As someone outside the US, I constantly find it amazing that this isn't stated more often by people campaigning for universal healthcare. All of the arguments from the right can be used right back at them! As almost every other country in the world proves, universal healthcare is cheaper (from a GDP perspective, and usually a personal one). Couple this with the fact that it encourages small businesses and the 'American dream' and you'd have thought that any half-decent politician couldn't fail to convince people.
The way this works is sort of obvious when you view the market. The US system favours large corporates, while something like we have in Europe favours startups and individuals. Just look at how many UK startups get bought by large US corporates. Even our larger companies aren't safe (like Cadbury getting bought by Kraft), simply because large US companies are so powerful thanks to very loose requirements in the US. It could be argued that having large, rich corporations is a good thing. However, I think I prefer to live somewhere where I can strike-out on my own with very little risk (certainly with no healthcare costs or worries) and perhaps, maybe, get rich when some big US giant buys me out.
And your fellow countrymen are fighting the 'evil' universal healthcare that would cover you at no cost. I bet that makes you happy. This sort of thing is another example of why the system in the US is broken.
We might have 'plenty of problems' in the UK, but costs of healthcare to a small business is not one of them. If I were to start a company tomorrow I'd pay precisely what I pay for healthcare as I do now (as a full time employee) - zero. Yes, I pay in my taxes, but that depends on my income. If I choose to pay myself a low salary I pay hardly any tax, but I am just as 'fully covered' as someone who is paid millions by a big corporate.
The US may not like 'socialised healthcare', but as far as starting businesses go, it seems to make everything considerably easier.
Of course it is. I'm just saying it's not far left in Europe - the US is just pretty far to the right. Why do you think you're the only country that even debates whether state healthcare is a good thing? Europe is generally pretty centrist, while we're slightly to the right in the UK. That's as far as anyone can put such things on any 'scale' anyway.
MS could help cut the traffic, pollution and everything else quite simply. They just need to pay people some sort of bonus if they get shared transport or walk/bus/train to work. Money talks. A parking space at work is a benefit, whether people see it that way or not. If I walk to work I am saving the company money and not getting a benefit that other employees get, so a bit more in my pay packet is only fair.
Of course, a progressive local authority would just tax parking spaces. You'd soon see companies paying towards shared transport then.
Can pedestrians use the bridge? I guess there must be a walkway, otherwise how do people get to safety if they break down? Seems like a good business opportunity for a bus route - drop people one end, they walk accross, then get a bus to continue the journey the other end. A ten minute walk sounds better than sitting in traffic for half an hour, and would be good for people too.
Europe is far left, eh? Ever been to Italy? Or even here in the UK? Mainstream politics is centre-right now, thanks to Murdoch setting the news agenda. Many of us who want a decent, fair society are thinking of leaving. Luckily the EU means we can go and live anywhere else in Europe any time we like. Thank God for the EU.
And when did you last use a UK healthcare? I'm not a huge fan of the current government, but things are a lot better now then they were when the Tories left. Treatment times in A&E are much faster and also waiting lists for referrals - the hospital loses money if they don't hit their targets, so they make sure it happens.
Of course, my anecdotal is as valid as yours, but the last few times I've been to A&E (about five times over the last two years, with various people and various problems) we saw a doctor within five minutes. These weren't 'life threatening' cases either - just your usual run of the mill stuff.
It's easy to knock the NHS but it has really improved. Let's hope the next election doesn't let the Tories arse things up.
And you honestly think that a private system doesn't have 'rationing'? I'm pretty sure that I've heard people in the US talking about conditions where their insurance only covers treatment for the first X years. That would never happen here - you'd always get the treatment you need forever, you just *might* not get unproven drugs. And not just you, but anyone, without having to give payment, ID or whatever. Big difference.
In the end the stats speak for themselves. For less money we cover more people and have a greater life expectancy, less infant mortality, and better results for just about any measurable outcome. Yeah, you might early access to some whizzy new drug in the US if you can afford it. If it's that or what we have already, fine.
"A national, single-payer system as envisioned by the left just exacerbates this problem because it even further separates the patients from any concern about the costs of their care"
Well, I can't speak about the single-payer systems of other countries, but here in the UK the NHS is acutely aware of costs and returns. Patients *do not* usually get treatment that costs three times as much if they're only 10% more likely to survive. Occasionally this makes the news as some cancer sufferer is denied some new-fangled drug that hasn't been extensively trialled and proved to be better than the current first choice, but in reality this is a sensible decision. Some drugs can cost hundreds of thousands of pounds to perhaps prolong life by a month or two. That money could maybe prolong someone else's life for far longer, or provide a much better quality of life. There is no gain in prolonging someone's painfil few months of cancer for the same cost of a life-saving liver transplant or something. Drug companies know this, so they sell drugs to the NHS for far less than they would to a system like the US where private insurance will pay whatever they ask for.
