgY6)
The Loan Guarantee Program (LGP) and Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) loan program have many success stories. For example, as the American automobile industry fought to recover from the brink of collapse in 2008, DOE provided a $5.9 billion loan to Ford Motor Company to upgrade and modernize thirteen factories across six states. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE)
Another success story: In early March, 2013, Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk announced that Tesla will pay off their $465 million federal loan in five years, rather than the 10 years specified in the loan. The company made its first payment of nearly $13 million in December 2012 and hopes to pay off the loan by 2017 – 5 years ahead of the 2022 deadline. (Source: Associated Press, February 2013, http://bit.ly/WpP4b1)
Loan guarantees have a long history in the United States, and have been used to support many of America’s critical industries, including housing, transportation and agriculture. (Source: DBL Investors, September 2011, http://bit.ly/uV14lf)
The Loan Guarantee Program is not part of the Obama stimulus. The LGP was created in 2005 with bipartisan support under the George W. Bush administration and designed to provide government support for “innovative technologies.” (Source: CNNMoney, June 2012, http://cnnmon.ie/LBryTy)
The Loan Guarantee program has received bipartisan support in Congress. In 2010, House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-Calif.) wrote Energy Secretary Steven Chu to
It was a good investment. Apparently you are ignorant of the fact that the entire DOE loan program -MADE MONEY-, bring far more money back to the government than they spent.
We covered all this months ago. The DOE loan program had a >90% success rate, far far higher than private venture capilatiss typically fare, where a 30% success rate is considered successful and usually the minimum needed to make an overall profit.
And thie thing about fundraisers is a lie.
Do try to get better informed.
Yep, that's basically how it works.
look at chicken farming. Tyson has almost total control of it, and has reduced the actual chicken farmers to lilttle more than indentured servants, always trying to pay off their debt to Tyson. Its absolteuly shameful. It's very similar to the relationship and business practices between the Music Industry and the actual music artists, and how they keep the profits for themselves whiel shafting the actual producer of the goods.
Here we go, this is hte link i was looking for: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesa...
Contract farming is ruining farmers.
It's not a market, it's a racket.
Production is all tme highs thanks to technology and methods, but through the the use of contracts the companies like Tyson are keeping all the profits for themselves, and treating their suppliers little better than sharecroppers or serfs. Much like the similar statistic about the economy as a whole: productiona nd productivity are 3x what they were 40 years ago, but do workers see any of it? No. Wages are flat; the comapnies keep all the increased revenue for themselves.
Leonard depicts that relationship as something like a con game run by the companies for their own benefit. "Almost invariably, from everything I've seen, the farmer loses," he told Morning Edition. "The farmer takes the brunt of the volatility; the farmer swallows the worst of the losses when there is a problem with their chickens."
Yep, that's basically how it works.
look at chicken farming. Tyson has almost total control of it, and has reduced the actual chicken farmers to lilttle more than indentured servants, always trying to pay off their debt to Tyson. Its absolteuly shameful. It's very similar to the relationship and business practices between the Music Industry and the actual music artists, and how they keep the profits for themselves whiel shafting the actual producer of the goods.
again, we arent talking about farmers who are interested in agribusiness.
we are talking about small scale subsistence farmers.
not everyone is motivated by the profit motive.
who needs the gun when you can turn the choice into GMO or starvation, no threat of violence needed.
Seriosuly, who modded this troll?
THIS IS NOT A TROLL POST.
This is a real and informative post about agriculture.
But i was assured that we didnt need regulation for these lil drones! Right here on /.
They told me regulation would kill a burgeoning small business entrepenaurs by grounding them before they even started.
And that we could trust them, no regulation needed, to just do what was right.
No, you have got to realize that the idea of their even being a hit to the economy is a complete and total fabrication.
As is most of the rest of what you said.
"no wamring ofr 18 years" indeed....reality says otherwise buddy.
Apparently you can't read, as the links are right there, including a link to a page listing all the shootings in the covered period.
Pulled out of thin air? that would be your accusations.
It was simply a bill to enable fairness for local stores.
And the other was a bill to expand affordable insurance to more people, hence the subsidies.
No, the example you want is the Patriot Act.
No they didnt.
Its a loophole that allows the avoidance of a tax people would otherwise have to pay.
This avoidance of taxes also hurts your local businesses and is another reason they have trouble competing with big online retailers.
Closing the loophole across the board nationwide helps level that playing field again and helps more money in the local economy and keep your local civic needs funded.
Assuming you like roads and schools and such.
i wasnt aware the POTUS was also personally responsible for programming a website.
Did you go to school stupid, or just come out that way?
Apparently you can't read.
that's why its not a solution.
it is, at best, half a solution.
the other half of course being that sinsible commons ense gun control that they so completely oppose.
Mandatory training and psych evaluation as part of getting a license.
Background checks. Etc.
They want to give people tons of power, ie, more guns...but they dont want to make them take any of the responsiblity that goes with.
This is why I cannot support the NRA or any of hte Open Carry movements, even though I personally support the right to gun ownership.
I just believe that that ownership should come with more restrictions and responsibilities than owning a car does.
We shouldnt HAVE to arm the teachers.
But if we do, its not enough to simply say "here's your chalk, your gun, the textbooks, and assembly is at 9am. Have Fun!"
So you're saying that is the shooter hadnt been wearing his gun, he couldnt have shot those people in the restruant?
I agree.
(I had to...you left it wide open :P)
The myth of the Gun Free Zone needs to die.
In 2013 there was an analysis of the 62 mass shootings over the past 30 years, and not one target was ever chosen because they were in a Gun Free Zone.
The targets are chosen because they have a personal connection to the shooter. Such as workplace shootings by employees that work there, or school shootings by students that go there.
And then there's this observation:
Proponents of this argument also ignore that the majority of mass shootings are murder-suicides. Thirty-six of the killers we studied took their own lives at or near the crime scene, while seven others died in police shootouts they had no hope of surviving (a.k.a. "suicide by cop").
These were not people whose priority was identifying the safest place to attack.
No, I dont believe labeling a place as gun free somehow magically deters crime. But neither does it attract it. The people involved in these things arent making rational decisions. They arent picking a place because of its gun policy, but because they feel wronged by someone there and want to "punish" them. The gun policy policy is comepltely irrelevent to the decision.
This myth is dangerous because it distracts from the true issues at hand.
http://www.motherjones.com/pol...
http://www.motherjones.com/spe...
http://www.motherjones.com/pol...
Or they could even spend that 5 billion on the schools themselves, given how many schools have had their budgets cut lately. Textbooks, computers, etc. :P