Patients know little about medicine. The absolute worst scenerio is something like the US where there are even adverts on TV that say 'ask your doctor for Drug X'. That such adverts are even allowed is madness, but then I suppose if you have to pay to see a doctor, maybe people feel they have the right to demand certain drugs? This is one of the many problems with private healthcare that make is so much less efficient.
Do universities in the US really depend on textbooks that much? I guess it depends on your degree, but when I did mine (in computer science) there was no requirement to buy or use any textbooks at all - you learn everything you need to know by taking notes in lectures, attending practical sessions, and the handouts given in lectures.
I would argue that any lecturer who requires the students to use a book, at least in computer science, shouldn't be teaching at a university.
It's not every TV, it's every household. If you own several TVs you just pay the one fee.
Anyway, I'd still happily pay twice as much if it keeps adverts out and generally stops our TV turning into some US-style brainless mess of right-wing nutjob shouting programmes.
Yes, because that's exactly the way it works in places that already have universal healthcare, i.e. pretty much every other industrialised nation in the world. Sheesh. What is it with Americans? Why all the hate towards wanting the help poor people not die?
It's not just your body. Take a look at the litter you see in the streets almost everywhere in the world. A hell of a lot of it is cigarette filters, which generally takes years to degrade so they have to be picked-up. Why should I have to pay someone to do that from my taxes? Note that I feel the same way about chewing gum - there should be a hefty tax on it to pay for clearing the stuff up...
Locking people up for whatever time is nothing to do with Socialism, as it is nothing to do with economic liberalism. However, if anything, those on the political left are far *less* inclined to lock people up without charge.
How is this any different to the millions of convertible cars that are already on the road? If someone wants to steal my radio they just need to put a knife through the roof. It hasn't been a problem in the 10 years or so I've owned soft-tops though (and yes, I park on the road)..
You know, I don't really care. Exposure to this sort of thing all day would make them immune to it. Do you worry every time your 'teenage daughter' goes to the doctor? This weird sort of prudery seems to be very American - I don't think anyone here in Europe is really that bothered.
> I say we should all ask for the footage of us on camera under the Data Protection Act and swamp the government/businesses with stupid amounts of administrative paperwork.
Yeah, you could do that... and thus give MPs their excuse to opt out of the FOI act, and probably encourage them to drop it altogether. It's idiots abusing the system to waste time that will probably end up with us losing a valuable tool for getting information that actually matters. Nice idea.
Good grief. Let's get this basic WWII history straight shall we? The US entered the war when the Japanese attacked them. At that point it was Germany that declared war on the US, not the other way around. 'Defending England' was a nice bonus (for us British anyway) of being the front line, and so a natural place for US forces to gather to attack Europe. Now think... if the US could sit through the genocide of the Jews and the invasion of most of Europe by Germany, what do you think would have been the point where they chose to join in?
I'm not questioning the benefit that the US brought to the war, but let's not pretend that they were there from some sense of moral duty. Someone declared war on them, and they wanted payback. It was in the interests of the US for Britain to lose influence and empire, and Germany was a convenient route for this. I'm not saying that they wanted to see us beaten, but they wanted to see us knocked down a peg or two, even if that was because we were standing alone against fascism.
It's nice to think that Britain supports it's citizens when it comes to extradition isn't it? Sadly we don't care about people the US want (I hate to quote scum like the Daily Mail, but in this case the article is valid)
I was surprised too. I've spent a month or two in New Zealand, and despite it being too short a time to really be able to judge such things, it's the only country I have visted that I would seriously consider moving to. I loved it, and even in the cities (such as Auckland) there wasn't much evidence of crime. Perhaps I was just lucky, but NZ just seems to be a chilled place full of friendly people.
I think that the fact we have one of the highest prison populations per capita (along with the US), along with some of the highest rates of assault, says something about the 'lock them up' policy so beloved of right-wingers and the Daily Mail (i.e. it doesn't work).
Slashdot Mirror
As someone outside the US, I constantly find it amazing that this isn't stated more often by people campaigning for universal healthcare. All of the arguments from the right can be used right back at them! As almost every other country in the world proves, universal healthcare is cheaper (from a GDP perspective, and usually a personal one). Couple this with the fact that it encourages small businesses and the 'American dream' and you'd have thought that any half-decent politician couldn't fail to convince people.
The way this works is sort of obvious when you view the market. The US system favours large corporates, while something like we have in Europe favours startups and individuals. Just look at how many UK startups get bought by large US corporates. Even our larger companies aren't safe (like Cadbury getting bought by Kraft), simply because large US companies are so powerful thanks to very loose requirements in the US. It could be argued that having large, rich corporations is a good thing. However, I think I prefer to live somewhere where I can strike-out on my own with very little risk (certainly with no healthcare costs or worries) and perhaps, maybe, get rich when some big US giant buys me out.
And your fellow countrymen are fighting the 'evil' universal healthcare that would cover you at no cost. I bet that makes you happy. This sort of thing is another example of why the system in the US is broken.
We might have 'plenty of problems' in the UK, but costs of healthcare to a small business is not one of them. If I were to start a company tomorrow I'd pay precisely what I pay for healthcare as I do now (as a full time employee) - zero. Yes, I pay in my taxes, but that depends on my income. If I choose to pay myself a low salary I pay hardly any tax, but I am just as 'fully covered' as someone who is paid millions by a big corporate.
The US may not like 'socialised healthcare', but as far as starting businesses go, it seems to make everything considerably easier.
Of course it is. I'm just saying it's not far left in Europe - the US is just pretty far to the right. Why do you think you're the only country that even debates whether state healthcare is a good thing? Europe is generally pretty centrist, while we're slightly to the right in the UK. That's as far as anyone can put such things on any 'scale' anyway.
MS could help cut the traffic, pollution and everything else quite simply. They just need to pay people some sort of bonus if they get shared transport or walk/bus/train to work. Money talks. A parking space at work is a benefit, whether people see it that way or not. If I walk to work I am saving the company money and not getting a benefit that other employees get, so a bit more in my pay packet is only fair.
Of course, a progressive local authority would just tax parking spaces. You'd soon see companies paying towards shared transport then.
Can pedestrians use the bridge? I guess there must be a walkway, otherwise how do people get to safety if they break down? Seems like a good business opportunity for a bus route - drop people one end, they walk accross, then get a bus to continue the journey the other end. A ten minute walk sounds better than sitting in traffic for half an hour, and would be good for people too.
Europe is far left, eh? Ever been to Italy? Or even here in the UK? Mainstream politics is centre-right now, thanks to Murdoch setting the news agenda. Many of us who want a decent, fair society are thinking of leaving. Luckily the EU means we can go and live anywhere else in Europe any time we like. Thank God for the EU.
And when did you last use a UK healthcare? I'm not a huge fan of the current government, but things are a lot better now then they were when the Tories left. Treatment times in A&E are much faster and also waiting lists for referrals - the hospital loses money if they don't hit their targets, so they make sure it happens.
Of course, my anecdotal is as valid as yours, but the last few times I've been to A&E (about five times over the last two years, with various people and various problems) we saw a doctor within five minutes. These weren't 'life threatening' cases either - just your usual run of the mill stuff.
It's easy to knock the NHS but it has really improved. Let's hope the next election doesn't let the Tories arse things up.
And you honestly think that a private system doesn't have 'rationing'? I'm pretty sure that I've heard people in the US talking about conditions where their insurance only covers treatment for the first X years. That would never happen here - you'd always get the treatment you need forever, you just *might* not get unproven drugs. And not just you, but anyone, without having to give payment, ID or whatever. Big difference.
In the end the stats speak for themselves. For less money we cover more people and have a greater life expectancy, less infant mortality, and better results for just about any measurable outcome. Yeah, you might early access to some whizzy new drug in the US if you can afford it. If it's that or what we have already, fine.
"A national, single-payer system as envisioned by the left just exacerbates this problem because it even further separates the patients from any concern about the costs of their care"
Well, I can't speak about the single-payer systems of other countries, but here in the UK the NHS is acutely aware of costs and returns. Patients *do not* usually get treatment that costs three times as much if they're only 10% more likely to survive. Occasionally this makes the news as some cancer sufferer is denied some new-fangled drug that hasn't been extensively trialled and proved to be better than the current first choice, but in reality this is a sensible decision. Some drugs can cost hundreds of thousands of pounds to perhaps prolong life by a month or two. That money could maybe prolong someone else's life for far longer, or provide a much better quality of life. There is no gain in prolonging someone's painfil few months of cancer for the same cost of a life-saving liver transplant or something. Drug companies know this, so they sell drugs to the NHS for far less than they would to a system like the US where private insurance will pay whatever they ask for.
Patients know little about medicine. The absolute worst scenerio is something like the US where there are even adverts on TV that say 'ask your doctor for Drug X'. That such adverts are even allowed is madness, but then I suppose if you have to pay to see a doctor, maybe people feel they have the right to demand certain drugs? This is one of the many problems with private healthcare that make is so much less efficient.
Do universities in the US really depend on textbooks that much? I guess it depends on your degree, but when I did mine (in computer science) there was no requirement to buy or use any textbooks at all - you learn everything you need to know by taking notes in lectures, attending practical sessions, and the handouts given in lectures.
I would argue that any lecturer who requires the students to use a book, at least in computer science, shouldn't be teaching at a university.
It's not every TV, it's every household. If you own several TVs you just pay the one fee.
Anyway, I'd still happily pay twice as much if it keeps adverts out and generally stops our TV turning into some US-style brainless mess of right-wing nutjob shouting programmes.
Yes, because that's exactly the way it works in places that already have universal healthcare, i.e. pretty much every other industrialised nation in the world. Sheesh. What is it with Americans? Why all the hate towards wanting the help poor people not die?
It's not just your body. Take a look at the litter you see in the streets almost everywhere in the world. A hell of a lot of it is cigarette filters, which generally takes years to degrade so they have to be picked-up. Why should I have to pay someone to do that from my taxes? Note that I feel the same way about chewing gum - there should be a hefty tax on it to pay for clearing the stuff up...
Locking people up for whatever time is nothing to do with Socialism, as it is nothing to do with economic liberalism. However, if anything, those on the political left are far *less* inclined to lock people up without charge.
You do know you can vote Lib Dem? They can win... all it takes is a few more people to believe that (and lots do, hence all of their MPs)..
How is this any different to the millions of convertible cars that are already on the road? If someone wants to steal my radio they just need to put a knife through the roof. It hasn't been a problem in the 10 years or so I've owned soft-tops though (and yes, I park on the road)..
You know, I don't really care. Exposure to this sort of thing all day would make them immune to it. Do you worry every time your 'teenage daughter' goes to the doctor? This weird sort of prudery seems to be very American - I don't think anyone here in Europe is really that bothered.
..or we could just convince the US to end their ridiculous trade sanctions so that the price of the sticks in Cuba comes down?
> I say we should all ask for the footage of us on camera under the Data Protection Act and swamp the government/businesses with stupid amounts of administrative paperwork.
Yeah, you could do that... and thus give MPs their excuse to opt out of the FOI act, and probably encourage them to drop it altogether. It's idiots abusing the system to waste time that will probably end up with us losing a valuable tool for getting information that actually matters. Nice idea.
Good grief. Let's get this basic WWII history straight shall we? The US entered the war when the Japanese attacked them. At that point it was Germany that declared war on the US, not the other way around. 'Defending England' was a nice bonus (for us British anyway) of being the front line, and so a natural place for US forces to gather to attack Europe. Now think... if the US could sit through the genocide of the Jews and the invasion of most of Europe by Germany, what do you think would have been the point where they chose to join in?
I'm not questioning the benefit that the US brought to the war, but let's not pretend that they were there from some sense of moral duty. Someone declared war on them, and they wanted payback. It was in the interests of the US for Britain to lose influence and empire, and Germany was a convenient route for this. I'm not saying that they wanted to see us beaten, but they wanted to see us knocked down a peg or two, even if that was because we were standing alone against fascism.
It's nice to think that Britain supports it's citizens when it comes to extradition isn't it? Sadly we don't care about people the US want (I hate to quote scum like the Daily Mail, but in this case the article is valid)
I was surprised too. I've spent a month or two in New Zealand, and despite it being too short a time to really be able to judge such things, it's the only country I have visted that I would seriously consider moving to. I loved it, and even in the cities (such as Auckland) there wasn't much evidence of crime. Perhaps I was just lucky, but NZ just seems to be a chilled place full of friendly people.
Interestingly, if you were to move to New Zealand it's actually more likely that you'd be a victim of assault, while if you went to Canada your chances would only be very slightly reduced: http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/cri_ass_perc ap-crime-assaults-per-capita&nofb=1
I think that the fact we have one of the highest prison populations per capita (along with the US), along with some of the highest rates of assault, says something about the 'lock them up' policy so beloved of right-wingers and the Daily Mail (i.e. it doesn't work).
Sort of like this one? http://tools.netgear.com/skype/